תמורה דף כא

עצמו — לא! הכא במאי עסקינן? כגון שילדה נקבה, ועד סוף העולם לא אוליד חד זכר?! אמר ליה: משנינא [לך] שינויי דחיקי בבלאי,

but the offspring itself is not sacrificed as a burnt offering. Rabbi Avin bar Kahana responds: What are we dealing with here? It is a case where the female designated as a guilt offering or as the substitute of a guilt offering gave birth to a female, which cannot itself be offered as a guilt offering. Rabbi Avin bar Ḥiyya asks: This is problematic, as the mishna states that the same is true with regard to the offspring of its offspring until the end of time. But could the mishna be referring to a case where until the end of time not even one male was born? Rabbi Avin bar Kahana said to him in response: I answer forced answers, in the manner of the Babylonians, and say that the mishna is referring to a case where it gave birth to females, and those females also gave birth to females, until the end of time.

כגון שילדה נקבות עד סוף העולם.

מתני׳ תמורת הבכור והמעשר, ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף העולם — הרי אלו כבכור וכמעשר, ויאכלו במומן לבעלים.

MISHNA: With regard to the substitute of a firstborn offering and the substitute of an animal tithe offering, and the offspring of those substitutes and the offspring of their offspring until the end of time, the halakhic status of these animals is like that of a firstborn offering and like that of an animal tithe offering in that they must be treated with sanctity: They graze until they become blemished, and at that point they may be eaten in their blemished state, the substitute of the firstborn by the priests and the substitute of the animal tithe by their owners. They are not sacrificed upon the altar like the original firstborn and animal tithe offerings.

מה בין בכור ומעשר לבין כל הקדשים? שכל הקדשים נמכרים באיטלז, ונשחטין באיטלז, ונשקלין בליטרא, חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר.

What is the practical difference between a firstborn offering and an animal tithe offering and all the other sacrificial animals? The difference is that all the other sacrificial animals that were blemished and redeemed are sold in the butchers’ market [ba’itliz], and slaughtered in the butchers’ market, and weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner that non-sacred meat is slaughtered and sold. This is the case with regard to all consecrated animals except for the firstborn and animal tithe offerings, which are sold only from the home and not by the litra.

ויש להן פדיון, ולתמורותיהן פדיון, חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר. ובאין מחוצה לארץ, חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר, שאם באו תמימים — יקרבו, ואם בעלי מומין — יאכלו במומן לבעלים.

And in addition, all sacrificial animals that became blemished are subject to redemption through sale, at which point the money becomes sacred and the animal becomes non-sacred, and their substitutes are also subject to redemption through sale.This is true for all consecrated animals, except for the firstborn and animal tithe offerings, which are not subject to redemption. And all sacrificial animals come to be sacrificed in the Temple even from outside of Eretz Yisrael, except for the firstborn and animal tithe offerings, which should not be brought from outside Eretz Yisrael ab initio. But if they came unblemished, they are sacrificed in the Temple like a regular firstborn or animal tithe offering coming from Eretz Yisrael; and if they are blemished animals, they may be eaten in their blemished state, the firstborns by the priests and the animal tithes by their owners.

אמר רבי שמעון: מה טעם שהבכור והמעשר יש להן פרנסה ממקומן, ושאר כל הקדשים, אף על פי שנולד בהם מום — הרי אלו בקדושתן.

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the reason for this last difference between them? It is that the firstborn and animal tithe offerings have a remedy in their place outside Eretz Yisrael, as they can graze until they become blemished and then can be eaten there. It is not necessary to bring them to Eretz Yisrael in order to eat them. But with regard to all other sacrificial animals, even if a blemish develops in them, these animals remain in their sanctity, and one must redeem them and bring another offering with the money of their redemption. Therefore, when they are unblemished it is proper to bring these animals themselves to Eretz Yisrael.

גמ׳ אמר רבא בר רב עזא: בען במערבא — המטיל מום בתמורת בכור ומעשר מהו? מי אמרינן: כיון דלא קריבן — לא מיחייב, או דילמא:

GEMARA: With regard to the status of the substitute of firstborn and animal tithe offerings that was discussed in the mishna, Rava bar Rav Azza said that they inquired in the West, Eretz Yisrael: What is the halakha with regard to one who inflicts a blemish on the substitute of a firstborn offering or on the substitute of an animal tithe offering? Do we say that since they are not sacrificed on the altar like the actual firstborn or animal tithe offering, one who does this is not liable, as the prohibition against inflicting a blemish on a sacrificial animal applies only when one thereby disqualifies the animal from the altar, and that is not the case here; or perhaps since they are sanctified, he is liable for inflicting a blemish?

