איכא דאמרי (דברים יב, טו) תזבח ואכלת אין לך בהן היתר אכילה אלא משעת זביחה ואילך אבל פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים ה"נ דאמר: The Gemara cites an alternative exposition. Some say that the phrase: “You may slaughter and eat,” teaches that you have permission to eat them only from the time of slaughter onward. Similarly, no benefit may be derived from them until after their slaughter. The Gemara notes: But according to this interpretation, so too, the tanna said that one may redeem sacrificial animals in order to feed them to dogs, as this prohibition is not derived from the term “you may eat.”
וולדן וחלבן אסור לאחר פדיונן: היכי דמי אילימא דאיעבר ואיתיליד לאחר פדיונן אמאי ולד צבי ואיל נינהו אלא דאיעבר לפני פדיונן ואיתיליד לאחר פדיונן הא לפני פדיונן מיקדש נמי קדשי § The mishna teaches with regard to sacrificial animals: And their offspring and their milk are prohibited after their redemption. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the offspring’s birth? If we say that the offspring was both conceived and born after its mother’s redemption, then why would it be prohibited? After all, they are like the offspring of a gazelle or a hart, i.e., they are completely non-sacred. Rather, it must be referring to a case where the offspring was conceived prior to its mother’s redemption and born after its mother’s redemption. One can infer: But if they were born before their mothers’ redemption, not only are they not prohibited, they are also imbued with inherent sanctity.
מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן זכר לרבות את הולד ונקבה לרבות את התמורה The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that the offspring of a sacrificial animal is imbued with inherent sanctity, derived? It is derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings: If he sacrifice of the cattle, whether male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish before the Lord” (Leviticus 3:1), that the words “male” and “female” are extraneous, as the term “cattle” includes both. Consequently, “male” serves to include the offspring of a peace offering; “or female” serves to include the female animal that is designated as a substitute for a peace offering.
ואין לי אלא ולד תמימין ותמורת תמימים ולדי בעלי מומין ותמורת בעלי מומין מנין כשהוא אומר אם זכר לרבות ולד בעלי מומין אם נקבה לרבות תמורת בעלי מומין The baraita continues: And I have derived this halakha only with regard to the offspring of unblemished animals and the substitute of unblemished animals. From where do I derive that the same halakha applies to the offspring of blemished animals and the substitute of blemished animals? When the verse states: “Whether male,” this serves to include the offspring of blemished animals, in a case where its consecration preceded its blemish, and when the verse states: “Or female,” it serves to include the substitute of blemished animals.
אותן ולדות שלאחר פדיונן מה תהא עליהן לפני פדיונן מיפלג פליגי בהו איכא למאן דאמר קדשי ליקרב ואיכא למאן דאמר קדשי לרעייה The Gemara asks: With regard to those offspring that were born after their mother’s redemption, what will be with them, since they can be neither sacrificed nor redeemed? Before providing an answer, the Gemara notes: If they were born before their mother’s redemption, the Sages disagree with regard to the halakha. There is one who says: They are entirely consecrated, to the extent that they may be sacrificed, and there is one who says: They are consecrated to graze until a blemish befalls them so that they can be redeemed, but they may not be sacrificed.
דלאחר פדיונן מה תהא עליהן אמר רב הונא כונסן לכיפה והן מתין דהיכי ליעביד ליקרבינהו מכח קדושה דחויה קאתו ליפרקינהו לא אלימי למיתפס פדיונן The Gemara returns to the previous inquiry: With regard to those that were born after their mother’s redemption, what will be with them? Rav Huna says: One gathers them into a chamber, and they die of starvation. The reason is that what are we to do? Shall we sacrifice them? They cannot be sacrificed, as they received their status from the deferred sanctity of the redeemed mother, and are therefore unfit for the altar. Shall we redeem them? They cannot be redeemed, as their sanctity is not strong enough to be transferable to money for their redemption.
אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבי חנינא סמוך לפדיונן מתפיסן לשם אותו זבח סמוך לפדיונן למימרא דבני פדייה נינהו אלא אימא סמוך לפדיון אמן מתפיסן לשם אותו זבח טעמא מאי אמר רבי לוי גזירה שמא יגדל מהן עדרים עדרים They said in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Immediately before their redemption, one dedicates them for the sake of the same offering for which their mother was consecrated. The Gemara asks: Immediately before their redemption? Is that to say that they are fit to be redeemed? It was established that they cannot be redeemed. Rather, say: Immediately before their mother’s redemption, one dedicates them for the sake of the same offering. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the offspring are not simply left as they are? Rabbi Levi says: It is a rabbinic decree, lest one raise flocks and flocks of them. In other words, if the offspring are left alive in their forbidden status, there is a concern that one might eventually derive benefit from them and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.
