Bekhorot 29

Chapter 29

א זו דברי רבי שמעון ומחלוקתו מיבעיא ליה

1 [in connection with Rab's observation above], what should be said is: This is the teaching of R'Simeon and those who dispute with him? - I can answer: Rab holds with R'Simeon the son of Lakish, who explained that according to the Rabbis [who differ with R'Simeon] objects dedicated for the keeping of the Temple in repair were [at first] included in [the law of] presentation and valuation, whereas objects dedicated for the altar were not included in [the law of] presentation and valuation.

ב אמרי רב כרבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמר לרבנן קדשי בדק הבית היו בכלל העמדה והערכה קדשי מזבח לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה ולא מיתוקמא מתני' כרבנן דקתני סיפא ואם מתו יקברו

2 Therefore the Mishnah can not be explained [to agree completely] with the views of the Rabbis. For it states in the later clause: AND IF THEY DIED, THEY SHALL BE BURIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which we may infer that objects consecrated for the altar are included in the law of presentation and valuation, whereas the Rabbis hold the reverse view, according to the interpretation of R. Simeon b. Lakish.');">1 But whence can we prove that the reason [of the Mishnah] why they shall be buried is because they are subject to the law of presentation and valuation? Perhaps the reason is because we may not redeem dedicated sacrifices in order to give food to dogs?2 - We can answer: If this is so, then, let the [Mishnah] state: If they become trefah,3

ג אמר ממאי דהא מתו יקברו משום דבעי העמדה והערכה הוא דלמא משום דאין פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים הוא אמרי אם כן ניתני אם נעשו טריפה יקברו

3 they shall be buried.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which I could infer that, although it was possible to make presentation and valuation here, nevertheless since they were only fit for dogs, they must be buried. But since the Mishnah states, 'IF THEY DIED etc.', I deduce that the reason is because presentation and valuation cannot be carried out.');">4 Or if you choose [another solution]. I can say that Rab in fact holds with R'Johanan,5 and read [in the passage above]. This is the teaching both of R'Simeon and of those who dispute with him. BUT IF THEIR DEDICATION PRECEDED etc. Whence is this proved? - Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says]: Howbeit as the gazelle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 22. And Scripture is dealing here with dedicated sacrifices which received their blemish after dedication, as the text says: The unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike, and they still retain some measure of holiness.');">6

ד ואיבעית אימא לעולם רב כרבי יוחנן סבירא ליה ותני זו דברי רבי שמעון ומחלוקתו:

4 [and as a hart]; as a gazelle is exempt from [the law of] the firstling,7 so dedicated sacrifices which have become unfit for the altar are also exempt from [the law of] the firstling. I would then exclude the firstling and not the priestly gifts! The text [therefore] states, 'A hart'; hart is exempt from [the law of] a firstling and from [the duty of priestly] gifts, so blemished dedicated sacrifices are exempt from the law of the firstling and of [the priestly] gifts.

ה אבל קדם הקדשן וכו': מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (דברים יב טו) צבי מה צבי פטור מן הבכורה אף פסולי המוקדשין פטורין מן הבכורה

5 Am I to say that just as the fa the gazelle and a hart is permitted to be used, so the fat of [blemished dedicated sacrifices] is also permitted to be used? [For this reason] the text states 'ak' ['howbeit'], which intimates a distinction.8 The Master said: 'I would then exclude the firstling but not [the priestly] gifts'! Now, what is the difference?9 - I exclude the firstling, because its law does not equally apply in all cases, whereas I do not exclude [the priestly] gifts, as their law applies equally in all cases.10

ו אוציא אני את הבכורה ולא אוציא את המתנות תלמוד לומר איל מה איל פטור מן הבכורה ומן המתנות אף פסולי המוקדשין פטורין מן הבכורה ומן המתנות

6 Hence Scripture states 'A hart'. Said R'Papa to Abaye: Why not [say that] just as the law concerning the killing of the young11 with its mother on the same day does not apply to a gazelle and a hart so the law concerning the killing of the mother on the same day does not apply to dedicated sacrifices which have become unfit for the altar? - He replied to him: With what will you compare [blemished dedicated sacrifices, to render them exempt from the law regarding the killing of the young with its mother on the same day]?

