Back
Temurah
Daf 21aוְאָתֵי מַעֲשֵׂר וְיָלֵיף מִבְּכוֹר. וּמִי יָלְפִינַן קֹדֶשׁ מֵהֲדָדֵי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לְמֵדִין לָמֵד מִן הַלָּמֵד, חוּץ מִן הַקָּדָשִׁים – שֶׁאֵין לְמֵדִין לָמֵד מִן הַלָּמֵד!
And then, as Rabbi Yishmael holds that a firstborn definitely may not be eaten in the present, he says that second tithe comes and its status is derived from the juxtaposition to the firstborn. The Gemara asks: And can we derive the halakhot of sacrificial food from one another? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: In the entire Torah, we may derive that which is derived from a halakha that was itself derived from another source, except for the case of sacrificial animals, where we do not derive that which is derived from that which was already derived
מַעֲשֵׂר חוּלִּין הוּא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דַּאֲמַר בָּתַר לָמֵד אָזְלִינַן, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דַּאֲמַר בָּתַר מְלַמֵּד אָזְלִינַן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בָּשָׂר וְדָם חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא.
The Gemara answers: Second tithe is considered non-sacred. Therefore, this derivation does not pertain to consecrated items. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that we follow the halakha that is derived. If it is a consecrated item, it may not be derived from another halakha that was derived from another source, but if it is non-sacred, such as second tithe, it may be derived in this manner. But according to the one who said that we follow the halakha that teaches, what is there to say? In this case the halakha that teaches, i.e., the source of the derivation, is the meat of the firstborn, which is a consecrated item that is derived itself from the status of the blood of the firstborn. The Gemara answers: The status of the meat and the blood of a firstborn offering are one matter.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַעֲלֶה אָדָם בְּכוֹר מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָאָרֶץ בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים וְיַקְרִיבֶנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ…מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ״, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲלֶה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן – אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה בְּכוֹר,
§ The Gemara cites the second statement of Rabbi Yosei from the elders, in the continuation of the baraita above: Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that a person may bring up a firstborn from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael when the Temple is standing and sacrifice it. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 14:23). Rabbi Akiva derives from here that only from the place that you bring up the tithe of grain to Jerusalem, i.e., from Eretz Yisrael, may you bring up a firstborn to the Temple as an offering.
TOSAFOT
ממקום שאי אתה מעלה מעשר דגן אי אתה מעלה בכור והשתא אשכחן פלוגתא דרבי ישמעאל ור"ע דרבי ישמעאל אית ליה דלכתחילה אין מביאין בכור ומעשר מחוצה לארץ לארץ אבל דיעבד אם באו תמימים יקרבו והיינו כמתני' ור"ע אפילו דיעבד נמי לא קרבי דאיתקש למעשר דגן וההיא דבן אנטיגנוס כוותיה אתיא וא"ת בשלמא ר"ע כדמפרש טעמא דאיתקש בכור למעשר דגן אלא לרבי ישמעאל מאי טעם אי סבירא ליה היקשא דמעשר דגן אפילו דיעבד נמי לא ואי לא סבר לה אפילו לכתחילה נמי יביא וי"ל דמפיק מדרשא דסיפרי שפירש לעיל רק קדשיך אשר יהיו לך וגו' מכאן שמביאין קדשים מחוצה לארץ לארץ יכול אף בכור ומעשר כן ת"ל רק והיינו דוקא לכתחילה הוא דאימעוט דבהא איירי ביה קרא דכתיב תשא ובאת והיינו לכתחילה:
וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן – אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה בְּכוֹר.
