ושעיברה שנתה ושאבדה ונמצאת בעלת מום אם משכפרו הבעלים תמות ואינה עושה תמורה
this teaches us that a firstling may be eaten for two days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the second day belonged to the fresh year.');"><sup>28</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 18. Like the breast and shoulder of the peace-offering which are eaten two days and a night.');"><sup>29</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prior to the owners obtaining atonement through another animal.');"><sup>30</sup></span> IF THE OWNERS OBTAINED ATONEMENT [AFTERWARDS, THROUGH ANOTHER ANIMAL], IS LEFT TO DIE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even the Rabbis who say later that a sin-offering is not condemned to die except when found after the owners 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) .');"><sup>31</sup></span> IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal which was found.');"><sup>32</sup></span> DOES NOT EFFECT EXCHANGE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not consecrated bodily but only for its value (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>33</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
And the commandment of the sanctification of the first-born pure animal is practiced according to the Torah in the Land of Israel alone, at all times; and like the rabbis expounded (Temurah 21b, and see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Firstlings 1:5), "From that which it is written (Deuteronomy 14:23), 'And you shall eat in front of the Lord, your God, the tithes of your new grain and wine and oil, and the first-born of your herds' - it compares, etc." And rabbinically even outside the Land and with males and females, whether [of] Israelites, [of] priests or [of] Levites (Bekhorot 13a). And even though a first-born that is born to a priest is his, nonetheless he is obligated to sacrifice its fat and its blood and to eat the meat according to the laws of first-borns. But the first-born of a man and the [first-born] of a donkey are not practiced with a priest or a Levite, as we will write with God's help. And this is from the commandments mandated as a result of something [that happened historically].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sefer HaChinukh
And this commandment is practiced in the Land of Israel, like the commandment of sanctifying the first-born pure animals, which is only practiced in the Land of Israel, according to some commentators (see Beit Yosef, Yoreh Deah 306) - both when the Temple [is standing] and when the Temple [is not standing] - as it is stated (Deuteronomy 14:23), "And you shall eat before the Lord, Your God, the tithes of your grain, etc. and the first-born of your cattle and your sheep." And they, may their memory be blessed, expounded [it to mean] (Temurah 21b), from the place that you bring your tithes - which is the Land of Israel - you shall bring your sheep and cattle. And if one brought a first-born animal from outside the Land, they would not accept it from him and it may not be sacrificed, as it is completely non-sacred. Everyone is obligated in this commandment, priests, Levites, and Israelites, as it stated (Deuteronomy 15:19), "Any first-born that is born, etc." (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Firstlings 1:7). And even though the priests and the Levites are exempt from redeeming the first-born of man and the one that exits the donkey, as we have written about each one of them in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 392) and in the Order of Bo el Pharaoh (Sefer HaChinukh 22), they are obligated in this. And one who transgressed this and redeemed his first-born pure animal - even though his actions were not effective and it is not redeemed, but rather it is is sacred as it was [before] - he has violated a negative commandment. As regarding the transgression of the negative commandment, [the efficacy of] the violation of a negative commandment does not concern us, as is found in the first chapter of Temurah (Temurah 4b), in the disagreement of Abbaye and Rava. But he is not lashed, as he could transgress it without an act.
