## Bekhorot Daf 16a

###### Bekhorot 16a:1
[Bekhorot 16a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:1)

לְאֵתוֹיֵי חֲלָבוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
serves **to include its milk** in the prohibition, i.e., it is prohibited to consume milk of disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed.


###### Bekhorot 16a:2
[Bekhorot 16a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:2)

אָמַר מָר: אֵין נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִין, וְאֵין מַתְפִּיסָן לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. תְּמִימִים הוּא דְּלָא מִיפַּרְקִי, הָא בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין — מִיפַּרְקִי. לְכׇל שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הוּא דְּאֵין מַתְפִּיסָן, הָא לְאוֹתוֹ זֶבַח — מַתְפִּיסָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*. **The Master said** above: With regard to disqualified sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded their blemish, their offspring are sacred and **may not be redeemed** while they are **unblemished, and one may not dedicate them as any offering he desires.** The Gemara infers: **It is** only **unblemished** offspring **that one may not redeem,** which indicates that **one may redeem blemished** offspring. Likewise, **it is** only **for any offering he desires that he may not dedicate** the offspring, **but for the same offering** as the mother, **one may dedicate** the offspring.


###### Bekhorot 16a:3
[Bekhorot 16a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:3)

הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? דְּמַתְפִּיסָן לְאוֹתוֹ זֶבַח, וְנִפְדִּין בְּמוּמָן. נֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **How can you find** a situation that includes both of these inferences? They apply in a case **where one dedicates** the unborn offspring **as the same offering** for which its mother was consecrated, **and** it **may** then **be redeemed after** having developed **a blemish.** The Gemara remarks: **Shall we say** that **this is a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rav Huna,** who maintains that the offspring cannot be redeemed and rules that one must leave them to die?


###### Bekhorot 16a:4
[Bekhorot 16a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:4)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין אֵין נִפְדִּין, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים״ — תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא ״אֵין נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים״, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה״ — תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא ״לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna** could have **said to you:** The inferences upon which the refutation is based are false. Just as these unblemished offspring cannot be redeemed, **the same is true** with regard to blemished animals, **as even blemished** offspring **cannot be redeemed. And since the former clause taught** the phrase: **They may be redeemed unblemished, the latter clause also taught** the phrase: **They may not be redeemed unblemished. And since the former clause taught: As any offering he desires, the latter clause also taught: As any offering he desires.** According to Rav Huna, no inferences can be made from these rulings of the *baraita* because they were phrased in this manner for the sake of symmetry between its two sections, rather than to teach a specific *halakha*.


###### Bekhorot 16a:5
[Bekhorot 16a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:5)

וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר. רַב הוּנָא מַתְנֵי חַיָּיב, וּמוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּדוּקִין שֶׁבְּעַיִן, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is stated: **And one who slaughters them outside** the Temple courtyard is **exempt** from *karet*. The Gemara notes: **Rav Huna taught** this as: One who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard **is liable** to receive *karet*, **and he interprets it** as referring to a case involving an animal with a minor blemish, such as **on the cornea of the eye. And** the mishna is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva, who says:** Although animals with a minor blemish may not be sacrificed *ab initio*, **if they ascended** the altar **they shall not descend** and are sacrificed. Since an animal with a minor blemish is potentially suitable for sacrifice, one who slaughters it outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive *karet*.


###### Bekhorot 16a:6
[Bekhorot 16a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:6)

בֵּין לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנוֹ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: וּתְמוּרָתוֹ לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנוֹ מֵתָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? הֵיכִי לֶיעְבֵּיד? לַיקְרְבַיהּ — מִכֹּחַ קְדוּשָּׁה דְּחוּיָה קָאָתְיָא, לִיפְרְקַהּ — לָא אַלִּימָא לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנָהּ, הִלְכָּךְ מֵתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues analyzing the *baraita*, which teaches: **Whether before its redemption or after its redemption,** an animal whose consecration preceded its blemish **renders** an animal that was **a substitute** for it sacred. **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says: And its substitute** that was imbued with sanctity **after its redemption** must **die. What is the reason?** The Gemara explains: **What are we to do? Shall we sacrifice it?** It cannot be sacrificed, as **it received** its status **from** the **deferred sanctity** of the redeemed blemished animal and is therefore unfit for the altar. **Shall we redeem it?** It cannot be redeemed, as its sanctity **is not strong** enough **to be transferable** to the money for **its redemption. Therefore, it** must **die.**


###### Bekhorot 16a:7
[Bekhorot 16a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:7)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב עַמְרָם: וְתִיתְּכִיל בְּמוּמָהּ לַבְּעָלִים! וְכִי מָה בֵּין זוֹ לִתְמוּרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר? דִּתְנַן: תְּמוּרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, הֵן וּוְלָדָן וּוְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם — הֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְיֵאָכְלוּ בְּמוּמָן לַבְּעָלִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Amram objects to this: But let** the substitute **be eaten in its blemished** state **by the owners.** After all, **what is** the difference **between this** substitute **and the substitute of a firstborn or** of an animal **tithe** offering, which may be eaten? The Gemara explains the question: **As we learned** in a mishna (*Temura* 21a): With regard to **the substitute of a firstborn and** of an animal **tithe** offering, both **they,** the substitutes themselves, **and their offspring, and the offspring of their offspring, forever,** i.e., for all future generations, **are like** the **firstborn and** the animal **tithe** offering, respectively, **and** therefore **they are eaten in their blemished** state **by the owners.** Why is the blemished substitute of a firstborn or an animal tithe permitted whereas the substitute of a disqualified consecrated animal remains forbidden?


###### Bekhorot 16a:8
[Bekhorot 16a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: זֶה שֵׁם אִמּוֹ עָלָיו וְזֶה שֵׁם אִמּוֹ עָלָיו, זֶה כּוּלּוֹ תְּמוּרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר מִיקַּרְיָא, מָה בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר בְּמוּמָן מִיתְאַכְלָן לַבְּעָלִים, אַף תְּמוּרָתָן מִיתְאַכְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Amram: **This one bears its mother’s name and that one bears its mother’s name,** i.e., each substitute is subject to the same *halakha* as the animal for which it was substituted. **This** animal **is entirely called a substitute of a firstborn or** an animal **tithe** offering: **Just as a firstborn and** an animal **tithe** offering **are eaten in their blemished** state **by the owners, so too, their substitute is eaten** even when it is blemished.


###### Bekhorot 16a:9
[Bekhorot 16a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:9)

וְזֶה שֵׁם אִמּוֹ עָלָיו, תְּמוּרַת קָדָשִׁים מִיקַּרְיָא, מָה קָדָשִׁים לָא מִיתַּכְלִי אֶלָּא בְּפִדְיוֹן — אַף תְּמוּרָתָן נָמֵי לָא מִיתַּכְלִי אֶלָּא בְּפִדְיוֹן, וְהָא לָא אַלִּימָא לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** likewise, **this** substitute for a redeemed animal whose consecration preceded its blemish **bears its mothers name,** i.e., **it is called the substitute of a sacrificial** animal: **Just as sacrificial** animals **are eaten only** once they have been rendered permitted **through redemption, so too, their substitutes are also eaten only through redemption. But** the sanctity of **this** particular substitute **is not strong** enough **to be transferable** to money for **its redemption,** and therefore it cannot be redeemed. Consequently, it may not be eaten.


###### Bekhorot 16a:10
[Bekhorot 16a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:10)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: מִנַּיִן לִתְמוּרַת פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁמֵּתָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה... טָמֵא״, הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְחָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת! הָהוּא מִ״מַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה טָמֵא״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **it is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Naḥman: From where** is it derived **with regard to the substitute of disqualified consecrated** animals **that it** must **die?** It is derived from a verse, as **the verse states:** “Nevertheless, these you shall not eat, **of them that** only **chew the cud,** or of them that only have a split hoof…it is **impure** to you” (Leviticus 11:4). The extraneous phrase “impure to you” indicates that there exists an animal which possesses the signs of a kosher animal but is nevertheless prohibited in consumption, and that is the substitute of a disqualified consecrated animal. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t **that** extraneous phrase **necessary for** the *halakha* of **the five sin offerings** that are left to **die,** which may not be eaten? The Gemara answers: No; **that** *halakha* **is derived** from the phrase: **“Of them that** only **have a split hoof**…is **impure.”**


###### Bekhorot 16a:11
[Bekhorot 16a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:11)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מִנַּיִן לְחָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה... טָמֵא״. חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת, הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא קְרָא לִתְמוּרַת אָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **this is also taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that** there are **five sin offerings** that are left to **die? The verse states: “Of them that have a split hoof**…is **impure** to you,” which indicates that there is a second category of animals that possess the signs of a kosher animal, but that are nevertheless prohibited in consumption. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t the category of the **five sin offerings** that are left to **die a *halakha* learned** as a tradition, not from a verse? **Rather, when** that **verse came,** it came **to** teach that the **substitute of a guilt offering** may not be sacrificed and is left to graze until it develops a blemish.


###### Bekhorot 16a:12
[Bekhorot 16a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:12)

תְּמוּרַת אָשָׁם נָמֵי הִילְכְתָא הִיא, כֹּל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה — בָּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a further objection: The *halakha* of **a substitute for a guilt offering is also a *halakha* learned** as a tradition, as stated in the principle: **In any** case **where a sin offering** is left to **die, a guilt offering** is left to **graze.** Since the substitute of a sin offering is left to die, it is established by tradition that the substitute of a guilt offering is left to graze, and therefore no verse is required to teach this *halakha*.


###### Bekhorot 16a:13
[Bekhorot 16a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16a:13)

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת, וְאִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא וְאִצְטְרִיךְ הִילְכְתָא, דְּאִי מִקְּרָא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לִרְעִיָּיה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הִילְכְתָא לְמִיתָה. וְאִי מֵהִילְכְתָא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הֵיכָא דַּעֲבַד אִיקְּרִי וַאֲכַל מֵהָנֵי חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת — אִיסּוּרָא אִיכָּא, לָאו לֵיכָּא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיכָּא לָאו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the verse is **actually** the source for a *halakha* that applies to the **five sin offerings** left to **die. And** both **a verse is necessary and** the ***halakha*** learned as a tradition **is** also **necessary** to determine the final course of action that one should take. The Gemara elaborates: **If** the concept of the five sin offerings had been derived **from the verse** alone, **I would say** that the five sin offerings are left **to graze.** Therefore, **the *halakha*** learned through tradition **teaches us that** they are left **to die. And if** this ruling were based only **on the *halakha*** learned as a tradition, **I would say:** In a case **where one happened to eat from** one of **these five sin offerings, there is a prohibition** that he violated, **but not a negative mitzva,** for which one is liable to receive lashes. The verse therefore **teaches us that there is a negative mitzva** here as well.


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי דָּבָר הַבָּא מִמַּעֲלֵי גֵּרָה לְדָבָר הַבָּא ״מִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּמִיתָה — אַף כָּאן בְּמִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the *halakha* of the five sin offerings left to die is in fact a *halakha* learned as a tradition, and therefore no verse is required for its own sake. Rather, the verse: “Of them that have a split hoof,” serves **to juxtapose an item that comes,** i.e., that is derived, **from** the mention of animals **who chew their cud,** referring to the substitutes of disqualified consecrated animals, **with an item that comes from** animals **who have a split hoof,** referring to the five sin offerings: **Just as there,** the sin offerings are left **to die, so too here,** the substitutes are left **to die.**


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְקַבֵּל צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִן הַגּוֹי —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who receives** animals as part of **a guaranteed investment from a gentile,** i.e., the Jew receives the animals to raise them and commits to pay a fixed price at a later date even if they die or their value decreases, and the offspring born in the interim are divided between the gentile and the Jew,