הגמרא מביאה דעות שונות לגבי איזה סוג של דברים צריכים העמדה והערכה – זאת אומרת שאם הבהמה מתה ואין אפשרות לעמוד, אי אפשר לפדות אותה. מה המקור לכל שיטה?
רוצה להקדיש לימוד?
תמורה לג
הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְאִם כׇּל בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״ — בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ.
But if the halakha of standing and valuation is already mentioned with regard to a non-kosher animal, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And if it be any non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it.” The verse is referring to blemished animals, which are unfit for sacrifice just like non-kosher animals, and it teaches that they can be redeemed.
יָכוֹל יִפָּדוּ עַל מוּם עוֹבֵר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה״ — שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה כׇּל עִיקָּר, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא לְמָחָר.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that any blemished animal can be redeemed, even for a temporary blemish. Therefore, the verse states: “Non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering,” which indicates that only a blemished animal that may not be sacrificed at all, i.e., one with a permanent blemish, is redeemed. This animal with a temporary blemish is thereby excluded, as it may not be sacrificed today, but it may be sacrificed tomorrow.
וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: עֲבֵיד לַהּ הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.
The Gemara concludes its reasoning: And the Merciful One states that one should perform standing and valuation for a blemished animal, in accordance with the verse “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it.” Since the verse requires that the animal have a permanent blemish to be redeemed, it must be referring to an animal consecrated for the altar, as all animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed, even unblemished ones. Furthermore, as this is an unattributed baraita that appears in the Sifra, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the disputant of Rabbi Shimon, and therefore it follows the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna. It may therefore be concluded from the baraita that the Rabbis hold that one redeems an animal consecrated for the altar with standing and valuation, as maintained by Rabbi Yoḥanan.
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֶעֱרִיךְ הַכֹּהֵן אוֹתָהּ בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רָע״.
§ The Gemara analyzes the opinion of Reish Lakish. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reasoning of Reish Lakish, who said that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, whereas animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation? The reasoning is that the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad” (Leviticus 27:12).
אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָלוּק בֵּין טוֹב לְרַע? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְאָמַר קְרָא ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ.
Rav explained: What is an item for which the halakha is not divided between good and bad, i.e., where there is no difference between unblemished and blemished animals? You must say that this is an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which has the same sanctity whether blemished or unblemished. And the verse states: “And the priest shall value it.” The restrictive term “it” serves to exclude animals consecrated for the altar from the halakha of standing and valuation.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar are also included in the obligation of standing and valuation, the term “it” serves to exclude what? The Gemara responds: It serves to exclude from the halakha of standing and valuation an animal that was blemished from the outset and was consecrated for the altar.
וּלְתַנָּא דְּבֵי לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר דַּאֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, וְכֵן תָּנֵי לֵוִי בְּמַתְנִיתֵיהּ: וַאֲפִילּוּ חַיָּה, וַאֲפִילּוּ עוֹפוֹת, וְהָכְתִיב ״אוֹתָהּ״! קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this is problematic according to the tanna of the school of Levi, who said that even an animal that was blemished from the outset is included in the halakha of standing and valuation. As Levi taught: Everything was included in the halakha of standing and valuation, even an animal blemished from the outset. And Levi taught likewise in his baraita: Even an undomesticated animal, and even birds that are not brought as offerings, e.g., geese, are included in the halakha of standing and valuation. But isn’t it written “it,” which must serve to exclude some animal from the obligation of standing and valuation? If so, how can Levi teach that everything is included? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this poses a difficulty.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֶעֱרִיךְ הַכֹּהֵן אוֹתָהּ בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רָע״, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחָלוּק בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רָע? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְאָמַר קְרָא ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.
The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, who said that animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and therefore if they died without redemption they are buried, but animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in this halakha? As the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad” (Leviticus 27:11–12). What is an item for which the halakha is divided between good and bad, i.e., between an unblemished and blemished animal? You must say that this is an animal consecrated for the altar, and the verse states: “And the priest shall value it,” which serves to exclude animals consecrated for Temple maintenance from the halakha of standing and valuation.
אִי הָכִי, ״בֵּין טוֹב לְרָע״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the verse is referring to a consecration for which there is a distinction between good and bad, then it should have stated: And the priest shall value it between good and bad, to indicate that this distinction is made. The term “whether it be good or bad” indicates that the two types have the same halakha, as claimed by the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
מֵיתִיבִי: מֵתוּ תְּמִימִין — יִקָּבְרוּ, וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִפָּדוּ. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — בֵּין תְּמִימִין בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִים יִקָּבֵרוּ.
§ The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish from a baraita: With regard to consecrated animals that died, if they were unblemished they are not redeemed and shall be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to animals consecrated for the altar. But with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, both unblemished and blemished animals shall be buried. This is the statement of the Rabbis.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, תְּמִימִים — יִקָּבְרוּ, בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִפָּדוּ. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרֵישָׁא!
Rabbi Shimon says: Both in a case where the animals that died were consecrated for the altar and in a case where they were consecrated for Temple maintenance, if they were unblemished they can be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the first clause of the baraita, as Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that according to the Rabbis, both animals consecrated for the altar and those consecrated for Temple maintenance are included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are buried if they died.
אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an animal that was blemished from the outset. In such a case, the Rabbis rule that the animal was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and is therefore redeemed if it dies. But a consecrated animal that subsequently developed a blemish and died must be buried.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי תֵּימָא שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן — לִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ, אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינָּה בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.
The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that the baraita is discussing animals blemished from the outset, as, if you say that it is referring to animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, then Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the Rabbis on this point and maintain that such blemished animals consecrated for the altar should be buried, not redeemed. After all, Rabbi Shimon holds that animals consecrated for the altar are included in the halakha of standing and valuation. Rather, must one not conclude from this that the baraita is dealing with an animal that is blemished from the outset?
