Temurah 16

Chapter 16

א אמר אביי לא לעולם בתם ובבכור בחוצה לארץ ורבי שמעון היא דאמר אם באו תמימין יקרבו

1 Said [Rabina]:1 One may still say that we are dealing with an unblemished firstling2 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.');">3

ב מיתיבי אמר לו רבי יוחנן בן נורי מה לי אם אינו מימר בחטאת ואשם שהרי אין זכין בהן בחייהן תאמר בבכור שזכין בחייו במאי עסקינן אילימא בבעל מום הא דומיא דחטאת ואשם קאמר אלא לאו בתם וקתני זכין בו בחייו

2 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.');">4 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? Now what case is here referred to? Shall I say it is the case of a blemished animal?

ג אמר רבינא הא נמי בבכור בחוצה לארץ ורבי שמעון היא דאמר אם באו תמימים יקרבו

3 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.');">5 Then you must say that the case is that of an unblemished animal, and it states: THEY HAVE A CLAIM ON THE FIRSTLING ALIVE!6

ד לימא כתנאי בכור בבית הבעלים עושין תמורה בבית הכהן אין עושין תמורה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר כיון שבא לידי כהן אין עושין תמורה

4 - Said Rabina: Here too7 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.');">8 and [the Tanna of this Mishnah] is R'Simeon who says: If they came unblemished, they are offered up. Shall we say that Tannaim differ on that point?9

ה היינו תנא קמא מאי לאו הכי קאמר בבית כהן הוא עושה תמורה ואין בעל עושה תמורה אלמא אית ליה לכהן זכייה בגוויה

5 [For it was taught:] 'With a firstling in the house of the owners there can be effected an exchange, but there can be no exchange effected when in the house of a priest. R'Simeon B'Eleazar Says: Since it comes into the house of a priest, there can be no exchange effected' But is not this10 the identical opinion of the first Tanna?

ו לא קשיא הא רבי יוחנן בן נורי הא רבי עקיבא

6 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.');">11

ז אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא כהן לכהן אבל כהן לישראל אסור מ"ט דלמא אזיל ישראל ושדי ביה מומא וממטי לחכם ואומר לו בכור זה נתן לי כהן במומו

7 - No. The difference of opinion here is the same as the difference of opinion between R'Johanan B'Nuri and R'Akiba. 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.');">12 whereas R'Simeon will hold the view of R'Akiba.13

ח ומי שרי חכם הכי והא אמר רב אין רואין בכור לישראל אלא א"כ כהן עמו

8 Said R'Hisda: They have taught this14 only with regard to a case of a priest selling to a priest, but a pri is forbidden [to sell] to an Israelite. What is the reason?

ט אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע היינו טעמא דישראל אסור מפני שנראה ככהן המסייע בבית הגרנות

9 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.');">15 But can a Sage permit it in such circumstances?16

י מר זוטרא איקלע לבי רב אשי אמרו ליה לטעום מר מידי אייתו לקמיה בישרא א"ל ליכול מר דמיברי משום דבוכרא הוא מנא לכו הא אמרו ליה דזבן לן פלוני כהן

10 Has not Rab said:17 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.');">18 - 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.');">19 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.');">20 Mar Zutra once visited R'Ashi. They21 said to him: 'Let the Master partake of something'. They set meat before him.

יא אמר להו לא סבירא לכו הא דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מפני שנראה ככהן המסייע בבית הגרנות אמרו ליה לא סבירא לן דאנן מיזבן קא זבנינן

11 They said to him: 'Let the Master eat it because it is healthy22 for it comes from a firstling'. He [Mar Zutra] asked them: 'How did you get this? '23 They answered him: 'A certain priest sold it to us with its blemish'.

יב אמר להו 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 ואמר רב ששת מה טעם מפני שנראה ככהן המסייע בבית הגרנות

12 He said to them: 'Do you not hold with what R'Huna the son of R'Joshua said: 'Because24 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]'.25 He said to them: And do you not hold what we have learnt: How long is an Israelite required to look after a firstling?26 In the case of small cattle, thirt days and in the case of large cattle, fifty days.

יג א"ל התם מוכחא מילתא הכא מזבן קא זבנינן

13 If the priest said to the Israelite, 'Give it to me within thi period', the Israelite must not give it to him. And R'Shesheth said:27

יד לשון אחר אמרו ליה הכא לא יהיב דמי הכא קא יהיב דמי מאי אמרת מוזיל כהן גביה דסבר כהן דכי הוי ליה בכור אחרינא יהיב ניהלי לא דמסיק אדעתיה

14 Now what is the reason?28 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.');">29 - They replied to him: 'There,30 the thing is obvious,31 whereas here, we do indeed buy it'. Another version: They replied to him [Mar Zutra]: There,32 he does not give any money but here,33 money was paid. Perhaps you will still say that the priest lowers the price to him,34 thinking to himself, 'When the Israelite has another firstling, he will give it to me'. No,35 for he will rather reflect

Previous Chapter Next Chapter