ז אי מה צבי ואיל חלבן מותר אף פסולי המוקדשין חלבן מותר ת"ל אך חלק

7 If you compare them with unconsecrated animals, then the law concerning the killing of the young with its mother on the same day should apply to them! And if you compare them with dedicated sacrifices, here [also] the law regarding the killing of the young with its mother on the same day should apply to them.12 - He replied to him: If so, then in regard to the fat [of blemished dedicated animals], why not say likewise, as follows: With what will you compare them? If with unconsecrated animals, their fat is forbidden, and if with dedicated sacrifices, their fat is forbidden? - But13

ח אמר מר אוציא את הבכור ולא אוציא את המתנות מאי שנא אוציא את הבכור שאין שוה בכל ולא אוציא את המתנות ששוות בכל ת"ל איל

8 did you not say that the [word] 'ak' implies 'but not their fat'?14 Then similarly adduce the word 'ak' as implying, 'but the law regarding the killing of the young with its mother on the same day, is not [included in the analogy]'. Raba said: The word 'ak' serves [to exclude from the analogy] the law concerning the killing of the young with its mother on the same day, while as regards the fat of blemished dedicated sacrifices, we derive [the prohibition] from the words 'the blood thereof', for it is written: 'Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof'.15 What do the words 'The blood thereof' mean?

ט אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי אי מה צבי ואיל אין אותו ואת בנו נוהג בהן אף פסולי המוקדשין אין אותו ואת בנו נוהג בו

9 You can hardly say that it actually means 'the blood thereof'. For granting that it is only as the blood of the gazelle and a hart - is then the blood of gazelle and a hart permitted?

י א"ל למאי מדמית להו אי לחולין אותו ואת בנו נוהג בו ואי לקדשים אותו ואת בנו נוהג בו

10 The words 'The blood thereof' then refer to its fat. And why does not Scripture expressly write 'Its fat'? - If the Divine Law had written the word 'fat', I might have assumed that both the analogy and the scriptural verse helped [to define the nature of the prohibition of the fat]. The analogy [between the word 'fat' and the words 'as a gazelle and a hart'], helped to exclude it from [the punishment of] excision, for Scripture imposes the punishment of excision only on one who eats the fat of an animal, as it says: For whosoever eateth the fat of the animal.16

יא אמר ליה אי הכי גבי חלבו נמי נימא הכי למאי מדמית להו אי לחולין חלבן אסור ואי לקדשים חלבן אסור

11 And the scriptural verse also helped to make [the eating of the fat of blemished sacrifices equivalent to the breaking of] a mere prohibition. Therefore the Divine Law used the expression 'the blood thereof', to teach you that as the eating of its blood is punishable with excision, so the eating of its fat is punishable with excision. But does not the Tanna [above in the Baraitha] say that the word 'ak' implies 'but not its fat'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it excludes its fat from the analogy. How can Rab, therefore, maintain that the text 'ak' excludes from the analogy the law of killing the young with its mother on the same day, seeing that the Baraitha above says that 'ak' excludes the eating of the fat?');">17 - This is what [the Tanna] intends to say: If there were not a text 'The blood thereof'.

יב אלא לאו מי אמרת אך ולא חלבן אימא נמי אך ולא אותו ואת בנו

12 I might have said that [the word] 'ak' implies 'but not its fat'. Now, however, that Scripture says 'The blood thereof', the word 'ak' serves [to exclude from the analogy] the law regarding the killing of the young with its mother [on the same day]. AND THEY DO NOT BECOME UNCONSECRATED. Whence is this derived - Our Rabbis taught.

יג רבא אמר אך לאותו ואת בנו הוא דאתא וחלבו מדמו נפקא דכתיב (דברים טו, כג) רק את דמו לא תאכל

13 Scripture says: Notwithstanding thou mayest kill,18 implying, but not shear. [The text continues further], 'flesh', implying.' but not milk'.'

יד מאי דמו אילימא דמו ממש לא יהא אלא דמן דצבי ואיל אטו דמן דצבי ואיל מי שרי אלא דמו חלבו

14 And eat', implying, 'but not for dogs'. Hence we infer that we do not redeem dedicated sacrifices to give food to the dogs.

טו וליכתוב רחמנא חלבו אי כתב רחמנא חלב הוה אמינא אהני היקישא ואהני קרא

טז אהני היקישא למעוטי מכרת דכי כתב כרת אאוכל חלב בהמה הוא דכתיב שנא' (ויקרא ז, כה) כי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה

יז ואהני קרא למיקם עליה בלאו בעלמא להכי אפקיה רחמנא בלשון דמו לומר לך מה דמו בכרת אף חלבו בכרת

יח והא תנא אך ולא חלבו קאמר

יט ה"ק אילו לא נאמר דמו הייתי אומר אך ולא חלבו עכשיו שנאמר דמו לאותו ואת בנו הוא דאתא:

כ ואינן יוצאין לחולין: מנא הני מילי דת"ר (דברים יב טו) תזבח ולא גיזה בשר ולא חלב ואכלת ולא לכלביך מכאן שאין פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים

Previous Chapter Next Chapter