Chumashחומש

כל הבכור, תקדיש. וּבְמָקוֹם אַחֵר (ויקרא כ"ז) הוּא אוֹמֵר "לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ אִישׁ אֹתוֹ", הָא כֵיצַד? אֵינוֹ מַקְדִּישׁוֹ לְקָרְבָּן אַחֵר; וְכָאן לִמֵּד שֶׁמִּצְוָה לוֹמַר הֲרֵי אַתָּה קָדוֹשׁ לִבְכוֹרָה. דָּ"אַ — אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר "תַּקְדִּישׁ", שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר "לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ", וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר "לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ", שֶׁהֲרֵי כְבָר נֶאֱמַר "תַּקְדִּישׁ", הָא כֵיצַד? מַקְדִּישׁוֹ אַתָּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִלּוּי וְנוֹתֵן לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ כְּפִי טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁבּוֹ (ערכין כ"ט):

כל הבכור ... תקדיש ALL THE FIRSTLING MALES … THOU SHALT SANCTIFY [UNTO THE LORD] — But in another passage (Leviticus 27:26) it states, “[Only the firstborn of the beasts …] one shall not sanctify it”? How can these be reconciled? The latter passage means: he must not dedicate it as a different sacrifice (i.e. offer it as an עולה or שלמים instead of as a בכור), whilst here it teaches that it is a duty to say: “Thou art holy as a firstborn!” Another comment is: It is impossible to say that “thou shalt sanctify” is to be taken literally, for it already states in another passage “one shall not sanctify it”; it is, on the other hand, also impossible to take “one shall not sanctify it” literally, since it states “thou shalt sanctify it”. How can these be reconciled? In the following manner: by taking תקדיש in our verse to imply: “thou mayest dedicate” so far as the dedication of its value (הקדש עלוי) is concerned, and then he must give a sum corresponding to the טובת הנאה in it to the Temple treasury, but you must not dedicate it as far as the altar is concerned (i.e. dedicate it as any sacrifice other than as a בכור) (Arakhin 29a: cf. Sifrei Devarim 124:4).

לא תעבד בבכור שורך ולא תגז וגו'. אַף הַחִלּוּף לָמְדוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁאָסוּר, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה (בכורות כ"ה):

לא תעבד בבכור שורך ולא תגז וגו׳ THOU SHALT NOT WORK WITH THE FIRSTLING OF THY HERD, NOR SHEAR [THE FIRSTLING OF THY FLOCK] — The converse case also (working with the firstborn sheep and using the hair of the firstborn calf) have our Rabbis derived to be forbidden, but Scripture merely speaks of what usually occurs (Sifrei Devarim 124:6; Bekhorot 25a).

לפני ה' אלהיך תאכלנו. לַכֹּהֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר, שֶׁכְּבָר מָצִינוּ שֶׁהוּא מִמַּתְּנוֹת כְּהֻנָּה אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד בַּעַל מוּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר י"ח) וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ וְגוֹ' (בכ' כ"ח):

לפני ה׳ אלהיך תאכלנה THOU SHALT EAT IT BEFORE THE LORD THY GOD — Scripture is speaking to the priest (not to the owner to whom תקדיש in the previous verse refers), for we find already stated that it (the בכור) is one of the dues of the priests whether it is unblemished (and its blood and fat portions are to be sacrificed on the altar and the flesh eaten by the priests), or whether it is blemished (when it must not be offered on the altar), for it states, (Numbers 18:18) “and the flesh of them (the firstborn animals, both the blemished and the unblemished) shall be thine” (the priest’s) (cf. Bekhorot 28a).

שנה בשנה. מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁהִין אוֹתוֹ יוֹתֵר עַל שְׁנָתוֹ; יָכוֹל יְהֵא פָּסוּל מִשֶּׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, כְּבָר הֻקַּשׁ לְמַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים י"ד) וְאָכַלְתָּ לִפְנֵי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ תִּירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ, מַה מַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל מִשָּׁנָה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ אַף בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל, אֶלָּא שֶׁמִּצְוָה תּוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ (בכ' כ"ז):

שנה בשנה [THOU SHALT EAT IT BEFORE THE LORD …] YEAR BY YEAR — From here we derive the law that one should not defer it (i.e. sacrificing and eating it) beyond its first year (Bekhorot 28a). If so, one might think that it becomes invalid as a sacrifice as soon as its first year has passed! This is not the case, for it has been put in comparison with the second tithe, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 14:23; cf. Rashi on that verse): “and thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds, and thy flocks”. How is it in the case of the second tithe? It does not become invalid if left over from one year to the other (cf. Rashi on Deuteronomy 14:28 and 29), so, too, does the firstborn animal not become invalid under the same circumstances, only that it is a meritorious act to offer and consume it within its first year.

שנה בשנה. אִם שְׁחָטוֹ בְּסוֹף שְׁנָתוֹ אוֹכְלוֹ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְיוֹם אֶחָד מִשָּׁנָה אַחֶרֶת, לִמֵּד שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד (שם):

שנה בשנה (may also be translated A YEAR WITH ANOTHER YEAR) — If one slaughtered it at the end of its first year (an the last day) he may eat it that day and the first day of the next year. This teaches us that it (a firstborn animal) may in all cases be eaten on two successive days and the intervening night (cf. Sifrei Devarim 125; Bekhorot 27b).

מום. כְּלָל:

מום [AND IF THERE BE] ANY BLEMISH [THEREIN, IF IT BE LAME, OR BLIND, OR HAVE ANY ILL BLEMISH, THOU SHALT NOT SACRIFICE IT …] — any blemish is a general statement,

פסח או עור. פְּרָט:

פסח או עור LAME OR BLIND is a particularization,

כל מום רע. חָזַר וְכָלַל — מַה הַפְּרָט מְפֹרָשׁ מוּם הַגָּלוּי וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר, אַף כָּל מוּם שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר (שם ל"ז):

כל מום רע ANY ILL BLEMISH — it again comprises them in a general statement. How is it with the blemishes particularised? They have the characteristic that each is a visible (external) blemish and the animal never returns naturally to its original condition (i.e. never becomes free from the blemish). So, too, the general statement includes all such blemishes that are visible and incurable [while in the case of a transitory blemish the animal may be sacrificed when the blemish has disappeared] (Bekhorot 37a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 126:2).

רק את דמו לא תאכל. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר הוֹאִיל וְכֻלּוֹ הֶתֵּר הַבָּא מִכְּלַל אִסּוּר הוּא, שֶׁהֲרֵי קָדוֹשׁ וְנִשְׁחָט בַּחוּץ בְּלֹא פִדְיוֹן וְנֶאֱכָל, יָכוֹל יְהֵא אַף הַדָּם מֻתָּר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר רק את דמו לא תאכל:

רק את דמו לא תאכל ONLY THOU SHALT NOT EAT THE BLOOD THEREOF — This prohibition appears to be redundant, since the blood of no animal may be eaten, but it is mentioned, in order that you should not think: since it (the blemished firstborn animal) is something that in every respect is permitted originally it belonged to a forbidden class of animals — for, you see, it was holy and yet it may be slaughtered outside the Temple, and may be eaten without redemption — and consequently you might think that its blood is also permitted, Scripture therefore states, “However thou shalt not eat its blood”.