Temoura 8

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: בִּבְכוֹר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״ וְנִמְכָּר הוּא, בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה — אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״וְאֶת דָּמָם תִּזְרוֹק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה מִי אִיכָּא מִזְבֵּחַ? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים.

§ 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.

וּבְמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּבַעַל מוּם — אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״וְאֶת דָּמָם תִּזְרוֹק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאֶת חֶלְבָּם תַּקְטִיר״ — מִי חֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה?! אֶלָּא לָאו בְּתָם, וְקָתָנֵי נִמְכָּר הוּא, אַלְמָא אִית לְהוּ לְכֹהֵן זְכִיָּיה בְּגַוֵּיהּ!

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.

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? רֵישָׁא — בְּבַעַל מוּם, סֵיפָא — בְּתָם.

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.

מֵתִיב רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵבה וְלָדָהּ בִּוְלַד שִׁפְחָתָהּ, הִגְדִּילוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת — מְשַׁחְרְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם אוֹכְלִין בִּתְרוּמָה, וְחוֹלְקִין חֵלֶק אֶחָד עַל הַגּוֹרֶן. בְּכוֹרָן יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיֵאָכְלוּ בְּמוּמָן.

§ 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.

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה — מַאי שְׁנָא דִּידַן וּמַאי שְׁנָא דִּידְהוּ? דִּידַן נָמֵי מוּמִין בָּעֵינַן! אֶלָּא לָאו בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אִית לְהוּ לְכֹהֵן זְכִיָּיה בְּגַוֵּויהּ — שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לֵית לֵיהּ — לֵיתֵי גִּזְבָּר וְלִישְׁקְלֵהּ!

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?

לְעוֹלָם בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: מַאי שְׁנָא דִּידַן וּמַאי שְׁנָא דִּידְהוּ? אֲנַן יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן בְּמוּמַיְיהוּ, אִינְהוּ — כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא בְּהוּ מִקְצָת כֹּהֵן, מַפְקַע לֵיהּ לְכֹהֲנִים.

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.

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, מַאי אִירְיָא בְּכוֹרוֹת דְּהָלֵין סְפֵיקוֹת? אֲפִילּוּ דִּידַן נָמֵי יִרְעוּ! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, וְאִי בְּבַעַל מוּם — יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ? הָא מְסוֹאָבִין וְקָיְימִין! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּתַמִּין, וְהָכִי הוּא דְּלָא מְזַבְּנִי וַדַּאי.

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.

לְעוֹלָם בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, מַאי קַשְׁיָא לָךְ, אֲפִילּוּ דִּילַן נָמֵי יִרְעוּ? לָא (מָצִינוּ) [מָצֵינַן] מְדַחֵינַן לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן, דְּלָא אִית כָּאן סְפֵק כְּהוּנָּה. הָנֵי סְפֵיקוֹת מְדַחוּ לְכֹהֵן, כֹּל חַד וְחַד אָמַר לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן: דַּאֲנָא כֹּהֵן וַאֲנָא כֹּהֵן.

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.

מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״בְּהֶמְתָּהּ״ — פְּרָט לְבֶהֱמַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבָּהּ, ״שְׁלָלָהּ״ — פְּרָט לְכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבָּהּ.

§ 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.

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה — מִי אִיכָּא עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים.

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.

וּבְמַאי? אִי נֵימָא בְּבַעַל מוּם — הַיְינוּ ״בְּהֶמְתָּהּ״! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּתָם. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אִית לֵיהּ זְכִיָּיה בְּגַוֵּיהּ — שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לֵית לֵיהּ — לְמָה לִי מִבְּהֵמָה? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִ״שְּׁלָלָהּ״, וְלֹא שְׁלַל שָׁמַיִם!

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.

לְעוֹלָם בְּבַעַל מוּם, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ הַיְינוּ ״בְּהֶמְתָּהּ״ — מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל בְּתוֹרַת ״בְּהֶמְתָּהּ״, יָצְאוּ בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר (שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל) [שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִין בְּתוֹרַת] ״בְּהֶמְתָּהּ״.

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.”

דִּתְנַן: כׇּל פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִמְכָּרִין בָּאִיטְלִיז, וְנִשְׁחָטִין בָּאִיטְלִיז, וְנִשְׁקָלִין בְּלִיטְרָא, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁהֲנָאָתָן לַבְּעָלִים.

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.

מֵיתִיבִי: ״וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים, שֶׁהֵן מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.

§ 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.

בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת שְׁלָמִים. אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסַאי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמַר בֶּן עַזַּאי אֶלָּא בִּבְכוֹר בִּלְבָד.

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.

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה — הָא דּוּמְיָא דִּשְׁלָמִים קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים.

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.

וּבְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּבַעַל מוּם — הָא דּוּמְיָא דִּשְׁלָמִים קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו בְּתָם, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אִית לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן זְכִיָּיה בְּגַוֵּויהּ.

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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא, לְעוֹלָם בְּתָם, וּבִבְכוֹר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא דְּאָמַר: אִם בָּאוּ תְּמִימִין יִקְרְבוּ.

Abaye says: No, actually, the baraita is referring to an unblemished animal when the Temple is standing, but it is speaking of a firstborn offering outside of Eretz Yisrael, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: If unblemished firstborn offerings came from outside of Eretz Yisrael, they may be sacrificed on the altar. This language indicates that there is no obligation to sacrifice such an animal, as people did not generally bring their firstborn offerings from outside Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, a priest is able to acquire it even when it is unblemished. Firstborn offerings from Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, cannot be acquired by the priests.

מֵיתִיבִי: אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: מָה לִי אִם אֵינוֹ מֵימֵר בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין זָכִין בָּהֶן בְּחַיֵּיהֶן, תֹּאמַר בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁזָּכִין בְּחַיָּיו. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּבַעַל מוּם — הָא דּוּמְיָא דְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם קָאָמַר, אֶלָּא לָאו בְּתָם, וְקָתָנֵי זָכִין בּוֹ בְּחַיָּיו!

§ The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him: What is this comparison for me? If a priest does not substitute for a sin offering and a guilt offering, which priests do not acquire during the animals’ lifetimes, will you say the same with regard to a firstborn, which priests acquire during the animal’s lifetime? What are we dealing with in the mishna? If we say that it is referring to a blemished animal, isn’t the mishna saying that the firstborn offering is similar to a sin offering and a guilt offering, which the priests acquire only unblemished? Rather, is it not referring to unblemished animals? And it nevertheless teaches: Which priests acquire during the animal’s lifetime.

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָא נָמֵי בִּבְכוֹר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אִם בָּאוּ תְּמִימִים — יִקְרְבוּ.

Ravina said: This mishna too is referring to a firstborn offering outside of Eretz Yisrael, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: If unblemished firstborn offerings came from outside of Eretz Yisrael, they may be sacrificed on the altar. The priests do not acquire firstborn offerings from Eretz Yisrael.

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: בְּכוֹר, בְּבֵית הַבְּעָלִים — עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, בְּבֵית הַכֹּהֵן — אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא לִידֵי כֹהֵן — אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that acquisition of the firstborn offerings by the priests is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im. The baraita states: In the case of a firstborn offering, when it is in the house of its owner, who did not yet give it to a priest, its owner can render another animal a substitute for it. Once it is in the house of the priest, its owner cannot render a substitute for it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Once it has entered the possession of the priest, its owner cannot render a substitute for it.

הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! מַאי לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: בְּבֵית כֹּהֵן — הוּא עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְאֵין בַּעַל עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, אַלְמָא אִית לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן זְכִיָּיה בְּגַוֵּויהּ.

Apparently, the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is identical to that of the first tanna. What is their dispute? What, is it not correct that this is what the first tanna is saying: Once it is in the house, i.e., possession, of the priest, the priest can render a substitute for it, but the owner cannot render a substitute for it, as the priest has acquired it; while Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that once it enters the possession of the priest, neither of them can render a substitute with it. Apparently, the first tanna holds that the priest has the right of acquisition to an unblemished firstborn offering when the Temple is standing.

לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, הָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

The Gemara explains: The opinion of the first tanna is not difficult; one can say that the dispute in the baraita concerns a firstborn offering outside of Eretz Yisrael, while those from Eretz Yisrael are not acquired by the priests. And this opinion of the first tanna accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri in the mishna above, and that opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar accords with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in that mishna.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן, אֲבָל כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּלְמָא אָזֵיל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא, וּמַמְטֵי לְחָכָם, וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״בְּכוֹר זֶה נָתַן לִי כֹּהֵן בְּמוּמוֹ״.

§ The Gemara earlier (7b) cited a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 1:2) which states that a firstborn offering may be sold unblemished only while it is alive. Rav Ḥisda says: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to a priest selling to a priest, but with regard to a priest selling it to an Israelite, it is prohibited even when the animal is alive. What is the reason? Since an Israelite can consume a firstborn animal only if it is blemished, there is a concern that perhaps the Israelite will go and inflict a blemish on the firstborn offering and bring it to a halakhic authority to attain permission to eat it, and he will say to him: A priest gave me this firstborn offering when it was already blemished.

וּמִי שָׁרֵי חָכָם הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַב: אֵין רוֹאִין בְּכוֹר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן כֹּהֵן עִמּוֹ!

The Gemara asks: And may a halakhic authority permit the animal in a case such as this? But didn’t Rav say: A halakhic authority may not look at a firstborn offering brought by an Israelite to determine if it has the type of permanent blemish allowing it to be slaughtered unless a priest is with him, out of concern that the Israelite will keep the blemished animal for himself without performing the mitzva of giving it to a priest? If so, one can demand that the priest who sold him the animal must be present, and this should prevent the Israelite from lying about the blemish.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּכֹהֵן הַמְסַיֵּיעַ בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת.

Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: This is the reason why it is prohibited for a priest to sell an unblemished firstborn offering to an Israelite: Because this looks like a priest who assists at the threshing floor in order to receive teruma from an Israelite. Unblemished firstborn offerings have a low purchase price, as the owner must wait for it to become blemished before eating it. It might appear that the priest sold the animal to an Israelite at a discount in order to receive future firstborns from him.

מָר זוּטְרָא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב אָשֵׁי. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לִטְעוֹם מָר מִידֵּי. אַיְיתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ בִּישְׂרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵיכוֹל מָר, דְּמַיבְרֵי מִשּׁוּם דְּבוּכְרָא הוּא. מְנָא לְכוּ הָא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: דְּזַבֵּן לַן פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן.

The Gemara relates: Mar Zutra arrived at the home of Rav Ashi. Those present said to him: Let the Master taste some food. They brought meat before him. The one who placed the meat before him said: Let the Master eat, as this meat is particularly healthful, because it is a firstborn. Mar Zutra asked: From where did you receive this firstborn animal? They said to him: It is an animal that so-and-so the priest sold to us.

אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא סְבִירָא לְכוּ הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּכֹהֵן הַמְסַיֵּיעַ בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא סְבִירָא לַן, דַּאֲנַן מִיזְבָּן קָא זָבְנִינַן.

Mar Zutra said to them: Do you not hold like that which Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said, that Israelites may not receive an unblemished firstborn offering from a priest because it looks like a priest who assists at the threshing floor? They said to Mar Zutra: We hold that this is not a concern, as we purchased it for its fair market value, and did not receive it at a discount. Therefore, there is no appearance of impropriety.

אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְלָא סְבִירָא לְכוּ הָדִתְנַן: עַד כַּמָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב לִיטַּפֵּל בַּבְּכוֹר? בַּדַּקָּה — שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, ובגסה — חמשים יום. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״תְּנֵהוּ לִי בְּתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִתְּנֶנּוּ לוֹ. וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מָה טַעַם? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּכֹהֵן הַמְסַיֵּיעַ בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת!

Mar Zutra said to them: But do you not hold like that which we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 26b): Until when is an Israelite obligated to tend to a firstborn animal before giving it to the priest? In the case of a small animal, a sheep or goat, thirty days, and in the case of a large animal, one of a herd of cattle, fifty days. And if the priest said to the owner: Give it to me within its period, the owner may not give it to him. And Rav Sheshet says: What is the reason for this? Because it looks like a priest who assists at the threshing floor, as the priest is assisting the Israelite by assuming the responsibility of tending to the firstborn.

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָתָם מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא, הָכָא מִזְבָּן קָא זָבְנִינַן.

They said to Mar Zutra: There the circumstances of the matter prove that the priest accepted responsibility to care for the animal in return for some benefit, and it has the appearance of impropriety. Here, we purchased it for its fair market value, and there is no appearance of impropriety.

לָשׁוֹן אַחֵר, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָכָא לָא יָהֵיב דְּמֵי, הָכָא קָא יָהֵיב דְּמֵי. מַאי אָמְרַתְּ? מוֹזֵיל כֹּהֵן גַּבֵּיהּ, דְּסָבַר כֹּהֵן דְּכִי הָוֵי לֵיהּ בְּכוֹר אַחֲרִינָא יָהֵיב נִיהֲלֵיהּ? לָא, דְּמַסֵּיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ:

The Gemara presents an alternative version of this final response. They said to Mar Zutra: There the Israelite does not give payment to the priest for accepting responsibility to care for the animal. Here, the Israelite gives payment to the priest, as we purchased the animal. And what would you say to this claim? Would you say that perhaps the priest lowered the price of the animal for us, as the priest thinks that when we have another firstborn offering we will give it to him, and therefore it has the appearance of impropriety? This is not a concern, as he thinks: