Sifra Bechukotai Section 5

¹1) (Vayikra 27:26) ("But a first-born [" bechor "] which is a firstling [" asher yevukar "] to the L-rd among the beasts, a man shall not consecrate it [as a different offering]. Whether ox or lamb, it is the L-rd's.") If it were just written "a first-born … shall not consecrate," I might understand it as: a human first-born shall not make consecrations; it is, therefore, written ("a man shall not consecrate) it " (a first-born beast) — " it " you shall not consecrate, but a human first-born may make consecrations. But I still might understand it as: he (a human first-born) shall not consecrate it, but others may; it is, therefore, written "among the beasts" — It is a first-born beast that is being referred to (and not a first-born human being). ²2) I might think that he may not consecrate it (for a sanctity other than that of " bechor ") while it is still in the womb; it is, therefore, written " asher yevukar to the L-rd, a man shall not consecrate" — when it emerges (from the uterus) as a bechor you may not consecrate it, but you may consecrate it (for a different sanctity) in the womb — whence they derived: a man may use an artifice with a (potential) bechor (to keep from giving it to the Cohein, [e.g., "If what is in her womb is a male, let it be a burnt-offering"]) R. Yishmael said: Whence is it derived that a man may not consecrate a bechor (for a different offering)? From "a bechor … a man may not consecrate it ." I might think that he may not consecrate it as hekdesh ilui ("value sanctity," i.e., "Whatever this bechor [of another] is worth to me I consecrate to Temple maintenance"), it is, therefore, written ( Devarim 15:19) "Every bechor (which is born among your cattle and among your sheep) you shall consecrate [ hekdesh ilui ]." Why did you see fit to in clude (for consecration) hekdesh ilui and to ex clude altar (i.e., offering) consecration? After Scripture in cludes (in Devarim ), it ex cludes here. Why do I include it for hekdesh ilui (towards Temple maintenance)? Because it ( hekdesh ilui ) "takes" with all (objects); and I exclude it from altar consecration, which does not "take" with all, (but only with beasts.) ³3) This tells me only of a bechor . Whence is it derived that with all consecrated animals there is no transferring from one type of consecration to another? From "from the beasts, a man shall not consecrate it" (as a different offering). ⁴4) See 2) above. ⁵5) R. Akiva says: Whence is it derived that one may not consecrate a bechor (as a different offering)? From "a bechor … a man shall not consecrate it." ⁶6) I might think that he may not consecrate it as hekdesh ilui ; it is, therefore, written " But (a first-born, etc."), ("but" connoting exclusion). And why did you see fit to include hekdesh ilui and to exclude altar consecration? After Scripture in cludes, it ex cludes. Why does it include hekdesh ilui ? Because it "takes" with all (objects), and it excludes altar consecration, which does not "take" with all. ⁷7) This tells me only of a bechor . Whence is it derived that with all consecrated animals there is no transferring from one type of consecration to another? From "he shall not consecrate … whether ox or lamb." ⁸8) I might think that he may not consecrate them as hekdesh ilui ; it is, therefore, written " But , etc." Why did you see fit to in clude hekdesh ilui , etc. ⁹9) "Whether ox or lamb, it is the L-rd's": It (an animal originally designated as an offering) is sacrificed, but its substitute is not sacrificed, (but is allowed to graze until it sustains a blemish disqualifying it as an offering).