Temurah 21b — the Talmud in English

And

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

the second tithe

—

and derives it from the firstborn

from the juxtaposition.

And we object:

And do we derive sacred offerings

from one another,

and is it possible to learn the law of the second tithe from the firstborn when, concerning the firstborn itself, the flesh is also learned from the blood?!

But Rabbi Yohanan said: The entire Torah—

the learned may teach concerning another learned matter,

a matter learned through one of the methods by which the Torah is expounded may in turn teach a different law through one of the methods by which the Torah is expounded,

except for sacred offerings, for the learned may not teach concerning another learned matter.

And we answer:

The second tithe—

it is unconsecrated!

And it may be learned from the learned.

And we object: Indeed, the second tithe is unconsecrated. But the source that teaches the firstborn is a sacred offering, and concerning it itself the law of the flesh is learned from the law of the blood?

That works—

the answer that you answered, “the second tithe is unconsecrated,”

according to the one who says: “

we follow the learned,”

for if the matter being learned is unconsecrated, it may be used to derive a law concerning sacred offerings.

But according to the one who says: “

we follow the source that teaches,”

for if it is a sacred offering, such as the blood that teaches concerning the flesh, it does not return and teach even concerning unconsecrated matter, it is difficult:

what is there to say?

How do we derive the second tithe from the firstborn?

And we conclude:

Flesh and blood—

they are one matter!

And it is not included in the category of “the learned.” And again it is possible to derive the second tithe from the firstborn.

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

Rabbi Akiva says: One might have said that a person may bring a firstborn from outside the Land to the Land 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 your flocks.”

From the fact that the Torah juxtaposed the firstborn with the second tithe, we derive that only

from the place from which you bring up the tithe of grain,

from the Land of Israel, from there

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

outside the Land, for the tithe of grain applies only in the Land of Israel,

you do not bring up the firstborn.

And now, the Mishna that says that they did not accept firstborn from the son of Antigonus is Rabbi Akiva, who holds that a firstborn is entirely exempt outside the Land. And our Mishna, which says, “And if they come unblemished, they shall be offered,” is Rabbi Ishmael, who does not expound the juxtaposition to exempt a firstborn outside the Land; therefore, he holds that after the fact, if one brought them, they shall be offered.

We learned that the second tithe requires being brought to the place that the Lord will choose, namely Jerusalem. Ben Azzai considered whether it is eaten within the walls of Jerusalem, like lesser sacred offerings, or even “throughout the visible area.” That is, every place that one standing in Jerusalem can see, even outside the walls of Jerusalem. And the Gemara will explain below why it occurred to Ben Azzai to say this.

Ben Azzai says: One might have said

I would have said,

a person may bring up

the second tithe and eat it throughout the visible area?

And

seemingly, a juxtaposition is not needed to teach us that it is eaten only within the walls, since there is a

logical derivation;

it is possible to learn from an “av binyan”:

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

just as a firstborn is eaten only within the wall,

like all lesser sacred offerings, which become disqualified when they go outside the wall,

so too the second tithe is eaten only within the wall.

Ben Azzai himself refutes this derivation:

What is the case with a firstborn? It requires the placing of blood and the sacrificial portions upon the altar,

and therefore it is 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 also lenient with regard to not needing to be eaten specifically within the wall?

Rashi’s version:

What is the case with a firstborn? You distinguished with regard to the time of its eating,

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

and

you also distinguished

with regard to those who eat it,

for it is eaten only by priests, and therefore it is eaten only within the wall—

can you say the same with regard to the second tithe,

which is lenient, for it is eaten forever and by every person? Therefore, it is possible that it is also lenient with regard to not needing to be eaten specifically within the wall ? And since it is not learned through an “av binyan” from the firstborn, it is learned through a “juxtaposition” from the firstborn [and one does 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 your flocks.”

He juxtaposes the second tithe to the firstborn—

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

And the Gemara clarifies:

What difficulty does he have,

for Ben Azzai,

when he says: “

One might have said

that a person may bring up the second tithe and eat it throughout the visible area”? What law is this? Where have we found “throughout the visible area”? And why was a verse needed to teach us that it is not eaten throughout the visible area?

You said it! Since we learned,

we recited 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 lesser sacred offerings and the second tithe throughout the visible area,

in every place that one standing in Shiloh can see,

while in Jerusalem,

they are eaten only

within the wall.

