Bekhorot 65

ובית הלל

And Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is their reason?');">¹</span>

הני מילי תם אבל בעל מום כתיב

- This is only the case in connection with an unblemished firstling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only in this case do we compare it with the wave-breast and shoulder, as the text there deals with an unblemished animal.');">²</span>

(דברים טו, כב) הטמא והטהור יחדיו יאכלנו

but with reference to a blemished firstling, the text says.

ומה טמא שאינו אוכל בקדשים קלים אוכל בבכור זר שאוכל בקדשים קלים אינו דין שיאכל בבכור

The unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 22.');">³</span>

איכא למיפרך

Now, if an unclean person who is forbidden to eat sacrifices of a minor grade may eat a firstling, how much more should a non-priest who may eat sacrifices of a minor grade be allowed to eat a firstling! But this argument can be refuted.

מה לטמא שכן הותר מכללו בעבודת צבור

The case of an unclean person is different, for he was permitted [and exempted] from the general rule in that he may officiate in the Temple service for the public.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there was no priest levitically clean in that particular priests' division on duty, the Temple service on behalf of the community may be performed by a priest even in a state of levitical uncleanness, there being a scriptural text, 'In its appointed season', which implies that even on the Sabbath or in a state of uncleanness the Paschal lamb may sometimes be brought. v. Pes. 66b.');">⁴</span>

וב"ה

And Beth Hillel? - Does [the Baraitha] refer to Temple service?

אטו בעבודה קאמר

We are speaking of eating, and as regards eating, a non-priest has a better right!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To eat than an unclean priest, as stated above, for there is no example where an unclean priest is allowed to eat and a non-priest is forbidden.');">⁵</span>

באכילה קאמרינן אכילת זר עדיף

'And R'Akiba permits even in the case of a gentile'.

ורבי עקיבא מתיר ואפי' עובדי כוכבים

What is the reason of R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna who states that according to Beth Hillel the permission only refers to an Israelite but not to a gentile.');">⁶</span>

מ"ט דרבי עקיבא

- [Scripture says]: As the gazelle and as the hart:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 22.');">⁷</span>

(דברים טו, כב) כצבי וכאיל מה צבי ואיל מותר לעובדי כוכבים אף פסולין מותר לעובדי כוכבים

as the gazelle and the hart are permitted to be eaten by a gentile, so a firstling is permitted to be eaten by a gentile.

ואידך

And the other authority? - There are three texts [in Deuteronomy]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII. 15. 22; XV, 22.');">⁸</span>

תלתא צבי ואיל כתיבי חד לכדרבי יצחק וחד לכדר' אושעיא וחד לכדרבי אלעזר הקפר

mentioning the gazelle and the hart.

ואידך מה צבי ואיל פטורים מן הבכורה אף פסולי המוקדשין פטורין מן הבכורה

One text is for what R'Isaac and R'Oshaiah taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Mak. 22a; v. Tosaf. a.l.');">⁹</span>

ת"ר

the other for what R'Eleazar ha-Kappar taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 28a.');">¹⁰</span>

בכור אין מאכילין אותו לנדות דברי בית שמאי

and the last [to interpret as follows]: As a gazelle and hart ar not subject to the law of the firstling and the priest's gift, so consecrated objects rendered unfit for sacrifi are not subject to the law of the firstling and the priest's gifts.

וב"ה אומרים

Our Rabbis taught: A firstling must not be given to eat to menstruant women.

מאכילין אותו לנדות

These are the words of Beth Shammai, whereas Beth Hillel say: We are allowed to give it to eat to menstruant women.

מ"ט דב"ש

What is the reason of Beth Shammai? - Scripture writes [with reference to a firstling]: 'And the flesh of them shall be thine [as the wave-breast and as the right shoulder]':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 18.');">¹¹</span>

דכתיב

as there [in the case of the wave-breast etc.] menstruant women are forbidden to eat, so here menstruant women are forbidden to eat [the firstling].

(במדבר יח, יח) ובשרם יהיה לך מה התם נדות לא אף הכא נדות לא

And Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How will they interpret this text?');">¹²</span>

וב"ה

This is only the case with an unblemished firstling, but as regards a blemished firstling, 'the unclean as well as the clean may eat it alike'.

הני מילי תם אבל בעל מום הטמא והטהור אכלה

And Beth Shammai? - This is only the case [that an unclean person may eat it] where the impurity does not issue from the body, but where the impurity issues from the body, it is not so, for we find that the Divine Law makes a distinction between impurity which issues from the body and impurity which does not issue from the body.