אֶלָּא, לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if the baraita is referring to animals blemished from the outset, and for this reason the Rabbis hold that the animal is redeemed, then it may be inferred that the Rabbis maintain that if the animal developed a blemish after its consecration and died, it must be buried. If so, let us say that the baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, who maintains that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are redeemed if they died.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, אִי הָכִי, נִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ.
The Gemara responds: Reish Lakish interprets the baraita as referring to animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes. Consequently, the statement of the Rabbis is in accordance with his opinion that animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are therefore redeemed if they died. The Gemara asks: If so, then the earlier question recurs, as Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the statement of the Rabbis and say that such blemished animals consecrated for the altar are buried.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵיפָךְ אָפֵיךְ, וְהָכִי מוֹתֵיב מִמְּכִילְתָּא אַחֲרִיתִי: מֵתוּ, בֵּין תְּמִימִין בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִקָּבֵרוּ. [בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — יִפָּדוּ.]
The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish reverses the text of that baraita, i.e., he maintains that in that baraita, Rabbi Shimon explicitly states that animals consecrated for the altar are buried, whether they are unblemished or blemished. And he raises his objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from another baraita, like this: With regard to consecrated animals that died, whether they were unblemished or blemished, they shall be buried. With regard to what case is this ruling stated? It is stated with regard to animals consecrated for the altar, but in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, they can be redeemed. This is the statement of the Rabbis.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: תְּמִימִים — יִקָּבְרוּ, וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִפָּדוּ. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִסֵּיפָא!
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died, if they were unblemished they shall be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the latter clause of the statement of the Rabbis in this baraita. According to the baraita, the Rabbis rule that animals consecrated for the altar are redeemed, whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Rabbis maintain that animals consecrated for the altar are buried.
אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי תֵּימָא בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן — נִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an animal that was blemished from the outset. The Gemara notes: So, too, it is reasonable that the baraita is referring to animals blemished from the outset, as, if you say that it is dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, and the Rabbis hold that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are buried whereas those consecrated for the altar are redeemed, then Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the statement of the Rabbis on both accounts, rather than disagreeing merely in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance.
אֶלָּא לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ! אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן. וְנִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ! אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָכִי נָמֵי דִּפְלִיג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
The Gemara asks: But if so, let us say that the baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the Rabbis in the case of animals consecrated for the altar. The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes. The Gemara reiterates: But in that case, Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the Rabbis. The Gemara responds: Reish Lakish could say to you: Indeed, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar. The baraita mentions Rabbi Shimon’s opinion only with regard to consecrations for Temple maintenance, but he also disagrees with regard to consecrations for the altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְקָתָנֵי ״קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ
§ The Gemara further discusses the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Reish Lakish, who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and it is taught with regard to animals consecrated for the altar
בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין יִפָּדוּ״, וּמוֹקְמִינַן לָהּ בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים!
that blemished animals can be redeemed; and we established that according to Reish Lakish, the baraita is dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, which means that although the animal has inherent sanctity because it was consecrated when unblemished, nevertheless it can be redeemed; let us conclude from the baraita that one may redeem sacrificial animals in order to feed them to dogs.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּשֶׁעָבַר וּשְׁחָטָן.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: One cannot arrive at this conclusion from the baraita, since when the baraita states that the animals died it is not referring to deaths due to natural causes. Rather, what are we dealing with here? With a case where one transgressed the prohibition against slaughtering the blemished animals and slaughtered them before they were redeemed, an act that nevertheless renders them permitted for human consumption after redemption.
כִּדְתַנְיָא: כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶן מוּם, וּשְׁחָטָן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יִקָּבֵרוּ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִפָּדוּ.
As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all sacrificial animals that developed a blemish and one slaughtered them, Rabbi Meir says that they shall be buried, as he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation and must be buried if they died. And the Rabbis say: Since an animal consecrated for the altar is not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, even if one slaughtered it, it can be redeemed.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, אַמַּאי תְּמִימִים יִקָּבֵרוּ? מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲזוּ לְהַקְרָבָה.
Rabbi Yirmeya further said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Rabbi Shimon, who said that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are redeemed if they died, why does he state, in the last baraita cited earlier, that unblemished animals consecrated for Temple maintenance shall be buried and not redeemed? Rabbi Zeira responds: It is because they are fit for sacrifice upon the altar.
כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַמַּתְפִּיס תְּמִימִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, כְּשֶׁהֵן נִפְדִּין — אֵינָן נִפְדִּין אֶלָּא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁכׇּל הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִידֵי מִזְבֵּחַ לְעוֹלָם.
The Gemara explains the significance of the fact that these animals, which were consecrated for Temple maintenance, are fit for the altar. As it is taught in a baraita: One who associates unblemished animals, i.e., consecrates them by means of associating their sanctity with sanctified items, for Temple maintenance, when they are redeemed by the treasurer they are redeemed only for the altar, i.e., they are sold to those who must bring an offering, and the animals are sacrificed upon the altar. They may be redeemed only for the altar, not for any non-sacred use, as any consecrated item that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar may never leave the custody of the altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רָבָא: לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, וְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ דְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ דְּלָא הָוֵי בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה. וְלָא?!
§ The Gemara continues to analyze the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and some say that Rava said to Abaye: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who interprets the above baraita as referring to an animal blemished from the outset, and who further claims that everyone, i.e., Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, holds that an animal blemished from the outset was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, one may ask: And do they both agree that an animal blemished from the outset was not included in that halakha?
וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן וְנִפְדּוּ, חַיָּיבִין בַּבְּכוֹרָה וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לִיגָּזֵז וְלֵיעָבֵד.
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 14a): All the sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded their consecration are not sanctified as offerings; rather, they are sold and the money received is used to purchase valid offerings. And once they are redeemed, they are obligated in, i.e., subject to accounting their offspring, a firstborn; and in the priestly gifts of the foreleg, jaw, and maw; and they emerge from their sacred status and assume complete non-sacred status in order to be shorn and to be utilized for labor.
וְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן מוּתָּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ.
And their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet, even if the animal was not yet redeemed, and those animals do not render an animal exchanged for them a substitute. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may be redeemed.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ, כְּדִתְנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ.
And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, with regard to this mishna: This statement, that one who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar may redeem it if it dies, is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon, who says that animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, but animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included. As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: If animals consecrated for Temple maintenance died, they can be redeemed, since they were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation. But animals consecrated for the altar that died are buried, as they were included in this halakha.
וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ שֶׁנִּפְדֶּה, מַאי טַעְמָא? דַּאֲמַר קְרָא: ״אוֹתָהּ״, ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ הָיָה בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה!
And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to an animal that was blemished from the outset, which was consecrated for the altar and died, that it is redeemed. What is the reason? As the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11–12). The emphasis of “it” serves to exclude an animal that was blemished from the outset from the halakha of standing and valuation. But the Rabbis say: Every animal consecrated for the altar, even one that was blemished from the outset, was included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and must be buried if it dies. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that according to the Rabbis an animal that was blemished from the outset was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן חֲכָמִים? תַּנָּא דְּבֵי לֵוִי. אִי הָכִי, ״זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״ וְתוּ לָא? ״זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
Abaye said to Rav Pappa, or Rava: The statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav does not pose a difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rav was not referring to the Rabbis of the mishna, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon. Rather, who is the tanna referred to here as the Rabbis? It is a tanna of the school of Levi. The other rabbi questioned Abaye’s answer: If so, that even the Rabbis of the mishna hold that an animal that was blemished from the outset is redeemed, why did Rav Yehuda say that Rav said that this mishna in tractate Bekhorot is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon, and nothing more? This statement indicates that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon alone. He should have said that this mishna is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him, i.e., the Rabbis.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דְּלָא קָתָנֵי הָכִי, מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ.
Abaye said to him: The reason that Rav Yehuda does not teach in this manner, i.e., he does not say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, is because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who said that according to the Rabbis of the mishna, only animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation; animals consecrated for the altar were not included, and are therefore redeemed.
וְרֵישָׁא קָתָנֵי: ״וְאִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ״, וְסֵיפָא קָתָנֵי: ״אִם מֵתוּ יִקָּבֵרוּ״.
And admittedly the first clause of the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it teaches that if they died they can be redeemed. This ruling is in accordance with the Rabbis, as an animal that was blemished from the outset is considered as one consecrated for the altar, since as it was consecrated in order to be sold to purchase a valid offering. But the latter clause of the mishna, which discusses a case where the consecration of the animal preceded the development of a blemish, is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it teaches that if they died they shall be buried. According to Reish Lakish and Rav, the Rabbis hold that in such a case the animal is redeemed. Consequently, the mishna cannot be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, רַב כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ ״זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, אֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי.
And if you wish, say instead that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the Rabbis maintain that all consecrations were included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are buried if they died, and the mishna is in fact in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And as for that which posed a difficulty for you, that Rav Yehuda should have said that this mishna is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him, say: Indeed he said so, that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּקְבָּרִין: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁהִפִּילוּ — יִקָּבֵרוּ, הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא — תִּקָּבֵר, וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, וְצִפֳּרֵי מְצוֹרָע, וְשֵׂיעַר נָזִיר,
MISHNA: And these are the items that are buried from which deriving benefit is forbidden: In the case of a sacrificial animal that miscarried, the fetus shall be buried. If the animal miscarried a placenta, the placenta shall be buried. And the same halakha applies to an ox that is stoned for killing a person; and a heifer whose neck is broken when a corpse is found between two cities and the killer is unknown; and the birds brought by a leper for purification; and the hair of a nazirite who became ritually impure, who shaves his head before beginning a new term of naziriteship.
וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב, וְחוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה יִשָּׂרֵפוּ, וְכֵן חַיָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בַּעֲזָרָה.
And the same halakha applies to the firstborn of a donkey that, if it is not redeemed with a sheep, has its neck broken; and a forbidden mixture of meat cooked in milk; and non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned, like sacrificial animals that were disqualified in the courtyard. And likewise, an undomesticated animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, although it is not similar to the animals sacrificed in the Temple, shall be burned by rabbinic decree.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין: חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח — יִשָּׂרֵף, וּתְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה, וְהָעׇרְלָה, וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִשָּׂרֵוף — ישרף, וְאֶת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהִקָּבֵר — יִקָּבֵר, וּמַדְלִיקִין בְּפַת וּבְשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָן — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִשָּׂרֵפוּ.
And these are the items that are burned: Leavened bread on Passover shall be burned. And the same halakha applies to ritually impure teruma. And with regard to the fruit that grows on a tree during the three years after it was planted [orla], and diverse kinds of food crops sown in a vineyard, those items whose appropriate manner of destruction is to be burned, e.g., foods, shall be burned; and those items whose appropriate manner of destruction is to be buried, e.g., liquids, shall be buried. And one may ignite a fire with bread and with oil of impure teruma, even though the priest derives benefit from that fire. And with regard to all sacrificial animals that were slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice or consume them beyond their designated time or outside their designated place, those animals shall be burned.
לעקוב 
חדשה בלימוד הגמרא?
זה הדף הראשון שלך? איזו התרגשות עצומה! יש לנו בדיוק את התכנים והכלים שיעזרו לך לעשות את הצעדים הראשונים ללמידה בקצב וברמה שלך, כך תוכלי להרגיש בנוח גם בתוך הסוגיות המורכבות ומאתגרות.
פסיפס הלומדות שלנו
גלי את קהילת הלומדות שלנו, מגוון נשים, רקעים וסיפורים. כולן חלק מתנועה ומסע מרגש ועוצמתי.
התחלתי ללמוד דף לפני קצת יותר מ-5 שנים, כשלמדתי רבנות בישיבת מהר”ת בניו יורק. בדיעבד, עד אז, הייתי בלימוד הגמרא שלי כמו מישהו שאוסף חרוזים משרשרת שהתפזרה, פה משהו ושם משהו, ומאז נפתח עולם ומלואו…. הדף נותן לי לימוד בצורה מאורגנת, שיטתית, יום-יומית, ומלמד אותי לא רק ידע אלא את השפה ודרך החשיבה שלנו. לשמחתי, יש לי סביבה תומכת וההרגשה שלי היא כמו בציטוט שבחרתי: הדף משפיע לטובה על כל היום שלי.
מיכל כהנא
חיפה, ישראל
רבנית מישל הציתה אש התלמוד בלבבות בביניני האומה ואני נדלקתי. היא פתחה פתח ותמכה במתחילות כמוני ואפשרה לנו להתקדם בצעדים נכונים וטובים. הקימה מערך שלם שמסובב את הלומדות בסביבה תומכת וכך נכנסתי למסלול לימוד מעשיר שאין כמוה. הדרן יצר קהילה גדולה וחזקה שמאפשרת התקדמות מכל נקודת מוצא. יש דיבוק לומדות שמחזק את ההתמדה של כולנו. כל פניה ושאלה נענית בזריזות ויסודיות. תודה גם למגי על כל העזרה.
שרה אבר
נתניה, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי באמצע תקופת הקורונה, שאבא שלי סיפר לי על קבוצה של בנות שתיפתח ביישוב שלנו ותלמד דף יומי כל יום. הרבה זמן רציתי להצטרף לזה וזאת הייתה ההזדמנות בשבילי. הצטרפתי במסכת שקלים ובאמצע הייתה הפסקה קצרה. כיום אני כבר לומדת באולפנה ולומדת דף יומי לבד מתוך גמרא של טיינזלץ.
שבות בראלי
עתניאל, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי ממסכת נידה כי זה היה חומר הלימוד שלי אז. לאחר הסיום הגדול בבנייני האומה החלטתי להמשיך. וב”ה מאז עם הפסקות קטנות של קורונה ולידה אני משתדלת להמשיך ולהיות חלק.
זה משפיע מאוד על היום יום שלי ועל אף שאני עסוקה בלימודי הלכה ותורה כל יום, זאת המסגרת הקבועה והמחייבת ביותר שיש לי.
מוריה תעסן מיכאלי
גבעת הראל, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי בתחילת מסכת ברכות, עוד לא ידעתי כלום. נחשפתי לסיום הש״ס, ובעצם להתחלה מחדש בתקשורת, הפתיע אותי לטובה שהיה מקום לעיסוק בתורה.
את המסכתות הראשונות למדתי, אבל לא סיימתי (חוץ מעירובין איכשהו). השנה כשהגעתי למדרשה, נכנסתי ללופ, ואני מצליחה להיות חלק, סיימתי עם החברותא שלי את כל המסכתות הקצרות, גם כשהיינו חולות קורונה ובבידודים, למדנו לבד, העיקר לא לצבור פער, ומחכות ליבמות 🙂
עדן ישורון
מזכרת בתיה, ישראל
התחלתי מעט לפני תחילת הסבב הנוכחי. אני נהנית מהאתגר של להמשיך להתמיד, מרגעים של "אהה, מפה זה הגיע!” ומהאתגר האינטלקטואלי
אילת-חן ודלר
לוד, ישראל
A life-changing journey started with a Chanukah family tiyul to Zippori, home of the Sanhedrin 2 years ago and continued with the Syum in Binanei Hauma where I was awed by the energy of 3000 women dedicated to learning daf Yomi. Opening my morning daily with a fresh daf, I am excited with the new insights I find enriching my life and opening new and deeper horizons for me.
בקי גולדשטיין
Elazar gush etzion, Israel
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי כאשר קיבלתי במייל ממכון שטיינזלץ את הדפים הראשונים של מסכת ברכות במייל. קודם לא ידעתי איך לקרוא אותם עד שנתתי להם להדריך אותי. הסביבה שלי לא מודעת לעניין כי אני לא מדברת על כך בפומבי. למדתי מהדפים דברים חדשים, כמו הקשר בין המבנה של בית המקדש והמשכן לגופו של האדם (יומא מה, ע”א) והקשר שלו למשפט מפורסם שמופיע בספר ההינדי "בהגוד-גיתא”. מתברר שזה רעיון כלל עולמי ולא רק יהודי
אלנה ארנבורג
נשר, ישראל
A friend in the SF Bay Area said in Dec 2019 that she might start listening on her morning drive to work. I mentioned to my husband and we decided to try the Daf when it began in Jan 2020 as part of our preparing to make Aliyah in the summer.
חנה פיוטרקובסקי
ירושלים, Israel
ראיתי את הסיום הגדול בבנייני האומה וכל כך התרשמתי ורציתי לקחת חלק.. אבל לקח לי עוד כשנה וחצי )באמצע מסיכת שבת להצטרף..
הלימוד חשוב לי מאוד.. אני תמיד במרדף אחרי הדף וגונבת כל פעם חצי דף כשהילדים עסוקים ומשלימה אח”כ אחרי שכולם הלכו לישון..
