## Sifrei Devarim Paragraph 124

###### Sifrei Devarim 124:1
[Sifrei Devarim 124:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/124:1)

(דברים טו יט) **כָּל הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלֵד בִּבְקָרְךָ**, מַגִּיד שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל כָּל שְׁנָתוֹ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר תָּם, בַּעַל מוּם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **כָּל הַבְּכוֹר**. מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר **לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ**, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר אָסוּר בְּגִזָּה וּבַעֲבוֹדָה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר תָּם, בַּעַל מוּם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **כָּל הַבְּכוֹר**.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
**Pisqa’ 124**³⁷³
1. “Every male *Firstling* that is born of your herds and flocks
shall you consecrate to HASHEM your God. . .
Before HASHEM your God shall you eat it*, year by year*” (Dt. 15:19-20).
**This explains that**
**the Firstling is eaten anytime**
**during its first year**.³⁷⁴
I might infer that
the rule applies only to an unblemished Firstling.
On what basis do I know that
**a blemished Firstling [may be eaten as well]?**³⁷⁵
The Teaching states:
“*Every* male Firstling” (Dt. 15:19)—
[even if it is blemished].
**Inferring from what is stated:**
**“Do not *work* the Firstling of your oxen,**
**and do not *shear* the Firstling of your flocks” (Dt. 15:19)—**
**this teaches that**
**it is prohibited to *shear* or *work* a Firstling.** ³⁷⁶
I might infer only that
this prohibition applies to an *unblemished* Firstling.
On what basis do I know that
a *blemished* Firstling [is neither worked nor shorn]?
The Teaching states:
“*Every* male Firstling” (Dt. 15:19)—
[even if it is blemished].

footnotes:
³⁷³ H:168-170; JN1:306-309.
³⁷⁴ Cf. T. Bech. 3:4. See also 124.2.
³⁷⁵ Cf. M. Bech.4:1.
³⁷⁶ Cf. 124.2


###### Sifrei Devarim 124:2
[Sifrei Devarim 124:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/124:2)

**אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלֵד** – פְּרָט לְיוֹצֵא דוֹפֶן.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
“That is *born*” (Dt. 15:19)—
**excluding one birthed from the mother’s side**.³⁷⁷

footnotes:
³⁷⁷ Cf. M. Bech.2:9.


