יגאל דכתב רחמנא למה לי אם אינו ענין לחרמים תנהו ענין למעשר אימא תנהו ענין לבכור מעשר גאולה כמותו be redeemed” that the Merciful One writes, why do I need it? If it is not referring to the matter of dedications, as can be inferred from the baraita, apply it to the matter of the animal tithe offering, teaching that it may not be sold. The Gemara raises a difficulty: One can say that instead of applying it to the animal tithe offering, apply it to the matter of a firstborn offering. The Gemara rejects this possibility: The prohibition against selling extends to the animal tithe offering, concerning which the expression of redemption is written, just like dedications, which is not so concerning the firstborn offering.
רב אשי אמר לא יגאל דמעשר לא ימכר הוא אמר רב אשי מנא אמינא לה דכתיב (ויקרא כז, לג) והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש לא יגאל § Rav Ashi says that the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is not derived from dedications, but rather from the case of the animal tithe offering itself. The phrase “It may not be redeemed,” written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is to be understood as meaning: It may not be sold. Rav Ashi further says: From where do I say this? As it is written: “Then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33).
אימתי עושה תמורה מחיים אימתי אינו נגאל מחיים הא לאחר שחיטה נגאל הא בעי העמדה והערכה Rav Ashi elaborates: When does the animal tithe offering render a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute? Only when the animal tithe offering is alive. Similarly, when may the animal tithe offering not be redeemed by its owner? Only when it is alive, which indicates that it may be redeemed after its slaughter. But when redeeming a sanctified animal, it requires standing and valuation, i.e., it has to be set standing before a priest for him to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). How, then, can the animal tithe offering be redeemed after having been slaughtered?
אלא שמע מינה לא יגאל לא ימכר הוא Rav Ashi continues: Rather, conclude from this verse that the phrase “it may not be redeemed” is not referring to redemption. Rather, it is actually to be understood as: It may not be sold. Accordingly, the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is in effect only while it is alive, as is the halakha with regard to a substitute; but once it is slaughtered, it may be sold.
הניחא למ"ד קדשי מזבח היו בכלל העמדה והערכה אלא למ"ד קדשי מזבח לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה מאי איכא למימר The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the one who says that animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were disqualified due to a blemish were included in the requirement of standing and valuation. But according to the one who says that animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were disqualified due to a blemish were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation, what is there to say? According to this opinion, the phrase “It may not be redeemed” can be interpreted literally, in contrast to Rav Ashi’s claim.
אנן הכי קאמרינן מי איכא דמחיים לא מיפריק ולאחר שחיטה מיפריק אלמה לא מחיים דאלימא קדושתיה לא מיפריק לאחר שחיטה דאקיל ליה קדושתיה מיפריק The Gemara explains: This is what we said, i.e., this is what we meant. The phrase “It may not be redeemed” cannot be understood literally, as is there ever an instance where an animal may not be redeemed when alive, and yet it may be redeemed after its slaughter? Since such a scenario is impossible, the verse must be referring to the prohibition against selling. The Gemara asks: But why can it not be said that an animal may be redeemed only after its slaughter? One can claim that when the animal is alive, since its sanctity is strong, it is logical to say that it may not be redeemed. Conversely, after its slaughter, when its sanctity is weak, it is logical to claim that it may be redeemed. If so, the phrase can be understood literally.
ולא כל דכן הוא ומה מחיים דאלים למיתפס פדיונו לא מיפריק לאחר שחיטה דלא אלים למיתפס פדיונו מיפריק אלא ש"מ לא יגאל לא ימכר הוא The Gemara rejects this contention: But isn’t the opposite claim, that a slaughtered animal tithe offering may not be redeemed, based on an a fortiori inference: If, when the animal tithe offering is alive and its sanctity is strong enough to transfer that sanctity to its redemption money, just as it renders a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, nevertheless it may not be redeemed, then after its slaughter, when its sanctity is not strong enough to transfer that sanctity to its redemption money, as at this stage it cannot render a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, should it be able to be redeemed? In other words, the fact that substitution can be effected only with a living animal indicates that a strong sanctity is more easily transferable to another item than a weak sanctity. Rather, conclude from this that the phrase “It may not be redeemed” is actually to be understood as meaning that it may not be sold.
ולכתוב רחמנא לא ימכר אי כתב רחמנא לא ימכר הוה אמינא איזדבוני הוא דלא מזדבן דקא עביד עובדין דחול אבל איפרוקי מיפריק דהא עיילי דמיו להקדש להכי כתב רחמנא לא יגאל דלא איזדבוני מיזדבן ולא איפרוקי מיפריק: The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the Merciful One write explicitly: It may not be sold. The Gemara answers: Had the Merciful One written: It may not be sold, I would say that the animal tithe offering only may not be sold, as one who does so performs an act of a non-sacred item, by treating the consecrated animal in the same manner as a non-sacred animal and transferring its value to non-sacred money. But I would say that it may be redeemed, as in this manner its value becomes consecrated. Therefore, in order to counter this notion, the Merciful One writes: “It may not be redeemed,” which teaches both that the animal tithe offering may not be sold and that it may not be redeemed.
מתני׳ בש"א לא ימנה ישראל עם הכהן לבכור וב"ה מתירין ואפי' עובד כוכבים: MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: An Israelite cannot be counted with the priest to partake of a blemished firstborn. And Beit Hillel deem it permitted for him to partake of it, and they deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn.
גמ׳ מתני' מני ר"ע היא דתניא בכור אין נמנין עליו אלא חבורה שכולה כהנים דברי בית שמאי וב"ה אומרים אפילו זרים רבי עקיבא מתיר אפי' עובד כוכבים GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn offering. The Gemara says: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a blemished firstborn offering, only a group constituted entirely of priests may be counted to partake of it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: The group may even be constituted of non-priests. Rabbi Akiva says that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn. Evidently, Beit Hillel’s opinion in the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s explanation in this baraita.
מ"ט דב"ש דכתי' (במדבר יח, יח) ובשרם יהיה לך וגו' מה התם כהנים אין ישראל לא אף הכא כהנים אין ישראל לא The Gemara explains: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? As it is written in a verse discussing the firstborn offering, addressed to Aaron and his sons: “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat you shall not redeem; they are holy …and their flesh shall be yours, as the wave breast and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:17–18). Just as there, with regard to the breast and the thigh, priests may partake of it but an Israelite, i.e., a non-priest, may not, as the verse states: “You shall eat in a pure place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with you” (Leviticus 10:14), so too here, with regard to the firstborn offering, only priests may partake of it, but an Israelite may not.