Temurah 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

And

once it is clear to him that a firstborn is not eaten

the second tithe

—

and he derives it from the firstborn

through the juxtaposition.

And we raise an objection:

Do we derive laws of consecrated offerings

from one another—can one derive the second tithe from the firstborn when, with regard to the firstborn itself, the law of the meat is derived from the law of the blood?!

And did Rabbi Yohanan not say:

With regard to the entire Torah—

one may derive a learned matter from another learned matter—

a matter that was learned through one of the hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded may itself return and teach a different law through one of those hermeneutical principles—

except for consecrated offerings, with regard to which one may not derive a learned matter from another learned matter?

And we answer:

The second tithe—

is non-sacred!

And one may derive it from a learned matter.

And we raise an objection: Indeed, the second tithe is non-sacred. But the source that teaches the law of the firstborn is a consecrated offering, and with regard to it itself the law of the meat is learned from the law of the blood?

That works—

the answer that you gave, “The second tithe is non-sacred,”

according to the one who says

we follow the subject that was learned—

that if the matter being learned is non-sacred, it is possible to learn from it with regard to consecrated offerings.

But according to the one who says

we follow the source that teaches—

that if the source is a consecrated offering, such as the blood that teaches the law of the meat, it cannot return and teach even with regard to non-sacred matters—the difficulty remains:

what can be said?

How can we derive the second tithe from the firstborn?

And we conclude:

Meat and blood—

are one matter!

And it is not considered a “learned matter.” Thus, it is again possible to derive the second tithe from the firstborn.

Thus far, the Gemara discussed the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Now the Gemara returns to the continuation of the beraita: “Rabbi Yosei says: three matters in the name of three elders.”

Rabbi Akiva says: Could it be that a person may bring a firstborn from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael while the Temple is standing, and offer it?

The verse states:

“And you shall eat before the Lord your God the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle and of your flocks.”

Since the Torah juxtaposed the firstborn with the second tithe, we expound that

from the place to which you bring the tithe of grain

from Eretz Yisrael, from there

you bring the firstborn. And from the place to which you do not bring the tithe of grain

outside Eretz Yisrael, where the tithe of grain applies only in Eretz Yisrael,

you do not bring the firstborn.

Accordingly, the Mishna that says that they did not accept firstborn animals from ben Antigonus follows Rabbi Akiva, who holds that a firstborn is entirely exempt outside Eretz Yisrael. But our Mishna, which says, “And if they come unblemished, they shall be offered,” follows Rabbi Yishmael, who does not expound the juxtaposition as exempting a firstborn outside Eretz Yisrael; therefore, he holds that after the fact, if one brought them, they are offered.

We learned that the second tithe requires being brought to the place that God will choose, namely, Jerusalem. Ben Azzai considered whether it is eaten within the walls of Jerusalem, like offerings of lesser sanctity, or even “wherever it can be seen”—that is, every place that a person standing in Jerusalem can see, even outside the walls of Jerusalem. The Gemara will explain below why it occurred to Ben Azzai to say this.

Ben Azzai says: Could it be

I might have said,

that a person may bring

the second tithe and eat it wherever it can be seen?

And

apparently no juxtaposition is needed to teach us that it is eaten only within the walls, since it is a

logical inference;

it is possible to derive it through a binyan av:

A firstborn requires being brought to a designated place, and the second tithe requires being brought to a designated place—

just as a firstborn is eaten only within the wall

like all offerings of lesser sanctity, which become disqualified when they leave the wall,

so the second tithe is eaten only within the wall.

Ben Azzai himself refutes this derivation:

What is special about a firstborn is that it requires the application of the blood and the sacrificial portions on the altar,

and therefore it is more stringent, so that it is eaten only within the wall—

can you say the same with regard to the second tithe, which does not

require an altar? Therefore, it is possible that it is lenient also with regard to not needing to be eaten specifically within the wall.