And in both here and there,

in Shiloh and in Jerusalem,

most sacred offerings

are eaten

within the curtains,

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

Therefore Ben Azzai held:

One might have said, in Jerusalem it is not eaten

the second tithe throughout the visible area,

and it is difficult for him,

for Ben Azzai:

Granted, lesser sacred offerings require the placing of blood,

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

but let the second tithe be eaten throughout the visible area,

just as in Shiloh it was eaten throughout the visible area;

it teaches us

that we derive from the firstborn through a juxtaposition 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 to the second tithe with regard to its not becoming disqualified when a year has passed since its birth.

We learned in the 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 law after its year has passed? Others discuss this.

Others say: One might have said

I would have said:

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

The verse states: “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it,

the tithe of your grain,

your wine and your oil

and the firstborn of your cattle and your flocks”;

he juxtaposes the firstborn to the tithe

of grain—

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

And the Gemara clarifies:

And according to the Rabbis,

Rabbi Ishmael, Rabbi Akiva, and Ben Azzai,

who derive it,

who expound the juxtaposition

for another reason,

as explained—the law “it does not become disqualified

from one year to the next,”

from where do they derive it ?

And we answer:

They derive it,

they learn 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” in the sense of “two years”—

it teaches concerning the firstborn that it does not become disqualified from one year to the next.

And the Gemara discusses:

And according to Others,

who derive that it does not become disqualified from one year to the next from the juxtaposition to the second tithe—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 require it

for

another exposition.

As it was taught:

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

one day from this year,

when they slaughtered it on the final day of its year as required, and it is eaten on the day of its slaughter,

and

on the following day

one day from another year,

and on that day as well it is eaten, for thus it is stated, “you shall eat it, year by year”—

it teaches concerning the firstborn that it is eaten for two days and one night.

Explanation

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

And the Gemara discusses:

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—the law

that it is eaten for two days and one night

like a peace-offering,

from where do they derive it?

And why should it not be said stringently, that what the Torah said, “like the breast of the waving,” means for a day and a night only, like a thanksgiving-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 “existence” for you, namely, an additional day, so that you should not say that it is like the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving-offering.

We have returned to you, chapter “These are sacred offerings.”

In this chapter the Mishna discusses the five sin-offerings that are put to death, which do not effect temura, since they go to death, and therefore their sanctity has departed from them; and likewise, one may not derive benefit from them, since they are no longer included in “the holy things of the L”

The five sin-offerings that are put to death are: a. The offspring of a sin-offering. b. The temura of a sin-offering. c. A sin-offering whose owners died. d. A sin-offering that was lost, and whose owners achieved atonement with another. e. A sin-offering whose year passed. For a sin-offering is valid only until a year has been completed from its birth. And it is a halakha given to Moses from Sinai that they are put to death . And he gathers them into a chamber and withholds water and food from them until they die of themselves.

The laws of these five are not equal. An offspring, a temura, and one whose owners died are put to death in every case. Whereas one whose year passed and one that was lost are put to death only after their owners achieved atonement with another; and whenever they did not achieve atonement with another, they graze and are sold, and with their proceeds he takes a sin-offering. The outcome of this distinction is that after they achieved atonement with another and are subject to death, they do not effect temura, and one may not derive benefit from them; but before they achieved atonement with another and are subject to grazing, their sanctity still remains upon them, with regard to the fact that they effect temura and one may derive benefit from them.

Rabbi and the Sages disagreed in the following Mishna concerning “lost at the time of designation,” namely, a sin-offering that was lost and its owners designated another in its place, and the first was found before its owners achieved atonement with another, and afterward they achieved atonement. The Sages hold that it only grazes, because they hold that a lost sin-offering dies only if it was found after its owners achieved atonement with another . And Rabbi holds: “Lost at the time of designation—it dies”; and certainly if it was found after they achieved atonement.

Mishna:

The offspring of a sin-offering,

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

shall die.

And in the Gemara it will be explained why all five were not taught together.

And one whose year passed, and one that was lost and was found blemished,

before they achieved atonement with another,

if

the owners

afterward achieved atonement with another,

it shall die.

Our Mishna is explained according to the Sages, and it is speaking of a case in which it was found before they achieved atonement with another; and the Mishna teaches a novelty, that it dies. For the Sages said only, “lost at the time of designation and not lost at the time of atonement—it grazes,” when it was found unblemished; but if it was found blemished, the Sages agree that it dies, since it has two defects: one, that it had been lost, and the second, that it was found blemished. And now that the owners rejected it and achieved atonement with another—it dies.

And if the owners did not reject it and did not achieve atonement with another, and they wish to sell it, the Mishna discusses this in its latter clause.

A sin-offering whose law is death has its sanctity depart from it,

and it does not effect temura,

and if he exchanged another non-sacred animal for it, the temura did not take hold.