יִגָּאֵל״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לָמָּה לִי? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַחֲרָמִים – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְמַעֲשֵׂר. אֵימָא: תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִבְכוֹר! מַעֲשֵׂר – גְּאוּלָּה כְּמוֹתוֹ.

be redeemed” that the Merciful One writes, why do I need it? If it is not referring to the matter of dedications, as can be inferred from the baraita, apply it to the matter of the animal tithe offering, teaching that it may not be sold. The Gemara raises a difficulty: One can say that instead of applying it to the animal tithe offering, apply it to the matter of a firstborn offering. The Gemara rejects this possibility: The prohibition against selling extends to the animal tithe offering, concerning which the expression of redemption is written, just like dedications, which is not so concerning the firstborn offering.

רַב אַשִׁי אָמַר: ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ דְּמַעֲשֵׂר – לֹא יִמָּכֵר הוּא. אָמַר רַב אַשִׁי: מְנָא אָמִינָא לָהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ לֹא יִגָּאֵל״,

§ Rav Ashi says that the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is not derived from dedications, but rather from the case of the animal tithe offering itself. The phrase “It may not be redeemed,” written with regard to the animal tithe offering, is to be understood as meaning: It may not be sold. Rav Ashi further says: From where do I say this? As it is written: “Then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33).

אֵימָתַי עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה – מֵחַיִּים, אֵימָתַי אֵינוֹ נִגְאָל – מֵחַיִּים, הָא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה – נִגְאָל; הָא בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה!

Rav Ashi elaborates: When does the animal tithe offering render a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute? Only when the animal tithe offering is alive. Similarly, when may the animal tithe offering not be redeemed by its owner? Only when it is alive, which indicates that it may be redeemed after its slaughter. But when redeeming a sanctified animal, it requires standing and valuation, i.e., it has to be set standing before a priest for him to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). How, then, can the animal tithe offering be redeemed after having been slaughtered?

אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ – לֹא יִמָּכֵר הוּא.

Rav Ashi continues: Rather, conclude from this verse that the phrase “it may not be redeemed” is not referring to redemption. Rather, it is actually to be understood as: It may not be sold. Accordingly, the prohibition against selling the animal tithe offering is in effect only while it is alive, as is the halakha with regard to a substitute; but once it is slaughtered, it may be sold.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the one who says that animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were disqualified due to a blemish were included in the requirement of standing and valuation. But according to the one who says that animals consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar that were disqualified due to a blemish were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation, what is there to say? According to this opinion, the phrase “It may not be redeemed” can be interpreted literally, in contrast to Rav Ashi’s claim.

אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: מִי אִיכָּא דְּמֵחַיִּים לָא מִיפְרִיק, וּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה מִיפְרִיק? אַלָמָּה לָא? מֵחַיִּים, דְּאַלִּימָא קְדוּשָּׁתֵיהּ – לָא מִיפְרִיק; לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, דַּאֲקִיל לֵיהּ קְדוּשָּׁתֵיהּ – מִיפְרִיק!

The Gemara explains: This is what we said, i.e., this is what we meant. The phrase “It may not be redeemed” cannot be understood literally, as is there ever an instance where an animal may not be redeemed when alive, and yet it may be redeemed after its slaughter? Since such a scenario is impossible, the verse must be referring to the prohibition against selling. The Gemara asks: But why can it not be said that an animal may be redeemed only after its slaughter? One can claim that when the animal is alive, since its sanctity is strong, it is logical to say that it may not be redeemed. Conversely, after its slaughter, when its sanctity is weak, it is logical to claim that it may be redeemed. If so, the phrase can be understood literally.

וְלָא כָּל דְּכֵן הוּא? וּמַה מֵּחַיִּים, דְּאַלִּים לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ – לָא מִיפְרִיק; לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, דְּלָא אַלִּים לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ – מִיפְרִיק? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ – לֹא יִמָּכֵר הוּא.

The Gemara rejects this contention: But isn’t the opposite claim, that a slaughtered animal tithe offering may not be redeemed, based on an a fortiori inference: If, when the animal tithe offering is alive and its sanctity is strong enough to transfer that sanctity to its redemption money, just as it renders a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, nevertheless it may not be redeemed, then after its slaughter, when its sanctity is not strong enough to transfer that sanctity to its redemption money, as at this stage it cannot render a non-sacred animal consecrated as a substitute, should it be able to be redeemed? In other words, the fact that substitution can be effected only with a living animal indicates that a strong sanctity is more easily transferable to another item than a weak sanctity. Rather, conclude from this that the phrase “It may not be redeemed” is actually to be understood as meaning that it may not be sold.

וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״! אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״, הֲוָה אָמִינָא: אִיזְדַּבּוּנֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִזְדַּבַּן – דְּקָא עָבֵיד עוּבְדִין דְּחוֹל, אֲבָל אִיפְרוּקֵי – מִיפְרִיק, דְּהָא עָיְילִי דָּמָיו לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ; לְהָכִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ – דְּלָא אִיזְדַּבּוּנֵי מִיזְדַּבַּן, וְלָא אִיפְרוּקֵי מִיפְרִיק.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the Merciful One write explicitly: It may not be sold. The Gemara answers: Had the Merciful One written: It may not be sold, I would say that the animal tithe offering only may not be sold, as one who does so performs an act of a non-sacred item, by treating the consecrated animal in the same manner as a non-sacred animal and transferring its value to non-sacred money. But I would say that it may be redeemed, as in this manner its value becomes consecrated. Therefore, in order to counter this notion, the Merciful One writes: “It may not be redeemed,” which teaches both that the animal tithe offering may not be sold and that it may not be redeemed.

מתני׳ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִמָּנֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל עִם הַכֹּהֵן לִבְכוֹר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי.

Beit Shammai say: An Israelite cannot be counted with the priest to partake of a blemished firstborn. And Beit Hillel deem it permitted for him to partake of it, and they deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn.

גמ׳ מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּכוֹר, אֵין נִמְנִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא חֲבוּרָה שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כֹּהֲנִים, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ זָרִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַתִּיר אֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי.

The mishna teaches that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn offering. The Gemara says: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a blemished firstborn offering, only a group constituted entirely of priests may be counted to partake of it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: The group may even be constituted of non-priests. Rabbi Akiva says that Beit Hillel deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn. Evidently, Beit Hillel’s opinion in the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s explanation in this baraita.

מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״ וגו׳, מָה הָתָם – כֹּהֲנִים אִין, יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא, אַף הָכָא – כֹּהֲנִים אִין, יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא.

The Gemara explains: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? As it is written in a verse discussing the firstborn offering, addressed to Aaron and his sons: “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat you shall not redeem; they are holy … and their flesh shall be yours, as the wave breast and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:17–18). Just as there, with regard to the breast and the thigh, priests may partake of it but an Israelite, i.e., a non-priest, may not, as the verse states: “You shall eat in a pure place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with you” (Leviticus 10:14), so too here, with regard to the firstborn offering, only priests may partake of it, but an Israelite may not.