Midrash for Temurah 41:14
מי אמרינן כיון דלא קריבן לא מיחייב או דילמא
KILLED IN THE MARKET, AND WEIGHED BY THE POUND, BUT NOT A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since when they are blemished there is no need to bring another offering with the money. Consequently the higher price would only benefit private people i.e., the owners of the firstling or the tithed animal, and therefore we do not permit the abuse of consecrations for the sake of private profit.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
Sifrei Devarim
Shimon b. Azzai says: I might think that just as the Torah prescribed a partition between (the eating of) holy of holies, (these being eaten within the curtains) and (the eating of) lower-order offerings, (these being eaten within the wall of Jerusalem), so, it prescribed a partition between (the eating of) a firstling and (the eating of) second-tithe. But it follows (otherwise), viz.: A firstling requires "bringing to the place" and the tithe requires "bringing to the place." Just as a firstling is eaten only within the wall, so, second-tithe is eaten only within the wall. — (No, this may be refuted, viz.:) Why was the space of eating a firstling limited? Because the time for its eating was limited (— two days and one night). But, as to second-tithe, whose eating time was expanded (— up to three years), say that since its eating time was expanded, its eating space should likewise be expanded! It is, therefore, written "And you shall eat it before the L-rd your G-d in the place that He shall choose, etc." Just as a firstling is eaten only within the wall, so, second-tithe.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy