Overview
Bechorot 15 continues the distinction between:
- An animal that had a permanent blemish before it was consecrated.
- An animal that was consecrated first and developed a permanent blemish afterward.
The daf explains why the second category retains many restrictions even after redemption. Its central principle is:
An animal that once possessed full altar sanctity does not become entirely ordinary through redemption. Redemption permits its meat to be eaten, but significant elements of its former sanctity remain.
Redemption After the Animal Dies
The Gemara continues discussing the Mishnah’s ruling that an animal blemished before consecration may be redeemed even after death.
Rav attributed this ruling to Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara asks why he did not say that it reflects both Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him.
The answer depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish concerning ha’amadah veha’arakhah, the requirement that a consecrated animal stand alive before the Kohen for appraisal and redemption.
According to one understanding of the Chachamim:
- Animals consecrated for Bedek HaBayit require standing and appraisal.
- Animals possessing altar sanctity do not necessarily fall under that requirement.
Nevertheless, the latter animals may still require burial after death because consecrated animals generally may not be redeemed merely to become food for dogs. The Gemara therefore shows that burial does not necessarily prove that redemption was prevented by the technical requirement of standing and appraisal.
Why Redeemed Offerings Are Exempt from Bechorah and the Priestly Gifts
The Mishnah taught that an animal consecrated before developing its permanent blemish remains exempt after redemption from:
- The sanctity of a firstborn.
- The gifts of the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach.
The Gemara derives this from the Torah’s comparison of redeemed disqualified offerings to:
- A deer.
- A gazelle.
Just as a deer is exempt from Bechorah, redeemed disqualified offerings are exempt from Bechorah.
The additional comparison to a gazelle teaches that they are also exempt from the priestly gifts. The Gemara explains that an additional derivation is necessary because those gifts apply more broadly than Bechorah.
Why Their Milk Remains Forbidden
One might have extended the comparison to deer and gazelles and permitted the milk of these redeemed animals.
The Torah therefore uses the limiting term:
“Ach”, only.
This teaches that the comparison is incomplete. Although their meat may be eaten after redemption, their milk remains forbidden.
Oto Ve’et Beno
If redeemed disqualified offerings are compared to deer and gazelles, perhaps the prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day should not apply to them.
Abaye initially responds that the prohibition applies regardless of how they are classified:
- If treated as ordinary animals, oto ve’et beno applies.
- If treated as consecrated animals, it also applies.
Rav Pappa counters that the same reasoning should have permitted their milk. The Torah’s limitation must therefore exclude something from the comparison.
Rava concludes that “ach” excludes oto ve’et beno from the comparison, while the prohibition of their milk is derived from a separate verse.
“Its Blood” Means Its Forbidden Fat
The Torah says concerning redeemed disqualified offerings:
“Only its blood you shall not eat.”
This cannot simply refer to blood, because the blood of an ordinary deer or gazelle is already prohibited.
The Gemara therefore interprets “its blood” as referring to its cheilev, its forbidden fat.
By expressing the prohibition through the word “blood,” the Torah teaches:
Just as consuming blood incurs karet, consuming the cheilev of these animals also incurs karet.
Had the Torah merely written “its fat,” one might have thought that redemption reduced the prohibition from karet to an ordinary negative commandment.
What Redemption Actually Permits
The Mishnah said that these animals do not become completely ordinary after redemption. The Gemara derives this from:
“You may slaughter and eat.”
The verses are expounded as follows:
- “You may slaughter”, but may not shear them.
- “Meat”, but not their milk.
- “And eat”, for human consumption, according to one version, but not for feeding dogs.
Thus, redemption primarily permits the animal’s meat after proper slaughter. It does not erase every element of sanctity.
A second version interprets the verse as permitting even redemption for feeding dogs, but maintains that actual eating becomes permitted only after slaughter.
Offspring Conceived Before Redemption
The Mishnah taught that the offspring of these animals remains forbidden after redemption.
The Gemara clarifies the case:
- The mother conceived while consecrated.
- The mother was redeemed.
- The offspring was born after redemption.
If both conception and birth occurred after redemption, the offspring would simply be the offspring of an animal whose meat had already been permitted.
If the offspring was born before redemption, its sanctity would be even clearer.
The Source for the Offspring’s Sanctity
A Baraita derives from the Torah’s wording:
- “Male” includes the offspring.
- “Female” includes a substitute animal, Temurah.
- “If male” includes the offspring of a blemished consecrated animal.
- “If female” includes the Temurah of a blemished consecrated animal.
The offspring therefore acquires sanctity even though its mother was blemished.
What Happens to the Offspring After Redemption?
The Gemara asks what should be done with offspring conceived before the mother’s redemption but born afterward.
Rav Huna rules:
They are placed in an enclosure and left to die.
They cannot be offered because they arise from displaced or rejected sanctity. They also cannot be redeemed because their sanctity is not strong enough to attach to redemption money while they remain unblemished.
The Sages of Eretz Yisrael reported another solution in the name of Rabbi Chanina:
Immediately before the mother is redeemed, the owner should explicitly consecrate the fetus for the same offering as its mother.
More precisely, the fetus is designated close to the mother’s redemption while it is still connected to her.
Why Must It Be Explicitly Consecrated?
Rabbi Levi explains that this requirement is a decree:
Otherwise, people might raise entire flocks descended from consecrated mothers without properly resolving their sanctity.
Explicit designation prevents the offspring from being treated casually as ordinary animals.
May the Offspring Be Designated for Any Offering?
Ravina asks Rav Sheshet whether the fetus may be consecrated for any offering the owner chooses.
Rav Sheshet answers:
No. It must be designated for the same type of offering as its mother.
He derives this through the repeated word “bish’arekha”, comparing the offspring to a firstborn animal. Just as a Bechor cannot be reassigned to a different type of korban, this offspring cannot be designated for an offering of the owner’s choice.
A Baraita supports Rav Sheshet’s ruling.
Comprehensive Comparison of the Two Categories
The daf concludes with a detailed Baraita summarizing the contrast.
Permanent Blemish Before Consecration
Such animals:
- Are subject to Bechorah and the priestly gifts after redemption.
- Do not create liability for shearing or working them.
- Cannot create Temurah.
- Are subject to me’ilah before redemption but not afterward.
- Produce non-sacred offspring.
- May be redeemed while unblemished.
- May have their offspring designated for any desired offering.
The Baraita summarizes:
They are essentially ordinary animals in every respect, except that their value must still be raised for Hekdesh.
Consecration Before the Permanent Blemish
Such animals:
- Are exempt from Bechorah and the priestly gifts both before and after redemption.
- Retain the prohibition against shearing and working.
- Can create Temurah.
- Are subject to me’ilah before redemption but not afterward.
- Produce sacred offspring.
- Cannot be redeemed while unblemished.
- Their offspring cannot be designated for any arbitrary offering.
The Baraita summarizes:
They remain like Hekdesh in every respect, except that redemption permits their meat to be eaten.
Big Idea of the Daf
The decisive question is not merely whether the animal is presently blemished or redeemed. It is:
Did full bodily sanctity ever rest upon it?
If the animal was permanently blemished before consecration, it never became truly fit for the altar, and redemption makes it essentially ordinary.
If it was consecrated while fit for the altar, redemption removes only what is necessary to permit its slaughter and consumption. Its history of sanctity continues to affect its milk, offspring, labor, shearing, and ability to create Temurah.
Final Summary
Bechorot 15 explains the residual sanctity of an animal that was consecrated before developing a permanent blemish. Such an animal remains exempt from Bechorah and priestly gifts after redemption, may not be shorn or worked, and continues to produce sacred offspring. Its redemption permits its meat but does not erase its previous altar sanctity. By contrast, an animal permanently blemished before consecration becomes essentially ordinary after redemption, with only its monetary obligation to Hekdesh remaining.