Midrash for Temurah 41:43
אמר רב אשי
Similarly the case of the ninth [animal] of the ten is also excluded by the Divine Law [saying]: 'The tenth', thus excluding the ninth [animal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is no guilt in causing on it a blemish.');"><sup>35</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