Once an animal is consecrated — dedicated as a sacrifice — it cannot be used for a mundane purpose, like ploughing a field or giving milk. Yesterday, we analyzed a mishnah about animals that are blemished before they are consecrated. Today, we explore the second part of that mishnah which deals with animals that develop a blemish after they are consecrated:
And all animals whose consecration preceded their blemish, or who had a temporary blemish prior to their consecration and afterward developed a permanent blemish and they were redeemed, are exempt from a firstborn, and from the gifts (given to priests after slaughter: foreleg, the jaw, and the maw), and they do not completely emerge (from their sacred status and assume) non-sacred status in order to be shorn and to be utilized for labor. Their offspring are prohibited after their (mother’s) redemption.
Once the animal develops a blemish, that does not cause it to revert to mundane status. It still remains sacred and is therefore exempt from the laws of the firstborn, from gifts given to priests, and from regular farm labor. But what, then, do we make of this final line in the mishnah?
Their offspring are prohibited after their (mother’s) redemption.
We’re discussing the case of a female animal that is consecrated, develops a blemish, and then is redeemed so it can return to regular farm labor. The mishnah is saying this redemption does not automatically apply to its offspring.
It is clear from the start that this statement does not apply to all offspring. For example, offspring that were born before the animal was consecrated are not themselves consecrated. So they are not of concern here. So to which offspring does it apply? The Gemara weighs in:
What are the circumstances of the offspring’s birth? If we say that the offspring was both conceived and born after its mother’s redemption, then why would it be prohibited? After all, they are like the offspring of a gazelle or a hart (adult male deer). Rather, it must be referring to a case where the offspring was conceived prior to its mother’s redemption and born after its mother’s redemption. But if they were born before their mothers’ redemption they are also imbued with inherent sanctity.
When the mother is redeemed, she becomes like every other non-sacred animal. If she conceives and bears offspring after her redemption, her children are “like gazelles and harts,” i.e., other non-sacred animals. Therefore, the final line of the mishnah cannot refer to offspring conceived and born after the mother is redeemed.
Equally clear, an offspring that is both conceived and born while the mother is sanctified has the same status as its mother — it is also sacred. This is obvious enough that the mishnah need not spill ink to point it out. This also can’t be the meaning of its final line.
That leaves us with the murkier case in which conception occurred while the mother was sanctified and birth occurred after her redemption. Does the offspring’s status follow the mother’s status at time of conception or at time of birth? According to the Gemara, the mishnah’s final line is telling us that it holds onto the mother’s sacred status at birth. The line is needed to teach us this particular case.
The Mishnah is terse by design. Each additional word added to the burden of those whose job it was to commit the text to memory (not to mention, creating a written text was expensive). As a result of this terseness, key details are frequently omitted and the reader is dependent on the commentaries or imagination to fill in the gaps that they cannot reason out on their own. The Gemara puts forward a sound argument to explain why “offspring” in the last line of the mishnah really means “offspring that were conceived while their mother was sanctified and born after she was redeemed.” Whether this represents the position of the mishnah’s author or the perspective of the later rabbinic interpreter is left for us to ponder — we have no way to know for certain.
And what happens to these offspring of a redeemed mother that are born consecrated and cannot be put to practical use? Rabbi Hanina says that immediately before their mother’s redemption, one dedicates to become the same type of offering as their mother was meant to be. Rabbi Levi explains that this is a rabbinic decree to ensure that they themselves will not, in turn, bear offspring — lest a person, over time, accidentally end up with a large flock of sacred animals that cannot be put to practical use.
Read all of Bekhorot 15 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on October 3, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
The post Bekhorot 15 appeared first on My Jewish Learning.
Source: My Jewish Learning
