Does one receive lashes for transgressing a negative commandment that involves no action? For a negative commandment that has a positive action to counteract it.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Temurah 4
לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ״, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ — אַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ״, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מוֹצִיא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה — אַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהֵיכָא?
The Gemara responds: You cannot say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to one who pronounces the name of Heaven in vain, as it is written: “You shall not curse the deaf” (Leviticus 19:14), which prohibits all curses, even those using God’s name. Granted, if you say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to cursing another, one can say that the separate warning of punishment for this prohibition is from here, as it is written: “You shall not curse the deaf.” One verse articulates the prohibition, and the other indicates liability for punishment. But if you say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to pronouncing the name of Heaven in vain, from where is the warning of this prohibition? A prohibition requires two verses to include liability for punishment.
אַלְּמָה לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבוֹד״! הָהוּא אַזְהָרַת עֲשֵׂה הוּא.
The Gemara counters: Why not, i.e., what is the difficulty? But isn’t it written: “You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve” (Deuteronomy 6:13)? Fearing God certainly includes not pronouncing His name in vain, and this verse can therefore serve as the warning. The Gemara answers: That verse is a warning stated as a positive mitzva. In order to qualify as a warning, the verse must prohibit, not command.
מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר״ — ״מְלֵאָה״ אֵלּוּ בִּיכּוּרִים, ״וְדִמְעֲךָ״ אֵלּוּ תְּרוּמָה, וְאָמְרַתְּ ״לֹא תְאַחֵר״.
§ It was stated (3a): They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: Also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is liable to be flogged. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the prohibition mentioned by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina? The verse states: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses” (Exodus 22:28). When the verse states: The fullness of the harvest, these are the first fruits; and when the verse states: “And the outflow of your presses,” this is teruma. And the verse says: “You shall not delay,” i.e., do not delay the separation of the first fruits by separating teruma beforehand.
אִיתְּמַר: הִקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא הוּא דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה, מִדְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים לוֹקֶה.
It was stated: If one separated teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, disagreed. One said that he is flogged, and one said that he is not flogged. The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that it is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said that he is flogged, from the fact that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said earlier: Also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is flogged.
אַדְּרַבָּה, תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הוּא דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה, דִּתְנַן: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי כַּלְכַּלּוֹת שֶׁל טֶבֶל, וְאָמַר: ״מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ״ — הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת.
The Gemara suggests: On the contrary, it may be concluded that it is Rabbi Elazar who said that he is flogged, as we learned in a mishna (Demai 7:6): If two baskets of untithed produce were before someone, and he said: The tithe of this basket is in that basket, then the produce of the first basket is thereby tithed. And when he separates sufficient tithe from the second basket to exempt both baskets, the produce of the second basket will be considered tithed as well.
״שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ וְשֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ״ — הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת. ״מַעַשְׂרוֹתֵיהֶם מַעְשַׂר כַּלְכַּלָּה בַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ״ — קְרָא אֶת הַשֵּׁם.
If he said: The tithe of this basket is in that basket, and the tithe of that basket is in this basket, the produce of the first basket is tithed, as stated, but the produce of the second basket is not tithed. Since the produce of the first basket had just been tithed, it could not be used to tithe the second, since the tithe may be separated only from untithed produce. If he said: Their tithes should be separated as tithe, each basket in the other, he has declared the assignation of tithe concurrently, and the produce of both baskets is thereby tithed.
וְאִתְּמַר, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִקְדִּים מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבָּהּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ. תִּסְתַּיֵּים.
And it was stated with regard to the first clause of that mishna that Rabbi Elazar said: He is flogged, because he separated the second tithe of the produce of the first basket prior to the separation of the first tithe of the other basket. One must always separate tithes in order, the first tithe before the second tithe. If Rabbi Elazar holds that one is flogged for separating tithes in the wrong order, he presumably also holds that one is flogged for separating teruma before first fruits. The Gemara affirms: It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who said he is flogged.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, לֵימָא קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, it follows that it is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said that he is not flogged. Shall we say then that the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, here poses a difficulty to the earlier statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, that one who separates teruma before separating first fruits is flogged?
לָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא
The Gemara answers: No, when Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, stated simply: Even one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits,
אַפְּטוּרָא קָאֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים.
he was referring not to liability for lashes, but to the exemption from lashes stated in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan (3a). And this is what he is saying: One is not flogged for transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an action…They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, that also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is not flogged, since he performs no action.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵימֵר דְּלָקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה? מַקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים נָמֵי לִילְקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה!
The Gemara asks: And what is different about one who effects substitution, that he is flogged despite not having performed an action? Is it because he has performed an action with his speech, by consecrating the animal? If so, one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits should be flogged as well, because he has performed an action with his speech, by consecrating the produce.
אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ״.
Rabbi Avin said: It is different there, in the case of one who tithes produce in the wrong order, as it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva. As a rule, if the Torah specifies a positive mitzva to be performed after transgressing a prohibition to rectify it, that prohibition does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the case here, as it is written: “Out of all of your tithes you shall set apart all of that which is due to the Lord” (Numbers 18:29), which teaches that one who separated tithes in the incorrect order or who separated teruma before separating the first fruits, must still separate the earlier tithes even after the later tithes, or the first fruits even after the teruma.
יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכֹל לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה לָא לָקֵי?
§ Rav Dimi was sitting and saying this halakha, that one who separates teruma prior to separating the first fruits is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified. Abaye said to him: And is it correct that one is not flogged for transgressing any prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva?
וְהָא מֵימֵר, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְלָקֵי, דִּתְנַן: לֹא שֶׁאָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהָמִיר, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הֵמִיר — מוּמָר, וְסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים.
But there is the case of one who effects substitution, which is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva, as the verse states: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall at all change animal for animal, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy” (Leviticus 27:10). And even so, one who effects substitution is flogged, as we learned in the mishna (2a): That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution; rather, it means that if one substituted a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, the substitution takes effect and the one who substituted the non-sacred animal incurs the punishment of the forty lashes.
הָוֵי לְהוּ תְּרֵי לָאוֵי וְחַד עֲשֵׂה, וְלָא אָתֵי חַד עֲשֵׂה וְעָקַר תְּרֵי לָאוֵי.
Rav Dimi answered: There are two prohibitions specified in the verse as transgressed by one who effects substitution: “He shall not exchange it,” and: “Nor substitute it.” But there is only one positive mitzva: “Both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy.” And one positive mitzva does not come and uproot two prohibitions. Therefore, although generally, one who transgresses a prohibition that can be rectified is not flogged, one who effects substitution is flogged.
וַהֲרֵי אוֹנֵס, דְּחַד לָאו וְחַד עֲשֵׂה, וְלָא אָתֵי חַד עֲשֵׂה וְעָקַר לָאו, דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹנֵס שֶׁגֵּירַשׁ — אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא מַחְזִיר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, וְאִם כֹּהֵן הוּא לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר!
The Gemara counters: But there is the case of the rapist who forces himself upon a virgin, who is obligated to marry the victim if she wishes and is then prohibited from divorcing her. As here the verse states one prohibition: “He may not send her away all his days,” and one positive mitzva: “And she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29). This teaches that he can rectify the transgression of divorcing her by remarrying her. And yet, the one positive mitzva does not come and uproot the prohibition, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a rapist who married and then divorced his victim, if he is an Israelite, who is permitted to marry a divorcée, he remarries her and he is not flogged. But if he is a priest, who is prohibited from marrying a divorcée, he is flogged and he does not remarry her.
כֹּהֲנִים קָאָמְרַתְּ?! כֹּהֲנִים — טַעְמָא אַחְרִינָא הוּא, דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא קְדוּשָּׁה יַתִּירָא.
The Gemara answers: You say that a case that concerns priests challenges the principle that a rectifiable transgression does not make one liable for flogging. But in the case of priests there is another reason why they are flogged, as the Merciful One increased the severity of their transgressions, for they have greater holiness. By contrast, one who transgresses a prohibition unrelated to the priesthood will not be flogged if its violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״לֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ Which prohibitions carry the punishment of lashes is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning the Paschal offering: “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to place a positive mitzva after the prohibition in order to say that one is not flogged for transgressing it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה — אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לוֹקִין עָלָיו.
Rabbi Ya’akov says: He is not exempt from lashes for that reason, but rather because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, and one is not flogged for transgressing any prohibition that does not involve an action. The Gemara comments: By inference, it may be concluded that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is flogged for transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an action.
וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, הַאי ״וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרוֹפוּ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא?
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Ya’akov, who holds that the exemption from lashes stems from the prohibition’s not involving an action, for what purpose does the clause “but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” come?
מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדִתְנַן: הָעֲצָמוֹת, וְהַגִּידִין, וְהַנּוֹתָר — יִשָּׂרְפוּ בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. חָל שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת — יִשָּׂרְפוּ בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת יוֹם טוֹב.
The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 83a): The bones of the Paschal offering that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal offering, and the sinews, and the leftover meat must all be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. If the sixteenth occurs on Shabbat, they must be burned on the seventeenth, because the mitzva to burn them does not override Shabbat or the Festival. Therefore, they are burned on the first weekday.
וְאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְהַנּוֹתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרוֹפוּ״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן בּוֹקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ.
And Ḥizkiyya says, and so it is taught in the school of Ḥizkiyya: What is the reason for this? The verse states: “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire.” By using the word “morning” twice, the verse comes to provide a second morning for the offering’s burning if the first morning falls on Shabbat or a Festival.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא לָא תַּעֲבֵיד, אִם עָבֵיד — מַהֲנֵי, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לָא מַהֲנֵי — אַמַּאי לָקֵי? רָבָא אָמַר: לָא מַהֲנֵי מִידֵּי, וְהַאי דְּלָקֵי — מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַר אַמֵּימְרָא דְּרַחֲמָנָא הוּא.
§ Abaye said: With regard to any matter that the Merciful One states in the Torah not to perform, if one performed it, his action is effective, but the violator is flogged. As, if it enters your mind that it is not effective, why would he be flogged for accomplishing nothing? Rava said: If one performed it, it is not effective at all. And this is the reason that he is flogged: Because he transgressed the statement of the Merciful One.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 55: All Sacrifices Are Holy, But Not to the Same Degree
November 08, 2025 | י״ז בחשון תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Shoshana Bazini
Long Island, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Rebecca Stulberg
Ottawa, Canada
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Shoshana Bazini
Long Island, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Temurah 4
לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ״, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ — אַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ״, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מוֹצִיא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה — אַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהֵיכָא?
The Gemara responds: You cannot say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to one who pronounces the name of Heaven in vain, as it is written: “You shall not curse the deaf” (Leviticus 19:14), which prohibits all curses, even those using God’s name. Granted, if you say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to cursing another, one can say that the separate warning of punishment for this prohibition is from here, as it is written: “You shall not curse the deaf.” One verse articulates the prohibition, and the other indicates liability for punishment. But if you say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to pronouncing the name of Heaven in vain, from where is the warning of this prohibition? A prohibition requires two verses to include liability for punishment.
אַלְּמָה לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבוֹד״! הָהוּא אַזְהָרַת עֲשֵׂה הוּא.
The Gemara counters: Why not, i.e., what is the difficulty? But isn’t it written: “You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve” (Deuteronomy 6:13)? Fearing God certainly includes not pronouncing His name in vain, and this verse can therefore serve as the warning. The Gemara answers: That verse is a warning stated as a positive mitzva. In order to qualify as a warning, the verse must prohibit, not command.
מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר״ — ״מְלֵאָה״ אֵלּוּ בִּיכּוּרִים, ״וְדִמְעֲךָ״ אֵלּוּ תְּרוּמָה, וְאָמְרַתְּ ״לֹא תְאַחֵר״.
§ It was stated (3a): They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: Also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is liable to be flogged. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the prohibition mentioned by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina? The verse states: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses” (Exodus 22:28). When the verse states: The fullness of the harvest, these are the first fruits; and when the verse states: “And the outflow of your presses,” this is teruma. And the verse says: “You shall not delay,” i.e., do not delay the separation of the first fruits by separating teruma beforehand.
אִיתְּמַר: הִקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא הוּא דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה, מִדְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים לוֹקֶה.
It was stated: If one separated teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, disagreed. One said that he is flogged, and one said that he is not flogged. The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that it is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said that he is flogged, from the fact that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said earlier: Also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is flogged.
אַדְּרַבָּה, תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הוּא דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה, דִּתְנַן: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי כַּלְכַּלּוֹת שֶׁל טֶבֶל, וְאָמַר: ״מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ״ — הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת.
The Gemara suggests: On the contrary, it may be concluded that it is Rabbi Elazar who said that he is flogged, as we learned in a mishna (Demai 7:6): If two baskets of untithed produce were before someone, and he said: The tithe of this basket is in that basket, then the produce of the first basket is thereby tithed. And when he separates sufficient tithe from the second basket to exempt both baskets, the produce of the second basket will be considered tithed as well.
״שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ וְשֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ״ — הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת. ״מַעַשְׂרוֹתֵיהֶם מַעְשַׂר כַּלְכַּלָּה בַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ״ — קְרָא אֶת הַשֵּׁם.
If he said: The tithe of this basket is in that basket, and the tithe of that basket is in this basket, the produce of the first basket is tithed, as stated, but the produce of the second basket is not tithed. Since the produce of the first basket had just been tithed, it could not be used to tithe the second, since the tithe may be separated only from untithed produce. If he said: Their tithes should be separated as tithe, each basket in the other, he has declared the assignation of tithe concurrently, and the produce of both baskets is thereby tithed.
וְאִתְּמַר, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִקְדִּים מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבָּהּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ. תִּסְתַּיֵּים.
And it was stated with regard to the first clause of that mishna that Rabbi Elazar said: He is flogged, because he separated the second tithe of the produce of the first basket prior to the separation of the first tithe of the other basket. One must always separate tithes in order, the first tithe before the second tithe. If Rabbi Elazar holds that one is flogged for separating tithes in the wrong order, he presumably also holds that one is flogged for separating teruma before first fruits. The Gemara affirms: It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who said he is flogged.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, לֵימָא קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, it follows that it is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said that he is not flogged. Shall we say then that the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, here poses a difficulty to the earlier statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, that one who separates teruma before separating first fruits is flogged?
לָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא
The Gemara answers: No, when Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, stated simply: Even one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits,
אַפְּטוּרָא קָאֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים.
he was referring not to liability for lashes, but to the exemption from lashes stated in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan (3a). And this is what he is saying: One is not flogged for transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an action…They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, that also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is not flogged, since he performs no action.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵימֵר דְּלָקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה? מַקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים נָמֵי לִילְקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה!
The Gemara asks: And what is different about one who effects substitution, that he is flogged despite not having performed an action? Is it because he has performed an action with his speech, by consecrating the animal? If so, one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits should be flogged as well, because he has performed an action with his speech, by consecrating the produce.
אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ״.
Rabbi Avin said: It is different there, in the case of one who tithes produce in the wrong order, as it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva. As a rule, if the Torah specifies a positive mitzva to be performed after transgressing a prohibition to rectify it, that prohibition does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the case here, as it is written: “Out of all of your tithes you shall set apart all of that which is due to the Lord” (Numbers 18:29), which teaches that one who separated tithes in the incorrect order or who separated teruma before separating the first fruits, must still separate the earlier tithes even after the later tithes, or the first fruits even after the teruma.
יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכֹל לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה לָא לָקֵי?
§ Rav Dimi was sitting and saying this halakha, that one who separates teruma prior to separating the first fruits is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified. Abaye said to him: And is it correct that one is not flogged for transgressing any prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva?
וְהָא מֵימֵר, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְלָקֵי, דִּתְנַן: לֹא שֶׁאָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהָמִיר, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הֵמִיר — מוּמָר, וְסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים.
But there is the case of one who effects substitution, which is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva, as the verse states: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall at all change animal for animal, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy” (Leviticus 27:10). And even so, one who effects substitution is flogged, as we learned in the mishna (2a): That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution; rather, it means that if one substituted a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, the substitution takes effect and the one who substituted the non-sacred animal incurs the punishment of the forty lashes.
הָוֵי לְהוּ תְּרֵי לָאוֵי וְחַד עֲשֵׂה, וְלָא אָתֵי חַד עֲשֵׂה וְעָקַר תְּרֵי לָאוֵי.
Rav Dimi answered: There are two prohibitions specified in the verse as transgressed by one who effects substitution: “He shall not exchange it,” and: “Nor substitute it.” But there is only one positive mitzva: “Both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy.” And one positive mitzva does not come and uproot two prohibitions. Therefore, although generally, one who transgresses a prohibition that can be rectified is not flogged, one who effects substitution is flogged.
וַהֲרֵי אוֹנֵס, דְּחַד לָאו וְחַד עֲשֵׂה, וְלָא אָתֵי חַד עֲשֵׂה וְעָקַר לָאו, דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹנֵס שֶׁגֵּירַשׁ — אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא מַחְזִיר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, וְאִם כֹּהֵן הוּא לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר!
The Gemara counters: But there is the case of the rapist who forces himself upon a virgin, who is obligated to marry the victim if she wishes and is then prohibited from divorcing her. As here the verse states one prohibition: “He may not send her away all his days,” and one positive mitzva: “And she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29). This teaches that he can rectify the transgression of divorcing her by remarrying her. And yet, the one positive mitzva does not come and uproot the prohibition, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a rapist who married and then divorced his victim, if he is an Israelite, who is permitted to marry a divorcée, he remarries her and he is not flogged. But if he is a priest, who is prohibited from marrying a divorcée, he is flogged and he does not remarry her.
כֹּהֲנִים קָאָמְרַתְּ?! כֹּהֲנִים — טַעְמָא אַחְרִינָא הוּא, דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא קְדוּשָּׁה יַתִּירָא.
The Gemara answers: You say that a case that concerns priests challenges the principle that a rectifiable transgression does not make one liable for flogging. But in the case of priests there is another reason why they are flogged, as the Merciful One increased the severity of their transgressions, for they have greater holiness. By contrast, one who transgresses a prohibition unrelated to the priesthood will not be flogged if its violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״לֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ Which prohibitions carry the punishment of lashes is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning the Paschal offering: “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to place a positive mitzva after the prohibition in order to say that one is not flogged for transgressing it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה — אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לוֹקִין עָלָיו.
Rabbi Ya’akov says: He is not exempt from lashes for that reason, but rather because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, and one is not flogged for transgressing any prohibition that does not involve an action. The Gemara comments: By inference, it may be concluded that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is flogged for transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an action.
וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, הַאי ״וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרוֹפוּ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא?
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Ya’akov, who holds that the exemption from lashes stems from the prohibition’s not involving an action, for what purpose does the clause “but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” come?
מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדִתְנַן: הָעֲצָמוֹת, וְהַגִּידִין, וְהַנּוֹתָר — יִשָּׂרְפוּ בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. חָל שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת — יִשָּׂרְפוּ בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת יוֹם טוֹב.
The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 83a): The bones of the Paschal offering that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal offering, and the sinews, and the leftover meat must all be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. If the sixteenth occurs on Shabbat, they must be burned on the seventeenth, because the mitzva to burn them does not override Shabbat or the Festival. Therefore, they are burned on the first weekday.
וְאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְהַנּוֹתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרוֹפוּ״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן בּוֹקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ.
And Ḥizkiyya says, and so it is taught in the school of Ḥizkiyya: What is the reason for this? The verse states: “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire.” By using the word “morning” twice, the verse comes to provide a second morning for the offering’s burning if the first morning falls on Shabbat or a Festival.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא לָא תַּעֲבֵיד, אִם עָבֵיד — מַהֲנֵי, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לָא מַהֲנֵי — אַמַּאי לָקֵי? רָבָא אָמַר: לָא מַהֲנֵי מִידֵּי, וְהַאי דְּלָקֵי — מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַר אַמֵּימְרָא דְּרַחֲמָנָא הוּא.
§ Abaye said: With regard to any matter that the Merciful One states in the Torah not to perform, if one performed it, his action is effective, but the violator is flogged. As, if it enters your mind that it is not effective, why would he be flogged for accomplishing nothing? Rava said: If one performed it, it is not effective at all. And this is the reason that he is flogged: Because he transgressed the statement of the Merciful One.
Follow
