Temurah 41
הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שילדה נקבה ועד סוף העולם לא אוליד חד זכר
but he must not offer the animal itself as a burnt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the fact that the young of an exchange is fit to be offered, R. Eleazar still maintains that the young itself cannot be offered. You cannot therefore argue here that because the young of the female guilt-offering is fit for sacrifice, therefore it may be offered.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
משנינא שינויי דחיקי בבלאי כגון שילדה נקבות עד סוף העולם
with a case where e.g. , it [the exchange] gave birth to a female animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is not fit to be offered as a burnt-offering and therefore R. Eleazar says in the Mishnah that a burnt-offering is bought for its money.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> תמורת הבכור והמעשר ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף העולם הרי אלו כבכור וכמעשר ויאכלו במומן לבעלים
AND UNTIL THE END OF TIME, would it not give birth even to one male? - He said to him: I am giving you a forced answer of a Babylonian character.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A criticism of the teachers of Babylon who were, metaphorically speaking, described as putting an elephant through the eye of a needle (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>4</sup></span>
שכל הקדשים נמכרים באיטלז ונשחטין באיטלז ונשקלין בליטרא חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר
<sup>5</sup> what answer could he have given him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he says that the answer he gave was a forced one, this implies that he knew of another answer. Now what was it?');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ויש להן פדיון ולתמורותיהן פדיון חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר
- The reason there [why R'Eleazar says that only the money can be used for a burnt-offering] is because he may come to make a substitution">.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he could bring the young of an exchange of a guilt-offering itself as a burnt-offering, he might make a mistake and bring it as the guilt-offering in place of the real guilt-offering.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ובאין מחוצה לארץ חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר שאם באו תמימים יקרבו ואם בעלי מומין יאכלו במומן לבעלים
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE EXCHANGE OF A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED, THEIR YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF THEIR YOUNG UNTIL THE END OF TIME,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until the end of the world'.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
מה טעם שהבכור והמעשר יש להן פרנסה ממקומן ושאר כל הקדשים אע"פ שנולד בהם מום הרי אלו בקדושתן
AND ARE EATEN BY THE OWNERS WHEN BLEMISHED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without redemption, as is the case with a firstling and an animal tithed.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
המטיל מום בתמורת בכור ומעשר מהו
ALL [BLEMISHED] DEDICATIONS ARE SOLD IN THE MARKET,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus obtaining a higher price for the flesh, which benefits the Sanctuary, as then he is enabled to bring a better sacrifice for the money received.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
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>
א"ל אביי
BUT NOT A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since if these animals become blemished they are not redeemed so as to render the wool and the working of them permissible. Also the money obtained is not holy, as there is no need to bring another offering in their place, only when blemished they are eaten by the owners themselves.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ותיבעי לך המטיל מום בתשיעי של מעשר
THEY [OTHER DEDICATIONS] COME FROM OUTSIDE THE HOLY LAND [TO THE HOLY LAND], BUT NOT A FIRSTLING AND AN ANIMAL TITHED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are not directly brought from outside the Holy Land.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
דרחמנא מעטיה (ויקרא כז, לב) עשירי להוציא התשיעי ה"נ רחמנא מעטינהו (במדבר יח, יז) לא תפדה קדש הם הם קריבין ואין תמורתן קריבה
HOWEVER CAME FROM [OUTSIDE THE HOLY LAND] UNBLEMISHED, THEY ARE OFFERED, IF BLEMISHED THEY ARE EATEN BY THEIR OWNERS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a priest in the case of the firstling and the owner in the case of a tithed animal.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ותיבעי לך המטיל מום בתמורת בכור ומעשר
WHEREAS ALL OTHER DEDICATIONS, ALTHOUGH A BLEMISH HAS OCCURRED IN THEM, REMAIN HOLY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since even if they became blemished, he is required to bring their money for the purpose of bringing offerings. Therefore as holiness remains in them even if blemished, the owners are required to bring to the Holy Land the unblemished dedications in order to offer them.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
ואם באו תמימין כו'
Do we say that since they are not offered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture saying in connection with a firstling: 'Thou shalt not redeem, they are holy' (Num. XVIII, 17) , from which we infer that they are offered but not their exchange and the case of tithe we derive by means of an analogy from the firstling.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
לא קשיא הא ר' ישמעאל הא ר' עקיבא
Said Abaye to him: And why do you not ask: How is it if one causes a blemish to the ninth [animal] of the ten [taken in for tithing]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And calling it tenth, in which case it is holy but is not offered.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
דתניא ר' יוסי אומר ג' דברים משום ג' זקנים
Why then do you not ask concerning the ninth [animal of the ten], because the Divine Law excludes it [having stated]: The tenth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 32.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
רבי ישמעאל אומר
thus excluding the ninth [animal]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which in tithing was called 'the tenth' so that it is not offered. And since it is not offered, then obviously there is no penalty for inflicting a blemish upon it.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
בכור טעון הבאת מקום ומעשר טעון הבאת מקום מה בכור אינו נאכל אלא בפני הבית אף מעשר אינו נאכל אלא בפני הבית
thus implying, 'they' are offered but their exchange is not offered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since they are not offered, therefore there is no guilt in inflicting a blemish.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
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>
משום דאיכא למימר מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד מזבח
IF THEY, HOWEVER, CAME UNBLEMISHED etc. The following contradicts this: The son of Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon [to the Holy Land] and they were not accepted from him [to be offered]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is thus a difficulty as regards the Mishnah which says that if unblemished firstlings were actually brought up from outside the Holy Land they are offered.');"><sup>36</sup></span>
לעולם קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא והכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנזרק דמו של בכור בפני הבית וחרב הבית ועדיין בשרו קיים
is the opinion of R'Ishmael, and that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That firstlings from outside the Holy Land were not accepted to be offered.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
כיון דאי איתיה לדם לא בר זריקה הוא אתי בשר יליף מדם
is the opinion of R'Akiba. For it has been taught: R'Jose reported three things in the name of three Elders.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ishmael, R. Akiba and Ben 'Azzai.');"><sup>39</sup></span> R'Ishmael says: One might say that a man can bring up second tithe and eat it in Jerusalem nowadays? Now we may argue thus: A firstling requires bringing to the [holy] place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XII, 11: Thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings . . and your tithes.');"><sup>40</sup></span> and [second] tithe requires bringing to the holy place. Just as a firstling is not eaten except when there is a Temple in existence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the portions of sacrifices destined to be burnt must be burnt on the altar and the application of the blood requires an altar.');"><sup>41</sup></span> so [second] tithe should not be eaten except when there is a Temple in existence! No.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This analogy is not conclusive.');"><sup>42</sup></span> If you can say this of the firstling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it can be brought only when the Temple is in existence.');"><sup>43</sup></span> which requires the application of blood to and the burning of sacrificial portions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Limbs and fat destined for the altar.');"><sup>44</sup></span> on the altar, shall you say the same of [second] tithe which does not require this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore being different it may perhaps be brought even without the Temple standing.');"><sup>45</sup></span> Then you may reason thus: Firstfruits require bringing to the holy place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And the heave-offerings of your hand' (ibid) is explained as referring to the firstfruits.');"><sup>46</sup></span> and second tithe requires bringing to the [holy] place. Just as firstfruit are not eaten except when the Temple is in existence, similarly [second] tithe should not be eaten except when the Temple is in existence. [I can however reply:] You can argue so of firstfruits which require setting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture saying, Thou shalt set it before the Lord thy God (Deut. XXVI, 20) .');"><sup>47</sup></span> before the altar; but will you say the same of [second] tithe which does not require this? The text therefore states: Thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God the tithe of thy corn and of thy wine and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thine herds and of thy flocks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 23.');"><sup>48</sup></span> It thus compares [second] tithe with a firstling: just as firstling is not eaten except when the Temple is in existence, so second tithe is not eaten except when the Temple is in existence. But why not go around with the argument<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What need is there for a special Scriptural text, And thou shalt eat, etc.?');"><sup>49</sup></span> and prove the case [of second tithe by analogy] from the common point?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As follows: If you say that the analogy between firstfruits and tithe is not exact, since in the former there is no setting before the altar, then the case of firstling will prove that even without the setting before the altar it is necessary for the Temple to be in existence in order that the firstling can be brought, and the same therefore will apply to second tithe. Again, if you say that firstling is different because it requires the application of its blood to the altar, then the case of firstfruits will prove that although there is no application of blood, only when the Temple stands can they be brought, and the same therefore will apply to second tithe. Firstlings and firstfruits have therefore one point in common, i.e., the need of bringing them to a holy place and that the Temple must be standing, the same then will apply to second tithe, that it will be brought only when the Temple is standing.');"><sup>50</sup></span> - Said R'Ashi: Because one can object: As to the point firstling and firstfruits share in common,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore they require the Temple to be in existence before they can be brought. This is not the case with second tithe.');"><sup>51</sup></span> it is that they both require the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of firstfruits for the purpose of setting and in the case of firstling for the application of the blood.');"><sup>52</sup></span> Now what is [R'Ishmael's] view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who has no doubt that a firstling is not eaten except when the Temple stands, but who has a doubt concerning the second tithe.');"><sup>53</sup></span> Does he hold that with the first consecration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Palestine by Joshua.');"><sup>54</sup></span> he [Joshua] consecrated the land for the time being [as long as it was inhabited by Israel] and also for the future?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even without a Temple, Jerusalem is a holy place.');"><sup>55</sup></span> Then there should be no difference between firstling and [second] tithe, both being suitable to be brought. And if [R'Ishmael] holds that with the first consecration he [Joshua] consecrated for the time being but not for the future,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so there is a doubt concerning second tithe.');"><sup>56</sup></span> why not raise the question<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether in order to bring it the Temple must be in existence.');"><sup>57</sup></span> even concerning a firstling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why therefore does he infer the case of the second tithe from firstling?');"><sup>58</sup></span> - One can maintain that [R'Ishmael] holds that with the first consecration he [Joshua] consecrated the land for the time being but not for the future, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where R. Ishmael is sure of the case of firstling.');"><sup>59</sup></span> he is thinking of a case where e.g. , the blood of the firstling was sprinkled while the Temple was still in existence, and the Temple was then destroyed and the flesh of the firstling still remained. Since therefore if the blood was in existence, it would not be fit to be sprinkled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Jerusalem was not holy after Temple times (Rashi) .');"><sup>60</sup></span> we therefore derive the case of the flesh [of the firstling]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards eating it.');"><sup>61</sup></span> from the case of the blood [of the firstling].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And just as the blood cannot be sprinkled, the flesh too cannot be eaten.');"><sup>62</sup></span>