Bechorot 43: Dis/Abilities: "Blemishes", Looking Like Other Priests, Differences

We begin Perek VII with descriptions of blemishes that will prohibit kohanim from sacrificing in the Temple.  Our first Mischa notes the following permanent or temporary blemishes:

• one whose head is pointed (narrow above and wide below)
• one whose head is like a hammer with a protruding forehead
• one whose head has an indentation
• one whose head protrudes at the back

Those with humped back are considered fit by Rabbi Yehuda and disqualified by the rabbis.  The kere'ach, one without a row of hair encircling his head from ear, is considered to be fit for service.  I wonder whether this this because men of a certain age often have hair that grows in this pattern, or because of another more Torah-based consideration?

The Gemara brings in other potential blemishes - warts, cataracts, scabs, those with scurvy regarding the qualification of both animals to be sacrificed and priests to perform the act of sacrifice (Leviticus 21:20; 22:22).  As well, they note that one with a gibben, blemished eyebrows, or a charum, a sunken nose, might or might not disqualify a priest from service.  The rabbis are concerned with what might be perceived as repulsive.  

According to Rabbi Yishmael, every Torah passage that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduce therein.  The repetition was meant to teach only one halacha.  The rabbis debate why the Torah might repeat certain words and ideas regarding the sanctification of animals and priests. Rabbi Yochanan notes that Leviticus 21:21 tells us that no man among the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come for ward to sacrifice the offerings of the Lord made by a fire.  This one must have the appearance of other priests.  There is an interesting conversation regarding the appearance of priests and whether or not these might resemble the appearance of Aaron enough to qualify them for service.

We learn that that one who is a gibben is either one with too many eyebrows, one with no eyebrows, or one with one eyebrow.  Rabbi Chanina says that it might be one who has two backs and two spines.  One with a crooked spine might look as if there are two spines present, it is noted.

Our final Mishna teaches that a charum was disqualified as well.  This might be one whose eyes are at equal levels with the brow of the nose, one with eyes too high or two low on the head, one whose eyes are placed in different places on the face, one whose eyelashes have fallen out - in this case, due to the appearance of a blemish.  The rabbis argue that these conditions might be too stringent.

Again, like our learning of late, the rabbis are eager to define "normalcy" in order to create a special category of firstborns.  Why not simply allowing the "firstborn" stand on its own without looking to the so-called blemishes?  First, Torah law instructs us to do so.  Secondly, in the time of the Talmud it was not understood that physical (or other) difference might be simply that and not the representation of something more sinister or "less than".  However, in today's world, even the very orthodox community struggles to include those of us who are "blemished" - ie. all of us - in service, albeit sometimes in creative ways so as to continue to to honour past interpretations of Torah law.

Bechorot 42: Tumtum, Androginos, Eunich: Chalitza, Betrothal, Other Determinations

Today's day focuses on animals that are categorized as tumtum, with hidden sexual organs, an androginos, with male and female sexual organs, and a eunuch, missing male sexual organs either from birth or due to injury.  In their discussion, the rabbis comment on verses in Leviticus 1, 3 and 27.  They also discuss a number of baraitot.  Some of these references refer to animals and some to people.

The rabbis notice that the Torah separates male and female for a number of reasons regarding different expectations and functioning, including their actual valuation in their society.  Those whose sex is uncertain or does not fit into the categories of "male" and "female" must be categorized, as well, so that they have a place in this ancient society.

The rabbis discuss a number of issues, including:

• whether a tumtum is subject to the laws of chalitza, for if s/he were 'torn', it might be discovered that she was "female" and thus not truly married, or "male", and thus he is subject to chalitza
• the relative significance of uncertainty in betrothal of a tumtum or androgynous
• from which part of the body the animal urinates, for male and female animals are unlike people and urinate from parts of the body that are not "in the same place"
• those who change to become eunuchs and how that might affect their marriages

It seems that the rabbis rule toward integrating rather than separating those with uncommon sexual organs from the rest of the community.  Within the limitations of Torah law, of course.  It would also seem that lesbian relationships - between a tumtum who has internal female organs and an 'ordinary' woman - are condoned.   

