Bechorot Daf 15 (בכורות דף ט״ו)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (15a)

Segment 1

TYPE: קושיא

Completing 14b’s question: Rav should have said ‘Rabbi Shimon and his disputants’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

״זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ״ מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ!

English Translation:

Since both Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis agree that an animal which was blemished before it was consecrated can be redeemed, he should have said: This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him.

קלאוד על הדף:

This finishes the question that closed daf 14. If the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon in Temura also accept that ‘otah’ excludes an animal blemished from the outset, then everyone agrees that such an animal may be redeemed after death. Rav should then have described the mishna as the view of Rabbi Shimon together with those who dispute him, not as Rabbi Shimon’s view alone.

Key Terms:

• וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ = and his disputant(s) — i.e., both sides of the dispute agree on this point
• מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ = he should have said — the formula for an expected but missing formulation

Segment 2

TYPE: תירוץ

Answer: Rav follows Reish Lakish’s account of the Rabbis, which cannot fit the mishna’s seifa

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמְרִי: רַב כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְלָא מִיתּוֹקְמָא מַתְנִיתִין כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְאִם מֵתוּ יִקָּבֵרוּ.

English Translation:

The Sages said in response that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says: According to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the Temple maintenance were included in the obligation of standing and valuation, whereas animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the obligation of standing and valuation. And therefore it is not possible to interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as the latter clause teaches: And if animals consecrated for the altar died, they must be buried even if their consecration preceded their blemish, as they are included in the obligation of standing and valuation.

קלאוד על הדף:

Reish Lakish reports the Rabbis’ view in reverse: for them, Temple-maintenance items required standing and valuation, while altar-consecrated animals did not. On that reading the Rabbis should allow redeeming even a dead animal of inherent sanctity, yet the mishna’s seifa says such animals are buried. So the mishna cannot follow the Rabbis at all, and Rav rightly attributes it to Rabbi Shimon alone. (The bracketed gloss in the English translation, ‘as they are included in the obligation of standing and valuation,’ describes why the seifa’s burial ruling fits Rabbi Shimon, not the Rabbis.)

Key Terms:

• רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ = Reish Lakish, a second-generation amora of Eretz Yisrael, colleague and brother-in-law of Rabbi Yochanan
• לְרַבָּנַן = according to the Rabbis — reporting how he understands their view
• לָא מִיתּוֹקְמָא = it cannot be established — the mishna cannot be explained this way
• סֵיפָא = the latter clause of a mishna

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Maybe the seifa’s burial is because kodashim are not redeemed for dogs? Then it would say ‘tereifa’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר: מִמַּאי דְּהָא ״מֵתוּ יִקָּבֵרוּ״ מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה הוּא? דִּלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים הוּא! אָמְרִי: אִם כֵּן, נִיתְנֵי: ״אִם נַעֲשׂוּ טְרֵיפָה יִקָּבֵרוּ״.

English Translation:

The Gemara says: From where is it known that this ruling of the mishna: If they died they must be buried, is due to the fact that they require standing and valuation? Perhaps it is because one may not redeem sacrificial animals in order to feed them to dogs. The Sages said in response: If that were so, let the mishna teach: If one of them became an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], it must be buried. Since a tereifa can be stood before the priest, the only reason to require its burial must be due to the prohibition against redeeming a sacrificial animal in order to feed it to dogs.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges this reading of the seifa: perhaps the dead animal must be buried not because it cannot be stood and valued, but because one may not redeem consecrated animals merely to feed them to dogs. The answer: if that were the reason, the mishna should have chosen a tereifa — a living animal that could be stood and valued but may only be fed to dogs. By speaking of a dead animal, the mishna shows its concern is the impossibility of standing and valuation.

Key Terms:

• טְרֵיפָה = an animal with a fatal defect, forbidden to eat even if slaughtered, but still alive
• אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים = one does not redeem consecrated animals to feed them to dogs
• אִם כֵּן = if so — introducing the consequence that refutes a suggestion

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ אחר

Alternatively: Rav follows Rabbi Yochanan and his statement is emended

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַב כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וּתְנִי: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ.

English Translation:

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were included in the obligation of standing and appraising, and therefore the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And in fact Rav taught: This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him.

קלאוד על הדף:

A second answer: Rav holds like Rabbi Yochanan, for whom the Rabbis include altar-consecrated animals in standing and valuation, so the mishna fits both Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. On this view Rav’s statement is simply corrected to read ‘this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon and his disputants.’ The Gemara thus solves the problem either by reinterpreting the Rabbis or by emending Rav.

Key Terms:

• וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא = and if you wish, say — introducing an alternative answer
• רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן = Rabbi Yochanan bar Nafcha, the leading amora of Eretz Yisrael in his generation
• וּתְנִי = and teach (the text as) — an emendation of the received wording

Segment 5

TYPE: ברייתא

Source for the exemption of pesulei hamukdashin: ‘like the gazelle’ — no bechora

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲבָל קָדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״צְבִי״, מָה צְבִי פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches: But if their consecration preceded their blemish, they are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn and from the priestly gifts. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught with regard to a verse discussing disqualified consecrated animals: “However, as you eat the gazelle and the hart, so shall you eat thereof” (Deuteronomy 12:22). Just as a gazelle is exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn, as this obligation does not apply to undomesticated animals, so too, disqualified consecrated animals are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara turns to the mishna’s second list: animals consecrated before becoming blemished are exempt from bechora and matanot even after redemption. The source is Devarim 12:22, where the Torah says redeemed disqualified sacrifices are eaten ‘as the gazelle and the deer are eaten.’ A gazelle, being a wild animal, is not subject to bechora, and the comparison transfers that exemption.

Key Terms:

• פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין = disqualified consecrated animals — sacrifices that became blemished and were redeemed
• צְבִי = a gazelle — a kosher wild animal (chaya)
• מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי = from where are these matters derived?

Segment 6

TYPE: ברייתא

‘The deer’ extends the exemption to the priestly gifts

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַיָּל״, מָה אַיָּל פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וּמִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וּמִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת.

English Translation:

The baraita continues: Based on this derivation, I will exclude consecrated animals that developed a blemish from the mitzva of the firstborn but I will not exclude them from the mitzva of the gifts. From where is it derived that such animals are not subject to the mitzva of the gifts either? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “However, as you eat the gazelle and the hart.” This teaches that just as a hart is exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn and from the mitzva of the gifts, so too, disqualified consecrated animals are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn and from the mitzva of the gifts.

קלאוד על הדף:

One might think the comparison exempts only from bechora. The additional word ‘deer’ (איל) teaches that the analogy extends to the priestly gifts as well, since a deer too is a wild animal and owes no foreleg, jaws and maw. Two animals are named, and each carries one exemption.

Key Terms:

• אַיָּל = a deer — a second kosher wild animal named in the verse
• תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = the verse teaches — introducing the scriptural source
• אוֹצִיא = I will exclude

Segment 7

TYPE: ברייתא

‘Ach’ differentiates: the fat of pesulei hamukdashin remains forbidden

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִי מָה צְבִי וְאַיָּל חֶלְבָּן מוּתָּר, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין חֶלְבָּן מוּתָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ״ — חִלֵּק.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: If so, then it follows that just as the fat of a gazelle and a hart is permitted, so too, the fat of disqualified consecrated animals should be permitted. In fact, the halakha is that the fat of disqualified consecrated animals is forbidden, like that of other domesticated animals. The baraita answers that the verse states: “However, as you eat the gazelle and the hart.” The term “however” differentiates, i.e., it serves to limit the analogy between these animals to the mitzvot of the firstborn and the gifts, and not forbidden fat.

קלאוד על הדף:

If the comparison were total, the fat (חלב) of disqualified sacrifices would be permitted, as it is for wild animals. The word ‘ach’ (however), a classic limiting term, separates them: the analogy covers bechora and matanot, but not the prohibition of fat. The rest of the amud tests exactly what ‘ach’ does and does not limit.

Key Terms:

• חֵלֶב = forbidden fats of domesticated animals — permitted in wild animals
• אַךְ = ‘however’ / ‘only’ — a limiting word in the verse
• חִלֵּק = it differentiated — the verse drew a distinction

Segment 8

TYPE: גמרא

Why would bechora be excluded before matanot? Bechora is not universal; matanot are

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר מָר: אוֹצִיא אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת. מַאי שְׁנָא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַבְּכוֹר — שֶׁאֵין שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת — שֶׁשָּׁווֹת בַּכֹּל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַיָּל״.

English Translation:

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: I will exclude consecrated animals that developed a blemish from the mitzva of the firstborn but I will not exclude them from the mitzva of the gifts. The Gemara asks: What is different about a firstborn that I would exclude only the mitzva of the firstborn, in the first stage of this interpretation? Why not exclude the mitzva of the gifts as well? The Gemara answers that the mitzva of the firstborn does not apply equally to all animals but only to males, and therefore I do not initially exclude the mitzva of the gifts, as they do apply equally to all domesticated animals, including females. Therefore, when the verse states “a hart” in addition to the gazelle, this is derived as teaching that disqualified consecrated animals are excluded from the mitzva of the gifts as well.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks why the baraita’s first step excluded bechora but not the gifts. Bechora applies only to a male firstborn, and so a single word is enough to exclude it; the gifts apply to every domesticated animal, male or female, so a separate word was needed. The stronger obligation needs the more explicit exclusion.

Key Terms:

• אָמַר מָר = the master said — quoting a line from the baraita for analysis
• שֶׁאֵין שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל = which is not uniform in all — applying only to some animals
• שֶׁשָּׁווֹת בַּכֹּל = which are uniform in all — applying to every animal

Segment 9

TYPE: קושיא

Rav Pappa: then oto v’et beno should not apply either, as with a gazelle

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי מָה צְבִי וְאַיָּל, אֵין אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּהֶן, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין אֵין אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ!

English Translation:

Rav Pappa said another question to Abaye: If one accepts the analogy between disqualified consecrated animals and the animals mentioned in the verse, then one can claim as follows: Just as the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day does not apply to a gazelle and a hart, so too, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring should not apply to disqualified consecrated animals. Why does the baraita not address this issue?

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Pappa presses the analogy further: the prohibition of slaughtering a mother and its offspring on one day (אותו ואת בנו) does not apply to wild animals, so perhaps it should not apply to pesulei hamukdashin either. Why does the baraita not address this?

Key Terms:

• רַב פָּפָּא = Rav Pappa, a fifth-generation Babylonian amora, student of Abaye and Rava
• אַבָּיֵי = Abaye, a fourth-generation Babylonian amora, head of the academy in Pumbedita
• אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ = the prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day (Vayikra 22:28)

Segment 10

TYPE: תירוץ

Abaye: whether you liken them to chullin or kodashim, oto v’et beno applies

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְמַאי מְדַמֵּית לְהוּ? אִי לְחוּלִּין — ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ, וְאִי לְקָדָשִׁים — ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ!