אולגה מזרחי
ירושלים, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד בסבב הנוכחי לפני כשנתיים .הסביבה מתפעלת ותומכת מאוד. אני משתדלת ללמוד מכל ההסכתים הנוספים שיש באתר הדרן. אני עורכת כל סיום מסכת שיעור בביתי לכ20 נשים שמחכות בקוצר רוח למפגשים האלו.
יעל אשר
יהוד, ישראל
בתחילת הסבב הנוכחי הצטברו אצלי תחושות שאני לא מבינה מספיק מהי ההלכה אותה אני מקיימת בכל יום. כמו כן, כאמא לבנות רציתי לתת להן מודל נשי של לימוד תורה
שתי הסיבות האלו הובילו אותי להתחיל ללמוד. נתקלתי בתגובות מפרגנות וסקרניות איך אישה לומדת גמרא..
כמו שרואים בתמונה אני ממשיכה ללמוד גם היום ואפילו במחלקת יולדות אחרי לידת ביתי השלישית.
נועה שילה
רבבה, ישראל
בסוף הסבב הקודם ראיתי את השמחה הגדולה שבסיום הלימוד, בעלי סיים כבר בפעם השלישית וכמובן הסיום הנשי בבנייני האומה וחשבתי שאולי זו הזדמנות עבורי למשהו חדש.
למרות שאני שונה בסביבה שלי, מי ששומע על הלימוד שלי מפרגן מאוד.
אני מנסה ללמוד קצת בכל יום, גם אם לא את כל הדף ובסך הכל אני בדרך כלל עומדת בקצב.
הלימוד מעניק המון משמעות ליום יום ועושה סדר בלמוד תורה, שתמיד היה (ועדיין) שאיפה. אבל אין כמו קביעות
רחלי מנדלסון
טל מנשה, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי בסבב הקודם. זכיתי לסיים אותו במעמד המרגש של הדרן. בסבב הראשון ליווה אותי הספק, שאולי לא אצליח לעמוד בקצב ולהתמיד. בסבב השני אני לומדת ברוגע, מתוך אמונה ביכולתי ללמוד ולסיים. בסבב הלימוד הראשון ליוותה אותי חוויה מסויימת של בדידות. הדרן העניקה לי קהילת לימוד ואחוות נשים. החוויה של סיום הש”ס במעמד כה גדול כשנשים שאינן מכירות אותי, שמחות ומתרגשות עבורי , היתה חוויה מרוממת נפש
אילנית ווייל
קיבוץ מגדל עוז, ישראל
רציתי לקבל ידע בתחום שהרגשתי שהוא גדול וחשוב אך נעלם ממני. הלימוד מעניק אתגר וסיפוק ומעמיק את תחושת השייכות שלי לתורה וליהדות
רות עגיב
עלי זהב – לשם, ישראל
בתחילת הסבב הנוכחי של לימוד הדף היומי, נחשפתי לחגיגות המרגשות באירועי הסיום ברחבי העולם. והבטחתי לעצמי שבקרוב אצטרף גם למעגל הלומדות. הסבב התחיל כאשר הייתי בתחילת דרכי בתוכנית קרן אריאל להכשרת יועצות הלכה של נשמ”ת. לא הצלחתי להוסיף את ההתחייבות לדף היומי על הלימוד האינטנסיבי של תוכנית היועצות. בבוקר למחרת המבחן הסופי בנשמ”ת, התחלתי את לימוד הדף במסכת סוכה ומאז לא הפסקתי.
חנה שחם-רוזבי (ד”ר)
קרית גת, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי באמצע תקופת הקורונה, שאבא שלי סיפר לי על קבוצה של בנות שתיפתח ביישוב שלנו ותלמד דף יומי כל יום. הרבה זמן רציתי להצטרף לזה וזאת הייתה ההזדמנות בשבילי. הצטרפתי במסכת שקלים ובאמצע הייתה הפסקה קצרה. כיום אני כבר לומדת באולפנה ולומדת דף יומי לבד מתוך גמרא של טיינזלץ.
שבות בראלי
עתניאל, ישראל
התחלתי לפני 8 שנים במדרשה. לאחרונה סיימתי מסכת תענית בלמידה עצמית ועכשיו לקראת סיום מסכת מגילה.
דניאלה ברוכים
רעננה, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד בעידוד שתי חברות אתן למדתי בעבר את הפרק היומי במסגרת 929.
בבית מתלהבים מאוד ובשבת אני לומדת את הדף עם בעלי שזה מפתיע ומשמח מאוד! לימוד הדף הוא חלק בלתי נפרד מהיום שלי. לומדת בצהריים ומחכה לזמן הזה מידי יום…
מרים ונגרובר
אפרת, ישראל
לפני 15 שנה, אחרי עשרות שנים של "ג’ינגול” בין משפחה לקריירה תובענית בהייטק, הצטרפתי לשיעורי גמרא במתן רעננה. הלימוד המעמיק והייחודי של הרבנית אושרה קורן יחד עם קבוצת הנשים המגוונת הייתה חוויה מאלפת ומעשירה. לפני כשמונה שנים כאשר מחזור הדף היומי הגיע למסכת תענית הצטרפתי כ”חברותא” לבעלי. זו השעה היומית שלנו ביחד כאשר דפי הגמרא משתלבים בחיי היום יום, משפיעים ומושפעים, וכשלא מספיקים תמיד משלימים בשבת
יודי אסקוף
רעננה, ישראל
תמורה לג
הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְאִם כׇּל בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״ — בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ.
But if the halakha of standing and valuation is already mentioned with regard to a non-kosher animal, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And if it be any non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it.” The verse is referring to blemished animals, which are unfit for sacrifice just like non-kosher animals, and it teaches that they can be redeemed.
