Temurah

implying. but he must not offer the animal itself as a burnt-offering?1 — We are dealing here2 with a case where e.g., it [the exchange] gave birth to a female animal.3 AND UNTIL THE END OF TIME, would it not give birth even to one male? — He said to him: I am giving you a forced answer of a Babylonian character.4 Where e.g., it gave birth until the end of time to females only. (But5 what answer could he have given him?6 — The reason there [why R. Eleazar says that only the money can be used for a burnt-offering] is because he may come to make a substitution.)7 MISHNAH. THE EXCHANGE OF A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED, THEIR YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF THEIR YOUNG UNTIL THE END OF TIME,8 THESE HAVE THE LAW OF A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED,9 AND ARE EATEN BY THE OWNERS WHEN BLEMISHED.10 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED [ON THE ONE HAND] AND OTHER DEDICATIONS ON THE OTHER? ALL [BLEMISHED] DEDICATIONS ARE SOLD IN THE MARKET,11 KILLED IN THE MARKET, AND WEIGHED BY THE POUND, BUT NOT A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED.12 THEY [OTHER DEDICATIONS] AND THEIR EXCHANGES ARE REDEEMED,13 BUT NOT A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED.14 THEY [OTHER DEDICATIONS] COME FROM OUTSIDE THE HOLY LAND [TO THE HOLY LAND], BUT NOT A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED.15 [IF] THEY16 HOWEVER CAME FROM [OUTSIDE THE HOLY LAND] UNBLEMISHED, THEY ARE OFFERED, IF BLEMISHED THEY ARE EATEN BY THEIR OWNERS17 WITH THEIR BLEMISHES. SAID R. SIMEON: WHAT IS THE REASON?18 BECAUSE A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED HAVE A REMEDY WHEREVER THEY ARE,19 WHEREAS ALL OTHER DEDICATIONS, ALTHOUGH A BLEMISH HAS OCCURRED IN THEM, REMAIN HOLY.20 GEMARA. Said Raba son of R. ‘Azza:21 In the West [Palestine] they asked: How is it if one causes a blemish to the exchange of a firstling and an animal tithed? Do we say that since they are not offered,22 he is not culpable?23 Or that perhaps since they are holy,24 he is culpable? Said Abaye to him: And why do you not ask: How is it if one causes a blemish to the ninth [animal] of the ten [taken in for tithing]?25 Why then do you not ask concerning the ninth [animal of the ten], because the Divine Law excludes it [having stated]: The tenth,26 thus excluding the ninth [animal]?27 Here28 too the Divine Law excludes it [by saying]: Thou shalt not redeem; they are holy,29 thus implying, ‘they’ are offered but their exchange is not offered.30 R. Nahman b. Isaac reported the [above passage] as follows: R. Aha31 son of R. ‘Azza said: They asked in the West: How is it if one caused a blemish to the ninth [animal] of the ten? — Said [Abaye]32 to him: And why not ask, How is it if one caused a blemish in a firstling and an animal tithed? What then is the reason that you do not ask this concerning the exchange of a firstling and tithe? Because the Divine Law excludes these cases33 [by means of the text]: ‘They are holy’. implying that ‘they’ are offered but their exchange is not offered;34 Similarly the case of the ninth [animal] of the ten is also excluded by the Divine Law [saying]: ‘The tenth’, thus excluding the ninth [animal].35 IF THEY, HOWEVER, CAME UNBLEMISHED etc. The following contradicts this: The son of Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon [to the Holy Land] and they were not accepted from him [to be offered]!36 — Said R. Hisda: There is no difficulty. This37 is the opinion of R. Ishmael, and that38 is the opinion of R. Akiba. For it has been taught: R. Jose reported three things in the name of three Elders.39 R. Ishmael says: One might say that a man can bring up second tithe and eat it in Jerusalem nowadays? Now we may argue thus: A firstling requires bringing to the [holy] place40 and [second] tithe requires bringing to the holy place. Just as a firstling is not eaten except when there is a Temple in existence,41 so [second] tithe should not be eaten except when there is a Temple in existence! No.42 If you can say this of the firstling,43 which requires the application of blood to and the burning of sacrificial portions44 on the altar, shall you say the same of [second] tithe which does not require this?45 Then you may reason thus: Firstfruits require bringing to the holy place46 and second tithe requires bringing to the [holy] place. Just as firstfruits are not eaten except when the Temple is in existence, similarly [second] tithe should not be eaten except when the Temple is in existence. [I can however reply:] You can argue so of firstfruits which require setting47 before the altar; but will you say the same of [second] tithe which does not require this? The text therefore states: Thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God the tithe of thy corn and of thy wine and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thine herds and of thy flocks.48 It thus compares [second] tithe with a firstling: just as a firstling is not eaten except when the Temple is in existence, so second tithe is not eaten except when the Temple is in existence. But why not go around with the argument49 and prove the case [of second tithe by analogy] from the common point?50 — Said R. Ashi: Because one can object: As to the point firstling and firstfruits share in common,51 it is that they both require the altar.52 Now what is [R. Ishmael's] view?53 Does he hold that with the first consecration54 he [Joshua] consecrated the land for the time being [as long as it was inhabited by Israel] and also for the future?55 Then there should be no difference between firstling and [second] tithe, both being suitable to be brought. And if [R. Ishmael] holds that with the first consecration he [Joshua] consecrated for the time being but not for the future,56 why not raise the question57 even concerning a firstling?58 — One can maintain that [R. Ishmael] holds that with the first consecration he [Joshua] consecrated the land for the time being but not for the future, but here59 he is thinking of a case where e.g., the blood of the firstling was sprinkled while the Temple was still in existence, and the Temple was then destroyed and the flesh of the firstling still remained. Since therefore if the blood was in existence, it would not be fit to be sprinkled,60 we therefore derive the case of the flesh [of the firstling]61 from the case of the blood [of the firstling].62 cannot be offered. You cannot therefore argue here that because the young of the female guilt-offering is fit for sacrifice, therefore it may be offered. bought for its money. the eye of a needle (R. Gershom). it? bring it as the guilt-offering in place of the real guilt-offering. sacrifice for the money received. price would only benefit private people i.e., the owners of the firstling or the tithed animal, and therefore we do not permit the abuse of consecrations for the sake of private profit. permissible. Also the money obtained is not holy, as there is no need to bring another offering in their place, only when blemished they are eaten by the owners themselves. Therefore as holiness remains in them even if blemished, the owners are required to bring to the Holy Land the unblemished dedications in order to offer them. which we infer that they are offered but not their exchange and the case of tithe we derive by means of an analogy from the firstling. blemish. penalty for inflicting a blemish upon it. from outside the Holy Land they are offered. requires an altar. setting before the altar, then the case of firstling will prove that even without the setting before the altar it is necessary for the Temple to be in existence in order that the firstling can be brought, and the same therefore will apply to second tithe. Again, if you say that firstling is different because it requires the application of its blood to the altar, then the case of firstfruits will prove that although there is no application of blood, only when the Temple stands can they be brought, and the same therefore will apply to second tithe. Firstlings and firstfruits have therefore one point in common, i.e., the need of bringing them to a holy place and that the Temple must be standing, the same then will apply to second tithe, that it will be brought only when the Temple is standing. second tithe. second tithe.