blemished

Tithe of cattle: one may not sell it when it is unblemished and alive, and when it is blemished [one may not sell it] neither alive nor slaughtered, nor may one betroth a woman with it. A first-born animal: one may sell it when it is unblemished and alive, and when blemished [one may sell it] both alive and slaughtered, and one may betroth a wife with it. One may not redeem second tithe with unstamped coins, nor with coins which are not current, nor for money which is not in one's possession.

Tithe of cattle: one may not sell it when it is unblemished and alive, and when it is blemished [one may not sell it] neither alive nor slaughtered, nor may one betroth a woman with it. A first-born animal: one may sell it when it is unblemished and alive, and when blemished [one may sell it] both alive and slaughtered, and one may betroth a wife with it. One may not redeem second tithe with unstamped coins, nor with coins which are not current, nor for money which is not in one's possession.

The two goats of Yom Hakkippurim: it is a requirement that they be alike in appearance, in size, in value, and that they be bought at the same time. But if they are not alike they are still valid. If he bought one today and the other tomorrow, they are valid. If one of them died before the lot was cast another one is bought for the second one. But [if one of them died] after the lot was cast another pair must be bought and he must cast lots for them over again. If the one that ‘For Hashem’ died, he [the high priest] should say: “This one upon which the lot ‘For Hashem’ has fallen stands in its stead.” And if the one that was ‘For Azazel’ died he should say: “This one upon which the lot ‘For Azazel’ has fallen stands in its stead.” The other one is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and it is to be sold and its value goes to the [chest for] voluntary offerings, for the sin-offering of the congregation is not be left to die. Rabbi Judah says: it is left to die. Furthermore Rabbi Judah said: if the blood was poured away, the goat which is to be sent away is left to die. If the goat to be sent away died the blood is poured.

Akavia ben Mahalalel testified concerning four things. They said to him: Akavia, retract these four things which you say, and we will make you the head of the court in Israel. He said to them: it is better for me to be called a fool all my days than that I should become [even] for one hour a wicked man before God; So they shouldn’t say: “he withdrew his opinions for the sake of power.” He used to pronounce impure the hair which has been left over [in leprosy], And green (yellow) blood (of vaginal discharge); But the Sages declared them clean. He used to permit the wool of a first-born animal which was blemished and which had fallen out and had been put in a niche, the first-born being slaughtered afterwards; But the sages forbid it. He used to say: a woman proselyte and a freed slave-woman are not made to drink of the bitter waters. But the Sages say: they are made to drink. They said to him: it happened in the case of Karkemith, a freed slave-woman who was in Jerusalem, that Shemaiah and Avtalion made her drink. He said to them: they made her drink an example (and not the real water). Whereupon they excommunicated him; and he died while he was under excommunication, and the court stoned his coffin. Rabbi Judah said: God forbid [that one should say] that Akavia was excommunicated; for the courtyard is never locked for any man in Israel who was equal to Akavia ben Mahalalel in wisdom and the fear of sin. But whom did they excommunicate? Eliezer the son of Hanoch who cast doubt against the laws concerning the purifying of the hands. And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin. This teaches that whoever is excommunicated and dies while under excommunication, his coffin is stoned.

Limbs of [unblemished olahs which were mixed up] with the limbs of blemished [olahs]: Rabbi Eliezer says: if [the priest] offered the head of one of them, all the heads are to be offered; the legs of one of them, all the legs are to be offered. But the sages say: even if they had offered all except one of them, it goes forth to the place of burning.

[If] blood of unblemished animals [was mixed] with blood of blemished animals, it must be poured out into the duct. [If] a goblet [of valid blood was mixed up] with other goblets [of invalid blood]: Rabbi Eliezer said: if he [the priest] offered [sprinkled] one goblet, all the goblets can be offered; But the sages say: even if they offered all of them save one, it must be poured out into the duct.

Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.

Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.

Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.

[As for an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or a terefah; or an animal born through caesarean section, if one offered any of these outside, he is not liable, because it says, “Before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come before the Tabernacle of the Lord, one is not liable on its account. [As for] blemished animals, whether with permanent blemishes or with passing blemishes, if one offers them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] animals with permanent blemishes, he is exempt; [if one offers] animals with passing blemishes, he violates a negative commandment. [As for] turtledoves before their time and young pigeons after their time, if one offered them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] young pigeons after their time, he is exempt; turtledoves before their time, he violates a negative commandment. [One who offers] an animal together with its young [on the same day], and [one who offers] an animal before its time, is not liable. Rabbi Shimon says: he violates a negative commandment. For Rabbi Shimon would say: whatever is eligible to come [onto the altar] later entails a negative commandment, but does not entail karet. But the sages say: whatever does not entail karet also does not entail a negative commandment.

[If one said,] “This ox shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring two with its price. [If he said,] “These two oxen are for an olah,” and they become blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring one ox with their price. But Rabbi forbids it. [If he said,] “This ram shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a lamb with its price. [If he said,] “This lamb shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a ram with its price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it. One who says, “One of my lambs shall be holy,” or “one of my oxen shall be holy,” and he had only two, the larger one is holy. If he had three, the middle one is holy. [If he said,] “I specified one but I do not know which it was I specified,” or [if he said,] “My father told me [that he had specified one] but I do not know which it is,” the largest one among them must be holy.

[If one said,] “This ox shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring two with its price. [If he said,] “These two oxen are for an olah,” and they become blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring one ox with their price. But Rabbi forbids it. [If he said,] “This ram shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a lamb with its price. [If he said,] “This lamb shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a ram with its price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it. One who says, “One of my lambs shall be holy,” or “one of my oxen shall be holy,” and he had only two, the larger one is holy. If he had three, the middle one is holy. [If he said,] “I specified one but I do not know which it was I specified,” or [if he said,] “My father told me [that he had specified one] but I do not know which it is,” the largest one among them must be holy.

[If one said,] “This ox shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring two with its price. [If he said,] “These two oxen are for an olah,” and they become blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring one ox with their price. But Rabbi forbids it. [If he said,] “This ram shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a lamb with its price. [If he said,] “This lamb shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a ram with its price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it. One who says, “One of my lambs shall be holy,” or “one of my oxen shall be holy,” and he had only two, the larger one is holy. If he had three, the middle one is holy. [If he said,] “I specified one but I do not know which it was I specified,” or [if he said,] “My father told me [that he had specified one] but I do not know which it is,” the largest one among them must be holy.

[If one said,] “This ox shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring two with its price. [If he said,] “These two oxen are for an olah,” and they become blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring one ox with their price. But Rabbi forbids it. [If he said,] “This ram shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a lamb with its price. [If he said,] “This lamb shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a ram with its price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it. One who says, “One of my lambs shall be holy,” or “one of my oxen shall be holy,” and he had only two, the larger one is holy. If he had three, the middle one is holy. [If he said,] “I specified one but I do not know which it was I specified,” or [if he said,] “My father told me [that he had specified one] but I do not know which it is,” the largest one among them must be holy.

If one donkey had given birth before and one had not given birth before and they gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the priest. [If they gave birth to] a male and a female, he sets aside one lamb [which he keeps] for himself. For it says, “And the firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 34:20), [the lamb can come either] from the sheep or the goats, male or female, large or small, unblemished or blemished. He can redeem with the same lamb many times. [And the lamb] enters the pen to be tithed. If it dies [before he gives it to the priest], he can benefit from it.

If a ewe which never before had given birth bore two males and both heads came forth simultaneously: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: both belong to the priest for scripture says: “The males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12). But the sages say: it is impossible, therefore one remains [with the Israelite] and the other is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If it gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

If two ewes which had never previously given birth bore two males, both belong to the priest. [If they gave birth] to a male and a female, the male belongs to the priest. [If they gave birth] to two males and a female, one remains with him, and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. [If they gave birth to] two females and a male or two males and two females, the priest receives nothing in such circumstances.

If one [of the ewes] had given birth and the other had never previously given birth and they bore two males, one remains with him and the other belongs to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. For Rabbi Yose says: wherever the priest receives [an animal] in its place, he is exempt from the priestly gifts. Rabbi Meir however makes him liable. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

With regard to [an animal] that was born through a cesarean section and the first born which came after it: Rabbi Tarfon says: both go out to pasture until blemished and are eaten with their blemishes by the owners. But Rabbi Akiva says: neither of them is a first born; the first because it did not open its mother’s womb, and the second, because another preceded it.

If one buys an animal from a non-Jew and it is not known whether it had given birth or had not given birth: Rabbi Ishmael says: that born of a goat in its first year certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first-born]. That born of a ewe two years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. That born of a cow or a donkey three years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. Rabbi Akiva to him: if an animal were exempted [from the law of the first born] only with the birth of [actual] offspring, it would be as you say. But they said: the sign of offspring in small cattle is a discharge [from the womb]. In large cattle, the after-birth; in a woman, the signs are the fetus and the after-birth. This is the general rule: Whenever it is known that it had given birth, the priest receives nothing. Whenever it had never given birth, it belongs to the priest. If there is a doubt, it shall be eaten blemished by the owners. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a large domestic animal has discharged a clot of blood, it [the clot] shall be buried, and it [the mother] is exempted from the law of the first born.

If [a portion of] the hair of a blemished first born fell out and he placed it in the window, and then he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel allows it. But the sages forbid it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him: Akavya ben Mahalalel did not allow [only] in this case, but [even] in the case where the hair of a blemished first born which fell out and he placed it in the window, and the animal died subsequently, [even] in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel allows, but the sages forbid. If the wool of a first born is hanging loose, that part which appears [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is permitted, whereas that which does not appear [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is forbidden.

If [a portion of] the hair of a blemished first born fell out and he placed it in the window, and then he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel allows it. But the sages forbid it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him: Akavya ben Mahalalel did not allow [only] in this case, but [even] in the case where the hair of a blemished first born which fell out and he placed it in the window, and the animal died subsequently, [even] in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel allows, but the sages forbid. If the wool of a first born is hanging loose, that part which appears [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is permitted, whereas that which does not appear [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is forbidden.

For how long is an Israelite bound to take care of a first born? In the case of small cattle, for thirty days, and large cattle, fifty days. Rabbi Yose says: in the case of small cattle, three months. If the priest says [to the Israelite] during this period “Give it to me,” he must not give it to him. But if the first born was blemished and the priest said to him “Give it to me so that I may eat it,” then it is allowed. And in Temple times, if [the first born] was in an unblemished state and the priest said to him “Give it to me, and I will offer it up it was allowed.” A first born is eaten year by year both in an unblemished as well as in a blemished state, for it is said: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year” (Deuteronomy 15:20).

For how long is an Israelite bound to take care of a first born? In the case of small cattle, for thirty days, and large cattle, fifty days. Rabbi Yose says: in the case of small cattle, three months. If the priest says [to the Israelite] during this period “Give it to me,” he must not give it to him. But if the first born was blemished and the priest said to him “Give it to me so that I may eat it,” then it is allowed. And in Temple times, if [the first born] was in an unblemished state and the priest said to him “Give it to me, and I will offer it up it was allowed.” A first born is eaten year by year both in an unblemished as well as in a blemished state, for it is said: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year” (Deuteronomy 15:20).

If one takes payment for seeing first borns, they must not be slaughtered by his instructions unless he was an expert like Ila in Yavneh whom the sages permitted to accept four isars for small cattle and six as for large cattle, whether unblemished or blemished.

Bet Shammai says: An Israelite must not be invited to share [a blemished first born] with a priest. But Bet Hillel permits this, even in the case of a non-Jew. If a first born has a blood attack, even if it is going to die, its blood may not be let, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: he may let its blood, as long as he does not make a blemish. And if he made a blemish, he must not slaughter it on account of this. Rabbi Shimon says: he may let blood, even though he makes a blemish.

If a first born was running after him and he kicked it and thereby blemished it, he may slaughter it on account of this. Any blemish which might have been made by a person, Israelite shepherds are trustworthy whereas shepherds who are priests are not trustworthy. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he is trustworthy with regard to somebody else's first born, but he is not trustworthy with regard to his own. Rabbi Meir says: one who is suspected of neglecting a religious matter must not issue judgment on it or give evidence concerning it.

A priest is trusted to say, “I have shown this first born [to an expert] and it is blemished.” All are trust worthy with regard to the blemishes of a tithed animal. A first born whose eye was blinded or whose fore-foot was cut off, or whose hind-leg was broken, may be slaughtered with the approval of three [persons] of the synagogue. But Rabbi Yose says: even if twenty-three were present, it must not be slaughtered except with the approval of an expert.

If two [lambs] came out at the same time, he counts them in pairs. If he counted [the two] as one, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled. If the ninth and the tenth came out at the same time, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled. If he called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, all three are holy: the ninth can be eaten when it becomes blemished, the tenth is the tithe and the eleventh is sacrificed as a shelamim, and it can make a substitute, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: can one substitute make another substitute? They said in the name of Rabbi Meir: if it were a substitute, it would not have been sacrificed. If he called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the tenth and the eleventh the tenth, the eleventh is not holy. The following is the rule: wherever the name of the tenth [animal] has not been taken away from it, the eleventh is not consecrated.

A man may proscribe his holy things, whether they are most holy things or less holy things. If [they had been] consecrated as a vow, he must give their value, if as a freewill-offering, he must give what it is worth to him. [If he said:] “Let this ox be an olah,” one estimates how much a man would pay for the ox to offer it as an olah, which he was not obliged [to offer]. A first-born, whether unblemished or blemished, may be proscribed. How can it be redeemed? They estimate what a man would give for this first-born in order to give it to the son of his daughter or to the son of his sister. Rabbi Ishmael says: one verse says, [All first-born males] you shall sanctify,” (Deuteronomy 15:19) and another verse says: [“The first-borns among beasts] no man shall sanctify it” (Leviticus 27:26). It is impossible to say: “You shall sanctify,” since it was said already: “No man shall sanctify,” and it is impossible to say: “No man shall sanctify,” since it is also said: “You shall sanctify”? Therefore resolve [thus]: you may sanctify it by consecrating its value [to the owner], but you may not sanctify it by consecrating it to the altar.

One can substitute Herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals; Sheep for goats and goats for sheep; Males for females and females for males; Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). What is meant by “good for bad”? Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish. One can substitute one [hullin animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; One [hullin animal] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and a hundred [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute” (ibid), just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one.

One can substitute Herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals; Sheep for goats and goats for sheep; Males for females and females for males; Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). What is meant by “good for bad”? Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish. One can substitute one [hullin animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; One [hullin animal] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and a hundred [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute” (ibid), just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one.

One can substitute Herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals; Sheep for goats and goats for sheep; Males for females and females for males; Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). What is meant by “good for bad”? Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish. One can substitute one [hullin animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; One [hullin animal] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and a hundred [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute” (ibid), just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one.

In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications. In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them. [The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication. Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the laws of sacrilege do apply.

If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the [first] money was found, he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used as a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums] and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement.

If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the [first] money was found, he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used as a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums] and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement.

If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the [first] money was found, he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used as a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums] and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement.

If one set aside a hatat and it is blemished, he sells it and brings another with its money. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: if the second animal was offered before the first was killed, it is left to die, since the owners have [already] obtained atonement.

[If one says:] “Behold this [animal] is tahat [instead of] this,” [or] “Behold this is temurat [a substitute] this,” [or] “Behold this is halufat [in place of] this,” [each of these] is a substitute. [If however one says:] “This shall be redeemed for this,” it is not the case of a [valid] substitute. And if the dedicated animal was blemished, it becomes hullin and he is required to make up [the hullin] to the value [of the dedicated animal].

[If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Instead of this hatat” [or] “Instead of this olah,” [or] “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words stand. If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah.

If a person brought an asham talui and then found out that he did not sin: If it was before the animal was slaughtered, it may go out to pasture among the flock, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: it goes out to pasture until it becomes blemished and it is then sold, and the money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: it shall be offered up, for if it does not expiate this sin, it will expiate another sin. If he learns of it after it was slaughtered, the blood shall be spilled out and the flesh is removed to the place of burning. If the blood had already been tossed [onto the altar], the flesh may be eaten. Rabbi Yose says: even if the blood is still in the vessel, it should be tossed and the flesh then eaten.

A man set apart two sela's for an asham: If he bought with it two rams for an asham; if one was of the value of two sela's, it may be offered for his asham, and the other must be let out to pasture until it becomes blemished when it is sold and its value goes for freewill-offerings. If he had bought with the money two rams for hullin use, one worth two sela's and the other worth ten zuz, that which is worth two sela's should be offered for his asham and the other for his sacrilege. [If he had bought with the money] one for an asham and the other for ordinary use, if that for the asham was worth two sela's it should be offered for his asham and the other for his sacrilege, and with it he shall bring a sela and its fifth.

One may bring with [money] dedicated to buy a lamb [for a hatat] a goat, or with [what was] dedicated to buy a goat [one may bring] a lamb; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy a lamb or a goat [one may bring] turtle-doves or young pigeons; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy turtle-doves or young pigeons [one may bring] the tenth of an ephah. How so? If a man set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat [for a hatat] and he became poor, he may bring a bird-offering; If he became still poorer he may bring the tenth of an ephah. If a man set apart [money] for the tenth of an ephah and he became richer, he must bring a bird-offering; If he became still richer he must bring a lamb or a goat. If a man set apart a lamb or a goat and they became blemished, he may bring with their price a bird-offering; But if he set apart a bird-offering and it became blemished, he may not bring with its price the tenth of an ephah, since a bird-offering cannot be redeemed.

One may bring with [money] dedicated to buy a lamb [for a hatat] a goat, or with [what was] dedicated to buy a goat [one may bring] a lamb; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy a lamb or a goat [one may bring] turtle-doves or young pigeons; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy turtle-doves or young pigeons [one may bring] the tenth of an ephah. How so? If a man set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat [for a hatat] and he became poor, he may bring a bird-offering; If he became still poorer he may bring the tenth of an ephah. If a man set apart [money] for the tenth of an ephah and he became richer, he must bring a bird-offering; If he became still richer he must bring a lamb or a goat. If a man set apart a lamb or a goat and they became blemished, he may bring with their price a bird-offering; But if he set apart a bird-offering and it became blemished, he may not bring with its price the tenth of an ephah, since a bird-offering cannot be redeemed.

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.

MISHNAH: One does not sell Second Tithe, one does not take it as a pledge, one does not barter it, and one does not weigh corresponding to it. One should not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, here you have wine, give me its value in oil, but they may give free gifts to one another. One may not sell animal tithe unblemished alive, or blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One does not exchange Second Tithe by a blank, or by a coin not in circulation, or on money not in his possession.

MISHNAH: One does not sell Second Tithe, one does not take it as a pledge, one does not barter it, and one does not weigh corresponding to it. One should not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, here you have wine, give me its value in oil, but they may give free gifts to one another. One may not sell animal tithe unblemished alive, or blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One does not exchange Second Tithe by a blank, or by a coin not in circulation, or on money not in his possession.

Therefore, once it was slaughtered, is it permitted? It was stated by the House of Rebbi Yannai: There is no difference between alive and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished. For what did we state then “live but not slaughtered?” For example, what was stated after this: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered.”

Therefore, once it was slaughtered, is it permitted? It was stated by the House of Rebbi Yannai: There is no difference between alive and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished. For what did we state then “live but not slaughtered?” For example, what was stated after this: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered.”

Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is said here (Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is said here (Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Joshua: Speak to Aaron, and his sons, and to all Children of Israel, and say to them: each single man from Israel, etc. who willoffer an elevation sacrifice to the Eternal, anything could be elevation sacrifice, voluntarily from you, unblemished, male. From where even females? The verse says, in cattle, to include females. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It says male, and you are saying in cattle, to include females. Then similarly it is written unblemished, and you are saying in cattle, to include the blemished?

But the rabbis say, the Ark was hidden in the storage room of the wood. It happened that a blemished Cohen was splitting wood in the storage room of the wood and saw a floor plate different from the others. He came and said to a colleague, come and see this floor plate which is different from the others. They did not finish the matter before his soul left him; then they knew that there the Ark was hidden. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: He hit on it with a sledgehammer; fire erupted and burned him.

It is written: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year. Year without holidays? There, they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year, so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.

It is written: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year. Year without holidays? There, they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year, so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.

It is written: Before the Eternal, your God, you shall eat it year by year. A year for itself, and a year for its substitution. A year for the unblemished and a year for the blemished. A year for the firstling and a year for sancta. Year by year, this teaches that the firstling is eaten for two days and two years. How is this? If he slaughtered it on the eve of New Year’s day and ate it on the eve of New Year’s day and on New Year’s Day. Rebbi Ismael stated: If it developed [a blemish] on the fifteenth day of its year, he is permitted to keep it after its year another fifteen days. Rebbi Ila said, this implies that a year for the blemished one is not clear. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ila: Today one is permitted to keep a firstling for four or five years before one shows it to an expert. Where do we hold? If for an unblemished one, it already has been said. But if it cannot refer to the unblemished one, let it refer to the blemished. Both for the firstling and for any sancta one transgresses because of holidays without a year, and because of a year without holidays. One understands holidays without year. Year without holidays? There, they said, explain it if it was too young for Passover. As you are saying there, what is suitable for part of the year is suitable for the year, so say here also, what is suitable for part of Passover is suitable for Passover. Rebbi Abba Mari said, explain it that the coming Pentecost was on the fifth, it was born on the sixth, and the next Pentecost was on the seventh.

MISHNAH: If four brothers were married to four women and died, if their oldest [brother] wants to marry all of them in levirate, he is permitted to do so. If somebody was married to two women and he died, intercourse or ḥalîṣah with one of them frees the co-wife. If one was acceptable and the other blemished, if he performs ḥalîṣah, he performs it with the blemished; if he takes in levirate, he takes the acceptable one.

MISHNAH: If four brothers were married to four women and died, if their oldest [brother] wants to marry all of them in levirate, he is permitted to do so. If somebody was married to two women and he died, intercourse or ḥalîṣah with one of them frees the co-wife. If one was acceptable and the other blemished, if he performs ḥalîṣah, he performs it with the blemished; if he takes in levirate, he takes the acceptable one.

HALAKHAH: “He who takes back his divorcee,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who takes back his divorcee after she had remarried makes her blemished for the priesthood. Without that, is she not blemished for the priesthood? But, she is blemished in that she cannot eat heave. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughet of a man who takes back his divorcee after she had remarried is acceptable for the priesthood. What is the reason? “She is an abomination”. She is an abomination, the child is not an abomination.

HALAKHAH: “He who takes back his divorcee,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who takes back his divorcee after she had remarried makes her blemished for the priesthood. Without that, is she not blemished for the priesthood? But, she is blemished in that she cannot eat heave. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughet of a man who takes back his divorcee after she had remarried is acceptable for the priesthood. What is the reason? “She is an abomination”. She is an abomination, the child is not an abomination.

HALAKHAH: “He who takes back his divorcee,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who takes back his divorcee after she had remarried makes her blemished for the priesthood. Without that, is she not blemished for the priesthood? But, she is blemished in that she cannot eat heave. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughet of a man who takes back his divorcee after she had remarried is acceptable for the priesthood. What is the reason? “She is an abomination”. She is an abomination, the child is not an abomination.

Even though Rebbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female that she is blemished for the priesthood. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah [says] in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood.

Even though Rebbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female that she is blemished for the priesthood. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah [says] in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood.

Even though Rebbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female that she is blemished for the priesthood. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah [says] in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood.

Even though Rebbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female that she is blemished for the priesthood. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah [says] in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood.

There, it was stated: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel] bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of, offering of.” Since “offering of” mentioned there is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten, so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba) said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten? Rebbi Ze‘ira brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil”. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry”. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour, it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance, remembrance”. “You shall bring,” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices.” Ḥizqiah said, in error: a prohibition, the one who substitutes: a prohibition. If he wants to say “profane” but said “an elevation sacrifice”, it is sanctified. If he wants to say “an elevation sacrifice” but said “profane”, it is not sanctified. It follows that Rebbi Joḥanan, interpreting Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, parallels Rebbi Jeremiah’s explanation regarding the House of Shammai on sacrifices. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, may one understand that “He made error equal to intent for substitution, but not for sacrifices,” if somebody dedicates a firstling? Can it be dedicated? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Aḥa, and Rebbi Yasa say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicated a firstling and it was brought to the altar, it is not sanctified even for its money’s worth. If somebody dedicated a blemished animal for the altar, even as a substitute it is not sanctified. But if somebody dedicated an animal with a temporary blemish. Is that consistent with whipping? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, explain it if he gave unblemished animals for the upkeep of the Temple.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Abun preached: The earlobe was pierced, lest a Cohen become disqualified. Rebbi Meïr says, he was pierced at his cartilage. Therefore, Rebbi Meïr says that a Cohen cannot be pierced lest he become blemished and be disqualified for service. Could not the cartilage be pierced less than the size of a vetch seed? Maybe it would result in the size of a vetch seed. Let it be the size of a vetch! The Torah said, “he shall return to his inheritance,” as he was. He cannot be pierced unless he had a wife and children. “By an awl”. Not only an awl, from where even a buck-thorn, even a thorn, even glass? The verse says, “he pierces”. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. There, we have stated: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman.”

MISHNAH: In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the father. Who is this? A priestly, or Levitic, or Israel woman married to a Cohen, a Levite, or an Israel. And in any case of a sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the blemished part. Who is this? A widow [married to] a High priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥalîṣah to a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite to an Israel, the daughter of an Israel to a Gibeonite or a bastard. In any case where a preliminary marriage with him is impossible but with others is possible, the child is a bastard. Who is this? This is one having sexual relations with any woman forbidden in the Torah because of incest or adultery. And in any case where a preliminary marriage is impossible with anybody, the child follows the mother. Who is this? The child of a slave girl or a Gentile woman.

HALAKHAH: “In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If a proselyte married a bastard girl, there is no sinful preliminary marriage, but the child follows the blemished part? He answered, everywhere Rebbi taught, he explained: “Who is this? A priestly, or Levitic, or Israel woman married to a Cohen, a Levite, or an Israel.” Rebbi Abin understood this from the second part: (In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the father.) [In any case of a sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the blemished part.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If a proselyte married a bastard girl, there is no sinful preliminary marriage, but the child follows the blemished part? He answered, everywhere Rebbi taught, he explained: “Who is this? A widow [married to] a High priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥalîṣah to a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite to an Israel, the daughter of an Israel to a bastard or a Gibeonite.” Could he not have objected to him: In the case of a disqualified priest married to the daughter of an Israel there is no sinful marriage but the child follows the blemished part? In the case of a man taking back his divorcee after she had been remarried, there is (no) sinful marriage but the child is unblemished since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughter of a man taking back his divorcee after she had been remarried is enabled for the priesthood. What is the reason? [For she is an abomination,] she is an abomination but her children are not an abomination.

HALAKHAH: “In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If a proselyte married a bastard girl, there is no sinful preliminary marriage, but the child follows the blemished part? He answered, everywhere Rebbi taught, he explained: “Who is this? A priestly, or Levitic, or Israel woman married to a Cohen, a Levite, or an Israel.” Rebbi Abin understood this from the second part: (In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the father.) [In any case of a sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the blemished part.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If a proselyte married a bastard girl, there is no sinful preliminary marriage, but the child follows the blemished part? He answered, everywhere Rebbi taught, he explained: “Who is this? A widow [married to] a High priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥalîṣah to a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite to an Israel, the daughter of an Israel to a bastard or a Gibeonite.” Could he not have objected to him: In the case of a disqualified priest married to the daughter of an Israel there is no sinful marriage but the child follows the blemished part? In the case of a man taking back his divorcee after she had been remarried, there is (no) sinful marriage but the child is unblemished since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughter of a man taking back his divorcee after she had been remarried is enabled for the priesthood. What is the reason? [For she is an abomination,] she is an abomination but her children are not an abomination.

HALAKHAH: “In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If a proselyte married a bastard girl, there is no sinful preliminary marriage, but the child follows the blemished part? He answered, everywhere Rebbi taught, he explained: “Who is this? A priestly, or Levitic, or Israel woman married to a Cohen, a Levite, or an Israel.” Rebbi Abin understood this from the second part: (In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the father.) [In any case of a sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the blemished part.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If a proselyte married a bastard girl, there is no sinful preliminary marriage, but the child follows the blemished part? He answered, everywhere Rebbi taught, he explained: “Who is this? A widow [married to] a High priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥalîṣah to a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite to an Israel, the daughter of an Israel to a bastard or a Gibeonite.” Could he not have objected to him: In the case of a disqualified priest married to the daughter of an Israel there is no sinful marriage but the child follows the blemished part? In the case of a man taking back his divorcee after she had been remarried, there is (no) sinful marriage but the child is unblemished since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughter of a man taking back his divorcee after she had been remarried is enabled for the priesthood. What is the reason? [For she is an abomination,] she is an abomination but her children are not an abomination.

HALAKHAH: “In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If a proselyte married a bastard girl, there is no sinful preliminary marriage, but the child follows the blemished part? He answered, everywhere Rebbi taught, he explained: “Who is this? A priestly, or Levitic, or Israel woman married to a Cohen, a Levite, or an Israel.” Rebbi Abin understood this from the second part: (In any case of a not sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the father.) [In any case of a sinful preliminary marriage, the child follows the blemished part.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If a proselyte married a bastard girl, there is no sinful preliminary marriage, but the child follows the blemished part? He answered, everywhere Rebbi taught, he explained: “Who is this? A widow [married to] a High priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥalîṣah to a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite to an Israel, the daughter of an Israel to a bastard or a Gibeonite.” Could he not have objected to him: In the case of a disqualified priest married to the daughter of an Israel there is no sinful marriage but the child follows the blemished part? In the case of a man taking back his divorcee after she had been remarried, there is (no) sinful marriage but the child is unblemished since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughter of a man taking back his divorcee after she had been remarried is enabled for the priesthood. What is the reason? [For she is an abomination,] she is an abomination but her children are not an abomination.

Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable; they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. Even though Rebbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female she would be blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if it was a female, she would be blemished for the priesthood.

Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable; they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. Even though Rebbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female she would be blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if it was a female, she would be blemished for the priesthood.

Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable; they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. Even though Rebbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female she would be blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if it was a female, she would be blemished for the priesthood.

Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable; they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. Even though Rebbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female she would be blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if it was a female, she would be blemished for the priesthood.

Rava further said: A lulav all of which grows on one side is a blemished plant and is invalid.

Rabbi said: Read not hadar but ha-dir; just as the stable contains large and small [animals], perfect and blemished ones, so also [the fruit spoken of must have] large and small, perfect and blemished. But don't other fruits have large and small, perfect and blemished? Rather this is what you should say: Before the small ones come, the large are still existent [on the tree].

Rabbi said: Read not hadar but ha-dir; just as the stable contains large and small [animals], perfect and blemished ones, so also [the fruit spoken of must have] large and small, perfect and blemished. But don't other fruits have large and small, perfect and blemished? Rather this is what you should say: Before the small ones come, the large are still existent [on the tree].

Rabbi said: Read not hadar but ha-dir; just as the stable contains large and small [animals], perfect and blemished ones, so also [the fruit spoken of must have] large and small, perfect and blemished. But don't other fruits have large and small, perfect and blemished? Rather this is what you should say: Before the small ones come, the large are still existent [on the tree].