Temurah

He raised [a further] objection: With reference to a firstling it is said: Thou shalt not redeem1 implying but it may be sold.2 Now with what case are we dealing? Shall I say that [the Baraitha] refers to nowadays? Read the second part [of the text]: Thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar!3 Now is there in existence an altar nowadays [for sacrifice]? Then obviously [it] refers to Temple times. Of what then does it speak? Shall I say of a blemished firstling? Read the second part [of the text]: Thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar and shalt burn their fat.3 Now if we are dealing with a blemished firstling, is it fit for sacrifice? Then we must be dealing with an unblemished firstling, and it says, ‘but it may be sold’!4 — But is this an argument?5 The first part [of the text]6 refers to a blemished [animal]7 and the latter part of the text8 refers to an unblemished [firstling]! R. Mesharsheya raised an objection: If the child of a priestess became mixed up with a child of her slave,9 when the children grow up they free one another;10 both may eat terumah;11 they take their share simultaneously at the threshing floor;12 their firstling13 is left to pasture until blemished14 and it is eaten blemished by their owners. Now with what case15 are we here dealing? Shall I say that we are dealing with a firstling of nowadays? For then what is the difference between [a firstling] belonging to ourselves16 and [a firstling] belonging to them,17 since [a firstling] belonging to ourselves also requires a blemish to be eaten?18 Then you must admit that we are dealing with a firstling in Temple times.19 Now if you say that the priest has a claim on a firstling [alive],20 there will be no difficulty.21 But if you say that he has no claim on a firstling alive, then let the Temple treasurer come and take it?22 — One can still say that we are dealing with a firstling of nowadays.23 And as regards the difficulty you raise as to why [a firstling] belonging to ourselves is different from [a firstling] belonging to them, [the answer is] we give ours to the priest in its blemished condition,24 but with [a firstling] belonging to them, since there is an element of priesthood,25 priests are excluded from claiming [this firstling].26 Another version: [Now if we are dealing with a firstling of] nowadays, why mention firstlings belonging [to persons] of uncertain priesthood?27 Even firstlings belonging to ourselves also are left to pasture [until blemished]? Then obviously we are dealing with a firstling of Temple times. Now if we are referring to a blemished firstling, why do we say, let them be left to pasture until blemished? Are they not already blemished? Then obviously we are dealing with unblemished firstlings; and only these28 may not sell;29 [but persons who are certainly priests may sell]?30 — It may still be that we are dealing with firstlings of nowadays. What is your difficulty? That even [firstlings] belonging to ourselves should also be left to pasture! [The answer is:] We cannot disregard the priest,31 for there exists no uncertainty of the priesthood, but these persons of uncertain [priesthood] can put off the priest, each one saying to the priest. ‘I am a priest’, ‘I am a priest’. 32 An objection was raised. R. Simeon said: [Scripture says:] And the cattle thereof.33 This excludes a firstling animal and an animal tithed34 in it [the city]. ‘The spoil of it’; this excludes the money of the second tithes.35 Now with what case are we dealing? Shall I say that we are dealing with nowadays? For is the law of an apostate city in force [nowadays]? Have we not learnt: We do not practise the law of an apostate city except where there is in existence a Beth din of seventy-one?36 Then obviously we are dealing with Temple times. And in what condition [was the firstling]?37 If it was blemished, is this not the same as the text, ‘The cattle thereof’?38 Then obviously we are dealing with an unblemished firstling. Now there will be no difficulty if you say that the priest has a claim on the firstling alive.39 But if you say the priest has no claim on a firstling alive, what need is there for the text ‘The cattle thereof’?40 Why not derive this from the text, ‘The spoil of it’, from which we can deduce, But not the spoil of heaven?41 — One can still maintain that we are dealing with a blemished animal,42 and as regards the difficulty you raise that this is the case covered by the text, ‘The cattle thereof’,43 [the answer is] this implies, Whatever is eaten in the manner of ‘The cattle thereof’,44 excluding the cases of the firstling and animals tithed, for they are not covered by the words, The cattle thereof’. For we have learnt in a Mishnah: All dedications rendered unfit for sacrifice may be sold in the market and by the pound,45 with the exception of a firstling and an animal tithed, for their benefit belongs to the owners.46 An objection was raised. [Scripture says:] And committed a trespass against the Lord.47 This includes sacrifices of minor grades of holiness,48 which are considered the money of the owners.49 These are the words of R. Jose the Galilean. Ben Azzai says: [This text comes] to include peace-offerings.50 Abba Jose the son of Dosai says: R. Jose the Galilean only refers to a firstling.51 Now what period are we dealing with? Shall I say that of nowadays? Surely the case [of the firstling referred to by Abba Jose] is compared with peace-offerings?52 Then obviously we are dealing with Temple times. Now what are the circumstances? Shall I say that we are dealing with a case of a blemished firstling? Surely the case [of a firstling referred to by Abba Jose] is compared with peace-offerings?53 Then you must say that you are dealing with the case of an unblemished firstling.54 Deduce therefore from here that a priest has a claim on a firstling [alive].55 5b, B.K. 13a, Bek. 32a. daughter of an Israelite. own right, and if I am a slave, then give me terumah as the slave of a priest’, for the slave of a priest is permitted to partake of terumah. the other present, in case the recipient is the slave, and this Tanna holds that we do not give terumah to the slave of a priest unless the master be present, for fear lest the slave might eventually claim a higher pedigree for himself, i.e., that of being a priest. i.e., a firstling belonging to the mixed-up offspring must pasture until blemished. For although even a priest is required to carry out the law of a firstling, here the firstling must be left to pasture, because in the case of any other priest who set aside a firstling, there is no loss, as he himself offers it up and eats the flesh, but in the case mentioned by the Baraitha above, if the firstling is offered up, then no-one can eat it, since one of the offspring is not a priest but a slave and only a priest can eat a firstling unblemished in Temple times. Therefore the Baraitha above says a firstling must be left to pasture until blemished, for each one can say to the priest who claims, ‘I am a priest and shall eat the firstling’. wish to give it to another priest, but shall wait till I am able to eat it’. that even in Temple times the priest has a claim on the unblemished firstling, for we are undoubtedly dealing here with an unblemished animal, since the Baraitha says it is left to pasture, etc., which contradicts R. Abbuha. alive. would be stealing the priestly due. since there is a doubt concerning money, the claimant must bring the necessary evidence to prove his case. slave. Nahman in the name of R. Abbuha above. worshipping idols. heaven (the Sanctuary), unlike the case of a firstling and tithes. Sanh. 112b. firstling and an Israelite his tithe, there is no element which belongs to heaven. it’, since it is not altogether the spoil of heaven, as the priest has a claim upon it. that the priest has a claim on the firstling. This will therefore raise a difficulty for the ruling of R. Nahman in the name of R. Abbuha, for we see here that an unblemished firstling may be sold in Temple times. firstling, v. Bek. 32a, Bez. 28a. Hence a firstling and tithed animal are spared in an apostate city. took a false oath and subsequently confessed, he has to pay the principal plus a fifth as a fine, also to bring an offering on account of the false oath. cannot sell it either alive, slaughtered, unblemished or blemished. confessing. He pays the principal together with the fine of a fifth and brings a trespass-offering, the reason being because a priest can sell a firstling alive unblemished and it is therefore considered his money (R. Gershom). as in the former case one might say that the priest has no claim on it until the time of offering it up on the altar, whereas in the latter case the priest might claim it immediately, as the animal is unfit for sacrifice. But with reference to a peace-offering, one cannot say that the owner has a claim on the animal from the time of its burning and therefore there is no distinction between an unblemished and a blemished peace-offering, in each case the owner having a claim on it alive. that it is regarded as the priest's money. Hence we see that an unblemished live firstling may be sold in Temple times, contrary to the opinion of R. Abbuha reported by R. Nahman above.