Bechorot 41: Animal that are Tumtum or Androginos

Today a new Mishna teaches us that some animals with blemishes continue to have the sanctity of firstborn animals.  These include those with sexual anatomy that is different from the norm, including

• tumtumim, where there are no external sexual organs that clearly identify it as male or female
• androgynous, where where both male and female sexual organs are present

Massechet Yevamot discusses these issues at some length.  Rabbi Yosei suggests that an androgynous is a beryah bifnei atzmah, a unique creature not treated as male or female.  Tosafot adds that this is a permanent situation of safek, doubt, which allows us to think of this person or animal as a unique creature.  The Ramban accepts the simple meaning of the expression, ruling that an androgynous is viewed by Halacha as a creature that is neither male nor female; it is not necessary to define it as a separate creature.

Steinsaltz connects these thoughts to modern medical terms for sexual differences such as these.  There are those who have both male and female sexual glands, and there are those who have the appearance of both male and female sexual organs but only one set of sexual glands.

Bechorot 40: Many Blemishes; Blemishes as Differences

At the start of our daf, the rabbis comment on the eastern wall leading to the Temple Mount, the wall of Shushan that includes a map of Shushan.  The rabbis discuss why that gate might have been different from other gates.  One reason includes the notion of two different sizes of cubits, one slightly smaller than the other, to avoid the possibility of using sanctified materials or payment in a way that is not permitted.

There are seven Mishnayot on today's daf.  They question whether or not different conditions on firstborn animals are blemishes and whether or not they disqualify the priests from sacrificing or consuming those animals.  These include:

• any differences in the animal's testicles or scrotal sac, including a testicle that has not yet emerged 
• an animal with five legs, three legs, closed hooves, thigh imbalances or other thigh problems 
• any broken bones in the legs, whether or not they are conspicuous; Ila, the expert in this area, adds that animals with the eyes round like those of people, mouths like pigs (front lips over lower), or tongues missing the parts that allow humans to speak
• when the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper jaw
• a kid that has an ear that is doubled including two sets of cartilage; a kid with a tail like a pig or  with anything other that three joints
• According to Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, one with a wart in its eye, damaged bones in its leg, a dislocated jaw, an animal with different sized eyes; Rabbi Yehuda said that an animal is blemished if one testicle was as large as two of the other, but the rabbis disagreed
• the tail of a calf that does not reach its leg joint, which the rabbis determine is half way down its thigh

What is clear here is that the rabbis idea of a blemish is something different from the norm.  Sanctity  is not necessarily granted because of a state of "perfection", but because the animal is not different from most other animals.  This is an interesting notion when taken in the context of dis/ability.  Without the judgement that comes with the word mum, blemish, there is simply differences between "most of us" when it comes to the ways that our bodies, minds, emotions, etc. function.  However, because we are reading this in the context of sanctity, the rabbis are clearly saying that being "different" from most is a negative thing.

Again, the rabbis find it critical to create distinctions between this and that.  They work to create clear lines to separate us from each other in the name of creating a cohesive whole.  

Bechorot 39: Blemishes of the Nose, Lip, Teeth and Jaw

Today's daf includes Mishnayot on other blemishes not yet mentioned. The rabbis continue to discuss when would stop a firstborn animal from being sacrificed, allowing it to be slaughtered and eaten by Kohanim outside of the Temple.  

We are told that the nose and the upper lip cannot be pierced, damaged, or split.  The Gemara clarifies: these animals are prohibited only if the blemish pierces through the outside skin of the animal.  Rashi teaches that such blemishes must have been made from the outer part of the animal toward the inside.  Rambam refers specifically to holes made for a nose ring that is placed at the end of an animal's nose.  

Another blemish of the jaw and mouth area is the chutim chitzoniyot, either gums or incisors.  When these are broken off, both partially or completely to the gum, or when the penimim, molars or "inner teeth" are torn out completely.  Steinsaltz teaches that cows and sheep have incisors in the front of the bottom jaw only.  The molars are on the top and bottom of these animals mouths and they look as if two teeth are next to each other because of their many bumps.

Bechorot 36: Ba'alei Terisin, Competing Sages

The Sages were aware that priests might be tempted to blemish their bechorot intentionally in order to benefit themselves.  Today the Gemara shares another example of how this issue was managed, followed by commentary.

