005b הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה ה ע"ב - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

And according to Rava^[1], this hu ("he") is to exclude the firstborn.

For it was taught in a baraita: Regarding the firstborn it says, "it shall not be redeemed"^[2] and "it shall be sold"; regarding the tithe it says, "it shall not be redeemed"^[3] and "it shall not be sold", [and that it is] not alive, not slaughtered, not unblemished, and not blemished.

בבכור נאמר לא תפדה - that the owners cannot redeem it and treat it as non-sacred (chullin), such as shearing and working (it).

אבל נמכר הוא - that if a blemish falls on it, he may sell it to a kohen as a firstborn; that is why "you shall not redeem" is written: to teach that sale is permitted.

ואינו נמכר - as is said in Bechorot (32a): here regarding the tithe of cattle it says "it shall not be redeemed", and there regarding the devoted (herem) it says "it shall not be sold or redeemed". Just as there sale is with [the owner], so here [it is] "it is not sold". [The objection is:] since tithe and firstborn are compared, one might think the firstborn is not sold like the tithe of cattle; therefore it is written "he is devoted" - to exclude the firstborn, which he may sell.

And there is substitution, for the Merciful One said, "he shall not exchange it or substitute for it" (Leviticus 27:10); and it was taught: not that a person may substitute, but if he did substitute, [the substitute] is blemished and he receives the forty lashes^[4].

So this is a challenge^[5] to Rava's view.

Rava answers: That is different there, for the verse says, "and the animal and its substitute shall be holy" (Leviticus 27:10).

And for Abaye: were it not that the Merciful One said "it and its substitute", I would have said: let this one leave [its sanctity] and that one enter; it teaches us [that both are holy].

(תצא זו. דיוצאה מקדושתה ונכנסת התמורה במקומה דתרווייהו לא מקדיש קדשי קמ"ל דתרווייהו קדישי): ולאביי - ("This one" - that it leaves its sanctity and the substitute enters its place; since neither [of them] would be sanctified by consecration, it teaches that both are sacred):

קמ"ל - it teaches that both are sacred. Its reading: "and the firstborn, of which it is said "it shall not be redeemed", is sacred". (From here on he explains.)

And [there is] the firstborn, for the Merciful One said "it shall not be redeemed" (Numbers 18:17), and we learned in a Mishnah: other sacred things have redemption and their substitutes have redemption, "except the firstborn and the tithe"; so the challenge to Abaye does not stand.

ותנן - in chapter Eilu Kodashim (21a): what is the difference between firstborn and tithe and all other sacred things? All disqualified consecrated animals are slaughtered in the butchers' area and the market, and sold in the butchers' area, weighed by the pound, to be sold like ordinary chullin; we are not concerned about disgracing sacred things, because their benefit goes to the sacred (treasury). As we say in Bechorot, chapter Kol Pesulei HaMukdashin (31b): if we permitted one who redeems disqualified sacred animals to sell them in the market, buyers would pounce on them and he would redeem them at a high price. But for firstborn and tithe, their benefit is to the owners: the benefit of the firstborn is to the kohen, the benefit of the tithe is to the owners; and because of their profit we do not treat sacred things lightly.

יש להן פדיון - for the other sacred things that had a blemish, when redeemed, their redemption takes on their sanctity and they go out to chullin; likewise their substitutes that had a blemish. But a firstborn with a blemish does not take its redemption in sanctity.

Abaye answers: That is different there, for the verse says "they shall be in their existence".

שאני התם דאמר קרא בבכור קדש הם בהווייתן יהא - that it does not leave its sanctity through redemption. [The Gemara] does not answer from the tithe now, since it objects only from the firstborn; later it objects from the tithe and answers from the tithe.

And for Rava: what is the purpose of "they" (hem)?

They (the animals themselves) are offered, and their substitutes are not offered.

And for Abaye: from where does he derive this reasoning? (Leviticus 27:9) "If it is an ox or a sheep, it is to Hashem": it is brought to Hashem, and its substitute is not brought.

Rava: Yes indeed, it is from that verse; but then why do I need "they"? To teach about a firstborn or tithe whose blood is mixed with [the blood of] all the burnt-offerings that are offered on the altar.

בכל העולין - among the [sacrificial] blood of the other offerings that go up on the altar, and the meat is permitted by that one sprinkling, since ^[6]burnt-offerings do not nullify one another; from it we learn for the other burnt-offerings. And so it implies: "they shall be in their existence" - even if they were mixed.

And Abaye: from where does he derive this reasoning? (Leviticus 16:15) "He shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat"; but is not the blood of the bull more than that of the goat? From here [we learn] for burnt-offerings that they do not nullify one another.

מדם הפר ומדם השעיר - and [the verse says] "he shall put [it] on the horns" etc.; and he holds that the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur are mixed together when [their blood] is sprinkled on the horns of the inner altar. It is known that the blood of the bull is more than the blood of the goat, and yet it is called "the blood of the goat" and its sprinkling is effective; from here (we learn) for burnt-offerings that do not nullify one another.

As it was taught: "And he shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat", that they should be mixed^[7] - the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah.

And Rava: there, [he puts] one [blood] by itself and the other by itself, and he holds like Rabbi Yonatan.

ורבא - from there we do not derive it, for he does not mix them; he gives this one by itself and that one by itself. He holds like Rabbi Yonatan, who said in Yoma, chapter Hotziu Lo (57a): one does not mix the blood of the bull and the goat on the horns of the inner altar; one gives this one by itself and that one by itself.

And [there is] the tithe: the Merciful One said "it shall not be redeemed" (Leviticus 27:33), and we learned in a Mishnah: other sacred things have redemption and their substitutes have redemption, "except the firstborn and the tithe"; so the challenge to Abaye does not stand.

Abaye answers: That is different there, for he derives the [rule of] "avera avera" from the firstborn.

עברה עברה - in the firstborn it is written (Exodus 13:12) "and you shall pass over every firstborn", and for the tithe it is written (Leviticus 27:32) "all that passes"^[8].

Behold, [someone] brought the terumah before the first-fruits^[9], for the Merciful One said "your fullness and your tears you shall not delay" (Exodus 22:28).

And we learned in the Mishnah: one who put it first, even though he transgressed a negative commandment^[10], "what he did is done".

Rava answers: That is different there, for the verse says (Numbers 18:26) "from all your tithes you shall lift up"^[11] [your gifts].

And Abaye has a question, as Rav Papa said to Abaye: if so, even if [someone] brought [the terumah] before [the tithe] from the grain heap that was threshed, should [the Levite] also be exempt?

לכדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי - as in Beitzah 13b, where we say: a levi who was given the first tithe of grain in the sheaves before the terumah gedolah was separated from the omer-bundles, so the levi lost two tenths out of the tithe he takes: from the tithe the kohen takes nothing at all; even so he is exempt from terumah gedolah, as it says "the tithe from the tithe" (Numbers 18:26). And Rav Papa said to Abaye: if so, even if [the levi] gave to the kohen in the heap of grain (after threshing) as well, [the levi] should be exempt; and why did [the Gemara] mention sheaves?

[Abaye] answered him: It is your verse, "from all your tithes you shall lift up". What did you see to include the heap^[12] and to exclude the stalks? I include the heap, which is within the category of grain, and exclude the stalks, which are not within the category of grain.

מכל מעשרותיכם - it is to the Levites that the Merciful One says (Numbers 18:28) "the offering of Hashem" - the terumah gedolah.

כרי אידגן - the heap of grain [kari, dagan], and it is set aside for terumah gedolah, as written: "the first of your grain" (Numbers 18:12).

And [the case of] the widow of the High Priest: the Merciful One said (Leviticus 21:14) "a widow or a divorced woman he shall not take"^[13]; and we learned in a Mishnah: "wherever there is kiddushin and there is a transgression, the child follows the disqualified parent"^[14].

כל מקום שיש קדושין - every place where kiddushin take effect and there is a transgression in those kiddushin^[15]; and he explains there that this is a widow to the High Priest.

אחר הפגום - that he is a chalal (disqualified). So it proves that [kiddushin] are effective: since [the Mishnah] says "there are kiddushin", if it were not effective, kiddushin would not take hold.

That is different here, for the verse says (Leviticus 21:15) "he shall not profane his seed".

שאני התם דכתיב לא יחלל - implies that he makes chalalim (disqualified children) and does not make mamzerim; hence kiddushin take effect.

And for Abaye: let the verse say "he shall not profane" - what is "he shall not profane" (adding)? One [law] for him and one for her.

ואביי אי להכי הוא דאתא לימא לא יחל - that it implies the child alone is the subject.

מאי לא יחלל - Infer from it another exposition: "one for the child and one for her" - that she herself is profaned and becomes a zonah, and is forbidden to eat terumah of the house of Nasi (priests' terumah) if she is a kohen's daughter^[16]; and the verse is needed for her sake, and not as you would say: if he does it, it is effective - for in every matter we say: if he does it, it is effective.

And [there is] one who consecrated blemished animals^[17] to the altar, for the Merciful One said (Leviticus 22:22) "any animal that has a blemish, you shall not offer"; and we learned in a Mishnah: "one who consecrated blemished animals to the altar, even though he transgressed a negative commandment, what he did is done".

לא תקריבו - that "lo takrivu" means "lo takdishu" (do not consecrate), as we say later (6a).

מה שעשה עשוי - and [the blemished animals] are sacred for their value.

An objection to Rava: Rava answers: That is different there, for the verse says (Leviticus 22:21) "for a vow it shall not be accepted"^[18]: it is not accepted, but it is sacred.

שאני התם - that it is written in that verse "because it is not for acceptance" (ki lo lirtzon).

And for Abaye: if the Merciful One had not said "for a vow it shall not be accepted", I would have said it is like one performing a mitzvah, and is valid; it teaches us [otherwise].

וכשר - even to offer [it on the altar]; this teaches us.

And [there is] one who dedicated unblemished animals to the repair of the House, for the Merciful One said - [the amud ends here; the sentence is incomplete].

Tosafot

ולרבא האי הוא למעוטי בכור - And if you ask: according to Abaye, who explains [the word] "hu" as "in its existence it shall remain" - how does he know to exclude the firstborn? the Rambam says that according to the final conclusion it works: the firstborn is excluded, for if one substituted it, it would not be effective; and the tithe is derived from the firstborn by the "avera" comparison. Then indeed we derive "devoted, devoted" from the tithe, and "hu" is not needed to say "in its existence".

שאני התם דאמר קרא לא יחלל כו' - [It implies] "he makes chalalim and does not make mamzerim", and since he does not make mamzerim, kiddushin take effect. One must say this comes from the superfluous lamed (of the second word); but one cannot say that even without the superfluous lamed we expound it this way ("he makes chalalim, does not make mamzerim, and kiddushin take effect"), for mamzerut and taking kiddushin are not dependent on each other: Rabbi Yehoshua says in Yevamot 49a that a mamzer is only from those liable to bet-din death; those liable to karet are not mamzerim, and for everyone kiddushin do not take effect with those liable to karet. So the superfluous lamed (in "lo yachalel") is what the verse adds, from which the Gemara derives this reading.

Notes

1. 1. Rava and Abaye, the two leading Babylonian Amoraim of the fourth generation, argue throughout this page.
2. 2. The firstborn animal is holy from birth and given to a kohen; its owner may not redeem it (Numbers 18:17).
3. 3. Maaser behema, the tithe of the herd (Leviticus 27:32), is eaten by its owner in Jerusalem and cannot be redeemed.
4. 4. The forty lashes (malkot); in practice thirty-nine are given (Makkot 22a).
5. 5. A tiyuvta is an objection: a case that refutes a rule stated by another.
6. 6. Olah: a burnt-offering, burned entirely on the altar (Leviticus 1).
7. 7. The Yom Kippur bull is for the kohen gadol and the goat for the people; their blood is put on the inner altar (Leviticus 16).
8. 8. The tithe of cattle is set by counting: every tenth animal that passes under the counting staff is holy.
9. 9. Terumah is a gift of the crop given to a kohen; bikkurim (first-fruits) are brought to the Temple. The verse forbids delaying them (Exodus 22:28).
10. 10. One who does a matter out of order transgresses a negative commandment, but what he did stands.
11. 11. Terumat maaser: the Levite gives a tenth of the tithe he receives to a kohen (Numbers 18:26).
12. 12. The kari is the heap of threshed grain on the threshing floor; the stalks (shibolin) are not counted as grain.
13. 13. The High Priest may not marry a widow, a divorcee, a zonah or a chalalah (Leviticus 21:14).
14. 14. A child takes the status of the disqualified parent; a chalal (Leviticus 21:15) is a child of a kohen born of a disqualified union.
15. 15. Kiddushin: the legal betrothal by which a woman becomes bound to a man as his wife.
16. 16. A kohen's daughter who married a non-kohen (or became a zonah) may not eat terumah (Leviticus 22:12-13).
17. 17. A blemished animal may not be brought on the altar (Leviticus 22:22); one who consecrates it transgresses, but the consecration stands and the animal is sold for its value.
18. 18. Leviticus 22:21: a blemished animal offered as a vow is not accepted.