But from a place that you may not bring up the tithe of grain, i.e., outside Eretz Yisrael, you may not bring up a firstborn from there. Therefore, the statement of the mishna that if one did bring up an unblemished firstborn from outside Eretz Yisrael it may be sacrificed, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. By contrast, the statement that ben Antigonus brought firstborn offerings from Babylonia and they were not accepted as offerings is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
TOSAFOT
יכול יעלה אדם מעשר שני ויאכלנו כו' וא"ת אמאי ס"ד שיהא נאכל בכל הרואה הא לפני ה' אלהיך כתיב ביה וי"ל דומיא דשילה דאוכלים מעשר שני בכל הרואה ויש ספרים דגרסינן לה להך קושיא ולהאי שינויא:
בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל מַעֲלֶה אֶת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְיֹאכְלֶנּוּ בְּכָל הָרוֹאֶה? וְדִין הוּא: בְּכוֹר טָעוּן הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם – וּמַעֲשֵׂר טָעוּן הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם, מַה בְּכוֹר – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה, אַף מַעֲשֵׂר – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה,
§ The Gemara relates the third statement in the baraita , which discusses second tithe: Ben Azzai
מַה לִּבְכוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן טָעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, תֹּאמַר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר – דְּלָא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ…מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירוֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכוֹרוֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ״, מַקִּישׁ מַעֲשֵׂר לִבְכוֹר, מַה בְּכוֹר – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה, אַף מַעֲשֵׂר – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה.
This inference may be refuted: What is unique about a firstborn? It is unique in that it requires the placement of the blood and sacrificial portions
מַאי קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ דְּקָאָמַר ״יָכוֹל״? אָמַרְתָּ, הוֹאִיל וּתְנַן: אֵין בֵּין שִׁילֹה לִירוּשָׁלַיִם אֶלָּא, שֶׁבְּשִׁילֹה אוֹכְלִין קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּכָל הָרוֹאֶה, וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה,
The Gemara comments: What is difficult for ben Azzai that prompted him to say: One might have thought that it is permitted to eat second tithe in any place that overlooks Jerusalem? The Gemara explains: You can say that it is difficult for him since we learned in a mishna ( Megilla 9b): The difference between the Tabernacle in Shiloh
וְכֵן קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם לֵיתֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּכָל הָרוֹאֶה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.
And likewise, offerings of the most sacred order are eaten only in the area within the hangings, which surrounded the courtyard in the Tabernacle in Shiloh, which was equivalent to the area within the surrounding wall in the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem. Lest you say that even in Jerusalem, they may bring second tithe and eat it in any location that overlooks the walls, since, unlike the firstborn animal, second tithe does not possess any unique stringency, the verse teaches us that this is not so, as taught in the mishna.
אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: יָכוֹל יְהֵא בְּכוֹר שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתוֹ כִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, וְיִפָּסֵל?
§ Rabbi Yosei cites one more statement in the baraita with regard to a firstborn: The mishna ( Bekhorot 26b) states that a firstborn animal is eaten from one year to the next, i.e., within its first year, as it is stated: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year” (Deuteronomy 15:20). Rabbi Yosei adds that others say: One might have thought that a firstborn whose first year has passed should have the same status as disqualified consecrated animals and therefore be disqualified.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירוֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ״, מַקִּישׁ בְּכוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂר, מַה מַּעֲשֵׂר – אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל מִשָּׁנָה לַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ, אַף בְּכוֹר – אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל מִשָּׁנָה לַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ.
Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God… the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.” The verse thereby juxtaposes a firstborn animal to second tithe, which teaches that just as second tithe is not disqualified from one year to the next, so too, a firstborn animal is not disqualified from one year to the next.
וּלְרַבָּנַן, דְּמַפְּקִי לְהוּ לְטַעֲמָא אַחֲרִינָא, מִשָּׁנָה לַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ מְנָא לְהוּ? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה״ – לִימֵּד עַל הַבְּכוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִפְסָל מִשָּׁנָה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva, and ben Azzai, who expound this verse for another explanation, from where do they derive that a firstborn animal is not disqualified from one year to the next? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the verse “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year.” The formulation “year by year” indicates two years, thereby teaching with regard to a firstborn animal that it is not disqualified from one year to the next.
