021a אלו קדשים פרק שלישי תמורה כא ע"א – EILU KODOSHIM CHAPTER THREE TEMURAH

Itself? No.

הוא עצמו - Although the offspring of a temurah is fit to be sacrificed.

Here, what are we dealing with?

For example, where she bore a female, and until the end of the world she never bears a single male.

He said to him: I will answer you with forced answers, in the Babylonian style: for example, where she bore only females until the end of the world.

מאי הוי משני ליה - That is, since he said "I will answer you with forced answers", it follows that he knew a different answer.

The temurah^[1] of the firstborn and of the tithe, its offspring and the offspring of its offspring to the end of the world, are as firstborn and as tithe, and their owners eat them with their blemish.

מתני' הרי אלו כבכור ומעשר - For all the sanctity of firstborn and tithe: that they may not be sold in the butcher shop after a blemish has befallen them and they were redeemed.

What is the difference between firstborn and tithe^[2] and all other sacrifices?

All other sacrifices are sold in the butcher shop^[3], slaughtered there and weighed by the pound, except firstborn and tithe. They can be redeemed, and their substitutes can be redeemed, except firstborn and tithe. They may be brought from outside the Land, except firstborn and tithe. If they come unblemished they are offered; if they have blemishes, their owners eat them with the blemish.

חוך מן הבכור ומן המעשר - Because the benefit from their sale does not go to the sanctuary: the value of a firstborn goes to the kohen and the value of a tithe to the owner; and out of consideration for their benefit we do not treat sacred things lightly.

נפל בהן מום - With firstborn and tithe one cannot take them out of sanctity: for firstborn it is written "you shall not redeem", and for tithe "it shall not be redeemed".

חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר - That they are not brought from outside the Land to begin with, unlike all other sacrifices.

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the reason that firstborn and tithe have provision^[4] in their place, while all other sacrifices, even if a blemish came upon them, remain in their sanctity?

שהבכור והמעשר יש להן פרנסה במקומן - They have a remedy in their place: they graze until they become unfit, and then their owners eat them with the blemish. But all other sacrifices, even when a blemish has befallen them, remain in their sanctity; one must redeem them, bring up their value and offer it. And since in the end their value is offered, they themselves go up and are offered.

Rava bar Rav Azza said: Now in the West they asked: one who inflicts a blemish on a temurah of firstborn or tithe, what is the law?

Do we say that since they were never offered, he is not liable^[5]; or perhaps, since they were sanctified, he is liable?

גמ' לא מחייב - Lashes for any blemish: "there shall be no blemish in it".

Abaye said to him: You may also ask: one who inflicts a blemish on the ninth^[6] of the tithe?

ותיבעי בתשיעי של מעשר - For example, one who called the ninth [animal] "the tenth", which is holy and is not offered, as we say at the end of Bekhorot (page 60)^[7]: "the ninth is eaten with its blemish".

But what is different about the ninth, that you do not ask about it? The Merciful One excluded it: (Leviticus 27:32) the tenth^[8], to exclude the ninth.

So too, the Merciful One excluded them (Numbers 18:17): do not redeem; they are holy^[9]. They are offered, and their substitute is not offered.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak taught it thus.

Rav Acha son of Rav Azza said: Now in the West they asked: one who inflicts a blemish on the ninth of the tithe, what is the law?

He said to him: You may also ask: one who inflicts a blemish on a temurah of firstborn or tithe?

But what is different about the temurah of firstborn or tithe, that you do not ask? The Merciful One excluded them: they are holy; they are offered, and their substitute is not offered.

The ninth of the tithe too: the Merciful One excluded it: the tenth, to exclude the ninth.

להוציא את התשיעי - That it is not offered; and since it is not offered, it is obvious to us that one who blemishes it is not liable. Here too, etc.

If they come unblemished, etc.^[10]

Come and contradict: Ben Antigonus brought firstborns up from Babylon^[11] and they did not accept them from him.

בן אנטיגנוס ולא קבלו הימנו - And it is difficult from the Mishnah, which teaches: "if they come unblemished they are offered".

Rav Chisda said: There is no difficulty: this is R. Yishmael, that is R. Akiva.^[12]

הא ר' ישמעאל כו' - (It comes in the latter part.)

As it was taught: R. Yose says three things, in the name of three elders:

ג' זקנים - R. Yishmael, R. Akiva and Ben Azzai.

R. Yishmael says: one might think a person may bring up second tithe in this time and eat it in Jerusalem.

And it is a reasoned argument: firstborn requires bringing to a place, and tithe requires bringing to a place.^[13]

בכור ומעשר ובכורים - That they require bringing to a place, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:6): "and you shall bring there your burnt offerings... and the contribution of your hand" -- this is first-fruits.

Just as the firstborn is not eaten except in the presence of the Temple, so tithe is not eaten except in the presence of the Temple.

מה בכור אינו נאכל כו' - As it is explained below: it requires the giving of blood and fats to the altar.

No: if you say it of firstborn, which in addition requires giving blood and fats^[14] to the altar, will you say it of tithe?

Instead, compare to first-fruits^[15], which require bringing to a place, and tithe requires bringing to a place. Just as first-fruits are not eaten except in the presence of the Temple, so tithe is not eaten except in the presence of the Temple.

בכורים אינן נאכלין אלא בפני הבית - As it is written (Deuteronomy 26): "and you shall set it down before the Lord your God".

What about first-fruits, which require placing^[16]? Can you say it of tithe?

הנחה - Before the altar, as it is written: "and you shall set it down before the Lord your God".

Scripture says (Deuteronomy 14:23): 'And you shall eat before the Lord your God the tithe of your grain, your wine and your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock'^[17]

[Scripture] equated^[18] tithe to firstborn: just as the firstborn is not eaten except in the presence of the Temple, so tithe is not eaten except in the presence of the Temple.

And let him reverse the argument and bring it by 'in what way' (the common element method)^[19].

וליהדר דינא כו' - Why do I need a verse? Let him reverse the law and say: the firstborn will prove it; and the rule returns: the common element of them is that they require bringing to a place and are not eaten except in the presence of the Temple; so I too will bring tithe.

Rav Ashi said: because one could say: what is the common element between them? Since both have an aspect of the altar.

And what does he hold? If he holds that the first sanctity^[20] sanctified for the present and sanctified for the future,

ומאי קסבר - That it is obvious to him that the firstborn is not eaten (outside the Temple), and second tithe is doubtful to him.

וקידשה לעתיד לבא - Both firstborn and tithe are things to be brought, and they will offer them, since even now Jerusalem is holy for offering.

There is no difference between firstborn and tithe: both are things to be brought.

And if he holds that the first sanctity sanctified for the present and did not sanctify for the future, then you should ask about the firstborn too.

ואי לא קידשה לעתיד לבא - Yet he is in doubt: from tithe you should ask about firstborn too; and why does he derive second tithe from firstborn?

Rather, he holds: the first sanctity sanctified for the present and did not sanctify for the future.

לעולם לא קידשה לעתיד לבא - And it is difficult: what is different about the firstborn, that it is obvious to him? We are dealing with a firstborn whose blood was sprinkled before the Temple, the Temple was destroyed, and he derives flesh from blood: just as, if the blood existed now, it would not be sprinkled, since it was not sanctified for the future, so the flesh too would not be eaten.

And here, what are we dealing with? A case where the blood of the firstborn was sprinkled before the Temple, the Temple was destroyed, and its flesh still exists.

Since if the blood still existed it would not be fit for sprinkling, the flesh comes under the rule: he derives flesh from blood.^[21]

Tosafot

המטיל מום בתמורת בכור ומעשר מהו - In the chapter "Kol HaMincha" (Menachot 56^[22]) the tanna'im dispute whether one who blemishes an animal that already has a blemish is flogged: one opinion says he is, one says he is not. The question here is for both views. According to the one who says there that he is flogged, that is because it was fit for sacrifice before the blemish; but these (temurah of firstborn or tithe) were never fit to be sacrificed, so whether he is flogged or not makes no difference. According to the one who says there that he is not flogged, that is because the animal was blemished from the start; but here it was unblemished from the start, so whether he is flogged or not makes no difference.

אי קסבר קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה וקדשה לעתיד לבא בכור נמי נייתי - Rashi explains in Zevachim (107) that according to the one who holds it sanctified for the future, they may be offered even when there is no Temple. Do not object that an altar is needed: one can answer that the question concerns a firstborn whose blood was sprinkled before the Temple's destruction, lacking only eating within the walls, like tithe. Or one can say: why not also bring the firstborn, and build an altar? And if he holds it did not sanctify for the future, the question about firstborn should be asked too. So Rashi reads. It is difficult: on the view that it did not sanctify for the future, Jerusalem has no more sanctity than other cities; and the last chapter of Zevachim says that on that view second tithe is eaten in all the cities of Israel. The second difficulty can be resolved, since here it concerns tithe sown before the Temple's destruction, which had to be brought to Jerusalem; there it is not said that it is eaten in all of Israel's cities.

הכי גריס רש"י לעולם קסבר לא קדשה לעתיד לבא - So Rashi reads: "he holds it did not sanctify for the future." It is difficult: why would one need this reason, that flesh is compared to blood? One could simply say it is disqualified like one outside the wall, like one who is not in a walled city. Zevachim (60) also says that if the altar is blemished, minor sacrifices are not eaten because of it, and derives this from the comparison of flesh to its blood. Here it says the comparison of flesh to blood applies on the view that it did not sanctify for the future. My teacher explains: a firstborn whose blood was sprinkled before the Temple is eaten only before the Temple, as the Gemara explains, since flesh is compared to blood. But why are first-fruits, which had placing before the Temple, eaten only before the Temple? My teacher said they may be eaten even in this time; the Gemara's statement means they had no placing before the Temple, as the proofs show: it asks "what of first-fruits, which require placing?" The case of a firstborn whose blood was sprinkled before the Temple is the conclusion of the baraita that equates tithe to firstborn; the baraita speaks only of first-fruits that were not placed. But if they were placed, perhaps they may be eaten even after the destruction.

Notes

1. 1. Temurah: when a sacred animal is exchanged for another, the substitute becomes sacred like the original, and so do its offspring. The tractate is named after this law.
2. 2. Firstborn: an animal sanctified from the womb, given to the kohen. Tithe: the tenth animal of the herd or flock, holy and eaten by its owner in Jerusalem; if it has a blemish, the owner may eat it with the blemish.
3. 3. Blemished sacrifices may be redeemed and sold in the butcher shop as ordinary meat; the money from the sale keeps its sacred status.
4. 4. Provision in place: a blemished firstborn or tithe may graze in its place until it becomes unfit, and then its owner eats it with the blemish. Other sacrifices keep their sanctity and must be redeemed.
5. 5. Lashes: blemishing a sacrifice is forbidden ("there shall be no blemish in it", Leviticus 22:21) and carries the punishment of lashes. The question is whether this applies to a temurah that was never offered.
6. 6. The ninth of the tithe: when the animals of the tithe are counted, only the tenth is holy; the ninth, although counted in the same process, is not holy.
7. 7. Bekhorot (page 60): the tractate Bekhorot, where it is stated that the ninth is eaten with its blemish.
8. 8. The tenth: Leviticus 27:32, "the tenth shall be holy". The verse makes the tenth holy, and from it the ninth is excluded.
9. 9. Numbers 18:17, "you shall not redeem": the firstborn is holy from the womb and cannot be redeemed. The Gemara draws from this that its substitute is not offered.
10. 10. "If they come unblemished, etc.": the quoted clause of the Mishnah, which the Gemara now tests against a contrary source.
11. 11. Brought firstborns up from Babylon: he brought firstborn animals from outside Eretz Yisrael. This is the difficulty against the Mishnah, which says firstborn and tithe are not brought from outside the Land.
12. 12. R. Yishmael and R. Akiva: two Tannaim who differed in their methods of Torah interpretation. The Gemara resolves the contradiction by assigning the Mishnah and the baraita to the two of them.
13. 13. Bringing to a place: sacrifices must be brought to the place God chooses (Deuteronomy 12), the Temple. Firstborn and tithe are said to require this bringing.
14. 14. Giving of blood and fats: the blood is sprinkled on the altar and the fats are burned there. The firstborn requires this; tithe does not.
15. 15. First-fruits (bikkurim): the first produce, brought up to the Temple.
16. 16. Placing (hanacha): the first-fruits basket is set down before the altar, as in Deuteronomy 26. This is the difference between first-fruits and tithe.
17. 17. Deuteronomy 14:23: the verse lists tithe together with the firstborn of herd and flock, and so the Sages link them.
18. 18. Hekesh: a comparison that teaches that one law applies to both things compared.
19. 19. The common element: a method of inference in which a shared feature of two things yields the same law for both.
20. 20. The first sanctity: the sacrifice's original sanctity; "sanctified for the future" means the sanctity persists for a time when there is a Temple and it can be offered.
21. 21. Flesh derived from blood: the flesh of a sacrifice is compared to its blood; where the blood cannot be sprinkled, the flesh may not be eaten.
22. 22. Menachot 56: the tractate Menachot, where tanna'im dispute blemishing an animal that already had a blemish.