Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 21 for kids: Where May It Go?

תמורה כ״א

🗺️ This daf asks what happens to substitutes for firstborn animals and animal tithes. It also asks where firstborn animals may be brought and where second tithe may be eaten.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 21a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 21b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Temurah 21

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 21 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 21a, in English Tab translation (22)
  1. It itself — the offspring is not offered, even though the offspring of a substitute is fit to be offered.
  2. What answer would he have given him? — His saying, “I will give you forced Babylonian answers,” implies that he knew another answer.
  3. These are like a firstborn and an animal tithe — they have all the sanctity of a firstborn or animal tithe and may not be sold in the butchers’ market after they develop a blemish and are redeemed.
  4. Except for a firstborn and an animal tithe — selling them brings no benefit to the Temple treasury: the proceeds from a firstborn belong to the priest, and those from an animal tithe belong to its owner. We do not treat sacred animals with less dignity for their benefit.
  5. If a firstborn or animal tithe develops a blemish, it cannot be removed from its sanctity: of the firstborn it says, “You shall not redeem,” and of the animal tithe it says, “It shall not be redeemed.”
  6. Except for a firstborn and an animal tithe — unlike other offerings, they should not initially be brought from outside the Land of Israel.
  7. A firstborn and an animal tithe have a remedy where they are — they can graze until they develop a blemish and then be eaten there by those entitled to them. Other offerings remain sacred even after developing a blemish; they must be redeemed, and their proceeds brought for an offering. Since their proceeds must eventually be offered, the animals themselves should be brought and offered.
  8. He is not liable — to receive lashes for violating “No blemish shall be in it.”
  9. Let the question be asked about the ninth animal of the tithe — for example, if he called the ninth animal “the tenth.” It becomes sacred but is not offered, as we learn at the end of Bekhorot: the ninth may be eaten once it develops a blemish.
  10. To exclude the ninth — it is not offered. Since it is not offered, it is clear to us that one who inflicts a blemish on it is not liable. The same applies here.
  11. Ben Antigonus, but they did not accept his view — this conflicts with the mishna, which says that if they arrive unblemished, they are offered.
  12. This follows Rabbi Yishmael, and so on — this is explained later.
  13. Three elders — Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva, and Ben Azzai.
  14. A firstborn, second tithe, and first fruits — all must be brought to the designated place. The verse says, “You shall bring there your burnt offerings … and the offering of your hand”; “the offering of your hand” refers to first fruits.
  15. Just as a firstborn may not be eaten, and so on — as explained below, its blood must be placed on the altar and its sacrificial portions offered there.
  16. First fruits may be eaten only while the Temple stands — as it says, “You shall place it before the Lord your God.”
  17. Placing it — before the altar, as it says, “You shall place it before the Lord your God.”
  18. Let the reasoning return, and so on — why is a verse needed? The firstborn could serve as proof. The shared feature of the cases is that they must be brought to the designated place and may be eaten only while the Temple stands; the same would then apply to second tithe.
  19. What does he hold? — He is certain that a firstborn may not be eaten, but is uncertain about second tithe.
  20. And sanctified it for the future — both the firstborn and second tithe may be brought, and the firstborn may be offered, since Jerusalem remains sanctified even now for offerings.
  21. But if it was not sanctified for the future — if second tithe is nevertheless in doubt, the firstborn should also be in doubt. Why, then, does he derive the law of second tithe from the firstborn?
  22. In fact, it was not sanctified for the future — As for why the law of the firstborn is clear to him, this is a case where its blood was sprinkled while the Temple stood and the Temple was then destroyed. He derives the law of its meat from that of its blood: just as its blood could not be sprinkled now, because the sanctity did not endure, its meat may not be eaten now.
Tosafot on Temurah 21a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. One who inflicts a blemish on a substitute for a firstborn or animal tithe—what is the law? — In Menachot 56b, the sages disagree about someone who inflicts a blemish on an already blemished sacrificial animal: one view holds that he is liable to lashes, and the other that he is not. The question here applies to both views. According to the first, perhaps he is liable there because the animal was once fit for sacrifice, unlike these substitutes, which never are. According to the second, perhaps he is exempt there because the animal was already blemished, but liable here because the substitute was originally unblemished. Or perhaps neither distinction matters.
  2. If he holds that the original sanctification took effect both for its time and for the future, a firstborn should also be brought — Rashi explains in Zevachim 107b that, on this view, sacrifices may be offered even without a Temple. But does that not require an altar, which is absent? The question may concern a firstborn slaughtered and its blood sprinkled before the Temple was destroyed, so that only eating it within the walls remains, as with second tithe. Alternatively, the question may be why one cannot bring a firstborn and build an altar. Rashi’s text continues: ‘But if he holds that the sanctification did not endure, the firstborn too should require it.’ This is difficult: on that view, Jerusalem has no greater sanctity than other cities. Moreover, Zevachim says that on this view second tithe may be eaten in any Israelite city. The latter difficulty can be answered: this passage concerns second tithe from produce sown before the Temple’s destruction, which still had to be brought to Jerusalem; the ruling about eating it in any city does not apply to it.
  3. Rashi’s text reads: ‘He holds that the sanctification did not endure’ — This is difficult. Why invoke the comparison of the firstborn’s meat to its blood? Without a wall, the meat should already be disqualified as having gone outside its permitted area. Also, Zevachim 60a uses that same comparison to forbid eating lesser offerings when the altar is damaged; it does not make the comparison depend on whether the original sanctification endured. Rabbi Yitzchak therefore reads: ‘If he holds that it did not endure, second tithe should not be brought’—meaning tithe from produce sown before the destruction, as explained above. The answer then reads: ‘He holds that the original sanctification took effect both for its time and for the future. As for your question why a firstborn should not also be brought, the case is one where its blood was sprinkled before the Temple was destroyed.’ This resolves the difficulties. My teacher asked: We understand why that firstborn may be eaten only while the Temple stands, since the Gemara compares its meat to its blood. But why should first fruits that were laid down before the destruction be subject to the same limit? He answered that they may indeed be eaten even now; the prohibition concerns first fruits not yet laid down. The Gemara’s question, ‘What is different about first fruits, which require being laid down?’ supports this. The case of a firstborn whose blood was sprinkled before the destruction explains the baraita’s concluding comparison of second tithe to a firstborn: like the tithe, that firstborn lacks only arrival at the place where it may be eaten. The baraita, however, concerns first fruits not yet laid down; those laid down before the destruction may be eaten afterward.
Rashi on Temurah 21b, in English Tab translation (23)
  1. And second tithe comes and is learned from the firstborn — The verse “You shall eat before the Lord…” juxtaposes second tithe with the firstborn. Since Rabbi Yishmael is certain that a firstborn may be eaten only while the Temple stands, second tithe is learned from it.
  2. And do we derive one consecrated item from another? — Here, the rule for the meat is learned from the blood, and the rule for second tithe from the meat.
  3. But Rabbi Yoḥanan said… — He explains the reason in tractate Zevaḥim 49b.
  4. Something derived from something else — Here, second tithe is learned from the meat, while the meat itself is learned from the blood.
  5. It is non-sacred — Therefore, a rule may be derived for it.
  6. We follow the item being taught — If it is non-sacred, its rule may be derived from the source that teaches it.
  7. We follow the source that teaches — The blood that serves as the source would have to be non-sacred.
  8. What can be said? — The source here is a firstborn, which is consecrated. I find this difficult: If he holds that Jerusalem’s sanctity did not endure for the future, why is he uncertain about second tithe? I believe the wording of the Jerusalem Talmud found in the texts is correct; that is also how I learned it in Makkot 19a: If he holds that its sanctity endured, he should have a question about the firstborn too; if not, he should have no question about second tithe either. Rather, he holds that its sanctity endured, and the firstborn about which he is certain is one whose blood was sprinkled while the Temple stood. Do not read, “Since, if the blood were present, it could not be sprinkled…” Instead read: “The meat comes and is learned from the blood: just as its blood requires an altar, so does its meat.” That is, just as its blood is sprinkled only when there is an altar, its meat is eaten only when there is an altar. Second tithe is then learned from that meat.
  9. The tithe of grain is brought only from the Land of Israel — As stated at the end of the first chapter of Kiddushin 36b.
  10. You may bring up a firstborn — The baraita saying that the firstborn offerings brought by ben Antigonus were not accepted follows Rabbi Akiva. The mishna follows Rabbi Yishmael, who does not use this verse for that derivation.
  11. Anywhere within sight — Any place visible to someone standing in Jerusalem.
  12. And it follows logically — That second tithe is not eaten there.
  13. Just as a firstborn is eaten only within the walls — Sacrificial food becomes disqualified when taken outside.
  14. What is distinctive about a firstborn? Its time of eating and who may eat it are restricted — It may be eaten for only two days and one night, whereas second tithe may be eaten indefinitely. Only priests may eat it, whereas anyone may eat second tithe.
  15. What difficulty prompted him? — Why did ben Azzai suggest that it might be eaten anywhere within sight of Jerusalem? Why was a verse needed to rule that out?
  16. And in Jerusalem, within the walls — Ben Azzai’s difficulty is this: Offerings of lesser sanctity require the application of blood to the altar, but second tithe does not. Why, then, should second tithe not be eaten anywhere within sight? The verse teaches that it may not.
  17. And become disqualified — From being sacrificed, because the verse says “year by year.”
  18. Year by year — This can imply as many as seven years.
  19. One day in this year — It was slaughtered as required at the end of its first year. The verse teaches that it may be eaten that day and the next, even though the next day falls in another year.
  20. Like the breast of the wave offering — The breast and thigh of a peace offering may be eaten for two days and one night. Alternatively, in “And their meat shall be yours, like the breast of the wave offering,” we would otherwise have taken the stricter view and compared it to the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving offering. The added word “shall be” allows another equal period: a second day.
  21. Mishna: And it was lost and found with a blemish — Before its owner achieved atonement through another offering.
  22. If the owners achieved atonement — Afterward, through another offering.
  23. It must die — Even the Rabbis, who later disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and say that a sin offering dies only if found after its owners achieved atonement, agree here: it has two defects, having been lost and then found with a blemish. That is why the mishna specifies a blemished animal. If it were unblemished and found before atonement, it would be left to graze, even if its owners later achieved atonement through another offering.
Tosafot on Temurah 21b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. From a place from which you do not bring up grain tithe, you do not bring up a firstborn — We now find a dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael holds that one should not initially bring a firstborn or animal tithe from outside the Land of Israel, but if unblemished animals were brought, they may be sacrificed, as in our Mishnah. Rabbi Akiva holds that even after they have been brought, they may not be sacrificed: the firstborn is juxtaposed to grain tithe. The case of ben Antigonus follows his view. But what is Rabbi Yishmael’s reason? If he accepts that juxtaposition, they should be prohibited even after being brought; if not, they should be permitted from the outset. His ruling may instead come from the Sifrei’s interpretation cited above: ‘Only your sacred things that you have ...’ teaches that sacred animals may be brought from outside the Land of Israel. One might think this includes firstborn and animal tithe; ‘only’ excludes them. That exclusion applies only to bringing them in the first instance, which is what the verse discusses when it says, ‘You shall take and come.’
  2. One might think a person may bring up second tithe and eat it, and so on — Why would we think it could be eaten anywhere within sight of Jerusalem, when the verse says ‘before the Lord your God’? Because at Shiloh, second tithe could be eaten anywhere within sight of it. Some texts include this question and answer.
  3. Mishnah: The offspring of a sin offering, and a sin offering that was lost and found blemished — Rashi explains that even the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi and say below that a sin offering is put to death only if found after its owner gained atonement, agree here because it has two disqualifying circumstances: it was lost and found blemished. That is why the Mishnah specifies a blemish: if it were unblemished and found before atonement, it would be left to graze even if the owner later gained atonement through another offering. This is unconvincing. It implies that additional disqualifying circumstances lead to its being put to death, whereas our discussion suggests that they lead to grazing: Rava says that an animal lost at night does not count as lost, so it grazes rather than being put to death. Moreover, Rabbi Abba says below that all agree that if the owner gained atonement through an animal that was not lost, the lost one is put to death. That is the case here, so why would Rabbi Abba need the Mishnah to specify a blemish? Admittedly, passages in Pesachim, Menachot, and below in Temurah do not accept Rabbi Abba’s view. Also, the Gemara later infers from the Mishnah’s next clause that it follows the Rabbis; it could instead have inferred this from its specifying a blemish. It therefore seems better to say that the blemish is specified to teach a surprising point: despite the added circumstances of being lost and blemished, one might have thought this case was like an animal lost at night, which is left to graze. The Mishnah teaches that it is nevertheless put to death.
  4. If the owners gained atonement, it is put to death — Each authority understands this according to his view: Rabbi says so even if it was found before atonement; the Rabbis say so if it was found afterward.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Temura 21.