Bekhorot 28

[The point then arises], can they be redeemed even when they are without a blemish, or, can they not be redeemed so long as they are without a blemish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Must we delay until the offspring are blemished and then we can proceed to redeem them or, can they be redeemed as they are, without waiting?');">¹</span>

- Come and hear: If one consecrated animals having a permanent blemish for the altar and they gave birth, they are to be sold and [the offspring] do not need a blemish, because they receive no sanctity.

For we cannot be more stringent with the subsidiary than with the principal object.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., we cannot be more stringent with the offspring than with the mother, seeing that the offspring is holy only in virtue of its mother. And as the mother can be redeemed at all times, the same rule should apply to its offspring. which solves the question.');">²</span>

Now the reason [why the offspring do not require a blemish before redemption], is because we should not be more stringent with the subsidiary than with the principal, but if he consecrated a male<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a ram which was dedicated for its value and which has the sanctity of an animal consecrated as such, insofar that is does not become hullin without a blemish appearing on it. The same ruling applies to a female animal, but as later on he wishes to support Raba's opinion and Raba mentions a male, he speaks here of a male.');">³</span>

animal for its value, it receives the sanctity of an animal consecrated as such.

This would support Raba's teaching.

For Raba said: If one consecrated a male animal for its value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for its money, a burnt-offering is purchased. The reason why Raba mentions a male animal is because the majority of people who bring a sacrifice offer up a burnt-offering, which is a male.');">⁴</span>

it receives the sanctity of an animal which has been consecrated in itself.

HE WHO SLAUGHTERS THEM WITHOUT [THE TEMPLE COURT], DOES NOT INCUR [THE PUNISHMENT OF EXCISION].

R'Eleazar quoted [with reference to this passage of the Mishnah]: He is culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e, he is liable to forty lashes.');">⁵</span>

and he explains [the word 'WITHOUT' in the Mishnah] as meaning that he slaughters them on a private altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'high place'. A temporary altar. Private altars were e.g., like those made by Manoah, Gideon and Samuel, in times when any individual could build an improvised altar for himself; v. Meg. 9b.');">⁶</span>

For R'Eleazar said: Whence do we deduce that he who slaughters a blemished animal on a private altar at a period when high places are used legitimately, is guilty of transgressing a negative precept?

Scripture says: Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God an ox or a sheep wherein is a blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII. 1.');">⁷</span>

If this text has no bearing on a national altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'great high place'. As the high places of Nob and Gibeon, which were national and public ones.');">⁸</span>

since Scripture has already stated: Blind or broken, ye shall not offer these unto the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 22.');">⁹</span>

apply it to a private altar.

Why not say that if the text has no bearin on dedicated sacrifices, apply it to a firstling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore there is no proof that the text, Thou shalt not sacrifice etc., refers to a private altar.');">¹⁰</span>

For I might have been inclined to assume that since it is holy even when blemished, [the shearing and working being forbidden], it should therefore be offered up even if blemished.

Therefore Scripture teaches us that it is not so! - I might argue against this that in connection with a firstling.

Scripture expressly states: Lame or blind thou shalt not sacrifice it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 21.');">¹¹</span>

But why not say: If the above text has no bearing on dedicated sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is already provided for in Lev. XXII, 22.');">¹²</span>

let us apply it to animal tithes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text, therefore, may still refer to a national altar and not to a private altar,');">¹³</span>

For I might have been inclined to assume that since a tithed animal is holy even blemished, as Scripture writes, He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 33. 'Bad', i.e., blemished, and even so, if it is the tenth, it is holy.');">¹⁴</span>

therefore we should offer it up even blemished, and Scripture consequently informs us that this is not so? - [In connection with] a tithed animal, too, we draw an analogy between 'passing'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in regard to the tithing of animals, Even of whatsoever passeth and the text, Then thou shalt cause to pass (set apart) , referring to a firstling.');">¹⁵</span>

and 'passing' used in connection with a firstling.

But why not then say: Let us apply the text above to an animal exchanged for a dedicated sacrifice?

For I might have been inclined to assume that since it is sacred, even if blemished, since Scripture writes: Neither shall he alter it or change it etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXVII,10.');">¹⁶</span>

Therefore it should be offered up even blemished; and consequently Scripture teaches us that it is not so! Scripture says: Then it and that for which it is changed, shall be holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹⁷</span>

It thus compares the exchanged animal with the animal itself; as the animal itself is unfit [for the altar] if blemished, so the exchanged anim with a blemish is unfit [for the altar].

R'Zera demurred: Why not say, apply the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Quoted by R. Eleazar.');">¹⁸</span>

to the blemished offspring [born of unblemished sacrifices]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As unfit to be sacrificed on the altar.');">¹⁹</span>

For I might have been inclined to assume they are holy even blemished.

through their mother, therefore they may be offered up even blemished, and Scripture therefore informs us that it is not so? - Said Raba: A Tanna of the school of R'Ishmael has already pronounced on the matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the instances mentioned above as unfit for the altar if blemished, are derived from another verse. Therefore there is no need to deduce them from the above text, Thou shalt not sacrifice.');">²⁰</span>

For a Tanna of the School of R'Ishmael taught: Scripture says: Only thy holy things which thou hast and thy vows:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 26.');">²¹</span>

'Only thy holy things'; this refers to exchanged animals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which Scripture informs us are sacrificed on the altar.');">²²</span>

'which thou hast': these are the offspring of dedicated sacrifices; 'and thy vows': Scripture here compares them with an animal vowed for a sacrifice: as an animal vowed for a sacrifice is unfit for the altar with a blemish, so these too are unfi with a blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently, the verse 'Thou shalt not sacrifice' refers, as R. Eleazar explains, to a private altar.');">²³</span>

THE LAW OF SUBSTITUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM etc. What is the reason?

Because Scripture Says: He shall not alter it nor change it, a good for a bad or a bad for a good.

Now, if a bad [i.e., a blemishe consecrated animal] must not be exchanged for a good [an unblemished and unconsecrated animal], is it necessary to inform us concerning the prohibition of exchanging a good [an unblemished consecrated animal] for a bad [a blemished animal]?

What is meant then is, that to an animal good [i.e., unblemished] from the start [before dedication] [but which became blemished afterwards] the law of substitute applies, but to one bad [i.e., blemished] from the start [before dedication] the law of substitute does not apply.

AND IF THEY DIED, THEY MAY BE REDEEMED.

Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement of the Tanna of the Mishnah, that if they died, they may be redeemed.');">²⁴</span>

is the teaching of R'Simeon who said: Objects consecrated for the altar were [at first] included [in the law of] presentation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the priest of the object whose value is dedicated, as Scripture says: Then he shall present the beast before the priest. (Lev. XXVII, 11.)');">²⁵</span>

and valuation, whereas objects consecrated for keeping the Temple in repair were not included in [the law of] presentation and valuation.

For we have learnt: R'Simeon says: Objects consecrated for keeping the Temple in repair, if they die, are redeemed.

R'Simeon agrees, however, that an animal blemished from the start [before dedication] may be redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For although objects consecrated for the altar require presentation and valuation, and therefore, cannot be redeemed when dead, in the case here of a sacrifice blemished from the start, he agrees that it can be redeemed when dead, although there can be no presentation and valuation here; for it is like an object consecrated for Temple repairs. which was not included in the law of presentation and valuation.');">²⁶</span>

What is the reason?

Because Scripture says: And [the priest shall value] it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 12.');">²⁷</span>

the word 'it' excludes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the requirements of presentation and valuation.');">²⁸</span>

the case of an animal with a blemish from the start [before dedication].

But the Sages say: If they die they are to be buried.

Who are the Sages referred to here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they are not the same Sages who differ with R. Simeon in Tem. 32b.');">²⁹</span>

It is a Tanna of the School of Levi.

For a Tanna of the School of Levi taught: All objects were [at fir included in [the law of] presentation and valuation, even an animal blemished from the start [before dedication].

And thus did the School of Levi teach in his Mishnah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levi compiled a collection of teachings.');">³⁰</span>

Even a beast and even a bird.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose value he dedicated for the keeping of the Temple in repair, as they are not suitable for the altar, require presentation and valuation.');">³¹</span>

But does not Scripture say, 'It'? - The word 'It', according to the opinion of the Tanna of the School of Levi, is a difficulty.

But the Rabbis who differ from R'Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis who dispute with R. Simeon in Tem. 32b, holding that both objects consecrated for the altar and objects consecrated for Temple repairs are included in the law of presentation and valuation, though they agree that an animal blemished from the start may be redeemed after its death.');">³²</span>

- what is the position?

Is it a fact that they hold tha if [the blemished dedicated animal] died, it is redeemed?

If so,