Rashi’s version:

What is special about a firstborn is that you restricted the time of its eating,

and it is not eaten at all times, but for two days and one night, one

and

you also restricted

those who eat it,

as it is eaten only by kohanim, and therefore it is eaten only within the wall—

can you say this with regard to the second tithe,

which is lenient, as it is eaten at all times and by everyone? Therefore, it is possible that it is lenient also with regard to not needing to be eaten specifically within the wall . And since it cannot be learned through a binyan av from the firstborn, it is learned through a juxtaposition from the firstborn [and one may not refute a juxtaposition]!

The verse states:

“And you shall eat before the Lord your God the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle and of your flocks.”

The second tithe is juxtaposed with the firstborn—

just as a firstborn is eaten only within the wall, so the second tithe is eaten only within the wall.

And the Gemara clarifies:

What difficulty did he have,

for Ben Azzai,

when he said

“Could it be

that a person may bring the second tithe and eat it wherever it can be seen”? What law is this, and where do we find the concept of “wherever it can be seen”? And why was a verse necessary to teach us that it is not eaten wherever it can be seen?

You said it! Since we learned,

we learned a Mishna in tractate Megilla [9b]:

There is no difference between Shiloh,

when the Tabernacle stood there for 369 years and it had no wall,

and

between

Jerusalem,

after Solomon built the Temple,

except that in Shiloh one eats offerings of lesser sanctity and the second tithe wherever it can be seen,

in every place that a person standing in Shiloh can see,

whereas in Jerusalem,

they are eaten only

within the wall.

And in both places,

in Shiloh and in Jerusalem,

offerings of the most sacred sanctity

are eaten

within the curtains,

the curtains of the Tabernacle and the walls of the Temple courtyard.

Therefore, Ben Azzai reasoned:

Therefore Ben Azzai reasoned:

Perhaps one might say that in Jerusalem the second tithe should not be eaten

wherever it can be seen,

and this was difficult for him

Granted, offerings of lesser sanctity require the application of blood,

and therefore they are eaten in Jerusalem only within the wall,

but the second tithe should be eaten wherever it can be seen,

just as it was eaten wherever it could be seen in Shiloh.

It teaches us

that we derive through a juxtaposition from the firstborn that it is eaten only within the wall.

And in the continuation of the beraita it is stated: Others expound the juxtaposition of the firstborn with the second tithe with regard to the fact that it does not become disqualified when a year has passed since its birth.

We learned in a Mishna [Bekhorot 26b]: A firstborn is eaten within its year, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 15]: “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it year by year.”

And what is its status after its year has passed? Others discuss this matter.

Others say: Could it be

I might have said:

A firstborn whose year has passed should be like consecrated animals that have become disqualified and should become disqualified?

The verse states: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God

the second tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil

”

and the firstborn of your cattle and your flocks,”

juxtaposing the firstborn with the tithe

of grain—

just as the second tithe does not become disqualified from one year to the next, so a firstborn does not become disqualified from one year to the next.

And the Gemara clarifies:

And according to the Rabbis,

Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva, and Ben Azzai,

who derive it

who expound the juxtaposition

for a different reason,

as explained—this law, that it does not become disqualified

from one year to the next,

from where do they derive it ?

And we answer:

They derive it

that it does not become disqualified

from

what is stated:

“Before the Lord your God you shall eat it year by year,”

and they expound “year by year” as meaning “two years”—

teaching with regard to the firstborn that it does not become disqualified from one year to the next.

And the Gemara discusses:

And according to Others,

who derive from the juxtaposition with the second tithe that it does not become disqualified from one year to the next—what is stated

“Before the Lord your God you shall eat it year by year”

what do they expound from it?

And we answer:

They need it

for

another exposition.

As it is taught: The Torah said “year by year” to teach us that it is eaten

on one day of this year,

the animal having been slaughtered on the final day of its year in accordance with its mitzva and being eaten on the day of its slaughter,

and

on

the following day,

one day of another year,

and on that day as well it is eaten, since it is stated, “You shall eat it year by year”—

teaching with regard to the firstborn that it is eaten for two days and one night.

Explanation Although the Torah says with regard to the firstborn [Numbers 18], “And their meat shall be yours, like the breast of the waving,” nevertheless, I do not know whether this is to be understood leniently, like a peace offering that is eaten for two days and one night, or stringently, like a thanks offering that is eaten for one day and one night. Therefore, Others expound “year by year” to teach that a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night. And the Gemara discusses:

Although the Torah states concerning a firstborn [Numbers 18], “And their flesh shall be yours, like the breast of the waving,” nevertheless, I do not know whether this means leniently, like peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night, or stringently, like a thanksgiving-offering, which is eaten for one day and one night. Therefore, Others expound from “year by year” that a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night.

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Others and expound “year by year” to mean that it does not become disqualified from one year to the next—this law,

that it is eaten for two days and one night

like a peace offering,

from where do they derive it?

Why should we not say stringently that what the Torah said, “like the breast of the waving,” means for one day and one night only, like a thanks offering?

And we answer:

The verse says:

“It shall be yours, like the breast of the waving,”

and we expound “it shall be yours”: The verse added another mode of being yours, namely, an additional day, so that you should not say that it is like the breast and thigh of a thanks offering.

We have completed the chapter “These Are Consecrated Offerings”

We have completed the chapter “These Are Sacred Offerings.”

This chapter discusses the five sin-offerings that are left to die, which do not effect temura, since they are destined to die; therefore, their sanctity has departed from them. Likewise, one may not derive benefit from them, since they are no longer included in the category of “sacred offerings of the Lord.”

The five sin-offerings left to die are: a. the offspring of a sin-offering; b. the substitute of a sin-offering; c. a sin-offering whose owners died; d. a sin-offering that was lost, and whose owners achieved atonement through another offering; e. a sin-offering whose year had elapsed. For a sin-offering is fit only until a year has passed since its birth. It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that these animals are left to die . One gathers them into an enclosure and withholds water and food from them until they die on their own.

The laws of these five are not identical. The offspring, the substitute, and the sin-offering whose owners died are left to die in every case. By contrast, an offering whose year elapsed and an offering that was lost are left to die only after their owners achieved atonement through another offering. As long as they have not achieved atonement through another offering, they graze and are sold, and with the proceeds one purchases a sin-offering. It follows from this distinction that after the owners achieved atonement through another offering and these offerings are subject to the law that they must die, they do not effect temura, and one may not derive benefit from them; but before the owners achieved atonement through another offering, when they are subject to the law that they graze, their sanctity still remains with regard to the fact that they effect temura and one may derive benefit from them.

Rabbi and the Sages disagree in the following Mishna regarding an offering “lost at the time of designation,” meaning a sin-offering that was lost, whose owners designated another in its place, and which was found before its owners achieved atonement through the other offering, and afterward they achieved atonement. The Sages hold that it merely grazes, because they maintain that a lost sin-offering is left to die only if it was found after its owners had achieved atonement through another offering . Rabbi holds: “A sin-offering lost at the time of designation is left to die,” and all the more so one that was found after its owners achieved atonement.

Mishna:

The offspring of a sin-offering,

the substitute of a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owners died—

must die.

The Gemara will explain why all five were not taught together.

And an offering whose year elapsed, and one that was lost and found blemished,

before the owners achieved atonement through another offering,

if

the owners

afterward achieved atonement through another offering,

it must die.

Our Mishna is explained in accordance with the Sages, and concerns a case in which the offering was found before the owners achieved atonement through another offering. The Mishna teaches that it must die. For the Sages said only: “One lost at the time of designation and not lost at the time of atonement grazes,” when it was found unblemished. But if it was found blemished, the Sages concede that it must die, since it has two defects: first, it had been lost, and second, it was found blemished. Now that the owners rejected it and achieved atonement through another offering, it must die.

If the owners did not reject it and did not achieve atonement through another offering, but wish to sell it, the latter clause of the Mishna discusses that case.

Once a sin-offering whose law is that it must die has lost its sanctity,

it does not effect temura,

and if one exchanged another unconsecrated animal for it, the substitute does not acquire sanctity.