Bechorot Daf 33 (בכורות דף ל״ג)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (33a)

Segment 1

TYPE: תירוץ (בית הלל)

Beit Hillel answer Beit Shammai: the comparison to breast and thigh applies only to an unblemished bechor, and a kal vachomer permits a non-priest

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

This continues the end of 32b, where Beit Shammai compared the bechor to the breast and thigh of the shelamim, which only priests may eat. Beit Hillel limit that comparison to an unblemished bechor offered on the altar. For a blemished bechor the Torah says ‘the impure and the pure may eat it alike,’ and from this they build a kal vachomer: if an impure priest, who is barred from kodashim kalim, may eat a blemished bechor, then surely a non-priest, who does eat kodashim kalim, may eat it too.

Key Terms:

• תָּם = an unblemished animal (here, an unblemished bechor fit for the altar)
• בַּעַל מוּם = a blemished animal, which may be slaughtered and eaten outside the Temple
• קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים = offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g. shelamim and maaser beheima, which non-priests may eat
• זָר = a non-priest

Segment 2

TYPE: פירכא

The kal vachomer is refuted: impurity was permitted in communal service, something never true of a non-priest

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara attacks Beit Hillel’s kal vachomer with a classic pircha: the impure priest has a leniency the non-priest lacks. When the community is impure, impure priests may perform the public offerings (טומאה הותרה בציבור), whereas a non-priest may never serve. Since the ‘lighter’ case has a leniency of its own, it cannot serve as the base of an a fortiori argument.

Key Terms:

• אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ = there is room to refute (the kal vachomer)
• הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ = its general prohibition was set aside (in certain circumstances)
• עֲבוֹדַת צִבּוּר = communal Temple service, which may be performed in impurity when necessary

Segment 3

TYPE: תירוץ

Beit Hillel reply: the argument concerns eating, not service, and in eating the non-priest is superior

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Beit Hillel reject the pircha as irrelevant to the subject at hand. The kal vachomer compares rights of eating, not rights of service, and in the realm of eating a pure non-priest outranks an impure priest, since the non-priest may eat shelamim and the impure priest may not. A leniency drawn from another domain does not break an argument confined to eating.

Key Terms:

• אַטּוּ = is that to say…? (introducing a rhetorical rejection)
• אֲכִילַת זָר עֲדִיף = the eating of a non-priest is superior

Segment 4

TYPE: גמרא (טעמא דרבי עקיבא)

Rabbi Akiva’s source for permitting even a gentile: ‘like the gazelle and like the deer’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Akiva’s version of Beit Hillel, which extends the permission even to a gentile. The verse equates the blemished bechor with the gazelle and deer, ordinary non-sacred game. Just as anyone, even a gentile, may eat a gazelle, so a blemished bechor may be given to a gentile to eat.

Key Terms:

• כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל = ‘like the gazelle and like the deer’ — the Torah’s formula equating disqualified consecrated animals with ordinary non-sacred meat
• פְּסוּלִין = disqualified (blemished) consecrated animals

Segment 5

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why does the other tanna not learn as Rabbi Akiva? The ‘gazelle and deer’ phrase appears three times and each is already used

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks what the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva does with the comparison to the gazelle and deer. The answer is that the phrase occurs three times in Devarim (12:15, 12:22, 15:22), and each occurrence is already claimed for another derivation: those of Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Oshaya, and that of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar. With no occurrence left over, nothing remains to teach that a gentile may eat the bechor.

Key Terms:

• וְאִידַּךְ = and the other (tanna) — how does he respond?
• תְּלָתָא … כְּתִיבִי = three (occurrences) are written
• חַד לְ… = one is for (a particular derivation)

Segment 6

TYPE: תירוץ

The third occurrence: disqualified consecrated animals are exempt from bechora, like a gazelle and deer

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

This segment spells out one of the derivations already assigned to the verses. A gazelle and deer, being wild animals, are not subject to the law of the firstborn, and the comparison teaches that the offspring of disqualified consecrated animals are likewise exempt from bechora, as taught on 14a. The point of the passage is that every ‘gazelle and deer’ is fully used, so the dissenting tanna has no extra verse to permit a gentile.

Key Terms:

• פְּטוּרִים מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה = exempt from the sanctity of the firstborn
• פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין = consecrated animals disqualified by a blemish and redeemed

Segment 7

TYPE: ברייתא

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree whether a blemished bechor may be fed to niddot; Beit Shammai’s source in the breast and thigh

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

A second dispute between the two schools follows the same pattern. Beit Shammai forbid giving the meat of a blemished bechor to menstruating women, again drawing on the comparison ‘their flesh shall be yours, as the wave breast and the right thigh.’ Since an impure person may not eat the breast and thigh, Beit Shammai extend the restriction to the bechor even when it is blemished.

Key Terms:

• נִדּוֹת = menstruating women, who are ritually impure
• חֲזֵה וָשׁוֹק = the breast and thigh of the shelamim, given to the priests
• מַאֲכִילִין = one feeds (gives to eat)

Segment 8

TYPE: תירוץ (בית הלל)

Beit Hillel: the comparison applies only to an unblemished bechor; of the blemished one the verse says the impure may eat it

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Beit Hillel answer exactly as before. The comparison to the breast and thigh governs only the unblemished bechor, which is a true offering. Of the blemished bechor the Torah explicitly says ‘the impure and the pure may eat it,’ which includes a nidda.

Key Terms:

• הָנֵי מִילֵּי = this applies (only)
• הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר = the impure and the pure (Devarim 15:22)

Segment 9

TYPE: תירוץ (בית שמאי)

Beit Shammai: the verse permits only impurity from an outside source, not impurity issuing from one’s own body

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Beit Shammai accept that the impure may eat a blemished bechor but limit which impurity is meant. Impurity contracted from outside, such as from a corpse or a sheretz, is included; impurity that issues from the person’s own body, as with a zav or nidda, is not. The distinction allows them to keep both the verse and their ruling about niddot.

Key Terms:

• טוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ = impurity issuing from one’s own body (zav, zava, nidda, yoledet, metzora)
• זָב = a man with an abnormal genital discharge, who is impure

Segment 10

TYPE: ראיה (בית שמאי)

Beit Shammai prove the distinction from the Pesach offered in impurity, which zavim and niddot may not eat

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Beit Shammai show that the Torah itself recognizes the distinction. The mishna in Pesachim (95b) rules that when the Pesach is brought in a state of impurity, because most of the people are impure through a corpse, zavim, metzora’im, zavot, niddot and yoledot still may not eat it. Bodily impurity is thus more severe than impurity contracted from outside.

Key Terms:

• פֶּסַח שֶׁבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה = a Pesach offering brought in impurity, when the majority of the people are impure
• מְצוֹרָעִין = those afflicted with tzara’at
• יוֹלְדוֹת = women after childbirth

Segment 11

TYPE: דחייה (בית הלל)

Beit Hillel: the Pesach verse specified ‘impure by a corpse’; here ‘impure’ is unqualified

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Beit Hillel answer that the distinction at Pesach rests on a specific verse, ‘impure by reason of a dead body’ (Bamidbar 9:10), which limits the permission to corpse impurity. In the bechor verse the word ‘impure’ stands alone with no such qualification, so all forms of impurity are included. The disagreement thus turns on whether a limitation stated in one context may be read into an unqualified verse elsewhere.

Key Terms:

• טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ = impure through contact with a corpse
• סְתָמָא = unspecified, unqualified
• לָא שְׁנָא = there is no difference

Segment 12

TYPE: ברייתא

One may not skin from the feet on Yom Tov, nor a bechor, nor disqualified consecrated animals

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

A new baraita introduces ‘margilin,’ skinning an animal starting from the feet so that the hide comes off whole and can serve as a bag or container. This is forbidden on Yom Tov, and also forbidden for a bechor and for disqualified consecrated animals, even on a weekday. The rest of the sugya asks why these three cases are grouped together and which tanna stands behind each clause.

Key Terms:

• מַרְגִּילִין = skinning an animal from its feet, keeping the hide whole
• יוֹם טוֹב = a Festival day

Segment 13

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (רב חסדא)

The Yom Tov rule is understood; the bechor clause follows Beit Shammai, who forbid feeding it to niddot

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The Yom Tov rule is understandable: the extra labor of skinning from the feet serves a need beyond the Festival day itself. But why should it be forbidden for a blemished bechor? Rav Chisda attributes the clause to Beit Shammai, who treat even a blemished bechor with the respect due to sacred meat, as seen from their refusal to let niddot eat it. Skinning it in a commercial manner would be a slight to its sanctity.

Key Terms:

• טִירְחָא דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ = effort whose result is of no use (on the Festival)
• מַאן תַּנָּא = who is the tanna (behind this ruling)?

Segment 14

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (רב חסדא)

The clause about pesulei hamukdashin follows Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon; the case of two sin offerings

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Chisda attributes the third clause, about disqualified consecrated animals, to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, and cites the case on which he rules. A person set aside two chatat animals as security, one of which became blemished. The unblemished one is offered and the blemished one is redeemed, and the next segment shows how its status depends on timing.

Key Terms:

• חַטָּאת = a sin offering
• תִּיפָּדֶה = shall be redeemed
• שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת = two sin offerings set aside for a single obligation, one as security against loss

Segment 15

TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)

If the blemished animal was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled it is permitted; after, it is forbidden

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita sets the decisive moment at the sprinkling of the blood of the unblemished chatat. If the redeemed blemished animal was slaughtered before then, it is ordinary permitted meat. If it was slaughtered afterward, it falls under the rule that a chatat whose owner has already been atoned for is left to die, so its meat is forbidden even for benefit.

Key Terms:

• זְרִיקַת דָּם = the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, which effects atonement
• חַטָּאת שֶׁכִּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ = a sin offering whose owner already achieved atonement, which must be left to die

Segment 16

TYPE: ברייתא (דעת רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון)

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon: even if the meat is already in the pot, the later sprinkling forbids it

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon goes further: even after slaughter, while the meat is cooking, the sprinkling of the other animal’s blood renders it forbidden. He evidently holds that a redeemed disqualified animal keeps a residue of sanctity even after slaughter. That residual holiness is why Rav Chisda finds him the natural author of the ban on skinning pesulei hamukdashin from the feet.

Key Terms:

• בָּשָׂר בִּקְדֵירָה = meat (already) in the pot
• אֲסוּרָה = forbidden (in eating and benefit)

Segment 17

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not attribute the whole baraita to Beit Shammai? Their stringency may apply only to a bechor, whose sanctity is from the womb

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks why Rav Chisda splits the baraita between two tannaim instead of ascribing all of it to Beit Shammai. The answer is that Beit Shammai’s stringency may be limited to the bechor, whose holiness is inborn (קדושתו מרחם) and therefore deeper. Disqualified consecrated animals were sanctified only by human declaration, so Beit Shammai might allow them to be treated like ordinary meat. A separate tanna is therefore needed for that clause.

Key Terms:

• קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם = its sanctity is from the womb (it is born holy, without human consecration)
• לוֹקְמַהּ כּוּלַּהּ = let him establish all of it (as the view of one tanna)

Amud Bet (33b)

Segment 1

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not attribute the whole baraita to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon? His stringency may apply only to animals whose sanctity transfers to their redemption money

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלוֹקְמַהּ כּוּלַּהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן! דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָתָם אֶלָּא פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, דְּאַלִּימִי לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ, אֲבָל בְּכוֹר דְּלָא אַלִּים לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ — לָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: But if so, let Rav Ḥisda establish the entire baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara answers: Perhaps Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says that the sanctity of a slaughtered blemished offering is retained only there, with regard to other disqualified consecrated animals, because their level of sanctity is strong enough to transfer their sanctity to their redemption money. But with regard to a blemished firstborn offering, whose level of sanctity is not strong enough to transfer it to its redemption money, perhaps its sanctity is not retained, and therefore one may skin the hide from its feet.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks the reverse question: why not credit the whole baraita to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon? The answer is that his stringency may rest on the strength of ordinary consecrated animals, whose sanctity is strong enough to pass to the money paid to redeem them. A bechor is never redeemed (Bamidbar 18:17), so its sanctity has no such hold, and he might permit skinning it from the feet. So each clause needs its own tanna, as Rav Chisda said.

Key Terms:

• אַלִּימִי לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ = strong enough to seize (transfer sanctity to) its redemption money
• פִּדְיוֹן = redemption

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא

Doesn’t Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon accept that pesulei hamukdashin are sold in the market by weight, because it benefits hekdesh?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ כׇּל פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִמְכָּרִין בָּאִיטְלִיז וְנִשְׁקָלִין בְּלִיטְרָא? אַלְמָא דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רַוְוחָא לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁרֵי לֵהּ!

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, agree with the ruling of the mishna (31a) that all disqualified consecrated animals are sold in the butchers’ market and weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner of non-sacred meat? Certainly he agrees with that halakha. Evidently, since there is a benefit that accrues to the Temple treasury, the tanna of the mishna deems this permitted. As it was taught (31b), the meat of disqualified consecrated animals may be treated in this manner despite the fact that it retains a measure of sanctity. The reason is that if the owner knows that it is permitted for him to perform this more lucrative action, he is likely to spend more money to redeem the animal in the first place, which benefits the Temple treasury. By the same logic, why doesn’t Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, permit the more lucrative action of skinning the animal from its feet?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon from the mishna on 31a, which permits disqualified consecrated animals to be sold in the butcher’s market and weighed by the litra. As explained on 31b, this is allowed because a higher resale price raises the redemption price, which benefits the Temple treasury. By the same reasoning, skinning from the feet, which yields a valuable whole hide, should also be allowed.

Key Terms:

• אִיטְלִיז = the butchers’ market
• לִיטְרָא = a litra, a unit of weight
• רַוְוחָא לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ = a gain for the Temple treasury

Segment 3

TYPE: תירוצים (רב מרי, במערבא)

Two answers: what the hide gains the meat loses; and in Eretz Yisrael, it looks like working with kodashim

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא: מַה שֶּׁמַּשְׁבִּיחַ בָּעוֹר — פּוֹגֵם בַּבָּשָׂר. בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא אָמְרִי: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה בְּקָדָשִׁים.

English Translation:

The Gemara cites several resolutions. Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said that the benefit gained to the hide by skinning it whole is offset by the detriment caused to the flesh. Part of the animal’s flesh is severed from the carcass during the skinning process, thereby lowering its value. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Ravina that skinning a disqualified consecrated animal from its feet is prohibited because it appears as though he is performing work with sacrificial animals, which is prohibited.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara offers two answers. Rav Mari son of Rav Kahana argues that there is no real gain: skinning from the feet tears away some meat, so what the hide gains the meat loses and hekdesh earns nothing. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say in Ravina’s name that the problem is appearances, since the practice looks like putting a sacred animal to work, which is forbidden.

Key Terms:

• מַשְׁבִּיחַ / פּוֹגֵם = improves / damages
• בְּמַעְרְבָא = in the West, i.e. Eretz Yisrael
• עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה בְּקָדָשִׁים = working with consecrated animals, which is forbidden

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ (רבי יוסי בר אבין)

A decree lest he raise whole herds of disqualified animals

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין אוֹמֵר: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יְגַדֵּל מֵהֶן עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים.

English Translation:

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says that this prohibition is a rabbinic decree, lest one retain the disqualified consecrated animals in his possession while waiting for a consumer to purchase the hides, and in the meantime raise many herds of disqualified animals from them. In such a case, he might shear or work the animals in a prohibited manner.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin explains the rule as a rabbinic decree. If whole hides were valuable, the owner might keep the disqualified animals alive while waiting for a buyer, and the flocks would multiply. Over time he would come to shear or work them, which is forbidden even after redemption.

Key Terms:

• גְּזֵירָה = a rabbinic decree, a protective fence
• עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים = many herds
• גִּיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה = shearing and labor, forbidden with consecrated animals

Segment 5

TYPE: משנה

A congested bechor: Rabbi Yehuda forbids bloodletting even if it will die; the Chachamim permit without making a blemish; Rabbi Shimon permits even with a blemish

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ בְּכוֹר שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ דָּם, אֲפִילּוּ מֵת — אֵין מַקִּיזִין לוֹ דָּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יַקִּיז, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ מוּם, וְאִם עָשָׂה בּוֹ מוּם — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁחַט עָלָיו. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יַקִּיז, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ מוּם.

English Translation:

MISHNA: With regard to a firstborn animal that was congested with excess blood, even if the animal will die if one does not let the excess blood, one may not let its blood, as this might cause a blemish, and it is prohibited to cause a blemish on consecrated animals. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One may let the blood provided that he will not cause a blemish while doing so, and if he caused a blemish, the animal may not be slaughtered on account of that blemish. Since he was the cause of the blemish, he may not slaughter the animal until it develops a different, unrelated blemish. Rabbi Shimon says: One may let the blood even if he thereby causes a blemish in the animal.

קלאוד על הדף:

A new mishna deals with a bechor suffering from congestion of blood. Rabbi Yehuda forbids bloodletting even if the animal will die, since the cut might cause a blemish. The Chachamim allow it as long as no blemish is made, and if one is made the animal may not be slaughtered on account of it. Rabbi Shimon allows bloodletting even if it causes a blemish. The underlying question is how the ban on blemishing a bechor weighs against saving its life.

Key Terms:

• אֲחָזוֹ דָּם = congested with blood (a condition requiring bloodletting)
• מַקִּיזִין דָּם = letting blood
• לֹא יִשְׁחַט עָלָיו = he may not slaughter on account of it (a deliberately caused blemish)

Segment 6

TYPE: ברייתא (רבי מאיר)

Rabbi Meir: let blood only where no blemish results

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּכוֹר שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ דָּם — מַקִּיזִין לוֹ אֶת הַדָּם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂים בּוֹ מוּם, וְאֵין מַקִּיזִין לוֹ אֶת הַדָּם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בּוֹ מוּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

English Translation:

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn animal that was congested with excess blood, and which can be healed only through bloodletting, one may let the animal’s blood by cutting it in a place where the incision does not cause a permanent blemish. But one may not let the animal’s blood by cutting it in a place where the incision causes a permanent blemish, as it is prohibited to intentionally cause a blemish in a firstborn animal; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara opens with a baraita that presents the dispute differently, with four positions instead of three. Rabbi Meir permits bloodletting only in a spot where the incision will not leave a permanent blemish. His view corresponds to what the mishna attributed to the Chachamim.

Key Terms:

• בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂים בּוֹ מוּם = in a place where (the cut) does not make a blemish
• מַטִּיל מוּם = one who inflicts a blemish on a consecrated animal

Segment 7

TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)

The Rabbis: even where a blemish results, but not slaughtered on it; Rabbi Shimon: even slaughtered on it; Rabbi Yehuda: never

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ מוּם, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁחַט עַל אוֹתוֹ הַמּוּם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף נִשְׁחָט עַל אוֹתוֹ הַמּוּם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מֵת — אֵין מַקִּיזִין לוֹ אֶת הַדָּם.

English Translation:

And the Rabbis say: One may even let the animal’s blood by cutting it in a place where the incision causes a permanent blemish, provided that he does not slaughter the animal on the basis of that blemish, even though in general, a firstborn animal may be slaughtered once it develops any permanent blemish. Rabbi Shimon says: The animal may even be slaughtered on the basis of that blemish. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the firstborn would die if its blood is not let, one may not let its blood at all.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita continues with the rest of the range. The Rabbis permit bloodletting even where it leaves a blemish but forbid slaughtering the animal on the basis of that blemish. Rabbi Shimon permits slaughtering on it as well, while Rabbi Yehuda forbids bloodletting entirely, even to save the animal’s life. The four views run from strictest to most lenient.

Key Terms:

• אַף נִשְׁחָט עַל אוֹתוֹ הַמּוּם = it may even be slaughtered on account of that blemish
• אֲפִילּוּ מֵת = even if it dies

Segment 8

TYPE: מימרא (השוואה)

The dispute parallels the dispute over a barrel of teruma of doubtful purity; Rabbi Eliezer says to protect it

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לִבְרֵיהּ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא לִבְרֵיהּ: כַּמַּחְלוֹקֶת כָּאן, כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּחָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, דִּתְנַן: חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בִּמְקוֹם הַתּוּרְפָּה — יַנִּיחֶנָּה בְּמָקוֹם הַמּוּצְנָע, אִם הָיְתָה מְגוּלָּה — יְכַסֶּנָּה.

English Translation:

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar taught his son, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥiyya who taught his son: Just as there is a dispute here in this baraita with regard to bloodletting, so there is a dispute in a mishna with regard to a barrel of teruma. As we learned (Terumot 8:8): In the case of a barrel of teruma oil with regard to which uncertainty developed concerning its status of ritual impurity, and which therefore may not be eaten, Rabbi Eliezer says that one must nevertheless safeguard the teruma from impurity. Therefore, if the barrel was resting in a vulnerable location, where it might come into contact with impurity, one should place it in a concealed location, and if it was exposed, he should cover it.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Elazar (or Rabbi Chiyya) taught his son that the bloodletting dispute is matched by the dispute in Terumot 8:8 about a barrel of teruma whose purity has come into doubt. Such teruma may not be eaten, nor may it be burned. Rabbi Eliezer holds that one must still guard it: move it from an exposed spot to a protected one and cover it if it is uncovered.

Key Terms:

• חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה = a barrel of teruma (here, oil or wine)
• סְפֵק טוּמְאָה = doubtful impurity
• מְקוֹם הַתּוּרְפָּה = a vulnerable, exposed place
• מָקוֹם הַמּוּצְנָע = a concealed, protected place

Segment 9

TYPE: משנה (המשך)

Rabbi Yehoshua: he may even expose it; Rabban Gamliel: he should change nothing

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה מוּנַּחַת בְּמָקוֹם הַמּוּצְנָע — יַנִּיחֶנָּה בִּמְקוֹם הַתּוּרְפָּה, אִם הָיְתָה מְכוּסָּה — יְגַלֶּנָּה. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא יְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ דָּבָר.

English Translation:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: That is not necessary. Rather, if it was placed in a concealed location, one may place it in a vulnerable location. If it was covered he may expose it, as he need no longer safeguard this teruma from impurity. Rabban Gamliel says: One should do nothing new with it, i.e., he should leave the barrel as it is.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yehoshua holds that teruma of doubtful status no longer needs guarding, so one may even move it to an exposed place or uncover it. Rabban Gamliel takes a middle course: one should change nothing and leave the barrel as it is. This gives three positions, matching the three views on bloodletting.

Key Terms:

• יְגַלֶּנָּה = he may uncover it
• לֹא יְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ דָּבָר = he should do nothing new with it

Segment 10

TYPE: גמרא (השוואה)

Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Eliezer, the Rabbis follow Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Yehuda follows Rabban Gamliel

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְרַבָּנַן כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

English Translation:

The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Meir, who deems it permitted to let the firstborn offering’s blood provided that one does not cause a blemish, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems it prohibited to place the barrel in an exposed location lest it become ritually impure, which is equivalent to a blemish. And the Rabbis, who deem bloodletting permitted even if it will cause a blemish, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who rules that the contents of the barrel may be exposed to ritual impurity. And Rabbi Yehuda, who says that bloodletting is not permitted under any circumstance, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who rules that the barrel should be left as is and not be handled at all.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara lines up the parallel. Rabbi Meir, who forbids causing a blemish, matches Rabbi Eliezer, who forbids exposing the teruma to impurity. The Rabbis, who allow a blemish, match Rabbi Yehoshua, who allows exposing it. Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids any action at all, matches Rabban Gamliel, who says to leave the barrel untouched. Both disputes ask how far one must protect something holy that is already compromised.