וְלַאֲחֵרִים, ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה״ מַאי דָּרְשִׁי בֵּיהּ? מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: יוֹם אֶחָד מִשָּׁנָה זוֹ, וְיוֹם אֶחָד מִשָּׁנָה אַחֶרֶת, לִימֵּד עַל הַבְּכוֹר שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the others, who derive this halakha from the juxtaposition of the firstborn and second tithe, with regard to what do they interpret the verse: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year”? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the time for the consumption of a firstborn animal: The phrase “year by year” teaches that there is a manner in which it may be eaten over two years: During one day of this year, and during one day of the next year. The verse therefore teaches with regard to a firstborn offering that it may be eaten
וְרַבָּנַן, דְּנֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד מְנָא לְהוּ? אֲמַר קְרָא: ״יִהְיֶה לָּךְ כַּחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה״. הדרן עלך אלו קדשים
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva, and ben Azzai, from where do they derive the halakha that a firstborn offering may be eaten for two days and one night? The Gemara answers that the verse states with regard to the firstborn: “And their flesh shall be yours, like the breast of the waving and the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18). The repetition of the expression “It shall be yours” teaches that one may eat the firstborn for one more day than a standard thanks offering, which may be eaten only for one day and one night.
SUMMARY
It was determined in this chapter that the status of the substitute of an offering and the offspring of an offering are essentially equivalent. The only difference between them is that a substitute does not render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it consecrated as a substitute, while the offspring of a female offering does render its offspring and the offspring of its offspring consecrated like the original offering. But if a substitute gave birth, the offspring has the status of the offspring of an offering, not that of a second substitute. These halakhot are specific to each type of offering. In general, the substitute and the offspring of a gift offering have the same status as the offering itself, and are even sacrificed upon the altar in the same manner as the offering. Therefore, the substitute of a peace offering, the offspring of a peace offering, and the offspring of the substitute are sacrificed as peace offerings, and the substitute and the offspring of the substitute of a burnt offering are sacrificed as burnt offerings. Similarly, the substitute of a firstborn offering and an animal tithe offering and the offspring of the substitute are equivalent to the original with regard to ownership and the particular rules of sale that apply to them. The substitute and offspring of firstborn animals and animal tithe are not sacrificed, unlike the substitute and offspring of a burnt offering or peace offering. The substitute and offspring of a thanks offering, which are also considered gift offerings, have a slightly different status: They are sacrificed upon the altar and are treated as thanks offerings, but the accompanying loaves are not brought with them. The guilt offering is obligatory and is therefore subject to different halakhot from those of the offerings discussed above. Its substitute and the offspring of the substitute are treated as guilt offerings that have become disqualified. They are left to graze until they become blemished, after which they are sold and the owner uses the money to purchase a communal gift offering. The chapter also examined the case of one who consecrates a female animal as a burnt offering or guilt offering, both of which must be male. The Gemara concludes that although these animals are sanctified, they are unfit to be sacrificed as those offerings. The owner must wait until they become blemished, sell them, and use the money to purchase a burnt offering if the original animal was a burnt offering, or a communal gift offering if the original animal was a guilt offering. With regard to the offspring of such animals, even if they are male they may not be sacrificed, as the sanctity of the parent is considered a deferred sanctity. Instead, they are sent to graze until they become blemished. They are subsequently sold, and the money from the sale is used to purchase an offering of the same type. This chapter does not discuss the status of a substitute for a sin offering. Since this matter involves several related halakhot, it is analyzed independently in the following chapter.