כיון דקדשו — מיחייב?

אמר ליה אביי: ותיבעי לך המטיל מום בתשיעי של מעשר!

Abaye said to Rava bar Rav Azza: And let the dilemma be raised in a case of one who inflicts a blemish on other sacrificial animals, such as the ninth animal counted while selecting the animal tithe offering, which was mistakenly declared to be the tenth. This animal is consecrated in that one is prohibited to work it or shear it until it becomes blemished, but it may not be sacrificed upon the altar.

אלא מאי שנא תשיעי, דלא קמיבעיא לך? דרחמנא מעטיה, ״עשירי״ — להוציא התשיעי.

Rather, what is different about the ninth animal, which one called the tenth, that you did not raise the dilemma about it? It is because the Merciful One excluded it, with the verse: “The tenth shall be holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), which serves to exclude from the altar the ninth that was mistakenly declared to be the tenth. One may derive from here that one who inflicts a blemish upon this ninth animal is not liable.

הכי נמי, רחמנא מעטינהו, ״לא תפדה קדש הם״ — הם קריבין, ואין תמורתן קריבה.

Here, too, with regard to the substitute of a firstborn, the Merciful One excluded it from the altar: “But the firstborn…you shall not redeem; they are holy” (Numbers 18:17). This indicates that they, the firstborns themselves, are sacrificed, but their substitute is not sacrificed, and it may be derived from here that one is also not liable for inflicting a blemish upon the substitute of a firstborn.

רב נחמן בר יצחק מתני לה הכי: אמר רב אחא בריה דרב עזא, בען במערבא: המטיל מום בתשיעי של מעשר מהו? אמר ליה:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teaches that statement in this way, in the opposite manner to the previous version: Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Azza, said that they inquired in the West, Eretz Yisrael: In the case of one who inflicts a blemish upon the ninth animal counted while selecting the animal tithe offering, what is the halakha? Abaye said to him: And let the dilemma be raised with regard to one who inflicts a blemish upon the substitute of a firstborn offering or the substitute of an animal tithe offering.

ותיבעי לך המטיל מום בתמורת בכור ומעשר!

אלא מאי שנא תמורת בכור ומעשר דלא מיבעיא לך? דרחמנא מעטינהו, ״קדש הם״ — הן קריבין ואין תמורתן קריבה. תשיעי של מעשר נמי רחמנא מעטיה,

Rather, what is different about the substitute of a firstborn or the substitute of an animal tithe that you did not raise the dilemma about them? It is because the Merciful One excluded them, as it is stated: “They are holy,” which indicates that they themselves are sacrificed, but their substitutes are not sacrificed. With regard to the ninth animal counted while selecting the animal tithe as well, the Merciful One excluded it, as it is stated: “The tenth,” which serves to exclude from the altar the ninth that was mistakenly declared to be the tenth.

״העשירי״ — להוציא את התשיעי.

ואם באו תמימין כו׳. ורמינהו: בן אנטיגנוס העלה בכורות מבבל ולא קבלו ממנו! אמר רב חסדא: לא קשיא, הא — רבי ישמעאל, הא — רבי עקיבא.

§ The mishna teaches that although the firstborn and animal tithe offerings should not be brought from outside Eretz Yisrael ab initio, if they came unblemished, they may be sacrificed. With regard to this issue, the Gemara raises a contradiction: There was an incident where ben Antigonus brought up firstborn animals from Babylonia in order to sacrifice them and they did not accept them in the Temple. Rav Ḥisda said: That is not difficult: This statement in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, while this case of ben Antigonus is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

דתניא: רבי יוסי אומר שלשה דברים משום שלשה זקנים, רבי ישמעאל אומר: יכול יעלה אדם מעשר שני בזמן הזה ויאכלנו בירושלים?

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagreed over this matter: Rabbi Yosei says three matters in the name of three elders: Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva, and Ben Azzai, each of whom issued a different statement with regard to a firstborn and second tithe. Rabbi Yishmael says that one might have thought that a person may bring up second tithe in the present day to Jerusalem and eat it in Jerusalem.

ודין הוא: בכור טעון הבאת מקום, ומעשר טעון הבאת מקום. מה בכור אינו נאכל אלא בפני הבית, אף מעשר אינו נאכל אלא בפני הבית. לא,

But the opposite conclusion should be derived through logical inference from the halakha of a firstborn: A firstborn requires that it be brought to a specific place, i.e., Jerusalem, and second tithe requires that it be brought to a specific place. Just as a firstborn is eaten only in the presence of the Temple, so too, second tithe is eaten only in the presence of the Temple. This comparison can be refuted: No, if you said that this is true with regard to a firstborn, that it may be eaten only in the presence of the Temple, as it requires placing the blood and sacrificial portions of the offering upon the altar, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to second tithe, for which this is not required?

אם אמרת בבכור — שכן טעון מתן דמים ואימורים לגבי מזבח, תאמר במעשר דלא?!

אמרת: ביכורים טעונין הבאת מקום, ומעשר טעון הבאת מקום. מה ביכורים אין נאכלין אלא בפני הבית, אף מעשר אין נאכל אלא בפני הבית.

Rather, perhaps you will say that the halakha of eating second tithe in Jerusalem in the present is derived from a comparison to first fruits: First fruits require that they be brought to a specific place, i.e., Jerusalem, and second tithe requires that they be brought to a specific place. Just as first fruits may be eaten only in the presence of the Temple, so too, second tithe may be eaten only in the presence of the Temple.

מה לביכורים, שכן טעונין הנחה, תאמר במעשר דלא?!

But this comparison is also flawed, as what is unique about first fruits? They are unique in that they require placement before the altar, as it is stated: “And the priest shall take the basket out of your hand, and set it down before the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:4). Perhaps it is for this reason that they must be eaten in the presence of the Temple. Shall you say that this is also the case with regard to second tithe, which is not obligated in placement before the altar?

תלמוד לומר: ״ואכלת לפני ה׳ אלהיך... מעשר דגנך ותירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וצאנך״, הקיש מעשר לבכור: מה בכור אינו נאכל אלא בפני הבית,

The verse states with regard to second tithe: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God in the place that 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 cattle and sheep” (Deuteronomy 14:23). This verse compares second tithe to the firstborn: Just as a firstborn is eaten only in the presence of the Temple, so too, second tithe is eaten only in the presence of the Temple. This concludes the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

אף מעשר אין נאכל אלא בפני הבית.

וליהדר דינא, וליתי ב״מה הצד״!

The Gemara analyzes the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael: But let the inference return and compare second tithe to both the firstborn and first fruits together, and let the halakha of second tithe be derived by analogy from the common element [bema hatzad] of the two sources: Just as the firstborn and first fruits both require that they be brought to a specific place and are not eaten in the present time, so too, second tithe, which also requires that it must be brought to a specific place, should not be eaten in the present time.

אמר רב אשי: משום דאיכא למימר, מה להצד השוה שבהן, שכן יש בהן צד מזבח.

Rav Ashi said: The halakha of second tithe cannot be derived in this manner, because it can be said: What is notable about the common element of these cases? They are notable in that they have an aspect of their halakha that involves the altar: A firstborn must have its blood and sacrificial portions placed upon the altar, and first fruits must be placed before the altar, whereas no obligation with regard to the altar applies to the second tithe at all.

ומאי קסבר? אי קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא, לא שנא בכור ולא שנא מעשר בני הבאה נינהו. ואי קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא

According to Rabbi Yishmael, a firstborn is not eaten in the present day, but with regard to second tithe he is uncertain about the halakha. The Gemara asks: And what does he hold? If he holds that the initial consecration both sanctified Jerusalem for its time and sanctified Jerusalem forever, including the period after the destruction of the Temple, then a firstborn is no different and second tithe is no different, as both are capable of being brought to Jerusalem: In the case of the firstborn, an altar may be built upon which it may be offered, while second tithe may be eaten in Jerusalem, and the presence of the Temple is not required for either one. And if he holds that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time but did not sanctify Jerusalem forever, and he is still uncertain about the status of second tithe, then raise the dilemma even with regard to the firstborn.

קידשה לעתיד לבא, אפילו בכור נמי תיבעי לך!

לעולם קסבר, קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא, והכא במאי עסקינן — כגון שנזרק דמו של בכור בפני הבית, וחרב הבית, ועדיין בשרו קיים.

The Gemara answers: Actually, he holds that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time but did not sanctify it forever, and here we are dealing with a case where the blood of a firstborn offering was sprinkled upon the altar before the Temple was destroyed, and then the Temple was destroyed, but its flesh was still in existence.

