5. None may redeem [a Firstling] with a calf or with a wild animal or with what has been slaughtered or with what is terefah or with what is cross-bred or with a koy. “ R. Eliezer permits what is cross-bred but forbids a koy, since it is in doubt [whether it can be caMed ‘a lamb’].12 If a man gave [the Firstling] itself to the priest, the priest may not keep it alive unless he had set apart a lamb in its stead.
6. If a man had set apart the redemption [lamb] for the Firstling of an ass, and it died, R. Eliezer says: He is still answerable for it,13 as [in like case he is answerable for] the five selas1* [the redemption price] for a [firstborn] son. But the Sages say: He is not answerable for it, as [in like case he is not answerable for] the redemption price of Second Tithe. R. Joshua and R. Zadok testified of the redemption [lamb] for the Firstling of an ass that had died, that the priest can claim nothing. If the Firstling of an ass died, R.
2 And this was recovered whole.
4 Thereby ‘cancelling’ the sanctity of whichever of the beasts is the Firstling; but he need not give it to the priest, on the principle (see 2*) ‘On him that would exact aught of his fellow lies the burden of proof'.
s And it is not known which was born from which.
6 The auotation refers to the contents of paragraphs 3-4 as a whole. 2 Ex. 1 31’.
8 If he bought it back from the priest or was not compelled to give it to the priest.
9 If it was set apart in redemption of a doubtful Firstling and therefore was not given to the priest.
10 A lamb which was set apart to redeem 8 firstling ass, but died before it could be given to the priest. 11 App. I. 19.
12 A name about which there is doubt whether it can apply to the young of the koy.
<3 And must replace it. The passage is repeated in Eduy. 71.
14 Num. 18". Cf. below, 87. The Tyrian seta was taken as the equivalent of the ‘shekel of the Sanctuary’.
Eliezer says: It must be buried, and the owner may make use of the lamb [which he had set apart to redeem it]. But the Sages say: It need not be buried1 and the lamb falls to the priest.
7. If a man was not minded to redeem it he must break its neck2 from behind with a hatchet and bury it. The duty of redeeming it comes before the duty of breaking its neck, since it is written, And if thou wilt not redeem it then thou shalt break its neck.3 [In like manner] the duty of espousing [a Hebrew bondwoman] comes before the duty of redeeming her, since it is written, So that he hath not espoused her, then shall he let her be redeemed.4 Beforetime the duty of levirate marriage came before the duty of halitzah 5 when they acted intent on fulfilling a religious duty; but now when they so act, but not intent on fulfilling a religious duty,6 they have enjoined that the duty of halitzah comes before the duty of levirate marriage. The duty of redeeming [an unclean beast that was dedicated to the Temple] falls upon its owner before all other men, since it is written, [Then shall he ransom it...] or if it be not redeemed then it shall be sold according to thy estimation P 2. 1, If8 a man bought of a gentile the unborn young of his cow or sold the like to him (though this is forbidden), or if he was a jointholder with him, or if he had received [cows] from him or delivered [cows] to him [to rear and to share with him in the increase], he is exempt from the law of Firstlings, for it is written, [All the firstborn] in Israel; but not the firstborn pertaining to others. Priests and levites are not exempt; they are not exempt from the law of the Firstling of a clean beast, and they are exempt only from the law to redeem the [firstborn] son and the Firstling of an ass.
2. All9 animal-offerings which before they were dedicated suffered a lasting blemish and have been redeemed, are subject to the law of the First¬ ling and [Priests’] Dues,10 and like unconsecrated beasts they can be shorn and used for labour, and their young and their milk are permitted for use after they have been redeemed; and he that slaughters them outside [the Temple Court] is not culpable, and the law of the Substitute" does not apply to them, and if they died of themselves they may be redeemed, save only a Firstling and Tithe [of Cattle].12 3. All [animal-offerings] which after they were dedicated suffered a blemish or which suffered only a passing blemish before they were dedi¬ cated, and there afterward arose in them a lasting blemish, and they were redeemed — they are not subject to the law of the Firstling and [Priests’] Dues, and they may not like unconsecrated beasts be shorn or used for labour, and their young and their milk are forbidden even after they have been redeemed; and he that slaughters them outside [the Temple Court] is culpable; the law of the Substitute applies to them and if they die of them¬ selves they must be buried.
