Pisqa’ 1241
1
“Every male Firstling that is born of your herds and flocks
shall you consecrate to HASHEM your God. . .
Before HASHEM your God shall you eat it, year by year” (Dt.15:19-20).
This explains that
the Firstling is eaten anytime
during its first year.2
I might infer that
the rule applies only to an unblemished Firstling.
On what basis do I know that
a blemished Firstling [may be eaten as well]?3
The Teaching states:
“Every male Firstling” (Dt.15:19)—
[even if it is blemished].
Inferring from what is stated:
“Do not work the Firstling of your oxen,
and do not shear the Firstling of your flocks” (Dt.15:19)—
this teaches that
it is prohibited to shear or work a Firstling. 4
I might infer only that
this prohibition applies to an unblemished Firstling.
On what basis do I know that
a blemished Firstling [is neither worked nor shorn]?
The Teaching states:
“Every male Firstling” (Dt.15:19)—
[even if it is blemished].
“That is born” (Dt.15:19)—
excluding one birthed from the mother’s side.5
2
“Every male Firstling that is born in your herds and flocks
shall you consecrate to HASHEM your God” (Dt.15:19).
This teaches that
the Firstling is eaten anytime during its first year.6
I might infer only that
a Firstling may be eaten anytime during its first year.
On what basis do I know
to include within this rule all other consecrated animals?7
The Teaching states:
“Every male Firstling” (Dt.15:19)—
[every permits even consecrated animals other than Firstlings].
Inferring from what is stated:
“Do not work the Firstling of your oxen,
and do not shear the Firstling of your flocks” (Dt.15:19)—
this teaches thatit is prohibited to shear or work a Firstling. 8
I might infer only that
[this prohibition] applies to a Firstling.
On what basis do I know
to include within this prohibition all other consecrated animals?
Now, reason dictates this:
Just as a Firstling,
which [status] cannot be held
by any other offspring of the same mother,
and which becomes common meat, when blemished,
without the payment of a redemption-price,
is prohibited from being shorn or worked—
so, too, all other consecrated animals,
who may share consecration
with other offspring of the same mother,
and which do become common meat when blemished,
only upon the payment of a redemption-price—
isn’t it only reasonable that
they should be prohibited from being shorn or worked?
Not at all!
If you consider the Firstling,
whose consecration begins in the womb,
and whose consecration persists
despite suffering a permanent blemish—
on what basis would you consider it
[comparable to other] consecrated-offerings,
whose consecration doesn’t begin in the womb,
and doesn’t persist when they suffer a permanent blemish?
The Teaching states:
“Every male Firstling . . . in your herds and flocks
shall you consecrate . . .
Do not work . . . and do not shear . . . ” (Dt.15:19)—
[thus, Firstlings and other consecrated-offerings
are not governed by the same rules,
despite sharing consecrated status].9
3
“Shall you consecrate to HASHEM your God” (Dt.15:19)—
R. Ishmael says:
[Regarding Firstlings,] one verse says:
“Shall you consecrate” (Dt.15:19).
But another verse says:
“One shall not consecrate” (Lv.27:26).
{Now, you can’t possibly say “shall you consecrate,”
once you’ve said “one shall not consecrate!”
Nor, can you possibly say “one shall not consecrate,”
once you’ve said “shall you consecrate!”
From this you may conclude:
one may consecrate a Firstling
according to its monetary value
[and donate the consecrated funds
for the maintenance of the Holy Abode],
but one may not consecrate the Firstling
for the Altar as any other offering,
[for it already carries the status of a Firstling.]10 }11
Is it possible to say that
[we permit consecration of a Firstling]
for the maintenance of the Abode,
since it is not consecrated for the Altar
[as any other offering]?
The Teaching states:
“But the Firstling . . .
belongs to HASHEM; one shall not consecrate it” (Lv.27:26)—
[unlike other offerings, which are consecrated by human acts, the consecration of the Firstling occurs at birth and cannot be redesignated].
Just as a Firstling is distinctive
in its consecration for the Altar [as a Firstling],
{so, too— is everything that is consecrated for the Altar
[limited to the terms of its original consecration]?}12
Or, perhaps—
a matter you derive from one trait [of comparison]
can be derived as well
from other traits inherent to it?
Just as a Firstling is distinctive in that
it is a Lesser-Holy-offering,
and must be eaten within two days,
and is customarily taken from both herds and flocks—
therefore, I can only include [in its rule]
offerings with similar traits!
On what basis do I include [in its rule]
Most-Holy-offerings, and Lesser-Holy-offerings
from private individuals and from the community?
The Teaching states:
“Every male Firstling that is born in your herds and flocks shall you consecrate . . .
Do not work the Firstling of your oxen, and do not shear the Firstling of your flocks” (Dt.15:19).
The Firstling is singled out [among other consecrated animals]
only to teach you that
just as the Firstling is distinctive
in that it is [consecrated from birth] for the Altar,
so, too, it’s rule excludes
animals consecrated for the maintenance of the Abode,
[but which are not consecrated from birth for the Altar].
4
R. Judah says:
“Do not work the Firstling of your oxen” (Dt.15:19)—
but you may work [the Firstling] of the [gentile] outsiders; .
“And do not shear the Firstling of your flocks (Dt.15:19)—
but you may work that of the [gentile] outsders.
R. Shimon says:
“Do not work the Firstling of your oxen” (Dt.15:19)—
but you may work a human Firstling.
“And do not shear the Firstling of your flocks (Dt.15:19)—
but you may shear the Womb-opener of an ass (Ex.13:13).
I might infer only that
[it is forbidden] to work the Firstling of an ox
or to shear the Firstling of the flock..
But on what basis
is it forbidden to shear the Firstling of an ox
or to work the Firstling of the flock?
Look—you can reason as follows:
Just as, in a case where
there is no equivalence between
a blemished herding beast and an unblemished herding beast
as regards suitability to be offered upon the Altar,
[since only the unblemished animal can be offered],
yet they are equivalent as regards work
[each being suitable as long as it has not been worked]—
isn’t it reasonable that
in a case where there is an equivalence between
an unblemished flocking beast
and an unblemished herding beast
as regards suitability to be offered upon the Altar—
[since both are suitable,]
shouldn’t they also be equivalent as regards work?
And the same reasoning should apply to being shorn:
Just as, in a case where
there is no equivalence between
a blemished flocking beast and an unblemished flocking beast
as regards suitability to be offered upon the Altar,
[since only the unblemished animal can be offered],
they are equivalent as regards being shorn
[each being suitable as long as it has not been shorn]—
isn’t it reasonable that
in a case where there is an equivalence between
an unblemished herding beast
and an unblemished flocking beast
as regards suitability to be offered on the Altar—
[since both are suitable,]
shouldn’t they also be equivalent as regards being shorn?
5
But we have as yet only learned
[the rule for] unblemished animals!
How do I know about [the rule for] blemished animals?
Just as, in a case where
there is no equivalence between
an unblemished herding beast and a blemished herding beast,
as regards suitability to be offered upon the Altar,
[since the blemished animal cannot be offered],
they are equivalent as regards work,
[each being suitable as long as it has not been worked]—
isn’t it reasonable that
in a case where there is an equivalence between
a blemished flocking beast and a blemished flocking beast
as regards suitability to be offered upon the Altar,
[since neither is suitable],
shouldn’t they also be equivalent as regards work?
And the same reasoning should apply to being shorn:
Just as, in a case where
there is no equivalence between
an unblemished flocking beast
and a blemished flocking beast
[as regards the latter’s] being consumed
only in the outskirts of Jerusalem,
[while the unblemished animal
is consumed only within Jerusalem],13
they are [nevertheless] equivalent as regards being shorn—
isn’t it reasonable that
in a case where there is an equivalence between
a blemished herding beast and
a blemished flocking beast
[as regards both] being consumed
only in the outskirts [of Jerusalem],
they should also be equivalent as regards being shorn?
The Teaching states:
“Do not work the Firstling of your herds,
and do not shear the Firstling of your flocks” (Dt.15:19)—
[thus Firstling cattle are disqualified only by being worked,
while Firstling sheep are disqualified by shearing alone].
- H:168-170; JN1:306-309.
- Cf. T. Bech. 3:4. See also 124.2.
- Cf. M. Bech.4:1.
- Cf. 124.2
- Cf. M. Bech.2:9.
- Cf. 124.1
- Cf, 124.1
- Cf. 124.1
- Cf. Pisqa’ 71.2
- = M. Arach. 8:7.
- F: 182. l.15-183, ls.1-3, n.1 follows GR”A’s reformulation of the bracketed material. Cf. H:442, Pisqa’ 124, n.3.
- F: 183, l.4, n.3 and H:442, #124, n. 6.
- For the ritual distinction between Jerusalem and its outskirts, see Pisqa’ 126.2.