בעא מיניה רבינא מרב ששת מהו שמתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה א"ל אין מתפיסן מאי טעמא אמר ליה גמר בשעריך בשעריך מבכור מה בכור אין מתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה דכתיב (ויקרא כז, כו) אך בכור אשר יבוכר לה' בבהמה וגו' לא יקדיש איש אותו אף הני אין מתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה Ravina raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: According to Rabbi Ḥanina, what is the halakha with regard to the following matter: Can one dedicate the unborn offspring as any offering he desires? Rav Sheshet said to him: He may not dedicate them as any offering other than that for which the mother was consecrated. Ravina asked: What is the reason? Rav Sheshet said to him: It is derived by a verbal analogy between the phrase: “Within all your gates” (Deuteronomy 12:15), and: “Within your gates” (Deuteronomy 15:22), written with regard to a firstborn. Just as one cannot dedicate a firstborn as any offering he desires, as it is written: “But the firstborn among animals, which is born as a firstborn to the Lord, no man shall sanctify it” (Leviticus 27:26), so too, one cannot dedicate these offspring as any offering he desires.
תניא כוותיה דרב ששת קדשים שקדם מום קבוע להקדישן ונפדו חייבין בבכורה ובמתנות בין לפני פדיונן בין לאחר פדיונן הגוזז והעובד בהן אינו סופג את הארבעים בין לפני פדיונן בין לאחר פדיונן אין עושין תמורה The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet: Sacrificial animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration and that were redeemed, are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, and obligated in the gifts. Whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one who shears them or utilizes them for labor does not incur the forty lashes. Similarly, whether before their redemption or after their redemption, they do not render an animal that was a substitute for them sacred.
ולפני פדיונן מועלין בהן ולאחר פדיונן אין מועלין בהן וולדותיהן חול ונפדין תמימים ומתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה כללו של דבר הרי הן כחולין לכל דבריהם אין לך בהם אלא מצות עלוי בלבד And before their redemption, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and after their redemption, one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. And their offspring are non-sacred if they were born after their mother’s redemption; and they may be redeemed while they are unblemished if they were born before their mother’s redemption; and one can dedicate the offspring as any offering he desires. The principle of the matter is that animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration are like non-sacred animals in all matters, and you have only the mitzva of value alone, i.e., they must be valuated and redeemed with money, unlike non-sacred animals.
אבל קדם הקדישן את מומן או מום עובר להקדישן ולאחר מכאן נולד מום קבוע ונפדו פטורין מן הבכורה ומן המתנות בין לפני פדיונן בין לאחר פדיונן הגוזז והעובד בהן סופג את הארבעים ובין לפני פדיונן בין לאחר פדיונן עושין תמורה The baraita continues: But if their consecration preceded their blemish, or they had a temporary blemish prior to their consecration and afterward developed a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn and from the gifts. Furthermore, whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one who shears them or utilizes them for labor incurs the forty lashes. And whether before their redemption or after their redemption, they render an animal that was a substitute for them sacred.
לפני פדיונן מועלין בהן ולאחר פדיונן אין מועלין בהן וולדותיהן קודש ואין ניפדין תמימין ואין מתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה כללו של דבר הרי הן כהקדש לכל דבריהם ואין לך בהן אלא היתר אכילה בלבד The baraita concludes: Before their redemption, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and after their redemption, one who derives benefit from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. And their offspring are sacred and may not be redeemed while they are unblemished, and one may not dedicate them as any offering he desires. The principle of the matter is that redeemed animals whose consecration preceded their permanent blemish are like redeemed sacrificial animals in all matters, and you have only the permission of consumption alone, i.e., once they have been redeemed they may be eaten. Like Rav Sheshet, this tanna rules that the offspring of animals whose consecration preceded their blemish may not be dedicated as any offering one desires.
כללו של דבר דרישא לאתויי שוחטן בחוץ דפטור כללו של דבר דסיפא It is accepted that whenever a tanna states: The principle of the matter, he is adding certain cases that one might have thought were excluded from the halakha in question. Accordingly, the Gemara notes that the phrase: The principle of the matter, in the former clause of the baraita, which states that that animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration are like non-sacred animals, serves to add the case of one who slaughters such an animal outside the Temple courtyard, teaching that he is exempt. The phrase: The principle of the matter, in the latter clause, which states that that redeemed animals whose consecration preceded their permanent blemish are like redeemed sacrificial animals in all matters,