We come now to the last mishnah in the third chapter of Maseches Temurah, in which we sum up the laws of the temurah and the offspring of offerings. The final two offerings we will deal with are the bechor (firstborn) and the ma'aser (animal tithe).
Let us first review what these two offerings are:
The bechor: the first offspring of a cow, goat or sheep from a given mother. If it is a male, it is called a bechor and is given to a kohen, and the kohen offers it as a sacrifice and eats it. If it was born with a blemish, or a permanent blemish later developed in it, it is eaten as it is and there is no need to redeem it; in fact there is no permission to redeem it, as we will see. But until it is eaten its sanctity remains upon it, and therefore it is forbidden to work with it, to shear it if it is a sheep, to milk it and the like. One may only slaughter it and eat it.
The ma'aser: every year a person brings all his animals into a pen, and the tenth one to come out is marked as ma'aser (and if he had twenty animals, the tenth and the twentieth). The ma'aser is offered like a shelamim and is eaten by its owner. If the animal that comes out is blemished and cannot be offered, it is eaten immediately; but it too retains its sanctity until it is eaten, and therefore it may not be shorn and no work may be done with it.
The bechor is a male, and therefore it has no offspring of its own. But the mishnah also deals with temurah: one who makes a temurah on a bechor or a ma'aser can substitute a female for them, and even a blemished female, and she of course can have offspring.
The language of the mishnah:
"Temuras habechor v'hama'aser, v'ladan v'lad v'ladan ad sof ha'olam - harei eilu k'bechor uk'ma'aser, v'yei'achlu b'mumam laba'alim" - the temurah of a bechor and of a ma'aser, their offspring or the offspring of their temurah, and even later generations until the end of the world, all of them take on the very same sanctity as their parents. And what is done with them? Both the original bechor and ma'aser and the temurah and the offspring - all of them are eaten by their owners once a blemish develops in them.
The main novelty of the mishnah is not stated in it explicitly: the temurah and the offspring are not offered as a sacrifice. With an olah and a shelamim, one who makes a temurah - even though his act is disgraceful - now has two animals before him, the original and the temurah, and both of them are offered on the mizbe'ach as long as they are unblemished. Not so with a bechor and a ma'aser: the bechor and the ma'aser themselves are offered and eaten, but the temurah, the offspring and the entire chain of generations after them are never offered as a sacrifice; rather they are eaten once a blemish develops in them, just like the law of their parents.
This, then, is the first set of differences between the bechor and the ma'aser and the other offerings, such as the olah and the shelamim. But the mishnah adds a further category of differences.
A second category: commercial activity:
An offering in which a blemish developed - an olah, a shelamim, a chatas or an asham - is sold, and with the money received a new offering is bought and brought. The way to obtain the highest price is to sell it in the itliz, the meat market, where demand is greatest, and even to slaughter it there.
The problem is that selling an animal in the meat market, slaughtering it there and selling its meat in the ordinary way involve a certain degradation of something that was destined to be offered before Hashem. Even though it has been disqualified from being an offering, a remnant of sanctity still remains in it, and therefore this is not fitting. Nevertheless the Sages were lenient: since the one who benefits from that degradation is hekdesh itself - for the more money that is received, the finer the replacement offering a person will be able to buy and bring to Hashem - it is worth it.
Not so with a blemished bechor and a blemished ma'aser, which never go up on the mizbe'ach. If he sells them in the market, who benefits from the sale? The owner, or the kohen, who is the owner in the case of the bechor. Shall we permit degrading an animal whose sanctity is an inherent sanctity, which was a bechor or a ma'aser, so that a person should earn more money? The answer is no. This is the basis of the difference: the manner of selling and disposing of a bechor and a ma'aser is unlike that of the other offerings, because there is no sufficient reason to treat them lightly.
Three things are listed here:
Selling in the meat market: A blemished offering other than a firstborn - a peace offering, a burnt offering and the like - is sold in the meat market, where the highest price is obtained, and afterward it is redeemed and eaten. Restrictions on shearing it and working with it still remain, but eating it is permitted, and the high price makes it possible to buy the finest possible offering.
Slaughtering in the meat market: With other consecrated animals it is permitted to slaughter in the meat market, whereas with a firstborn and with the tithe of animals it is forbidden, because there is a degradation involved.
Weighing by the litra: Weighing in the ordinary manner, on a balance scale with the meat on one side and a known weight, the litra, on the other. With a burnt offering and a peace offering it is permitted; with a firstborn and the tithe of animals it is forbidden.
At first glance, the permission to weigh the other consecrated animals is puzzling. Reuven consecrated a peace offering, a blemish developed in it, and he wants to redeem it and buy a new peace offering. He sells it in the meat market, and Yankel the buyer acquires an animal that has already left its consecrated status - he may eat it and slaughter it, and we even permitted him to do so in the market. But why should we also permit him to weigh it on the scales in the ordinary way? After all, the only one who benefits from precise weighing is the buyer. Were it not permitted, the buyer would ask for a lower price and say: I will buy without weighing, but not at full price, since I do not know exactly what I am getting.
Nevertheless, the Sages permitted Yankel to weigh by the litra meat that has left consecrated use, coming from a burnt offering or a peace offering, and the reason is this: if he could not weigh it, he would not have paid a high price in the first place when he bought the animal while it was still alive, and so it turns out that the Temple treasury is the one who benefits. Not so with a firstborn and the tithe of animals, where the only one who benefits is the buyer, and therefore no leniency was granted.
An expansion on the matter of selling the tithe of animals: It is not merely a rabbinic prohibition to sell the tithe of animals or a firstborn in the market in a degrading manner. With the tithe of animals, it cannot be sold at all, and the prohibition is from the Torah. If so, what case of selling it is the Mishnah dealing with? The answer: once it has died, selling it involves only a rabbinic prohibition. And the Gemara sets the case as one of orphans whose tithe animal died in their hands and who want to obtain its full value, and it was permitted to them to sell it in the market so that they should lose as little money as possible, for the Sages were not strict with orphans in such a scenario.
And now to the language of the Mishnah: "Mah bein ha-bechor veha-ma'aser lechol ha-kodashim? She-kol ha-kodashim nimkarin be-itliz ve-nishchatin be-itliz ve-nishkalin be-litra, chutz min ha-bechor u-min ha-ma'aser" - What is the difference between the firstborn and the tithe of animals and all other consecrated animals? That all other consecrated animals are sold in the meat market and slaughtered in the meat market and weighed by the litra, except for the firstborn and the tithe of animals. Blemished offerings are sold in the meat market, slaughtered there, and weighed in the ordinary manner; whereas the firstborn and the tithe of animals are not sold in the market. In the case of the firstborn, it can be sold privately from one's home.
"Ve-yesh lahen pidyon ve-litmuroteihen pidyon, chutz min ha-bechor u-min ha-ma'aser" - They have redemption, and their substitutes have redemption, except for the firstborn and the tithe of animals. Consecrated animals in which a blemish developed can be redeemed completely, and the animal leaves consecrated use and is eaten, while the money goes elsewhere; and the same law applies to their substitutes. The exceptions are the firstborn and the tithe of animals.
And so too regarding bringing them from outside the Land: according to the Tanna of our Mishnah, you are not required to bring a firstborn or the tithe of animals to Jerusalem. The early authorities disagreed as to his intent: whether he means that it is forbidden, or that one is not required, or that one is not required but after the fact one may. And if he did bring an unblemished firstborn or tithe of animals from outside the Land - meaning that their place of birth was outside the Land of Israel - the Tanna says that they should be offered.
However, the halachah does not follow this view, but rather Rabbi Akiva, who is not mentioned in our Mishnah. Rabbi Akiva holds that there is an analogy connecting the tithe of animals to the tithe of agricultural produce: just as the laws of Terumah and tithes do not apply to produce that grew outside the Land of Israel, so too the tithe of animals, including the obligation to bring it to the Temple, does not apply to animals born outside the Land of Israel. Therefore there is no mitzvah at all to bring a firstborn or the tithe of animals to the Land of Israel in order to offer them, and if one did bring them, they will not be accepted, and the kohen will send him away from the entrance.
It emerges that the law of the firstborn and the tithe of animals outside the Land is this: with the tithe of animals, you must wait until a blemish develops in it and then eat it; the firstborn you must give to a kohen, and he will eat it in its blemished state outside the Land. But do not bring them, and if you did bring them, they are not offered even after the fact, according to Rabbi Akiva, and this is the halachah according to the Rambam. And in the language of the Mishnah: "Ye'achlu be-mumam la-be'alim" - They shall be eaten in their blemished state by the owners. When a blemish develops in them, they are eaten by their owners or by the kohen, in the place where they are, outside the Land.
Rabbi Shimon's reason:
"Amar Rabbi Shimon: mah ta'am? She-ha-bechor veha-ma'aser yesh lahen parnasah bi-mekoman, u-she'ar kol ha-kodashim af al pi she-nolad bahen mum - harei elu bi-kdushatan" - Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason? Because the firstborn and the tithe of animals have their sustenance in their own place, while all other consecrated animals, even though a blemish developed in them, remain in their consecrated status. Why do we distinguish between animals born outside the Land that are other kinds of offerings, and animals born outside the Land that are a firstborn or the tithe of animals? The term "parnasah" here, as everywhere, means that they have what they need. The firstborn and the tithe of animals have everything they need in their own place, even outside the Land: all you need to do is wait until a blemish develops in the animal, and then eat it there, and there is no need for it to be dragged to Jerusalem at all.
Not so with other consecrated animals. If you consecrated an olah outside the Land and it developed a blemish, you still have to redeem it, take the money, buy a new animal and bring it up with you to Jerusalem. It emerges that one who consecrates animals outside the Land is ultimately obligated to go up to Jerusalem and bring either the animal itself or its replacement if it became blemished. He therefore does not have everything he needs where he is, and "harei elu bikdushasan" - they remain in their sanctity until he redeems them, and once he brings them to Jerusalem they are offered as a sacrifice.
This approach of Rabbi Shimon is somewhat puzzling: it is not our way to give abstract reasons for the words of the Torah, and all the more so here, where the law is derived from verses.
The verse that speaks of sacrifices outside the Land, as emerges from the words of Chazal, is in Devarim chapter 12 verse 26: "Rak kodashecha asher yihyu lecha unedarecha tisa uvasa el hamakom asher yivchar Hashem" - "Only your consecrated things that you shall have, and your vows, shall you take and come to the place that Hashem will choose." The verse lists two separate categories: "kodashecha" and "nedarecha". "Nedarecha" - the voluntary offerings, teaching that one who vows or pledges to bring an olah or shelamim outside the Land is obligated to bring them; "kodashecha" - other types of consecrated offerings that you are obligated to bring, such as a chatas and an asham. These must be brought to Eretz Yisrael, and the firstborn and the animal tithe are thereby excluded, for they need not be brought. That is the derashah.
Now that we have this derashah, the question returns: why did we need Rabbi Shimon's reason about "sustenance", when we have an explicit verse? The answer is that Rabbi Shimon comes to explain why the derashah works specifically in this way. We understood that "nedarecha" refers to vows and pledges, and "kodashecha" to the chatas and asham - but why must it be so? Why not learn the opposite: that "kodashecha" refers to things that become consecrated whether you want it or not, that is, the firstborn and the animal tithe, and those must be brought, while "nedarecha" refers to things done willingly, as opposed to a chatas and an asham, and those need not be brought?
In other words, one might have thought that the verse comes to say: bring your "kodashecha", things that become consecrated on their own - like a firstborn from the moment of its birth, or the tithe that emerges from the pen, which are consecrated whether the owner wishes it or not, and even if they are blemished - these you shall bring, and likewise your vows and pledges, whereas the chatas and asham need not be brought. To this Rabbi Shimon comes and explains why the derashah goes the way it does: because logic does not allow the other reading. Logic dictates that "kodashecha" refers to the chatas and asham, since those other consecrated items, the firstborn and the tithe, never need to go up to Jerusalem, because they can become blemished and be eaten outside the Land without any further obligation.
In summary: In this mishnah we learned three categories of differences between the firstborn and the animal tithe and the rest of the consecrated offerings. The first - their substitutes and their offspring, to the end of all generations, become consecrated like them, yet they are never offered as a sacrifice but are eaten in their blemished state by the owner. The second - commercial activity: the other consecrated animals are sold and slaughtered in the butcher shop and weighed by the litra, and they and their substitutes also have redemption, while the firstborn and the tithe are excluded from this, since the benefit to the Temple treasury does not justify the disgrace. The third - bringing them from outside the Land, for the firstborn and the tithe are not brought from there, and the halachah is ruled like Rabbi Akiva that they may not be offered at all. And Rabbi Shimon's reason - "they have their sustenance in their place" - comes to resolve why the derashah of the verse "kodashecha unedarecha" is expounded specifically in this way.
With this, chapter 3 of Maseches Temurah is concluded, which dealt with the laws of substitutes, offspring and descendants of sacrifices.