English Translation:

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: To what are you comparing disqualified consecrated animals? If you are comparing them to non-sacred domesticated animals, the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day applies to them. And if you are comparing them to sacrificial animals, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring also applies to them. Since all domesticated animals are subject to the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring, one cannot derive the exclusion of disqualified consecrated animals from this verse.

קלאוד על הדף:

Abaye answers that the question is misplaced. Pesulei hamukdashin are either like ordinary domesticated animals or like sacrifices, and oto v’et beno applies to both. There is no sense in which they could lose it, so no verse is needed.

Key Terms:

• לְמַאי מְדַמֵּית לְהוּ = to what do you compare them?
• חוּלִּין = non-sacred animals

Segment 11

TYPE: קושיא

Rav Pappa: by that logic the baraita would not need ‘ach’ for fat either

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, גַּבֵּי חֶלְבּוֹ נָמֵי נֵימָא הָכִי: לְמַאי מְדַמֵּית לְהוּ? אִי לְחוּלִּין — חֶלְבָּן אָסוּר, וְאִי לְקָדָשִׁים — חֶלְבָּן אָסוּר!

English Translation:

Rav Pappa said to him: If so, then with regard to its fat as well, let us state a claim like this: To what are you comparing disqualified animals? If you are comparing them to non-sacred animals, their fat is forbidden. And if you are comparing them to sacrificial animals, their fat is also forbidden. Since the prohibition of fat also applies to both consecrated and non-sacred animals, by the same reasoning there is no need for the verse to teach that the prohibition of fat applies. Nevertheless, the baraita derives this halakha from the word “however.”

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Pappa turns Abaye’s argument back on him. Fat is forbidden in both ordinary domesticated animals and sacrifices, so by Abaye’s reasoning no verse should be needed for fat either. Yet the baraita used ‘ach’ for exactly that.

Key Terms:

• אִי הָכִי = if so
• גַּבֵּי חֶלְבּוֹ = with regard to its fat

Segment 12

TYPE: מסקנא

Conclusion: ‘ach’ excludes both fat and oto v’et beno from the gazelle comparison

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא, לָאו מִי אָמְרַתְּ ״אַךְ״ וְלֹא חֶלְבָּן? אֵימַר נָמֵי ״אַךְ״ וְלֹא אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ.

English Translation:

Rather, didn’t you say in the baraita: “However,” but not their fat? Say also: “However,” but not a mother and its offspring. With regard to both halakhot, which apply to domesticated but not undomesticated animals, the reason that the analogy is not extended is not due to Abaye’s claim, as the juxtaposition between the animals would teach that their halakhot are the same. Instead, both exclusions are derived equally from the word “however,” which serves to differentiate disqualified consecrated animals from the gazelle and the hart both with regard to forbidden fat and with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring. Interpreting the exclusion in this manner means that disqualified consecrated animals are at least comparable to sacrificial animals in that they are excluded from the mitzva of the firstborn and the priestly gifts. Had the exclusion been interpreted with regard to the mitzva of the firstborn and the priestly gifts, disqualified consecrated animals would not be comparable to any type of animal.

קלאוד על הדף:

The resolution treats both cases alike: ‘ach’ limits the analogy to a gazelle so that neither the fat nor oto v’et beno is carried over. The hekesh is still needed for the leniencies it carries, bechora and matanot, but not for the prohibitions shared by every domesticated animal. The translation’s long gloss explains why the limiting word is applied to the prohibitions and not to the exemptions.

Key Terms:

• לָאו מִי אָמְרַתְּ = did you not say?
• הֶיקֵּשׁ = a hekesh, an analogy created by juxtaposition in a verse

Segment 13

TYPE: מימרא

Rava: ‘ach’ is for oto v’et beno; the fat is derived from ‘its blood’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רָבָא אָמַר: ״אַךְ״ לְאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ הוּא דַּאֲתָא, וְחֶלְבּוֹ מִ״דָּמוֹ״ נָפְקָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״רַק אֶת דָּמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵל״.

English Translation:

The Gemara cites a different interpretation. Rava says: The word “however” comes to exclude the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring from the comparison between disqualified consecrated animals and the gazelle and hart, and the exclusion of its fat is derived from the term “its blood.” As it is written with regard to a blemished firstborn animal: “You shall eat it…as the gazelle, and as the hart. Only you shall not eat its blood” (Deuteronomy 15:22–23).

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava divides the work differently. ‘Ach’ teaches only oto v’et beno, and the prohibition of fat comes from the verse on the blemished firstborn: ‘only you shall not eat its blood’ (Devarim 15:23). The next segments explain how ‘blood’ can mean fat.

Key Terms:

• רָבָא = Rava, a fourth-generation Babylonian amora
• רַק אֶת דָּמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵל = only you shall not eat its blood — Devarim 15:23
• נָפְקָא = is derived

Segment 14

TYPE: גמרא

‘Its blood’ cannot mean actual blood, since blood is forbidden even in wild animals

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַאי ״דָּמוֹ״? אִילֵּימָא דָּמוֹ מַמָּשׁ, לָא יְהֵא אֶלָּא דָּמָן דִּצְבִי וְאַיָּל, אַטּוּ דָּמָן דִּצְבִי וְאַיָּל מִי שְׁרֵי? אֶלָּא ״דָּמוֹ״ — חֶלְבּוֹ.

English Translation:

Rava elaborates: What is “its blood” referring to? If we say that it is referring to its actual blood, the Torah would not have had to state this explicitly, as even if it were merely similar to the blood of a gazelle and a hart, is that to say that anyone permits the blood of a gazelle and a hart? Since the blood of all animals is forbidden, it is already established that the blood of a blemished firstborn animal is forbidden. Rather, the term “its blood” is referring to its fat.

קלאוד על הדף:

Blood is forbidden in wild animals too, so the comparison to a gazelle could never have permitted it and the verse would be redundant. The verse must therefore be teaching something new, and Rava reads ‘its blood’ as referring to its fat.

Key Terms:

• דָּמוֹ מַמָּשׁ = its actual blood
• אַטּוּ = is that to say? — a rhetorical challenge
• מִי שְׁרֵי = is it permitted?

Segment 15

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not write ‘its fat’? Because the hekesh and the verse would each have had an effect

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֶלְבּוֹ״! אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֵלֶב״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַהֲנִי הֶיקֵּישָׁא וְאַהֲנִי קְרָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara challenges: But in that case, let the Merciful One write: Its fat, instead of “its blood.” The Gemara explains: If the Merciful One had written fat, I would say: The juxtaposition between disqualified consecrated animals and a gazelle and a hart is effective with regard to fat, and the verse itself is also effective, i.e., it can be derived from the juxtaposition and the verse together that the prohibition of fat applies to disqualified consecrated animals to a certain extent, but not fully.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks why the Torah did not simply write ‘its fat.’ Rava answers that the word ‘fat’ would have produced a compromise: the hekesh to a gazelle would still have some effect, and the verse would have its own effect alongside it. The next two segments explain what each would have done.

Key Terms:

• רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One — a name for God as the author of the Torah
• אַהֲנִי = is effective / takes effect
• הֶיקֵּישָׁא = the hekesh (Aramaic form)

Segment 16

TYPE: גמרא

The hekesh would remove karet, which is stated only for the fat of a domesticated animal

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אַהֲנִי הֶיקֵּישָׁא לְמַעוֹטֵי מִכָּרֵת, דְּכִי כְּתַב כָּרֵת — אַאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי כׇל אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״.

English Translation:

The Gemara elaborates: The juxtaposition is effective in that it excludes one who eats the fat of consecrated animals from the punishment of excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. The reason is that when the Merciful One writes “karet,” it is written with regard to one who eats the fat of a domesticated animal, as it is stated: “For anyone who eats the fat of the domesticated animal…even the soul that eats it shall be excised from his people” (Leviticus 7:25). The juxtaposition to a gazelle and a hart would teach that the punishment of karet does not apply in the case of disqualified consecrated animals.

קלאוד על הדף:

The karet penalty for eating fat is written about ‘the fat of a domesticated animal’ (Vayikra 7:25). Because the hekesh likens pesulei hamukdashin to wild animals, it would remove them from that category and so from karet.

Key Terms:

• כָּרֵת = karet — spiritual excision, the punishment for eating forbidden fat
• לְמַעוֹטֵי = to exclude
• בְּהֵמָה = a domesticated animal, as opposed to a chaya (wild animal)

Segment 17

TYPE: גמרא

The verse would leave only a lav; writing ‘blood’ teaches that fat, like blood, carries karet

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאַהֲנִי קְרָא לְמֵיקַם עֲלֵיהּ בְּלָאו בְּעָלְמָא, לְהָכִי אַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן ״דָּמוֹ״, לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה דָּמוֹ בְּכָרֵת — אַף חֶלְבּוֹ בְּכָרֵת.

English Translation:

And at the same time the verse in Deuteronomy 15:23 would also be effective, as, if it were written: Only you shall not eat its fat, it would establish the consumption of the fat of disqualified consecrated animals as a prohibition for which one is liable merely to receive lashes. For this reason, the Merciful One expresses the prohibition against eating the fat using the language “its blood,” in order to tell you that just as consumption of its blood is punishable by karet, so too, consumption of its fat is punishable by karet. By using the term “its blood,” the Torah conveys that one is liable to receive karet for eating the fat of disqualified consecrated animals, i.e., that with regard to this particular halakha the juxtaposition does not apply at all.

קלאוד על הדף:

Had the Torah written ‘fat,’ the verse would have reinstated only an ordinary prohibition punishable by lashes, and the hekesh would have removed karet. By writing ‘blood,’ which carries karet, the Torah signals that the fat is forbidden with karet just as the blood is. The hekesh therefore does not reduce the prohibition of fat at all.

Key Terms:

• לָאו בְּעָלְמָא = a mere negative prohibition, punishable by lashes
• אַפְּקֵיהּ… בִּלְשׁוֹן = expressed it in the language of
• מָה… אַף = just as… so too — the structure of an analogy

Segment 18

TYPE: קושיא

But the baraita said ‘ach’ excludes fat

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָא תָּנָא ״אַךְ״, וְלֹא חֶלְבּוֹ, קָאָמַר!

English Translation:

Rava stated that the halakha with regard to the consumption of the fat of a disqualified consecrated animal is derived from the verse: “Only shall you not eat its blood.” The Gemara asks: But didn’t the tanna of the baraita say that the word “however” limits the juxtaposition so that disqualified consecrated animals are not included in the mitzvot of the firstborn and the gifts, but they are not excluded from the prohibition against eating its fat? How can Rava suggest a different source than the one cited in the baraita?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges Rava from the baraita, which explicitly used ‘ach’ for fat. How can Rava assign the fat to ‘its blood’ and ‘ach’ to oto v’et beno instead?

Key Terms:

• וְהָא תָּנָא = but the tanna taught
• קָאָמַר = he says

Segment 19

TYPE: תירוץ

Rava’s reading of the baraita: without ‘its blood’, ‘ach’ would go to fat; with it, ‘ach’ goes to oto v’et beno

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״דָּמוֹ״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר ״אַךְ״ — וְלֹא חֶלְבּוֹ, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״דָּמוֹ״, לְאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers that according to Rava, this is what the baraita is saying: Had the term “its blood” not been stated, I would have said that the word “however” teaches: But not its fat. But now that it is stated: “Its blood,” the word “however” comes to teach that the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day applies to disqualified consecrated animals.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava reads the baraita as giving a provisional derivation. Had the Torah not written ‘its blood,’ ‘ach’ would have been needed for the fat. Since ‘its blood’ is written and covers the fat, ‘ach’ is free to teach oto v’et beno.

Key Terms:

• הָכִי קָאָמַר = this is what it means
• אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר = had it not been stated
• עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר = now that it is stated

Segment 20

TYPE: ברייתא

Why they are not fully chullin: ‘slaughter’ not shear, ‘meat’ not milk, ‘eat’ not for dogs

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תִּזְבַּח״ — וְלֹא גִּיזָּה, ״בָּשָׂר״ — וְלֹא חָלָב, ״וְאָכַלְתָּ״ — וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ, מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches: And animals whose consecration preceded their blemish do not completely emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status in order to be shorn and to be utilized for labor. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to a verse discussing consecrated animals that developed a blemish and were redeemed: “Notwithstanding, after all the desire of your soul, you may slaughter and eat flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:15). The term “you may slaughter” teaches that slaughtering the animal is permitted, but not shearing it. Likewise, “you may eat flesh” teaches that its meat is permitted, but not its milk. Finally, “you may eat” teaches that you may eat the meat, but you may not feed it to your dogs. From here it is derived that one may not redeem sacrificial animals in order to feed them to dogs.

קלאוד על הדף:

Returning to the mishna, the Gemara asks why redeemed pesulei hamukdashin may not be shorn or worked. It cites a baraita reading Devarim 12:15 word by word: ‘you may slaughter’ permits slaughter but not shearing; ‘meat’ permits the meat but not the milk; ‘and eat’ permits eating it yourself but not feeding it to dogs. This is the source of the principle, cited earlier on the daf, that consecrated animals are not redeemed to feed dogs.

Key Terms:

• תִּזְבַּח = you may slaughter — permits slaughter only
• גִּיזָּה = shearing
• וְלֹא לִכְלָבֶיךָ = but not for your dogs
• וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין = and they do not go out to full chullin status — the mishna’s heading

Amud Bet (15b)

Segment 1

TYPE: ברייתא

An alternative reading: ‘slaughter and eat’ means benefit only from slaughter onward, and redeeming for dogs is allowed

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: ״תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ״ — אֵין לָךְ בָּהֶן הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת זְבִיחָה וְאֵילָךְ, אֲבָל פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאָמַר.

English Translation:

The Gemara cites an alternative exposition. Some say that the phrase: “You may slaughter and eat,” teaches that you have permission to eat them only from the time of slaughter onward. Similarly, no benefit may be derived from them until after their slaughter. The Gemara notes: But according to this interpretation, so too, the tanna said that one may redeem sacrificial animals in order to feed them to dogs, as this prohibition is not derived from the term “you may eat.”

קלאוד על הדף:

Another version reads ‘you may slaughter and eat’ as a single rule of timing: permission to eat them, and to benefit from them at all, begins only with slaughter. Since the phrase is used for that, the prohibition of redeeming for dogs has no source, and this tanna allows it. The two versions differ on whether a redeemed sacrifice may end up as dog food.

Key Terms:

• אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי = some say — an alternative version of a tradition
• מִשְּׁעַת זְבִיחָה וְאֵילָךְ = from the time of slaughter onward
• הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה = permission to eat

Segment 2

TYPE: שאלה ותירוץ

Which offspring does the mishna forbid? Those conceived before redemption and born after

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן אָסוּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִיעַבַּר וְאִיתְיְלִיד לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן — אַמַּאי? וְלַד צְבִי וְאַיָּל נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא דְּאִיעַבַּר לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן וְאִיתְיְלִיד לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן. הָא לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן — מִיקְדָּשׁ נָמֵי קָדְשִׁי.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches with regard to sacrificial animals: And their offspring and their milk are prohibited after their redemption. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the offspring’s birth? If we say that the offspring was both conceived and born after its mother’s redemption, then why would it be prohibited? After all, they are like the offspring of a gazelle or a hart, i.e., they are completely non-sacred. Rather, it must be referring to a case where the offspring was conceived prior to its mother’s redemption and born after its mother’s redemption. One can infer: But if they were born before their mothers’ redemption, not only are they not prohibited, they are also imbued with inherent sanctity.

קלאוד על הדף:

This mirrors 14a. Offspring conceived after redemption are like a gazelle’s young, entirely non-sacred. The mishna’s prohibition must therefore refer to offspring conceived before redemption and born after it. By inference, offspring born before the mother’s redemption are fully sacred themselves.

Key Terms:

• וְלַד צְבִי וְאַיָּל = the young of a gazelle or deer — fully non-sacred
• מִיקְדָּשׁ נָמֵי קָדְשִׁי = they are also actually sacred

Segment 3

TYPE: ברייתא

Source: ‘male’ includes the offspring and ‘female’ the temura (Vayikra 3:1)

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״זָכָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַוָּלָד, וּ״נְקֵבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַתְּמוּרָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that the offspring of a sacrificial animal is imbued with inherent sanctity, derived? It is derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings: If he sacrifice of the cattle, whether male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish before the Lord” (Leviticus 3:1), that the words “male” and “female” are extraneous, as the term “cattle” includes both. Consequently, “male” serves to include the offspring of a peace offering; “or female” serves to include the female animal that is designated as a substitute for a peace offering.

קלאוד על הדף:

Vayikra 3:1 says a shelamim may be ‘male or female,’ words that seem unnecessary since ‘from the herd’ already includes both. The baraita reads ‘male’ as including the offspring of a consecrated animal and ‘female’ as including its temura: both are sacred and are offered as shelamim.

Key Terms:

• לְרַבּוֹת = to include
• וָלָד = offspring
• שְׁלָמִים = peace offerings — the subject of Vayikra 3

Segment 4

TYPE: ברייתא

‘Im zachar’, ‘im nekeivah’ extend this to the offspring and temura of blemished animals

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא וְלַד תְּמִימִין וּתְמוּרַת תְּמִימִים, וְלַדי בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין וּתְמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין מִנַּיִן? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִם זָכָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת וְלַד בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, ״אִם נְקֵבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת תְּמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.

English Translation:

The baraita continues: And I have derived this halakha only with regard to the offspring of unblemished animals and the substitute of unblemished animals. From where do I derive that the same halakha applies to the offspring of blemished animals and the substitute of blemished animals? When the verse states: “Whether male,” this serves to include the offspring of blemished animals, in a case where its consecration preceded its blemish, and when the verse states: “Or female,” it serves to include the substitute of blemished animals.

קלאוד על הדף:

The additional word ‘if’ (אם) in each phrase extends the rule to the offspring and temura of animals that were consecrated and then blemished. Their offspring and substitutes are also sacred, even though the mother herself can no longer be offered. This is the source for the mishna’s rule that such offspring are forbidden.

Key Terms:

• וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא = I have only — introducing an extension beyond the obvious case
• בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין = blemished animals
• אִם זָכָר = ‘if male’ — the word ‘if’ serves as an inclusion

Segment 5

TYPE: שאלה

What becomes of offspring born after redemption? Before redemption there is a dispute: offered or grazed

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אוֹתָן וְלָדוֹת שֶׁלְּאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, מָה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶן? לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן — מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי בְּהוּ, אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: קָדְשִׁי לִיקְרַב, וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: קָדְשִׁי לִרְעִיָּיה.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: With regard to those offspring that were born after their mother’s redemption, what will be with them, since they can be neither sacrificed nor redeemed? Before providing an answer, the Gemara notes: If they were born before their mother’s redemption, the Sages disagree with regard to the halakha. There is one who says: They are entirely consecrated, to the extent that they may be sacrificed, and there is one who says: They are consecrated to graze until a blemish befalls them so that they can be redeemed, but they may not be sacrificed.

קלאוד על הדף:

Offspring born after redemption from a pregnancy begun before it are forbidden but belong to no usable category, and the Gemara asks what is to be done with them. First it notes the dispute over offspring born before the mother’s redemption. One view says they are fully sacred and offered; the other says they graze until they are blemished and are then redeemed.

Key Terms:

• מָה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶן = what will become of them?
• קָדְשִׁי לִיקְרַב = they are sanctified to be offered
• לִרְעִיָּיה = to graze until blemished, then redeemed
• מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי = they certainly disagree

Segment 6

TYPE: מימרא

Rav Huna: they are put into a kippah to die, since they can be neither offered nor redeemed

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דִּלְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, מָה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶן? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כּוֹנְסָן לַכִּיפָּה, וְהֵן מֵתִין. דְּהֵיכִי לֶיעְבֵּיד? לִיקְרְבִינְהוּ — מִכֹּחַ קְדוּשָּׁה דְּחוּיָה קָאָתוּ, לִיפְרְקִינְהוּ — לָא אַלִּימִי לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנָן.

English Translation:

The Gemara returns to the previous inquiry: With regard to those that were born after their mother’s redemption, what will be with them? Rav Huna says: One gathers them into a chamber, and they die of starvation. The reason is that what are we to do? Shall we sacrifice them? They cannot be sacrificed, as they received their status from the deferred sanctity of the redeemed mother, and are therefore unfit for the altar. Shall we redeem them? They cannot be redeemed, as their sanctity is not strong enough to be transferable to money for their redemption.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Huna gives a grim answer: they are confined in an enclosure (כיפה) and left to die. They cannot be offered, because their sanctity comes from a mother whose sanctity was already pushed aside by her blemish (קדושה דחויה). They cannot be redeemed, because that same weak sanctity cannot be transferred onto money. They are left with sanctity that has no use and no release.

Key Terms:

• רַב הוּנָא = Rav Huna, a second-generation Babylonian amora, head of the academy in Sura
• כִּיפָּה = a vaulted chamber or enclosure where the animal is confined
• קְדוּשָּׁה דְּחוּיָה = deferred / rejected sanctity — sanctity already disqualified from the altar
• לָא אַלִּימִי = they are not strong enough

Segment 7

TYPE: מימרא

Rabbi Chanina in the West: dedicate them before the mother’s redemption; Rabbi Levi: lest flocks multiply

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: סָמוּךְ לְפִדְיוֹנָן מַתְפִּיסָן לְשֵׁם אוֹתוֹ זֶבַח. סָמוּךְ לְפִדְיוֹנָן? לְמֵימְרָא דִּבְנֵי פְּדִיָּיה נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: סָמוּךְ לְפִדְיוֹן אִמָּן מַתְפִּיסָן לְשֵׁם אוֹתוֹ זֶבַח. טַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יְגַדֵּל מֵהֶן עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים.

English Translation:

They said in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Immediately before their redemption, one dedicates them for the sake of the same offering for which their mother was consecrated. The Gemara asks: Immediately before their redemption? Is that to say that they are fit to be redeemed? It was established that they cannot be redeemed. Rather, say: Immediately before their mother’s redemption, one dedicates them for the sake of the same offering. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the offspring are not simply left as they are? Rabbi Levi says: It is a rabbinic decree, lest one raise flocks and flocks of them. In other words, if the offspring are left alive in their forbidden status, there is a concern that one might eventually derive benefit from them and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

קלאוד על הדף:

The scholars of Eretz Yisrael, citing Rabbi Chanina, prevent the problem instead: just before the mother is redeemed, the fetus is dedicated to the same offering as its mother, so that it retains full sanctity and can be offered. The Gemara corrects ‘before their redemption’ to ‘before their mother’s redemption,’ since the offspring themselves are never redeemed. Rabbi Levi explains that the Rabbis required this, rather than letting such animals live, because otherwise whole flocks of forbidden animals would build up and someone would eventually benefit from them.

Key Terms:

• בְּמַעְרְבָא = in the West — Eretz Yisrael, as seen from Babylonia
• רַבִּי חֲנִינָא = Rabbi Chanina bar Chama, a first-generation amora of Eretz Yisrael
• מַתְפִּיסָן = he dedicates them
• עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים = flocks upon flocks

Segment 8

TYPE: בעיא ותשובה

Ravina asks Rav Sheshet: may they be dedicated to any offering? No, by gezeira shava from bechor

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבִינָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַהוּ שֶׁמַּתְפִּיסָן לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין מַתְפִּיסָן. מַאי טַעְמָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גָּמַר ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״ ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״ מִבְּכוֹר, מָה בְּכוֹר אֵין מַתְפִּיסָן לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, דִּכְתִיב: ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר יְבֻכַּר לַה׳ בִּבְהֵמָה וְגוֹ׳ לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ אִישׁ אֹתוֹ״, אַף הָנֵי אֵין מַתְפִּיסָן לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה.

English Translation:

Ravina raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: According to Rabbi Ḥanina, what is the halakha with regard to the following matter: Can one dedicate the unborn offspring as any offering he desires? Rav Sheshet said to him: He may not dedicate them as any offering other than that for which the mother was consecrated. Ravina asked: What is the reason? Rav Sheshet said to him: It is derived by a verbal analogy between the phrase: “Within all your gates” (Deuteronomy 12:15), and: “Within your gates” (Deuteronomy 15:22), written with regard to a firstborn. Just as one cannot dedicate a firstborn as any offering he desires, as it is written: “But the firstborn among animals, which is born as a firstborn to the Lord, no man shall sanctify it” (Leviticus 27:26), so too, one cannot dedicate these offspring as any offering he desires.

קלאוד על הדף:

Ravina asks whether the fetus may be dedicated to any offering the owner chooses. Rav Sheshet says it may not, deriving this from the gezeira shava ‘within your gates’ (Devarim 12:15, 15:22), which links it to the firstborn. A bechor cannot be consecrated as a different offering (‘no man shall sanctify it,’ Vayikra 27:26), and these offspring likewise can go only to their mother’s offering.

Key Terms:

• רָבִינָא = Ravina, a Babylonian amora of the fifth-sixth generation
• רַב שֵׁשֶׁת = Rav Sheshet, a third-generation Babylonian amora known for his command of baraitot
• בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ = within your gates — the phrase linking the two passages
• לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה = to any offering he wishes

Segment 9

TYPE: ברייתא

A baraita supporting Rav Sheshet — blemish-first animals: bechora and matanot, no lashes, no temura

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּישָׁן וְנִפְדּוּ — חַיָּיבִין בַּבְּכוֹרָה וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת, בֵּין לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן בֵּין לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן — הַגּוֹזֵז וְהָעוֹבֵד בָּהֶן אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, בֵּין לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן בֵּין לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן — אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet: Sacrificial animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration and that were redeemed, are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, and obligated in the gifts. Whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one who shears them or utilizes them for labor does not incur the forty lashes. Similarly, whether before their redemption or after their redemption, they do not render an animal that was a substitute for them sacred.

קלאוד על הדף:

The supporting baraita sets out the two categories point by point. An animal blemished before consecration is obligated in bechora and matanot once redeemed. Shearing or working it carries no Torah lashes either before or after redemption, since any prohibition is rabbinic. It never makes a temura. This matches the mishna and adds the before-and-after detail.

Key Terms:

• תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ = it was taught in a baraita in accordance with him
• סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים = receives the forty (in practice thirty-nine) lashes
• בֵּין לִפְנֵי… בֵּין לְאַחַר = whether before… or after

Segment 10

TYPE: ברייתא

Continued: me’ilah before redemption only, offspring chullin, redeemed unblemished, any offering — ‘like chullin except for valuation’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן — מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וּלְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן — אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וּוַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן — חוֹל, וְנִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים, וּמַתְפִּיסָן לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, אֵין לְךָ בָּהֶם אֶלָּא מִצְוַת עִלּוּי בִּלְבָד.

English Translation:

And before their redemption, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and after their redemption, one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. And their offspring are non-sacred if they were born after their mother’s redemption; and they may be redeemed while they are unblemished if they were born before their mother’s redemption; and one can dedicate the offspring as any offering he desires. The principle of the matter is that animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration are like non-sacred animals in all matters, and you have only the mitzva of value alone, i.e., they must be valuated and redeemed with money, unlike non-sacred animals.

קלאוד על הדף:

Before redemption, benefiting from the animal is me’ilah, since its value belongs to the Temple; after redemption it is not. Its offspring are non-sacred, may be redeemed while unblemished, and may be dedicated to any offering. The summary is that such animals are like chullin in every respect except the requirement to value and redeem them.

Key Terms:

• מוֹעֲלִין = one commits me’ilah, the misuse of consecrated property
• עִלּוּי = valuation, appraisal for redemption
• כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר = the general principle of the matter

Segment 11

TYPE: ברייתא

The contrasting case — consecration first: exempt from bechora and matanot, lashes for shearing and labor, temura applies

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲבָל קָדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, אוֹ מוּם עוֹבֵר לְהֶקְדֵּישָׁן, וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן נוֹלַד מוּם קָבוּעַ וְנִפְדּוּ — פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וּמִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, בֵּין לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן בֵּין לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן. הַגּוֹזֵז וְהָעוֹבֵד בָּהֶן סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, וּבֵין לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן בֵּין לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן — עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה.

English Translation:

The baraita continues: But if their consecration preceded their blemish, or they had a temporary blemish prior to their consecration and afterward developed a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn and from the gifts. Furthermore, whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one who shears them or utilizes them for labor incurs the forty lashes. And whether before their redemption or after their redemption, they render an animal that was a substitute for them sacred.

קלאוד על הדף:

When consecration came first, or the blemish at consecration was only temporary, everything reverses. After redemption the animal is still exempt from bechora and matanot. Shearing or working it carries Torah lashes whether before or after redemption. It makes a temura.

Key Terms:

• מוּם עוֹבֵר = a temporary blemish
• עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה = they effect substitution

Segment 12

TYPE: ברייתא

Concluded: offspring sacred, not redeemed unblemished, not for any offering — ‘like hekdesh except for eating’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לִפְנֵי פִּדְיוֹנָן — מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וּלְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן — אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וּוַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן קוֹדֶשׁ, וְאֵין נִיפְדִּין תְּמִימִין, וְאֵין מַתְפִּיסָן לְכׇל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: הֲרֵי הֵן כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, וְאֵין לָךְ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה בִּלְבָד.

English Translation:

The baraita concludes: Before their redemption, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and after their redemption, one who derives benefit from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. And 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 principle of the matter is that redeemed animals whose consecration preceded their permanent blemish are like redeemed sacrificial animals in all matters, and you have only the permission of consumption alone, i.e., once they have been redeemed they may be eaten. Like Rav Sheshet, this tanna rules that the offspring of animals whose consecration preceded their blemish may not be dedicated as any offering one desires.

קלאוד על הדף:

Me’ilah again applies only before redemption. Here, though, the offspring are sacred, cannot be redeemed while unblemished, and cannot be dedicated to any offering one chooses. That last point supports Rav Sheshet. The summary is that such animals are like consecrated property in every respect, except that after redemption they may be eaten.

Key Terms:

• כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ = like consecrated property
• הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה בִּלְבָד = only permission to eat

Segment 13

TYPE: גמרא

What each ‘klalo shel davar’ adds: the reisha adds exemption for slaughtering outside; the seifa… (continues on 16a)

Hebrew/Aramaic:

״כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר״ דְּרֵישָׁא — לְאֵתוֹיֵי שׁוֹחֲטָן בְּחוּץ דְּפָטוּר, ״כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר״ דְּסֵיפָא —

English Translation:

It is accepted that whenever a tanna states: The principle of the matter, he is adding certain cases that one might have thought were excluded from the halakha in question. Accordingly, the Gemara notes that the phrase: The principle of the matter, in the former clause of the baraita, which states that that animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration are like non-sacred animals, serves to add the case of one who slaughters such an animal outside the Temple courtyard, teaching that he is exempt. The phrase: The principle of the matter, in the latter clause, which states that that redeemed animals whose consecration preceded their permanent blemish are like redeemed sacrificial animals in all matters,

קלאוד על הדף:

A ‘klalo shel davar’ in a baraita always adds cases. The reisha’s principle (‘like chullin in all respects’) adds that one who slaughters such an animal outside the courtyard is exempt. The daf breaks off in the middle of explaining what the seifa’s principle adds; the answer comes on 16a.

Key Terms:

• רֵישָׁא = the first clause
• לְאֵתוֹיֵי = to include / to add
• שׁוֹחֲטָן בְּחוּץ = one who slaughters them outside the courtyard

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 15 answers the question left open at the end of daf 14 and then works through the second list of the mishna: animals whose consecration came before their blemish. The daf opens by explaining why Rav credited the clause “if they died they are redeemed” to R’ Shimon alone and did not write “R’ Shimon and his disputants.” The gemara gives two answers, one following Reish Lakish’s account of the Rabbis and one following R’ Yochanan’s. The gemara then asks where each ruling about פסולי המוקדשין (disqualified consecrated animals) comes from. The exemption from bechora and matanot is derived from the comparison to the צבי ואיל (gazelle and hart) in Devarim 12:22, and the word “אך” limits that comparison. Rav Pappa and Abaye argue over whether the comparison should also cancel אותו ואת בנו, and Rava offers another derivation: “דמו” in Devarim 15:23 means the fat, and it teaches karet. Devarim 12:15 is the source that such animals may not be shorn, their milk is forbidden, and they may not be fed to dogs. On 15b the daf deals with offspring. Vayikra 3:1 makes the offspring and temura of shelamim holy, even when the animal is blemished. The gemara then asks what to do with offspring conceived before the mother’s redemption and born after it, which can be neither offered nor redeemed. Rav Huna, R’ Chanina in the West and Rav Sheshet each give an answer, and a baraita compares the two categories of the mishna point by point. The daf ends in the middle of that baraita’s analysis.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• Why “R’ Shimon” alone: Rav follows Reish Lakish. In his account of the Rabbis, קדשי בדק הבית were included in העמדה והערכה (standing and valuation) but קדשי מזבח were not. On that view the mishna’s later clause “if they died they are buried” cannot be the Rabbis’ opinion.
• The tereifa argument: perhaps burial is required only because one may not redeem kodashim to feed them to dogs? If so, the mishna should have written “if they became tereifa they are buried,” since a tereifa can still stand before the priest. Death must be the issue because of העמדה.
• Second answer: Rav follows R’ Yochanan, who holds that the Rabbis did include kodshei mizbe’ach in העמדה והערכה. On this view the text is emended to read “R’ Shimon and his disputants.”
• Bechora and matanot: a baraita reads “אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי ואת האיל” (Devarim 12:22). “צבי” exempts pesulei hamukdashin from bechora. “איל” adds the matanot, which apply to females as well as males and so needed a separate source. “אך” stops the comparison from permitting their חלב (forbidden fat).
• Rav Pappa vs. Abaye: should the comparison to deer also exempt them from אותו ואת בנו (slaughtering a mother and its young on the same day)? Abaye answers that whether they are compared to chullin or to kodashim, the prohibition applies either way. Rav Pappa replies that the same argument would work for chelev. He concludes that “אך” excludes both chelev and אותו ואת בנו.
• Rava’s derivation: “אך” excludes only אותו ואת בנו, and the prohibition of fat comes from “רק את דמו לא תאכל” (Devarim 15:23). Actual blood needs no verse, since it is forbidden in every animal, so “דמו” must mean the fat. The Torah did not write “חלבו” because the hekesh would then remove karet and the verse would add only a lav. Writing “דמו” teaches that the fat carries karet, just like blood.
• Reconciling with the baraita: according to Rava, “אך” would have excluded chelev only if “דמו” had not been written. Since it is written, “אך” teaches אותו ואת בנו.
• Shearing, milk, dogs: in Devarim 12:15, “תזבח” means slaughter and not shearing. “בשר” means meat and not milk. “ואכלת” means you may eat it, not your dogs. From this the gemara learns that one may not redeem kodashim to feed them to dogs.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Alternative reading: others read “תזבח ואכלת” as saying the animal is permitted only from slaughter onward. On that reading, redeeming kodashim to feed them to dogs is permitted.
• Offspring forbidden after redemption: offspring both conceived and born after redemption are like the young of a deer and are fully chullin. The mishna must therefore mean offspring conceived before redemption and born after it. Offspring born before redemption are holy.
• Source: in Vayikra 3:1, “זכר” includes the offspring and “נקבה” includes the temura. “אם זכר” and “אם נקבה” extend this to the offspring and temura of blemished animals.
• Born before redemption: there is a dispute whether these offspring are קדשי ליקרב (offered on the altar) or קדשי לרעייה (left to graze until blemished).
• Born after redemption: Rav Huna says they are put into a כיפה (confined chamber) to die. They cannot be offered, because they came from a קדושה דחויה (deferred sanctity), and their sanctity is too weak for redemption money to take hold.
• R’ Chanina in the West: just before the mother’s redemption (the text is emended from “their redemption”), one dedicates the fetus to the same offering as the mother. R’ Levi explains that this is a decree, lest one raise whole flocks of them.
• Ravina asks Rav Sheshet whether they may be dedicated to any offering one wishes. Rav Sheshet says no. He derives this from the גזירה שוה “בשעריך”/“בשעריך” (Devarim 12:15 and 15:22), which links them to bechor, and a bechor cannot be dedicated to another offering (Vayikra 27:26).
• Supporting baraita: it compares the two categories point by point.
  • Blemish first: the animal is obligated in bechora and matanot. There are no lashes for shearing or labor, and it makes no temura. Me’ila (misuse of sacred property) applies only before redemption. Its offspring are chullin, can be redeemed while unblemished, and may be dedicated to any offering. It is “like chullin in everything” except the mitzva of עילוי (valuation).
  • Consecration first: the animal is exempt from bechora and matanot. There are forty lashes for shearing or labor, and it makes a temura. Its offspring are holy, cannot be redeemed while unblemished, and cannot be dedicated to any offering. It is “like hekdesh in everything” except that it may be eaten.
• “כללו של דבר”: in the reisha, the general principle adds the case of one who slaughters the animal outside, who is exempt. The daf breaks off just as the gemara begins to explain what the seifa’s כללו של דבר adds. The answer comes on 16a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

Rav’s attribution to R’ Shimon is explained in two ways: according to Reish Lakish, or with an emended text according to R’ Yochanan. Pesulei hamukdashin are exempt from bechora and matanot because of the comparison to the gazelle and hart. That comparison stops short of אותו ואת בנו and of chelev, and according to Rava eating their chelev carries karet. Shearing, milk and feeding to dogs are forbidden by Devarim 12:15, though one opinion reads that verse differently. The offspring and temura of shelamim, including blemished ones, are holy. Offspring caught between the two states are handled by Rav Huna’s כיפה or by R’ Chanina’s early dedication, and Rav Sheshet limits that dedication to the mother’s own offering. A baraita supports his ruling. The daf ends mid-sentence, before the gemara states what the seifa’s כללו של דבר comes to add.

Key Figures

Tannaim: R’ Shimon, the Rabbis (Chachamim), the tanna of the baraitot

Amoraim: Rav, Reish Lakish, R’ Yochanan, Rav Pappa, Abaye, Rava, Rav Huna, R’ Chanina, R’ Levi, Ravina, Rav Sheshet

One-Line Takeaway

A redeemed animal that was consecrated before its blemish is permitted only for eating, and the daf shows how far its remaining holiness reaches: into its fat, its milk, its wool and its unborn young.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Yesterday’s daf ended on a cliffhanger, and today we finally get the answer! Then the Gemara digs into the rest of the mishna: what happens to a holy animal that got a blemish and was redeemed? Is it like a wild deer? Can you shear it? And what on earth do we do with its babies? It ends with a big side-by-side chart of the two kinds of holy animals.

Quick Recap: Two Kinds of Holy 🏷️

Remember the two kinds of holiness from daf 14?

קדושת הגוף (kedushat haguf — “holiness of the body”) means the animal itself is holy. It was perfect when dedicated, and that holiness sticks to its body even if it later gets a blemish.

קדושת דמים (kedushat damim — “holiness of value”) means only its money value is holy. That’s what happens when someone dedicates an animal that is already blemished.

Today we meet a special name for the first kind once it gets a blemish: פסולי המוקדשין (pesulei hamukdashin — “disqualified holy animals”). These were perfect, holy offerings that got a permanent blemish, so they can’t go on the altar anymore. They get redeemed (bought out of holiness with money) and then people can eat them. But, as we’ll see, they never become 100% ordinary.

The Simple Idea 💡: A “disqualified holy animal” was once a perfect offering, got blemished, and was redeemed — but it carries leftover holiness with it.

Solving the Cliffhanger 🔍

Here’s the puzzle from yesterday. The mishna says a blemished-from-the-start animal that dies can still be redeemed. Rav said: “That’s Rabbi Shimon’s opinion.”

But the Gemara asked: other Sages might agree with this part too! So why didn’t Rav say “This is Rabbi Shimon and those who argue with him”? Why pin it on Rabbi Shimon alone?

Quick reminder of a key idea: העמדה והערכה (ha’amadah veha’arachah — “standing and valuation”). Some holy animals have to be stood in front of a kohen (priest), who values them, before they can be redeemed. A dead animal can’t stand, so if it needed standing, it must be buried instead.

Answer #1: Rav follows Reish Lakish. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish (Reish Lakish) says that according to the other Sages:

• Animals for בדק הבית (bedek habayit — the Temple repair fund) needed standing and valuation.
• Animals for the altar did not.

Now look at the end of our mishna. It says that altar animals that were holy-then-blemished must be buried if they die. That only makes sense if altar animals need standing! According to Reish Lakish’s version of the Sages, they don’t. So the Sages can’t explain the whole mishna. Only Rabbi Shimon fits both halves. That’s why Rav named only him!

But wait! Maybe the mishna says “bury them” for a different reason. There’s a rule: you may not redeem holy animals just to feed them to dogs. Maybe that’s why they’re buried?

The Gemara says no. If that were the reason, the mishna would have used a better example: a טריפה (tereifa — an animal with a fatal injury, which can’t be eaten by people). A tereifa is still alive, so it can stand before the kohen. The only reason to bury it would be “no redeeming for dogs.” Since the mishna chose a dead animal instead, its point must be about standing.

Answer #2: Rav follows Rabbi Yochanan. Or maybe Rav agrees with Rabbi Yochanan, who says the Sages did require standing for altar animals. Then the Sages fit the mishna fine, and we simply fix the wording: Rav really said “This is Rabbi Shimon and those who argue with him.”

Think of it like… a quiz where only one student got both questions right. If the teacher gives the prize only to him, it’s because the others missed the second question — or maybe the teacher really did say “him and his friends” and we heard it wrong.

The Simple Idea 💡: Either only Rabbi Shimon fits both halves of the mishna (Reish Lakish’s view), or Rav’s words should be corrected to include the other Sages (Rabbi Yochanan’s view).

Like the Gazelle and the Deer 🦌

Now the mishna says: holy-then-blemished animals, once redeemed, are exempt from בכורה (bechora — the rule that a firstborn goes to the kohen) and from מתנות (matanot — the foreleg, jaw and stomach a kohen gets from an ordinary slaughtered animal).

Where do we learn that? From a verse about these disqualified animals (Devarim 12:22): “As you eat the gazelle and the deer, so shall you eat it.”

A צבי (tzvi — gazelle) and an איל (ayal — deer, or hart) are wild animals. And the bechor and matanot rules apply only to domesticated animals: cows, sheep and goats.

So the baraita reads the verse step by step:

• “Gazelle” teaches: just as a gazelle has no bechora, neither does a disqualified holy animal.
• “Deer” adds: just as a deer has no bechora and no matanot, neither does a disqualified holy animal.

Why did we need a second word for the matanot? Because bechora is a “narrower” rule — it only applies to males (a firstborn male). Matanot apply to every animal, male and female. So you might think the verse only removed the narrow rule. The word “deer” tells us it removes the wide one too.

Think of it like… a club card that says “you get treated like a guest.” A guest doesn’t pay membership fees or monthly dues. The rule removes both.

The Simple Idea 💡: Comparing disqualified holy animals to wild animals exempts them from the firstborn rule and the kohen’s gifts.

But Not the Fat! 🥩

But wait! If they’re just like a gazelle, what about חלב (chelev — certain fats of a cow, sheep or goat that the Torah forbids eating)? Wild animals’ fat is permitted! Does that mean the fat of a disqualified holy animal is permitted too?

No! The verse begins with the word “אך” (ach — “however” or “only”). In Gemara-language, “ach” is a limiter. It puts a fence around the comparison. So the gazelle comparison works for bechora and gifts, but not for the fat. The fat stays forbidden.

The Simple Idea 💡: The little word “however” stops the comparison before it permits the forbidden fat.

Rav Pappa and Abaye: What About a Mother and Her Baby? 👩‍👧

There’s another rule that applies only to domesticated animals: אותו ואת בנו (oto v’et beno — “it and its child”). You may not slaughter a mother animal and her baby on the same day. That rule doesn’t apply to wild animals like deer.

So Rav Pappa asks Abaye: by the gazelle comparison, shouldn’t oto v’et beno not apply to disqualified holy animals? Why doesn’t the baraita deal with that?

Abaye answers: What are you comparing them to? If you compare them to ordinary animals, oto v’et beno applies. If you compare them to holy animals, oto v’et beno applies too. Either way it applies — there’s nothing to discuss!

Rav Pappa fires back: Then say the same thing about the fat! Ordinary animals’ fat is forbidden, and holy animals’ fat is forbidden. Either way it’s forbidden. Yet the baraita still needed “ach” to keep the fat forbidden!

So Rav Pappa concludes: just as “ach” keeps the fat forbidden, say “ach” also keeps oto v’et beno in place. One little word, two jobs.

Think of it like… two kids arguing. One says, “You don’t need a rule for that — it’s obvious!” The other says, “Then why did the grown-ups write a rule for the other obvious thing? Same logic, same rule!”

The Simple Idea 💡: Rav Pappa shows Abaye’s argument proves too much, so “however” must cover both the fat and the mother-and-baby rule.

Rava’s Clever Trick: “Its Blood” Means Its Fat 🩸

Rava splits the jobs differently. He says: “ach” is for oto v’et beno. The fat comes from somewhere else!

About a blemished bechor, the Torah says (Devarim 15:23): “Only you shall not eat its blood.”

Rava asks: why say that? Blood is forbidden from every animal — even a gazelle and a deer! It’s totally obvious. So “its blood” here must secretly mean its fat.

But wait! If the Torah meant fat, why not just write “fat”? Here’s the clever part. We need two more words:

• כרת (karet — “being cut off,” a very serious spiritual punishment from Heaven).
• לאו (lav — a plain prohibition, usually punished by lashes).

Eating forbidden fat normally brings karet. But the karet verse talks about fat “of the בהמה” (behemah — a domesticated animal). Now, if the Torah had written “don’t eat its fat,” we’d get a mixed-up result:

• The היקש (hekesh — a comparison the Torah makes by placing two things side by side, here “like a gazelle”) would pull the animal away from being a normal domestic animal, so we’d say: no karet.
• The verse itself would still forbid it, so we’d say: just a plain lav.

Half-strength! Instead, the Torah wrote “its blood.” Eating blood brings karet. So the message is: just as its blood brings karet, its fat brings karet too. Full strength. No discount.

And what about the baraita that used “ach” for the fat? Rava explains: if the Torah hadn’t written “its blood,” I’d have used “ach” for the fat. But now that “its blood” covers the fat, “ach” is free to teach oto v’et beno.

Think of it like… a teacher who wants to say “this is as serious as cheating” — so instead of writing “don’t copy homework,” she writes “copying homework is cheating.” Using the scarier word tells you exactly how serious it is.

The Simple Idea 💡: The Torah says “blood” instead of “fat” to teach that eating this fat carries the full punishment of karet, not just a lighter penalty.

Slaughter — Not Shear; Meat — Not Milk; Eat — Not for Your Dogs ✂️🥛🐕

The mishna also says these animals never become fully ordinary: you can’t shear them (cut their wool) or work them. Where’s that from?

From Devarim 12:15: “You may slaughter and eat meat.” The baraita reads each word like a key:

That last one gives us a famous rule: you may not redeem holy animals just to feed them to dogs. Holy things shouldn’t become dog food!

But wait — there’s another way to read it! Some say “slaughter and eat” means: you’re allowed to eat (and use) the animal only from the moment of slaughter onward. Before slaughter — hands off. According to this reading, the word “eat” isn’t used for the dog rule, so this Tanna would say you may redeem holy animals to feed to dogs.

Think of it like… a birthday cake you’re only allowed to enjoy after it’s been properly cut at the party. You can’t lick the frosting beforehand!

The Simple Idea 💡: Each word of the verse limits what you can do with a disqualified holy animal: slaughter it and eat its meat, but no shearing, no milk and (by one reading) no dog food.

Babies Conceived Before, Born After 🐣

The mishna says the babies and milk of holy-then-blemished animals are forbidden even after the mother is redeemed. Which babies?

If the baby was conceived and born after redemption — why forbid it? That’s like the baby of a gazelle or deer! Totally ordinary.

So the mishna must mean: conceived before redemption, born after. That baby is forbidden.

And what if the baby was born before the mother was redeemed? Then it’s even more than forbidden — it’s actually holy itself!

The Simple Idea 💡: A baby that started growing while its mother was holy, but was born after she was redeemed, is forbidden.

”Male or Female” 🐄

How do we know the babies of holy animals are holy? From Vayikra 3:1, about a shelamim (peace offering): “whether male or female.”

The Gemara notices those words are extra — “cattle” already includes both! So:

• “Male” includes the offspring of a holy animal.
• “Female” includes the תמורה (temura — “substitute”: if you try to swap a holy animal for another, the new animal becomes holy too).

And the little word “if” (“if male,” “if female”) stretches it further: even the babies and substitutes of blemished holy animals (holy first, blemished later) are holy.

The Simple Idea 💡: Two “extra” words in the Torah teach that a holy animal’s babies and swaps are holy too — even if the mother was blemished.

The Stuck Babies 😢

Now a sad puzzle. What about babies conceived before and born after the mother’s redemption? What do we do with them?

(Babies born before redemption are argued about: one opinion says they can go on the altar; another says they just graze until they get a blemish and then get redeemed.)

But the “after” babies are truly stuck:

• Offer them? No. Their holiness came from a mother whose holiness was already “pushed aside” by her blemish, so they’re not fit for the altar.
• Redeem them? No. Their holiness is too weak to “jump” onto money.

So Rav Huna gives a grim answer: put them in a closed room, and they die there.

Think of it like… a letter with no valid address and no return address. It can’t be delivered, and it can’t be sent back. It’s stuck in the post office forever.

The Simple Idea 💡: These babies can’t be offered and can’t be redeemed, so Rav Huna says they are simply left to die.

Rabbi Chanina’s Fix and Rabbi Levi’s Reason 🛠️

The Sages of Eretz Yisrael (called “the West”) quote Rabbi Chanina with a better plan. Right before redeeming the mother, you dedicate the unborn babies for the same offering she was dedicated for. That way they get a clean, strong holiness of their own, and they’re not stuck.

(The Gemara first quotes it as “right before their redemption,” but corrects it — the babies can’t be redeemed! It means right before the mother’s redemption.)

Why go to this trouble? Rabbi Levi explains: it’s a גזירה (gezeira — a rabbinic safety rule). If we left these forbidden babies alive, someone might end up raising “flocks and flocks” of them! Sooner or later, people would use them — shear them, milk them, work them — and break a Torah prohibition.

Think of it like… a gardener who pulls one weed before it spreads. Leave it, and next year there’s a whole field of weeds.

The Simple Idea 💡: Dedicating the babies before the mother is redeemed avoids the stuck-baby problem and prevents whole forbidden flocks from growing.

Not Any Offering You Like 🎁

Ravina asks Rav Sheshet: when you dedicate these unborn babies, can you choose any offering you like? Maybe the mother was a shelamim, but you want the baby to be an olah (a burnt offering)?

Rav Sheshet says no. It must be the same offering as the mother.

Why? A גזירה שוה (gezeira shava — a link between two verses that share the same word). Disqualified holy animals are described with the word “in your gates” (Devarim 12:15), and so is the bechor (firstborn) (Devarim 15:22).

And about the bechor, the Torah says (Vayikra 27:26): “No man shall sanctify it.” You can’t dedicate a firstborn as some other offering — it already belongs to Hashem in its own way. So too, these babies can’t be dedicated as any offering you like.

Think of it like… a seat on a bus that’s already reserved. You can’t put your own name tag on it.

The Simple Idea 💡: Because of a word-link to the firstborn, the babies can only be dedicated as the same kind of offering as their mother.

The Great Side-by-Side Chart 📊

A baraita (a teaching from the era of the Mishna that didn’t make it into the Mishna) agrees with Rav Sheshet, and it gives us a full comparison. Some words first:

• Forty lashes — the punishment for breaking a Torah prohibition, like shearing or working a holy animal.
• מעילה (me’ilah — “misusing holy property”): if you use something holy for yourself, you must pay it back plus a fifth and bring an offering.
• Mitzvat illui — “the mitzva of value”: you still have to pay its worth to redeem it.

Look at that bottom row. It’s the whole daf in one line!

The first kind is basically ordinary, with just one holy “string” attached: you have to pay its value.

The second kind is basically holy, with just one ordinary “privilege”: you’re allowed to eat it.

And notice the “babies as any offering” row: for the second kind, the baraita says no — just like Rav Sheshet!

Think of it like… two houses. One is a regular home with a small museum plaque on the door. The other is a museum where you’re allowed to have lunch in the café — but it’s still a museum.

The Simple Idea 💡: Blemished-before-dedication animals are “ordinary with a price tag,” while holy-then-blemished animals are “holy with permission to eat.”

Another Cliffhanger! ⏸️

In the Mishna and baraitot, whenever a Tanna says “כללו של דבר” (kelalo shel davar — “the general rule is”), it usually means he’s quietly adding some case we might have missed.

So the Gemara asks: what does each “general rule” add?

The first one — “they’re like ordinary animals” — adds that if you slaughter one outside the Temple, you’re exempt. (It’s not a real korban, so no punishment for slaughtering it outside.)

And the second one — “they’re like holy animals in all matters” — adds…

…and the page stops, mid-sentence! The answer is waiting on daf 16.

Think of it like… a magician saying “And for my next trick…” — and the curtain drops.

The Simple Idea 💡: Each “general rule” adds a hidden case; we learn the first one today and must wait until tomorrow for the second.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• Cliffhanger solved: Rav named only Rabbi Shimon because, per Reish Lakish, the Sages don’t require standing and valuation for altar animals, so they can’t explain “if they died, bury them.” (The Gemara proves the burial is about standing, not dog-feeding, because otherwise the mishna would have used a tereifa.) Or Rav follows Rabbi Yochanan, and we fix his words to “Rabbi Shimon and those who argue with him.”
• “Like the gazelle and the deer”: disqualified holy animals are exempt from bechora (“gazelle”) and the kohen’s gifts (“deer”).
• “However” (ach) keeps the fat forbidden — and, says Rav Pappa after his back-and-forth with Abaye, keeps the mother-and-baby rule too.
• Rava: “ach” is for mother-and-baby, and “its blood” really means its fat. The Torah says “blood” so the fat carries full karet, not just a plain prohibition.
• “Slaughter, not shear; meat, not milk; eat, not for your dogs” — no redeeming holy animals as dog food. Another reading: no use at all until slaughter, and dog food is allowed.
• Babies conceived before, born after redemption are forbidden; babies born before are holy — from “male or female” (offspring and temura), even of blemished holy animals.
• Stuck babies can’t be offered or redeemed: Rav Huna says they die in a closed room; Rabbi Chanina says dedicate them before the mother’s redemption; Rabbi Levi explains: otherwise, “flocks and flocks.”
• Rav Sheshet: the babies can only be dedicated as the mother’s offering, learned from “in your gates” and the bechor.
• The baraita’s chart: blemished-before is “ordinary with a price tag”; holy-then-blemished is “holy with permission to eat.”
• Cliffhanger: the first “general rule” adds that slaughtering outside is exempt — and the second one is continued on daf 16!

⚖️ Halacha

”As the Gazelle and the Hart”: Forbidden Fat of Disqualified Sacrificial Animals

Source in Daf: 15a, Segments 5-8 (the baraita of צבי ואיל and “אך” — חילק) and Segments 13-19 (Rava: “דמו” = חלבו, so that its fat carries karet)

Rambam — Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 7:1

Hebrew:

הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת. בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וּבְפֵרוּשׁ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כג) “כָּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ” בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מֵחֵלֶב שְׁחוּטָה בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מֵחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה שֶׁלָּהֶן. אֲבָל שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה חֶלְבָּהּ כִּבְשָׂרָהּ…

English:

When a person willfully eats an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, he is liable for kerat. If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin-offering. It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking [of the fat] of the three species of kosher domesticated animals alone, as [Leviticus 7:23] states: “Do not partake of any fat from an ox, lamb, or goat.” [This applies] whether one partakes of fat from an animal that is ritually slaughtered or one partakes of fat from a nevelah or a trefe [from a kosher species]. With regard to other domesticated animals and wild beasts, whether non-kosher or kosher, their fat is comparable to their meat…

Connection: This halacha frames exactly the danger the Gemara is guarding against. The Torah permits a redeemed פסול המוקדשין to be eaten “as the gazelle and the hart” (Deuteronomy 12:22), and the fat of a gazelle or hart, a חיה, is “like its meat,” fully permitted. Had the comparison run unchecked, the fat of a redeemed sacrificial ox or sheep would have become permitted too. The Rambam’s rule is defined by species (שור וכשב ועז), with no exception for animals that were once consecrated and then redeemed, so the redeemed animal’s fat remains ordinary חלב בהמה with full karet. That is Rava’s conclusion in Segments 16-17: the verse writes “דמו” rather than “חלבו” precisely so that its fat should be “like its blood,” a karet prohibition, and not a mere lav. The Rambam, as is his way, codifies only the outcome; the derivation (whether from “אך” as in the baraita or from “דמו” as in Rava) is left to the Gemara. The exemption from bechora and the priestly gifts derived in the same baraita (Segments 5-6) was already codified on the previous daf, in Hilchot Bechorot 5:8 and Hilchot Bikkurim 9:2.

Slaughtering “It and Its Young”: Applies to Disqualified Sacrificial Animals

Source in Daf: 15a, Segments 9-12 (Rav Pappa and Abaye) and Segments 13 and 19 (Rava: “אך” comes to include אותו ואת בנו)

Rambam — Hilchot Shechitah 12:2

Hebrew:

אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּכָל זְמַן וּבְכָל מָקוֹם. בְּחֻלִּין וּבְמֻקְדָּשִׁין. בֵּין קָדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין בֵּין קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין. לְפִיכָךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בַּעֲזָרָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי בַּחוּץ. אוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּחוּץ וְהַשֵּׁנִי בַּעֲזָרָה. בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֻלִּין אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן קָדָשִׁים. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן חֻלִּין וְאֶחָד קָדָשִׁים. זֶה שֶׁשָּׁחַט אַחֲרוֹן לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ:

English:

The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies in all times and in all places, with regard to ordinary animals and sacrificial animals. [With regard to the latter category, it applies] with regard to sacrifices of which we partake and with regard to sacrifices of which we do not partake. Therefore if one slaughtered the first animal in the Temple courtyard and the second outside of it or the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside, the one who slaughtered the second animal receives lashes [for violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring. [This applies] whether they were both ordinary animals, they were both sacrificial animals, or one was an ordinary animal and one, a sacrificial one.

Connection: Abaye’s reply to Rav Pappa in Segment 10 is the logic of this halacha: whether one compares a redeemed פסול המוקדשין to חולין or to קדשים, the prohibition of אותו ואת בנו applies either way, since it governs both. The Rambam states that principle in its broadest form, “בחולין ובמוקדשין,” and adds that the prohibition applies even when one animal is chullin and the other kodashim. A disqualified sacrificial animal, which stands between the two categories, is therefore certainly included, and the gazelle-and-hart comparison, which would have exempted it (Rambam in 12:8 limits the prohibition to בהמה טהורה, excluding a צביה and its young), is set aside, as Rava derives from “אך."

"You May Slaughter and Eat Meat”: Not Milk, and Not for the Dogs

Source in Daf: 15a, Segment 20 (תזבח ולא גיזה, בשר ולא חלב, ואכלת ולא לכלביך) and Segment 3 (אם נעשו טריפה יקברו); 15b, Segment 1 (no permission until slaughter)

Rambam — Hilchot Me’ilah 3:12

Hebrew:

קָדְשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ חֲלָבָן וּבֵיצֵיהֶן אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מֵהֶן וְהַנֶּהֱנֶה לֹא מָעַל לְפִיכָךְ וְלַד הַקָּדָשִׁים וְכֵן וְלַד הַמַּעֲשֵׂר לֹא יִינַק מֵאִמּוֹ אֶלָּא מִבְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת חֻלִּין. וְיֵשׁ לְאָדָם לְהִתְנַדֵּב וְלוֹמַר חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה זוֹ הַחֻלִּין יִהְיֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְוַלְדּוֹת הַקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁיִּינְקוּהוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּתוּ:

English:

It is forbidden to benefit from the milk or the eggs of animals or fowl consecrated as sacrifices for the altar, but one who benefits does not violate the prohibition against me’ilah. For that reason, the offspring of a consecrated animal or the offspring of an animal designated for the tithe-offering should not nurse from its mother, but rather from another animal that is not consecrated. A person may make a gift, saying: “The milk of this unconsecrated animal will be consecrated in order that the offspring of consecrated animals will nurse from it so that they do not die.”

Connection: The baraita reads “בשר” in Deuteronomy 12:15 as permitting the meat of a redeemed animal “ולא חלב,” not its milk. The Rambam’s formulation shows what kind of prohibition this is: the milk of altar-consecrated animals is forbidden in benefit, yet one who benefits from it does not commit me’ilah, the technical sacrilege that applies to the sanctified body itself. The shearing half of the same exposition (“תזבח — ולא גיזה”) is codified in Hilchot Me’ilah 1:9 (cited on the previous daf): the redeemed animal may not be shorn or worked and “remains in its prohibition until it is slaughtered,” which matches the “איכא דאמרי” reading of תזבח ואכלת in 15b Segment 1, that there is no permission of any kind until the moment of slaughter.

Rambam — Hilchot Isurei Mizbeach 2:10

Hebrew:

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהּ אַחַת מִן הַטְּרֵפִיּוֹת הָאוֹסְרוֹת אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲכִילָה אֲסוּרָה לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (מלאכי א-ח) “הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ”. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְקָרְבָּן אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לַכְּלָבִים. אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ וְיִקָּבְרוּ:

English:

When an animal contracts one of the conditions that render it treifah and cause it to be forbidden to be eaten, it is forbidden [to be sacrificed on] the altar. For behold it is written [Malachi 1:8]: “Present it please to your governor. Would he be pleased with you or show you favor?” Although it is not fit to be sacrificed, it is not redeemed. [The rationale is that] we do not redeem sacrificial animals to feed [their meat] to the dogs. Instead, it should pasture until it dies and then be buried.

Connection: Here the Rambam adopts, word for word, the principle derived from “ואכלת — ולא לכלביך”: אין פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים. It is also the case the Gemara raised in 15a Segment 3. There the Gemara asked why the mishna’s “אם מתו יקברו” could not simply be explained by this principle, and answered that if so the mishna should have taught “if they became tereifa, they are buried.” The Rambam confirms that a tereifa sacrificial animal is indeed buried and not redeemed, for exactly this reason. Since the animal can no longer be eaten by a person, redeeming it would release sanctified property only for animal feed, and the Torah permitted redemption only “ואכלת,” for human consumption. The one reading the Rambam does not adopt is the “איכא דאמרי” of 15b Segment 1, which would permit redemption for dogs.

Standing and Valuation: Are Altar Animals Included?

Source in Daf: 15a, Segments 1-4 (Rav’s attribution; Reish Lakish vs. R’ Yochanan on whether קדשי מזבח were included in העמדה והערכה)

Rambam — Hilchot Arachin va’Charamin 5:9

Hebrew:

וּמִפְּנֵי מָה יַקְרִיבוּ דְּמֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלוֹת וּדְמֵי הַבְּהֵמָה הַתְּמִימָה יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. לְפִי שֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה הַקְּדוֹשָׁה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אִם נָפַל בָּהּ מוּם יֵשׁ לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר וְהַסּלֶת וְהַיַּיִן וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְהָעוֹפוֹת שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז יא) “וְהֶעֱמִיד אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה” וְגוֹ’ כָּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה יֵשׁ לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה אֵין לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן:

English:

Why should the proceeds from these sales be used to bring burnt offerings and the proceeds from the sale of an unblemished animal be used for improvements to the Temple? [The rationale is that] when an animal is consecrated to the altar suffers a [disqualifying] blemish, there is a concept of it being redeemed, as will be explained. When, by contrast, fine flour, wine, oil, and doves become unfit [for the altar], there is no concept of redeeming them. [This is derived from Leviticus 27:11-12 which] states: “You shall have the animal stand [before the priest and the priest shall evaluate it].” [Implied is that] any entity that is stood [before a priest] and evaluated may be redeemed. If any entity is not to be stood [before a priest] and evaluated, it may not be redeemed.

Rambam — Hilchot Arachin va’Charamin 5:12

Hebrew:

כָּל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין טְהוֹרָה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַבַּיִת בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶן מוּם אוֹ תְּמִימָה הָרְאוּיָה לִקָּרֵב כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ צְרִיכָה הַעֲמָדָה בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז יא) “וְהֶעֱמִיד אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה”. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּעָרֵךְ וְתִפָּדֶה אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּתָה אֶלָּא תִּקָּבֵר. אֲבָל אִם הִקְדִּישׁ שְׁחוּטָה אוֹ נְבֵלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּפָּדֶה כִּשְׁאָר מִטַּלְטְלִין:

English:

Whenever a person consecrates an animal in its lifetime - whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one, whether it was consecrated for the sake of the Temple treasury, it was consecrated to be offered on the altar and it became blemished, or it is an unblemished animal which is fit to be offered as a sacrifice as will be explained, it must be stood [before the court] for evaluation, as implied by the phrase: “You shall have the animal stand [before the priest…]” Therefore, if the animal died before it is evaluated and redeemed, it should not be redeemed. Instead, it should be buried. If, however, a person consecrated a slaughtered animal or an animal carcass for the sake of improvements to the Temple, it should be redeemed like other movable property.

Connection: The opening segments of the daf turn on a machloket between R’ Shimon ben Lakish and R’ Yochanan about the view of the Rabbis: were animals consecrated for the altar (קדשי מזבח) included in the requirement that a consecrated animal be “stood and valued” before redemption, or only animals of בדק הבית? The Rambam rules explicitly that the requirement applies “בין קדשי הבית בין קדשי מזבח שנפל בהן מום,” which is R’ Yochanan’s position, the one adopted in the Gemara’s second answer (Segment 4). This carries the practical consequence the mishna states: a body-consecrated altar animal that became blemished and died before redemption cannot be redeemed as a carcass, since it can no longer stand, and must be buried. Halacha 5:9 supplies the principle beneath it: redeemability and העמדה והערכה go together, which is why disqualified flour, wine, oil and birds have no redemption at all. (For the kedushat damim animal, which is redeemed even after death because its body was never sanctified, see Hilchot Isurei Mizbeach 1:11, cited on the previous daf.)

The Offspring of Consecrated Animals, Including Blemished Ones

Source in Daf: 15b, Segment 2 (the offspring was already sanctified in the womb, before redemption) and Segments 3-4 (“זכר” and “נקבה”: offspring and temura, including those of blemished animals)

Rambam — Hilchot Temurah 4:9

Hebrew:

וְלַד בַּעֲלַת מוּם הֲרֵי הוּא כִּוְלַד הַתְּמִימָה לְכָל דָּבָר וְיִקָּרֵב כָּרָאוּי לוֹ:

English:

The offspring of a blemished consecrated animal is like the offspring of an unblemished consecrated animal in all respects and it should be offered in the appropriate manner.

Connection: This is the codification of the baraita’s second derivation in Segment 4: “אם זכר” includes the offspring of blemished animals. The mother cannot be offered, but her blemish is personal to her; the offspring, which is sanctified with her sanctity, is unblemished and is offered “as is fitting for it.” Read together with his other rulings, this must refer to a mother whose body was consecrated (the case the Gemara is dealing with); the offspring of an animal that was already permanently blemished when consecrated follows a different rule, set out in Hilchot Isurei Mizbeach 1:11.

Rambam — Hilchot Temurah 4:13

Hebrew:

וְאֵין מַעֲרִימִין עַל בֶּהֱמַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְהַקְדִּישׁ עֻבָּרָהּ קְדֻשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא כִּקְדֻשַּׁת אִמּוֹ. שֶׁוַּלְדוֹת הַקָּדָשִׁים מִמְּעֵי אִמָּם הֵם קְדוֹשִׁים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וַהֲרֵי כָּל עֻבָּר מֵהֶן כִּקְדֻשַּׁת אִמּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ בַּבֶּטֶן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעָשָׂה בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר בִּיצִיאָתוֹ הוּא שֶׁמִּתְקַדֵּשׁ…

English:

One may not use a clever technique to change the fetus of a consecrated animal to another purpose. Instead, it is consecrated with the holiness of its mother. The rationale is that the offspring of a consecrated animal become consecrated in the womb, as we explained. Thus every fetus is consecrated with the holiness of its mother and its holiness cannot be changed in the womb as one may with regard to a firstborn animal. The rationale is that a firstborn animal becomes consecrated only when it emerges from the womb…

Connection: Two strands of the daf meet in this halacha. First, the Gemara’s premise in Segment 2: an offspring conceived before its mother’s redemption is sacred “לפני פדיונן — מיקדש נמי קדשי,” because the offspring of consecrated animals are holy already in the womb. Second, Rav Sheshet’s ruling in Segment 8 that one may not dedicate such offspring “לכל זבח שירצה,” derived by the gezeira shava “בשעריך — בשעריך” from bechor: the fetus bears exactly its mother’s sanctity and cannot be redirected. The Rambam contrasts it with the bechor in the opposite direction: a firstborn can be preempted by dedicating it in the womb, because its own sanctity only takes effect at birth.

Offspring Conceived Before Redemption and Born After: Rav Huna and R’ Chanina

Source in Daf: 15b, Segments 5-8 (Rav Huna: כונסן לכיפה; R’ Chanina: סמוך לפדיון אמן מתפיסן לשם אותו זבח; Rav Sheshet: אין מתפיסן לכל זבח שירצה)

Rambam — Hilchot Isurei Mizbeach 1:11 (the concluding clause)

Hebrew:

…נִתְעַבְּרָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה וְיָלְדָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּפְדֵּית הַוָּלָד אָסוּר וְאֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. סָמוּךְ לְפִדְיוֹן אִמּוֹ מַתְפִּיס זֶה הַוָּלָד לְשֵׁם אוֹתוֹ הַזֶּבַח. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַקְרִיבוֹ [מִכֹּחַ אִמּוֹ] מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּא מִכֹּחַ קְדֻשָּׁה דְּחוּיָה:

English:

…If it became pregnant before it was redeemed and it gave birth before it was redeemed, the offspring is forbidden. It may not be redeemed. What should be done? Before the mother is redeemed, the offspring should be dedicated to the same [type of] sacrifice as its mother, because it may not be offered because of [the sanctification of] its mother, because its [holiness] comes from sanctification that was suspended.

Connection: This clause, noted only in passing on the previous daf, is the direct codification of 15b Segments 6-8. (The Sefaria translation reads “gave birth before it was redeemed,” but the Hebrew reads וילדה אחר שנפדית, after the mother was redeemed, which is the Gemara’s case.) The Rambam first states the problem exactly as Rav Huna frames it: the offspring cannot be offered, since it comes “מכח קדושה דחויה,” from a mother whose sanctity was already deferred by her blemish, and cannot be redeemed, since its sanctity is too weak to take hold of redemption money. Rav Huna’s grim conclusion, that it is confined until it dies, is the fallback; the Rambam instead gives the practical remedy of R’ Chanina, as the Gemara corrects it: close to the mother’s redemption (סמוך לפדיון אמו), the fetus is dedicated in its own right, giving it an independent sanctity so that it may be offered. And he rules like Rav Sheshet that the dedication must be “לשם אותו הזבח,” for the same offering as the mother, not any offering the owner wishes. R’ Levi’s reason for the whole arrangement, “גזירה שמא יגדל מהן עדרים עדרים,” has a close echo in Hilchot Temurah 4:1, where the Rambam penalizes one who leaves the offspring of offspring unoffered, since “he is delaying their offering to raise herds from them” (לגדל מהן עדרים עדרים).

The Baraita’s Two Columns: Temura After Redemption

Source in Daf: 15b, Segments 9-13 (the baraita supporting Rav Sheshet: permanent blemish before consecration vs. consecration before the blemish)

Rambam — Hilchot Temurah 3:4

Hebrew:

הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלַת מוּם עוֹבֵר וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר תְּמִימָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד בָּהּ מוּם קָבוּעַ וְנִפְדֵּית וְהֵמִיר בָּהּ אַחַר שֶׁנִּפְדֵּית. הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה וְאֵינָהּ נִפְדֵּית אֶלָּא מַנִּיחָהּ עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת. אֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּאָה מִכֹּחַ קְדֻשָּׁה דְּחוּיָה וְאֵינָהּ נִפְדֵּית שֶׁאֵין בְּכֹחַ קְדֻשָּׁתָהּ לִתְפּשֹׁ פִּדְיוֹנָהּ:

English:

The following rules apply when a person consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish or, needless to say, an unblemished animal and then it contracts a permanent blemish and it is redeemed. If one endeavored to transfer its holiness after it was redeemed, the transfer is binding, but the animal to which the transfer was made should neither be sacrificed, nor redeemed. Instead, it should be left until it dies. It should not be sacrificed, because it comes from holiness that was already deferred. Nor may it be redeemed, because its holiness does not have the strength to encompass the entity used to redeem it.

Connection: The baraita’s second column (Segment 11) rules that animals consecrated before their blemish “בין לפני פדיונן בין לאחר פדיונן — עושין תמורה.” The striking half is “after redemption”: even once redeemed and destined to be eaten, such an animal still has enough residual sanctity to make a substitute holy. The Rambam codifies precisely this, and then determines the substitute’s fate using the very reasoning of Rav Huna in Segment 6 (מכח קדושה דחויה קאתו; לא אלימי למיתפס פדיונן), in almost identical words. The first column’s rule, that an animal blemished before consecration makes no temura at all, is in Hilchot Temurah 1:13 (cited on the previous daf), and the lashes for shearing and labor (second column) versus their absence (first column) are in Hilchot Me’ilah 1:7 and 1:9. The Rambam thus preserves each line of the baraita, scattered across the books where each law belongs.

Summary of Rulings

These Temple-era laws are preserved in Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt. The Shulchan Aruch, which codifies only laws in force today, does not address them.