We learn that Rabbi Tzadok had a firstborn animal that he fed by leaving barley in wicker baskets.  It's lip was damaged while eating, creating a ba'al mum, a permanent blemish.  Rabbi Tzadok asked Rabbi Yehoshua if he was suspected of intentionally causing the blemish.  Rabbi Yehoshua said, "Didn't we differentiate between chaverim (learned, righteous citizens) and priests who are ignoramuses?"  He implied that Rabbi Tzadok was credible to testify that the blemish was accidental.   When Rabbi Tzadok approached Rabban Gamliel, he was again told, "Didn't we differentiate difference between a priest who is a chaser and a priest who is an ignoramus?", but he also said that Rabbi Tzadok was not credible to testify about his innocence.  When Rabbi Tzadok wondered what to do, Rabban Gamliel told him to wait until the ba'alei terisin, the competing Sages or the security officers, entered the Temple.

When they entered the Temple, the ba'alei terisin battled over the interpretation of Torah.  There is a descriptions of Rabbis being asked to sit or stand by the Nasi; to defend themselves.  They are challenged about changing their testimony.  Rabbi Yehoshua defends himself: "How should I act?  If I were alive an he were dead, the living can contradict the dead.  But since both he and I are alive, how can the living contradict the living?".  Rabban Gamliel was lecturing while Rabbi Yehoshua stood; he was told to sit.  There were people present who insisted that Chutzpit the disseminator silence the lecture.

Bechorot 35: Intentionally Creating a Blemish,

A blemished firstborn kosher animal was sacrificed to the Temple until the Temple was destroyed.  At that point it was given to the priest who would wait until the animal had a ba'al mum, a permanent blemish.  The priest was then allowed to eat the animal.  Today's Mishna teaches that a priest might deliberately blemish the animal.  Suspicion of such behaviour would lead to the Sages forbidding that priest from slaughtering the animal.  

We are told that a Roman official asked about the status of an old ram whose hair was long.  They replied that it is a firstborn and it may be slaughtered only if it has a blemish.  The Roman used a dagger to cut the animal's ear.  The Sages permitted this animal to be sacrificed. The Roman then hurt many other firstborns.  The Sages changed their ruling.  The Mishna concludes with a rule: whenever the blemish is caused intentionally, it is forbidden.  If the blemish is not intentional, it is permitted.

The Gemara uses cases to illustrate this ruling.  Rashi says that the Roman officer was hurting animals just to taunt the Jews.  When they learned he wanted to permit the animals, the Sages forbade it.  In Commentary to the Mishna, Rambam says that the the Roman officer knew that his behaviour would permit the animal, but the Sages permitted it because he was not told to do this by the Jewish owner.  After the Roman official did this many times and there was no negative consequence, the Sages decided to forbid the animal.  The Jews were giving the impression that they had asked him to injure their animals.

Bechorot 34: A Secondary Blemish

A new Mishna explains through Rabbi Eliezer that if one creates even a small mum, blemish, in a bechor, it cannot be sacrificed to the Temple but must be given to a kohen who will sacrifice and consume it.  The Sages say that the animal may be slaughtered due to a secondary blemish that might appear.  Rashi teaches that if the person who made the blemish does slaughter the animal, he may not eat the meat.

We learn in the Gemara that there is no biblical prohibition against benefiting from the forbidden act.  This is because in most cases, performing a prohibited act does not forbid the object other that a small number of biblical references.  These other rabbinic halachot (Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages) are meant as punishment.

Tosafot quote the Sifri, which explains Rabbi Eliezer's words differently.  Benefitting from some an animal is biblically prohibited based of Devarim (14:3) where the Torah forbids us to eat anything that is "abominable" which would include this prohibited bechor.

Berochot 33: Bloodletting a Bechor

The Gemara discusses what should be done when a bechor suffered from achazo dam, an overabundance of blood.  The recommended treatment was hakazat dam, bloodletting.  The rabbis offered four options:

1. Rabbi Meir permits bloodletting in a place where the animal will not receive an injury that would render it a ba'al mum, a permanently blemished animal
2. The Sages permit bloodletting even if it caused a blemish, but not in the place on the animal where it would be slaughtered
3. Rabbi Shimon permits the bloodletting even in the place where the animal would be slaughtered
4. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits bloodletting under any circumstances, even if the animal will die without treatment.

Steinsaltz explains bloodletting as a common preventative and treatment over thousands of years.  Apparently it was used for almost all ailments.  Steinsaltz also notes that today, we have learned that bloodletting is not effective when treating most diseases.

Bechorot 32: The Meat Market

Perek V begins with a new Misha that teaches us that when a sacrificial animal has been redeemed and sold to be eaten, it is sold, slaughtered and weighed in the itliz, meat market.  It is weighed by the litre like other meat.  In contrast, a bechor, firstborn, or ma'aser, tithed animal, that develops a mum, blemish, stops it from being sacrificed.  These animals must be slaughtered at home and cannot be weighed or sold in the meat market.

