Temurah

and then we derive the case of second tithe1 from the case of firstling.2 But do we infer one case of dedication from another?3 Has not R. Johanan said:4 Throughout the Torah we can derive by inference one rule from another which has itself been derived by inference, save only in the field of dedications where we do not derive a rule from one which is itself derived? — Tithe [of grain] is [considered] hullin.5 This explanation will suffice for one who holds that that which is derived is the deciding factor.6 But what answer would you give according to the authority who holds that that from which it is derived is the deciding factor?7 — ‘Flesh’ and ‘blood’ in the case of firstling are considered one subject.8 R. Akiba says: One might think that a man can bring up a firstling from outside the Holy Land to the Holy Land when the Temple is standing and offer it? The text, however, states: And 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 thy herds and of thy flocks,9 thus implying that you may bring up a firstling to the Holy Land from the same place from where [second] tithe of grain is brought up,10 and that you cannot bring up a firstling to the Holy Land from the place from which you cannot bring up [second] tithe of grain.11 Ben ‘Azzai says: One might say that a man may bring up the second tithe12 and eat it wherever he can see [Jerusalem]? One may argue13 [as follows]: A firstling requires bringing to a [holy] place and [second] tithe requires bringing to a [holy] place: just as a firstling is not eaten except within the wall [of Jerusalem],14 so [second] tithe is not eaten except within the wall [of Jerusalem]. [To this I can reply: ] How can you argue from a firstling which requires the application of blood to and the burning of sacrificial portions on the altar,15 to second tithe which does not require this?16 Scripture therefore says: ‘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 . . ., etc.’, thus comparing second tithe with firstling as follows: Just as a firstling is not eaten except within the wall [of Jerusalem], similarly [second] tithe is not eaten except within the wall [of Jerusalem]. But what is [Ben ‘Azzai's] difficulty that he should say: One might think etc.?17 — I will tell you. Since we have learnt: The difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem consists in this, that in Shiloh one may eat minor dedications and second tithe wherever one can see it, whereas in Jerusalem he may do so only within the wall, [and in both]18 dedications of the higher degree of holiness are eaten inside the enclosures of the Temple court, you might think that the second tithe should be eaten wherever one can see [Jerusalem].19 [Ben ‘Azzai] needs therefore [to quote a text to] inform us [that it is not so]. Others say: One might think that a firstling whose year is passed has the same law as disqualified dedications and should be disqualified?20 Scripture, however, says: ‘The tithe of thy corn, of thy wine and of thine oil’, thus comparing firstling with second tithe [as follows]: Just as second tithe is not disqualified from one year to another,21 so a firstling [which is left] over from one year to another is not disqualified. And the Rabbis22 who interpreted the text above23 for another purpose, whence do they derive that one may bring a firstling [left over] from the first year to the other? — They derive this from [the Scriptural text]: Thou shalt eat it before the Lord thy God year by year,24 which teaches us that a firstling [left over] from one year to another is not disqualified.25 And how do the ‘Others’26 interpret the text: ‘Thou shalt eat it before the Lord thy God year by year’? — They need this text for what has been taught: One day from this year and a day from the next;27 this teaches us that a firstling may be eaten for two days28 and a night. And whence do the Rabbis derive that a firstling may be eaten for two days and a night? — The text says: It shall be to thee as the breast of the waving.29 MISHNAH. THE YOUNG OF A SIN-OFFERING, THE EXCHANGE OF A SIN-OFFERING, AND A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE OWNER HAS DIED, ARE LEFT TO DIE. A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE YEAR IS PASSED OR WHICH WAS LOST AND FOUND BLEMISHED,30 IF THE OWNERS OBTAINED ATONEMENT [AFTERWARDS, THROUGH ANOTHER ANIMAL], IS LEFT TO DIE;31 IT32 DOES NOT EFFECT EXCHANGE;33 tithe. Therefore when we compare second tithe with firstling, we are not really making analogy between dedications, as is the case when we inferred ‘flesh’ from ‘blood’. dedication, it is quite in order, because second tithe can be rendered hullin, as stated previously. which are considered as one subject as regards dedications. Rashi comments that if we say that the holiness of the Land only applied for the time being and not for the future, why should R. Ishmael have a doubt concerning second tithe, for since there is no consecration for the future then there is no need for the Temple to be standing when bringing second tithe? Rashi therefore agrees with the text found in the Jerushalmi as follows: If R. Ishmael holds that the holiness of the Land extends to all times, then the enquiry should be even concerning a firstling, whether it is a condition that the Temple should be in existence before bringing it. And if he holds that the holiness of the Land does not extend for all time, then he should not inquire even concerning second tithe! One may still say that he holds that the holiness of the Land extends to the future as well, and the reason why he is certain about a firstling is because he is thinking of a case where e.g., he killed a firstling before the Temple was destroyed etc. and the inference is: Just as the blood requires an altar, so the flesh of the firstling cannot be eaten except where there is an altar, and then we proceed to derive the case of second tithe from that of firstling. Antigonus to the Holy Land were not accepted, follows the view of R. Akiba, whereas our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Ishmael, who does not expound the cited verse after the manner of R. Akiba. has a different version from the text in the Gemara: Firstling is different, since there is a distinction in the period in which it may be eaten i.e., only two days and a night, and a distinction as regards those permitted to eat i.e., only the priests, whereas second tithe can be eaten at all times and by everyone, priests or non-priests. minor degree of holiness should be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem, since there is an application of blood to be made on the altar. But why should second tithe not be eaten in any place where he can see Jerusalem? disqualified. had obtained atonement, here agree that the animal dies, since there are two unfavourable conditions: First, it was lost and found blemished, and secondly, the owners obtained atonement through another animal after it was found, thus showing deliberately that they did not wish to procure atonement with the lost animal (Rashi).