ובית הלל הני מילי תם אבל בעל מום כתיב (דברים טו, כב) הטמא והטהור יחדיו יאכלנו ומה טמא שאינו אוכל בקדשים קלים אוכל בבכור זר שאוכל בקדשים קלים אינו דין שיאכל בבכור
And Beit Hillel would respond to that claim: This statement applies only to an unblemished firstborn offering, which is sacrificed upon the altar. But concerning a blemished firstborn it is written: “You shall eat it within your gates; the impure and the pure may eat it alike” (Deuteronomy 12:22; see Deuteronomy 15:22). Beit Hillel derive an a fortiori inference: And if a ritually impure priest, who may not eat the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, nevertheless may eat the meat of a blemished firstborn offering, then with regard to a non-priest, who may eat the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., peace offerings and animal tithe offerings, is it not logical that he may eat the meat of a blemished firstborn offering?
איכא למיפרך מה לטמא שכן הותר מכללו בעבודת צבור
The Gemara raises a difficulty: This a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is notable about the case of a ritually impure priest? It is notable in that its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances, specifically with regard to the communal service. If there are no ritually pure priests, the sacrificial service may be performed by ritually impure priests. By contrast, it is never permitted for a non-priest to perform the sacrificial service. Accordingly, one cannot derive the halakha concerning a non-priest via an a fortiori inference from an impure priest.
וב"ה אטו בעבודה קאמר באכילה קאמרינן אכילת זר עדיף
And Beit Hillel would respond: Is that to say that the a fortiori inference was stated with regard to the sacrificial service, which was the subject of that refutation? Not so; rather, we state it with regard to the eating of sacrificial meat, and the eating of a non-priest is superior to that of a ritually impure priest. Accordingly, the refutation of the a fortiori inference is inapplicable.
ורבי עקיבא מתיר ואפי' עובדי כוכבים מ"ט דרבי עקיבא (דברים טו, כב) כצבי וכאיל מה צבי ואיל מותר לעובדי כוכבים אף פסולין מותר לעובדי כוכבים
§ The baraita stated that according to Rabbi Akiva, Beit Hillel deems it permitted for non-priests, and even gentiles, to partake of blemished firstborn offerings. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva? The verse states: “Like the gazelle and like the deer” (Deuteronomy 15:22). Just as a gazelle and a deer are permitted to be eaten by a gentile, so too, disqualified blemished firstborn offerings are permitted to be eaten by a gentile.
ואידך תלתא צבי ואיל כתיבי חד לכדרבי יצחק וחד לכדר' אושעיא וחד לכדרבי אלעזר הקפר
The Gemara asks: And the other one, i.e., the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva’s version of the opinion of Beit Hillel, who does not deem it permitted for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn offering, what is his reason? The Gemara answers that the terms “gazelle” and “hart” are written three times in the context of disqualified consecrated animals, in Deuteronomy 12:15, 12:22, and 15:22. One is required for the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak and Rabbi Oshaya, and one is needed for the statement of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar.
ואידך מה צבי ואיל פטורים מן הבכורה אף פסולי המוקדשין פטורין מן הבכורה
And the other verse teaches that just as a gazelle and a deer are exempt from the first of their offspring being counted a firstborn, as the verse states: “All the firstling males that are born of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19), referring specifically to domesticated animals but not undomesticated animals such as a gazelle and a deer; so too, disqualified consecrated animals are exempt from the first of their offspring being counted a firstborn (see 14a).
ת"ר בכור אין מאכילין אותו לנדות דברי בית שמאי וב"ה אומרים מאכילין אותו לנדות מ"ט דב"ש דכתיב (במדבר יח, יח) ובשרם יהיה לך מה התם נדות לא אף הכא נדות לא
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not give a blemished firstborn offering to menstruating women to eat; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: One may give it to menstruating women to eat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? It is written with regard to the firstborn offering: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the wave breast and the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18). Just as there, with regard to the wave breast and the right thigh, menstruating women may not eat them, as these consecrated meats may not be eaten by a ritually impure individual, so too here, with regard to the firstborn offering, menstruating women may not eat its meat, as it too is consecrated.
וב"ה הני מילי תם אבל בעל מום הטמא והטהור אכלה
And Beit Hillel would respond: This statement, i.e., this verse, is referring only to the meat of an unblemished firstborn offering. Only such meat is compared to the wave breast and the right thigh. But with regard to a blemished firstborn offering, the verse explicitly states that the impure and the pure may eat it (see Deuteronomy 15:22).
וב"ש ה"מ היכא דאין טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו אבל היכא דטומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו לא
And Beit Shammai would claim: This statement, that the ritually impure may eat the meat of a blemished firstborn offering, applies only where the impurity does not issue upon him from his own body but is contracted from an external source, e.g., from a corpse or the carcass of a creeping animal. But where the impurity issues upon him from his own body, such as in the case of a zav or a menstruating woman, that individual may not eat the meat of a blemished firstborn offering.
