Bekhorot 16a:5בכורות ט״ז א:ה
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bekhorot 16a:5"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
16aט״ז א

לאתויי חלבו

serves to include its milk in the prohibition, i.e., it is prohibited to consume milk of disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed.

אמר מר אין נפדין תמימין ואין מתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה תמימים הוא דלא מיפרקי הא בעלי מומין מיפרקי לכל שירצה הוא דאין מתפיסן הא לאותו זבח מתפיסן

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said above: With regard to disqualified sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded their blemish, 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 Gemara infers: It is only unblemished offspring that one may not redeem, which indicates that one may redeem blemished offspring. Likewise, it is only for any offering he desires that he may not dedicate the offspring, but for the same offering as the mother, one may dedicate the offspring.

היכי משכחת לה דמתפיסן לאותו זבח ונפדין במומן נימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב הונא

The Gemara asks: How can you find a situation that includes both of these inferences? They apply in a case where one dedicates the unborn offspring as the same offering for which its mother was consecrated, and it may then be redeemed after having developed a blemish. The Gemara remarks: Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who maintains that the offspring cannot be redeemed and rules that one must leave them to die?

אמר לך רב הונא ה"ה דאפילו בעלי מומין אין נפדין ואיידי דתנא רישא נפדין תמימים תנא נמי סיפא אין נפדין תמימים ואיידי דתנא רישא לכל זבח שירצה תנא נמי סיפא לכל זבח שירצה:

Rav Huna could have said to you: The inferences upon which the refutation is based are false. Just as these unblemished offspring cannot be redeemed, the same is true with regard to blemished animals, as even blemished offspring cannot be redeemed. And since the former clause taught the phrase: They may be redeemed unblemished, the latter clause also taught the phrase: They may not be redeemed unblemished. And since the former clause taught: As any offering he desires, the latter clause also taught: As any offering he desires. According to Rav Huna, no inferences can be made from these rulings of the baraita because they were phrased in this manner for the sake of symmetry between its two sections, rather than to teach a specific halakha.

והשוחטן בחוץ פטור: רב הונא מתני חייב ומוקים לה בדוקין שבעין ואליבא דר"ע דאמר אם עלו לא ירדו:

It is stated: And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet. The Gemara notes: Rav Huna taught this as: One who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet, and he interprets it as referring to a case involving an animal with a minor blemish, such as on the cornea of the eye. And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Although animals with a minor blemish may not be sacrificed ab initio, if they ascended the altar they shall not descend and are sacrificed. Since an animal with a minor blemish is potentially suitable for sacrifice, one who slaughters it outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet.

בין לפני פדיונו בין לאחר פדיונו עושה תמורה: אמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה ותמורתו לאחר פדיונו מתה מאי טעמא היכי ליעביד ליקרביה מכח קדושה דחויה קאתיא ליפרקה לא אלימא למיתפס פדיונה הלכך מתה

The Gemara continues analyzing the baraita, which teaches: Whether before its redemption or after its redemption, an animal whose consecration preceded its blemish renders an animal that was a substitute for it sacred. Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: And its substitute that was imbued with sanctity after its redemption must die. What is the reason? The Gemara explains: What are we to do? Shall we sacrifice it? It cannot be sacrificed, as it received its status from the deferred sanctity of the redeemed blemished animal and is therefore unfit for the altar. Shall we redeem it? It cannot be redeemed, as its sanctity is not strong enough to be transferable to the money for its redemption. Therefore, it must die.

מתקיף לה רב עמרם ותיתכיל במומה לבעלים וכי מה בין זו לתמורת בכור ומעשר דתנן תמורת בכור ומעשר הן וולדן וולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם הרי הן כבכור ומעשר ויאכלו במומן לבעלים

Rav Amram objects to this: But let the substitute be eaten in its blemished state by the owners. After all, what is the difference between this substitute and the substitute of a firstborn or of an animal tithe offering, which may be eaten? The Gemara explains the question: As we learned in a mishna (Temura 21a): With regard to the substitute of a firstborn and of an animal tithe offering, both they, the substitutes themselves, and their offspring, and the offspring of their offspring, forever, i.e., for all future generations, are like the firstborn and the animal tithe offering, respectively, and therefore they are eaten in their blemished state by the owners. Why is the blemished substitute of a firstborn or an animal tithe permitted whereas the substitute of a disqualified consecrated animal remains forbidden?

אמר ליה אביי זה שם אמו עליו וזה שם אמו עליו זה כולו תמורת בכור ומעשר מיקריא מה בכור ומעשר במומן מיתאכלן לבעלים אף תמורתן מיתאכלא

Abaye said to Rav Amram: This one bears its mother’s name and that one bears its mother’s name, i.e., each substitute is subject to the same halakha as the animal for which it was substituted. This animal is entirely called a substitute of a firstborn or an animal tithe offering: Just as a firstborn and an animal tithe offering are eaten in their blemished state by the owners, so too, their substitute is eaten even when it is blemished.

וזה שם אמו עליו תמורת קדשים מיקריא מה קדשים לא מיתכלי אלא בפדיון אף תמורתן נמי לא מיתכלי אלא בפדיון והא לא אלימא למיתפס פדיונה

And likewise, this substitute for a redeemed animal whose consecration preceded its blemish bears its mothers name, i.e., it is called the substitute of a sacrificial animal: Just as sacrificial animals are eaten only once they have been rendered permitted through redemption, so too, their substitutes are also eaten only through redemption. But the sanctity of this particular substitute is not strong enough to be transferable to money for its redemption, and therefore it cannot be redeemed. Consequently, it may not be eaten.

תניא כוותיה דרב נחמן מנין לתמורת פסולי המוקדשין שמתה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יא, ד) ממעלי הגרה טמא האי מיבעי ליה לחמש חטאות מתות ההוא (ויקרא יא, ד) ממפריסי הפרסה טמא נפקא

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman: From where is it derived with regard to the substitute of disqualified consecrated animals that it must die? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Nevertheless, these you shall not eat, of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have a split hoof…it is impure to you” (Leviticus 11:4). The extraneous phrase “impure to you” indicates that there exists an animal which possesses the signs of a kosher animal but is nevertheless prohibited in consumption, and that is the substitute of a disqualified consecrated animal. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t that extraneous phrase necessary for the halakha of the five sin offerings that are left to die, which may not be eaten? The Gemara answers: No; that halakha is derived from the phrase: “Of them that only have a split hoof…is impure.”

תניא נמי הכי מנין לחמש חטאות מתות תלמוד לומר ממפריסי הפרסה טמא חמש חטאות מתות הילכתא גמירי לה אלא כי אתא קרא לתמורת אשם

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that there are five sin offerings that are left to die? The verse states: “Of them that have a split hoof…is impure to you,” which indicates that there is a second category of animals that possess the signs of a kosher animal, but that are nevertheless prohibited in consumption. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t the category of the five sin offerings that are left to die a halakha learned as a tradition, not from a verse? Rather, when that verse came, it came to teach that the substitute of a guilt offering may not be sacrificed and is left to graze until it develops a blemish.

תמורת אשם נמי הילכתא היא כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה

The Gemara raises a further objection: The halakha of a substitute for a guilt offering is also a halakha learned as a tradition, as stated in the principle: In any case where a sin offering is left to die, a guilt offering is left to graze. Since the substitute of a sin offering is left to die, it is established by tradition that the substitute of a guilt offering is left to graze, and therefore no verse is required to teach this halakha.

אלא לעולם חמש חטאות מתות ואצטריך קרא ואצטריך הילכתא דאי מקרא הוה אמינא לרעייה קמ"ל הילכתא למיתה ואי מהילכתא הוה אמינא היכא דעבד איקרי ואכל מהני חמש חטאות איסורא איכא לאו ליכא קמשמע לן דאיכא לאו

The Gemara answers: Rather, the verse is actually the source for a halakha that applies to the five sin offerings left to die. And both a verse is necessary and the halakha learned as a tradition is also necessary to determine the final course of action that one should take. The Gemara elaborates: If the concept of the five sin offerings had been derived from the verse alone, I would say that the five sin offerings are left to graze. Therefore, the halakha learned through tradition teaches us that they are left to die. And if this ruling were based only on the halakha learned as a tradition, I would say: In a case where one happened to eat from one of these five sin offerings, there is a prohibition that he violated, but not a negative mitzva, for which one is liable to receive lashes. The verse therefore teaches us that there is a negative mitzva here as well.

ואיבעית אימא לאקושי דבר הבא ממעלי גרה לדבר הבא ממפריסי הפרסה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה:

And if you wish, say instead that the halakha of the five sin offerings left to die is in fact a halakha learned as a tradition, and therefore no verse is required for its own sake. Rather, the verse: “Of them that have a split hoof,” serves to juxtapose an item that comes, i.e., that is derived, from the mention of animals who chew their cud, referring to the substitutes of disqualified consecrated animals, with an item that comes from animals who have a split hoof, referring to the five sin offerings: Just as there, the sin offerings are left to die, so too here, the substitutes are left to die.

מתני׳ המקבל צאן ברזל מן העובד כוכבים

MISHNA: With regard to one who receives animals as part of a guaranteed investment from a gentile, i.e., the Jew receives the animals to raise them and commits to pay a fixed price at a later date even if they die or their value decreases, and the offspring born in the interim are divided between the gentile and the Jew,