Tosafot argue that this last restriction is biblical.  The Ramban says that it is rabbinical.  He argues that cannot treat it like other meat and gain additional profit from it in the market.

Bechorot 28: Blemishes, Experts, Blemishes Changing After Death

The priest must give a bechor to an expert to determine whether or not it has a mum, a blemish.  This ensures that a priest does not benefit himself when he might want to accept the blemished animal.  If the priest does not show the bechor to an expert, today's Mishna teaches: If one slaughtered the bechor and then showed its blemish to an expert, Rabbi Yehuda permits, whereas Rabbi Meir says since it was not slaughtered by the instructions of the expert, it is forbidden. 

In the Gemara, rabbis agree that an animal's blemish may change after it has died and thus it cannot be eaten.  This applies to blemishes in the body itself but not other parts of the body, like the ear, which would not change after death.  The rabbis argue about when one type of blemish affects another type of blemish.

The rabbis use dukin sh'ba'ayin, a minor eye condition, as their main example of a blemish that changes after death.  Steinsaltz offers us information about possible meanings of dukin sh'ba'ayin.

Bechorot 27: Gifts for Priests from Outside of Ha'Aretz

Teruma chutz ha'aretz, gifts given to priests from outside of Israel, are discussed in today's daf.  Rava says that this term is not subject to the laws of a priest who threshes floors, which is forbidden.  Rav Chana is said to have given it to his attendant, though, who was a priest.  Shmuel says that teruma from outside is neutralized at 100 parts of ordinary produce.  We learn that Rabba neutralized teruma in a larger quantities and used to eat it in the days of ritual impurity.  Shmuel also says that one may eat teruma from abroad without separating the priestly gifts in advance of the its transport.

The rabbis continue to discuss the obligation to separate term and ma'aser only within the land of Israel, like all agricultural laws apply only in Israel.  It may have been an ancient custom to separate these gifts and tithes from afar to ensure that the mitzvot are remembered.  The tradition spread from one centre to another.  Thus the rabbis were more lenient about theses mitzvot.

Bechorot 26: When to Give the Kohen his Bechor

Today's day begins our fourth perek.  When must we redeem the firstborn kosher animal?  Do we care for it for a month, like with firstborn boy children, or is there another set time?  The Mishna asks: Until when must an Israelite ten to an raise a firstborn? With regard to a small animal, thirty days.  With regard to a large animal, fifty days.  

RabbI Yosei says that a small animal waits three months; the priest cannot just demand it.  But if the priest says, "give tt to me so that I can eat it", it is permitted.  In Temple times, if the firstborn was in an unblemished state and the priest said to him "give and I will sacrifice it", it was allowed.

The Sages spend some time looking for Biblical sources for these rituals in giving bechorot to kohanim.  Rambam teaches that these gifts mimic the ways that gifts are given to a king.  The gift must be fully developed.  The owner cannot give the kohen the animal until the animal requires no further care and nurture. 

The one exception is when the kohen says that he wants the animal for slaughter if that animal has a mum, a blemish that would forbid sacrifice.  As long as the animal is old enough to be slaughter for personal use or as a sacrifice than the kohen is permitted to accept this gift.

Bechorot 25: Using a Stopper on o Barrel on Shabbat

Today's daf discusses a 'classic case': stoppering a barrel on Shabbat.  The rabbis argue about why this is forbidden.  

First they consider that the stopper is a piece of cloth.  Of course, at some point the cloth could absorb the wine and become ineffective, allowing liquid to squeeze from the cloth.  This would prohibit three of of the 39 possible prohibited categories on Shabbat;

• dash, threshing, or mefarek, removing desirable contents from an unwanted peel or cover
• melanin, whitening, as if squeezing out is part of a washing process, or
• tzove'ah, colouring, when squeezing out liquid changes the colour of the cloth

Meforek is ruled out by the Sho'el U'meishiv because the activity is part of food preparation, which only forbidden on Shabbat but permitted on Yom Tov.

The Aruch calls on an argument from the time fo the Ge'onim.  The suggestion is that the stopper is not made of cloth but is mesochraya denazyata, a wooden stopper used to cover to an opening in the side of a wine barrel.  The prohibition would not be squeezing but bones, building.  Even though the intention would be to keep the wine in the barrel, the action would fall under the category of building.