4. If a man received a flock from a gentile on ‘iron’ terms,13 their off¬ spring are exempt [from the law of Firstlings], but the offspring born of their offspring are not exempt.14 If [he15 had stipulated] that the offspring 1 Since it is accounted redeemed by the act of setting apart the lamb.
6 But only with a mind to the widow’s beauty or property. 7 Lev. 27”.
8 Cf. above, x'. g This and the following paragraph are repeated in Hull. 102.
t+ The gentile’s claim is only to the first generation of offspring.
15 The Israelite to the gentile.
532 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM should stand in the stead of their dams, the offspring of such offspring are exempt, hut the offspring of their offspring are liable. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: [They are exempt] even to the tenth generation since the gentile has a lien thereon.
5. If a sheep bore young that was like to a goat, or if a goat bore young that was like to a sheep, it is exempt from the law of Firstlings, but if [the offspring] bore any marks [peculiar to the mother-beast] it is liable.1 6. If a sheep that had not before borne young bore two males and their heads came forth together, R. Jose the Galilean says: Both fall to the priest, for it is written, The males shall be the Lord's.1 But the Sages say: That cannot be:3 but, rather, one falls to the owner and the other to the priest. R. Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better for himself. R. Akiba says: It is left for decision between them,4 and the other is left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, and it is subject to [Priests’] Dues.5 But R. Jose exempts it.6 If one of them died, R. Tarfon says: They share [its value], R. Akiba says: On him that would exact aught from his fellow lies the burden of proof. If [the offspring] were a male and a female, the priest can claim nothing.
7. If two sheep that had not before borne young bore two males, both must be given to the priest; if a male and a female, the male falls to the priest; if two males and a female, one male falls to the owner and the other to the priest. R. Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better for himself. R. Akiba says: It is left for decision between them, and the other is left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, and it is subject to [Priests’] Dues. But R. Jose exempts it. If one of them died, R. Tarfon says: They share [its value]. R. Akiba says: On him that would exact aught from his fellow lies the burden of proof. [If they bore] two females and a male, or two males and two females, the priest can claim nothing.
8. If from a sheep that had already borne young and another that had not before borne young two males were bom, one falls to the owner and the other to the priest. R. Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better for him¬ self. R. Akiba says: It is left for decision between them, and the other is left to pasture until it suffers a blemish; and it is subject to [Priests’] Dues. But R. Jose exempts it; for R. Jose used to say: If the priest has a beast given in the other’s stead it is exempt from [Priests’] Dues. R. Meir declares it liable. If one of them died, R. Tarfon says: They share [its value]. R. Akiba says: On him that would exact aught from his fellow lies the burden of proof. If [they bore] a male and a female the priest can claim nothing.
9. If the firstborn was extracted from the side and another was bom after it, R. Tarfon says: Both must be left to pasture until they suffer a blemish, and they may be consumed by their owners after they have suffered a blemish. R. Akiba says: Neither is reckoned a Firstling — the first because it is not such that openeth the womb,1 the second in that another came before it.
’ An inference from Num. 18”.
2 Ex. 13“*; implying that more than one can come under the law of Firstlings.
3 i.e. it is impossible to decide that they were, in real truth, simultaneous births.
♦ The same obscure Hebrew term is used in B.B. 7*. The sense here seems to be that since the priest cannot prove his claim to either, the owner, being in the stronger position, can leave the less desirable of the two beasts to the priest.
s It is then deemed unconsecrated in all respects, and comes under the law of ‘the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw’; cf. Hull. to1.
3. 1. If a man bought a beast of a gentile and it was not known whether it had already borne young or had not already borne young, R. Ishmael says: If it was a goat still in its first year [the first male offspring] shall surely fall to the priest; but if it was older than this it remains in doubt.1 If it was a sheep still in its second year [the first male offspring] shall surely fall to the priest; but if it was older than this it remains in doubt. If it was a cow or an ass still in its third year [the first male offspring] shall surely fall to the priest; but if it was older than this it remains in doubt. R. Akiba said to him: If the beast was exempted by offspring only, it would be as thou hast said; but they have said: The token of offspring2 in small cattle is womb- discharge, in large cattle the after-birth; and in women the foetus-sack or the afterbirth. This is the general rule: If it is known that the beast had already borne young the priest can claim nothing; if it had not already borne young [the first male offspring] falls to the priest; if it is in doubt the owner may consume the offspring after it has suffered a blemish. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: If large cattle discharged a clot of blood this must be buried; and they are exempt from the law of the Firstling.
2. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If a man bought of a gentile a beast that was giving suck, he need not scruple lest it be the young of another beast. If he entered among his flock and saw beasts that had not before borne young giving suck and beasts that had already borne young giving suck, he need not scruple lest the young of these may have come to the others [for suck], or lest the young of the others may have come to these.
3. R. Jose b. Meshullam says: When a man slaughters a Firstling he may prepare a place for3 the hatchet on either side and pluck out hair,4 provided that he does not remove it;5 so, too, when a man plucks out hair to inspect the place of a blemish.
4. If the hair of a blemished Firstling fell out and one put it in a wall- niche and afterward slaughtered the beast, Akabya b. Mehalaleel says: It is permitted.6 But the Sages forbid it. So R. Judah. R. Jose said: Akabya did not need to permit it in this case; but if the hair of a blemished Firstling fell out and one put it in a wall-niche and afterward the beast died, in this case Akabya b. Mehalaleel permits it, but the Sages forbid it. If wool hangs loose from a Firstling7 it is permitted if it manifestly pertains to the shorn wool,8 but if it does not manifestly pertain to the shorn wool it is forbidden.
4. 1. How long must an Israelite tend the Firstling9 [before he gives it to a priest]? Thirty days for small cattle and fifty days for large cattle. R. Jose says: Three months for small cattle. If within this time the priest said to 1 Whether it is really a Firstling, Therefore the owner need not give it to the priest, yet he must leave it to pasture until it suffers a blemish.
2 A proof that there has been some manner of birth and that the beast is exempt from the law of the. Firstling. Cf. Hull. 4’.
3 Variant: ‘with’, or ‘the size of’ the hatchet with which the throat is to be cut.
4 By hand, to ensure against the danger of improper slaughtering. See p. 513, n. 7.
3 It must be left on the beast. Cf. Deut, 1519.
6 To make use of the hair. Eduy. 5°. 7 That has been slaughtered.
8 i.e. that had been shorn off after the beast was slaughtered.
9 If the Firstling was free from blemish it must be offered in the Temple, the blood sprinkled, and the sacrificial portions burnt on the Altar; the rest of the flesh belongs to the priest and must be consumed by him in Jerusalem. If it had a blemish it cannot be offered in the Temple and becomes absolutely the priest’s property; he may slaughter it or sell it as he pleases. After the time of the Temple (when the Firstling can no longer be offered) it must be kept by the owner long enough for it to appear whether it is blemished; and unless it is blemished it is forbidden to slaughter it; such blemish must be certified by one that is skilled.
534 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM him, ‘Give it to me’,1 he may not give it to him. If it was blemished and he said to him, ‘Give it to me that I may eat it’, it is permitted. During the time of the Temple if the Firstling was without blemish and the priest said to him, ‘Give it to me that I may offer it [in the Temple]’, it is permitted. The Firstling must be consumed within the year, whether it was un¬ blemished or blemished, for it is written, Thou shalt eat it before the Lord thy God year by year. 2 2. If within the year there arose in it a blemish it may be kept alive throughout the twelve months; but if after the year, it may be kept alive only for thirty days.
3. If a man slaughtered a Firstling and [so first] made its blemish mani¬ fest R. Judah permits it. R. Meir says: Since it was not slaughtered at the word of one that was skilled it is forbidden.
4. If one that was not skilled beheld the Firstling and it was slaughtered at his word it must be buried, and he must make restitution from his own property. If he judged a matter of law and declared exempt him that was culpable or declared culpable him that was exempt, or declared unclean what was clean or declared clean what was unclean, what he has done cannot be undone, but he must make restitution from his own property. But if he was a skilled person approved by the court, he need not make restitution. It3 happened once that R. Tarfon fed the dogs with a cow whose womb had been removed;4 and the matter came before the Sages and they declared it permitted. Todos5 the Physician said, There is neither cow nor sow that leaves Alexandria but they cut out its womb so that it cannot bear young. R. Tarfon said, There goes thine ass, Tarfon!6 * R. Akiba said to him, R. Tarfon, thou art exempt in that thou art a skilled person approved by the court, and he that is a skilled person approved by the court need not make restitution.
5. If a man takes payment for inspecting Firstlings none may slaughter at his word unless he was as skilled as Ila in J abneh whom the Sages suffered to take four issars 7 for small cattle and six for large cattle, whether un¬ blemished or blemished.
6. If a man takes payment for acting as a judge, his judgements are void; if for bearing witness his witness is void; if for sprinkling [Sin-offering water] or for mixing [with water]8 the ashes [of the Red Heifer], his water becomes but the water of a cavern and his ashes but the ashes of a hearth. If he9 was a priest and he had thereby become unclean so that he could not partake of Heave-offering, he should be given what he needs for eating, drinking, and anointing. If he was an aged man he should be given an ass to ride. Moreover he may be given such payment as [would be given to] a labourer.
7. If a man is suspected of breaking the law of Firstlings,10 none may buy of him the flesh of gazelles or untanned hides. R. Eliezer says: They may 1 The priest undertakes the burden of rearing it during the specified time, thus placing the Israelite under obligation to him and ensuring that the Israelite will give it to him and not to another priest. 2 Deut. is20.
3 Some texts omit the rest of the paragraph. 4 He pronounced it terefah.
5 Theudas. Cambridge text: Todros (Theodorus).
6 i.e. he must give up his ass to make restitution for the cow which he had wrongly pro¬ nounced terefah. 7 App. II, A. 8 Num. i917£.
9 Who is called upon to examine whether a Firstling is blemished or to act as a judge, etc.
10 If a priest is suspected of slaughtering unblemished Firstlings which have been given to him.
buy of him the hides of female beasts but they may not buy of him wool that is bleached but still dirty; and they may buy of him what is already spun or [made into] garments.1 8. If a man is suspected of breaking the law of Seventh Year produce,2 none may buy of him flax even though it is combed; but they may buy of him what has been spun or carded.
9. If a man is suspected of selling Heave-offering as unconsecrated produce, none may buy of him even water or salt. So R. Judah. R. Simeon says: None may buy of him aught that in any wise pertains to Heave-offering or Tithes.3 10. If a man is suspected in what concerns Seventh Year produce he need not be suspected in what concerns Tithes; if he is suspected in what concerns Tithes he need not be suspected in what concerns Seventh Year produce; if he is suspected in what concerns either the one or the other he is suspected in what concerns the cleanness [of foodstuffs]; yet he may be suspected in what concerns the cleanness [of foodstuffs] and not be suspected in what concerns either the one or the other. This is the general rule: He that is suspected in what concerns any matter may neither judge nor bear witness thereof.
5. 1. All animal-offerings that have become invalid may [after they have been redeemed] be sold in the market and slaughtered in the market and weighed out by measure,4 save only the Firstling and Tithe [of Cattle],5 since the advantage6 would fall to their owners;7 but with animal-offerings that have been rendered invalid the advantage falls to the Temple. But a portion of the flesh of a Firstling may be weighed against another portion [of its flesh].8 2. The School of Shammai say: An Israelite may not be numbered [in the same company] with a priest for [the consumption of] a Firstling. And the School of Hillel permit it even to a gentile. If a Firstling suffered from a congestion of blood, it may not be bled even though it must otherwise die. So R. Judah. But the Sages say: It may be bled provided that it does not thereby suffer a blemish; but if it suffers a blemish it may not be slaughtered by reason of it. R. Simeon says: It may be bled even if it thereby suffers a blemish.
3. If a man slit the ear of a Firstling it may never be slaughtered. So R. Eliezer. But the Sages say: If there arose in it some other blemish it may be slaughtered by reason of it. It once happened that a quaestor saw an old ram with a long, dangling hair and said, ‘What manner of thing is this?’ They answered, ‘It is a Firstling which may be slaughtered only if it suffers 1 Some texts read here ‘carded’, transposing ‘made into garments’ to the end of the next paragraph.
1 Who cultivates his field and sells its produce in the Seventh Year. See Lev. *5*.
3 But water and salt are permitted.
♦ Sold in small quantities. Lit. 'by the litra’.
s If unblemished it must be offered in the Temple; its flesh belonged to its owner who must, however, consume it within Jerusalem. If it was blemished and unfit to be an offering it may be slaughtered for food; but it may not be sold, whether alive or slaughtered, whole or piecemeal.
4 The greater profit gained by open sale as against the smaller price resulting from private and more seemly disposal.
7 The priests.
8 In order to share it out equally (so Maim.). Rashi, Bert., and Tif. Yis. render: ‘A rnina’s weight of the flesh of a Firstling may be weighed against a mina’s weight (of common FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM a blemish’. He took a dagger and slit its ear. The matter came before the Sages and they declared it permitted. When he saw that they had declared it permitted he went and slit the ears of other Firstlings; and they declared it forbidden. Once children were playing in the field and tied together the tails of the lambs, and the tail of one of them was torn away, and this was a Firstling. The matter came before the Sages and they declared it permitted. When they saw that they had declared it permitted they went and tied together the tails of other Firstlings; and they declared it forbidden. This is the general rule: If it is done of set purpose1 it is forbidden; if not of set purpose it is permitted.
4. If a Firstling pursued after a man and he kicked it and caused a blemish in it, it may2 be slaughtered by reason of it. In what concerns any blemishes likely to happen at the hands of man, herdsmen that are Israelites are accounted trustworthy; but herdsmen that are priests are not accounted trustworthy. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: A man is accounted trust¬ worthy in what concerns another’s [Firstling], but he is not accounted trustworthy in what concerns his own. R. Meir says: He that is suspected in what concerns any matter may neither judge nor bear witness thereof.
5. A priest may be believed if he says, ‘I have caused this Firstling to be inspected, and it has a blemish’. All are accounted trustworthy in what concerns blemishes in Tithe [of Cattle].3 If a Firstling was blind in an eye, or had a fore-leg cut off or a hind-leg broken, it may be slaughtered at the word of three members of the Synagogue.4 R. Jose says: Even if there were three and twenty it may only be slaughtered at the word of one that is skilled.
6. If a man slaughtered a Firstling and sold it and it became known that he had not caused it to be inspected, what they have eaten they have eaten, but he must give them back what they have paid; and the flesh that they have not eaten must be buried, and he must give them back what they have paid. So, too, if a man slaughtered a cow and sold it and it became known that it was terefah, what they have eaten they have eaten, but he must give them back what they have paid, and the flesh that they have not eaten they shall give him back, and he must give them back what they have paid. If they had sold it to gentiles or thrown it to the dogs they need only pay him its value as terefah.
6. 1. By reason of these blemishes5 the Firstling may be slaughtered: if the ear is defective in the gristle but not in the skin; if it is slit, though no part is lacking; if it has a hole in it as big as a vetch, or if it is dried up. ‘Dried’ means a condition such that, if it was pierced, it would not let forth a drop of blood. R. Jose b. Meshullam says: ‘Dried up’ means such a condition that it will crumble.
2. If its eyelid is pierced, defective, or slit; if its eyes have in them a speck, a commingling, a snail-shaped or snake-shaped or berry-shaped growth. A ‘commingling’ means such that the white breaks through the ring and enters the black; if the black enters the W’hite this is not deemed a blemish since what is in the white is not deemed a blemish.
3. White flecks or rheum, if they are lasting. ‘Lasting’ means such that 1 Deliberately by its owner, in order to make the slaughtering of it permissible.
2 Variant: may not.
3 If they allege that the blemish arose from the beast itself.
•> i.e, that are unskilled. 5 Cf. Lev. 22l91t; Deut. 1 s-‘r.
have continued eighty days. R. Hanina b. Antigonus says: They must in¬ spect the eyes three times within the eighty days. What water [in the eyes] counts as ‘lasting’? If it ate fresh or dry [fodder] from rain[-watered fields and the blemish remained]. If it ate fresh or dry [fodder] from irrigated fields, or if it ate dry [fodder] and afterward ate fresh [fodder, and the blemish remained], it is not accounted a blemish; but only if it ate dry [fodder] after fresh.
4. If its nose is pierced, defective, or slit; if its lip is pierced, defective, or slit; if its front teeth are defective or worn down, or its back teeth uprooted. R. Hanina b. Antigonus says: They do not examine from the double teeth backwards, nor the double teeth themselves.
5. If the sheath of the male organ is defective (or the female organ in female beasts brought as animal-offerings), or if there is a defect of the tail in a bone though not in the joints, or if the [root-]end of the tail has the bone divided,1 or if there is a finger’s breadth of flesh between one link [of the tail] and the next.
6. If it has no stones or but one. R. Ishmael says: If it has two pouches it has two stones; if it has but one pouch it has but one stone. R. Aldba says: It should be set on its buttocks and squeezed: if there is a stone there it will in the end come forth. It once happened that they squeezed and it did not come forth, but when the beast was slaughtered it was found cleaving to the groin; and R. Akiba declared [the beast] permitted, but R. Johanan b. Nuri declared it forbidden.
7. If it has five legs or only three; or if it has unparted hooves like those of an ass; or if it has a dislocated or deformed hip. ‘Dislocated’ means that the thigh-bone has slipped [from its socket]; ‘deformed’ means that one thigh is higher than the other.
8. If a bone of its fore-leg or hind-leg is broken, even if this is not manifest. These blemishes did Ila2 recount in Jabneh and the Sages agreed. Moreover he added three others. They answered: We have heard no tradition about these, [namely,] if its eye-socket is round like a man’s, or if its mouth is like a pig’s, or if the greater part of the fore-tongue is gone. But the court that came after them declared that these, too, were blemishes.
9. It once happend that the lower jaw stretched beyond the upper, and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel inquired of the Sages and they declared this a blemish. [It once happened that] the ear of a kid was folded, and the Sages said: If [it grows from] a single bone it is a blemish, but if [it does] not [grow from] a single bone, it is not a blemish. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel says: If the tail of a kid is like that of a pig or has not three links, it is a blemish.
10. R. Hanina b. Antigonus says: If it has a wart on its eye, or if a bone of its fore-leg or hind-leg is defective, or if it has lost a bone from its mouth, or if one eye is big and the other little, or one ear big and the other little, so that it is manifest and needs not to be measured. R. Judah says: If one of its stones is twice as big as the other. But the Sages did not agree with him.
11. If a calf’s tail does not reach the knee-joint. The Sages said: Throughout the growth of calves it is so; while they still grow their tails grow still longer. Of which knee-joint did they speak? R. Hanina b. Anti¬ gonus says: The knee-joint in the middle of the thigh.3 By reason of these 1 So Maim. Rashi and Bert, render: ‘If the end of the backbone is bare of skin and flesh.’
2 See above, 4'. 3 i.e. the upper of the two bends in the hind-leg.
538 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASH1M blemishes the Firstling may be slaughtered and animal-offerings that have been rendered invalid may be redeemed by reason of these blemishes.