יָכוֹל יִפָּדוּ עַל מוּם עוֹבֵר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה״ — שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה כׇּל עִיקָּר, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא לְמָחָר.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that any blemished animal can be redeemed, even for a temporary blemish. Therefore, the verse states: “Non-kosher animal, of which they may not bring an offering,” which indicates that only a blemished animal that may not be sacrificed at all, i.e., one with a permanent blemish, is redeemed. This animal with a temporary blemish is thereby excluded, as it may not be sacrificed today, but it may be sacrificed tomorrow.
וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: עֲבֵיד לַהּ הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.
The Gemara concludes its reasoning: And the Merciful One states that one should perform standing and valuation for a blemished animal, in accordance with the verse “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it.” Since the verse requires that the animal have a permanent blemish to be redeemed, it must be referring to an animal consecrated for the altar, as all animals consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed, even unblemished ones. Furthermore, as this is an unattributed baraita that appears in the Sifra, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the disputant of Rabbi Shimon, and therefore it follows the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna. It may therefore be concluded from the baraita that the Rabbis hold that one redeems an animal consecrated for the altar with standing and valuation, as maintained by Rabbi Yoḥanan.
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֶעֱרִיךְ הַכֹּהֵן אוֹתָהּ בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רָע״.
§ The Gemara analyzes the opinion of Reish Lakish. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reasoning of Reish Lakish, who said that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, whereas animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation? The reasoning is that the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad” (Leviticus 27:12).
אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָלוּק בֵּין טוֹב לְרַע? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, וְאָמַר קְרָא ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ.
Rav explained: What is an item for which the halakha is not divided between good and bad, i.e., where there is no difference between unblemished and blemished animals? You must say that this is an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which has the same sanctity whether blemished or unblemished. And the verse states: “And the priest shall value it.” The restrictive term “it” serves to exclude animals consecrated for the altar from the halakha of standing and valuation.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar are also included in the obligation of standing and valuation, the term “it” serves to exclude what? The Gemara responds: It serves to exclude from the halakha of standing and valuation an animal that was blemished from the outset and was consecrated for the altar.
וּלְתַנָּא דְּבֵי לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר דַּאֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, וְכֵן תָּנֵי לֵוִי בְּמַתְנִיתֵיהּ: וַאֲפִילּוּ חַיָּה, וַאֲפִילּוּ עוֹפוֹת, וְהָכְתִיב ״אוֹתָהּ״! קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this is problematic according to the tanna of the school of Levi, who said that even an animal that was blemished from the outset is included in the halakha of standing and valuation. As Levi taught: Everything was included in the halakha of standing and valuation, even an animal blemished from the outset. And Levi taught likewise in his baraita: Even an undomesticated animal, and even birds that are not brought as offerings, e.g., geese, are included in the halakha of standing and valuation. But isn’t it written “it,” which must serve to exclude some animal from the obligation of standing and valuation? If so, how can Levi teach that everything is included? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this poses a difficulty.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֶעֱרִיךְ הַכֹּהֵן אוֹתָהּ בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רָע״, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחָלוּק בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רָע? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְאָמַר קְרָא ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.
The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, who said that animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and therefore if they died without redemption they are buried, but animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in this halakha? As the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad” (Leviticus 27:11–12). What is an item for which the halakha is divided between good and bad, i.e., between an unblemished and blemished animal? You must say that this is an animal consecrated for the altar, and the verse states: “And the priest shall value it,” which serves to exclude animals consecrated for Temple maintenance from the halakha of standing and valuation.
אִי הָכִי, ״בֵּין טוֹב לְרָע״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the verse is referring to a consecration for which there is a distinction between good and bad, then it should have stated: And the priest shall value it between good and bad, to indicate that this distinction is made. The term “whether it be good or bad” indicates that the two types have the same halakha, as claimed by the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
מֵיתִיבִי: מֵתוּ תְּמִימִין — יִקָּבְרוּ, וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִפָּדוּ. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — בֵּין תְּמִימִין בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִים יִקָּבֵרוּ.
§ The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish from a baraita: With regard to consecrated animals that died, if they were unblemished they are not redeemed and shall be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to animals consecrated for the altar. But with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, both unblemished and blemished animals shall be buried. This is the statement of the Rabbis.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, תְּמִימִים — יִקָּבְרוּ, בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִפָּדוּ. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרֵישָׁא!
Rabbi Shimon says: Both in a case where the animals that died were consecrated for the altar and in a case where they were consecrated for Temple maintenance, if they were unblemished they can be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the first clause of the baraita, as Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that according to the Rabbis, both animals consecrated for the altar and those consecrated for Temple maintenance are included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are buried if they died.
אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an animal that was blemished from the outset. In such a case, the Rabbis rule that the animal was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and is therefore redeemed if it dies. But a consecrated animal that subsequently developed a blemish and died must be buried.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי תֵּימָא שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן — לִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ, אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינָּה בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.
The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that the baraita is discussing animals blemished from the outset, as, if you say that it is referring to animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, then Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the Rabbis on this point and maintain that such blemished animals consecrated for the altar should be buried, not redeemed. After all, Rabbi Shimon holds that animals consecrated for the altar are included in the halakha of standing and valuation. Rather, must one not conclude from this that the baraita is dealing with an animal that is blemished from the outset?
אֶלָּא, לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if the baraita is referring to animals blemished from the outset, and for this reason the Rabbis hold that the animal is redeemed, then it may be inferred that the Rabbis maintain that if the animal developed a blemish after its consecration and died, it must be buried. If so, let us say that the baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, who maintains that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are redeemed if they died.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, אִי הָכִי, נִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ.