Key Terms:

• כְּ… = in accordance with (the opinion of)
• הַשְׁוָאָה = comparison, parallel

Segment 11

TYPE: דחייה

Perhaps Rabbi Meir is strict only where one acts directly; with the barrel, which is only indirect causation, he might agree with Rabbi Yehoshua

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם, דְּקָא עָבֵיד בְּיָדַיִם, אֲבָל הָכָא דִּגְרָמָא — כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ!

English Translation:

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: From where can one prove that these comparisons are accurate? Perhaps Rabbi Meir states his opinion, that one may not let blood in a place that will cause a blemish, only there, as the individual is causing the blemish by direct action. But here, in the case of the barrel, where the ritual impurity results from an indirect action, perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges the parallel, starting with Rabbi Meir. Bloodletting directly inflicts a blemish by hand (בידים). Leaving teruma exposed only creates conditions in which impurity might later occur, which is indirect causation (גרמא). Rabbi Meir might be strict about direct harm and still agree with Rabbi Yehoshua about the barrel.

Key Terms:

• בְּיָדַיִם = by direct action, with one’s own hands
• גְּרָמָא = indirect causation
• מִמַּאי = from where (do you know)?

Segment 12

TYPE: דחייה (המשך)

Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer is strict only because Eliyahu may come and declare the teruma pure; where the animal will die he might agree with the Rabbis

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם, אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וִיטַהֲרֶנָּה, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִי שָׁבֵיק לֵיהּ מָיֵית — כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ!

English Translation:

And furthermore, perhaps Rabbi Eliezer states his opinion that the barrel should be protected only here, because perhaps Elijah will come and deem it ritually pure. But there, with regard to the firstborn offering, where if one leaves the animal it will certainly die, perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that bloodletting is permitted in order to prevent the animal’s death.

קלאוד על הדף:

The challenge continues with Rabbi Eliezer. His reason for protecting the teruma may be that its status is only doubtful: Eliyahu may one day come and declare it pure, and then it will be edible. With the bechor the alternative is certain death, so he might agree with the Rabbis that bloodletting is allowed. (The Hebrew reads ‘there’ for the barrel and ‘here’ for the bechor.)

Key Terms:

• שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וִיטַהֲרֶנָּה = perhaps Eliyahu will come and declare it pure — the Talmudic formula for an uncertainty that may yet be resolved
• אִי שָׁבֵיק לֵיהּ מָיֵית = if he leaves it, it will die

Segment 13

TYPE: דחייה (המשך)

Likewise the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda may hold differently in each case

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָכָא, דְּאִי שָׁבֵיק לֵיהּ מָיֵית, אֲבָל הָתָם — שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וִיטַהֲרֶנָּה, כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סְבִירָא לְהוּ! וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָכָא, דְּקָא עָבֵיד בְּיָדַיִם, אֲבָל הָתָם דִּגְרָמָא — כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ!

English Translation:

And likewise, perhaps the Rabbis state their opinion only here, with regard to the firstborn offering, as if one leaves it, the animal will certainly die. But there, in the case of the barrel of teruma, perhaps they accept the claim that one must safeguard the teruma, because perhaps Elijah will come and deem it ritually pure, which would mean that they hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. It can also be suggested that Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion, that bloodletting is prohibited in all circumstances, only here, with regard to the firstborn offering, as the individual is causing the blemish by direct action. But there, in the case of the barrel, where the ritual impurity results from an indirect action, perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

קלאוד על הדף:

The same reasoning applies to the other pairings. The Rabbis may allow bloodletting only because the animal would otherwise certainly die, and still require guarding the teruma, which might yet be declared pure, as Rabbi Eliezer says. Rabbi Yehuda may forbid bloodletting only because it is direct harm, and agree with Rabbi Yehoshua about the barrel, where the harm is only indirect.

Key Terms:

• סְבִירָא לְהוּ = they hold
• דְּקָא עָבֵיד בְּיָדַיִם = since he acts directly

Segment 14

TYPE: דחייה (המשך)

And Rabban Gamliel may agree with the Rabbis where the animal will die

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָתָם, דְּשֶׁמָּא יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וִיטַהֲרֶנָּה, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִי שָׁבֵיק לֵיהּ מָיֵית, כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ!

English Translation:

And perhaps Rabban Gamliel states his opinion, that the barrel should not be moved at all, only there, because perhaps Elijah will come and deem it ritually pure. But here, with regard to the firstborn offering, where if one leaves it, it will certainly die, it is possible that he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

קלאוד על הדף:

The last pairing is undone the same way. Rabban Gamliel’s ‘change nothing’ may reflect only the chance that the teruma will be declared pure. Where the bechor faces certain death, he might agree with the Rabbis and allow bloodletting. Every proposed parallel has a reasonable distinction, so the equation of the two disputes cannot be proven.

Key Terms:

• רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל = Rabban Gamliel (of Yavne)
• כְּרַבָּנַן = in accordance with the Rabbis

Segment 15

TYPE: דחייה (רבי יוחנן)

Each dispute rests on its own verses; all agree one who leavens a meal offering after another is liable

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְעוֹד, הָכָא בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי וְהָכָא בִּקְרָאֵי פְּלִיגִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בִּמְחַמֵּץ אַחַר מְחַמֵּץ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב, דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תֵאָפֶה חָמֵץ״ וְ״לֹא תֵעָשֶׂה״.

English Translation:

And furthermore, one cannot draw parallels between the opinions of the two sources, as here the tanna’im disagree with regard to the exposition of certain verses, and there they disagree with regard to the exposition of certain other verses. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All of the Sages who disagree as to whether one may let the blood of the firstborn animal concede that one who leavens a meal offering after another had already leavened it is liable to receive lashes for the additional leavening, as it is written: “It shall not be baked with leaven” (Leviticus 6:10), and it is also stated: “No meal offering that you sacrifice to God shall be made with leaven” (Leviticus 2:11). This indicates that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a meal offering.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara gives a final reason the parallel fails: each dispute turns on its own verses, not on a shared principle. Rabbi Yochanan establishes the common ground. Everyone agrees that leavening a mincha that has already been leavened is a fresh violation, since the Torah repeats the prohibition: ‘it shall not be baked with leaven’ and ‘shall not be made with leaven.’ Spoiling something already spoiled can therefore still be a sin.

Key Terms:

• מְחַמֵּץ אַחַר מְחַמֵּץ = one who leavens (a meal offering) after another has leavened it
• מִנְחָה = a meal offering
• לֹא תֵאָפֶה חָמֵץ = ‘it shall not be baked with leaven’ (Vayikra 6:10)

Segment 16

TYPE: מימרא (המשך)

All agree that one who castrates after another castrated is liable, from ‘bruised, crushed, detached, cut’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בִּמְסָרֵס אַחֵר מְסָרֵס שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת״, אִם עַל כּוֹרֵת חַיָּיב, עַל נוֹתֵק לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא נוֹתֵק אַחַר כּוֹרֵת, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב.

English Translation:

Similarly, everyone agrees that one who castrates an animal after one who has already castrated it is liable, as it is written: “Those whose testicles are bruised or crushed or detached or cut shall not be offered to the Lord, and you shall not do this in your land” (Leviticus 22:24). If one is liable when the seminal vesicles are cut, then when the testicles are detached altogether, is he not all the more so liable? Rather, this verse serves to include one who detaches the testicles after one who cuts the seminal vesicles, to indicate that he is liable. Apparently, one is liable for castrating an animal that is already sterilized.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yochanan’s second point of agreement concerns castration. The verse lists ‘cut’ after ‘detached,’ though cutting is the lesser injury; if cutting is liable, detaching surely is. The extra word teaches that one who detaches after another has already cut is liable. As with leavening, harming something already damaged is a new violation.

Key Terms:

• מְסָרֵס = one who castrates
• מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת = bruised, crushed, detached, cut (Vayikra 22:24) — types of damage to the reproductive organs
• נוֹתֵק / כּוֹרֵת = one who detaches / one who cuts

Segment 17

TYPE: מימרא (המשך)

They disagree only about blemishing an already blemished animal: Rabbi Meir from ‘any blemish,’ the Rabbis from ‘perfect to be accepted’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּמֵטִיל מוּם בְּבַעַל מוּם, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: ״כׇּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ״, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן״.

English Translation:

These Sages disagree only with regard to one who causes a blemish in an already blemished animal, such as one whose blood circulation is constricted. As Rabbi Meir maintains that as the verse states: “It shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish in it” (Leviticus 22:21), this categorical statement includes even the causing of a blemish in an offering that is already blemished. And the Rabbis maintain that the phrase “It shall be perfect to be accepted” indicates that the prohibition against causing a blemish applies only to an animal that is currently perfect, i.e., unblemished, and can therefore be accepted, i.e., it is fit to be sacrificed upon the altar. If the animal is already blemished, there is no prohibition against causing an additional blemish in it.

קלאוד על הדף:

This is where the real dispute lies. An animal congested with blood counts as already blemished, so the question is whether one may add a blemish to it. Rabbi Meir reads ‘there shall be no blemish in it’ as covering every blemish, even on a blemished animal. The Rabbis read ‘it shall be perfect to be accepted’ as limiting the prohibition to an animal still fit for the altar. The bloodletting dispute is thus a matter of reading these verses, and has nothing to do with the teruma barrel.

Key Terms:

• מֵטִיל מוּם בְּבַעַל מוּם = inflicting a blemish on an animal that is already blemished
• כׇּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ = ‘there shall be no blemish in it’ (Vayikra 22:21)
• תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן = ‘it shall be perfect to be accepted’

Segment 18

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

How does Rabbi Meir use ‘perfect to be accepted’? To exclude an animal blemished from birth

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַאי ״תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַעוֹטֵי בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Meir, what does he do with this verse: “It shall be perfect to be accepted”? The Gemara answers: That verse serves to exclude only an animal that was blemished from the outset, i.e., an animal that was born with a blemish. In such a case, there is no prohibition against causing an additional blemish in it. But if the animal was initially unblemished and later developed a blemish, it is prohibited to cause another blemish in it.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks what Rabbi Meir does with the Rabbis’ verse, ‘perfect to be accepted.’ The first suggestion is that it excludes an animal born blemished, which was never fit for the altar and so may be blemished further. On this reading the prohibition still covers an animal that was born whole and became blemished later.

Key Terms:

• בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ = an animal blemished from the outset (from birth)
• לְמַעוֹטֵי = to exclude

Segment 19

TYPE: דחייה

An animal blemished from birth needs no verse — it is like a palm tree

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ — פְּשִׁיטָא, דִּיקְלָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!

English Translation:

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There is no need to exclude an animal that was blemished from the outset, as it is merely like a palm tree, i.e., it can never attain the status of an animal consecrated as an offering. Therefore, it is obvious that the prohibition against causing a blemish does not apply to this animal.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara rejects this. An animal blemished from birth never had the status of an offering at all, and the Gemara compares it to a palm tree: it is as unconnected to the altar as a tree is. A verse would not be needed to exclude something so obviously outside the prohibition.

Key Terms:

• פְּשִׁיטָא = it is obvious
• דִּיקְלָא בְּעָלְמָא = merely a palm tree — something with no connection to the altar

Segment 20

TYPE: תירוץ

Rather it excludes pesulei hamukdashin after redemption, which might have been thought forbidden to blemish like shearing and labor

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וַאֲסִירִי בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה — בְּמוּמִין נָמֵי לִיתַּסְרוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

English Translation:

Rather, Rabbi Meir maintains that the phrase “It shall be perfect to be accepted” serves to exclude disqualified consecrated animals, to teach that after their redemption, when they become non-sacred, the prohibition against causing a blemish does not apply to them any longer. This exclusion is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that since even after they have been redeemed and are non-sacred, just as it is prohibited to shear these animals or use them for labor, perhaps let it also be prohibited to cause a blemish upon them. Consequently, this verse teaches us that there is no prohibition against causing a blemish in these animals.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rather, for Rabbi Meir the verse excludes disqualified consecrated animals after they have been redeemed. One might have thought that since they remain forbidden in shearing and labor even after redemption, blemishing them would be forbidden too. The verse teaches that the ban on blemishing does not apply to them. The residual sanctity of redeemed animals, already seen in the margilin discussion, is thus limited in scope.

Key Terms:

• לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן = after their redemption
• סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא = it would have entered your mind to say
• קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = it teaches us (otherwise)

Segment 21

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (ברייתא, נמשך לדף לד)

And what do the Rabbis do with ‘any blemish’? It extends the ban to blemishing by indirect causation — a baraita begins

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״כׇּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ״! לִגְרָמָא הוּא דְּאָתֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ״ — אֵין לִי

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis as well, who derive their opinion from the verse: “It shall be perfect to be accepted,” isn’t it written: “There shall not be any blemish in it,” which indicates an expansion of the prohibition against causing a blemish upon an offering? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to teach that the prohibition against causing a blemish extends also to a blemish caused as the result of an indirect action. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “There shall not be any blemish in it” (Leviticus 22:21); from here I have derived

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara turns the question on the Rabbis: what do they do with ‘there shall not be any blemish in it’? The answer is that the verse extends the prohibition to a blemish caused indirectly (גרמא), and a baraita is quoted to show this. The daf ends in the middle of the baraita (‘from here I have derived…’), which continues on 34a. The concept of gerama, raised earlier to undo the teruma parallel, now becomes the subject of the next discussion.

Key Terms:

• לִגְרָמָא הוּא דְּאָתֵי = it comes to teach (the prohibition) by indirect causation
• אֵין לִי = I have (derived) only… — the opening of a baraita’s exegetical sequence

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 33 continues Perek 5, כל פסולי המוקדשין, and moves from who may eat a blemished firstborn to how a holy animal that is already compromised must be treated. Amud aleph finishes the dispute begun on 32b. Beit Hillel answer Beit Shammai’s comparison of the bechor to the breast and thigh with a kal vachomer, Rabbi Akiva’s version of Beit Hillel permits even a gentile, and a parallel baraita has the two schools disagree over feeding the blemished bechor to niddot. A second baraita forbids margilin, skinning an animal from the feet so the hide comes off whole, on Yom Tov, for a bechor and for disqualified consecrated animals. Rav Chisda assigns the clauses to Beit Shammai and to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Amud bet opens a new mishna on a bechor congested with blood: may one let its blood if the cut will leave a blemish? The Gemara tries to match this dispute to the dispute over a barrel of teruma of doubtful purity, takes the comparison apart, and with Rabbi Yochanan’s help shows that the real question is whether one may blemish an animal that is already blemished. The daf ends in the middle of a baraita on blemishing by indirect causation (גרמא), which continues on 34a.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• Beit Hillel’s kal vachomer: the comparison to the breast and thigh (Bamidbar 18:18) applies only to an unblemished bechor. Of a blemished one the Torah says “the impure and the pure may eat it alike.” If an impure priest, who may not eat kodashim kalim, may eat a blemished bechor, then surely a non-priest (זר), who may eat kodashim kalim, may eat it too.
• The pircha and its answer: an impure priest has a leniency of his own, since impure priests may perform the communal service (עבודת צבור). Beit Hillel reply that the argument is about eating, not service, and in eating the non-priest is superior (אכילת זר עדיף).
• Rabbi Akiva’s version: Beit Hillel permit even a gentile, from “like the gazelle and like the deer” (כצבי וכאיל). Just as a gentile may eat a gazelle, he may eat a blemished bechor.
• The other tanna: the gazelle-and-deer phrase appears three times in Devarim (12:15, 12:22, 15:22), and each is already used: for Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Oshaya, for Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, and to exempt disqualified consecrated animals from bechora. Nothing is left to permit a gentile.
• Niddot and the bechor: Beit Shammai forbid feeding a blemished bechor to niddot, again from the breast and thigh. Beit Hillel permit it from “the impure and the pure may eat it.”
• Bodily impurity: Beit Shammai limit the verse to impurity from an outside source. Impurity that comes from one’s own body (טומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו), as with a zav or nidda, is more severe, as the Pesach brought in impurity shows: zavim, metzora’im, zavot, niddot and yoledot may not eat it (Pesachim 95b). Beit Hillel answer that the Pesach verse says “impure by reason of a dead body” (טמא נפש), while the bechor verse says only “impure.”
• Margilin: a baraita forbids skinning from the feet on Yom Tov, for a bechor and for pesulei hamukdashin. Yom Tov is understood, since the extra effort is not for the Festival. Rav Chisda says the bechor clause follows Beit Shammai, who treat even a blemished bechor as sacred meat.
• Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon: Rav Chisda assigns the pesulei hamukdashin clause to him. In the case of two chatat animals, one blemished, the redeemed blemished animal is permitted if slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one is sprinkled and forbidden if slaughtered after. He adds that even meat already in the pot becomes forbidden when the blood is sprinkled, so the redeemed animal keeps some sanctity even after slaughter.
• Why not one tanna: Beit Shammai’s strictness may apply only to the bechor, whose sanctity is from the womb (קדושתו מרחם).

Amud Bet Highlights

• The reverse question: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon may be strict only with ordinary consecrated animals, whose sanctity is strong enough to pass to their redemption money. A bechor is never redeemed, so its sanctity is weaker in this respect. Each clause needs its own tanna.
• Why not permit margilin for profit? Pesulei hamukdashin may be sold in the butchers’ market by weight because a higher price benefits hekdesh (31a-b). Why not allow skinning from the feet for the same reason? Rav Mari son of Rav Kahana: what the hide gains, the meat loses. In the West, in the name of Ravina: it looks like working with kodashim. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: a decree, lest he keep the animals while waiting for a hide buyer and raise whole herds of them.
• The mishna of bloodletting: for a bechor congested with blood, Rabbi Yehuda forbids bloodletting even if it will die. The Chachamim permit it without making a blemish, and if one was made the animal may not be slaughtered on account of it. Rabbi Shimon permits it even with a blemish.
• The baraita’s four views: Rabbi Meir allows bloodletting only where no blemish results. The Rabbis allow it even where a blemish results, but the animal may not be slaughtered on that blemish. Rabbi Shimon allows slaughtering on it as well. Rabbi Yehuda forbids it entirely.
• The barrel of teruma: Rabbi Elazar (some say Rabbi Chiyya) taught his son that the same dispute appears in Terumot 8:8. For teruma of doubtful purity, Rabbi Eliezer says to guard it, Rabbi Yehoshua says one may even expose it, and Rabban Gamliel says to change nothing. The proposed match: Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Eliezer, the Rabbis follow Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Yehuda follows Rabban Gamliel.
• The match undone: bloodletting harms the animal directly (בידים), while exposing the barrel only causes harm indirectly (גרמא). The teruma might yet be declared pure (“perhaps Eliyahu will come”), while the bechor will certainly die if left alone. Each pairing can be split by one of these distinctions.
• Rabbi Yochanan: each dispute rests on its own verses. Everyone agrees that leavening a mincha already leavened (מחמץ אחר מחמץ) is liable, from the repeated “it shall not be baked with leaven” and “shall not be made with leaven.” Everyone also agrees that castrating after another has castrated is liable, from “bruised, crushed, detached, cut.”
• The real dispute: blemishing an animal that is already blemished (מטיל מום בבעל מום). Rabbi Meir reads “there shall be no blemish in it” as covering every blemish. The Rabbis read “it shall be perfect to be accepted” as limiting the ban to an animal still fit for the altar.
• Each side’s other verse: for Rabbi Meir, “perfect to be accepted” cannot exclude an animal blemished from birth, which is like a palm tree (דיקלא בעלמא) and needs no verse. It excludes pesulei hamukdashin after redemption, which are still forbidden in shearing and labor but may be blemished. For the Rabbis, “any blemish” extends the ban to gerama. A baraita on this begins and continues on 34a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

Beit Hillel’s kal vachomer survives the pircha, because the argument concerns eating, where a non-priest outranks an impure priest. Rabbi Akiva’s extension to gentiles rests on a verse the other tanna has already used elsewhere. The niddot dispute comes down to whether the Pesach verse’s limit, “impure by reason of a dead body,” may be read into the unqualified bechor verse. Rav Chisda’s split authorship of the margilin baraita stands, since the bechor’s inborn sanctity and the redeemable sanctity of other consecrated animals may each be stricter in its own way. The Gemara gives three reasons margilin stays forbidden despite the gain to hekdesh, without choosing between them.

The comparison between bloodletting and the teruma barrel is rejected. Direct versus indirect harm, and doubt versus certain loss, are enough to separate every pairing. Rabbi Yochanan explains the bloodletting dispute as a matter of verses: everyone agrees that damaging what is already damaged is liable for leavening and castration, and the tannaim disagree only about blemishing an already blemished animal. The daf stops in the middle of the baraita on gerama, which continues on 34a.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Beit Shammai, Beit Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabban Gamliel

Amoraim: Rabbi Yitzchak, Rabbi Oshaya, Rav Chisda, Rav Mari son of Rav Kahana, Ravina (cited in the West), Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, Rabbi Elazar (or Rabbi Chiyya), Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba, Rabbi Yochanan

One-Line Takeaway

A blemished bechor is still holy enough to be guarded against degrading use, and the bloodletting dispute turns on whether the Torah’s ban on blemishing protects only a perfect animal or one that is already flawed.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf is about a firstborn animal that is holy but hurt. Who is allowed to eat it? How should you treat it, even after it’s been slaughtered? And what if it gets sick: may you give it a medical treatment that might leave a mark on it? Along the way, the Gemara tries to match two arguments together like puzzle pieces… and then shows that the pieces don’t really fit!

Quick Reminder: The Blemished Bechor 🐑🩹

The first boy an animal ever gives birth to is a בכור (bechor, “firstborn”). It belongs to the kohen (the priest). If it’s perfect, it goes on the altar in the Temple.

But if it gets a מום (mum, a “blemish,” a real injury like a torn ear or a broken tooth), it can’t go on the altar anymore. Instead, the kohen may slaughter it and eat it at home. The Torah says the blemished bechor is eaten “like the gazelle and like the deer,” meaning almost like ordinary meat.

Almost. And that little word “almost” is what today’s daf is all about!

The Simple Idea 💡: A blemished bechor is no longer an offering, but it still carries a little bit of holiness.

Beit Hillel’s “If This, Then Surely That” 🧠➡️

At the end of daf 32, the two great schools, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, were arguing: may the kohen let a non-kohen (a regular Jew) eat the meat of a blemished bechor?

Beit Shammai said no. Beit Hillel said yes, and they used a famous kind of argument called a קל וחומר (kal vachomer, “if this, then surely that”):

• The Torah says about the blemished bechor: “the impure and the pure may eat it.” So even a kohen who is טמא (tamei, “spiritually impure”) may eat it.
• But that impure kohen is not allowed to eat ordinary holy offerings, like a שלמים (shelamim, a “peace offering”).
• A regular Jew who is pure is allowed to eat a shelamim!
• So if the impure kohen (who can’t eat a shelamim) may eat the bechor, then surely the regular Jew (who can eat a shelamim) may eat it too!

But wait! The Gemara pokes a hole: the impure kohen has a special power the regular Jew doesn’t have. When the whole community is impure, impure kohanim may still do the Temple service. A regular Jew can never do the service.

Beit Hillel answer: “We’re not talking about working in the Temple. We’re talking about eating! And when it comes to eating, the pure regular Jew wins.”

Think of it like… a kid who isn’t allowed in the school kitchen, but is allowed to eat lunch in the cafeteria. If someone says, “The cook gets special kitchen privileges, so you can’t compare them,” the answer is: “We’re only asking about lunch, not about the kitchen!”

The Simple Idea 💡: When you compare two people, compare them on the same thing you’re asking about.

Can a Gentile Eat It? 🦌

Rabbi Akiva says that Beit Hillel would let even a gentile (someone who isn’t Jewish) eat the meat of a blemished bechor. Why? Because the Torah says it’s “like the gazelle and like the deer.” Anybody in the world can eat a deer. So anybody can eat a blemished bechor!

🤔 Then why does the other opinion disagree? The Gemara says: that phrase “gazelle and deer” shows up three times in the Torah, and each time it’s already busy teaching something else. For example, one of them teaches that the babies of a blemished holy animal are not firstborns, just like a deer’s babies aren’t firstborns. So there’s no extra verse left over to teach about gentiles.

Think of it like… three cookies on a plate, and three kids have already called dibs. If a fourth kid asks for one, sorry, there are none left!

The Simple Idea 💡: Each verse in the Torah usually teaches one lesson, so if all the copies are “used up,” you can’t squeeze out another rule.

Two Kinds of “Impure” 🚿❓

Another argument between the two schools: may you give the blemished bechor to a woman who is נדה (nidda, a woman who is spiritually impure for a while because of her body’s natural monthly cycle)?

• Beit Shammai: No! The Torah compares the bechor to the special parts of the peace offering that impure people may never eat.
• Beit Hillel: Yes! For a blemished bechor, the Torah plainly says “the impure and the pure may eat it.”

Then Beit Shammai make a clever split. There are two kinds of impurity:

Beit Shammai say: “the impure may eat it” only means the outside kind. And they bring proof! When the Korban Pesach (the Passover offering) is brought while most people are impure from a dead body, the “outside-impure” people may eat it, but the “body-impure” people still may not.

Beit Hillel answer: “For Pesach, the Torah specifically said ‘impure from a dead body.’ Here, the Torah just said ‘impure,’ with no details. So it means every kind!”

Think of it like… a sign that says “Kids under 10 eat free.” One person says, “It only means kids who live in town.” The other says, “The sign didn’t say that! If they meant only town kids, they would have written it, like they did on the other sign that says ‘Town kids only.’”

The Simple Idea 💡: Beit Hillel say: when the Torah adds a detail in one place but not another, don’t sneak that detail in where it isn’t written.

Skinning from the Feet 🦶🎒

Now a new rule. There’s a special way to skin an animal called מרגילין (margilin): you start from the feet and peel the whole hide off in one piece, like taking off a onesie. Then the skin can be used as a bag or a sack. Fancy and valuable!

A baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishna) says you may not skin this way:

1. ❌ On Yom Tov (a Festival day)
2. ❌ For a bechor, even a blemished one
3. ❌ For a disqualified holy animal, one that got blemished and was redeemed (bought back with money so it could be eaten)

The Yom Tov part is easy: on a holiday you may cook food, but making a fancy leather bag is extra work you don’t need for the holiday.

But why not for a bechor? Rav Chisda says: this follows Beit Shammai, who treat even a blemished bechor with lots of respect (remember, they didn’t even let a nidda eat it). Skinning it like a factory product would be disrespectful.

And the redeemed holy animal? Rav Chisda says that part follows Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon. He’s the one who says a redeemed animal still keeps a little holiness, even after it’s slaughtered. How do we know? There’s a case of a man who set aside two sin offerings, just in case one got lost. One got a blemish and was redeemed. If it was slaughtered before the other one’s blood went on the altar, it’s fine to eat. If after, it’s forbidden. And Rabbi Elazar says: even if the meat is already in the pot when the other blood is sprinkled, it becomes forbidden! So the holiness was still hanging on.

But wait! Why does Rav Chisda need two different Sages for one baraita? Why not one?

Think of it like… a puzzle where two different pieces each fit only one spot. You need both pieces to finish the picture!

The Simple Idea 💡: The baraita may be built from two different Sages, each strict for his own reason.

”But the Holy Treasury Would Make More Money!” 💰🏛️

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Elazar. Back on daf 31, we learned that redeemed holy animals may be sold in the butcher shop and weighed on a scale like regular meat. Why? Because if the owner knows he can sell the meat for a good price, he’ll pay more to redeem the animal, and that money goes to הקדש (hekdesh, the “Temple treasury”).

So shouldn’t fancy skinning be allowed too? A whole hide sells for more!

Three answers:

• 🔪 Rav Mari: No real profit! When you skin from the feet, you rip off some meat with it. What you gain on the leather, you lose on the meat.
• 👀 In Eretz Yisrael (in Ravina’s name): It looks like you’re putting a holy animal to work, and that’s not allowed.
• 🐑🐑🐑 Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: The Sages made a fence (a protective rule). If whole hides were so valuable, the owner might keep the animals alive while waiting for a buyer… and soon have whole herds! Then he might come to shear them or make them work, which is forbidden.

Think of it like… a rule that you can’t keep a borrowed library book “until someone wants to buy it from you.” If you hold on to it too long, you’ll start writing in it!

The Simple Idea 💡: Even when something would earn money for the Temple, the Sages worried about respect and about where it might lead.

The Sick Firstborn 🩸🐂

Now a new mishna. A bechor gets sick with too much blood (people used to treat this by letting blood, making a small cut so some blood comes out). But a cut might leave a blemish! And you’re not allowed to put a blemish on a holy animal on purpose. What do you do?

The baraita in the Gemara gives four opinions, from strictest to easiest:

Why can’t you slaughter it on a blemish you made? Because then people might cut their bechorot “for medicine” just to make them eatable!

Think of it like… a library book with a torn page. One librarian says, “Don’t fix it at all, you might rip it more!” Another says, “Tape it, but only on the back.” Another says, “Tape it anywhere, but don’t use that as an excuse to throw the book out.” And the last says, “Tape it, and if it’s ruined, fine, it can retire.”

The Simple Idea 💡: The Sages argue about which matters more: not hurting a holy animal, or saving its life.

The Barrel Match-Up 🛢️🧩

Here’s where the daf gets really clever. Rabbi Elazar (some say Rabbi Chiyya) taught his son: “This argument is just like another argument!”

The other argument is about a barrel of תרומה (terumah, special food that only kohanim may eat, and only when it’s pure). Something happened, and now we don’t know if the barrel is still pure. A kohen isn’t allowed to eat it while it’s doubtful. So what do we do with the barrel?

• Rabbi Eliezer: Protect it! If it’s sitting somewhere risky, move it somewhere safe. If it’s open, cover it.
• Rabbi Yehoshua: No need to protect it. You can even move it somewhere risky or uncover it.
• Rabban Gamliel: Don’t change anything. Leave it exactly as it is.

So Rabbi Elazar matched them up:

Neat, right?

…But the Pieces Don’t Fit! ❌🧩

But wait! The Gemara says: “How do you know they match?” Then it shows that every pair could be different, because the two cases are different in two big ways:

1. ✋ Doing it vs. letting it happen. Cutting the animal is doing harm with your own hands. Leaving a barrel uncovered only lets something maybe happen later. The Gemara calls this גרמא (gerama, “indirect causing”).
2. 🔮 Maybe vs. for sure. The barrel is only maybe impure. Someday Eliyahu HaNavi (Elijah the Prophet) might come and tell us, “It’s pure!” and then the kohen could eat it. So it’s worth protecting. But the sick animal will for sure die if you don’t help it.

So, for example, Rabbi Meir might be strict about cutting (because you’re doing it with your hands) but easygoing about the barrel (because that’s only indirect). And Rabban Gamliel might say “leave the barrel alone” (because maybe Eliyahu will come) but agree to help the animal (because it will surely die).

Think of it like… two kids who both said “no” to something. You might think they always agree. But one said no to jumping in a puddle because he didn’t want wet socks, and the other said no because he was scared of frogs! On a different question, they could easily disagree.

The Simple Idea 💡: Two arguments can look the same but be about totally different reasons.

The Real Reason: Spoiling Something Already Spoiled 🍞🔁

Finally, the Gemara says what the bloodletting argument is really about. Rabbi Yochanan says there are some things everyone agrees on:

• 🍞 A מנחה (mincha, a flour offering) must never be made with חמץ (chametz, “leavened,” puffy dough). If someone already made it chametz, and then you make it chametz again, you’re still guilty! The Torah says it twice: “it shall not be baked chametz” and “it shall not be made chametz.”
• 🐂 Damaging an animal’s body so it can’t have babies: even if someone already damaged it, if you damage it more, you’re still guilty. The Torah lists four kinds of damage in a special order to teach this.

So where do they argue? About putting a blemish on an animal that already has a blemish! (An animal sick with too much blood counts as already blemished.)

Then the Gemara asks: what does Rabbi Meir do with “perfect to be accepted”? Maybe it means an animal that was born blemished? No way! That animal is “just a palm tree.” It never had anything to do with the altar, so of course there’s no rule about it. Rather, says the Gemara, it teaches that once a blemished holy animal has been redeemed, you may give it more blemishes. (Even though you still can’t shear it or make it work!)

And what do the Rabbis do with “no blemish at all”? It teaches that you can’t blemish a holy animal even indirectly (gerama again!). A baraita starts to explain this… and the daf ends right in the middle of a sentence. To be continued on daf 34!

Think of it like… a “Don’t draw on the wall” rule. Rabbi Meir says, “Even if the wall already has scribbles, don’t add more!” The Rabbis say, “The rule is to protect a clean wall. A wall that’s already scribbled on isn’t what the rule is about.”

The Simple Idea 💡: The real argument is: does the “no blemish” rule protect every holy animal, or only the perfect ones?

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• Beit Hillel use a kal vachomer: if an impure kohen may eat a blemished bechor, then surely a pure regular Jew may. The objection about Temple service doesn’t count, because we’re talking about eating.
• Rabbi Akiva says even a gentile may eat it (“like the gazelle and the deer”). The other opinion says all three “gazelle and deer” verses are already used.
• Beit Shammai won’t feed a blemished bechor to a nidda: “impure” means only impurity from outside, like at Pesach. Beit Hillel say the Torah wrote plain “impure,” so it means all kinds.
• No skinning from the feet on Yom Tov, for a bechor (Beit Shammai), or for a redeemed holy animal (Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon). The reasons: the hide gains but the meat loses, it looks like working a holy animal, or the owner might raise whole herds.
• A sick bechor: Rabbi Yehuda says don’t let blood even if it dies; Rabbi Meir says only where there’s no blemish; the Rabbis allow a blemish but no slaughtering on it; Rabbi Shimon allows both.
• The match-up with the doubtful terumah barrel falls apart: direct vs. indirect, and maybe pure someday (Eliyahu!) vs. will surely die.
• Everyone agrees: making chametz again or damaging again is still a sin. The real fight is about blemishing an already blemished animal: Rabbi Meir says “no blemish at all,” the Rabbis say only a “perfect” animal is protected. And a teaching about indirect blemishing continues on daf 34!

⚖️ Halacha

Who May Eat a Blemished Firstborn: A Non-Priest, an Impure Person, Even a Gentile

Source in Daf: 33a, Segments 1-11 (Beit Hillel’s kal vachomer that a non-priest may eat a blemished bechor; the pircha from communal service and its rejection; Rabbi Akiva’s “like the gazelle and like the deer,” which extends the permission even to a gentile; the parallel dispute over feeding a blemished bechor to niddot, with Beit Shammai’s distinction between external impurity and impurity “issuing from his body” and Beit Hillel’s reply that “impure” in the bechor verse is unqualified)

Rambam — Hilkhot Bekhorot (Firstlings) 1:3

Hebrew:

בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל מוּם בֵּין שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּמוּמוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל בּוֹ מוּם אַחַר שֶׁהָיָה תָמִים הֲרֵי הוּא לַכֹּהֵן אִם רָצָה אוֹכְלוֹ בְּכָל מָקוֹם אוֹ מוֹכְרוֹ אוֹ מַאֲכִילוֹ לְמִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה אֲפִלּוּ לְנָכְרִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חֻלִּין. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טו כא) “וְכִי יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם פִּסֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר” וְגוֹ’ (דברים טו כב) “הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר יַחְדָּו יֹאכֲלֶנּוּ כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל” וַהֲרֵי הוּא נִכְסֵי כֹּהֵן:

English:

When a firstborn kosher animal is blemished - whether it was born blemished or contracted a blemish after being born unblemished - it should be given to a priest. If he desires, he may eat it anywhere, or sell it or feed to whoever he desires, even a gentile, because it is ordinary property, as Deuteronomy 15:21-22 states: “If it has a blemish - lameness or blindness… the pure and the impure shall partake of it, like a deer or a hart.” It is the priest’s private property.

Connection: The Rambam rules with Beit Hillel, and in the broad form that the baraita attributes to Rabbi Akiva: “למי שירצה אפלו לנכרי,” to whomever he wishes, even a gentile. Both prooftexts of the sugya appear in his ruling. “הטמא והטהור יחדו יאכלנו” is the verse Beit Hillel used to limit the breast-and-thigh comparison to the unblemished bechor (Segments 1 and 8), and “כצבי וכאיל” is Rabbi Akiva’s source for the gentile (Segment 4). The phrase “מפני שהוא חלין” (because it is ordinary property) is the halachic expression of the comparison to the gazelle and deer. Once blemished, the bechor is the priest’s money, and he may do with it what anyone does with non-sacred meat. The Rambam does not single out niddot. His unqualified “למי שירצה,” resting on the unqualified “הטמא” of the verse, is Beit Hillel’s answer in Segment 11: an impure person of any kind may eat it.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 306:5

Hebrew:

הבכור בזמן הזה ישהנו עד שיפול בו מום ושוחטו על פי מומחה ואוכלו [בכל מקום] ומאכילו אפילו לעובד כוכבים [או לכלבים ] (הגהות מרדכי פ’ האשה שהלכה):

English (translation ours; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

The firstborn in our time: he keeps it until a blemish falls upon it, slaughters it on the word of an expert, eats it [in any place], and feeds it even to a gentile [or to dogs]. (Hagahot Mordechai, chapter HaIsha SheHalcha)

Connection: This is the ruling as it applies today. With no Temple, a firstborn of a kosher animal is kept until it becomes blemished, examined by an expert, and then eaten “in any place.” The Shulchan Aruch, like the Rambam, permits feeding it “even to a gentile,” following Rabbi Akiva’s reading of “like the gazelle and like the deer.” The bracketed addition “or to dogs” carries the logic one step further: once the bechor has the status of a gazelle, it may be put to any use that ordinary meat may.

Rambam — Hilkhot Korban Pesach (Paschal Offering) 7:8

Hebrew:

פֶּסַח שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּהוּ בְּטֻמְאָה הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱכָל בְּטֻמְאָה. שֶׁמִּתְּחִלָּתוֹ לֹא בָּא אֶלָּא לַאֲכִילָה. וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל לְכָל טָמֵא אֶלָּא לִטְמֵאֵי מֵת שֶׁנִּדְחֵית לָהֶם הַטֻּמְאָה הַזֹּאת וּלְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִטְּמֵאֵי מַגַּע טֻמְאוֹת. אֲבָל הַטְּמֵאִים שֶׁהַטֻּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עֲלֵיהֶן מִגּוּפָן כְּגוֹן זָבִים וְזָבוֹת נִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת וּמְצֹרָעִים לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְאִם אָכְלוּ פְּטוּרִין. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁהַנֶּאֱכָל לִטְהוֹרִין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאָה וְהַנֶּאֱכָל לִטְמֵאִין אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאָה. אֲפִלּוּ אָכְלוּ טְמֵאֵי הַמֵּת מֵהָאֵימוּרִים שֶׁלּוֹ פְּטוּרִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהַפֶּסַח יֵאָכֵל בְּטֻמְאָה כְּשֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ הַצִּבּוּר קֹדֶם זְרִיקַת הַדָּם. אֲבָל אִם נִטְמְאוּ לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת הַדָּם לֹא יֵאָכֵל:

English:

When the Paschal sacrifice was offered in a state of impurity, it should also be eaten in a state of impurity, for from the outset, it was brought only to be eaten. It may not be eaten by all those who are impure, only by those impure because of contact with a human corpse. For them, this impurity is suspended. This also applies to those impure because of contact with other sources of impurity. Those who are impure because of an impurity that results from a physical condition, e.g., zavvim, zavot, niddot, women after childbirth, those afflicted by tzara’at, should not partake of it. If, however, they do partake of it, they are exempt. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that when a sacrifice is eaten by those who are pure, those who are impure are liable for partaking of it in impurity. When it is eaten by those who are impure, there is no liability for partaking of it in impurity. Even if those who are impure because of contact with a human corpse partook of the fats and organs to be offered on the altar, they are exempt. When does the statement that a Paschal sacrifice may be eaten while ritually impure apply? When the people became impure before the blood was poured on the altar. If, however, they became impure after the blood was poured, it should not be eaten.

Connection: This is the law Beit Shammai cite as their proof in Segment 10, and the Rambam codifies it in the very terms of our sugya: “הטמאים שהטומאה יוצאה עליהן מגופן,” those whose impurity issues from their own body, are excluded from a Pesach brought in impurity. Beit Hillel did not dispute this rule; they argued in Segment 11 that it rests on the specific phrase “impure by a corpse” and does not carry over to the bechor, where “impure” is unqualified. The two rulings of the Rambam sit side by side exactly as Beit Hillel’s answer requires. At the Pesach the zav and nidda are barred; with the blemished bechor (Bekhorot 1:3 above) there is no such limitation.

Skinning from the Feet (Margilin): Yom Tov, the Bechor, and Pesulei HaMukdashin

Source in Daf: 33a, Segments 12-17, and 33b, Segments 1-4 (the baraita “one may not skin from the feet on Yom Tov, nor a bechor, nor disqualified consecrated animals”; Rav Chisda attributes the bechor clause to Beit Shammai and the pesulei hamukdashin clause to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon; the reasons offered: what the hide gains the meat loses; it looks like working with consecrated animals; a decree lest he raise herds)

Rambam — Hilkhot Shevitat Yom Tov (Rest on a Holiday) 3:6

Hebrew:

הַמַּפְשִׁיט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לֹא יַרְגִּיל בְּיוֹם טוֹב. כֵּיצַד הוּא הַמַּרְגִּיל. זֶה הַמּוֹצִיא כָּל בָּשָׂר מֵרֶגֶל אַחַת כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹצִיא כָּל הָעוֹר שָׁלֵם וְלֹא יִקָּרַע. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטּוֹרֵחַ בְּהֶפְשֵׁט זֶה טֹרַח גָּדוֹל וְאֵין בּוֹ צֹרֶךְ לַמּוֹעֵד. וְכֵן אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בֵּית יָד בַּבָּשָׂר וְהוּא שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בְּסַכִּין שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּחל. וּמֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת סִימָן בַּבָּשָׂר:

English:

When a person skins an animal on a holiday, he should not employ the technique referred to as regol. What is meant by regol? The person removes all the meat from [a hole made] at one foot, leaving the entire hide intact, without being torn. [This is forbidden] because this means of skinning involves great effort, and it is not necessary for the holiday. Similarly, it is forbidden to cut a handle into the meat. [The prohibition applies] only when the handle is made with a knife, thus restricting [the butcher] from following his ordinary practice. [A butcher] may, however, make a sign in the meat.

Connection: The first clause of the baraita is undisputed, and the Rambam gives it exactly the reason the Gemara assumes in Segment 13: “טורח גדול ואין בו צורך למועד,” great effort with no use for the Festival day. He also defines the technique: all the meat is drawn out through one foot so the hide comes off whole, which is why such a hide was valuable as a bag or bellows. On this clause the Gemara asked no question; the debate was only about the other two.

Rambam — Hilkhot Bekhorot (Firstlings) 1:19

Hebrew:

הַמַּפְשִׁיט בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְהַפְשִׁיטוֹ בְּאֵי זֶה דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. אִם רָצָה לְהַרְגִּיל מַרְגִּיל. וְכֵן שְׁאָר פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין אִם רָצָה לְהַפְשִׁיט מִן הָרֶגֶל מַפְשִׁיט:

English:

When a person skins a blemished firstborn animal, he is permitted to skin it in any manner he desires. If he desires to employ the technique called riggul, he may. The same applies to other consecrated animals that were disqualified. If he desired to skin it from the foot up, he may skin it in that manner.

Connection: Here the Rambam permits both clauses that the baraita forbade. The logic follows from Rav Chisda’s attributions. The bechor clause is Beit Shammai’s (Segment 13), and the halacha follows Beit Hillel, who treat a blemished bechor as ordinary meat that even a gentile may eat (Bekhorot 1:3 above). The pesulei hamukdashin clause is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon’s (Segments 14-16), an individual view against the majority. Once each clause is pinned to a minority tanna, the baraita is not followed. The Kesef Mishneh says this explicitly:

Kesef Mishneh on Hilkhot Bekhorot 1:19

Hebrew:

המפשיט בכור בעל מום וכו’. בספ”ד דתמורה (דף כ”ד) תניא דאין מרגילין בבכור ולא בפסולי המוקדשין ואוקימנא לה בתנאי דלית הלכתא כוותייהו. ומה שאמרו שם במערבא אמרי מפני שנראה כעובד עבודה בקדשים ר”י בר אבין אמר גזירה שמא יגדל מהם עדרים עדרים מפרש רבינו דאדר”א בר”ש קאי ולא כדפירש”י והרא”ש:

English (translation ours; Sefaria has no English for this comment):

“One who skins a blemished firstborn, etc.” At the end of the fourth chapter of Temurah (page 24) it is taught that one does not skin by margilin a firstborn nor disqualified consecrated animals, and we established it as following tannaim whom the halacha does not follow. And what they said there, “In the West they say: because it looks like one who performs work with consecrated animals; Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: a decree lest he raise from them herds upon herds” — our Master (the Rambam) explains that this refers to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, and not as Rashi and the Rosh explained.

Connection: The sugya on our daf has a parallel in Temurah 24a, which the Kesef Mishneh cites. His analysis turns on the structure of 33b, Segments 2-4. The reasons given there (“it looks like working with kodashim,” “lest he raise herds”) were offered to explain the view of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon after it was challenged from the itliz mishna. They explain a minority opinion, and so they do not establish a binding prohibition. Rashi and the Rosh read those reasons as general, which leads to the opposite ruling below.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 307:1

Hebrew:

אין מרגילין בבכור דהיינו להפשיט עורו שלם דרך מרגלותיו:

English (translation ours; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

One does not skin a firstborn by margilin, that is, to flay its hide whole by way of its feet.

Connection: On this point the Shulchan Aruch does not follow the Rambam. It codifies the baraita’s bechor clause as practical law, following the reading of Rashi and the Rosh that the Kesef Mishneh contrasts with the Rambam: the reasons of 33b (“it looks like working with kodashim”) apply generally and are not tied to a rejected tanna. In practice, then, a blemished firstborn slaughtered today should not be flayed whole through the feet. A blemished bechor may be eaten by anyone, yet it keeps enough sanctity that one should not handle it like commercial meat, which is the intuition behind Rav Chisda’s explanation in Segment 13.

Selling Pesulei HaMukdashin in the Market, but Not the Bechor

Source in Daf: 33b, Segment 2 (the challenge to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon from the mishna on 31a: disqualified consecrated animals are sold in the itliz and weighed by the litra, because the higher price is a gain for hekdesh)

Rambam — Hilkhot Issurei Mizbeach (Things Forbidden on the Altar) 1:12

Hebrew:

כָּל פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין כְּשֶׁיִּפָּדוּ מֻתָּר לְשָׁחֳטָן בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים וּלְמָכְרָן שָׁם וְלִשְׁקל בְּשָׂרָם בְּלִיטְרָא כִּשְׁאָר הַחֻלִּין חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּכִירָתָם בַּשּׁוּק מוֹסִיף בִּדְמֵיהֶן. שְׁאָר הַקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁדְּמֵיהֶן חוֹזְרִין לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי מֵבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶם בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָן בַּשּׁוּק כְּחֻלִּין. אֲבָל הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁאֵין דְּמֵיהֶם לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא נֶאֱכָלִין בְּמוּמָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתָם בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים. וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָם שָׁם. אֲפִלּוּ הִתְפִּיס בְּכוֹר לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵינוֹ נִשְׁקַל בְּלִיטְרָא וְלֹא יִמָּכֵר בַּשּׁוּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַתְפִּיס אֶלָּא דָּבָר הַקָּנוּי לוֹ קִנְיָן גָּמוּר:

English:

Whenever a consecrated animal that was disqualified is redeemed, it may be slaughtered in a butchers’ market and sold there, [after] being weighed with a scale like ordinary meat. [The only] exceptions are the firstborn animals and the tithes. [The rationale for the distinction is that] selling the animal in the market causes its price to rise. Therefore other sacrifices whose value remains consecrated - for they are sold and the proceeds of the sale are used to bring another animal as a sacrifice - it should be sold in the market like an ordinary animal. In contrast, with regard to a first born animal and a tithed animal - since the proceeds of their sale do not remain consecrated, instead, the animals may be eaten [as ordinary meat,] because of the blemish, as will be explained - they may not be slaughtered in a butchers’ market or sold there. Even if [the value of] the firstborn animal was consecrated, it should not be weighed on a scale and sold in a market. [The rationale is that] one may consecrate only an article that he has acquired in a complete and total manner.

Connection: The Gemara’s challenge in Segment 2 assumes this rule and its reason: “מפני שמכירתם בשוק מוסיף בדמיהן,” selling them in the market raises their value, which is “a gain for hekdesh” in the Gemara’s words. The Rambam also states why the bechor is different. Its proceeds do not go back to hekdesh, so the reason that permits commercial sale does not apply, and the shame to its sanctity remains. The same contrast lies behind the Gemara’s answer in Segment 1: ordinary consecrated animals are “strong enough to seize their redemption money,” and the bechor is not.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 306:6

Hebrew:

הבכור בזמן הזה מוכר אותו הכהן אפילו לישראל תמים חי ובעל מום חי ושחוט ומקדש בו את האשה שהוא כשאר ממונו אבל אינו נמכר במקולין ואינו נשקל בליטרא ומכל מקום מותר לשקול בו מנה כנגד מנה וכנגד כלי וקופיץ (פי’ כמו סכין גדול ורחב וחידודו בולט באמצעיתו) והני מילי בשרו אבל חלבו ודמו וגידו וקרניו נמכרים במקולין ונשקלין בליטרא ושמנו של גיד דינו כבשר כיון שהוא מותר מן התורה:

English (translation ours; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

The firstborn in our time: the priest may sell it even to a Yisrael — unblemished and alive, or blemished, alive or slaughtered — and may betroth a woman with it, for it is like the rest of his property. But it is not sold in the butchers’ shops and is not weighed by the litra. Nevertheless it is permitted to weigh portion against portion, and against a vessel or a cleaver (meaning something like a large broad knife whose sharp point protrudes from its middle). This applies to its meat; but its fat, its blood, its sinews and its horns are sold in the butchers’ shops and weighed by the litra. The fat of the sinew has the law of meat, since it is permitted by Torah law.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch applies the same distinction to the present day. The bechor is the priest’s property, yet “אינו נמכר במקולין ואינו נשקל בליטרא,” it is not sold in the market or weighed by the litra, which is what the mishna on 31a permitted only for other pesulei hamukdashin. The exceptions (fat, blood, sinews, horns) are parts that are not eaten as meat, so selling them commercially does not slight the bechor’s sanctity. The concern for the bechor’s dignity is the same one Rav Chisda found behind the margilin ban.

Two Sin Offerings Set Aside for Security, One Blemished

Source in Daf: 33a, Segments 14-16 (the baraita cited to identify Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon: one who set aside two chatat animals as security, one blemished; the unblemished one is offered and the blemished one redeemed; slaughtered before the sprinkling it is permitted, after it forbidden; Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon: even the meat in the pot becomes forbidden)

Rambam — Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin (Sacrifices Rendered Unfit) 4:5

Hebrew:

הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחֲרָיוּת. מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֵי זוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה:

English:

When a person sets aside two [animals for] a sin-offering for surety, he may gain atonement through which one he desires, the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.

Connection: This is the background to the baraita in Segment 14. Animals set aside “לאחריות,” as security, are not subject to the rule that a superfluous chatat is left to die. The owner chooses one, and the other is left to graze until blemished and redeemed for freewill offerings. The baraita’s case is a variation: one of the two is already blemished, so the unblemished one is offered and the blemished one is redeemed at once. The question is what happens to its meat if the blood of the other is sprinkled while it is still being prepared.

Rambam — Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin (Sacrifices Rendered Unfit) 4:3

Hebrew:

הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶם עוֹמְדוֹת. מָשַׁךְ אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵיהֶן וְנִתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ הָאַחֶרֶת תָּמוּת. בָּא לְהִמָּלֵךְ אוֹמְרִין לוֹ שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּזוֹ שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה. הָיְתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן תְּמִימָה וְאַחַת בַּעֲלַת מוּם. תְּמִימָה תִּקָּרֵב וּבַעֲלַת מוּם תִּפָּדֶה. נִשְׁחֲטָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק דַּם הַתְּמִימָה הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין יִמָּכְרוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְיָבִיא מִדְּמֵיהֶם חַטָּאת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפּל לִנְדָבָה:

English:

[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it, then the first one was found, and they both stood [before him]. If he took one of them and attained atonement through its [sacrifice], the other should be consigned to death. If he asks the advice [of the court], he is told to gain atonement through the one set aside first. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering. If one of them was unblemished and the other had a disqualifying physical blemish, the unblemished one should be sacrificed and the blemished one should be redeemed. If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar], it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one]. If they were both blemished, they should both be sold, a sin-offering should be purchased from the proceeds, and the remainder used for freewill offerings.

Connection: The middle of this halacha is the case of Segments 14-16: “תמימה תקרב ובעלת מום תפדה,” the unblemished one is offered and the blemished one redeemed. The final clause as printed, however, is surprising: “נשחטה בעלת מום קודם שיזרק דם התמימה הרי זו אסורה בהנאה,” if the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood was sprinkled, it is forbidden. The baraita’s first tanna (Segment 15) permitted exactly this case and forbade only slaughter after the sprinkling. The printed text therefore matches the more stringent view of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon (Segment 16), for whom the later sprinkling forbids even meat already slaughtered and in the pot. The translator, Rabbi Eliyahu Touger, notes in Sefaria’s edition that the Kesef Mishneh found it unlikely that the Rambam would follow an individual against the majority, and suggested emending the text to read: slaughtered before the sprinkling, it is permitted; after the sprinkling, it is forbidden. On that reading the Rambam follows the first tanna of the baraita, which is consistent with his rejection of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon’s margilin ban in Bekhorot 1:19.

Bloodletting a Congested Firstborn

Source in Daf: 33b, Segments 5-7 (the mishna: a bechor congested with blood — Rabbi Yehuda: no bloodletting even if it dies; the Chachamim: let blood without making a blemish, and if a blemish was made it may not be slaughtered on it; Rabbi Shimon: let blood even if it makes a blemish; and the baraita’s four-way version with Rabbi Meir, in which Rabbi Shimon allows slaughtering on that blemish)

Rambam — Hilkhot Bekhorot (Firstlings) 2:13

Hebrew:

בְּכוֹר שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ דָּם יַקִּיז. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּן לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מוּם. וְאִם נַעֲשָׂה בּוֹ מוּם בְּהַקָּזָה זוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁחַט עָלָיו:

English:

When the blood of a firstborn ceased flowing freely, its blood may be let, provided one does not intentionally cause a blemish. If a blemish was caused through the bloodletting, the animal may be slaughtered because of it.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabbi Shimon in both versions of the dispute. Bloodletting is permitted to save the animal, and “אם נעשה בו מום בהקזה זו הרי זה נשחט עליו,” if a blemish resulted it may be slaughtered on account of it. This is Rabbi Shimon’s position in the baraita (Segment 7: “אף נשחט על אותו המום”), the most lenient of the four. The condition “שלא יתכוון לעשות בו מום,” that he not intend to make a blemish, keeps the permission tied to saving the animal: he may let blood where he must, but may not use the occasion to blemish it. Rabbi Yehuda’s view, that the animal is left to die rather than risk a blemish, is rejected.

Kesef Mishneh on Hilkhot Bekhorot 2:13

Hebrew:

בכור שאחזו דם יקיז וכו’. משנה שם (ל”ב:) פלוגתא דתנאי וכן בברייתא ופסק כר”ש דמתניתין ודברייתא דהכי איפסיקא הלכתא בגמ’:

English (translation ours; Sefaria has no English for this comment):

“A firstborn congested with blood shall have its blood let, etc.” The mishna there (32b) is a dispute of tannaim, and likewise in the baraita; and he ruled like Rabbi Shimon of the mishna and of the baraita, for so the halacha was decided in the Gemara.

Connection: The Kesef Mishneh identifies the source of the ruling. The Gemara itself, as the sugya continues on 34a, rules like Rabbi Shimon of the baraita, and the Rambam combines Rabbi Shimon’s view in the mishna (bloodletting permitted even with a blemish) with his view in the baraita (slaughter permitted on that blemish). His page reference (32b) reflects the pagination of his edition; in ours the mishna is at 33b, Segment 5.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 313:6

Hebrew:

בכור שאחזו דם יקיז ובלבד שלא יתכוין לעשות מום ואם נעשה בו מום בהקזה זו הרי זה נשחט עליו:

English (translation ours; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

A firstborn that is congested with blood shall have its blood let, provided that he does not intend to make a blemish; and if a blemish was made in it through this bloodletting, it may be slaughtered on account of it.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch copies the Rambam word for word. Since the firstborn of a kosher animal is still holy today and must be kept until it becomes blemished, this is practical law: a congested bechor may be treated, and a blemish resulting from the treatment permits it.

The Barrel of Teruma of Doubtful Purity

Source in Daf: 33b, Segments 8-14 (the proposed parallel to Terumot 8:8: a barrel of teruma that came into doubtful impurity — Rabbi Eliezer: guard it; Rabbi Yehoshua: he may even expose it; Rabban Gamliel: change nothing; the Gemara rejects the parallel)

Rambam — Hilkhot Terumot (Heave Offerings) 12:3

Hebrew:

חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד לָהּ סְפֵק טֻמְאָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ דָּבָר. לֹא יְזִיזֶנָּה מִמְּקוֹמָהּ וְלֹא יְגַלֶּנָּה אֶלָּא יַנִּיחֶנָּה עַד שֶׁתִּטָּמֵא וַדַּאי וְתִשָּׂרֵף. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא תֵּאָכֵל:

English:

When a question arises whether a jug of wine has become ritually impure, one should not do anything with it. One should not move it from its place, nor reveal it. Instead, he should leave it in its place until it definitely becomes impure and must be burnt. We are not concerned that perhaps it will be eaten.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabban Gamliel, the middle view: “לא יחדש בה דבר,” he should do nothing new with it, which is the phrase of Segment 9. He neither guards the barrel (Rabbi Eliezer) nor exposes it (Rabbi Yehoshua), but waits until it becomes certainly impure and can be burned. Had the Gemara’s parallel held, this would have meant ruling like Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids bloodletting entirely (Segment 10). The Rambam rules like Rabban Gamliel on the barrel and like Rabbi Shimon on the bechor, which is possible only because the Gemara rejected the parallel. As Segments 11-15 showed, each case has its own reasoning (direct action versus indirect causation; a doubt that “Eliyahu may resolve” versus an animal that will certainly die) and its own verses.

Spoiling What Is Already Spoiled: Leavening and Castration

Source in Daf: 33b, Segments 15-16 (Rabbi Yochanan: all agree that one who leavens a mincha after another has leavened it is liable, from “it shall not be baked with leaven” and “shall not be made with leaven”; and that one who castrates after another is liable, from “bruised, crushed, detached, cut”)

Rambam — Hilkhot Maaseh HaKorbanot (Sacrificial Procedure) 12:14

Hebrew:

כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת הַקְּרֵבוֹת לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מַצָּה. וְכֵן שְׁיָרֵי הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁאוֹכְלִין הַכֹּהֲנִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין לְאָכְלָן בְּכָל מַאֲכָל וּבִדְבַשׁ אֵין אוֹכְלִין אוֹתָן חָמֵץ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ו י) “לֹא תֵאָפֶה חָמֵץ חֶלְקָם”. אֲפִלּוּ חֶלְקָם לֹא יַחְמִיצוּ. וְאִם הֶחְמִיץ שְׁיָרֶיהָ לוֹקֶה. וְהַמְחַמֵּץ אַחַר הַמְחַמֵּץ חַיָּב. וְלוֹקִין עַל כָּל עֲשִׂיָּה וַעֲשִׂיָּה שֶׁבָּהּ:

English:

All of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar are unleavened. Similarly, although the remaining portions of the meal-offerings that may be eaten by the priests may be eaten with all foods and with a sweetener, they may not be eaten while leavened, as [Leviticus 6:10] states: “It shall not be baked leavened; their portion…” [Implied is that] even their portion may not be leavened. If they cause the remaining portion to become leavened, they are liable for lashes. One who performs an act that causes [the remaining portion of the meal-offering] to be leavened after it was leavened, is liable. One is liable for each act [that causes the remnants of the meal-offering to leaven].

Connection: “והמחמץ אחר המחמץ חייב” is Rabbi Yochanan’s statement in Segment 15, codified word for word. The Rambam cites the same verse the Gemara uses, “לא תאפה חמץ” (Vayikra 6:10), and adds “לוקין על כל עשיה ועשיה,” lashes for each act. Every stage of preparing a mincha in a leavened state is a separate violation, so the second person who leavens a dough already leavened is fully liable.

Rambam — Hilkhot Issurei Biah (Forbidden Intercourse) 16:10

Hebrew:

אָסוּר לְהַפְסִיד אֵיבְרֵי זֶרַע בֵּין בְּאָדָם בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף. אֶחָד טְמֵאִים וְאֶחָד טְהוֹרִים. בֵּין בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כד) “וּבְאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ” מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה נוֹהֵג בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְעִנְיַן הַכָּתוּב לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה זֹאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין בְּגוּפָן בֵּין בְּגוּף אֲחֵרִים. וְכָל הַמְסָרֵס לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וַאֲפִלּוּ מְסָרֵס אַחַר מְסָרֵס לוֹקֶה:

English:

It is forbidden to destroy a male’s reproductive organs. This applies to humans and also to animals, beasts, and fowl, both from a kosher species and from a non-kosher species, in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora. Although [Leviticus 22:24] states: “And you shall not do this in your land,” According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this [prohibition] is applicable in every place. The verse teaches that one should not act in this manner among the Jewish people, not with their own bodies, nor with the bodies of others. Whoever castrates [a person or an animal] should be lashed according to Scriptural Law everywhere. Even a person who castrates a person who has been castrated should be lashed.

Connection: “ואפילו מסרס אחר מסרס לוקה” is Rabbi Yochanan’s second point of agreement (Segment 16). The prohibition comes from the same verse in Vayikra 22:24 whose list, “bruised, crushed, detached, cut,” the Gemara reads as covering one who detaches after another has cut. Unlike the laws of kodashim, this prohibition is in force today, in every place and for every species, as the Rambam stresses.

Blemishing an Already Blemished Animal, and Redeemed Pesulei HaMukdashin

Source in Daf: 33b, Segments 17-20 (the real dispute: Rabbi Meir forbids inflicting a blemish on a blemished animal from “there shall not be any blemish in it”; the Rabbis permit it from “it shall be perfect to be accepted”; for Rabbi Meir, “perfect to be accepted” excludes pesulei hamukdashin after redemption, though they remain forbidden in shearing and labor)

Rambam — Hilkhot Issurei Mizbeach (Things Forbidden on the Altar) 1:7

Hebrew:

הַמַּטִּיל מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים כְּגוֹן שֶׁסִּמֵּא עֵינוֹ אוֹ קָטַע יָדוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בְּקָרְבָּן (ויקרא כב-כא) “כָּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ”. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה אַזְהָרָה שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן בּוֹ מוּם. וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּם שֶׁהֲרֵי הָיָה רָאוּי לְקָרְבָּן וּפְסָלוֹ. אֲבָל בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָבַר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:

English:

One who brings about a blemish in a sacrificial animal, e.g., he blinded its eye or cut off its hand, is liable for lashes. For with regard to a sacrifice, [Leviticus 22:21] states: “It shall not have any blemish.” According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning not to cause a blemish. Lashes are given [for the violation of this prohibition] only when the Temple was standing, for then [the animal] was fit to be offered as a sacrifice and [the person] disqualified it. In the present age, by contrast, even though one transgressed a negative commandment, he is not liable for lashes.

Connection: The Rambam derives the prohibition from “כל מום לא יהיה בו,” the verse both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis discuss in Segment 17. His reason for limiting lashes to the time of the Temple, “שהרי היה ראוי לקרבן ופסלו” (it was fit for an offering and he disqualified it), is the Rabbis’ “תמים יהיה לרצון”: the core of the prohibition is ruining an animal that could have been offered. The next halacha draws the conclusion.

Rambam — Hilkhot Issurei Mizbeach (Things Forbidden on the Altar) 1:8

Hebrew:

הֵטִיל מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֵטִיל בָּהּ מוּם אַחֵר הַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:

English:

If a person brought about a blemish in a sacrificial animal and another person came and brought about a second blemish, the second person is not liable for lashes.

Connection: This is the Rabbis’ position in Segment 17: “מטיל מום בבעל מום” carries no lashes, because the animal was no longer “perfect to be accepted” when the second person struck. The Rambam thus rejects Rabbi Meir, who held that “any blemish” extends even to an animal already blemished. The contrast with the two previous rulings is the point of Rabbi Yochanan’s statement. One who leavens after another, or castrates after another, is liable, because there the Torah’s wording covers the second act. With blemishes, the second act is exempt, because the Torah’s concern is an animal fit for the altar. Touger’s note in Sefaria’s edition adds that, although exempt from lashes, the second person has still violated a prohibition.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 313:5

Hebrew:

דבר תורה בכור שנפל בו מום עובר מותר להטיל בו מום קבוע אבל חכמים אסרוהו:

English (translation ours; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

By Torah law, a firstborn on which a temporary blemish has fallen — it is permitted to inflict a permanent blemish on it; but the Sages forbade it.

Connection: This se’if applies the Rabbis’ principle to the bechor today. An animal with a temporary blemish is already unfit for the altar, so by Torah law it is no longer “perfect to be accepted” and adding a permanent blemish is not forbidden. The Sages forbade it anyway, so that the permission would not be misused. The ruling also explains how the Gemara could treat a congested bechor as already blemished (Segment 17): its condition already makes it unfit, and on the Rabbis’ reading the Torah prohibition no longer applies.

Rambam — Hilkhot Bekhorot (Firstlings) 5:8

Hebrew:

כָּל הַקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם לָהֶם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן וְנִפְדּוּ חַיָּבִין בִּבְכוֹרָה. וְאִם קָדַם מוּם עוֹבֵר לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן אוֹ שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן תְּמִימִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד לָהֶם מוּם קָבוּעַ וְנִפְדּוּ פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא יָצְאוּ לְחֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין בְּגִזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מְעִילָה:

English:

Whenever a consecrated animal received a permanent blemish before it was consecrated and was later redeemed, its offspring are governed by the requirements of the firstborn. If they received a temporary blemish before they were consecrated or they were consecrated while unblemished and received a permanent blemish and were then redeemed, their offspring are exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. The rationale is that they did not become ordinary animals in all respects, as indicated by the fact that they are forbidden to be shorn and work is forbidden to be performed with them, as we explained in Hilchot Me’ilah.

Connection: This halacha states the premise of Segment 20: redeemed pesulei hamukdashin “did not become ordinary animals in all respects,” since they remain forbidden in shearing and labor (גיזה ועבודה). That residual sanctity is why the Gemara thought a verse was needed to exclude them from the ban on blemishing. The same halacha also preserves the distinction of Segment 19. An animal that was blemished before it was consecrated never had altar sanctity (the Gemara’s “palm tree”), and once redeemed it is fully ordinary, even subject to bechora. The exemption from bechora for redeemed pesulim is the “gazelle and deer” derivation recalled on 33a, Segment 6.

Blemishing by Indirect Causation (Gerama)

Source in Daf: 33b, Segment 21 (the Rabbis use “there shall not be any blemish in it” to forbid causing a blemish indirectly; the baraita that continues on 34a)

Rambam — Hilkhot Bekhorot (Firstlings) 2:8

Hebrew:

הִרְגִּיל לַבְּכוֹר שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּתַן דְּבֵלָה עַל אָזְנוֹ עַד שֶׁבָּא כֶּלֶב וּנְטָלָהּ וְחָתַךְ אָזְנוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁהָלַךְ בֵּין בַּרְזֶל וַעֲשָׁשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁל זְכוּכִית כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּקָּטַע יָדוֹ וְנִקְטְעָה. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לְנָכְרִי לְהַטִּיל בּוֹ מוּם. הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁחֹט עָלָיו. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל מוּם שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה לְדַעְתּוֹ אָסוּר לוֹ לִשְׁחֹט עָלָיו וְאִם נַעֲשָׂה שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט עָלָיו:

English:

If one indirectly caused a firstborn to contract a physical blemish, e.g., one placed a fig on its ear, leaving it there until a dog came and took it and cut off its ear, he caused it to pass through jagged iron and pieces of glass so that its forefoot would be cut off and it was cut off, or he told a gentile to blemish it, the animal should not be slaughtered because of this blemish. This is the general principle: Whenever a blemish was brought about with a person’s knowledge, it is forbidden for him to slaughter it because of this blemish. If it was brought about without his knowledge, it is permitted for him to slaughter it because of this blemish.

Connection: The daf ends as the baraita on gerama begins, and the Rambam records the examples the sugya goes on to discuss on 34a: the fig-cake on the ear and the dog, the jagged iron and glass. His ruling applies the Rabbis’ reading of “כל מום” from Segment 21: a blemish brought about indirectly is treated like one inflicted by hand, and the animal may not be slaughtered on it. His closing rule, “כל מום שנעשה לדעתו,” every blemish made with his knowledge, sums up the principle.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 313:1

Hebrew:

אסור להטיל מום בבכור אפילו לגרום לו מום כגון ליתן דבילה על גבי אזנו כדי שיטלנה הכלב משם ויקטע אזנו עמה וכיוצא בזה או שאומר לעובד כוכבים להטיל בו מום ואם עשה מום בידים או בגרמתו אין שוחטין אותו על ידו עד שיפול בו מום אחר מעצמו ואם מת אין קונסין בנו אחריו אלא שוחטין אותו על ידו:

English (translation ours; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

It is forbidden to inflict a blemish on a firstborn, even to cause it a blemish indirectly, e.g., to put a fig-cake on its ear so that a dog will take it from there and its ear will be severed with it, and the like, or to tell a gentile to inflict a blemish on it. And if he made a blemish by hand or by his causation, it is not slaughtered on account of it until another blemish falls upon it by itself. And if he died, his son is not penalized after him, but it is slaughtered on account of it.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch uses the Gemara’s own term: “אפילו לגרום לו מום,” even to cause a blemish indirectly. It sets “בידים” (by hand) and “בגרמתו” (by his causation) side by side with the same penalty, which is the Rabbis’ derivation from “כל מום לא יהיה בו” in Segment 21. These words of the Gemara thus remain practical law today, since priests and owners of firstborns still wait for a blemish that permits slaughter.

Summary of Rulings