Midrash · Halachah
Sifrei Devarim 124/ספרי דברים קכ״ד
א(דברים טו יט) כָּל הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלֵד בִּבְקָרְךָ, מַגִּיד שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל כָּל שְׁנָתוֹ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר תָּם, בַּעַל מוּם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כָּל הַבְּכוֹר. מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר אָסוּר בְּגִזָּה וּבַעֲבוֹדָה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר תָּם, בַּעַל מוּם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כָּל הַבְּכוֹר.
1Pisqa’ 1243731. “Every male Firstling that is born of your herds and flocksshall you consecrate to HASHEM your God. . .Before HASHEM your God shall you eat it, year by year” (Dt. 15:19-20).This explains thatthe Firstling is eaten anytimeduring its first year.374I might infer thatthe rule applies only to an unblemished Firstling.On what basis do I know thata blemished Firstling [may be eaten as well]?375The 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 thatit is prohibited to shear or work a Firstling. 376I might infer only thatthis prohibition applies to an unblemished Firstling.On what basis do I know thata blemished Firstling [is neither worked nor shorn]?The Teaching states:“Every male Firstling” (Dt. 15:19)—[even if it is blemished].
באֲשֶׁר יִוָּלֵד – פְּרָט לְיוֹצֵא דוֹפֶן.
2“That is born” (Dt. 15:19)—excluding one birthed from the mother’s side.377
גבִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ הַזָּכָר תַּקְדִּישׁ לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל כָּל שְׁנָתוֹ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כָּל הַבְּכוֹר. מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר אָסוּר בְּגִזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר, שְׁאָר כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה הַבְּכוֹר, שֶׁאֵין נוֹהֵג בְּכָל הַוְּלָדוֹת, יוֹצֵא לְחֻלִּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפִדְיוֹן וְאָסוּר בְּגִזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁנּוֹהֲגִים בְּכָל הַוְּלָדוֹת וְאֵין יוֹצְאִים לְחֻלִּין אֶלָּא בְּפִדְיוֹן, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהוּ אֲסוּרִים בְּגִזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה? לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁקְּדֻשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם וּקְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, תֹּאמַר בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵין קְדֻשָּׁתָם מֵרֶחֶם וְאֵין קְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶם עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ? מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ תַּקְדִּישׁ וְלֹא תַעֲבֹד וְלֹא תָגֹז.
32. “Every male Firstling that is born in your herds and flocksshall you consecrate to HASHEM your God” (Dt. 15:19).This teaches thatthe Firstling is eaten anytime during its first year.378I might infer only thata Firstling may be eaten anytime during its first year.On what basis do I knowto include within this rule all other consecrated animals?379The 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. 380I might infer only that[this prohibition] applies to a Firstling.On what basis do I knowto include within this prohibition all other consecrated animals?Now, reason dictates this:Just as a Firstling,which [status] cannot be heldby 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 consecrationwith 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 thatthey 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 persistsdespite 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 flocksshall you consecrate . . .Do not work . . . and do not shear . . .” (Dt. 15:19)—[thus, Firstlings and other consecrated-offeringsare not governed by the same rules,despite sharing consecrated status].381 71.2
דתַּקְדִּישׁ לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר תַּקְדִּישׁ וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר (ויקרא כז כו) ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״. [אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר תַּקְדִּישׁ, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר אַל יַקְדִּישׁ, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר אַל יַקְדִּישׁ, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר תַּקְדִּישׁ. אֱמֹר מֵעַתָּה: מַקְדִּישׁוֹ אַתָּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִלּוּי, וְאֵין אַתָּה מַקְדִּישׁוֹ] הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ. יָכוֹל אַף הֶקְדֵּשׁ בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: הַבְּכוֹר. מָה בְּכוֹר מְיֻחָד, הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ [– אַף כָּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ]. אוֹ דָבָר שֶׁאַתָּה לֹמְדוֹ לְדֶרֶךְ אֶחָד אַתָּה לֹמְדוֹ לְכָל הַדְּרָכִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ: מָה בְּכוֹר מְיֻחָד, שֶׁהוּא קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וְנֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים, וְנוֹהֵג בִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ – אַף אֲנִי אֵינִי מְרַבֶּה אֶלָּא כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ! מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁל יָחִיד וְשֶׁל צִבּוּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ... תַּקְדִּישׁ. לֹא תַעֲבֹד... וְלֹא תָגֹז. לֹא יָצָא בְּכוֹר אֶלָּא לְלַמֶּדְךָ: מָה בְּכוֹר מְיֻחָד, שֶׁהוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ – יָצָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ.
43. “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 Firstlingaccording to its monetary value[and donate the consecrated fundsfor the maintenance of the Holy Abode],but one may not consecrate the Firstlingfor the Altar as any other offering,[for it already carries the status of a Firstling.]382 }383 124, n.3.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 distinctivein 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]?}384Or, perhaps—a matter you derive from one trait [of comparison]can be derived as wellfrom other traits inherent to it?Just as a Firstling is distinctive in thatit 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-offeringsfrom 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 thatjust as the Firstling is distinctivein that it is [consecrated from birth] for the Altar,so, too, it’s rule excludesanimals consecrated for the maintenance of the Abode,[but which are not consecrated from birth for the Altar].
הרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ – עוֹבֵד אַתָּה בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ – גּוֹזֵז אַתָּה בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ – עוֹבֵד אַתָּה בִּבְכוֹר אָדָם, וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ – גּוֹזֵז אַתָּה פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר.
54. 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 oxor to shear the Firstling of the flock..But on what basisis it forbidden to shear the Firstling of an oxor to work the Firstling of the flock?Look—you can reason as follows:Just as, in a case wherethere is no equivalence betweena blemished herding beast and an unblemished herding beastas 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 thatin a case where there is an equivalence betweenan unblemished flocking beastand an unblemished herding beastas 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 wherethere is no equivalence betweena blemished flocking beast and an unblemished flocking beastas 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 thatin a case where there is an equivalence betweenan unblemished herding beastand an unblemished flocking beastas regards suitability to be offered on the Altar—[since both are suitable,]shouldn’t they also be equivalent as regards being shorn?
ואֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר בַּעֲבוֹדָה וּבְכוֹר צֹאן בְּגִזָּה. בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר בְּגִזָּה וּבְכוֹר צֹאן בַּעֲבוֹדָה מִנַּיִן? הֲרֵי אַתָּה דָן: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁל בָּקָר לְתָמִים שֶׁל בָּקָר, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – שָׁוָה לוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה, מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁוָה תָּמִים שֶׁל צֹאן לְתָמִים שֶׁל בָּקָר, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּשְׁוֶה לוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה? וְהוּא הַדִּין לְגִזָּה: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁל צֹאן לְתָמִים שֶׁל צֹאן, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – שָׁוָה לוֹ בְּגִזָּה, מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁוָה תָּמִים שֶׁל בָּקָר לְתָמִים שֶׁל צֹאן, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּשְׁוֶה לוֹ בְּגִזָּה? וַעֲדַיִן לֹא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא תְּמִימִים. בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִים מִנַּיִן? וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוָה תָּמִים שֶׁל בָּקָר לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁל בָּקָר, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – שָׁוָה לוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה, מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁוָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁל צֹאן לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁל בָּקָר, לִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּשְׁוֶה לוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה? וְהוּא הַדִּין לְגִזָּה: וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוָה תָּמִים שֶׁל צֹאן לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁל צֹאן, לֵיאָכֵל עִמּוֹ בַּגְּבוּלִים – שָׁוָה לוֹ בְּגִזָּה, מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁוָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁל בָּקָר לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁל צֹאן, לֵיאָכֵל עִמּוֹ בַּגְּבוּלִים – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּשְׁוֶה לוֹ בְּגִזָּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ.
65. 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 wherethere is no equivalence betweenan 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 thatin a case where there is an equivalence betweena blemished flocking beast and a blemished flocking beastas 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 wherethere is no equivalence betweenan unblemished flocking beastand a blemished flocking beast[as regards the latter’s] being consumedonly in the outskirts of Jerusalem,[while the unblemished animalis consumed only within Jerusalem],385 126.2.they are [nevertheless] equivalent as regards being shorn—isn’t it reasonable thatin a case where there is an equivalence betweena blemished herding beast anda blemished flocking beast[as regards both] being consumedonly 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].