כיון דאי איתיה לדם (לא) [לאו] בר זריקה הוא, אתי בשר יליף מדם,

Since if the blood is still there and had not yet been sprinkled upon the altar, it is not subject to sprinkling, as the Temple has been destroyed, and consequently the meat of the firstborn offering may not be eaten. This halakha comes and is derived from the halakha of the blood, based upon the juxtaposition in the following verse: “You shall sprinkle their blood against the altar… and their flesh shall be yours” (Numbers 18:17–18). This teaches that the meat may be eaten only when the blood is fit to be sprinkled upon the altar. By contrast, there is no such juxtaposition with regard to second tithe, and therefore Rabbi Yishmael remains uncertain whether it may be eaten in the present time in Jerusalem.

ואתי מעשר ויליף מבכור. ומי ילפינן (קדש) [בקדשים] מהדדי? והאמר רבי יוחנן: כל התורה כולה למדין למד מן הלמד, חוץ מן הקדשים שאין למדין למד מן הלמד!

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 from another source.

מעשר חולין הוא. הניחא למאן דאמר בתר למד אזלינן, אלא למאן דאמר בתר מלמד אזלינן, מאי איכא למימר? בשר ודם חדא מילתא היא.

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. Therefore, the meat is not considered as derived from another halakha.

רבי עקיבא אומר: יכול יעלה אדם בכור מחוצה לארץ לארץ בזמן שבית המקדש קיים ויקריבנו? תלמוד לומר: ״ואכלת לפני ה׳ אלהיך מעשר דגנך ותירושך

§ 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.

ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וצאנך״ — ממקום שאתה מעלה מעשר דגן, אתה מעלה בכור.

וממקום שאי אתה מעלה מעשר דגן — אי אתה מעלה בכור.

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.

בן עזאי אומר: יכול (מעלה את) [יעלה אדם] מעשר שני, ויאכלנו בכל הרואה? ודין הוא: בכור טעון הבאת מקום, ומעשר טעון הבאת מקום — מה בכור

§ The Gemara relates the third statement in the baraita, which discusses second tithe: Ben Azzai says that one might have thought that he may bring up second tithe and eat it in any place that overlooks Jerusalem.But could this matter not be derived through logical inference: A firstborn offering requires that it be brought to the place, i.e., Jerusalem, and a second tithe requires that it be brought to the place. Just as a firstborn animal is eaten only within the walls of Jerusalem, so too, second tithe is eaten only within the walls of Jerusalem.

אינו נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה, אף מעשר אינו נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה.

מה לבכור — שכן טעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח, תאמר במעשר דלא?! תלמוד לומר: ״ואכלת לפני ה׳ אלהיך... מעשר דגנך ותירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וצאנך״

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 upon the altar. Shall you also say that this is the case with regard to second tithe, where that is not required? 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.” The verse juxtaposes second tithe and the firstborn, to teach that just as the firstborn is eaten only within the walls, so too, second tithe is eaten only within the walls.

— מקיש מעשר לבכור: מה בכור אינו נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה, אף מעשר אינו נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה.

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,

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 and the Temple in Jerusalem is only that in Shiloh one eats offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., individual peace offerings, thanks offerings, and the Paschal lamb, and also the second tithe, in any place that overlooks Shiloh,but in Jerusalem one eats those consecrated items only within the walls.

וכן קדשי קדשים לפנים מן הקלעים, מהו דתימא בירושלים ליתי מעשר שני בכל הרואה? קא משמע לן.

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.

אחרים אומרים: יכול יהא בכור שעברה שנתו כפסולי המוקדשין, ויפסל?

§ 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.

תלמוד לומר: ״מעשר דגנך ותירושך ויצהרך״, מקיש בכור למעשר, מה מעשר אינו נפסל משנה לחבירתה, אף בכור אינו נפסל משנה לחבירתה.

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.

ולרבנן, דמפקי להו לטעמא אחרינא, משנה לחבירתה מנא להו? נפקא להו מ״לפני ה׳ אלהיך תאכלנו שנה בשנה״, לימד על הבכור שאינו נפסל משנה לחברתה.

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.

ולאחרים, לפני ״ה׳ אלהיך תאכלנו שנה בשנה״, מאי דרשי ביה? מיבעי ליה לכדתניא: יום אחד משנה זו, ויום אחד משנה אחרת,

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 for two days and one night in between.

לימד על הבכור שנאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד.

ורבנן, דנאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד מנא להו? אמר קרא: ״יהיה לך כחזה התנופה״.

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.

הדרן עלך אלו קדשים.

מתני׳ ולד חטאת, ותמורת חטאת, וחטאת שמתו בעליה — ימותו, ושעיברה שנתה, ושאבדה ונמצאת בעלת מום, אם משכפרו הבעלים — תמות, ואינה עושה תמורה.

MISHNA: 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, and it does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.