Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 23, 2019 | 讻壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Temurah 4

Does one receive lashes for transgressing a negative commandment that聽involves no action? For a negative commandment that has a positive action to聽counteract it.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转拽诇诇 讞专砖 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇拽诇诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讝讛专转讬讛 诪讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转拽诇诇 讞专砖 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 诇讘讟诇讛 讗讝讛专转讬讛 诪讛讬讻讗

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: 鈥淵ou shall not curse the deaf鈥 (Leviticus 19:14), which prohibits all curses, even those using God鈥檚 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: 鈥淵ou shall not curse the deaf.鈥 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.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讬专讗 讜讗转讜 转注讘讚 讛讛讜讗 讗讝讛专转 注砖讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara counters: Why not, i.e., what is the difficulty? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淵ou shall fear the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve鈥 (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.

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讛诪拽讚讬诐 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诇讗转讱 讜讚诪注讱 诇讗 转讗讞专 诪诇讗讛 讗诇讜 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讜讚诪注讱 讗诇讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诪专讛 诇讗 转讗讞专

搂 It was stated (3a): They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina: 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 岣nina? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses鈥 (Exodus 22:28). When the verse states: The fullness of the harvest, these are the first fruits; and when the verse states: 鈥淎nd the outflow of your presses,鈥 this is teruma. And the verse says: 鈥淵ou shall not delay,鈥 i.e., do not delay the separation of the first fruits by separating teruma beforehand.

讗讬转诪专 讛拽讚讬诐 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 诪讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗祝 讛诪拽讚讬诐 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诇讜拽讛

It was stated: If one separated teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, 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 岣nina, who said that he is flogged, from the fact that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said earlier: Also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is flogged.

讗讚专讘讛 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讚转谞谉 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讻诇讻诇讜转 砖诇 讟讘诇 讜讗诪专 诪注砖专 砖诇 讝讜 讘讝讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪注讜砖专转

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.

砖诇 讝讜 讘讝讜 讜砖诇 讝讜 讘讝讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪注讜砖专转 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪注讜砖专转 诪注砖专讜转讬讛诐 诪注砖专 讻诇讻诇讛 讘讞讘讬专转讛 拽专讗 讗转 讛砖诐

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.

讜讗转诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讘讛 诇诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讘讞讘讬专转讛 转住转讬讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诇讬诪讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, it follows that it is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that he is not flogged. Shall we say then that the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, here poses a difficulty to the earlier statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, that one who separates teruma before separating first fruits is flogged?

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara answers: No, when Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, stated simply: Even one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits,

讗驻讟讜专讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讛诪拽讚讬诐 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐

he was referring not to liability for lashes, but to the exemption from lashes stated in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan (3a). And this is what he is saying: One is not flogged for transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an actionThey said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, that also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is not flogged, since he performs no action.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬诪专 讚诇拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讚讬讘讜专讜 注砖讛 诪注砖讛 诪拽讚讬诐 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讬诇拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讚讬讘讜专讜 注砖讛 诪注砖讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讗讜 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪讻诇 诪注砖专转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜

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: 鈥淥ut of all of your tithes you shall set apart all of that which is due to the Lord鈥 (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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛 诇讗 诇拽讬

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?

讜讛讗 诪讬诪专 讚诇讗讜 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜诇拽讬 讚转谞谉 诇讗 砖讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛诪讬专 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讛诪讬专 诪讜诪专 讜住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

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: 鈥淗e 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鈥 (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.

讛讜讬 诇讛讜 转专讬 诇讗讜讬 讜讞讚 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讞讚 注砖讛 讜注拽专 转专讬 诇讗讜讬

Rav Dimi answered: There are two prohibitions specified in the verse as transgressed by one who effects substitution: 鈥淗e shall not exchange it,鈥 and: 鈥淣or substitute it.鈥 But there is only one positive mitzva: 鈥淏oth it and that for which it is changed shall be holy.鈥 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.

讜讛专讬 讗讜谞住 讚讞讚 诇讗讜 讜讞讚 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讞讚 注砖讛 讜注拽专 诇讗讜 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜谞住 砖讙讬专砖 讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜讗诐 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专

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: 鈥淗e may not send her away all his days,鈥 and one positive mitzva: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife鈥 (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 divorc茅e, he remarries her and he is not flogged. But if he is a priest, who is prohibited from marrying a divorc茅e, he is flogged and he does not remarry her.

讻讛谞讬诐 拽讗诪专转 讻讛谞讬诐 讟注诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 拽讚讜砖讛 讬转讬专讗

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.

讻转谞讗讬 诇讗 讬砖讗讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 注砖讛 讗讞专 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 Which prohibitions carry the punishment of lashes is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪谉 讛砖诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讗讬 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讘讗砖 转砖专驻讜 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, who holds that the exemption from lashes stems from the prohibition鈥檚 not involving an action, for what purpose does the clause 鈥渂ut that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire鈥 come?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞谉 讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛谞讜转专 讬砖专驻讜 讘砖砖讛 注砖专 讞诇 砖砖讛 注砖专 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讬砖专驻讜 讘砖讘注讛 注砖专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which we learned in a mishna (Pesa岣m 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.

讜讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讘讗砖 转砖专驻讜 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 讘讜拽专 砖谞讬 诇砖专讬驻转讜

And 岣zkiyya says, and so it is taught in the school of 岣zkiyya: What is the reason for this? The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire.鈥 By using the word 鈥渕orning鈥 twice, the verse comes to provide a second morning for the offering鈥檚 burning if the first morning falls on Shabbat or a Festival.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 讗诐 注讘讬讚 诪讛谞讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讗诪讗讬 诇拽讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讜讛讗讬 讚诇拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘专 讗诪讬诪专讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讗

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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Temurah 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 4

诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转拽诇诇 讞专砖 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇拽诇诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讝讛专转讬讛 诪讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转拽诇诇 讞专砖 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 诇讘讟诇讛 讗讝讛专转讬讛 诪讛讬讻讗

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: 鈥淵ou shall not curse the deaf鈥 (Leviticus 19:14), which prohibits all curses, even those using God鈥檚 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: 鈥淵ou shall not curse the deaf.鈥 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.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 转讬专讗 讜讗转讜 转注讘讚 讛讛讜讗 讗讝讛专转 注砖讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara counters: Why not, i.e., what is the difficulty? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淵ou shall fear the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve鈥 (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.

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讛诪拽讚讬诐 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诇讗转讱 讜讚诪注讱 诇讗 转讗讞专 诪诇讗讛 讗诇讜 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讜讚诪注讱 讗诇讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诪专讛 诇讗 转讗讞专

搂 It was stated (3a): They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina: 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 岣nina? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses鈥 (Exodus 22:28). When the verse states: The fullness of the harvest, these are the first fruits; and when the verse states: 鈥淎nd the outflow of your presses,鈥 this is teruma. And the verse says: 鈥淵ou shall not delay,鈥 i.e., do not delay the separation of the first fruits by separating teruma beforehand.

讗讬转诪专 讛拽讚讬诐 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 诪讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗祝 讛诪拽讚讬诐 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诇讜拽讛

It was stated: If one separated teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, 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 岣nina, who said that he is flogged, from the fact that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said earlier: Also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is flogged.

讗讚专讘讛 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讚转谞谉 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讻诇讻诇讜转 砖诇 讟讘诇 讜讗诪专 诪注砖专 砖诇 讝讜 讘讝讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪注讜砖专转

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.

砖诇 讝讜 讘讝讜 讜砖诇 讝讜 讘讝讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪注讜砖专转 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪注讜砖专转 诪注砖专讜转讬讛诐 诪注砖专 讻诇讻诇讛 讘讞讘讬专转讛 拽专讗 讗转 讛砖诐

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.

讜讗转诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讘讛 诇诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讘讞讘讬专转讛 转住转讬讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诇讬诪讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, it follows that it is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that he is not flogged. Shall we say then that the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, here poses a difficulty to the earlier statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, that one who separates teruma before separating first fruits is flogged?

诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara answers: No, when Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, stated simply: Even one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits,

讗驻讟讜专讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讛诪拽讚讬诐 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐

he was referring not to liability for lashes, but to the exemption from lashes stated in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan (3a). And this is what he is saying: One is not flogged for transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an actionThey said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, that also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is not flogged, since he performs no action.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬诪专 讚诇拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讚讬讘讜专讜 注砖讛 诪注砖讛 诪拽讚讬诐 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讬诇拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讚讬讘讜专讜 注砖讛 诪注砖讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讗讜 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪讻诇 诪注砖专转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜

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: 鈥淥ut of all of your tithes you shall set apart all of that which is due to the Lord鈥 (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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛 诇讗 诇拽讬

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?

讜讛讗 诪讬诪专 讚诇讗讜 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜诇拽讬 讚转谞谉 诇讗 砖讗讚诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛诪讬专 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讛诪讬专 诪讜诪专 讜住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

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: 鈥淗e 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鈥 (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.

讛讜讬 诇讛讜 转专讬 诇讗讜讬 讜讞讚 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讞讚 注砖讛 讜注拽专 转专讬 诇讗讜讬

Rav Dimi answered: There are two prohibitions specified in the verse as transgressed by one who effects substitution: 鈥淗e shall not exchange it,鈥 and: 鈥淣or substitute it.鈥 But there is only one positive mitzva: 鈥淏oth it and that for which it is changed shall be holy.鈥 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.

讜讛专讬 讗讜谞住 讚讞讚 诇讗讜 讜讞讚 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讞讚 注砖讛 讜注拽专 诇讗讜 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜谞住 砖讙讬专砖 讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜讗诐 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专

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: 鈥淗e may not send her away all his days,鈥 and one positive mitzva: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife鈥 (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 divorc茅e, he remarries her and he is not flogged. But if he is a priest, who is prohibited from marrying a divorc茅e, he is flogged and he does not remarry her.

讻讛谞讬诐 拽讗诪专转 讻讛谞讬诐 讟注诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 拽讚讜砖讛 讬转讬专讗

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.

讻转谞讗讬 诇讗 讬砖讗讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 注砖讛 讗讞专 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 Which prohibitions carry the punishment of lashes is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪谉 讛砖诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讗讬 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讘讗砖 转砖专驻讜 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, who holds that the exemption from lashes stems from the prohibition鈥檚 not involving an action, for what purpose does the clause 鈥渂ut that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire鈥 come?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞谉 讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛谞讜转专 讬砖专驻讜 讘砖砖讛 注砖专 讞诇 砖砖讛 注砖专 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讬砖专驻讜 讘砖讘注讛 注砖专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which we learned in a mishna (Pesa岣m 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.

讜讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讘讗砖 转砖专驻讜 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 讘讜拽专 砖谞讬 诇砖专讬驻转讜

And 岣zkiyya says, and so it is taught in the school of 岣zkiyya: What is the reason for this? The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire.鈥 By using the word 鈥渕orning鈥 twice, the verse comes to provide a second morning for the offering鈥檚 burning if the first morning falls on Shabbat or a Festival.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 讗诐 注讘讬讚 诪讛谞讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讗诪讗讬 诇拽讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讜讛讗讬 讚诇拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘专 讗诪讬诪专讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讗

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.

Scroll To Top