Temurah 16
לא לעולם בתם ובבכור בחוצה לארץ ורבי שמעון היא דאמר
One may still say that we are dealing with an unblemished firstling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is no difficulty as regards R. Nahman's opinion, for the reason why the priest has a claim on the firstling alive is as follows.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אם באו תמימין יקרבו
and we are alluding here to a firstling outside the Holy Land,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which usually is not destined for sacrifice even in Temple times. It is however compared with a peace-offering, since if one desires, it is fit to be offered up.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
מיתיבי אמר לו רבי יוחנן בן נורי
and [the Tanna of this Baraitha] is R'Simeon who Says: If unblemished firstlings came from outside Palestine they may be offered up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only if they are brought, but they are not to be brought directly. Now since we must not directly bring these unblemished animals to be offered up, therefore they are considered his own money and he can sell them alive, but a firstling of a priest which is destined for sacrifice may not be sold according to R. Abbuha, as the priest has no claim on it alive.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
מה לי אם אינו מימר בחטאת ואשם שהרי אין זכין בהן בחייהן תאמר בבכור שזכין בחייו
An objection was raised: R'JOHANAN B. NURI SAID TO HIM: GRANTED THAT ONE HAS NO POWER TO EXCHANGE A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING SINCE [PRIESTS] HAVE NO CLAIM ON THEM WHILE [THE ANIMALS] ARE ALIVE, CAN WE SAY THAT THE SAME APPLIES TO A FIRSTLING WHERE [THE PRIEST] HAS A CLAIM ON IT WHILE IT IS ALIVE?
אמר רבינא
But [the Mishnah] compares a firstling with a sin-offering and a guilt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the sin-offering etc. referred to are unblemished animals, for the Mishnah states that the priest has no claim on them while alive, but has a claim after they are slaughtered. Hence we see that we are dealing with animals which are fit for sacrifice.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
הא נמי בבכור בחוצה לארץ ורבי שמעון היא דאמר אם באו תמימים יקרבו
Then you must say that the case is that of an unblemished animal, and it states: THEY HAVE A CLAIM ON THE FIRSTLING ALIVE!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Contrary to the view of R. Abbuha reported by R. Nahman above.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
בכור בבית הבעלים עושין תמורה בבית הכהן אין עושין תמורה
the case is of a firstling outside Palestine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the firstling is considered his own money and he has the power to make a substitute, but with a firstling of the Holy Land which is destined for sacrifice you cannot make a substitute, since he has no claim on it alive, as R. Abbuha holds.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
מאי לאו הכי קאמר
R'Simeon B'Eleazar Says: Since it comes into the house of a priest, there can be no exchange effected' But is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no exchange can be effected with a firstling in a priest's possession.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
לא קשיא הא רבי יוחנן בן נורי הא רבי עקיבא
Then must you not say that the first Tanna means this: In the house of a priest the priest alone can effect the exchange but not the owner, and consequently we see that the priest has a claim on the firstling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the priest has the power to effect an exchange he can also sell it, unlike the opinion of R. Abbuha. R. Simeon, however, says that the priest cannot effect an exchange with a firstling in his possession and therefore he may not sell it, the reason being because he has no claim on it alive, which is the opinion of R. Abbuha. We see therefore that these two Tannaim differ as regards R. Abbuha's ruling reported above.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
מ"ט דלמא אזיל ישראל ושדי ביה מומא וממטי לחכם ואומר לו
The first Tanna will hold the view of R'Johanan B'Nuri<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who says that a priest can effect an exchange with a firstling because he has a claim on it alive, since as we have explained above, the Mishnah deals with a firstling outside Palestine, which is usually not destined for sacrifice.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
בכור זה נתן לי כהן במומו
whereas R'Simeon will hold the view of R'Akiba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That although the priest has a claim on the firstling alive, he cannot effect an exchange, as we infer from an analogy (v. Rashi, first version) .');"><sup>13</sup></span>
אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע
Lest an Israelite should go and cast a blemish on it [the firstling] and bring it to a [Sage] and say: 'A priest gave me this firstling with its blemish'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in the case of a priest selling to a priest one cannot say this, since a priest who brings a firstling to show it to an expert is required to bring witnesses that a blemish befell it of itself, as priests are suspected of maiming firstlings in order to eat them.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
היינו טעמא דישראל אסור מפני שנראה ככהן המסייע בבית הגרנות
But can a Sage permit it in such circumstances?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if there is a permanent blemish, can the expert permit the use of the firstling without the priest being in attendance?');"><sup>16</sup></span>
לטעום מר מידי
One may not sell a firstling belonging to an Israelite unless the priest be present with him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fear lest if the Israelite learnt from the expert that the blemish was a permanent one and that there was thus no fear of holy things being eaten without the Temple walls, he will eat it and will disregard the fact that he would be robbing the priest of his due. Therefore a priest is required to be present with the Israelite and the latter cannot then say, 'A priest gave me this firstling with its blemish', for we say to him, 'Produce the priest who gave it to you', and so long as he does not do so, we do not allow the use of the firstling. Another explanation (R. Gershom) : If you permit a priest to sell a firstling to an Israelite, the Israelite might detain the firstling among the herd till a blemish occurs to it an he then say: 'A priest has sold me this firstling with its blemish', thus evading his duty to the priest.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
אייתו לקמיה בישרא
- Said R'Huna the son of R'Joshua: The reason why it is forbidden [for a priest to sell] to an Israelite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unblemished firstling; for all the authorities concerned agree that a blemished firstling may be sold (Wilna Gaon) . Now a firstling of nowadays is usually sold at a lower price, for the purchaser is compelled to wait till the animal is blemished before he can eat it.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
א"ל
is because this appears similar to the case of a priest who assists in the threshing-floor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To winnow or bind the sheaves. Now this is forbidden, for it looks as if the priest is helping in order to receive the reward of terumah. Similarly, if a priest sells an unblemished firstling to an Israelite at a lower price (and still more if he makes him a present of it) , it appears as if he does so in order to receive all the future firstlings born in the herd of the Israelite.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אמר להו
He said to them: 'Do you not hold with what R'Huna the son of R'Joshua said: 'Because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the reason why a priest may not sell an unblemished firstling to an Israelite is because etc.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
ולא סבירא לכו הדתנן עד כמה ישראל חייב ליטפל בבכור בדקה שלשים ובגסה חמשים יום ואם אמר לו תנהו לי בתוך זמנו הרי זה לא יתננו לו
this appears similar to the case of a priest who assists in the threshing-floor'? - They replied to him: 'We do not hold this opinion, since we have indeed bought [the firstling]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And have not received it as a gift. Consequently we do not consider that it is on a par with the case of a priest who assists in the threshing-floor.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
אמרו ליה
Because it appears similar to the case of a priest who assists in the threshing floor!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It might appear that the reason why the priest is taking the firstling from the Israelite before the time of its tending expires, thus relieving the Israelite of further trouble with the animal, is because the priest expects him to give him future firstlings. We see therefore that there is a Mishnah holding this reason in the case of assisting in the threshing-floor.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
הכא לא יהיב דמי הכא קא יהיב דמי
- They replied to him: 'There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a priest who asks for the firstling from the Israelite before the time for its tending has terminated.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
מאי אמרת מוזיל כהן גביה דסבר כהן דכי הוי ליה בכור אחרינא יהיב ניהלי לא דמסיק אדעתיה
the thing is obvious,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is in consideration for letting him have future firstlings.');"><sup>31</sup></span> whereas here, we do indeed buy it'. Another version: They replied to him [Mar Zutra]: There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the priest who relieves the Israelite of the firstling, before the specified period mentioned above.');"><sup>32</sup></span> he does not give any money but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the firstling whose flesh was placed before Mar Zutra to eat.');"><sup>33</sup></span> money was paid. Perhaps you will still say that the priest lowers the price to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that the Israelite might give future firstlings to this priest and not to any other.');"><sup>34</sup></span> thinking to himself, 'When the Israelite has another firstling, he will give it to me'. No,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He will not do so.');"><sup>35</sup></span> for he will rather reflect