דאשכחן דפליג רחמנא בין טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו לבין שאין טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו דתנן הפסח שבא בטומאה לא יאכלו ממנו זבים ומצורעין וזבות ונדות ויולדות
Beit Shammai continue: This is a valid distinction, as we find that the Merciful One distinguishes between a case where the impurity issues upon an individual from his own body and between a case where the impurity does not issue upon him from his own body. As we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 95b): When the Paschal offering is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, due to the fact that the majority of the Jewish people are ritually impure, then zavim and lepers and zavot and menstruating women and women after childbirth may not eat from it. The sacrificing of the Paschal offering overrides only ritual impurity imparted by a corpse; it does not override other forms of ritual impurity.
וב"ה התם הוא דגלי רחמנא (במדבר ט י) טמא נפש אבל הכא טמא סתמא כתיב לא שנא
And Beit Hillel would respond: It is only there, in the case of the Paschal offering, that a difference of that kind applies, as the Merciful One revealed that only an individual whose impurity did not issue from his own body is permitted to eat the Paschal offering, as the verse states: “Impure by reason of a dead body” (Numbers 9:10). But here, with regard to the firstborn offering, the term “impure” is written unspecified: “The impure and the pure may eat it alike.” Therefore, in this case there is no difference between the two types of impurity.
ת"ר אין מרגילין ביום טוב כיוצא בו אין מרגילין בבכור ולא בפסולי המוקדשין
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not skin an animal from its feet [margilin] on a Festival. Although it is permitted to slaughter and skin an animal on a Festival, one may not skin it in such a manner that he will retain the hide intact to function as a vessel. Similarly, one may not skin a firstborn offering from its feet, even on a weekday and even if it is blemished, nor is skinning by way of the feet permitted in the case of disqualified consecrated animals. Such an act is considered degrading to the animal, even if the animal has been redeemed and slaughtered.
בשלמא יום טוב דקא טרח טירחא דלא חזי ליה אלא בכור מאן תנא אמר רב חסדא בית שמאי היא דאמר אין מאכילין אותו לנדות
The Gemara asks: Granted, one may not skin an animal from its feet on a Festival, as one is thereby performing an effort whose outcome is not needed for use on the Festival. But with regard to a firstborn offering, who is the tanna who taught that skinning it from its feet is prohibited? Rav Ḥisda says: It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that one may not feed the meat of a firstborn offering to menstruating women. According to Beit Shammai, a blemished firstborn retains its sanctity as though it were unblemished, and must be treated in the manner of sacrificial meat. Skinning an animal from its feet is considered an act inappropriate for such meat and is therefore prohibited.
ולא בפסולי המוקדשין מאן תנא אמר רב חסדא רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון היא דתנן היו לפניו שתי חטאות אחת תמימה ואחת בעלת מום תמימה תקרב בעלת מום תיפדה
The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the baraita: Nor is skinning by way of the feet permitted in the case of disqualified consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this? Rav Ḥisda says: It is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a baraita: One had before him two sin offerings that he consecrated to achieve atonement for his sin so that in the event that one of them was lost or died the other would effect atonement. One of them was unblemished and the other one became blemished after having been consecrated. The halakha is that the unblemished offering should be sacrificed, whereas the blemished one should be redeemed.
נשחטה בעלת מום אם עד שלא נזרק דמה של תמימה מותרת אם משנזרק דמה של תמימה אסורה
The baraita continues: If the blemished animal was redeemed and slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled on the altar to effect the atonement, the blemished animal is permitted to be eaten. But if the blemished one was slaughtered after the blood of the unblemished animal was already sprinkled upon the altar, the blemished animal is prohibited both in consumption and benefit. Since its owner’s atonement is effected by the sprinkling of the blood of the unblemished offering on the altar, at this stage the blemished animal must be put to death, in accordance with the halakha that a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering must die.
ר"א ברבי שמעון אומר אפילו בשר בקדירה ונזרק דמה של תמימה אסורה
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Even if the blemished animal was slaughtered and its meat is being cooked in the pot, and only then was the blood of the unblemished animal sprinkled on the altar, the meat of the blemished animal is still prohibited. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, maintains that disqualified blemished offerings retain a measure of their sanctity even after being slaughtered. Since the blemished sin offering was not yet eaten when the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled, it is considered a sin offering whose owner has achieved atonement, and therefore it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from it. The opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, accords with the ruling of the baraita with regard to skinning a disqualified consecrated animal from its feet.
ורב חסדא לוקמה כולה כב"ש דלמא עד כאן לא קאמרי ב"ש אלא בבכור דקדושתו מרחם אבל פסולי המוקדשין דאין קדושתו מרחם לא
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let Rav Ḥisda establish the entire baraita in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. The Gemara explains: Perhaps Beit Shammai say that the sanctity of a blemished offering is retained only in the case of a firstborn offering, as its sanctity is from the womb. But with regard to a disqualified consecrated animal, whose sanctity is not from the womb, perhaps they do not maintain that its sanctity remains even after it has been slaughtered. It is therefore necessary to attribute the latter clause of the baraita to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.