Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 8 for kids: Who Owns the Firstborn?

תמורה ח׳

🐑 This daf asks when a priest may own or sell a firstborn animal. The answer depends on whether the animal has a blemish and where it comes from.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 8a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 8b 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 8

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 8 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 8a, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. Of the firstborn it says, “You shall not redeem” — It cannot be redeemed so that the redemption money becomes sacred and the animal becomes non-sacred.
  2. But it may be sold — It must still be eaten with the restrictions of its sacred status: it may not be slaughtered in a marketplace or sold by weight.
  3. Say the latter clause — Of the verse that says, “You shall not redeem.”
  4. The first clause of the verse concerns a blemished animal — That is why we infer that it may be sold. The latter clause, which says, “You shall sprinkle their blood,” concerns an unblemished animal.
  5. With her maidservant’s child — It is unknown which child is the priest and which is the slave.
  6. They free each other — Each writes to the other: “If I am the master and you are the slave, you are free.” Both may then marry an Israelite woman.
  7. And both may eat teruma — Until they free each other, since a priest’s slave may also eat teruma.
  8. And they receive one share at the granary — When they come together, they are given teruma; neither receives a share alone, since he might be the slave. This tanna holds that a slave receives no share unless his master is with him, lest people mistakenly treat him as being of priestly lineage.
  9. And their firstborn animals — If a firstborn animal is born in the herd of either of these two people of uncertain status, it grazes until it develops a blemish, as the Gemara explains.
  10. How are ours different from theirs? Ours also — Cannot be eaten until they develop a blemish. At this point, the questioner has not considered the mishna’s statement that they eat their animals once blemished, whereas we must give ours to a priest. Rav Nachman makes this distinction in his answer.
  11. Rather, is it not when the Temple stands? — We would give our firstborn animals to a priest to sacrifice, but these two may keep theirs, although a priest’s animals are also subject to the firstborn law. Normally a priest loses nothing: he offers the firstborn’s sacrificial portions and eats its meat. Here, one of the two may not be a priest. If they gave up the animal for sacrifice, they could no longer eat it, since an unblemished firstborn may be eaten only by priests. So it grazes until blemished; then each can tell a claimant, “I am a priest and may eat it.” Once it is blemished, only a possible claim of ownership remains, and the claimant bears the burden of proof.
  12. That works — He can keep the animal, saying, “Perhaps I am a priest and already acquired it. I will not give it to another priest, but will wait until I can eat it.”
  13. But if you say he has no right — If a priest does not acquire a living firstborn animal, why let this person keep it from the altar? The Temple treasurer should take it and give it to a priest of certain status, since a priest would acquire it only after its sacrifice. This must concern an unblemished animal, for the mishna says it grazes until blemished. Thus it appears that a priest acquires even a living, unblemished firstborn.
  14. Actually, it refers to the present — The animal grazes because it cannot now be sacrificed, and its owner has acquired it. We must give our firstborn animals to priests when blemished: although non-priests may then eat them, keeping them would violate the priest’s ownership rights. These two, however, can each say, “I am a priest and have acquired it.” The ownership is uncertain, so a claimant must bring proof.
  15. Its animals — Concerning an idolatrous city, the verse says, “And its animals with the edge of the sword.” “Its animals” implies animals belonging to the city, in which Heaven has no share.
  16. Excluding second-tithe money within it — This follows the view that the second tithe is sacred property.
  17. An idolatrous city is not established, etc. — The reason is explained in the first chapter of Sanhedrin.
  18. That is why it says “its animals” — A priest eats the firstborn and an Israelite eats the animal tithe, so Heaven has no ownership share in them.
  19. That works — A verse is therefore needed to exclude them under “its animals”; they cannot be excluded as “not its spoil,” because they are not Heaven’s property: the priest has acquired the firstborn. Alternatively, the discussion plainly concerns an unblemished animal. Excluding it under “its animals” shows that it belongs to the priest. On this reading too, the need for “its animals,” rather than “its spoil,” shows that the priest acquires it while it is alive.
  20. To include offerings of lesser sanctity — If someone entrusts a peace offering, firstborn animal, or animal tithe to another person, who denies holding it, swears falsely, and then admits it, that person pays the principal and an additional fifth and brings an offering for the false oath. These offerings count as the owner’s property under “and deals falsely with his fellow.”
  21. Ben Azzai says: To include peace offerings — They are certainly the owner’s property. Animal tithe is not: its owner cannot sell it, whether alive or slaughtered, unblemished or blemished, as explained in the chapter on the four primary categories of damages.
  22. Ben Azzai spoke only of a firstborn — This is a case where a priest entrusted his firstborn to someone who denied holding it, swore falsely, and then admitted it. A peace offering is not the owner’s property, because its sanctity requires laying hands on it, libations, and waving its breast and thigh. Animal tithe is not the owner’s property either, since it cannot be sold, as explained in the first chapter of Bava Kamma.
  23. But it is taught alongside peace offerings — And peace offerings cannot be brought in the present.
  24. If it is blemished, it is taught alongside peace offerings — The included peace offerings must be unblemished, yet they belong to their owners and are not subject to misuse of sacred property while alive. For a priest’s firstborn, one might distinguish an unblemished animal, which he receives only from Heaven’s table after its sacrificial portions are burned, from a blemished one, which God grants him immediately because it cannot be offered. No such distinction applies to an Israelite’s peace offering: he does not receive it from Heaven’s table and owns it while alive, whether blemished or unblemished.
  25. Rather, is it not unblemished? — Someone who falsely denied holding the firstborn is liable to bring an offering for the false oath. Evidently, the firstborn is the priest’s property.
Tosafot on Temurah 8a, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. Of a firstborn it says, “You shall not redeem” — It remains holy forever in the sense that it may not be sold in a butcher’s market or weighed by the pound.
  2. Look at the latter clause: “You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar” — This refers to the latter clause of the verse.
  3. If it is blemished, it counts as “its animals” — One might ask: Why not say this follows the Rabbis, who hold that the firstborn is not its owner’s property? The difficulty is chiefly with the animal tithe: everyone agrees that a blemished animal tithe belongs to its owner. Rabbi Meir HaLevi.
  4. If it is in the present, it is taught alongside peace offerings — In the first chapter of Bava Kamma, Rashi explains that the case must be from the time of the Temple: the verse concerns an oath about a deposit, for which a guilt offering was required only when the Temple stood. Here, however, the comparison to peace offerings is needed in any event to show that the animal is unblemished, not blemished, as the Gemara says shortly. That is why the Gemara uses this comparison rather than Rashi’s reasoning.
Rashi on Temurah 8b, in English Tab translation (22)
  1. Actually, it is unblemished — This does not contradict Rav Nachman. The case in which a priest acquires a firstborn animal during its lifetime concerns an animal from outside Eretz Yisrael, which is not ordinarily meant for sacrifice, even when the Temple stands. It is like a peace offering: if brought, it may be sacrificed, but it is not ordinarily brought for sacrifice.
  2. And it follows Rabbi Shimon — He says later, in the chapter “These Consecrated Animals,” that if unblemished firstborn animals came from outside Eretz Yisrael, they may be sacrificed. “If they came” means they are not brought in the first place.
  3. It teaches that they are like a sin offering and a guilt offering — Those offerings are unblemished here: the passage says priests do not acquire them during their lifetimes but do acquire them after slaughter. It is therefore speaking of animals fit for sacrifice.
  4. Let us say it is a dispute between tanna’im — Whether a priest acquires an unblemished firstborn animal during its lifetime while the Temple stands.
  5. Is this not what it means? — According to the first tanna, once the firstborn is in the priest’s possession, its original owner cannot make a substitution with it, but the priest can, because he has acquired it.
  6. No — They disagree as Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and Rabbi Akiva do in the mishna. That dispute was explained as concerning a firstborn from outside Eretz Yisrael. The first tanna says the priest can make a substitution once he receives it, because he acquires it during its lifetime: it is not ordinarily meant for sacrifice. This follows Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri. Rabbi Shimon follows Rabbi Akiva: although the priest acquires it, he cannot make a substitution with it, as Rabbi Akiva derives from the comparison in the mishna, “Where does its sanctity take effect upon it?” An alternative explanation is that the Israelite can make a substitution but the priest cannot.
  7. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, ‘Neither this one nor that one’ — That means neither the priest nor the Israelite. Does their dispute concern Rav Nachman’s view? The first tanna says the original owner cannot make a substitution once the animal is with the priest because the priest has acquired it, while Rabbi Shimon rejects that view. No: all agree that Rav Nachman’s view does not apply to an ordinary firstborn. They disagree as Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and Rabbi Akiva do, concerning a firstborn from outside Eretz Yisrael. Another explanation: The first tanna says that once the animal is with the priest, neither the Israelite nor the priest can make a substitution, implying that the priest can still sell it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar adds that the priest cannot even sell it, since a later tanna comes to add a point. Does this mean the first tanna accepts Rav Nachman’s view and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar rejects it?
  8. They taught this only for a sale from priest to priest — A priest may sell an unblemished firstborn animal to another priest.
  9. ‘A priest gave me this firstborn when it was blemished’ — One priest could not make this claim to another priest. A priest who brings a firstborn before a halakhic authority must bring witnesses that its blemish arose on its own. As taught in Bekhorot: for blemishes that a person could cause, Israelite shepherds are trusted, but priestly shepherds are not, because priests are suspected concerning firstborn animals.
  10. But may a halakhic authority permit it this way? — Even if the blemish is permanent, may an authority permit an Israelite to eat the firstborn without a priest present?
  11. Unless a priest is with him — Otherwise, once the Israelite learns that the blemish is permanent and eating the animal would not violate the prohibition on eating consecrated meat outside the Temple, he might eat it without regard for the priest’s claim. He cannot simply say, ‘A priest gave it to me blemished’: he must bring that priest. Until then, the authority will not permit the firstborn to him unless he gives it to a priest.
  12. This is why an Israelite is forbidden — He may not buy an unblemished firstborn from a priest. Nowadays such an animal normally sells cheaply, since the buyer must keep it until it becomes blemished. A priest who gives an Israelite a discount thus looks like a priest who helps at the threshing floor, winnowing and binding sheaves to receive teruma. This appears to profane God’s name, as though he takes teruma as wages. Here too, the priest appears to be offering a discount so the Israelite will give him future firstborn animals from his flock.
  13. Let the Master eat, for it is healthful — Firstborn meat was considered healthier to eat than other meat.
  14. Where did you get this? — Who gave it to you? You are not priests.
  15. Do you not hold — That buying firstborn meat from a priest is forbidden? Perhaps he gives you a discount, making him look like a priest who offers assistance to receive priestly gifts.
  16. We bought it — There is no concern about such assistance, since he did not give it to us as a gift.
  17. To tend it — To take the trouble to raise the animal before giving it to a priest.
  18. Like a priest who offers assistance — He would be helping the owner merely by saving him the trouble of caring for the animal, so that the owner would give it to him.
  19. The matter is evident — It is plainly assistance, since he immediately saves the owner the work and cost of feeding the animal.
  20. What might you say? Perhaps the priest gives a discount — So that we will give our future firstborn animals to him rather than another priest.
  21. He does not — Act that way.
  22. For he bears in mind, ‘A small gourd now is better than a large gourd tomorrow’ — It is better to sell this animal for its full value now: if he reduces the price, he may gain nothing, since they might not give him their future firstborn animals. A ‘small gourd’ is a small squash, and a ‘large gourd’ is a large one.
Tosafot on Temurah 8b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. This follows Rabbi Shimon, who said: If unblemished firstborns were brought, they may be sacrificed — But they should not be brought in the first place, because the priests can provide for themselves where they live. Rabbi Akiva disagrees: Even if brought, they may not be sacrificed. He explains that Scripture links the firstborn to animal tithes, and animal tithes to grain tithes: just as grain tithes are not brought from outside the Land of Israel into it, neither are firstborns or animal tithes. Why not explain the case according to Rabbi Akiva, for whom the animal is even more clearly the priest’s property? Because on his view it is less like a peace offering.
  2. No, they disagree as Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and Rabbi Akiva disagree in the mishna — That is, we interpreted that dispute as concerning a firstborn from outside the Land of Israel.
  3. Perhaps the Israelite will blemish it, bring it to a sage, and say, ‘A priest gave me this firstborn already blemished’ — But why would that help? A sage would not permit an animal blemished while in a priest’s possession without witnesses, since priests are suspected of causing blemishes. He would have to say, ‘The priest gave it to me blemished, and I saw the blemish occur naturally.’ Why suspect an Israelite of causing a blemish? Bekhorot says that everyone is believed about a firstborn in an Israelite’s possession: priests, not Israelites, are suspected. Nor is that rule limited to a definite firstborn that the Israelite must eventually give to a priest; Rav Nachman says that owners are believed even about a possible firstborn. The cases differ: when an unblemished animal was in the Israelite’s possession from the start, he fears causing a blemish because he has no explanation for it. Here he can claim that the priest gave it to him blemished, so he is suspect. He would not simply claim that it became blemished naturally in his own possession without mentioning the priest: people would wonder why he troubled himself to bring an animal he did not own to a sage. The Gemara then objects from Rav Yehuda’s rule that a sage examines an Israelite’s firstborn only when a priest accompanies him, lest he keep it instead of giving it to a priest. Since he must bring the priest, he cannot claim that a priest gave it to him blemished: he will be told to bring the priest who gave it to him, and until he does, the firstborn will not be permitted.
  4. Rashi’s wording: The reason is that he appears like a priest who helps at the threshing floors — A priest may sell a firstborn cheaply to an Israelite hoping to receive another firstborn from him later. All the more so, he may not give it to him as a gift. One must also take care when an Israelite offers a priest a firstborn: if the priest says, ‘Keep it,’ he may not later accept it, because he would appear to be a priest who helps at the threshing floors.
  5. Rashi’s wording: The reason is that he appears like a priest who helps at the threshing floors — A priest may sell a firstborn cheaply to an Israelite hoping to receive another firstborn from him later. All the more so, he may not give it to him as a gift. One must also take care when an Israelite offers a priest a firstborn: if the priest says, ‘Keep it,’ he may not later accept it, because he would appear to be a priest who helps at the threshing floors.

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 8.