וב"ש

For we have learnt: The paschal lamb which is offered [by those] in a state of uncleanness must not be eaten by zabim, zaboth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men and women afflicted with gonorrhoea.');">¹³</span>

ה"מ היכא דאין טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו אבל היכא דטומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו לא

menstruant women or confined women.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For although where the greater part of the community is unclean, the Paschal lamb may still be brought, this only applies to those who were unclean through handling a corpse; Pes. 95b.');">¹⁴</span>

דאשכחן דפליג רחמנא בין טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו לבין שאין טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו דתנן

And Beth Hillel?

הפסח שבא בטומאה לא יאכלו ממנו זבים ומצורעין וזבות ונדות ויולדות

There, [zabim etc. are forbidden to eat the paschal lamb] because Scripture explicitly made this clear in the text: 'By reason of a dead body',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. IX, 10.');">¹⁵</span>

וב"ה

whereas here in connection with a firstling, the text says: 'The unclean person' in general, implying, without any distinction.

התם הוא דגלי רחמנא {במדבר ט } טמא נפש אבל הכא טמא סתמא כתיב לא שנא

Our Rabbis taught: We must not flay an animal from the feet on a Holy Day;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the purpose of making e.g., a mechanics' bellows with it.');">¹⁶</span>

ת"ר

nor [on a weekday] when the animal is a firstborn [even blemished]; nor sacrifices rendered unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although they were redeemed and ritually cut for food.');">¹⁷</span>

אין מרגילין ביום טוב

Now, we understand this as regards a Holy Day.

כיוצא בו אין מרגילין בבכור ולא בפסולי המוקדשין

because he undertakes a labour of which he can make no use [on that day], but as regards a firstling, who is the authority [for the law just quoted]? - Said R'Hisda: It is the view of Beth Shammai,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that a blemished first-born remains holy even after its slaughtering, and since in the case of an unblemished firstling, flaying in this manner would be prohibited because he impairs the flesh for fear of cutting the skin, so the same ruling applies to a blemished firstling.');">¹⁸</span>

בשלמא יום טוב דקא טרח טירחא דלא חזי ליה

who say: We must not give it to eat to menstruant women.'

אלא בכור מאן תנא

Nor sacrifices rendered unfit'.

אמר רב חסדא

Who is the authority [for this]? - Said R'Hisda: It is the opinion of R'Eleazar B'R'Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who imposes restrictions on sacrifices rendered unfit for the altar.');">¹⁹</span>

בית שמאי היא דאמר אין מאכילין אותו לנדות

For it has been taught: If he has two sin-offerings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Setting two animals apart so that in case one is lost or becomes blemished, the other would take its place.');">²⁰</span>

ולא בפסולי המוקדשין

in front of him, one unblemished and the other blemished, the unblemished one shall be offered up and the blemished one shall be redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the money is placed in the special Temple chest for free will-offerings.');">²¹</span>

מאן תנא

If, however, the blemished one was slaughtered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After its redemption.');">²²</span>

אמר רב חסדא

before the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled, it may be eaten;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And although the sprinkling of the blood of the unblemished animal took place before the flesh of the blemished animal was eaten, it is still permissible to eat the latter, once it has been permitted to be eaten when slaughtered.');">²³</span>

רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון היא

but [if it was slaughtered] after the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled, it is forbidden [to be eaten].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not even to benefit therefrom in any way, for it is a sin-offering whose owner has already been atoned for and is therefore condemned to die.');">²⁴</span>

דתנן היו לפניו שתי חטאות אחת תמימה ואחת בעלת מום תמימה תקרב בעלת מום תיפדה

R'Eleazar B'R'Simeon however says: Even if the flesh [of the blemished one] is already in the pot, if the blood of the unblemished one had been sprinkled, it is forbidden [to be eaten].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although its slaughtering took place before the sprinkling of the blood of the unblemished animal and although the flesh in the pot is considered as boiled, since it was not to be eaten till after the sprinkling of the other animal, it is forbidden to be eaten altogether, for it is like a sin-offering whose owner has already atoned for, retaining its holy status even after its slaughtering, v. Tem. 24a.');">²⁵</span>

נשחטה בעלת מום אם עד שלא נזרק דמה של תמימה מותרת אם משנזרק דמה של תמימה אסורה

And why does not R'Hisda interpret [the above Baraitha] altogether in accordance with Beth Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that just as Beth Shammai are stringent with regard to a firstling, so they are stringent with regard to other unfit sacrifices after being slaughtered.');">²⁶</span>

ר"א ברבי שמעון אומר

- Perhaps Beth Shammai is stringent only with reference to a firstling, since its holiness is from birth, but in the case of sacrifices which have become unfit, whose holiness is not from birth, the case is different.

אפילו בשר בקדירה ונזרק דמה של תמימה אסורה

ורב חסדא לוקמה כולה כב"ש

דלמא עד כאן לא קאמרי ב"ש אלא בבכור דקדושתו מרחם אבל פסולי המוקדשין דאין קדושתו מרחם לא