Temurah 42

Chapter 42

א ואתי מעשר ויליף מבכור ומי ילפינן קדש מהדדי והא"ר יוחנן כל התורה כולה למדין למד מן הלמד חוץ מן הקדשים שאין למדין למד מן הלמד

1 and then we derive the case of second tithe1 from the case of firstling.2 But do we infer one case of dedication from another?3 Has not R'Johanan said:4

ב מעשר חולין הוא הניחא למאן דאמר בתר למד אזלינן אלא למ"ד בתר מלמד אזלינן מאי איכא למימר בשר ודם חדא מילתא היא

2 Throughout the Torah we can derive by inference one rule from another which has itself been derived by inference, save only in the field of dedications where we do not derive a rule from one which is itself derived? - Tithe [of grain] is [considered] hullin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it can he redeemed to become hullin i.e., unconsecrated grain, and eaten in all places (R. Gershom) . Therefore when we compare second tithe with firstling, we are not really making analogy between dedications, as is the case when we inferred 'flesh' from 'blood'.');">5 This explanation will suffice for one who holds that that which is derived is the deciding factor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the subject is dedications or not. And since it is second tithe which is the subject learnt and derived from dedication, it is quite in order, because second tithe can be rendered hullin, as stated previously.');">6 But what answer would you give according to the authority who holds that that from which it is derived is the deciding factor?7

ג ר"ע אומר יכול יעלה אדם בכור מחוצה לארץ לארץ בזמן שבית המקדש קיים ויקריבנו ת"ל (דברים יד, כג) ואכלת לפני ה' אלהיך מעשר דגנך ותירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וצאנך ממקום שאתה מעלה מעשר דגן אתה מעלה בכור

3 - 'Flesh' and 'blood' in the case of firstling are considered one subject.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since this is the case, we are only making one inference I.e., second tithe from the blood and flesh of a firstling which are considered as one subject as regards dedications. Rashi comments that if we say that the holiness of the Land only applied for the time being and not for the future, why should R. Ishmael have a doubt concerning second tithe, for since there is no consecration for the future then there is no need for the Temple to be standing when bringing second tithe? Rashi therefore agrees with the text found in the Jerushalmi as follows: If R. Ishmael holds that the holiness of the Land extends to all times, then the enquiry should be even concerning a firstling, whether it is a condition that the Temple should be in existence before bringing it. And if he holds that the holiness of the Land does not extend for all time, then he should not inquire even concerning second tithe! One may still say that he holds that the holiness of the Land extends to the future as well, and the reason why he is certain about a firstling is because he is thinking of a case where e.g., he killed a firstling before the Temple was destroyed etc. and the inference is: Just as the blood requires an altar, so the flesh of the firstling cannot be eaten except where there is an altar, and then we proceed to derive the case of second tithe from that of firstling.');">8 R'Akiba says: One might think that a man can bring up a firstling from outside the Holy Land to the Holy Land when the Temple is standing and offer it? The text, however, states: And 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 thy herds and of thy flocks,9 thus implying that you may bring up a firstling to the Holy Land from the same place from where [second] tithe of grain is brought up,10

ד וממקום שאי אתה מעלה מעשר דגן אי אתה מעלה בכור

ה בן עזאי אומר יכול מעלה את מעשר שני ויאכלנו בכל הרואה ודין הוא בכור טעון הבאת מקום ומעשר טעון הבאת מקום מה בכור אינו נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה אף מעשר אינו נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה

5 and that you cannot bring up a firstling to the Holy Land from the place from which you cannot bring up [second] tithe of grain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., outside the Holy Land. Thus the Baraitha above which says that the firstlings brought up by the son of Antigonus to the Holy Land were not accepted, follows the view of R. Akiba, whereas our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Ishmael, who does not expound the cited verse after the manner of R. Akiba.');">11 Ben 'Azzai says: One might say that a man may bring up the second tithe12 and eat it wherever he can see [Jerusalem]? One may argue13

ו מה לבכור שכן טעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח תאמר במעשר דלא ת"ל ואכלת לפני ה' אלהיך מעשר דגנך ותירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וצאנך מקיש מעשר לבכור מה בכור אינו נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה אף מעשר אינו נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה

6 [as follows]: A firstling requires bringing to a [holy] place and [second] tith requires bringing to a [holy] place: just as a firstling is not eaten except within the wall [of Jerusalem],14

ז מאי קשיא ליה דקאמר יכול אמרת הואיל ותנן אין בין שילה לירושלים אלא שבשילה אוכלין קדשים קלים ומעשר שני בכל הרואה ובירושלים לפנים מן החומה

7 so [second] tithe is not eaten except within the wall [of Jerusalem]. [To this I can reply: ] How can you argue from a firstling which requires the application of blood to and the burning of sacrificial portions on the altar,15 to second tithe which does not require this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore one might think that so long as one can see Jerusalem even outside its wall, it may be eaten. Rashi has a different version from the text in the Gemara: Firstling is different, since there is a distinction in the period in which it may be eaten i.e., only two days and a night, and a distinction as regards those permitted to eat i.e., only the priests, whereas second tithe can be eaten at all times and by everyone, priests or non-priests.');">16

ח (וכן) קדשי קדשים לפנים מן הקלעים מהו דתימא בירושלים ליתי מעשר שני בכל הרואה קמ"ל

8 Scripture therefore says: '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. , etc.' , thus comparing second tithe with firstling as follows: Just as a firstling is not eaten except within the wall [of Jerusalem], similarly [second] tithe is not eaten except within the wall [of Jerusalem].

ט אחרים אומרים יכול יהא בכור שעברה שנתו כפסולי המוקדשין ויפסל

9 But what is [Ben 'Azzai's] difficulty that he should say: One might think etc.17 ? - I will tell you.

י תלמוד לומר מעשר דגנך ותירושך ויצהרך מקיש בכור למעשר מה מעשר אינו נפסל משנה לחבירתה אף בכור אינו נפסל משנה לחבירתה

10 Since we have learnt: The difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem consists in this, that in Shiloh one may eat minor dedications and second tithe wherever one can see it, whereas in Jerusalem he may do so only within the wall, [and in both]18 dedications of the higher degree of holiness are eaten inside the enclosures of the Temple court, you might think that the second tithe should be eaten wherever one can see [Jerusalem].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This therefore was Ben 'Azzai's difficulty regarding the Baraitha: I can understand the rule that dedications of the minor degree of holiness should be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem, since there is an application of blood to be made on the altar. But why should second tithe not be eaten in any place where he can see Jerusalem?');">19

יא ולרבנן דמפקי להו לטעמא אחרינא משנה לחבירתה מנא להו נפקא להו (דברים טו, כ) מלפני ה' אלהיך תאכלנו שנה בשנה לימד על הבכור שאינו נפסל משנה לחברתה

11 [Ben 'Azzai] needs therefore [to quote a text to] inform us [that it is not so]. Others say: One might think that a firstling whose year is passed has the same law as disqualified dedications and should be disqualified?20

יב ולאחרים לפני ה' אלהיך תאכלנו שנה בשנה מאי דרשי ביה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא יום אחד משנה זו ויום אחד משנה אחרת לימד על הבכור שנאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד

12 Scripture, however, says: 'The tithe of thy corn, of thy wine and of thine oil', thus comparing firstling with second tithe [as follows]: Just as second tithe is not disqualified fr one year to another,21 so a firstling [which is left] over from one year to another is not disqualified. And th Rabbis22

יג ורבנן דנאכל לב' ימים ולילה אחד מנא להו אמר קרא (במדבר יח, יח) יהיה לך כחזה התנופה:

13 who interpreted the text above23 for another purpose, whence do they derive that one may bring a firstling [left over] from the first year to the other? - They derive this from [the Scriptural text]: Thou shal eat it before the Lord thy God year by year,24 which teaches us that a firstling [left over] from one year to another is not disqualified.25

יד <big>הדרן עלך אלו קדשים</big>

14 And how do the 'Others'26

טו מתני׳ <big>ולד</big> חטאת ותמורת חטאת וחטאת שמתו בעליה ימותו ושעיברה שנתה ושאבדה ונמצאת בעלת מום אם משכפרו הבעלים תמות ואינה עושה תמורה

15 interpret the text: 'Thou shalt eat it before the Lor thy God year by year'? - They need this text for what has been taught: One day from this year and a day from the next;27 this teaches us that a firstling may be eaten for two days28 and a night. And whence do the Rabbis derive that a firstling may be eaten for two days and a night? - The text says: It shall be to thee as the breast of the waving.29 <big>MISHNAH: </big>THE YOUNG OF A SIN-OFFERING, THE EXCHANGE OF A SIN-OFFERING, AND A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE OWNER HAS DIED, ARE LEFT TO DIE. A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE YEAR IS PASSED OR WHICH WAS LOST AND FOUND BLEMISHED,30 IF THE OWNERS OBTAINED ATONEMENT [AFTERWARDS, THROUGH ANOTHER ANIMAL], IS LEFT TO DIE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even the Rabbis who say later that a sin-offering is not condemned to die except when found after the owners had obtained atonement, here agree that the animal dies, since there are two unfavourable conditions: First, it was lost and found blemished, and secondly, the owners obtained atonement through another animal after it was found, thus showing deliberately that they did not wish to procure atonement with the lost animal (Rashi) .');">31 IT32 DOES NOT EFFECT EXCHANGE;33

Previous Chapter Next Chapter