אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: ״תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ״ – אֵין לְךָ בָּהֶן הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת זְבִיחָה וָאֵילָךְ. אֲבָל פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים הָכִי נָמִי דְאָמַר.

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

״וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן אָסוּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן״. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵימָא דְּאִיעַבַּר וְאִיתְיְלִיד לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן – אַמַּאי? וְלַד צְבִי וְאַיָּל נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא דְּאִיעַבַּר לִפְנֵי פִדְיוֹנָן וְאִיתְיְלִיד לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן; הָא לִפְנֵי פִדְיוֹנָן – מִיקְדַּשׁ נַמִי קָדְשִׁי.

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

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״זָכָר״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַוָּלָד, ״וּנְקֵבָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַתְּמוּרָה.

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

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

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

אוֹתָן וְלָדוֹת שֶׁלְּאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, מַה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶן? לִפְנֵי פִדְיוֹנָן מִיפְלַג פְּלִיגִי בְּהוּ, אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: קָדְשִׁי לִיקְרַב, וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: קָדְשִׁי לִרְעִיָּיה;

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

דִּלְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן מַה תְּהֵא עֲלֵיהֶן? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כּוֹנְסָן לְכִיפָּה וְהֵן מֵתִין. דְּהֵיכִי לִיעֲבִיד? לִיקְרְבִינְהוּ – מִכֹּחַ קְדוּשָּׁה דְּחוּיָה קָאָתוּ, לִיפְרְקִינְהוּ – לָא אַלִּימִי לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנָן.

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

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

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

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

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

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּישָׁן וְנִפְדּוּ – חַיָּיבִין בִּבְכוֹרָה וּבְמַתָּנוֹת. בֵּין לִפְנֵי פִדְיוֹנָן בֵּין לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן – הַגּוֹזֵז וְהָעוֹבֵד בָּהֶן אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. בֵּין לִפְנֵי פִדְיוֹנָן בֵּין לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן – אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה.

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

וְלִפְנֵי פִדְיוֹנָן – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וּלְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וּוְלָדוֹתֵיהֶן חוֹל, וְנִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים, וּמַתְפִּיסָן לְכָל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחוּלִּין לְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, אֵין לְךָ בָּהֶם אֶלָּא מִצְוַת עִלּוּי בִּלְבַד.

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

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

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

לִפְנֵי פִדְיוֹנָן – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וּלְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וּוְלָדוֹתֵיהֶן קוֹדֶשׁ, וְאֵין נִיפְדִּין תְּמִימִין, וְאֵין מַתְפִּיסָן לְכָל זֶבַח שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: הֲרֵי הֵן כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, וְאֵין לְךָ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה בִּלְבַד.

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

״כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר״ דְּרֵישָׁא – לַאֲתוּיֵי שׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ דְּפָטוּר, ״כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר״ דְּסֵיפָא

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