Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 19, 2019 | 讬状讚 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 32

From where do we derive that the tithed animal cannot be redeemed or sold but a firstborn cannot be redeemed and yet can be sold?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬砖讜诐 诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讜讘讬转诪讬 讗讜拽诪讜讛 专讘谞谉 讗讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

But with regard to an item that is not appraised when an animal is sold when alive, e.g., the hide and sinews, as these are not primary contributing factors to the animal鈥檚 value, the Sages did not decree that one may not sell such items after the animal鈥檚 slaughter. Consequently, the meat of an animal tithe offering may be sold by means of inclusion in the animal鈥檚 hide, fat, sinews, and horns. And with regard to a case of young orphans, the Sages established the halakha as if by Torah law, and therefore the meat may be sold in its usual manner.

讜讗祝 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 住讘专 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 砖诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖诪讜讻专讬诐 讗讜转讜 讻讚专讻讜

The Gemara notes: And even Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k holds in accordance with that opinion of Rava, that by Torah law, the meat of a blemished animal-tithe offering may be sold in the normal manner. As Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: From where is it derived that one may sell the meat of a blemished animal-tithe offering of young orphans in its usual manner, without having to resort to the method of inclusion?

砖谞讗诪专 专拽 讘讻诇 讗讜转 谞驻砖讱 转讝讘讞 讜讗讻诇转 讘砖专 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讘专讻讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated in a verse discussing consecrated animals that became blemished: 鈥淣otwithstanding, after all the desire of your soul, you may slaughter and eat flesh, according to the blessing of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:15). Now which is the item that has no blessing when it is alive, i.e., it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, but it does have a blessing after its slaughter, as indicated by the verse 鈥淵ou may slaughter鈥ccording to the blessing of the Lord your God鈥? You must say that this is the meat of the animal tithe offering.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛讘诇讬注讜 讘注爪诪讜转 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讘诇讬注讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讘诇讬注讜

搂 The baraita cited earlier teaches that the Sages permitted the inclusion of the value of a blemished animal-tithe offering鈥檚 meat in the cost of its hide, fat, sinews, and horns. In this regard, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to including the value of the meat in the cost of the animal鈥檚 bones? Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disputed this matter. One says that one may include the value in the cost of the bones, and one says one may not include it.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讚拽讛 讛讗 讘讙住讛

The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree. This one, who maintains that one may not include the value in the cost of the bones, is referring to a small, domesticated animal, whose bones are incapable of being fashioned into utensils and are therefore never sold. That one, who holds that one may include the value in the cost of the bones, is referring to a large, domesticated animal, whose bones can be used and are therefore sold.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讙住讛 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛

And if you wish, say instead that both this one and that one are referring even to a large, domesticated animal, and still they do not disagree. This Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale, and that Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale. In other words, in certain places the custom is to use the bones and sell them, while elsewhere they do not.

讙讜驻讗 讘讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬驻讚讛 讜谞诪讻专 讘诪注砖专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 诇讗 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讞讜讟 讜诇讗 转诐 讜诇讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The Gemara returns to the matter itself, stated in the baraita: With regard to a firstborn male animal offering the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:17), but it may be sold while alive, by the priest to whom it belongs. By contrast, with regard to the animal tithe offering, it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that its sanctity can never be removed from it, and it cannot be sold, not when alive and not when slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived, that the phrase 鈥渋t shall not be redeemed鈥 is referring to the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering?

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讘诪注砖专 讜谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讘讞专诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讻讬专讛 注诪讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讻讬专讛 注诪讜

Rav 岣nnana says that Rav says, and similarly, Rav Dimi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 with regard to the animal tithe offering, and it is stated: 鈥淎nd it shall not be redeemed,鈥 with regard to dedications [ba岣ramim], i.e., property that one consecrated by means of the expression: 岣rem. With regard to dedications, the verse states: 鈥淣otwithstanding, any dedicated item鈥ay neither be sold nor redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). This is a verbal analogy: Just as there, with regard to dedications, the prohibition against selling is mentioned together with the prohibition against redeeming, so too here, with regard to the animal tithe offering, the prohibition against selling is mentioned together with the prohibition against redeeming.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪驻谞讬 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪驻专讱 诪讛 诇讞专诪讬诐 砖讻谉 讞诇讬诐 注诇 讛讻诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: It must be that at least one of the phrases 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 is free, i.e., at least one of these terms is superfluous in its context, which means that it is included for the specific purpose of the verbal analogy. In such a case the verbal analogy cannot be refuted by logic, whereas if neither phrase is free one can refute the analogy if there is a significant difference between the two cases. As, if these terms are not free, the verbal analogy can be refuted: What is notable about dedications, in contrast to the animal tithe offering? They are notable in that they apply to all items one wishes to dedicate, whereas an animal tithe offering applies only to kosher animals.

诇讗讬讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪驻谞讬 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讘讞专诪讬诐 讜讬讙诪专 诪诪注砖专 诪讛 诪注砖专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 讗祝 讞专诪讬诐 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讜讗讬谞诐 谞讙讗诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara notes: This is not so [la鈥檃i], as at least one of the phrases: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 is certainly free. How so? Let the verse not state: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 with regard to dedications, and instead one could derive the prohibition from an animal tithe offering: Just as an animal tithe offering is sacred and may not be redeemed, so too, dedications are also sacred and may not be redeemed. Why then do I need the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 that the Merciful One writes, in the case of dedications? It is evidently to be considered free to enable the verbal analogy.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪注砖专 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. It is still possible that the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 written with regard to dedications, is not free, as the suggested derivation stated above can be refuted: What is notable about the animal tithe offering? It is notable in that there is sanctity before it and after it. If, instead of proclaiming as the tithe the tenth animal that one counted, one inadvertently proclaimed either the ninth animal or the eleventh animal as the tithe, the mistakenly proclaimed animal assumes the sacred status of the animal tithe offering. By contrast, one cannot inadvertently dedicate property to the Temple. Since the case of the animal tithe offering includes a stringency not shared by dedications, the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 is required to teach that dedications may not be redeemed, and is therefore not free for the verbal analogy.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讘讞专诪讬诐 讜讬讙诪专 诪讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 讗祝 讞专诪讬诐 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讙讗诇讬谉 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara cites an alternative suggestion. Rather, let the verse not state: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 with regard to dedications, and instead one can derive the prohibition from the firstborn offering: Just as the firstborn offering is sacred and may not be redeemed, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not redeem it鈥 (Numbers 18:17), so too, dedications are also sacred and may not be redeemed. Why do I need the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 that the Merciful One writes in the case of dedications? It is evidently to be considered free to enable the verbal analogy to the animal tithe.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讘讻讜专 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐

The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: It is possible that the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 is not free, as the above derivation can be refuted: What is notable about the firstborn offering? It is notable in that its sanctity is from the womb, whereas dedications require an act of consecration.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讘诪注砖专 讜讬讙诪专 讛注讘专讛 讛注讘专讛 诪讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 讗祝 诪注砖专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪注砖专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

Rather, let the verse not say: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 with regard to the animal tithe offering, and instead one can derive the prohibition from a verbal analogy from the term of passing stated there and the term of passing stated in the case of a firstborn. With regard to an animal tithe offering the verse states: 鈥淲hatsoever passes under the rod鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), and in the case of the firstborn offering it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall cause to pass all that opens the womb, to the Lord鈥 (Exodus 13:12). Just as the firstborn offering is sacred and may not be redeemed, so too, an animal tithe offering is also sacred and may not be redeemed. Why do I need the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 that the Merciful One writes with regard to animal tithe offerings? It is evidently to be considered free to enable the verbal analogy to dedications.

讜讗讻转讬 讘诪注砖专 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讻讚驻专讻讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But still, the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is itself not free, as the analogy between the animal tithe offering and the firstborn offering can be refuted as we refuted the analogy between the firstborn offering and dedications, since the firstborn offering is notable in that it is sanctified from the womb.

讜讛注讘专转 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: The term 鈥淎nd you shall cause to pass,鈥 written in the context of the firstborn, is a superfluous verse, as it could have simply stated: All that opens the womb is to be for the Lord. Consequently, it is free to enable the verbal analogy. In sum, the Gemara is suggesting that due to the term 鈥淎nd you shall cause to pass,鈥 there is a verbal analogy between the animal tithe offering and the firstborn offering, from which it is derived that the animal tithe offering may not be redeemed. This means that the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is free to enable the verbal analogy with dedications, from which the prohibition against selling the meat of the animal tithe offering is derived.

讘讻讜专 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 讙讗讜诇讛 讙讗讜诇讛 诪讞专诪讬诐 讚诪注砖专 诪驻谞讬 讚讘讻讜专 诇讗 诪驻谞讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to a firstborn offering as well, let us derive that one may not sell its meat from a verbal analogy between the expression of redemption written there and the expression of redemption written in the context of dedications. This would contradict the ruling of the baraita that a firstborn offering can be sold after it enters the possession of the priest. The Gemara answers: The expression of redemption in the context of the animal tithe offering is free to enable the verbal analogy to dedications, but the expression of redemption in the context of a firstborn offering is not free, as it is required in its own context to teach that the firstborn offering may not be redeemed and as the source for the halakha of the animal tithe offering.

讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚诇讗 转驻讚讛 讚讘讻讜专 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讚诪注砖专 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讜讗讬诪讗 讚诪注砖专 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讚讘讻讜专 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that you said that the phrase 鈥測ou shall not redeem鈥 written in the context of a firstborn offering is not free, but is necessary for itself, i.e., to teach that it may not be redeemed, and yet the expression of redemption written with regard to the animal tithe offering is free to enable the verbal analogy, as the halakha of its redemption is derived from the firstborn? But one can say the reverse, that the expression of redemption written in the context of the animal tithe offering is for itself, whereas that written with regard to a firstborn offering is free.

讚谞讬谉 讙讗讜诇讛 诪讙讗讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 驻讚讬讬讛 诪讙讗讜诇讛

The Gemara answers: We derive the expression of redemption [geula] written in the context of the animal tithe offering from the expression of redemption [geula] written in the context of dedications, but we do not derive the expression of redemption [pediya] written in the context of a firstborn offering from the different expression of redemption [geula] written in the context of the dedications.

诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讘 讛讻讛谉 讜讘讗 讛讻讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讬讘讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讬讗讛

The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether or not an identical expression is used for a verbal analogy? Didn鈥檛 the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall return [veshav] on the seventh day鈥 (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest鈥檚 visit seven days later states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall come [uva] and look鈥 (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the same halakha that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week also applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. Here too, the different terms of pediya and geula should not prevent the application of a verbal analogy.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讬讻讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: This statement, that the phrases used for a verbal analogy do not have to be identical, applies only where there are no terms that are equivalent to it. But where there are terms that are equivalent to it, we derive the verbal analogy from the terms that are equivalent to it, rather than from the terms that are not equivalent.

讜诇讬诇祝 讘讻讜专 讛注讘专讛 讛注讘专讛 诪诪注砖专 讚讛讗 诪注砖专 谞诪讬 讙诪专 讙讗讜诇讛 讙讗讜诇讛 诪讞专诪讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let one derive that it is prohibited to sell the meat of a blemished firstborn offering from the verbal analogy between the expression of passing and the expression of passing, from the case of the animal tithe offering. This should be possible, as the sale of the meat of a blemished animal-tithe offering is also prohibited, as derived by a verbal analogy between the expression of redemption written in its context and the expression of redemption written with regard to dedications, as explained earlier.

诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 讞专诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讘讻讜专 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪注砖专 诪注砖专 讙讗讜诇讛 讻诪讜转讜

The Gemara answers: The Merciful One limits the extension of the prohibition against selling with regard to dedications by adding the term 鈥渋t鈥 in the verse: 鈥淚t is most holy to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). The term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that the prohibition against selling applies only to it, i.e., dedications, but not to a firstborn offering. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say instead that the term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that the prohibition against selling applies to dedications, but not to the animal tithe offering. The Gemara answers: The prohibition against selling applies to the animal tithe offering, with regard to which the expression of redemption is written, just like dedications, while the term 鈥渋t鈥 limits the prohibition to the firstborn offering.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚讞专诪讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讘讬 讘注诇讬诐 讛拽讚砖 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬 讘讬 讻讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

Rava says that there is an alternative explanation for the prohibition against selling the animal tithe. The phrase 鈥淚t may not be redeemed,鈥 written with regard to dedications, is unnecessary and is therefore free to enable a verbal analogy with the animal tithe offering. Rava explains: As where are the items of dedication, designated for the priests, located? If they are in the owner鈥檚 possession, they are considered consecrated and may not be redeemed. And if they are in the priest鈥檚 possession, they are considered non-sacred and the priest may sell them.

讚转谞讬讗 讞专诪讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛谉 讘讘讬转 讘注诇讬诐 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讛拽讚砖 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 诇讛壮 谞转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讞讜诇讬谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 诇讱 讬讛讬讛 诇讗

This is as it is taught in a baraita: Dedications, as long as they are in the owner鈥檚 possession, are like consecrated property in all respects, as it is stated: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most holy to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). Once the owner gave them to the priest, they are like non-sacred property in all respects, as it is stated: 鈥淓very dedicated item in Israel shall be for You鈥 (Numbers 18:14). Rava continues: Accordingly, concerning the phrase 鈥淚t may not

讬讙讗诇 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞专诪讬诐 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讗讬诪讗 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 诪注砖专 讙讗讜诇讛 讻诪讜转讜

be redeemed鈥 that the Merciful One writes, why do I need it? If it is not referring to the matter of dedications, as can be inferred from the baraita, apply it to the matter of the animal tithe offering, teaching that it may not be sold. The Gemara raises a difficulty: One can say that instead of applying it to the animal tithe offering, apply it to the matter of a firstborn offering. The Gemara rejects this possibility: The prohibition against selling extends to the animal tithe offering, concerning which the expression of redemption is written, just like dedications, which is not so concerning the firstborn offering.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚诪注砖专 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜转诪讜专转讜 讬讛讬讛 拽讚砖 诇讗 讬讙讗诇

Rav Ashi says that the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is not derived from dedications, but rather from the case of the animal tithe offering itself. The phrase 鈥淚t may not be redeemed,鈥 written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is to be understood as meaning: It may not be sold. Rav Ashi further says: From where do I say this? As it is written: 鈥淭hen both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33).

讗讬诪转讬 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讬诪转讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诪讞讬讬诐 讛讗 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 谞讙讗诇 讛讗 讘注讬 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛

Rav Ashi elaborates: When does the animal tithe offering render a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute? Only when the animal tithe offering is alive. Similarly, when may the animal tithe offering not be redeemed by its owner? Only when it is alive, which indicates that it may be redeemed after its slaughter. But when redeeming a sanctified animal, it requires standing and valuation, i.e., it has to be set standing before a priest for him to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11鈥12). How, then, can the animal tithe offering be redeemed after having been slaughtered?

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讛讜讗

Rav Ashi continues: Rather, conclude from this verse that the phrase 鈥渋t may not be redeemed鈥 is not referring to redemption. Rather, it is actually to be understood as: It may not be sold. Accordingly, the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is in effect only while it is alive, as is the halakha with regard to a substitute; but once it is slaughtered, it may be sold.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the one who says that animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were disqualified due to a blemish were included in the requirement of standing and valuation. But according to the one who says that animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were disqualified due to a blemish were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation, what is there to say? According to this opinion, the phrase 鈥淚t may not be redeemed鈥 can be interpreted literally, in contrast to Rav Ashi鈥檚 claim.

讗谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 诪讬驻专讬拽 讜诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讬驻专讬拽 讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪讞讬讬诐 讚讗诇讬诪讗 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诇讗 诪讬驻专讬拽 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讚讗拽讬诇 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诪讬驻专讬拽

The Gemara explains: This is what we said, i.e., this is what we meant. The phrase 鈥淚t may not be redeemed鈥 cannot be understood literally, as is there ever an instance where an animal may not be redeemed when alive, and yet it may be redeemed after its slaughter? Since such a scenario is impossible, the verse must be referring to the prohibition against selling. The Gemara asks: But why can it not be said that an animal may be redeemed only after its slaughter? One can claim that when the animal is alive, since its sanctity is strong, it is logical to say that it may not be redeemed. Conversely, after its slaughter, when its sanctity is weak, it is logical to claim that it may be redeemed. If so, the phrase can be understood literally.

讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讻谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讚讗诇讬诐 诇诪讬转驻住 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诇讗 诪讬驻专讬拽 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讚诇讗 讗诇讬诐 诇诪讬转驻住 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诪讬驻专讬拽 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this contention: But isn鈥檛 the opposite claim, that a slaughtered animal tithe offering may not be redeemed, based on an a fortiori inference: If, when the animal tithe offering is alive and its sanctity is strong enough to transfer that sanctity to its redemption money, just as it renders a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, nevertheless it may not be redeemed, then after its slaughter, when its sanctity is not strong enough to transfer that sanctity to its redemption money, as at this stage it cannot render a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, should it be able to be redeemed? In other words, the fact that substitution can be effected only with a living animal indicates that a strong sanctity is more easily transferable to another item than a weak sanctity. Rather, conclude from this that the phrase 鈥淚t may not be redeemed鈥 is actually to be understood as meaning that it may not be sold.

讜诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讝讚讘讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 注讜讘讚讬谉 讚讞讜诇 讗讘诇 讗讬驻专讜拽讬 诪讬驻专讬拽 讚讛讗 注讬讬诇讬 讚诪讬讜 诇讛拽讚砖 诇讛讻讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚诇讗 讗讬讝讚讘讜谞讬 诪讬讝讚讘谉 讜诇讗 讗讬驻专讜拽讬 诪讬驻专讬拽

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the Merciful One write explicitly: It may not be sold. The Gemara answers: Had the Merciful One written: It may not be sold, I would say that the animal tithe offering only may not be sold, as one who does so performs an act of a non-sacred item, by treating the consecrated animal in the same manner as a non-sacred animal and transferring its value to non-sacred money. But I would say that it may be redeemed, as in this manner its value becomes consecrated. Therefore, in order to counter this notion, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淚t may not be redeemed,鈥 which teaches both that the animal tithe offering may not be sold and that it may not be redeemed.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪谞讛 讬砖专讗诇 注诐 讛讻讛谉 诇讘讻讜专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: An Israelite cannot be counted with the priest to partake of a blemished firstborn. And Beit Hillel deem it permitted for him to partake of it, and they deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讻讜专 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讞讘讜专讛 砖讻讜诇讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讝专讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪转讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn offering. The Gemara says: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a blemished firstborn offering, only a group constituted entirely of priests may be counted to partake of it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: The group may even be constituted of non-priests. Rabbi Akiva says that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn. Evidently, Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion in the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 explanation in this baraita.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘砖专诐 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 讛转诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗

The Gemara explains: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? As it is written in a verse discussing the firstborn offering, addressed to Aaron and his sons: 鈥淏ut the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat you shall not redeem; they are holy 鈥and their flesh shall be yours, as the wave breast and as the right thigh, it shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:17鈥18). Just as there, with regard to the breast and the thigh, priests may partake of it but an Israelite, i.e., a non-priest, may not, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat in a pure place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with you鈥 (Leviticus 10:14), so too here, with regard to the firstborn offering, only priests may partake of it, but an Israelite may not.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 32

讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬砖讜诐 诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讜讘讬转诪讬 讗讜拽诪讜讛 专讘谞谉 讗讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

But with regard to an item that is not appraised when an animal is sold when alive, e.g., the hide and sinews, as these are not primary contributing factors to the animal鈥檚 value, the Sages did not decree that one may not sell such items after the animal鈥檚 slaughter. Consequently, the meat of an animal tithe offering may be sold by means of inclusion in the animal鈥檚 hide, fat, sinews, and horns. And with regard to a case of young orphans, the Sages established the halakha as if by Torah law, and therefore the meat may be sold in its usual manner.

讜讗祝 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 住讘专 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 砖诇 讬转讜诪讬诐 砖诪讜讻专讬诐 讗讜转讜 讻讚专讻讜

The Gemara notes: And even Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k holds in accordance with that opinion of Rava, that by Torah law, the meat of a blemished animal-tithe offering may be sold in the normal manner. As Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: From where is it derived that one may sell the meat of a blemished animal-tithe offering of young orphans in its usual manner, without having to resort to the method of inclusion?

砖谞讗诪专 专拽 讘讻诇 讗讜转 谞驻砖讱 转讝讘讞 讜讗讻诇转 讘砖专 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讘专讻讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated in a verse discussing consecrated animals that became blemished: 鈥淣otwithstanding, after all the desire of your soul, you may slaughter and eat flesh, according to the blessing of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:15). Now which is the item that has no blessing when it is alive, i.e., it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, but it does have a blessing after its slaughter, as indicated by the verse 鈥淵ou may slaughter鈥ccording to the blessing of the Lord your God鈥? You must say that this is the meat of the animal tithe offering.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛讘诇讬注讜 讘注爪诪讜转 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讘诇讬注讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讘诇讬注讜

搂 The baraita cited earlier teaches that the Sages permitted the inclusion of the value of a blemished animal-tithe offering鈥檚 meat in the cost of its hide, fat, sinews, and horns. In this regard, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to including the value of the meat in the cost of the animal鈥檚 bones? Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disputed this matter. One says that one may include the value in the cost of the bones, and one says one may not include it.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讚拽讛 讛讗 讘讙住讛

The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree. This one, who maintains that one may not include the value in the cost of the bones, is referring to a small, domesticated animal, whose bones are incapable of being fashioned into utensils and are therefore never sold. That one, who holds that one may include the value in the cost of the bones, is referring to a large, domesticated animal, whose bones can be used and are therefore sold.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讙住讛 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛

And if you wish, say instead that both this one and that one are referring even to a large, domesticated animal, and still they do not disagree. This Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale, and that Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale. In other words, in certain places the custom is to use the bones and sell them, while elsewhere they do not.

讙讜驻讗 讘讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬驻讚讛 讜谞诪讻专 讘诪注砖专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 诇讗 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讞讜讟 讜诇讗 转诐 讜诇讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The Gemara returns to the matter itself, stated in the baraita: With regard to a firstborn male animal offering the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:17), but it may be sold while alive, by the priest to whom it belongs. By contrast, with regard to the animal tithe offering, it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), indicating that its sanctity can never be removed from it, and it cannot be sold, not when alive and not when slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived, that the phrase 鈥渋t shall not be redeemed鈥 is referring to the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering?

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讘诪注砖专 讜谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讘讞专诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讻讬专讛 注诪讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讻讬专讛 注诪讜

Rav 岣nnana says that Rav says, and similarly, Rav Dimi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 with regard to the animal tithe offering, and it is stated: 鈥淎nd it shall not be redeemed,鈥 with regard to dedications [ba岣ramim], i.e., property that one consecrated by means of the expression: 岣rem. With regard to dedications, the verse states: 鈥淣otwithstanding, any dedicated item鈥ay neither be sold nor redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). This is a verbal analogy: Just as there, with regard to dedications, the prohibition against selling is mentioned together with the prohibition against redeeming, so too here, with regard to the animal tithe offering, the prohibition against selling is mentioned together with the prohibition against redeeming.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪驻谞讬 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪驻专讱 诪讛 诇讞专诪讬诐 砖讻谉 讞诇讬诐 注诇 讛讻诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: It must be that at least one of the phrases 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 is free, i.e., at least one of these terms is superfluous in its context, which means that it is included for the specific purpose of the verbal analogy. In such a case the verbal analogy cannot be refuted by logic, whereas if neither phrase is free one can refute the analogy if there is a significant difference between the two cases. As, if these terms are not free, the verbal analogy can be refuted: What is notable about dedications, in contrast to the animal tithe offering? They are notable in that they apply to all items one wishes to dedicate, whereas an animal tithe offering applies only to kosher animals.

诇讗讬讬 讗驻谞讜讬讬 诪驻谞讬 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讘讞专诪讬诐 讜讬讙诪专 诪诪注砖专 诪讛 诪注砖专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 讗祝 讞专诪讬诐 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讜讗讬谞诐 谞讙讗诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara notes: This is not so [la鈥檃i], as at least one of the phrases: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 is certainly free. How so? Let the verse not state: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 with regard to dedications, and instead one could derive the prohibition from an animal tithe offering: Just as an animal tithe offering is sacred and may not be redeemed, so too, dedications are also sacred and may not be redeemed. Why then do I need the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 that the Merciful One writes, in the case of dedications? It is evidently to be considered free to enable the verbal analogy.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪注砖专 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. It is still possible that the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 written with regard to dedications, is not free, as the suggested derivation stated above can be refuted: What is notable about the animal tithe offering? It is notable in that there is sanctity before it and after it. If, instead of proclaiming as the tithe the tenth animal that one counted, one inadvertently proclaimed either the ninth animal or the eleventh animal as the tithe, the mistakenly proclaimed animal assumes the sacred status of the animal tithe offering. By contrast, one cannot inadvertently dedicate property to the Temple. Since the case of the animal tithe offering includes a stringency not shared by dedications, the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 is required to teach that dedications may not be redeemed, and is therefore not free for the verbal analogy.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讘讞专诪讬诐 讜讬讙诪专 诪讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 讗祝 讞专诪讬诐 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讙讗诇讬谉 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara cites an alternative suggestion. Rather, let the verse not state: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 with regard to dedications, and instead one can derive the prohibition from the firstborn offering: Just as the firstborn offering is sacred and may not be redeemed, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not redeem it鈥 (Numbers 18:17), so too, dedications are also sacred and may not be redeemed. Why do I need the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 that the Merciful One writes in the case of dedications? It is evidently to be considered free to enable the verbal analogy to the animal tithe.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讘讻讜专 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐

The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: It is possible that the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 is not free, as the above derivation can be refuted: What is notable about the firstborn offering? It is notable in that its sanctity is from the womb, whereas dedications require an act of consecration.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讘诪注砖专 讜讬讙诪专 讛注讘专讛 讛注讘专讛 诪讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 讗祝 诪注砖专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪注砖专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

Rather, let the verse not say: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 with regard to the animal tithe offering, and instead one can derive the prohibition from a verbal analogy from the term of passing stated there and the term of passing stated in the case of a firstborn. With regard to an animal tithe offering the verse states: 鈥淲hatsoever passes under the rod鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), and in the case of the firstborn offering it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall cause to pass all that opens the womb, to the Lord鈥 (Exodus 13:12). Just as the firstborn offering is sacred and may not be redeemed, so too, an animal tithe offering is also sacred and may not be redeemed. Why do I need the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 that the Merciful One writes with regard to animal tithe offerings? It is evidently to be considered free to enable the verbal analogy to dedications.

讜讗讻转讬 讘诪注砖专 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讻讚驻专讻讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But still, the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is itself not free, as the analogy between the animal tithe offering and the firstborn offering can be refuted as we refuted the analogy between the firstborn offering and dedications, since the firstborn offering is notable in that it is sanctified from the womb.

讜讛注讘专转 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: The term 鈥淎nd you shall cause to pass,鈥 written in the context of the firstborn, is a superfluous verse, as it could have simply stated: All that opens the womb is to be for the Lord. Consequently, it is free to enable the verbal analogy. In sum, the Gemara is suggesting that due to the term 鈥淎nd you shall cause to pass,鈥 there is a verbal analogy between the animal tithe offering and the firstborn offering, from which it is derived that the animal tithe offering may not be redeemed. This means that the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed,鈥 written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is free to enable the verbal analogy with dedications, from which the prohibition against selling the meat of the animal tithe offering is derived.

讘讻讜专 谞诪讬 谞讬诇祝 讙讗讜诇讛 讙讗讜诇讛 诪讞专诪讬诐 讚诪注砖专 诪驻谞讬 讚讘讻讜专 诇讗 诪驻谞讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to a firstborn offering as well, let us derive that one may not sell its meat from a verbal analogy between the expression of redemption written there and the expression of redemption written in the context of dedications. This would contradict the ruling of the baraita that a firstborn offering can be sold after it enters the possession of the priest. The Gemara answers: The expression of redemption in the context of the animal tithe offering is free to enable the verbal analogy to dedications, but the expression of redemption in the context of a firstborn offering is not free, as it is required in its own context to teach that the firstborn offering may not be redeemed and as the source for the halakha of the animal tithe offering.

讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚诇讗 转驻讚讛 讚讘讻讜专 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讚诪注砖专 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬 讜讗讬诪讗 讚诪注砖专 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讚讘讻讜专 诇讗驻谞讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that you said that the phrase 鈥測ou shall not redeem鈥 written in the context of a firstborn offering is not free, but is necessary for itself, i.e., to teach that it may not be redeemed, and yet the expression of redemption written with regard to the animal tithe offering is free to enable the verbal analogy, as the halakha of its redemption is derived from the firstborn? But one can say the reverse, that the expression of redemption written in the context of the animal tithe offering is for itself, whereas that written with regard to a firstborn offering is free.

讚谞讬谉 讙讗讜诇讛 诪讙讗讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 驻讚讬讬讛 诪讙讗讜诇讛

The Gemara answers: We derive the expression of redemption [geula] written in the context of the animal tithe offering from the expression of redemption [geula] written in the context of dedications, but we do not derive the expression of redemption [pediya] written in the context of a firstborn offering from the different expression of redemption [geula] written in the context of the dedications.

诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讘 讛讻讛谉 讜讘讗 讛讻讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讬讘讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讬讗讛

The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether or not an identical expression is used for a verbal analogy? Didn鈥檛 the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall return [veshav] on the seventh day鈥 (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest鈥檚 visit seven days later states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall come [uva] and look鈥 (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the same halakha that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week also applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. Here too, the different terms of pediya and geula should not prevent the application of a verbal analogy.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讬讻讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: This statement, that the phrases used for a verbal analogy do not have to be identical, applies only where there are no terms that are equivalent to it. But where there are terms that are equivalent to it, we derive the verbal analogy from the terms that are equivalent to it, rather than from the terms that are not equivalent.

讜诇讬诇祝 讘讻讜专 讛注讘专讛 讛注讘专讛 诪诪注砖专 讚讛讗 诪注砖专 谞诪讬 讙诪专 讙讗讜诇讛 讙讗讜诇讛 诪讞专诪讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let one derive that it is prohibited to sell the meat of a blemished firstborn offering from the verbal analogy between the expression of passing and the expression of passing, from the case of the animal tithe offering. This should be possible, as the sale of the meat of a blemished animal-tithe offering is also prohibited, as derived by a verbal analogy between the expression of redemption written in its context and the expression of redemption written with regard to dedications, as explained earlier.

诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 讞专诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讘讻讜专 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪注砖专 诪注砖专 讙讗讜诇讛 讻诪讜转讜

The Gemara answers: The Merciful One limits the extension of the prohibition against selling with regard to dedications by adding the term 鈥渋t鈥 in the verse: 鈥淚t is most holy to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). The term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that the prohibition against selling applies only to it, i.e., dedications, but not to a firstborn offering. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say instead that the term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that the prohibition against selling applies to dedications, but not to the animal tithe offering. The Gemara answers: The prohibition against selling applies to the animal tithe offering, with regard to which the expression of redemption is written, just like dedications, while the term 鈥渋t鈥 limits the prohibition to the firstborn offering.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚讞专诪讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讘讬 讘注诇讬诐 讛拽讚砖 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬 讘讬 讻讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

Rava says that there is an alternative explanation for the prohibition against selling the animal tithe. The phrase 鈥淚t may not be redeemed,鈥 written with regard to dedications, is unnecessary and is therefore free to enable a verbal analogy with the animal tithe offering. Rava explains: As where are the items of dedication, designated for the priests, located? If they are in the owner鈥檚 possession, they are considered consecrated and may not be redeemed. And if they are in the priest鈥檚 possession, they are considered non-sacred and the priest may sell them.

讚转谞讬讗 讞专诪讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛谉 讘讘讬转 讘注诇讬诐 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讛拽讚砖 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 诇讛壮 谞转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讞讜诇讬谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 诇讱 讬讛讬讛 诇讗

This is as it is taught in a baraita: Dedications, as long as they are in the owner鈥檚 possession, are like consecrated property in all respects, as it is stated: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most holy to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). Once the owner gave them to the priest, they are like non-sacred property in all respects, as it is stated: 鈥淓very dedicated item in Israel shall be for You鈥 (Numbers 18:14). Rava continues: Accordingly, concerning the phrase 鈥淚t may not

讬讙讗诇 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞专诪讬诐 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讗讬诪讗 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 诪注砖专 讙讗讜诇讛 讻诪讜转讜

be redeemed鈥 that the Merciful One writes, why do I need it? If it is not referring to the matter of dedications, as can be inferred from the baraita, apply it to the matter of the animal tithe offering, teaching that it may not be sold. The Gemara raises a difficulty: One can say that instead of applying it to the animal tithe offering, apply it to the matter of a firstborn offering. The Gemara rejects this possibility: The prohibition against selling extends to the animal tithe offering, concerning which the expression of redemption is written, just like dedications, which is not so concerning the firstborn offering.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚诪注砖专 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜转诪讜专转讜 讬讛讬讛 拽讚砖 诇讗 讬讙讗诇

Rav Ashi says that the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is not derived from dedications, but rather from the case of the animal tithe offering itself. The phrase 鈥淚t may not be redeemed,鈥 written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is to be understood as meaning: It may not be sold. Rav Ashi further says: From where do I say this? As it is written: 鈥淭hen both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33).

讗讬诪转讬 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讬诪转讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诪讞讬讬诐 讛讗 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 谞讙讗诇 讛讗 讘注讬 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛

Rav Ashi elaborates: When does the animal tithe offering render a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute? Only when the animal tithe offering is alive. Similarly, when may the animal tithe offering not be redeemed by its owner? Only when it is alive, which indicates that it may be redeemed after its slaughter. But when redeeming a sanctified animal, it requires standing and valuation, i.e., it has to be set standing before a priest for him to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11鈥12). How, then, can the animal tithe offering be redeemed after having been slaughtered?

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讛讜讗

Rav Ashi continues: Rather, conclude from this verse that the phrase 鈥渋t may not be redeemed鈥 is not referring to redemption. Rather, it is actually to be understood as: It may not be sold. Accordingly, the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is in effect only while it is alive, as is the halakha with regard to a substitute; but once it is slaughtered, it may be sold.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the one who says that animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were disqualified due to a blemish were included in the requirement of standing and valuation. But according to the one who says that animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were disqualified due to a blemish were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation, what is there to say? According to this opinion, the phrase 鈥淚t may not be redeemed鈥 can be interpreted literally, in contrast to Rav Ashi鈥檚 claim.

讗谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 诪讬驻专讬拽 讜诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讬驻专讬拽 讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪讞讬讬诐 讚讗诇讬诪讗 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诇讗 诪讬驻专讬拽 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讚讗拽讬诇 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诪讬驻专讬拽

The Gemara explains: This is what we said, i.e., this is what we meant. The phrase 鈥淚t may not be redeemed鈥 cannot be understood literally, as is there ever an instance where an animal may not be redeemed when alive, and yet it may be redeemed after its slaughter? Since such a scenario is impossible, the verse must be referring to the prohibition against selling. The Gemara asks: But why can it not be said that an animal may be redeemed only after its slaughter? One can claim that when the animal is alive, since its sanctity is strong, it is logical to say that it may not be redeemed. Conversely, after its slaughter, when its sanctity is weak, it is logical to claim that it may be redeemed. If so, the phrase can be understood literally.

讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讻谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讚讗诇讬诐 诇诪讬转驻住 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诇讗 诪讬驻专讬拽 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讚诇讗 讗诇讬诐 诇诪讬转驻住 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诪讬驻专讬拽 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this contention: But isn鈥檛 the opposite claim, that a slaughtered animal tithe offering may not be redeemed, based on an a fortiori inference: If, when the animal tithe offering is alive and its sanctity is strong enough to transfer that sanctity to its redemption money, just as it renders a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, nevertheless it may not be redeemed, then after its slaughter, when its sanctity is not strong enough to transfer that sanctity to its redemption money, as at this stage it cannot render a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, should it be able to be redeemed? In other words, the fact that substitution can be effected only with a living animal indicates that a strong sanctity is more easily transferable to another item than a weak sanctity. Rather, conclude from this that the phrase 鈥淚t may not be redeemed鈥 is actually to be understood as meaning that it may not be sold.

讜诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讝讚讘讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 注讜讘讚讬谉 讚讞讜诇 讗讘诇 讗讬驻专讜拽讬 诪讬驻专讬拽 讚讛讗 注讬讬诇讬 讚诪讬讜 诇讛拽讚砖 诇讛讻讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讚诇讗 讗讬讝讚讘讜谞讬 诪讬讝讚讘谉 讜诇讗 讗讬驻专讜拽讬 诪讬驻专讬拽

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the Merciful One write explicitly: It may not be sold. The Gemara answers: Had the Merciful One written: It may not be sold, I would say that the animal tithe offering only may not be sold, as one who does so performs an act of a non-sacred item, by treating the consecrated animal in the same manner as a non-sacred animal and transferring its value to non-sacred money. But I would say that it may be redeemed, as in this manner its value becomes consecrated. Therefore, in order to counter this notion, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淚t may not be redeemed,鈥 which teaches both that the animal tithe offering may not be sold and that it may not be redeemed.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪谞讛 讬砖专讗诇 注诐 讛讻讛谉 诇讘讻讜专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: An Israelite cannot be counted with the priest to partake of a blemished firstborn. And Beit Hillel deem it permitted for him to partake of it, and they deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讻讜专 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讞讘讜专讛 砖讻讜诇讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讝专讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪转讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn offering. The Gemara says: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a blemished firstborn offering, only a group constituted entirely of priests may be counted to partake of it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: The group may even be constituted of non-priests. Rabbi Akiva says that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn. Evidently, Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion in the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 explanation in this baraita.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘砖专诐 讬讛讬讛 诇讱 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 讛转诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗

The Gemara explains: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? As it is written in a verse discussing the firstborn offering, addressed to Aaron and his sons: 鈥淏ut the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat you shall not redeem; they are holy 鈥and their flesh shall be yours, as the wave breast and as the right thigh, it shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:17鈥18). Just as there, with regard to the breast and the thigh, priests may partake of it but an Israelite, i.e., a non-priest, may not, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat in a pure place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with you鈥 (Leviticus 10:14), so too here, with regard to the firstborn offering, only priests may partake of it, but an Israelite may not.

Scroll To Top