Talmud - Temurah 8a תמורה ח׳ א׳

§ Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: With regard to a firstborn offering, it is stated: “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy: And you shall sprinkle their blood against the altar” (Numbers 18:17). But it may be sold to another priest for consumption after its sacrifice. What era are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say it is in the present, say the latter clause of the verse: “And you shall sprinkle their blood against the altar.” Is there an altar in the present? Rather, it is obvious that it is referring to the time when the Temple is standing.

And what sort of animal are we dealing with here? If we say that it is referring to a blemished animal, say the latter clause of the verse: “And you shall sprinkle their blood against the altar, and burn their fat.” Is a blemished animal fit for sacrifice? Rather, is it not referring to an unblemished animal? And the baraita teaches that it may be sold. Evidently, the priest has the right of acquisition to an unblemished firstborn offering even when the Temple is standing and the animal must be sacrificed.

Rav Naḥman responds: Are the two clauses of the verse comparable? The first clause is stated with regard to a blemished animal, and it is teaching that it may be sold, and the latter clause is stated with regard to an unblemished animal, and it teaches that it is sacrificed as an offering. Unblemished animals may not be sold when the Temple is standing.

§ Rav Mesharshiyya raises an objection from a mishna (Yevamot 99a): In the case of a priestess’s offspring who was comingled with her maidservant’s offspring, when the comingled children have grown up, they free each other, and therefore whichever one was a slave will be emancipated. And even beforehand, they both may partake of teruma, as both a priest and the slave of a priest may partake of teruma. And they receive one share of teruma in the granary, because the slave of a priest receives no share. And their firstborn animals must graze until they become unfit for sacrifice by virtue of a blemish, and then they may be eaten with their blemish.

What era are we dealing with in this mishna? If we say it is in the present, what is different about our firstborn offerings, i.e., those of Israelites, and what is different about their firstborn offerings, those of priests? Ours also require that they have blemishes before they may be eaten. Why is the halakha stated specifically with regard to priests? Rather, is it not speaking of the time when the Temple is standing? Granted, if you say that the priest has the right of acquisition to an unblemished firstborn offering when the Temple is standing, it is well. But if you say that a priest does not have the right of acquisition, let the Temple treasurer [gizbar] come and take the firstborn offerings for sacrifice. Why are they left in the offspring’s possession until they develop blemishes?

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is speaking of the present. And as for that which is difficult for you: What is different about our firstborn offerings and what is different about their firstborn offerings, there is in fact a difference, as we must give ours to a priest once they are blemished. Although it is permitted for Israelites to eat blemished firstborn offerings, they are still required to give them to priests. By contrast, they, the offspring mentioned in the mishna, are different, since there is part of a priest in each of them due to the uncertainty of their parentage. And this is sufficient to dislodge the claims of all other priests to the animal.

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous discussion: If the mishna is referring to the present, why specifically discuss the firstborn offerings of these cases of uncertain parentage? Even our firstborn offerings should be left to graze until they are blemished. Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is referring to the time when the Temple is standing. And if the mishna is speaking of a blemished animal, does it make sense to say: They should graze until they become unfit for sacrifice? They are already unfit. Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is referring to unblemished animals, and it is only in a case such as this, when the owners might not be priests, that they definitely may not sell the animal. One can infer that a priest may sell an unblemished firstborn offering when the Temple is standing.

The Gemara explains: Actually, the mishna is referring to the present. What is difficult for you, the fact that even our firstborn offerings should graze until they are blemished? We Israelites are unable to deny the priest who claims the firstborn offering, as there is no member of the priesthood, however uncertain, here among the owners of the animal. By contrast, in these cases of uncertain parentage described in the mishna, they can deny the priest, as both of them can say to the priest: I am a priest, and I am a priest. Since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, both may keep their animals until they are blemished.

§ The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 4:5): A verse discussing an idolatrous city states: “You shall smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and its animals, with the edge of the sword. And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of the broad place thereof, and shall burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof” (Deuteronomy 13:16–17). Rabbi Shimon says: The term “its animals” serves to exclude firstborn kosher animals and the animal tithe that are in the city, as they are sacred. The term “its spoil” serves to exclude money used to redeem the second tithe that is found in the city, as it too is sacred.

What era are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say it is in the present, can there be an idolatrous city in the present day? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Sanhedrin 2a): A city may be designated as an idolatrous city only in accordance with the ruling of a court of seventy-one judges, i.e., the Great Sanhedrin? Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is referring to the period when the Temple is standing.

And to what type of animal is the baraita referring? If you say that it is referring to a blemished firstborn animal, which belongs to its owners, this is included in the term “its animals,” which one is commanded to destroy. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to an unblemished firstborn offering. And granted, if you say that the priest has the right of acquisition to an unblemished firstborn offering when the Temple is standing, it is well, as although it belongs to an individual, the Torah nevertheless exempts it from destruction. But if you say that a priest does not have the right of acquisition, why do I need to derive its exemption from the term “its animals”? One should derive its exemption from the term “its spoil,” from which one can infer: But not the spoils of Heaven.

The Gemara answers: Actually, the baraita is speaking of a blemished animal. And as for that which is difficult for you, that this is considered “its animals,” one can answer that this term includes only that which is eaten in the manner of its animals, without additional restrictions. This excludes even a blemished firstborn offering and animal tithe offering, which is not included in the category of “its animals.”

And which restrictions apply to the consumption of blemished firstborn animals? The restrictions are as we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 31a): All disqualified consecrated animals are redeemed and then sold in the butchers’ market [ba’itliz], where they fetch a higher price, in order to benefit the Temple treasury. And they are slaughtered in the butchers’ market, and their meat is weighed and sold by the litra, as is done with non-sacred meat, with the exception of a firstborn offering and animal tithe offering, as their benefit is accrued to their owners. The money will benefit their owners rather than the Temple treasury, and private individuals may not disgrace disqualified offerings by treating them as one would non-sacred meat.

§ The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one takes an oath falsely denying possession of another’s property, he must pay the value of that property and an additional one-fifth to the owner. The passage stating this halakha begins: “If anyone sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery” (Leviticus 5:21). By stating: “And commit a trespass against the Lord,” the verse serves to include one who denies possession of offerings of lesser sanctity belonging to another, as they are the property of their owner, who has the right to consume their meat after the sacrifice. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Ben Azzai says: The verse serves to include only one who denies possession of a peace offering of another, not other offerings of lesser sanctity. Abba Yosei ben Dosai says: Ben Azzai stated his halakha only with regard to a firstborn offering, that it is considered the property of the owner, i.e., the priest, but not with regard to other offerings of lesser sanctity.

What era are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say it is in the present, doesn’t the baraita teach the halakha of a firstborn offering as similar to the halakha of a peace offering? Peace offerings are not a relevant category in the present day. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to the period when the Temple is standing.

And what type of animal are we dealing with? If we say that the baraita is referring specifically to a blemished animal, doesn’t it teach the halakha of a firstborn offering as similar to the halakha of a peace offering? Peace offerings are the property of their owners even when they are unblemished. Rather, is it not referring even to an unblemished firstborn animal? And the baraita teaches that this animal is the property of its owner. Learn from it that the priest has the right of acquisition to an unblemished firstborn offering when the Temple is standing.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Temura 8a examines whether unblemished firstborn offerings can be sold to priests, alongside a case of comingled priestess and maidservant children eating teruma.