## Bekhorot Daf 15a

###### Bekhorot 15a:1
[Bekhorot 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:1)

״זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ״ מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since both Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis agree that an animal which was blemished before it was consecrated can be redeemed, **he should have** said: **This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him.**


###### Bekhorot 15a:2
[Bekhorot 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:2)

אָמְרִי: רַב כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְלָא מִיתּוֹקְמָא מַתְנִיתִין כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְאִם מֵתוּ יִקָּבֵרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response that **Rav** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says: According to the Rabbis,** animals **consecrated for the Temple maintenance were included in** the obligation of **standing and valuation,** whereas animals **consecrated for the altar were not included in** the obligation of **standing and valuation. And** therefore it is **not** possible to **interpret the mishna in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, as the latter clause teaches: And if** animals consecrated for the altar **died, they must be buried** even if their consecration preceded their blemish, as they are included in the obligation of standing and valuation.


###### Bekhorot 15a:3
[Bekhorot 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:3)

אָמַר: מִמַּאי דְּהָא ״מֵתוּ יִקָּבֵרוּ״ מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה הוּא? דִּלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים הוּא! אָמְרִי: אִם כֵּן, נִיתְנֵי: ״אִם נַעֲשׂוּ טְרֵיפָה יִקָּבֵרוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **says: From where** is it known **that this** ruling of the mishna: If **they died they must be buried, is due to** the fact **that** they **require standing and valuation? Perhaps it is because one may not redeem sacrificial** animals in order **to feed them to dogs.** The Sages **said** in response: **If** that were **so, let** the mishna **teach: If** one of **them became an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*], it must be buried.** Since a *tereifa* can be stood before the priest, the only reason to require its burial must be due to the prohibition against redeeming a sacrificial animal in order to feed it to dogs.


###### Bekhorot 15a:4
[Bekhorot 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:4)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַב כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וּתְנִי: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **Actually, Rav holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were included in the obligation of standing and appraising, and therefore the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. **And** in fact Rav **taught: This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him.**


###### Bekhorot 15a:5
[Bekhorot 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:5)

אֲבָל קָדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״צְבִי״, מָה צְבִי פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **But** if **their consecration preceded** their blemish, they are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn and from the priestly gifts. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? They are derived from a verse, **as the Sages taught** with regard to a verse discussing disqualified consecrated animals: “However, as you eat the **gazelle** and the hart, so shall you eat thereof” (Deuteronomy 12:22). **Just as a gazelle is exempt** from the mitzva of the **firstborn,** as this obligation does not apply to undomesticated animals, **so too, disqualified consecrated** animals **are exempt** from the mitzva of the **firstborn.**


###### Bekhorot 15a:6
[Bekhorot 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:6)

אוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַיָּל״, מָה אַיָּל פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וּמִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וּמִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Based on this derivation, **I will exclude** consecrated animals that developed a blemish from the mitzva of **the firstborn but I will not exclude** them **from** the mitzva of **the gifts.** From where is it derived that such animals are not subject to the mitzva of the gifts either? The Gemara answers that **the verse states:** “However, as you eat the gazelle and the **hart.”** This teaches that **just as a hart is exempt** from the mitzva of the **firstborn and from** the mitzva of **the gifts, so too, disqualified consecrated** animals **are exempt** from the mitzva of the **firstborn and from** the mitzva of **the gifts.**


###### Bekhorot 15a:7
[Bekhorot 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:7)

אִי מָה צְבִי וְאַיָּל חֶלְבָּן מוּתָּר, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין חֶלְבָּן מוּתָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ״ — חִלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** so, then it follows that **just as the fat of a gazelle and a hart is permitted, so too, the fat of disqualified consecrated** animals should be **permitted.** In fact, the *halakha* is that the fat of disqualified consecrated animals is forbidden, like that of other domesticated animals. The *baraita* answers that **the verse states: “However,** as you eat the gazelle and the hart.” The term “however” **differentiates,** i.e., it serves to limit the analogy between these animals to the mitzvot of the firstborn and the gifts, and not forbidden fat.


###### Bekhorot 15a:8
[Bekhorot 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:8)

אָמַר מָר: אוֹצִיא אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת. מַאי שְׁנָא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַבְּכוֹר — שֶׁאֵין שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת — שֶׁשָּׁווֹת בַּכֹּל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַיָּל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*. **The Master said: I will exclude** consecrated animals that developed a blemish from the mitzva of **the firstborn but I will not exclude** them from the mitzva of **the gifts.** The Gemara asks: **What is different** about a firstborn **that I** would **exclude** only the mitzva of **the firstborn,** in the first stage of this interpretation? Why not exclude the mitzva of the gifts as well? The Gemara answers **that** the mitzva of the firstborn **does not apply equally** to all animals but only to males, **and** therefore **I do not** initially **exclude** the mitzva of **the gifts, as they do apply equally to all** domesticated animals, including females. Therefore, when **the verse states “a hart”** in addition to the gazelle, this is derived as teaching that disqualified consecrated animals are excluded from the mitzva of the gifts as well.


###### Bekhorot 15a:9
[Bekhorot 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי מָה צְבִי וְאַיָּל, אֵין אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּהֶן, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין אֵין אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** another question **to Abaye: If** one accepts the analogy between disqualified consecrated animals and the animals mentioned in the verse, then one can claim as follows: **Just as** the prohibition against slaughtering an animal **itself and its offspring** on the same day **does not apply to a gazelle and a hart, so too,** the prohibition against slaughtering an animal **itself and its offspring** should **not apply to disqualified consecrated** animals. Why does the *baraita* not address this issue?


###### Bekhorot 15a:10
[Bekhorot 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְמַאי מְדַמֵּית לְהוּ? אִי לְחוּלִּין — ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ, וְאִי לְקָדָשִׁים — ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to** Rav Pappa: **To what are you comparing** disqualified consecrated animals? **If** you are comparing them **to non-sacred** domesticated animals, the prohibition against slaughtering **a mother and its offspring** on the same day **applies to them. And if** you are comparing them **to sacrificial** animals, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal **itself and its offspring** also **applies to them.** Since all domesticated animals are subject to the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring, one cannot derive the exclusion of disqualified consecrated animals from this verse.


###### Bekhorot 15a:11
[Bekhorot 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, גַּבֵּי חֶלְבּוֹ נָמֵי נֵימָא הָכִי: לְמַאי מְדַמֵּית לְהוּ? אִי לְחוּלִּין — חֶלְבָּן אָסוּר, וְאִי לְקָדָשִׁים — חֶלְבָּן אָסוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa **said to him: If so,** then **with regard to its fat as well, let us state** a claim **like this: To what are you comparing** disqualified animals? **If** you are comparing them **to non-sacred** animals, **their fat is forbidden. And** if you are comparing them **to sacrificial** animals, **their fat is** also **forbidden.** Since the prohibition of fat also applies to both consecrated and non-sacred animals, by the same reasoning there is no need for the verse to teach that the prohibition of fat applies. Nevertheless, the *baraita* derives this *halakha* from the word “however.”


###### Bekhorot 15a:12
[Bekhorot 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:12)

אֶלָּא, לָאו מִי אָמְרַתְּ ״אַךְ״ וְלֹא חֶלְבָּן? אֵימַר נָמֵי ״אַךְ״ וְלֹא אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, didn’t you say** in the *baraita*: **“However,” but not their fat? Say also: “However,” but not a mother and its offspring.** With regard to both *halakhot*, which apply to domesticated but not undomesticated animals, the reason that the analogy is not extended is not due to Abaye’s claim, as the juxtaposition between the animals would teach that their *halakhot* are the same. Instead, both exclusions are derived equally from the word “however,” which serves to differentiate disqualified consecrated animals from the gazelle and the hart both with regard to forbidden fat and with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring. Interpreting the exclusion in this manner means that disqualified consecrated animals are at least comparable to sacrificial animals in that they are excluded from the mitzva of the firstborn and the priestly gifts. Had the exclusion been interpreted with regard to the mitzva of the firstborn and the priestly gifts, disqualified consecrated animals would not be comparable to any type of animal.


###### Bekhorot 15a:13
[Bekhorot 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:13)

רָבָא אָמַר: ״אַךְ״ לְאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ הוּא דַּאֲתָא, וְחֶלְבּוֹ מִ״דָּמוֹ״ נָפְקָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״רַק אֶת דָּמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a different interpretation. **Rava says:** The word **“however” comes to** exclude the prohibition against slaughtering **a mother and its offspring** from the comparison between disqualified consecrated animals and the gazelle and hart, **and** the exclusion of **its fat is derived from** the term **“its blood.” As it is written** with regard to a blemished firstborn animal: “You shall eat it…as the gazelle, and as the hart. **Only you shall not eat its blood”** (Deuteronomy 15:22–23).


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

מַאי ״דָּמוֹ״? אִילֵּימָא דָּמוֹ מַמָּשׁ, לָא יְהֵא אֶלָּא דָּמָן דִּצְבִי וְאַיָּל, אַטּוּ דָּמָן דִּצְבִי וְאַיָּל מִי שְׁרֵי? אֶלָּא ״דָּמוֹ״ — חֶלְבּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava elaborates: **What** is **“its blood”** referring to? **If we say** that it is referring to **its actual blood,** the Torah would not have had to state this explicitly, as even if **it were merely** similar to **the blood of a gazelle and a hart, is that to say** that **anyone permits the blood of a gazelle and a hart?** Since the blood of all animals is forbidden, it is already established that the blood of a blemished firstborn animal is forbidden. **Rather,** the term **“its blood”** is referring to **its fat.**


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

וְלִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֶלְבּוֹ״! אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֵלֶב״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַהֲנִי הֶיקֵּישָׁא וְאַהֲנִי קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** in that case, **let the Merciful One write: Its fat,** instead of “its blood.” The Gemara explains: **If the Merciful One had written fat, I would say: The juxtaposition** between disqualified consecrated animals and a gazelle and a hart **is effective** with regard to fat, **and the verse** itself **is** also **effective,** i.e., it can be derived from the juxtaposition and the verse together that the prohibition of fat applies to disqualified consecrated animals to a certain extent, but not fully.


###### Bekhorot 15a:16
[Bekhorot 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:16)

אַהֲנִי הֶיקֵּישָׁא לְמַעוֹטֵי מִכָּרֵת, דְּכִי כְּתַב כָּרֵת — אַאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי כׇל אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **The juxtaposition is effective in** that it **excludes** one who eats the fat of consecrated animals **from** the punishment of **excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*].** The reason is **that when** the Merciful One **writes “*karet*,” it is written with regard to one who eats the fat of a domesticated animal, as it is stated: “For anyone who eats the fat of the domesticated animal…**even the soul that eats it shall be excised from his people” (Leviticus 7:25). The juxtaposition to a gazelle and a hart would teach that the punishment of *karet* does not apply in the case of disqualified consecrated animals.


###### Bekhorot 15a:17
[Bekhorot 15a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:17)

וְאַהֲנִי קְרָא לְמֵיקַם עֲלֵיהּ בְּלָאו בְּעָלְמָא, לְהָכִי אַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן ״דָּמוֹ״, לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה דָּמוֹ בְּכָרֵת — אַף חֶלְבּוֹ בְּכָרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** at the same time **the verse** in Deuteronomy 15:23 would also be **effective, as,** if it were written: Only you shall not eat its fat, it would **establish** the consumption of the fat of disqualified consecrated animals **as a prohibition** for which one is liable **merely** to receive lashes. **For this** reason, **the Merciful One expresses** the prohibition against eating the fat using **the language “its blood,”** in order **to tell you** that **just as** consumption of **its blood** is punishable **by *karet*, so too,** consumption of **its fat** is punishable **by *karet*.** By using the term “its blood,” the Torah conveys that one is liable to receive *karet* for eating the fat of disqualified consecrated animals, i.e., that with regard to this particular *halakha* the juxtaposition does not apply at all.


###### Bekhorot 15a:18
[Bekhorot 15a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:18)

וְהָא תָּנָא ״אַךְ״, וְלֹא חֶלְבּוֹ, קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava stated that the *halakha* with regard to the consumption of the fat of a disqualified consecrated animal is derived from the verse: “Only shall you not eat its blood.” The Gemara asks: **But didn’t** the ***tanna*** of the *baraita* **say** that the word **“however”** limits the juxtaposition so that disqualified consecrated animals are not included in the mitzvot of the firstborn and the gifts, **but** they are **not** excluded from the prohibition against eating **its fat?** How can Rava suggest a different source than the one cited in the *baraita*?


###### Bekhorot 15a:19
[Bekhorot 15a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:19)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״דָּמוֹ״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר ״אַךְ״ — וְלֹא חֶלְבּוֹ, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״דָּמוֹ״, לְאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that according to Rava, **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying: Had** the term **“its blood” not been stated, I would have said** that the word **“however”** teaches: **But not its fat.** But **now that it is stated: “Its blood,”** the word “however” **comes to** teach that the prohibition against slaughtering **a mother and its offspring** on the same day applies to disqualified consecrated animals.


###### Bekhorot 15a:20
[Bekhorot 15a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/15a:20)

וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תִּזְבַּח״ — וְלֹא גִּיזָּה, ״בָּשָׂר״ — וְלֹא חָלָב, ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״ — וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ, מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And** animals whose consecration preceded their blemish **do not** completely **emerge** from their sacred status and assume **non-sacred** status in order to be shorn and to be utilized for labor. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? They are derived from a verse, **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to a verse discussing consecrated animals that developed a blemish and were redeemed: “Notwithstanding, after all the desire of your soul, you may slaughter and eat flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:15). The term **“you may slaughter”** teaches that slaughtering the animal is permitted, **but not shearing** it. Likewise, “you may eat **flesh”** teaches that its meat is permitted, **but not** its **milk.** Finally, **“you may eat”** teaches that you may eat the meat, **but** you may **not** feed it **to your dogs. From here** it is derived **that one may not redeem sacrificial** animals in order **to feed them to dogs.**