The Gemara responds: Reish Lakish interprets the baraita as referring to animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes. Consequently, the statement of the Rabbis is in accordance with his opinion that animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are therefore redeemed if they died. The Gemara asks: If so, then the earlier question recurs, as Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the statement of the Rabbis and say that such blemished animals consecrated for the altar are buried.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵיפָךְ אָפֵיךְ, וְהָכִי מוֹתֵיב מִמְּכִילְתָּא אַחֲרִיתִי: מֵתוּ, בֵּין תְּמִימִין בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִקָּבֵרוּ. [בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — יִפָּדוּ.]
The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish reverses the text of that baraita, i.e., he maintains that in that baraita, Rabbi Shimon explicitly states that animals consecrated for the altar are buried, whether they are unblemished or blemished. And he raises his objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from another baraita, like this: With regard to consecrated animals that died, whether they were unblemished or blemished, they shall be buried. With regard to what case is this ruling stated? It is stated with regard to animals consecrated for the altar, but in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, they can be redeemed. This is the statement of the Rabbis.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: תְּמִימִים — יִקָּבְרוּ, וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין — יִפָּדוּ. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִסֵּיפָא!
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that died, if they were unblemished they shall be buried, and if they were blemished they can be redeemed. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the latter clause of the statement of the Rabbis in this baraita. According to the baraita, the Rabbis rule that animals consecrated for the altar are redeemed, whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Rabbis maintain that animals consecrated for the altar are buried.
אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי תֵּימָא בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן — נִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an animal that was blemished from the outset. The Gemara notes: So, too, it is reasonable that the baraita is referring to animals blemished from the outset, as, if you say that it is dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, and the Rabbis hold that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are buried whereas those consecrated for the altar are redeemed, then Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the statement of the Rabbis on both accounts, rather than disagreeing merely in the case of animals consecrated for Temple maintenance.
אֶלָּא לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ! אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן. וְנִיפְלוֹג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עֲלַהּ! אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָכִי נָמֵי דִּפְלִיג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
The Gemara asks: But if so, let us say that the baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the Rabbis in the case of animals consecrated for the altar. The Gemara answers that Reish Lakish could say to you: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes. The Gemara reiterates: But in that case, Rabbi Shimon should disagree with the Rabbis. The Gemara responds: Reish Lakish could say to you: Indeed, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis even with regard to animals consecrated for the altar. The baraita mentions Rabbi Shimon’s opinion only with regard to consecrations for Temple maintenance, but he also disagrees with regard to consecrations for the altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְקָתָנֵי ״קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ
§ The Gemara further discusses the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Reish Lakish, who says that according to the Rabbis, animals consecrated for the altar were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and it is taught with regard to animals consecrated for the altar
בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין יִפָּדוּ״, וּמוֹקְמִינַן לָהּ בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים!
that blemished animals can be redeemed; and we established that according to Reish Lakish, the baraita is dealing with animals whose consecrations preceded their blemishes, which means that although the animal has inherent sanctity because it was consecrated when unblemished, nevertheless it can be redeemed; let us conclude from the baraita that one may redeem sacrificial animals in order to feed them to dogs.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּשֶׁעָבַר וּשְׁחָטָן.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: One cannot arrive at this conclusion from the baraita, since when the baraita states that the animals died it is not referring to deaths due to natural causes. Rather, what are we dealing with here? With a case where one transgressed the prohibition against slaughtering the blemished animals and slaughtered them before they were redeemed, an act that nevertheless renders them permitted for human consumption after redemption.
כִּדְתַנְיָא: כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנָּפַל בָּהֶן מוּם, וּשְׁחָטָן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יִקָּבֵרוּ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִפָּדוּ.
As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all sacrificial animals that developed a blemish and one slaughtered them, Rabbi Meir says that they shall be buried, as he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation and must be buried if they died. And the Rabbis say: Since an animal consecrated for the altar is not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, even if one slaughtered it, it can be redeemed.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, אַמַּאי תְּמִימִים יִקָּבֵרוּ? מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲזוּ לְהַקְרָבָה.
Rabbi Yirmeya further said to Rabbi Zeira: According to Rabbi Shimon, who said that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are redeemed if they died, why does he state, in the last baraita cited earlier, that unblemished animals consecrated for Temple maintenance shall be buried and not redeemed? Rabbi Zeira responds: It is because they are fit for sacrifice upon the altar.
כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַמַּתְפִּיס תְּמִימִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, כְּשֶׁהֵן נִפְדִּין — אֵינָן נִפְדִּין אֶלָּא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁכׇּל הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִידֵי מִזְבֵּחַ לְעוֹלָם.
The Gemara explains the significance of the fact that these animals, which were consecrated for Temple maintenance, are fit for the altar. As it is taught in a baraita: One who associates unblemished animals, i.e., consecrates them by means of associating their sanctity with sanctified items, for Temple maintenance, when they are redeemed by the treasurer they are redeemed only for the altar, i.e., they are sold to those who must bring an offering, and the animals are sacrificed upon the altar. They may be redeemed only for the altar, not for any non-sacred use, as any consecrated item that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar may never leave the custody of the altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רָבָא: לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, וְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ דְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ דְּלָא הָוֵי בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה. וְלָא?!
§ The Gemara continues to analyze the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and some say that Rava said to Abaye: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who interprets the above baraita as referring to an animal blemished from the outset, and who further claims that everyone, i.e., Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, holds that an animal blemished from the outset was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation, one may ask: And do they both agree that an animal blemished from the outset was not included in that halakha?
וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן וְנִפְדּוּ, חַיָּיבִין בַּבְּכוֹרָה וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לִיגָּזֵז וְלֵיעָבֵד.
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 14a): All the sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded their consecration are not sanctified as offerings; rather, they are sold and the money received is used to purchase valid offerings. And once they are redeemed, they are obligated in, i.e., subject to accounting their offspring, a firstborn; and in the priestly gifts of the foreleg, jaw, and maw; and they emerge from their sacred status and assume complete non-sacred status in order to be shorn and to be utilized for labor.
וְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן מוּתָּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ.
And their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet, even if the animal was not yet redeemed, and those animals do not render an animal exchanged for them a substitute. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may be redeemed.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ, כְּדִתְנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ.
And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, with regard to this mishna: This statement, that one who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar may redeem it if it dies, is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon, who says that animals consecrated for the altar were included in the halakha of standing and valuation, but animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included. As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: If animals consecrated for Temple maintenance died, they can be redeemed, since they were not included in the halakha of standing and valuation. But animals consecrated for the altar that died are buried, as they were included in this halakha.
וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ שֶׁנִּפְדֶּה, מַאי טַעְמָא? דַּאֲמַר קְרָא: ״אוֹתָהּ״, ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ הָיָה בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה!
And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to an animal that was blemished from the outset, which was consecrated for the altar and died, that it is redeemed. What is the reason? As the verse states: “Then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it” (Leviticus 27:11–12). The emphasis of “it” serves to exclude an animal that was blemished from the outset from the halakha of standing and valuation. But the Rabbis say: Every animal consecrated for the altar, even one that was blemished from the outset, was included in the halakha of standing and valuation, and must be buried if it dies. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that according to the Rabbis an animal that was blemished from the outset was not included in the halakha of standing and valuation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן חֲכָמִים? תַּנָּא דְּבֵי לֵוִי. אִי הָכִי, ״זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״ וְתוּ לָא? ״זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
Abaye said to Rav Pappa, or Rava: The statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav does not pose a difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rav was not referring to the Rabbis of the mishna, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon. Rather, who is the tanna referred to here as the Rabbis? It is a tanna of the school of Levi. The other rabbi questioned Abaye’s answer: If so, that even the Rabbis of the mishna hold that an animal that was blemished from the outset is redeemed, why did Rav Yehuda say that Rav said that this mishna in tractate Bekhorot is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon, and nothing more? This statement indicates that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon alone. He should have said that this mishna is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him, i.e., the Rabbis.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דְּלָא קָתָנֵי הָכִי, מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ.
Abaye said to him: The reason that Rav Yehuda does not teach in this manner, i.e., he does not say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, is because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who said that according to the Rabbis of the mishna, only animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were included in the halakha of standing and valuation; animals consecrated for the altar were not included, and are therefore redeemed.
וְרֵישָׁא קָתָנֵי: ״וְאִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ״, וְסֵיפָא קָתָנֵי: ״אִם מֵתוּ יִקָּבֵרוּ״.
And admittedly the first clause of the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it teaches that if they died they can be redeemed. This ruling is in accordance with the Rabbis, as an animal that was blemished from the outset is considered as one consecrated for the altar, since as it was consecrated in order to be sold to purchase a valid offering. But the latter clause of the mishna, which discusses a case where the consecration of the animal preceded the development of a blemish, is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it teaches that if they died they shall be buried. According to Reish Lakish and Rav, the Rabbis hold that in such a case the animal is redeemed. Consequently, the mishna cannot be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, רַב כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ ״זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וּמַחְלוּקְתּוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, אֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי.
And if you wish, say instead that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the Rabbis maintain that all consecrations were included in the halakha of standing and valuation and are buried if they died, and the mishna is in fact in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And as for that which posed a difficulty for you, that Rav Yehuda should have said that this mishna is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him, say: Indeed he said so, that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and those who disagree with him.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּקְבָּרִין: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁהִפִּילוּ — יִקָּבֵרוּ, הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא — תִּקָּבֵר, וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, וְצִפֳּרֵי מְצוֹרָע, וְשֵׂיעַר נָזִיר,
MISHNA: And these are the items that are buried from which deriving benefit is forbidden: In the case of a sacrificial animal that miscarried, the fetus shall be buried. If the animal miscarried a placenta, the placenta shall be buried. And the same halakha applies to an ox that is stoned for killing a person; and a heifer whose neck is broken when a corpse is found between two cities and the killer is unknown; and the birds brought by a leper for purification; and the hair of a nazirite who became ritually impure, who shaves his head before beginning a new term of naziriteship.
וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב, וְחוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה יִשָּׂרֵפוּ, וְכֵן חַיָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בַּעֲזָרָה.
And the same halakha applies to the firstborn of a donkey that, if it is not redeemed with a sheep, has its neck broken; and a forbidden mixture of meat cooked in milk; and non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned, like sacrificial animals that were disqualified in the courtyard. And likewise, an undomesticated animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, although it is not similar to the animals sacrificed in the Temple, shall be burned by rabbinic decree.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין: חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח — יִשָּׂרֵף, וּתְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה, וְהָעׇרְלָה, וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִשָּׂרֵוף — ישרף, וְאֶת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהִקָּבֵר — יִקָּבֵר, וּמַדְלִיקִין בְּפַת וּבְשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָן — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִשָּׂרֵפוּ.
And these are the items that are burned: Leavened bread on Passover shall be burned. And the same halakha applies to ritually impure teruma. And with regard to the fruit that grows on a tree during the three years after it was planted [orla], and diverse kinds of food crops sown in a vineyard, those items whose appropriate manner of destruction is to be burned, e.g., foods, shall be burned; and those items whose appropriate manner of destruction is to be buried, e.g., liquids, shall be buried. And one may ignite a fire with bread and with oil of impure teruma, even though the priest derives benefit from that fire. And with regard to all sacrificial animals that were slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice or consume them beyond their designated time or outside their designated place, those animals shall be burned.
לעקוב
