Bekhorot 66

Chapter 66

א ולוקמה כולה כר' אלעזר ברבי שמעון דילמא עד כאן לא קאמר ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון התם אלא פסולי המוקדשין דאלימי למיתפס פדיונו אבל בכור דלא אלים למיתפס פדיונו לא
1 And why not interpret [the above Baraitha] altogether in accordance with R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he holds that unfit sacrifices retain holiness even after having been slaughtered, and it is the same with a blemished firstling.');"><sup>1</sup></span> - Perhaps R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon holds that it is forbidden only in the case of sacrifices which have become unfit, for they are competent to be redeemed, but in the case of a firstling which is not competent to be redeemed, it is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore one may flay the skin of a firstling from its feet.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב ור' אלעזר ברבי שמעון לית ליה כל פסולי המוקדשין נמכרין באיטליז ונשקלין בליטרא אלמא דכיון דאיכא רווחא להקדש שרי לה
2 But does not R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon accept [the preceding Mishnah]: All consecrated objects which become unfit may be sold in the market, slaughtered in the market and weighed by the pound? From this We see that since there is a benefit for the Sanctuary, the Rabbis permitted it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We see therefore that the animal does not retain its holy status because of the advantage to hekdesh in allowing it to be sold in the market etc.');"><sup>3</sup></span> here also then, since there is a benefit for the Sanctuary, let the Rabbis permit its flaying? - Said R'Mari the son of R'Kahana: What benefit he obtains through selling the skin [at a high price], he loses by spoiling the flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cutting away some of the flesh together with the skin.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אמר רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא מה שמשביח בעור פגם בבשר במערבא משמיה דרבינא אמרי מפני שנראה כעובד עבודה בקדשים
3 In the Palestinian colleges<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'the West'.');"><sup>5</sup></span> it was said in the name of Rabina: [The reason is] because it appears like doing work with sacrificial animals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Preparing the skin for a bellows when it is still on the sacrificial animal, and one can still say that the Baraitha above which forbids the flaying of the skin from the feet expresses the view of all the authorities concerned.');"><sup>6</sup></span> R'Jose B'Abin says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of flaying from the feet is according to all the authorities concerned.');"><sup>7</sup></span> [It is a precautionary measure] lest he raise herds from them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If you permit him to flay the skin from the feet from the unfit sacrifices he may delay killing the animals until he finds somebody who wants whole skins, meanwhile rearing stocks from these disqualified sacrificial animals. This might eventually lead to committing the offence of shearing or working them. Hence the flaying from the feet is prohibited by all the authorities concerned.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ד רבי יוסי בר אבין אומר גזירה שמא יגדל מהן עדרים עדרים:
4 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A FIRSTLING HAS AN ATTACK OF CONGESTION WE MUST NOT LET ITS BLOOD EVEN IF IT DIES [AS A RESULT].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of not letting blood. It is forbidden even in a part of the animal where it can heal again, for if you permit in this case, since the owner's property is at stake, he may do the same in the case where an actual blemish might be caused.');"><sup>9</sup></span> THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R'JUDAH.
ה <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בכור שאחזו דם אפי' מת אין מקיזין לו דם דברי רבי יהודה וחכ"א יקיז ובלבד שלא יעשה בו מום ואם עשה בו מום הרי זה לא ישחט עליו ר"ש אומר יקיז אע"פ שהוא עושה בו מום:
5 BUT THE SAGES SAY: HE MAY LET BLOOD. ONLY HE MUST NOT MAKE A BLEMISH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to cut nor damage the ear or lip, parts which cannot heal.');"><sup>10</sup></span> AND IF HE MADE A BLEMISH, HE MUST NOT SLAUGHTER IT ON ACCOUNT OF THIS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he was responsible for the blemish, but must wait for another blemish to appear.');"><sup>11</sup></span> R'SIMEON HOWEVER SAYS: HE MAY LET BLOOD, EVEN THOUGH HE MAKES A BLEMISH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Simeon holds that a forbidden act done unintentionally is not penalized.');"><sup>12</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: We may let blood of a firstling which had an attack of congestion, in a part [of the body] where it is not made blemished, but we must not let blood in a part [of the body] where a blemish is caused.
ו <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר בכור שאחזו דם מקיזין לו את הדם במקום שאין עושים בו מום ואין מקיזין לו את הדם במקום שעושין בו מום דברי רבי מאיר
6 These are the words of R'Meir. But the Sages say: He may let blood even in a part which makes it blemished,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he must not let it die.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ז וחכ"א אף במקום שעושה בו מום ובלבד שלא ישחט על אותו המום ר"ש אומר אף נשחט על אותו המום ר' יהודה אומר אפי' מת אין מקיזין לו את הדם
7 only he must not slaughter it on account of that blemish. R'Simeon however says: It may also be slaughtered on account of that blemish. R'Judah says: We must not let blood for it even if it dies [as a result]. R'Eleazar taught his son<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. Hiyya b. Abba taught his son.');"><sup>14</sup></span> as follows: A similar difference of opinion exists with reference to a jug of terumah. For we have learnt: If there is a jug of terumah concerning which there is a doubt as to it levitical cleanness, R'Eliezer says: If it was lying in a filthy place, he must put it in a cleanly place, and was open, he must cover it.
ח מתני ליה ר' אלעזר לבריה ואמרי לה ר' חייא לבריה כמחלוקת כאן כך מחלוקת בחבית של תרומה דתנן חבית של תרומה שנולד בה ספק טומאה ר"א אומר אם היתה במקום התורפה יניחנה במקום המוצנע אם היתה מגולה יכסנה
8 R'Joshua says: If it was lying in a clean place, he must put it in a filthy place a if it was covered, he must open it, while R'Gamaliel says: He must not introduce any new factor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ter. VIII, 8.');"><sup>15</sup></span> Now R'Meir will hold the view of R'Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Meir, in order to save the animal, permits blood-letting where a blemish is not caused, and similarly R. Eliezer maintains that we must avoid increasing uncleanness and must put the terumah in a clean place.');"><sup>16</sup></span> the Rabbis will hold according to the view of R'Joshua<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Rabbis permit making a blemish in order that it may be fit for food like R. Joshua who holds that he put the terumah in a filthy place so that it may become unclean and its liquid contents become fit for aromatic sprinkling.');"><sup>17</sup></span> and R'Judah will hold the view of R'Gamaliel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah who holds that, although the firstling dies without blood-letting, he must do neither one thing nor the other, is in accord with R. Gamaliel.');"><sup>18</sup></span> But whence [is this proven]?
ט רבי יהושע אומר אם היתה מונחת במקום המוצנע יניחנה במקום התורפה אם היתה מכוסה יגלנה רבן גמליאל אומר לא יחדש בה דבר
9 It may be that R'Meir holds this view only here because he does it directly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually making a blemish. Therefore he maintains that, rather than do this, he must let the animal die.');"><sup>19</sup></span> but there, where the effect is caused indirectly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he merely leaves it in a filthy place and thus causes it to become unclean eventually.');"><sup>20</sup></span> he holds the view of R'Joshua. And it may be that R'Eliezer holds this view only [in connection with doubtful terumah], in case Elijah should come and pronounce it clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By declaring that, for example, no dead reptile touched the terumah.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
י ר"מ כרבי אליעזר ורבנן כרבי יהושע ור' יהודה כרבן גמליאל
10 but in this case, where if you leave it the animal dies, he holds the view of the Rabbis! And [perhaps] the Rabbis hold their view only here, for if he leaves it, it dies, but there, in case Elijah should come and pronounce it clean, they hold with R'Eliezer! [And perhaps R'Joshua holds his view only there because the effect is caused indirectly, but here, where the effect is direct, he may even hold the view of R'Eliezer!]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יא ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר ר"מ התם דקא עביד בידים אבל הכא דגרמא כרבי יהושע סבירא ליה
11 And [perhaps] R'Judah holds his view only here, for he does it directly, but where the effect is merely caused indirectly, he may agree with R'Joshua. And [perhaps] R'Gamaliel may hold his view only there, in case Elijah should come and pronounce it clean, but here where if he leaves the animal, it dies, he agrees with the Rabbis! And moreover the difference of opinion here is with reference to the interpretation of Scriptural texts, and there too the difference of opinio is with reference to the interpretation of Scriptural texts! [There the difference is with reference to the interpretation of texts].
יב ועד כאן לא קאמר רבי אליעזר התם אלא שמא יבא אליהו ויטהרנה אבל הכא דאי שביק ליה מיית כרבנן סבירא ליה
12 for R'Hiyya B'Abba reported in the name of R'Johanan: All are agreed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the Rabbis, although they maintain that blood-letting of a first-born is not the same as causing a blemish to an animal; for what animal can be more blemished than one which might die without blood-letting?');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יג ועד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן הכא דאי שביק ליה מיית אבל התם שמא יבא אליהו ויטהרנה כר' אליעזר סבירא להו ועד כאן לא קאמר ר' יהודה הכא דקא עביד בידים אבל התם דגרמא כרבי יהושע ס"ל
13 that one who added a transgression to the leavening effected by another person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., by baking it.');"><sup>24</sup></span> is guilty [of breaking the law in this connection].
יד וע"כ לא קאמר רבן גמליאל התם דשמא יבא אליהו ויטהרנה אבל הכא דאי שביק ליה מיית כרבנן ס"ל
14 for Scripture says: It shall not be baked with leaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI. 10.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
טו ועוד הכא בקראי פליגי והכא בקראי פליגי דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הכל מודים במחמץ אחר מחמץ שהוא חייב דכתיב (ויקרא ו, י) לא תאפה חמץ ולא תעשה
15 No meal-offering. shall be made with leaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 11. Baking is included in making leaven, and Scripture means to inform us that just as baking is a single act and one is guilty on account of it, so any single act in connection with leavening, involves guilt.');"><sup>26</sup></span> All are also agreed in the case of one who adds [a transgression] to the mutilation caused by another person that he is guilty for Scripture writes: That which hath its stones bruised or crushed or torn or cut, [ye shall not offer unto the Lord].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 24.');"><sup>27</sup></span> Now if he is guilty for cutting [the stones].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture subsequently saying: Neither shall ye do thus in your land.');"><sup>28</sup></span> how much more so is he guilty for tearing them! The purpose of the text is therefore to include the case of tearing after another person had cut as rendering him guilty.
טז במסרס אחר מסרס שהוא חייב דכתיב (ויקרא כב, כד) ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות אם על כורת חייב על נותק לא כל שכן אלא להביא נותק אחר כורת שהוא חייב
16 The point at issue, however, is with reference to causing a blemish to a blemished animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a first-born which had an attack of congestion. kf');"><sup>29</sup></span> R'Meir holding [that we emphasize the text]: There shall be no blemish therein,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 21, the word , implying that any blemish is forbidden, even in an already blemished animal.');"><sup>30</sup></span> whereas the Rabbis hold [that we emphasize the full beginning]: It shall be perfect to be accepted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Continuing: There shall be no etc., Intimating that the prohibition of blemishing refers to a sound animal.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
יז לא נחלקו אלא במטיל מום בבעל מום דר"מ סבר כל מום לא יהיה בו ורבנן סברי (ויקרא כב, כא) תמים יהיה לרצון
17 And what does R'Meir do with the text: 'It shall be perfect to be accepted'? - He requires it to exclude the case of an animal which possessed a blemish originally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before the animal's consecration.');"><sup>32</sup></span> But is not the case of an originally blemished animal obviously excluded, since it is just a palm-tree?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Possessing no sanctification at all.');"><sup>33</sup></span> - Rather it is required to exclude the case of sacrifices rendered unfit [for the altar] after their redemption.
יח ורבי מאיר האי תמים יהיה לרצון מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה למעוטי בעל מום מעיקרו
18 You might be inclined to assume that since they must not be shorn or worked, they are also forbidden to be blemished. He therefore informs us [that it is not so].
יט בעל מום מעיקרו פשיטא דיקלא בעלמא הוא
19 And as regards the Rabbis, does not Scripture write: 'There shall be no blemish therein'? - [This text] forbids causing a blemish even indirectly, for it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bez. 27b, Men. 56b.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
כ אלא למעוטי פסולי המוקדשין לאחר פדיונן סד"א הואיל ואסירי בגיזה ועבודה במומין נמי ליתסרו קמ"ל
20 Scripture says: 'There shall be no blemish therein'. I am here told
כא רבנן נמי הכתיב כל מום לא יהיה בו לגרמא הוא דאתי דתניא מום לא יהיה בו אין לי
21 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter