Overview
Bechorot 16 completes the discussion of animals that were consecrated before developing a permanent blemish. The daf explains the status of their offspring and substitutions after redemption and why their former sanctity creates problems that cannot be resolved through ordinary sacrifice or redemption. The second half begins a new Mishnah concerning Tzon Barzel, a livestock investment arrangement between a Jew and a non-Jew, and examines whether the non-Jew’s financial claim exempts later offspring from Bechorah.
The Offspring of Redeemed Disqualified Offerings
The Gemara discusses the Baraita’s ruling that when an animal was consecrated before developing a permanent blemish, its offspring remain sacred and may not be redeemed while unblemished. The Baraita also states that these offspring cannot be designated for any offering the owner chooses. The Gemara infers that once they develop a blemish, they might be redeemed and that they may perhaps be designated for the same type of offering as their mother.
This appears to challenge Rav Huna, who ruled that offspring conceived before the mother’s redemption but born afterward cannot be offered or redeemed. Rav Huna answers that the Baraita’s language should not be taken as implying that redemption becomes available after a blemish. The wording only parallels the corresponding statements in the first half of the Baraita. In practice, according to Rav Huna, even after developing a blemish, these offspring cannot be redeemed because their sanctity is too weak to transfer to redemption money.
Slaughtering Outside the Temple
The Mishnah taught that one who slaughters the first category of animals outside the Temple is exempt. Rav Huna records a version in which the person is liable. He explains that the case involves an animal with a minor eye blemish, such as a membrane on the eye, according to Rabbi Akiva.
Rabbi Akiva holds that although such an animal should not initially be brought upon the altar, if it was brought up, it is not taken down. Because it retains a degree of altar fitness, slaughtering it outside the Temple can create liability.
The Temurah After Redemption
The Mishnah teaches that an animal whose consecration preceded its permanent blemish can create Temurah both before and after redemption. Rav Nachman, quoting Rabbah bar Avuha, rules that if a substitute animal was created after the original animal’s redemption, the substitute must be left to die.
It cannot be offered because its sanctity comes from an animal whose altar sanctity had already been rejected by its blemish. It also cannot be redeemed because its sanctity is not strong enough to transfer to redemption money. It therefore has no permissible route to sacrifice, redemption, or consumption.
Why Not Eat the Temurah After It Develops a Blemish?
Rav Amram challenges Rav Nachman. Why should the substitute not be treated like the Temurah of a Bechor or Ma’aser Behemah? Those substitutes may be eaten by their owner after developing a blemish without being redeemed.
Abaye answers that each Temurah follows the legal identity of its source. A Temurah of Bechor or Ma’aser retains the name and laws of Bechor or Ma’aser. Since the original may be eaten by its owner after developing a blemish, its Temurah may also be eaten that way.
By contrast, the animal under discussion is called the Temurah of ordinary consecrated property. Ordinary kodashim may be eaten only after redemption. Its Temurah therefore also requires redemption. Since this Temurah is incapable of effective redemption, it must be left to die.
Scriptural Support for Leaving the Temurah to Die
A Baraita supports Rav Nachman by deriving that the Temurah of disqualified consecrated animals must die. The Gemara examines verses concerning animals that chew the cud and animals that possess split hooves and connects them to the traditional laws of the five sin offerings that must die.
The Torah source supplements the received tradition. The tradition establishes that these animals must die, while the verse creates an explicit prohibition against eating them or links comparable categories to the same law of death.
The New Mishnah: Tzon Barzel
A Livestock Investment with a Non-Jew
The Mishnah introduces Tzon Barzel, an arrangement in which a Jew accepts livestock from a non-Jew with a fixed obligation to return their value. Because the non-Jew retains a financial claim against the herd, the offspring are exempt from Bechorah.
The immediate offspring remain exempt. According to the first opinion, later generations eventually become obligated once the non-Jew’s claim no longer reaches them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and holds that even offspring produced through ten generations remain exempt, as long as the non-Jew’s financial responsibility or security interest continues to rest upon them.
Why the Non-Jew’s Financial Claim Matters
The Gemara initially asks whether this arrangement proves that the livestock legally remains in the original owner’s possession until he receives payment. This appears difficult because a Jew may not accept Tzon Barzel from another Jew due to the prohibition of interest, which seems to indicate that the recipient is treated as the owner.
Abaye tries to distinguish between arrangements in which the recipient accepts responsibility for accidents and depreciation and those in which he does not. Rava rejects this explanation, since an arrangement in which the recipient assumes all risk would not properly be called Tzon Barzel.
Rava therefore explains that the legal ownership may rest with the Jewish recipient, but the non-Jew retains a powerful security interest. If the Jew does not pay, the non-Jew can seize the original animals. If those animals are unavailable, he can seize their offspring. Since the non-Jew’s hand remains involved in the livestock, the offspring are exempt from Bechorah.
Later Generations of Offspring
Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah disagree over how long the exemption continues. Rav Huna understands that the first generation of offspring is exempt, but the next generation is obligated unless the owner formally places the offspring in the position of their mothers as security for the debt.
Rav Yehudah holds that even the next generation remains exempt because the non-Jew normally has the right to seize offspring if the original animals are unavailable. Only a later generation, beyond the reach of that claim, becomes obligated.
The Mishnah’s statement that substituting the offspring for their mothers exempts the next generation appears to challenge Rav Yehudah. He answers that the exemption applies even without a formal substitution. The Mishnah’s novelty is that replacing the mothers with their offspring does not terminate the non-Jew’s continuing right of seizure.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s Position
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the exemption may extend even through ten generations because the non-Jew’s financial responsibility continues to affect the herd. As long as the non-Jew can collect his investment from the animals or their descendants, his ownership interest remains legally present and prevents Bechor sanctity.
An Unusual Birth
The Mishnah concludes with a familiar law: if a sheep gives birth to offspring resembling a goat, or a goat gives birth to offspring resembling a sheep, the offspring is exempt from Bechorah. If it retains some identifying characteristics of its mother’s species, however, it becomes obligated. This returns to the earlier principle that Bechor sanctity depends upon the relationship between the mother’s species and the appearance of the offspring.
Final Summary
Bechorot 16 explains that the offspring and Temurah of an animal whose sanctity preceded its blemish retain a complex and unresolved sanctity. A Temurah created after redemption cannot be offered, redeemed, or eaten and must therefore die. The daf then introduces Tzon Barzel and teaches that a non-Jew’s continuing financial claim in livestock can exempt multiple generations of offspring from Bechorah. The deciding factor is not only formal ownership, but whether the non-Jew still possesses an enforceable right to seize the animals.