יז ובמאי עסקינן אילימא בבעל מום הא דומיא דשלמים קתני אלא לאו בתם וש"מ אית ליה לכהן זכייה בגוויה
17 An objection was raised. R'Simeon said: [Scripture says:] And the cattle thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIII, 16; in connection with an apostate city which is totally destroyed on account of its inhabitants worshipping idols.');"><sup>33</sup></span> This excludes a firstling animal and an animal tithed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text 'And the cattle etc.' implies that one's own cattle is destroyed where there is no part which belongs to heaven (the Sanctuary) , unlike the case of a firstling and tithes.');"><sup>34</sup></span> in it [the city].' The spoil of it'; this excludes the money of the second tithes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This will represent the view of the teacher who maintains that the second tithe is money which belongs to heaven; v. Sanh. 112b.');"><sup>35</sup></span> Now with what case are we dealing? Shall I say that we are dealing with nowadays? For is the law of an apostate city in force [nowadays]? Have we not learnt: We do not practise the law of an apostate city except where there is in existence a Beth din of seventy-one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as there is no Beth din of such a character in existence to-day, the law of an apostate city is inoperative.');"><sup>36</sup></span> Then obviously we are dealing with Temple times. And in what condition [was the firstling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or the tithed animal.');"><sup>37</sup></span> If it was blemished, is this not the same as the text, 'The cattl thereof'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the animal belongs entirely to a person and heaven has no share in it. Here, too, where a priest eats the firstling and an Israelite his tithe, there is no element which belongs to heaven.');"><sup>38</sup></span> Then obviously we are dealing with an unblemished firstling. Now there will be no difficulty if you say that the priest has a claim on the firstling alive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the exclusion of a firstling is derived from the text 'The cattle thereof' and not from the text 'The spoil of it', since it is not altogether the spoil of heaven, as the priest has a claim upon it.');"><sup>39</sup></span> But if you say the priest has no claim on a firstlin alive, what need is there for the text 'The cattle thereof'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To exclude the case of a firstling and tithes from the law of an apostate city.');"><sup>40</sup></span> Why not derive this from the text, 'The spoil of it' from which we can deduce, But not the spoil of heaven?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since therefore we exclude the case of a firstling and an animal tithed from the text 'The cattle thereof', this proves that the priest has a claim on the firstling. This will therefore raise a difficulty for the ruling of R. Nahman in the name of R. Abbuha, for we see here that an unblemished firstling may be sold in Temple times.');"><sup>41</sup></span> - One can still maintain that we are dealing with a blemished animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which there is no share for heaven and which therefore should be burnt in fire.');"><sup>42</sup></span> and as regards the difficulty you raise that this is the case covered by the text, 'The cattle thereof',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why therefore do we exclude the case of a firstling and an animal tithed?');"><sup>43</sup></span> [the answer is] this implies, Whatever is eaten in the manner of 'The cattle thereof',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the animal belongs entirely to the owner.');"><sup>44</sup></span> excluding the cases of the firstling and animals tithed, for they are not covered by the words, The cattle thereof'. For we have learnt in a Mishnah: All dedications rendered unfit for sacrifice may be sold in the market and by the pound,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to fetch more money and we do not consider this degrading holy things.');"><sup>45</sup></span> with the exception of a firstling and an animal tithed, for their benefit belongs the owners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore for the extra benefit in favour of the owners, we do not allow selling in the market and by the pound of a firstling, v. Bek. 32a, Bez. 28a. Hence a firstling and tithed animal are spared in an apostate city.');"><sup>46</sup></span> An objection was raised. [Scripture says:] And committed a trespass against the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 21.');"><sup>47</sup></span> This includes sacrifices of minor grades of holiness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if one deposited dedications of a minor grade of holiness with his neighbour, and the latter denied the deposit, took a false oath and subsequently confessed, he has to pay the principal plus a fifth as a fine, also to bring an offering on account of the false oath.');"><sup>48</sup></span> which are considered the money of the owners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we can therefore apply the text mentioned in this connection: 'And lie unto his neighbour'.');"><sup>49</sup></span> These are the words of R'Jose the Galilean. Ben Azzai says: [This text comes] to include peace-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are certainly considered his money, but the case is not the same with regard to an animal tithed, for one cannot sell it either alive, slaughtered, unblemished or blemished.');"><sup>50</sup></span> Abba Jose the son of Dosai says: R'Jose the Galilean only refers to a firstling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a priest deposited his firstling with another, the latter denying the deposit, taking an oath and then confessing. He pays the principal together with the fine of a fifth and brings a trespass-offering, the reason being because a priest can sell a firstling alive unblemished and it is therefore considered his money (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>51</sup></span> Now what period are we dealing with? Shall I say that of nowadays? Surely the case [of the firstling referred to by Abba Jose] is compared with peace-offerings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the peace-offering cannot be brought nowadays.');"><sup>52</sup></span> Then obviously we are dealing with Temple times. Now what are the circumstances? Shall I say that we are dealing with a case of a blemished firstling? Surely the case [of a firstling referred t by Abba Jose] is compared with peace-offerings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as regards a firstling and a priest, we can make a distinction between an unblemished and a blemished animal, as in the former case one might say that the priest has no claim on it until the time of offering it up on the altar, whereas in the latter case the priest might claim it immediately, as the animal is unfit for sacrifice. But with reference to a peace-offering, one cannot say that the owner has a claim on the animal from the time of its burning and therefore there is no distinction between an unblemished and a blemished peace-offering, in each case the owner having a claim on it alive.');"><sup>53</sup></span> Then you must say that you are dealing with the case of an unblemished firstling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we impose a trespass-offering for one who denied a deposit of the firstling with a false oath. We see therefore that it is regarded as the priest's money.');"><sup>54</sup></span> Deduce therefore from here that a priest has a claim on a firstling [alive].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore we can apply the text, 'And lie unto his neighbour', the firstling being considered his own money. Hence we see that an unblemished live firstling may be sold in Temple times, contrary to the opinion of R. Abbuha reported by R. Nahman above.');"><sup>55</sup></span>