Study Bekhorot folio 33A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And Beit Hillel would respond to that claim: This statement applies only to an unblemished firstborn offering, which is sacrificed upon the altar. But concerning a blemished firstborn it is written: “You shall eat it within your gates; the impure and the pure may eat it alike” (Deuteronomy 12:22; s
The Talmud raises a difficulty: This a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is notable about the case of a ritually impure priest? It is notable in that its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances, specifically with regard to the communal service. If there are no ritually pure
And Beit Hillel would respond: Is that to say that the a fortiori inference was stated with regard to the sacrificial service, which was the subject of that refutation? Not so; rather, we state it with regard to the eating of sacrificial meat, and the eating of a non-priest is superior to that of a
§ The baraita stated that according to R' Akiva, Beit Hillel deems it permitted for non-priests, and even non-Jews, to partake of blemished firstborn offerings. The Talmud asks: What is the reason of R' Akiva? The verse states: “Like the gazelle and like the deer” (Deuteronomy 15:22). Just as a g
The Talmud asks: And the other one, i.e., the tanna who disagrees with R' Akiva’s version of the opinion of Beit Hillel, who does not deem it permitted for a non-Jew to partake of a blemished firstborn offering, what is his reason? The Talmud answers that the terms “gazelle” and “hart” are written