INTRO
And if any one of the common people sin through error, in doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and be guilty: If his sin, which he has sinned, be known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned. (Leviticus 4:27–28)
The verses in Leviticus, chapter 27, which are the primary source for the halakha of a substitute animal, indicate that the status of a substitute applies only to sacrificial animals. The verse teaches that if one attempts to substitute another animal for a sacrificial animal, the sanctity of the sacrificial animal is not revoked; rather, both the first animal and its substitute are now sacred. The previous chapter focused on the general question of what happens to a substitute, as well as the offspring of a substitute of some offerings, but the halakhot pertaining to the substitute of a sin offering were not addressed. This is because there are certain unique factors in the case of sin offerings that affect the halakha with regard to their offspring, their substitutes, and any other sin offering that was disqualified or rejected for sacrifice. Therefore, this entire chapter is dedicated to the halakhot of sin offerings, only a small proportion of which are related to substitutes. An individual’s sin offering is unique in that it is an obligatory offering that may be brought only in order to achieve atonement for specific sins. One may not bring a sin offering as a voluntary offering. If an animal designated as a sin offering becomes disqualified, it is permanently rejected for use as any type of offering. There is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that under certain conditions, such a sin offering must be left to die. The questions addressed in this chapter include the following: What is the halakha with regard to a sin offering that developed a blemish? Additionally, what is the halakha in a case where one designates two sin offerings, where one serves as a guarantee in the event that the other animal cannot be sacrificed? The unique halakhot pertaining to sin offerings also apply to money that was designated for purchasing a sin offering. Accordingly, these dilemmas must also be addressed with regard to such money, as money set aside for purchasing a sin offering may be used only for that purpose. Several questions arise in this connection: What is the halakha if one designated money for a sin offering and the money was subsequently lost? Likewise, what is the status of such money in a case where the owner in the meantime achieved atonement through another sin offering? These questions, which pertain to disqualifications of sin offerings, are the primary subject of this chapter.
מתני׳ וְלַד חַטָּאת, וּתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת, וְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ – יָמוּתוּ. וְשֶׁעִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ, וְשֶׁאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם, אִם מִשֶּׁכִּפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים – תָּמוּת, וְאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה.
The offspring of a sin offering and the substitute for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner has died shall be sequestered and left to die. And with regard to a sin offering that is unfit for sacrifice because its first year from birth has passed, and a sin offering that was lost and when it was found, it was blemished, if it was after the owner achieved atonement through sacrifice of another animal as a sin offering, the blemished animal shall die,
TOSAFOT
מתני' ולד חטאת ושאבדה ונמצאת בעלת מום פרש"י ואפילו לרבנן דאמרי לקמן ופליגי עליה דרבי דאין חטאת מתה אלא בשנמצאת אחר שנתכפרו הבעלים בהא מודו הואיל ואיכא תרתי לריעותא דאבדה ונמצאת בעלת מום ולהכי נקט בעלת מום דאי תמימה הואיל ונמצאת קודם כפרה אפילו כיפרו בעלים שוב באחרת רועה עכ"ל ולא נהירא דמשמע לפירושו דריבוי ריעותא מביאין אותה למיתה ואדרבה סוגיא דשמעתין משמע דריבוי ריעותא מביאין אותה לידי רעייה דאמר רבא בגמ' אבודת לילה לא שמה אבודה פי' ואינה מתה אלא רועה ועוד לר' אבא דאמר בגמ' לקמן (תמורה כג.) הכל מודים שאם נתכפר בשאינה אבודה [אבודה] מתה והכא בנתכפר בשאינה אבודה מיירי וא"כ למה לי בעלת מום לר' אבא מיהו איכא סוגיות בפ' מי שהיה טמא (פסחים דף צז.) ובפ' התודה (מנחות דף פ.) ולקמן (תמורה דף כג.) נמי דלית להו דרבי אבא ועוד דדייק לקמן בגמ' מבבא דמתני' דאח"כ דמתניתין רבנן היא מהכא הוה מצי למידק מדנקט בעלת מום לכ"נ לפרש דנקט בעלת מום לרבותא דמהו דתימא הואיל ואיתרבו כל כך דאבודה ובעלת מום הויא לה כאבודת לילה ורועה קמ"ל דאפ"ה מתה:
אם כיפרו בעלים תמות למר כדאית ליה ולמר כדאית ליה לרבי אפילו אם נמצאת לפני כפרה ולרבנן בנמצאת לאחר כפרה: