## Bekhorot Daf 33a

###### Bekhorot 33a:1
[Bekhorot 33a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:1)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל: הָנֵי מִילֵּי תָּם, אֲבָל בַּעַל מוּם כְּתִיב ״הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר יַחְדָּיו יֹאכְלֶנּוּ״, וּמָה טָמֵא שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אוֹכֵל בִּבְכוֹר, זָר שֶׁאוֹכֵל בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיֹּאכַל בִּבְכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel** would respond to that claim: **This statement** applies only to an **unblemished** firstborn offering, which is sacrificed upon the altar. **But** concerning **a blemished** firstborn **it is written:** “You shall eat it within your gates; **the impure and the pure may eat it alike”** (Deuteronomy 12:22; see Deuteronomy 15:22). Beit Hillel derive an *a fortiori* inference: **And if a ritually impure** priest, **who may not eat** the meat **of offerings of lesser sanctity,** nevertheless **may eat** the meat **of** a blemished **firstborn** offering, then with regard to **a non-priest, who may eat** the meat of **offerings of lesser sanctity,** e.g., peace offerings and animal tithe offerings, **is it not logical that he may eat** the meat **of** a blemished **firstborn** offering?


###### Bekhorot 33a:2
[Bekhorot 33a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:2)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְטָמֵא, שֶׁכֵּן הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדַת צִבּוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: This *a fortiori* inference **can be refuted: What** is notable **about** the case of **a ritually impure** priest? It is notable in **that its general** prohibition **was permitted** in certain circumstances, specifically **with regard to the communal service.** If there are no ritually pure priests, the sacrificial service may be performed by ritually impure priests. By contrast, it is never permitted for a non-priest to perform the sacrificial service. Accordingly, one cannot derive the *halakha* concerning a non-priest via an *a fortiori* inference from an impure priest.


###### Bekhorot 33a:3
[Bekhorot 33a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:3)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל, אַטּוּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה קָאָמַר? בַּאֲכִילָה קָאָמְרִינַן, אֲכִילַת זָר עֲדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel** would respond: **Is that to say** that the *a fortiori* inference was **stated with regard to** the sacrificial **service,** which was the subject of that refutation? Not so; rather, **we state** it **with regard to** the **eating** of sacrificial meat, and the **eating of a non-priest is superior** to that of a ritually impure priest. Accordingly, the refutation of the *a fortiori* inference is inapplicable.


###### Bekhorot 33a:4
[Bekhorot 33a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:4)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַתִּיר, וַאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? ״כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל״ — מָה צְבִי וְאַיָּל מוּתָּר לְגוֹי, אַף פְּסוּלִין מוּתָּר לְגוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* stated that according to **Rabbi Akiva,** Beit Hillel **deems** it **permitted** for non-priests, **and even gentiles,** to partake of blemished firstborn offerings. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva?** The verse states: **“Like the gazelle and like the deer”** (Deuteronomy 15:22). **Just as a gazelle and a deer** are **permitted to** be eaten by **a gentile, so too, disqualified** blemished firstborn offerings are **permitted to** be eaten by **a gentile.**


###### Bekhorot 33a:5
[Bekhorot 33a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:5)

וְאִידַּךְ? תְּלָתָא ״צְבִי וְאַיָּל״ כְּתִיבִי, חַד לְכִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, וְחַד לְכִדְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, וְחַד לְכִדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the other one,** i.e., the *tanna* who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva’s version of the opinion of Beit Hillel, who does not deem it permitted for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn offering, what is his reason? The Gemara answers that the terms **“gazelle” and “hart” are written three** times in the context of disqualified consecrated animals, in Deuteronomy 12:15, 12:22, and 15:22. **One** is required **for** the statement **of Rabbi Yitzḥak and Rabbi Oshaya, and one** is needed **for** the statement **of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar.**


###### Bekhorot 33a:6
[Bekhorot 33a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:6)

וְאִידַּךְ? מָה צְבִי וְאַיָּל פְּטוּרִים מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** verse teaches that **just as a gazelle and a deer are exempt from** the first of their offspring being counted **a firstborn,** as the verse states: “All the firstling males that are born of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19), referring specifically to domesticated animals but not undomesticated animals such as a gazelle and a deer; **so too, disqualified consecrated** animals **are exempt from** the first of their offspring being counted **a firstborn** (see 14a).


###### Bekhorot 33a:7
[Bekhorot 33a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּכוֹר אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לְנִדּוֹת, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לְנִדּוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָךְ״, מָה הָתָם נִדּוֹת לָא, אַף הָכָא נִדּוֹת לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One may not give** a blemished **firstborn** offering **to menstruating women to eat;** this is **the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: One may give it to menstruating women to eat.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason of Beit Shammai? It is written** with regard to the firstborn offering: **“And their flesh shall be yours,** as the wave breast and the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18). **Just as there,** with regard to the wave breast and the right thigh, **menstruating women** may **not** eat them, as these consecrated meats may not be eaten by a ritually impure individual, **so too here,** with regard to the firstborn offering, **menstruating women** may **not** eat its meat, as it too is consecrated.


###### Bekhorot 33a:8
[Bekhorot 33a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:8)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל: הָנֵי מִילֵּי תָּם, אֲבָל בַּעַל מוּם — ״הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר יֹאכְלֶנּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel** would respond: **This statement,** i.e., this verse, is referring only to the meat of **an unblemished** firstborn offering. Only such meat is compared to the wave breast and the right thigh. **But** with regard to **a blemished** firstborn offering, the verse explicitly states that **the impure and the pure may eat it** (see Deuteronomy 15:22).


###### Bekhorot 33a:9
[Bekhorot 33a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:9)

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאֵין טוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּטוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Shammai** would claim: **This statement,** that the ritually impure may eat the meat of a blemished firstborn offering, applies only **where the impurity does not issue upon him from his** own **body** but is contracted from an external source, e.g., from a corpse or the carcass of a creeping animal. **But where the impurity issues upon him from his** own **body,** such as in the case of a *zav* or a menstruating woman, that individual may **not** eat the meat of a blemished firstborn offering.


###### Bekhorot 33a:10
[Bekhorot 33a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:10)

דְּאַשְׁכְּחַן דְּפַלֵּיג רַחֲמָנָא בֵּין טוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ, לְבֵין שֶׁאֵין טוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ, דִּתְנַן: הַפֶּסַח שֶׁבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה — לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זָבִים וּמְצוֹרָעִין וְזָבוֹת וְנִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Beit Shammai continue: This is a valid distinction, **as we find that the Merciful One distinguishes between** a case where the **impurity issues upon** an individual **from his** own **body** and **between** a case where the **impurity does not issue upon him from his** own **body. As we learned** in a mishna (*Pesaḥim* 95b): When **the Paschal offering is sacrificed in** a state of **ritual impurity,** due to the fact that the majority of the Jewish people are ritually impure, then ***zavim* and lepers and *zavot* and menstruating women and women after childbirth may not eat from it.** The sacrificing of the Paschal offering overrides only ritual impurity imparted by a corpse; it does not override other forms of ritual impurity.


###### Bekhorot 33a:11
[Bekhorot 33a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:11)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל: הָתָם הוּא דְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ״, אֲבָל הָכָא ״טָמֵא״ סְתָמָא כְּתִיב, לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel** would respond: **It is** only **there,** in the case of the Paschal offering, that a difference of that kind applies, **as the Merciful One revealed** that only an individual whose impurity did not issue from his own body is permitted to eat the Paschal offering, as the verse states: **“Impure** by reason of **a dead body”** (Numbers 9:10). **But here,** with regard to the firstborn offering, the term **“impure” is written unspecified:** “The impure and the pure may eat it alike.” Therefore, in this case there **is no difference** between the two types of impurity.


###### Bekhorot 33a:12
[Bekhorot 33a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:12)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מַרְגִּילִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אֵין מַרְגִּילִין בַּבְּכוֹר, וְלֹא בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One may not skin an animal from its feet [*margilin*] on a Festival.** Although it is permitted to slaughter and skin an animal on a Festival, one may not skin it in such a manner that he will retain the hide intact to function as a vessel. **Similarly, one may not skin a firstborn** offering **from its feet,** even on a weekday and even if it is blemished, **nor** is skinning by way of the feet permitted **in** the case of **disqualified consecrated** animals. Such an act is considered degrading to the animal, even if the animal has been redeemed and slaughtered.


###### Bekhorot 33a:13
[Bekhorot 33a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:13)

בִּשְׁלָמָא יוֹם טוֹב — דְּקָא טָרַח טִירְחָא דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר — מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמַר אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לְנִדּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** one may not skin an animal from its feet on **a Festival, as one is** thereby **performing an effort whose** outcome **is not needed for** use on the Festival. **But** with regard to **a firstborn** offering, **who** is the *tanna* who **taught** that skinning it from its feet is prohibited? **Rav Ḥisda says: It is** the opinion of **Beit Shammai, who say** that **one may not feed** the meat of a firstborn offering **to menstruating women.** According to Beit Shammai, a blemished firstborn retains its sanctity as though it were unblemished, and must be treated in the manner of sacrificial meat. Skinning an animal from its feet is considered an act inappropriate for such meat and is therefore prohibited.


###### Bekhorot 33a:14
[Bekhorot 33a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:14)

וְלֹא בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דִּתְנַן: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת, אַחַת תְּמִימָה וְאַחַת בַּעֲלַת מוּם — תְּמִימָה תִּקְרַב, בַּעֲלַת מוּם תִּיפָּדֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the *baraita*: **Nor** is skinning by way of the feet permitted **in** the case of **disqualified consecrated** animals. The Gemara asks: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** this? **Rav Ḥisda says: It is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned** in a *baraita*: One **had before him two sin offerings** that he consecrated to achieve atonement for his sin so that in the event that one of them was lost or died the other would effect atonement. **One** of them was **unblemished and** the other **one** became **blemished** after having been consecrated. The *halakha* is that the **unblemished** offering **should be sacrificed,** whereas the **blemished** one **should be redeemed.**


###### Bekhorot 33a:15
[Bekhorot 33a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:15)

נִשְׁחֲטָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק דָּמָהּ שֶׁל תְּמִימָה — מוּתֶּרֶת, אִם מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק דָּמָהּ שֶׁל תְּמִימָה — אֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **If** the **blemished** animal **was** redeemed and **slaughtered before the blood of** the **unblemished** one **was sprinkled** on the altar to effect the atonement, the blemished animal is **permitted** to be eaten. But **if** the blemished one was slaughtered after **the blood of the unblemished** animal **was already sprinkled** upon the altar, the blemished animal is **prohibited** both in consumption and benefit. Since its owner’s atonement is effected by the sprinkling of the blood of the unblemished offering on the altar, at this stage the blemished animal must be put to death, in accordance with the *halakha* that a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering must die.


###### Bekhorot 33a:16
[Bekhorot 33a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:16)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בָּשָׂר בִּקְדֵירָה, וְנִזְרַק דָּמָהּ שֶׁל תְּמִימָה — אֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Even** if the blemished animal was slaughtered and its **meat** is being cooked **in the pot, and** only then was the **blood of the unblemished** animal **sprinkled** on the altar, the meat of the blemished animal is still **prohibited.** Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, maintains that disqualified blemished offerings retain a measure of their sanctity even after being slaughtered. Since the blemished sin offering was not yet eaten when the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled, it is considered a sin offering whose owner has achieved atonement, and therefore it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from it. The opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, accords with the ruling of the *baraita* with regard to skinning a disqualified consecrated animal from its feet.


###### Bekhorot 33a:17
[Bekhorot 33a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/33a:17)

וְרַב חִסְדָּא, לוֹקְמַהּ כּוּלַּהּ כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי! דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אֶלָּא בִּבְכוֹר, דִּקְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם, אֲבָל פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין דְּאֵין קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But let Rav Ḥisda establish the entire** *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai.** The Gemara explains: **Perhaps Beit Shammai say** that the sanctity of a blemished offering is retained **only in** the case of **a firstborn** offering, **as its sanctity is from the womb. But** with regard to **a disqualified consecrated** animal, **whose sanctity is not from the womb,** perhaps they do **not** maintain that its sanctity remains even after it has been slaughtered. It is therefore necessary to attribute the latter clause of the *baraita* to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.