Temurah 8b — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

Ravina said: Actually

the beraita is speaking

of an unblemished animal,

but nevertheless, there is no difficulty from the beraita against Rav Nahman, because the beraita is not speaking of a firstborn that is destined to be offered, but:

And of a firstborn in the Diaspora,

and the priest acquires it while it is alive, and does not acquire it from the Table Above, since presumably it is not destined to be offered, as will be explained.

Therefore, Rav Nahman concedes concerning it that it belongs to him, just as peace-offerings belong to him while alive until he offers them.

That is to say: indeed, if they bring it from the Diaspora to the Temple and offer it, the priest acquires it from the Table Above; but since it is not destined for this, it belongs to him without acquisition from the Table Above. And concerning this firstborn the beraita said that it is called “with his fellow”

. And

beraita

is Rabbi Shimon, who says:

initially, one need not bring firstborn animals from the Diaspora to offer them. After the fact,

if unblemished ones came, they are offered.

And since initially it is not brought, it is not “destined for offering.”

The objection is raised:

the Gemara cites our Mishna to raise a difficulty against Rav Nahman’s words.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: What is the significance of the fact that he does not perform substitution with a sin-offering and guilt-offering, since

it does not belong to the priest,

for the

priests

do not acquire them during their lifetimes; can you say this concerning a firstborn, with which they do acquire during its lifetime

and it belongs to the priest—and why does he not perform substitution with it?

The Gemara clarifies:

With what are we dealing? If you say, at the time

present,

it is impossible to say so,

for it is taught analogous to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering

for the Mishna compares a firstborn to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, and in the present time there are no sin-offerings or guilt-offerings—

Rather, it is obvious

that the Mishna is speaking

of the time when the Temple is standing.

And if it is a blemished firstborn,

it is likewise impossible to say so, because

ultimately, it is taught analogous to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering—

and certainly it is speaking of unblemished sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, and concerning them the Mishna taught that the priests do not acquire them “during their lifetimes”; during their lifetimes they do not acquire them, but after slaughter they acquire them, whereas sin-offerings and guilt-offerings that are blemished

are not acquired either during their lifetimes or after their deaths.

Rather, it is obvious,

that the Mishna is speaking

of an unblemished animal. And it teaches:

a firstborn with which

“one acquires during its lifetime.”

And it is difficult against Rav Nahman, who holds that the priest did not acquire it during its lifetime?

And we reject this:

Ravina said: This too

this Mishna is speaking

of a firstborn in the Diaspora, and

the Mishna of

Rabbi Shimon, who says: If unblemished ones came, they are offered,

and initially one does not bring them, and presumptively it is not destined for offering; therefore the priest acquires it during its lifetime. And therefore Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that the priest performs substitution with it during its lifetime. And Rabbi Akiva disagrees with him, as explained in the Mishna, because we require substitution to be performed in the house of the owner, and that is the Israelite to whom it was born in his herd.

After all the difficulties against Rav Nahman have been rejected, the Gemara discusses:

Is it possible to say that it is

a dispute among tannaim,

that Rav Nahman’s words depend upon the dispute among tannaim who disagreed whether the priest acquires an unblemished firstborn during its lifetime when the Temple is standing, and not all the tannaim hold like him, for we learned in a beraita:

A firstborn in the owner’s house performs substitution; in the priest’s house it does not perform substitution,

the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Once it has come into the possession of a priest, one does not perform substitution.

And the beraita requires explanation, for Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s words are the words of the first tanna

?

What, is it not

that we should interpret it, that

this is what it says:

a firstborn in the owner’s house—the owner performs substitution.

In a priest’s house, he

the priest

performs substitution, but the owner does not,

the Israelite to whose herd the firstborn was born,

perform substitution.

And the priest performs substitution because now it belongs to him.

It follows

that the first tanna holds that

the priest has acquisition in it.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: once it has come into the priest’s possession, the priest does not perform substitution, because he holds like Rav Nahman, that the priest has no acquisition in it. And the difficulty is: Is it possible to say that it is a dispute among tannaim?

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that once it comes into the possession of the kohen, the kohen does not perform substitution, because he follows Rav Naḥman’s view that the kohen does not acquire rights in it. This is difficult: Can one say that Rav Naḥman’s statement is dependent on a dispute between tannaim?

And we reject this:

It is not difficult. This one is Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri; that one is Rabbi Akiva. Actually, concerning a firstborn in the Land of Israel, alive and unblemished, during the time when the Temple is standing, everyone holds like Rav Nahman, and the priest cannot perform substitution with it, since it is not his, like a sin-offering and a guilt-offering.

And the matter over which the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagreed is speaking of a firstborn in the Diaspora. Concerning it Rav Nahman holds that according to everyone it is the property of a priest, and therefore the first tanna holds that the priest can perform substitution with it, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri in the Mishna; and the Mishna too is speaking of a firstborn in the Diaspora, as Ravina established it according to Rav Nahman. And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds according to the method of Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, he holds that the priest cannot consecrate it, since it is not in “the house of the owner,” even though it belongs to him and he acquired it during its lifetime.

Another wording:

Is it possible to say that it is a dispute among tannaim?

We learned in a beraita: A firstborn in the owner’s house performs substitution,

Another version:

Can one say that this is dependent on a dispute between tannaim?

the owner, and not the priest.

In the priest’s house, “both this one and that one”

both the owner and the priest

do not perform substitution. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Once it has come into the possession of a priest, one does not perform substitution.

And the words of the beraita require explanation, for Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s words

are

the words of

the first tanna

?

What, is it not

that we should interpret the beraita

that Rav Nahman’s

matter is the difference between them?

The first tanna holds that “both this one and that one” do not perform substitution, because he holds like Rav Nahman, and it is not the property of the priest. But Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that once it has come into the possession of a priest, the “owner” does not perform substitution, whereas the priest does, since he acquired it and now it belongs to him—in opposition to Rav Nahman’s words.

And the difficulty is: Is it possible to say that it is a dispute among tannaim?

And we reject this:

No! Everyone holds Rav Nahman’s position

concerning a live, unblemished firstborn in the Land of Israel during the Temple period,

and here,

and the beraita is speaking of a firstborn in the Diaspora, and they disagreed

in the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri and Rabbi Akiva.

The first tanna holds like Rabbi Akiva; therefore he holds that although it is the property of a priest, he cannot perform substitution with it, since it is not in “the house of the owner.” And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds like Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri; therefore, since it is a firstborn in the Diaspora and it belongs to him, he can perform substitution with it.

Another wording:

According to this wording, the questioner understood that the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar never disagreed concerning substitution, and everyone holds that one cannot perform substitution even with a firstborn in the Diaspora, like Rabbi Akiva, since it is not “in the house of the owner.” Rather, the questioner inferred from the words of the first tanna that he holds that the priest does not perform substitution, but he may sell it, contrary to Rav Nahman’s words, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that he may not sell it, in accordance with Rav Nahman’s words .

And we reject this: No, everyone holds like Rav Nahman, and a firstborn in the Land of Israel during the Temple period may not be sold; and the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagreed concerning a firstborn in the Diaspora, and in the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri and Rabbi Akiva.

We learned in the Mishna: “A firstborn, one may sell it unblemished while alive” .

Rav Hisda said: They taught

that it is permitted to sell it,

only a priest

who sells it

to a priest.

But a priest may not sell to an Israelite

to sell.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Perhaps the Israelite will go—the Israelite purchaser—

and inflict a blemish upon it,

and deliberately place a blemish in it,

and bring it

and bring it

to a sage, and say to him

to the sage:

“This firstborn the priest gave me with its blemish,

and the blemish occurred in it under the authority of the priest.” And the sage will believe him and permit it unlawfully .

And why will the sage believe him? Because of the law that we learned [Bekhorot 35a]: concerning all blemishes that are fit to come about through a person’s agency, such that one can say that a person inflicted them, for example, its eye was blinded or its hand was severed [to exclude blemishes from birth, such as an animal with five legs]—Israelite shepherds are believed to say that the blemishes occurred by themselves. And since the sage will believe him, it is forbidden to sell it to an Israelite.

But it is permitted to sell it to a priest, since priestly shepherds are not believed, and priests were suspected concerning firstborn animals, as explained there. And when he brings a firstborn to a sage to permit it, he must bring witnesses that that blemish fell upon it by itself; therefore it is permitted to sell it to a priest, because the sage will not permit it until he brings witnesses.

And we raise a difficulty against this reason:

Does a sage permit it in this manner?

Would the sage permit it solely on the basis of his statement that he received a blemished animal from the priest?!

But Rav Judah said:

The

Sages

do not inspect a firstborn for an Israelite unless a priest is with him,

because they suspect him that it is a firstborn born in his herd, and he wants to evade giving it to a priest, and he is concerned only about the prohibition of “sacred offerings outside.” Therefore he must bring a priest with him, so that he will give it to him.

If so, this is difficult, why should there be concern that the Israelite will inflict a blemish in it by saying that the priest gave it to him with its blemish, for the priest whom he brought with him, who according to his claim sold it to him, will contradict him! And we answer:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Joshua, said:

Indeed, Rav Hisda did not forbid selling to an Israelite because of this concern. Rather,

this is the reason that an Israelite is forbidden,

and the reason it is forbidden for an Israelite to purchase an unblemished firstborn from a priest

is because he appears like a priest assisting at the threshing floor,

to winnow and gather so that they will give him the priestly gifts, and it is forbidden to do so, because it is a desecration of the Name, as he appears to be receiving the priestly gifts as payment for his labor.

And likewise, this kohen, who sells to an Israelite, appears as though he sells it cheaply [and ordinarily an unblemished firstborn nowadays is sold cheaply, since it is not fit for eating immediately until a blemish befall it, and meanwhile the purchaser keeps it and derives no profit from its shearing or labor] so that he will give him other firstborns that will be born in his herd.

Rav Ashi disputes Rav Hisda and holds that this reason—that he appears as a kohen assisting at the house of the threshing floors—applies only when he gives the firstborn to an Israelite as a gift, but not when he sells it to him.

And the Gemara brings an incident that occurred:

Mar Zutra happened to come to the house of

arrived at the house of

Rav Ashi.

The members of the household said to

the members of the household said to Mar Zutra:

“Let the Master taste something,”

let him eat something!

They brought meat before him,

they brought meat before him, and

said to him,

when presenting the meat:

“Let the Master eat, for it is healthful,”

this meat is healthful,

because it is from a firstborn

firstborn meat

it is!”

for its meat is healthier than other meat.

He said to them:

“From where do you have this?”

From where do you know that it is firstborn meat? Are you not kohanim?

They said to him, “So-and-so

sold it to us

a kohen.”

He said to them: “Do you not hold

do you not hold

that which Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said

that it is forbidden to purchase a firstborn from a kohen,

because he appears as a kohen assisting at the house of the threshing floors?”

They said to him: “We do not hold so;

indeed, we do not hold so,

for we purchased it,

we purchased it, and there is no concern that he appears as assisting, since they did not give it to us as a gift.

He said to them: “Do you not hold

do you not hold

that which we learned in the Mishna,

that which we learned in the Mishna in tractate Bekhorot [26b]:

‘How long is an Israelite obligated to tend to the firstborn

nowadays—to take care of it and raise it before giving it to a kohen?

with

an animal

of small livestock—

thirty days,

and with large livestock—

“fifty days. If during this period he says to the kohen, ‘Give it to me

and I will tend to it,’

he may not give it to him.”

And Rav Sheshet said: “What is the reason

why may he not give it to him?

“Because he appears as a kohen assisting at the house of the threshing floors,”

for the kohen takes it and is prepared to exert himself over it so that he will give it to him and not to another kohen.

They said to him: “There,

there, when he takes it before its time,

the matter is evident,

it is evident that he takes it so that he will not give it to another kohen, for it is precisely for this reason that the kohen is prepared to tend to it already now.

But

here, we purchased it.

Through the purchase that we made from him, he does not appear as a kohen assisting.

Another formulation .

He said to them: “Have you not heard that which Rav Hisda said

and so on

and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: ‘Because he appears as a kohen assisting at the house of the threshing floors’?”

They said to him: “We have not heard it. That is, we do not hold so!”

We do not hold at all that there is a prohibition of “appears as assisting.”

He said to them: “But it is a Mishna, as we learned

and so on.

And Rav Sheshet said, ‘Because he appears as a kohen assisting at the house of the threshing floors’?

And how can you say, “We do not hold so,” when it is a Mishna?

They said to

Mar Zutra:

“There, he does not give money,

he does not give the kohen money for the firstborn; rather, the kohen tends to it for free so that they will give it to him and not to another. But

here, we have given money,

for we purchased it from the kohen, and he is not doing us a favor so that we will give it to him another time!

What can you say?

If you have an answer to this—that there is concern

that perhaps the kohen sells cheaply to him,

it is possible that he sells it cheaply because

he reasons, “When this Israelite has

when this Israelite has

another firstborn, he will give it to me!”

for the kohen calculates that the Israelite will give it to him another time. This matter

does not enter his mind,

the kohen does not take into account, for

he does not forgo a certainty that he holds in his hand,

he does not let the Israelite go and sell cheaply the firstborn that he certainly has in his hands,

and seize a doubt, for he does not know whether he will give it to him or not,

relying on the possibility that perhaps he will give it to him another time, since perhaps he will not give it to him, and he does not rely on this.