Bechorot 22: Miscarriage and Ritual Impurity

Today the rabbis discuss miscarriage in general, which is disturbing to an adult woman who has had a miscarriage.  The rabbis assert that a fetus dies in its mother's, it only imparts ritual impurity from when the womb opes and the head of the fetus is round like the 'skein of yarn' (Massechet Oholot 7:4).

Tum'ah belu'ah, swallowed defilement, does not ritually defile (Massechet Hullin 7) If it is contained within the mother's womb.  Once the uterus has opened and we can see the head of the fetus, round like a skien of yarn (whatever that may be) the ritual impurity affects the entire home.

So a woman who has just lost her pregnancy also loses the right to define whether or not her fetus was large enough to be considered defiled/defiling.  She has to face the transformation that ritual defilement will brig upon her household and she will mourn without ritual or acknowledgement.

Bechorot 21: Jews and Bechorot

The Gemara discusses three options regarding how we determine the status of a possible bechor when given to a priest by a Jew.   

• Rav states that the first offspring is certain to be a bachor because if the female had already given birth, the owner would brag about that happening
• Shmuel says that we cannot be sure of the animal's status because the owner might not have intended to slaughter it and might have intended to sell it before it gave birth
• Rabbi Yochanan counts on a Jew to understand the halachic consequences of a firstborn versus a first offspring, and since s/he said nothing about the animal being a bechor, we can assume that the mother had already given birth once

Rashi and others continue to discuss the possible reasoning of 'selling points' and 'disadvantages' to selling an animal, including the animal's fertility, its predictability as a good breeder, and the likelihood of exaggeration of points that might lead one to believe that an animal is a bachor.

Bechorot 20: Miscarriage of Animals and Bechorot; Rabbis as Parents and Mentors

We are introduced to a baraita that furthers yesterday's argument between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva about a firstborn animal purchased from a Gentile.  It says that Rabbi Yishmael (we determine the status of a bachor based on the age of the mother), Rabbi Yehoshua said that there had been a mistake.  An animal could have a miscarriage that are considered to be a bachor,  but the newborn would not be considered a bachor.  It is possible to have a miscarriage and then give birth the same year, but the newborn would not be a bachor.

Steinsaltz teaches us about the Tanna Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha, discussed here.  He was jailed by the Romans when he was young.  Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya paid a large ransom to release him (Gittin 58).  When he returned to Israel, Rabbi Yishmael studied under Rabbi Yehoshua.  He became a leading speakers in the academy in Yavne.  His teachings cover the Mishna and the Gemara; he created the 13 hermeneutic rules for studying Torah.

We learn that when this discussion was taking place, Rabbi Yehoshua was already an elder of the Sages.  His reaction to Rabbi Yishmael was both teacher-student and father-son. 

Bechorot 19: How to Know that a Bechor is Truly the Firstborn of its Mother

Today's daf begins the third perek.  The rabbis analyze cases where we are not sure whether or not the mother animal has ever given birth before.  For example, when the animal was purchased from a Gentile, can we assume that the animal born is actually a firstborn?  Do we trust people we might not know as well; people who might not know about - or care about - our rules.

Today's Mishna shares two opinions:

• Rabbi Yishmael says that we decide based on the age of the animal
• if a goat gives birth in its first year of life, the offspring is certainly considered a firstborn.
• if a sheep gives birth during the first two years of life, the offspring is certainly considered a firstborn
• if a cow or donkey is three years old and gives birth, the offspring is certainly considered a firstborn

• Rabbi Akiva says that because certain types of miscarriages are considered to be 'firstborn', it is impossible to rely on Rabbi Yishmael's theory about the age of the animal determining whether or not its offspring might be its firstborn

The rabbis conclude that if we know that the animal has given birth once already, the new offspring will not be given to the kohen.  Secondly, if we know that it never gave birth before, the first offspring is given to the kohen.  Finally, if we are unsure whether or not it has given birth before, we wait until it develops a mum, a blemish, and then it can be eaten by the owner

Bechorot 18: When Twins Arrive Simultaneously

In Mishna 17b, we learn that the tana'im disagree about bechorim twins whose heads present at the same time.  Rabbi Yosei HaGelili rules that both are considered to be firstborn and are given to the priest.  The Sagesays that this is only one can be firstborn.  Rabbi Tarfon rules that the priest can chose the better animal.  Rabbi Akiva says that me-shamnin beneihem, we compromise between them.

Today's Gemara speaks to Rabbi Tarfor's reasons that we can assume that the stronger one came out first.  Rabbi Akiva's ruling is unclear.  Rabbi Chana bar Abba quote Rabbi Yochanan teaching that Rabbi Akiva meant that the kohen gets the leaner of the two two animals. which can't be true if there is compromise. Perhaps Rabbi Akiva meant that they must divide the value of the animals equally.  Rabbi Yochanan responded: What you were eating dates in Babylonia, we explained Rabbi Akiva's statement from the end of the Mishna.

Rashi understands this as an expression of scorn - while you were living in luxury, here in Israel we already explained this passage.  Tosafot note that the dates stated by by Rabbi Yochanan were inferior dates; not at all luxurious.  They argue that Rabbi Yochanan was says that  'you would have been better off coming to study with me in Israel instead of eating 'bad dates' in Babylonia.
Steinsaltz teaches that Rabbi Mordecai Shimon Rubinsky says that the dates were unripe and that Rabbi Yochanan wasn't suggesting that Rabbi Chiyyah bar Abba reached an inaccurate conclusion.  He would have waited patiently until the end of the Mishna where it would be have been clear that he misunderstood Rabbi Akiva's position.

Bechorot 17: Animals that do not look like their Mothers

Today's Mishna teaches about animals that do not look like their mothers. If an ewe gave birth to what looked like a kid, or vice versa, it prohibited from the responsibilities of the bachor.  But if it  has marks clearly tying it to the mother, it is liable to the laws of the bachor.

The Gemara describes the different species of sheep and goats and other animals of the time.  In addition there seem to be sub-groups that are not currently bred.  Sheep referred to an animal with white, soft, curly wool, a long thick fatty tail.  Goats referred to an animal with black, hard fur, a straight tail, long, dangling ears, and a beard.  The ram does not have a beard, and the female grows horns (unlike the adult female ewe).  Voices are also distinguishers.

Unlike daf 12, our Mishna is considering circumstances where one animal is born with characteristics of another.  In daf 12, an animal is born of two animals that look like others.  Nidmeh, creatures that appear to be something else, have some laws that apply to them:

• must be set aside as newborns
• the laws of kilayim, forbidden mixtures, do not apply to its wool
• its wool cannot be used for techelet, the blue thread used to create tzitzit, the threads at the ends of tallit, prayer shawls

Other laws are discussed as well.

Bechorot 15: A Ba'al Mum and a Mum

Unlike yesterday's discussion of ba'al mum, an animal with a permanent blemish that forbade it being a sacrifice, an animal with a mum, a permanent blemish developed after consecration.  Once an animal has been consecrated it cannot lose some status of holiness. 

The barite on today's daf that discusses this point leaves us with with a number of types of animals and a general principal applying to each.

• a ba'al mum  before being consecrated: they are like non-sacred animals in all matters.  They have only the mitzvah of valuing them for their redemption
• a ba'al mum only after being consecrated as a sacrifice: they are like consecrated animals in all matters; we have only permission to eat them

We understand that the difference between these two cases is the type of sanctification: did it become sanctified with kedushat haguf, intrinsic holiness.  A ba'al mum cannot rise to the altar, and thus it can only receive external holiness.  In other words, its holiness is in its monetary value.  

We learn that a perfect animal that was consecrated for the purpose of sacrifice receives inherent kedusha: its body is holy.  Even if it cannot be brought to the altar and must be redeemed it can never become an ordinary animal.  An example: shearing an animal for its wool is forbidden only in the case of an animal that is intrinsically holy.  An animal whose kedusha is only monetarily holy can be sheared or made to work as long as the proceedings go to the Temple.

Bechorot 14: Bachorot that cannot be Redeemed

While the first perek focused on non-kosher animals and exchange for the priests, the second Derek looks at the laws of firstborn kosher animals that are usually meant to be brought as sacrifices in the Temple.  Today's Mishna teaches that if an animal is blemished and thus cannot be sacrificed.  It is set aside as a bachor, firstborn, but it is not redeemed and goes back to being a regular animal. 

Rabbi Elazar offers an alternative ruling: the owner of the animal IS liable, but for sacrificing outside of the Temple walls on secondary bamot, private temples, even when those were permitted.

Steinsaltz provides us with discussion and background on the use of private Temples both in the desert, in Shiloh, and until Jerusalem was established as the place to bring tithes for the priests.