from when

<<is one liable

<<for them?

<<From when they see

<<the face of the House.

<<Like whom?

<<Like

<<this

<<tanna,

<<as it is taught:

<<Rabbi Eliezer

<<says:

<<bikkurim —

<<some of them

<<outside

<<and some of them

<<inside:

<<those outside —

<<behold

<<they are

<<like non-sacred food

<<in all

<<their matters;

<<those inside —

<<behold

<<they are

<<like consecrated property

<<in all

<<their matters.

Rav Sheshes said:

<<bikkurim —

<<placing [them]

<<is indispensable

<<to them;

<<reciting

<<is not

<<indispensable

<<to them.

Like whom?

<<Like

<<this

<<tanna,

<<as it is taught:

<<Rabbi Yosei

<<says

<<three

<<things

<<in the name of

<<three

<<elders:

<<Rabbi Yishmael

<<says:

<<one might think

<<may bring up

<<a person

<<second tithe

<<nowadays

<<to Jerusalem

<<and eat it?

<<And it is logical:

<<the firstborn

<<requires

<<bringing to

<<the place,

<<and second tithe

<<requires

<<bringing to

<<the place;

<<just as

<<the firstborn

<<is not

<<except

<<in the presence of the House,

<<so too

<<tithe

<<is not

<<except

<<in the presence of the House.

What of

<<the firstborn —

<<for

<<it requires

<<placing of blood

<<and sacrificial parts

<<on the altar!

<<Bikkurim

<<will prove it.

<<What of

<<bikkurim —

<<for

<<they require

<<placing!

The verse teaches:

<<‘and you shall eat

<<[there]

<<before

<<Hashem

<<your God’

<<and so on —

<<it juxtaposes

<<tithe

<<to the firstborn:

<<just as

<<the firstborn

<<is not

<<except

<<in the presence of the House,

<<so too

<<tithe

<<is not

<<except

<<in the presence of the House.

<<And if

<<it were so,

<<let it refute:

<<what of

<<bikkurim —

<<for

<<they require

<<reciting

<<and placing!

Rav Ashi said:

<<granted

<<that indispensability

<<there is not,

<<a mitzvah —

<<is there

<<not?

<<So let him say

<<‘mitzvah’

<<and refute!

<<Rather,

<<Rav Ashi said:

<<since

<<there are

<<the bikkurim of

<<a convert,

<<who needs

<<to say

<<‘which

<<swore

<<[Hashem]

<<to our fathers,’

<<and not

<<is he able

<<to say it —

<<not

<<definitive

<<is it for him.

But let return

<<the argument

<<and derive it

<<with ‘the common factor’!

<<Because

<<there is

<<to refute:

<<what of

<<the factor

<<common

<<to them —

<<for

<<there is

<<in them

<<an aspect of

<<the altar.

And what

<<does he hold?

<<If

<<he holds

<<the first sanctification

<<sanctified

<<for its time

<<and sanctified

<<for the future —

<<the firstborn

<<too [may be eaten];

<<if

<<he holds

<<the first sanctification

<<sanctified

<<for its time

<<and did not

<<sanctify

<<for the future —

<<even

<<the firstborn

<<too

<<let it be a question!

Ravina said:

<<actually,

<<he holds

<<it sanctified

<<for its time

<<and did not

<<sanctify

<<for the future;

<<and here

<<it is with a firstborn

<<whose was sprinkled

<<blood

<<before

<<the destruction of

<<the Temple,

<<and was destroyed

<<the Temple

<<while still

<<its meat

<<exists.

<<And we juxtapose

<<its meat

<<to its blood:

<<just as

<<its blood

<<is on the altar,

<<so too

<<its meat

<<on the altar.

<<And it juxtaposes

<<tithe

<<to the firstborn.

But does

<<a matter

<<that is learned

<<through juxtaposition

<<turn

<<and teach

<<through juxtaposition?

<<The tithe of

<<grain

<<non-sacred

<<is.