###### Sifrei Devarim 124:3
[Sifrei Devarim 124:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/124:3)

**בִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ הַזָּכָר תַּקְדִּישׁ לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ**, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל כָּל שְׁנָתוֹ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **כָּל הַבְּכוֹר**. מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר **לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ**, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר אָסוּר בְּגִזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר, שְׁאָר כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה הַבְּכוֹר, שֶׁאֵין נוֹהֵג בְּכָל הַוְּלָדוֹת, יוֹצֵא לְחֻלִּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפִדְיוֹן וְאָסוּר בְּגִזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁנּוֹהֲגִים בְּכָל הַוְּלָדוֹת וְאֵין יוֹצְאִים לְחֻלִּין אֶלָּא בְּפִדְיוֹן, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהוּ אֲסוּרִים בְּגִזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה? לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁקְּדֻשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם וּקְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, תֹּאמַר בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵין קְדֻשָּׁתָם מֵרֶחֶם וְאֵין קְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶם עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ? מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ תַּקְדִּישׁ וְלֹא תַעֲבֹד וְלֹא תָגֹז**.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
2. “Every male Firstling that is *born* in your herds and flocks
shall you consecrate to HASHEM your God” (Dt. 15:19).
**This teaches that**
**the Firstling is eaten anytime during its *first year***.³⁷⁸
I might infer only that
a *Firstling* may be eaten anytime during its first year.
**On what basis do I know**
**to include within this rule *all other* consecrated animals?**³⁷⁹
The Teaching states:
“*Every* male Firstling” (Dt. 15:19)—
[*every* permits even consecrated animals other than Firstlings].
**Inferring from what is stated:**
**“*Do not work* the Firstling of your oxen,**
**and *do not shear* the Firstling of your flocks” (Dt. 15:19)—**
**this teaches thatit is prohibited to shear or work a Firstling**. ****³⁸⁰
**I might infer only that**
**[this prohibition] applies to a Firstling**.
**On what basis do I know**
**to include within this prohibition *all other* consecrated animals?**
**Now, reason dictates this:**
**Just as a Firstling,**
**which [status] cannot be held**
**by any other offspring of the same mother,**
**and which becomes common meat, when blemished,**
***without* the payment of a redemption-price,**
**is prohibited from being shorn or worked—**
**so, too, *all other* consecrated animals,**
**who *may* share consecration**
**with other offspring of the same mother,**
**and which *do* become common meat when blemished,**
***only* upon the payment of a redemption-price—**
**isn’t it only reasonable that**
***they* should be prohibited from being shorn or worked?**
**Not at all!**
**If you consider the Firstling,**
**whose consecration begins in the womb,**
**and whose consecration persists**
**despite suffering a permanent blemish—**
**on what basis would you consider it**
**[comparable to other] consecrated-offerings,**
**whose consecration *doesn’t* begin in the womb,**
**and *doesn’t* persist when they suffer a permanent blemish?**
**The Teaching states:**
**“*Every male* Firstling . . . in your herds and flocks**
***shall you consecrate* . . .**
***Do not work . . .* and *do not shear* . . .” (Dt. 15:19)—**
**[thus, Firstlings and other consecrated-offerings**
**are not governed by the same rules,**
**despite sharing consecrated status].**³⁸¹ 71.2

footnotes:
³⁷⁸ Cf. 124.1
³⁷⁹ Cf, 124.1
³⁸⁰ Cf. 124.1
³⁸¹ Cf. Pisqa’


###### Sifrei Devarim 124:4
[Sifrei Devarim 124:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/124:4)

**תַּקְדִּישׁ לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ**, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר **תַּקְדִּישׁ** וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר (ויקרא כז כו) ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״. [אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר תַּקְדִּישׁ, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר אַל יַקְדִּישׁ, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר אַל יַקְדִּישׁ, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר תַּקְדִּישׁ. אֱמֹר מֵעַתָּה: מַקְדִּישׁוֹ אַתָּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִלּוּי, וְאֵין אַתָּה מַקְדִּישׁוֹ] הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ. יָכוֹל אַף הֶקְדֵּשׁ בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **הַבְּכוֹר**. מָה בְּכוֹר מְיֻחָד, הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ [– אַף כָּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ]. אוֹ דָבָר שֶׁאַתָּה לֹמְדוֹ לְדֶרֶךְ אֶחָד אַתָּה לֹמְדוֹ לְכָל הַדְּרָכִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ: מָה בְּכוֹר מְיֻחָד, שֶׁהוּא קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וְנֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים, וְנוֹהֵג בִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ – אַף אֲנִי אֵינִי מְרַבֶּה אֶלָּא כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ! מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁל יָחִיד וְשֶׁל צִבּוּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **בִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ... תַּקְדִּישׁ. לֹא תַעֲבֹד... וְלֹא תָגֹז**. לֹא יָצָא בְּכוֹר אֶלָּא לְלַמֶּדְךָ: מָה בְּכוֹר מְיֻחָד, שֶׁהוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ – יָצָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
3. “*Shall you* consecrate to HASHEM your God” (Dt. 15:19)—
**R. Ishmael says:**
**[Regarding Firstlings,] one verse says:**
**“*Shall you* consecrate” (Dt. 15:19).**
**But another verse says:**
**“One shall *not* consecrate” (Lv. 27:26).**
**{Now, you can’t possibly say “*shall* you consecrate,”**
**once you’ve said “one shall *not* consecrate!”**
**Nor, can you possibly say “one shall *not* consecrate,”**
**once you’ve said “*shall* you consecrate!”**
**From this you may conclude:**
**one may consecrate a Firstling**
**according to its monetary value**
**[and donate the consecrated funds**
**for the maintenance of the Holy Abode],**
**but one may not consecrate the Firstling**
**for the Altar as any other offering,**
**[for it already carries the status of a Firstling.]**³⁸² }³⁸³ 124, n.3.
Is it possible to say that
[we permit consecration of a Firstling]
for the maintenance of the Abode,
since it is not consecrated for the Altar
[as any other offering]?
The Teaching states:
“But the *Firstling* . . .
belongs to HASHEM*;* one shall *not* consecrate it” (Lv. 27:26)—
[unlike other offerings, which are consecrated by human acts, the consecration of the Firstling occurs at birth and cannot be redesignated].
Just as a Firstling is distinctive
in its consecration for the Altar [as a Firstling],
{so, too— is everything that is consecrated for the Altar
[limited to the terms of its original consecration]?}³⁸⁴
Or, perhaps—
a matter you derive from one trait [of comparison]
can be derived as well
from other traits inherent to it?
Just as a Firstling is distinctive in that
it is a Lesser-Holy-offering,
and must be eaten within two days,
and is customarily taken from both herds and flocks—
therefore, I can only include [in its rule]
offerings with similar traits!
On what basis do I include [in its rule]
Most-Holy-offerings, and Lesser-Holy-offerings
from private individuals and from the community?
The Teaching states:
“Every male *Firstling* that is born in your herds and flocks shall you consecrate . . .
Do not work the *Firstling* of your oxen, and do not shear the *Firstling* of your flocks” (Dt. 15:19).
The Firstling is singled out [among other consecrated animals]
only to teach you that
just as the Firstling is distinctive
in that it is [consecrated from birth] for the Altar,
so, too, it’s rule excludes
animals consecrated for the maintenance of the Abode,
[but which are not consecrated from birth for the Altar].

footnotes:
³⁸² = M. Arach. 8:7.
³⁸³ F: 182. l.15-183, ls.1-3, n.1 follows GR”A’s reformulation of the bracketed material. Cf. H:442, Pisqa’
³⁸⁴ F: 183, l.4, n.3 and H:442, #124, n. 6.


###### Sifrei Devarim 124:5
[Sifrei Devarim 124:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/124:5)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: **לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ** – עוֹבֵד אַתָּה בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, **וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ** – גּוֹזֵז אַתָּה בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: **תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ** – עוֹבֵד אַתָּה בִּבְכוֹר אָדָם, **וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ** – גּוֹזֵז אַתָּה פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
4. R. Judah says:
“Do not work the Firstling of *your* oxen” (Dt. 15:19)—
but you *may* work [the Firstling] of the [gentile] outsiders; .
“And do not shear the Firstling of *your* flocks (Dt. 15:19)—
but you *may* work that of the [gentile] outsders.
R. Shimon says:
“Do not work the Firstling of your *oxen*” (Dt. 15:19)—
but you *may* work a *human* Firstling.
“And do not shear the Firstling of your *flocks* (Dt. 15:19)—
but you may shear the Womb-opener of an ass (Ex. 13:13).
I might infer only that
[it is forbidden] to *work* the Firstling of an ox
or to *shear* the Firstling of the flock..
But on what basis
is it forbidden to *shear* the Firstling of an ox
or to *work* the Firstling of the flock?
Look—you can reason as follows:
Just as, in a case where
there *is no* equivalence between
a blemished herding beast and an unblemished herding beast
as regards suitability to be offered upon the Altar,
[since only the unblemished animal can be offered],
yet they *are* equivalent as regards work
[each being suitable as long as it has not been worked]—
isn’t it reasonable that
in a case where there *is* an equivalence between
an unblemished flocking beast
and an unblemished herding beast
as regards suitability to be offered upon the Altar—
[since both are suitable,]
shouldn’t they *also* be equivalent as regards work?
And the same reasoning should apply to being shorn:
Just as, in a case where
there is *no* equivalence between
a blemished flocking beast and an unblemished flocking beast
as regards suitability to be offered upon the Altar,
[since only the unblemished animal can be offered],
they *are* equivalent as regards being shorn
[each being suitable as long as it has not been shorn]—
isn’t it reasonable that
in a case where there *is* an equivalence between
an unblemished herding beast
and an unblemished flocking beast
as regards suitability to be offered on the Altar—
[since both are suitable,]
shouldn’t they *also* be equivalent as regards being shorn?


###### Sifrei Devarim 124:6
[Sifrei Devarim 124:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/124:6)

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר בַּעֲבוֹדָה וּבְכוֹר צֹאן בְּגִזָּה. בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר בְּגִזָּה וּבְכוֹר צֹאן בַּעֲבוֹדָה מִנַּיִן? הֲרֵי אַתָּה דָן: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁל בָּקָר לְתָמִים שֶׁל בָּקָר, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – שָׁוָה לוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה, מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁוָה תָּמִים שֶׁל צֹאן לְתָמִים שֶׁל בָּקָר, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּשְׁוֶה לוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה? וְהוּא הַדִּין לְגִזָּה: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁל צֹאן לְתָמִים שֶׁל צֹאן, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – שָׁוָה לוֹ בְּגִזָּה, מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁוָה תָּמִים שֶׁל בָּקָר לְתָמִים שֶׁל צֹאן, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּשְׁוֶה לוֹ בְּגִזָּה? וַעֲדַיִן לֹא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא תְּמִימִים. בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִים מִנַּיִן? וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוָה תָּמִים שֶׁל בָּקָר לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁל בָּקָר, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – שָׁוָה לוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה, מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁוָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁל צֹאן לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁל בָּקָר, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּשְׁוֶה לוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה? וְהוּא הַדִּין לְגִזָּה: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוָה תָּמִים שֶׁל צֹאן לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁל צֹאן, לֵיאָכֵל עִמּוֹ בַּגְּבוּלִים – שָׁוָה לוֹ בְּגִזָּה, מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁוָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁל בָּקָר לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁל צֹאן, לֵיאָכֵל עִמּוֹ בַּגְּבוּלִים – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּשְׁוֶה לוֹ בְּגִזָּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ**.

**Trans. by Marty Jaffee, 2015:**
5. But we have as yet only learned
[the rule for] unblemished animals!
How do I know about [the rule for] blemished animals?
Just as, in a case where
there is *no* equivalence between
an unblemished herding beast and a blemished herding beast,
as regards suitability to be offered upon the Altar,
[since the blemished animal *cannot* be offered],
they *are* equivalent as regards work,
[each being suitable as long as it has not been worked]—
isn’t it reasonable that
in a case where there *is* an equivalence between
a blemished flocking beast and a blemished flocking beast
as regards suitability to be offered upon the Altar,
[since neither is suitable],
shouldn’t they *also* be equivalent as regards work?
And the same reasoning should apply to being shorn:
Just as, in a case where
there is *no* equivalence between
an unblemished flocking beast
and a blemished flocking beast
[as regards the latter’s] being consumed
only in the outskirts of Jerusalem,
[while the unblemished animal
is consumed only within Jerusalem],³⁸⁵ 126.2.
they are [nevertheless] equivalent as regards being shorn—
isn’t it reasonable that
in a case where there *is* an equivalence between
a blemished herding beast and
a blemished flocking beast
[as regards both] being consumed
only in the outskirts [of Jerusalem],
they should *also* be equivalent as regards being shorn?
The Teaching states:
“Do not *work* the Firstling of your herds,
and do not *shear* the Firstling of your flocks” (Dt. 15:19)—
[thus Firstling cattle are disqualified *only* by being worked,
while Firstling sheep are disqualified by shearing alone].

footnotes:
³⁸⁵ For the ritual distinction between Jerusalem and its outskirts, see Pisqa’