## Bekhorot Daf 14b

###### Bekhorot 14b:1
[Bekhorot 14b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:1)

נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים אוֹ אֵין נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *halakha* is that the offspring of an animal that possesses inherent sanctity is born sanctified, and therefore it cannot be redeemed until it develops a blemish. The Gemara asks: With regard to the offspring of an animal that possesses sanctity that inheres in its value, **are they redeemed unblemished, or are they not redeemed unblemished?** In other words, can they be redeemed immediately, or must one wait until they develop a blemish?


###### Bekhorot 14b:2
[Bekhorot 14b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּתְפִּיס בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין קְבוּעִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְיָלְדוּ — יִמָּכְרוּ, וְאֵין צְרִיכִין מוּם, שֶׁאֵין קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: With regard to **one who dedicates permanently blemished** animals **for the altar, and** those animals **gave birth,** their offspring **may be sold** in order to be redeemed **and they do not require a blemish** to render their sale permitted. The reason is **that they are not imbued with sanctity,** and **that the subsidiary** sanctity of the offspring should **not be** more **stringent than the primary** sanctity of the mother. Since the blemished mother can be redeemed without delay, the same applies to its offspring. This proves that the offspring of animals that possess sanctity that inheres in their value may be redeemed.


###### Bekhorot 14b:3
[Bekhorot 14b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:3)

טַעְמָא, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר, אֲבָל הִקְדִּישׁ זָכָר לְדָמָיו — קָדוֹשׁ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הִקְדִּישׁ זָכָר לְדָמָיו — קָדוֹשׁ קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **The reason** that the *baraita* rules that the sanctity for the altar does not take effect is **that the subsidiary** sanctity should **not be** more **stringent than the primary** sanctity, i.e., the only reason it is not sanctified for the altar is because its sanctity is derived from its mother, which cannot be sanctified for the altar as it is blemished. **But** if **one consecrated** an unblemished **male** animal **for its value,** where there is no secondary consecration, **it is sanctified with inherent sanctity.** The Gemara adds that **this supports** the opinion **of Rava, as Rava says:** If **one consecrated a male** animal **for its value, it is sanctified with inherent sanctity.**


###### Bekhorot 14b:4
[Bekhorot 14b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:4)

וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַתְנֵי ״חַיָּיב״, וּמוֹקֵי לַהּ בְּבָמַת יָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches with regard to animals whose blemish preceded their consecration: **And one who slaughters them outside** the Temple courtyard is **exempt.** The Gemara notes that **Rabbi Elazar teaches** the mishna as follows: And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is **liable, and he interprets** the mishna as **referring to** a case of a private **altar of an individual.** In other words, the mishna is not teaching that one is liable to receive *karet* for slaughtering an animal outside the Temple courtyard, but that he is liable to receive lashes for sacrificing a blemished animal upon a private altar.


###### Bekhorot 14b:5
[Bekhorot 14b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:5)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לַזּוֹבֵחַ בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם בְּבָמַת יָחִיד בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת, שֶׁהוּא בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תִזְבַּח לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה״, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר וְגוֹ׳״, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְבָמַת יָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Elazar says: From where** is it derived **that one who slaughters a blemished animal upon** a private **altar of an individual at a time when** private **altars are permitted is in** violation of **a prohibition?** It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated: “You shall not sacrifice to the Lord an ox, or a sheep,** in which is a blemish” (Deuteronomy 17:1). **If** this verse **is not** referring **to** the **matter of a great** public **altar,** since that *halakha* is derived from a different verse, **as it is written: “Blind or broken**…you shall not sacrifice these unto the Lord” (Leviticus 22:22), **apply** the verse in Deuteronomy to the **matter of** a private **altar of an individual.**


###### Bekhorot 14b:6
[Bekhorot 14b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:6)

אֵימָא: אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְקָדָשִׁים — תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִבְכוֹר, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְקָדוֹשׁ כְּשֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מוּם — לִיקְרַב נָמֵי כְּשֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מוּם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: But one can **say** with regard to the verse in Deuteronomy: **If** this verse **is not** referring **to** the **matter of** regular **sacrificial** animals, which is derived from the verse in Leviticus, **apply it** to the **matter of a firstborn,** as it might **enter your mind to say: Since** a firstborn animal **is sanctified** even **when it is** a permanently **blemished** animal, **let it also be sacrificed** upon the altar **when it is a blemished animal.** The verse in Deuteronomy would therefore **teach us that** this is **not** the *halakha*, i.e., a blemished firstborn animal may not be sacrificed upon the altar. What, then, is the reason that the *halakha* of a private altar of an individual, rather than the *halakha* of firstborn animals, is derived from the verse in Deuteronomy?


###### Bekhorot 14b:7
[Bekhorot 14b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:7)

אָמְרִי: בְּכוֹר בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״פִּסֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר לֹא תִזְבָּחֶנּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in explanation: Concerning **a firstborn,** the *halakha* is **written explicitly with regard to it:** “Every firstborn…if there be any blemish therein, **lameness, or blindness…you shall not sacrifice it”** (Deuteronomy 15:19–21). Consequently, the verse in Deuteronomy, chapter 17, cannot be referring to the *halakha* that a firstborn animal may not be sacrificed upon the altar, as that is already taught in chapter 15.


###### Bekhorot 14b:8
[Bekhorot 14b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:8)

וְאֵימָא: אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְקָדָשִׁים — תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְמַעֲשֵׂר, דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְקָדוֹשׁ בְּמוּמוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין טוֹב לָרַע״, נִקְרַב נָמֵי בְּמוּמֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **But** still, one can **say: If** the verse in chapter 17 **is not** referring **to** the **matter of sacrificial** animals, which is derived from the verse in Leviticus, **apply it to** the **matter of** the animal **tithe, as** it might **enter your mind to say: Since** a tithed animal is **sacred** even **with its blemish, as it is written: “He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad”** (Leviticus 27:33), **let it also be sacrificed with its blemish.** The verse in Deuteronomy (17:1) would therefore **teach us that** this is **not** the *halakha*, i.e., a blemished tithed animal may not be sacrificed upon the altar.


###### Bekhorot 14b:9
[Bekhorot 14b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:9)

אָמְרִי: מַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי גָּמַר ״הַעֲבָרָה״ ״הַעֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: With regard to the animal **tithe as well,** it is unnecessary for the verse to teach this *halakha*, as it is **derived from** a verbal analogy between the word: **Passing,** mentioned with regard to tithed animals (see Leviticus 27:32), and **passing** mentioned with regard to **the firstborn** (see Exodus 13:12). Just as a blemished firstborn animal is not sacrificed upon the altar, so too, a blemished tithed animal is not sacrificed upon the altar.


###### Bekhorot 14b:10
[Bekhorot 14b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:10)

אֵימָא: תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִתְמוּרַת קָדָשִׁים, דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּקְדוֹשָׁה כְּשֶׁהִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אוֹתוֹ וְגוֹ׳״, קָרֵיבָה נָמֵי כְּשֶׁהִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara persists: But **say** that one should **apply** Deuteronomy 17:1 **to** the **matter of** animals **substituted for sacrificial** animals, **as** it might **enter your mind to say: Since** a substitute becomes **sacred** even **when it is blemished, as it is written: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it,** a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall at all substitute animal for animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy” (Leviticus 27:10), **it may likewise be sacrificed when it is blemished.** The verse in Deuteronomy would therefore **teach us that** this is **not** the *halakha*, as a blemished substitute cannot be sacrificed upon the altar.


###### Bekhorot 14b:11
[Bekhorot 14b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:11)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ״, מַקִּישׁ תְּמוּרָתוֹ לוֹ — מָה הוּא בַּעַל מוּם לֹא, אַף תְּמוּרָתוֹ בַּעַל מוּם לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *halakha* with regard to a substitute is already established, as **the verse states: “It and that for which it is substituted** shall be holy.” The verse **compares a substitute to** the consecrated animal for which it was substituted: **Just as** the consecrated animal is **not** sacrificed if it is **blemished, so too, its substitute** is **not** sacrificed if it is **blemished.**


###### Bekhorot 14b:12
[Bekhorot 14b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:12)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֵימָא, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְוַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים, דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּקְדוֹשִׁין כְּשֶׁהֵן בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין אַגַּב אִמָּן, כְּשֶׁהֵן בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין נָמֵי קָרְבִי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents a final objection: **Rabbi Zeira objects to** the claim that Deuteronomy 17:1 should be understood as referring to a private altar of an individual. **Say** instead that one should **apply it to** the **matter of the offspring of sacrificial** animals, **as** it could **enter your mind to say: Since they are sacred** even **when they are blemished, on account of their mother, they may also be sacrificed when they are blemished.** Deuteronomy 17:1 would therefore **teach us** that this is **not** the *halakha*.


###### Bekhorot 14b:13
[Bekhorot 14b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: כְּבָר פַּסְקַהּ תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״רַק קָדָשֶׁיךָ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ לְךָ וּנְדָרֶיךָ״ — ״רַק קָדָשֶׁיךָ״ אֵלּוּ הַתְּמוּרוֹת, ״אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ לְךָ״ אֵלּוּ הַוְּולָדוֹת, ״וּנְדָרֶיךָ״ — הִקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב לְנֶדֶר, מָה נֶדֶר בַּעַל מוּם לֹא, אַף הָנֵי נָמֵי בַּעַל מוּם לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says** in response: **The *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael has already ruled** that the blemished offspring of sacrificial animals cannot be sacrificed upon the altar, from a different verse. **As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** The verse states: **“Only your sacred items which you have, and your vows,** you shall take, and go to the place which the Lord shall choose” (Deuteronomy 12:26). **“Only your sacred items”; these are the substitutes. “Which you have”; these are the offspring.** When it states: **“And your vows,”** the verse thereby **juxtaposes** animal substitutes and offspring **with** an animal consecrated by **a vow,** teaching that **just as** an animal consecrated by **a vow** is **not** sacrificed if it is **blemished, so too, these are also not** sacrificed if they are **blemished.** Accordingly, Deuteronomy 17:1 must be understood as referring to a private altar of an individual, as maintained by Rabbi Elazar.


###### Bekhorot 14b:14
[Bekhorot 14b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:14)

וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר וְגוֹ׳״. הַשְׁתָּא רַע בְּטוֹב אָמְרַתְּ לֹא, טוֹב בְּרָע מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא טוֹב מֵעִיקָּרוֹ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, רַע מֵעִיקָּרוֹ אֵין עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And** sacrificial animals whose blemish preceded their consecration **do not render** an animal that was **a substitute** for them sacred. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this ruling? It is derived from a verse, **as the verse states: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it,** a good for a bad, or a bad for a good” (Leviticus 27:10). The Gemara infers: **Now** that **you have said** that substituting **a bad** animal **for a good** animal is **not** permitted, **is it necessary** to state that substituting **a good** animal **for a bad** animal is **not** permitted? **Rather,** the verse is teaching that an animal which is **good at the outset renders** an animal that was **a subsitute** for it sacred, but an animal that is **bad at the outset,** i.e., whose blemish preceded its consecration, **does not render** an animal that was **a subsitute** for it sacred.


###### Bekhorot 14b:15
[Bekhorot 14b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:15)

אִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further teaches: **And if** these animals **died** before they were redeemed, **they may be redeemed** and fed to dogs. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon, who says:** Items **consecrated to** be sacrificed on the **altar were included in** the requirement of **standing and valuation,** but items with the **sanctity of** those consecrated for **Temple maintenance,** such as the red heifer, **were not included in** the requirement of **standing and valuation.** Since animals that were consecrated for the altar require standing and valuation in order to be redeemed, they cannot be redeemed after death, as it is no longer possible to stand them before the priest. Animals consecrated for the Temple maintenance, and likewise animals whose blemish preceded their consecration, do not require standing and valuation, and therefore they can be redeemed after death.


###### Bekhorot 14b:16
[Bekhorot 14b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:16)

דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אִם מֵתוּ — יִפָּדוּ. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ שֶׁנִּפְדֶּה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אוֹתָהּ״ ״אוֹתָהּ״ — לְמַעוֹטֵי בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Temura* 32a): **Rabbi Shimon says:** With regard to animals **consecrated for the Temple maintenance, if they died they may be redeemed,** because animals consecrated for the Temple maintenance are not included in the obligation of standing and valuation. **And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to** an animal that was **blemished from the outset,** i.e., before it was consecrated, **that it may be redeemed** even if it was consecrated for the altar. **What is the reason?** It is derived from a verse, **as the verse states:** “Then he shall stand the animal before the priest. And the priest shall appraise **it”** (Leviticus 27:11–12). The emphasis on **“it”** serves **to exclude** an animal that was **blemished from the outset.**


###### Bekhorot 14b:17
[Bekhorot 14b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:17)

אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אִם מֵתוּ — יִקָּבֵרוּ. מַאן חֲכָמִים? תָּנָא דְּבֵי לֵוִי הוּא, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי לֵוִי: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But the Rabbis say:** With regard to both animals consecrated for the altar and animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, **if they died they must be buried.** The Gemara asks: **Whose** opinion is that of **the Rabbis** in the mishna? It is the opinion of the ***tanna* of the school of Levi, as the school of Levi taught: All** animals **were included in** the obligation of **standing and valuation, even** an animal that was **blemished from the outset.**


###### Bekhorot 14b:18
[Bekhorot 14b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:18)

וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי לֵוִי בְּמַתְנִיתֵיהּ: אֲפִילּוּ חַיָּה, אֲפִילּוּ עוֹף, וְהָכְתִיב ״אוֹתָהּ״! ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְתָנָא דְּבֵי לֵוִי קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, the school of Levi taught in** Levi’s own collection of ***baraitot*: Even an undomesticated animal** and **even a bird** are included in the obligation of standing and valuation, despite the fact that they can never be sacrificed upon the altar. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it written:** “And the priest shall appraise **it,”** which is an expression of exclusion? If so, the verse must be excluding some case, at least that of an undomesticated animal or a bird. The Gemara concedes that the phrase “and the priest shall appraise **it”** is **difficult according to** the opinion of **the *tanna* of the school of Levi.**


###### Bekhorot 14b:19
[Bekhorot 14b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/14b:19)

אֲבָל רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַאי? הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ? אִי הָכִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** in light of this difficulty, according to **the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon** in the mishna in *Temura*, **what** is the *halakha*? **Is it indeed so that if** animals whose blemish preceded their consecration **died they may be redeemed,** as derived from the word “it”? **If that is so,** then why did Rav say: This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon?