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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 24, 2019 | 讻状讗 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 5

Rava and Abaye disagree regarding one who transgresses a prohibition – is one’s action effective or not? Are lqashes given only because something transpired or can one be punished merely for going against what the Torah聽commanded? The gemara brings tannaitic sources ranging in topic to challenge each of the opinions.


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

诪讬转讬讘讬 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 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讬讜谉 讚注讘专 讗诪讬诪专讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 诇拽讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诇拽讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗

The Gemara raises an objection from 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. And if you say, like Rava, that since one violates the statement of the Merciful One, he is flogged, this one should be flogged as well for divorcing his victim. But according to the opinion of Abaye, it stands to reason that he should not be flogged, since his remarriage nullifies the effects of the divorce. This should be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讞讝讬专

The Gemara answers that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淗e may not send her away all his days鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). This teaches that for all his days, he remains under the obligation to arise and remarry her. Once he remarries her, it turns out that he did not divorce her for all of his days and therefore did not violate the prohibition. This is why he is not flogged.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讬讛讚专 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 诇讬讛讚专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Abaye, what is derived from the phrase 鈥渁ll his days鈥? The Gemara answers: If the Merciful One did not state 鈥渁ll his days,鈥 I would say that he has violated a prohibition by divorcing her, and that if he desires he may choose to remarry her, and if he so desires he may choose not to remarry her. The phrase 鈥渁ll his days鈥 teaches us that he is obligated to remarry her.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪讬转讬讘讬 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 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara records another version of the discussion, in which it raises an objection from the baraita: With regard to a rapist who married and then divorced his victim, if he is an Israelite, he remarries her and he is not flogged. But if he is a priest, he is flogged and he does not remarry her. The baraita teaches that if he is an Israelite he remarries her and he is not flogged, indicating that he must take her back because his divorce was not effective. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye, who holds that transgressions are legally effective.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讞讝讬专

The Gemara answers that it is different there, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e may not send her away all his days鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), which teaches that for all his days, he remains under the obligation to arise and remarry her. Therefore, it is only in this specific case that the divorce is not effective.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬诇拽讬 讜诇讬讛讚专 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇砖诇讞讛 讗讛讻讬 讻转讘 拽专讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 诇砖讜讜讬讬讛 诇讗讜谞住 诇诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛 讚讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

The Gemara comments: And as for Rava, he could say to you that if the Merciful One had not stated 鈥渁ll his days,鈥 I would say that the Israelite should be flogged and should still remarry her, for it is solely a prohibition that he has violated, as it is written: He may not send her away. Therefore, the verse writes 鈥渁ll his days,鈥 to render the case of a rapist a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva, for which one is not flogged.

讜讛专讬 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诪讻诇 讞诇讘讜

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, i.e., he separated teruma from the inferior produce in order to fulfill the obligation of separating teruma from other produce that is high-quality. This is prohibited, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淥ut of all that is given you, you shall set apart all of that which is due to the Lord, of all the best thereof鈥 (Numbers 18:29).

讞诇讘讜 讗讬谉 讙讬专讜注讬谉 诇讗 讜转谞谉 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 讜讗诐 转专诐 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讗诇诪讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗

And the Sages interpret this verse as follows: 鈥淥f all the best thereof,鈥 yes, but one should not separate poor-quality produce. And yet we learned in a mishna (Terumot 2:4): One may not separate teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, and if one did separate teruma in that manner, his teruma is valid teruma. Apparently, his action is effective, which is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 诪谞讬谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讘讛专讬诪讻诐 讗转 讞诇讘讜 诪诪谞讜 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 谞砖讬讗讜转 讞讟讗 诇诪讛 诪讬讻谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ile鈥檃. As Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said: From where is it derived with regard to one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce that his teruma is valid teruma? As it is stated with regard to teruma: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof鈥 (Numbers 18:32). The verse defines separation from inferior produce as a transgression but teaches that it is nevertheless effective, because if it is not consecrated as teruma, why would one bear a sin for accomplishing nothing? From here it is derived with regard to one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce that his teruma is valid teruma.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讜讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讞讜讟讗 诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Abaye, that all transgressions are legally effective, what does the phrase 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it鈥 teach? The Gemara answers: If the Merciful One had not stated: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it,鈥 I would say that this is what the Merciful One said: Perform the mitzva in the optimal manner by separating teruma from superior-quality produce, but if one did not perform the mitzva in that manner, he is not called a sinner. The verse teaches us that one who fails to perform this mitzva in the optimal manner sins.

讜讛专讬 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讞诇讘 讬爪讛专 诇讬转谉 讞诇讘 诇讝讛 讜讞诇讘 诇讝讛 讜转谞谉 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讜讗诐 转专诐 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of one who separates teruma from one type of produce to exempt another type of produce, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淎ll the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the grain, the first part of them which they give to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 18:12)? This teaches that one is obligated to give the best of one type of produce and the best of another type of produce, each individually. And we learned in a mishna (Terumot 2:4): One may not separate teruma from one type of produce for another type, and if one did separate teruma in that manner, his teruma is not valid teruma. Apparently, the transgression is not effective. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 专讗砖讬转诐 专讗砖讬转 诇讝讛 讜专讗砖讬转 诇讝讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 专讗砖讬转

The Gemara answers that Abaye could say to you: It is different there, as the verse repeats this prohibition and states: 鈥淭he first part of them,鈥 indicating that one must give a first part for this type of produce and a first part for that type of produce. If the verse had not taught so explicitly in this case, one would have assumed that the transgression is effective. And Rabbi Ile鈥檃 likewise says that the phrase in the verse 鈥渢he first part of them鈥 is the exception that proves the rule.

讜诇专讘讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 专讗砖讬转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬专讜砖 讜讬爪讛专 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讞诇讘 讞诇讘 讚讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, that transgressions are not effective, what does the term 鈥渢he first part of them鈥 teach? The Gemara answers: If the Merciful One had not stated: 鈥淭he first part of them,鈥 I would say that the prohibition applies only to wine and olive oil, with regard to which it is written: 鈥淏est鈥est,鈥 teaching that one may not separate teruma from this type for that type.

讗讘诇 转讬专讜砖 讜讚讙谉 讚讙谉 讜讚讙谉 讚讞讚 讞诇讘 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻讬 转专讬诐 诪讛讗讬 讗讛讗讬 诇讗 诇拽讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 专讗砖讬转 诇讬转谉 讞诇讘 诇讝讛 讜讞诇讘 诇讝讛

But as for wine and grain, or one type of grain and another type of grain, with regard to which the term 鈥渂est鈥 is written only once, when one separates teruma from this grain or wine for that grain or wine, he is not held liable for transgressing Torah law, and he is not flogged. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he first part of them,鈥 to teach that one must give the best of this and the best of that.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讗 转讬专讜砖 讜讚讙谉 讚讞讚 讞诇讘 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 转专讬诐 诪讛讗讬 讗讛讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 专讗砖讬转

The Gemara records another version of the last point: But as for wine and grain, with regard to which the term 鈥渂est鈥 is written only once, one may separate teruma from this for that ab initio. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he first part of them,鈥 to teach that even in the case of wine and grain, one may not separate teruma from one for the other.

讜讛专讬 讞专诪讬诐 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讜诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜转谞谉 讞专诪讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转诐 讗诇讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of dedications of property to the priests, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淣o devoted item, that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted item is most holy unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). And we learned in a mishna (Arakhin 28b): Items dedicated to priests are not redeemed; rather, one gives them to the priest. Apparently, if one transgresses the prohibition and redeems a dedicated item, his action is not effective. This seems to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗

The Gemara explains that Abaye could say to you: It is different there, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淚s most holy,鈥 to teach that it shall be as it is. Once it is dedicated, its status cannot be changed by means of redemption. But in other matters the transgression is effective.

讜诇专讘讗 讛讗讬 讛讜讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讻讜专 讚转谞讬讗 讘讘讻讜专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转驻讚讛 讜谞诪讻专 讛讜讗 讘诪注砖专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 诇讗 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讞讜讟 讜诇讗 转诐 讜诇讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐

And according to the opinion of Rava, this term: 鈥淚s most holy,鈥 serves to exclude the case of a firstborn offering from the prohibition of sale. As it is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to a firstborn offering: 鈥淏ut the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17). But if it develops a blemish it may still be sold. By contrast, it is stated with regard to the animal tithe offering: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), and the animal tithe may not be sold, not when alive and not when slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished.

讜讛专讬 转诪讜专讛 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专 讗转讜 讜转谞讗 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 讗诇诪讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of substitution, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e shall not exchange it, nor substitute it鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), and it is taught 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 forty lashes. Apparently, his action is effective, and this seems to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜转诪讜专转讜 讬讛讬讛 拽讚砖

The Gemara explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as that same verse states: 鈥淎nd if he shall at all substitute animal for animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy,鈥 which teaches that his action is effective in this context specifically.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜转诪讜专转讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转爪讗 讝讜 讜转讻谞住 讝讜 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

And according to the opinion of Abaye, that transgressions are effective in general, that clause is still necessary, because if the Merciful One had not stated: 鈥淏oth it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy,鈥 I would say that this initially consecrated animal will leave its consecrated state, and that non-sacred animal will enter into sanctity instead. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the first animal retains its sanctity as well.

讜讛专讬 讘讻讜专 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转驻讚讛 讜转谞谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讜诇转诪讜专讜转讬讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专 讜诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of a firstborn offering, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淏ut the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17)? And we learned in a mishna (21a): All sacrificial animals that became blemished are subject to redemption through sale, and their substitutes are also subject to redemption through sale, except for the firstborn and the animal tithe offerings. Apparently, if one attempts to redeem a firstborn offering, his action is not effective, and this seems to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛诐 讘讛讜讜讬讬转谉 讬讛讜

The Gemara explains that Abaye could say to you: It is different there, as that same verse states: 鈥淭hey are holy,鈥 thereby teaching that they shall always be as they are, even if one attempts to redeem them.

讜诇专讘讗 讛讗讬 讛诐 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讛谉 拽专讬讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转谉 拽专讬讘讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, who maintains that transgressions are not effective, why does he need the term 鈥淭hey are holy鈥? The Gemara answers: This term teaches that if one substituted another animal for a firstborn offering or for an animal tithe offering, they, the originally consecrated animals, are sacrificed, but their substitutes, although they have sanctity, are not sacrificed.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诐 砖讜专 讗诐 砖讛 诇讛壮 讛讜讗 诇讛壮 拽专讬讘 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转讜 拽专讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye, from where does he derive this conclusion that the substitutes are not sacrificed? The Gemara answers: The verse states concerning firstborn offerings: 鈥淲hether it be ox or sheep, it is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 27:26). One can infer from this wording that it is sacrificed to the Lord but its substitute is not sacrificed.

讜专讘讗 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讛讛讜讗 拽专讗 讗诇讗 讛诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 砖谞转注专讘 讚诪谉 讘讻诇 讛注讜诇讬谉 砖拽专讬讘讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: And what does Rava derive from that verse? The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so that he, like Abaye, derives from that verse, not from Numbers 18:17 as originally suggested, the halakha that the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed. Rather, why do I need the term 鈥淭hey are holy鈥 which appears in that verse? It teaches with regard to a firstborn offering or an animal tithe offering whose blood was mixed with the blood of any other offering brought upon the altar that the blood is nevertheless sacrificed on the altar as it would have been individually.

讜讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 讜讛诇讗 讚诐 讛驻专 诪专讜讘讛 诪砖诇 砖注讬专 诪讬讻谉 诇注讜诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 砖讬讛讜 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

The Gemara asks: And Abaye, from where does he derive this conclusion, that such blood is sacrificed? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse concerning the High Priest鈥檚 service on Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the corners of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). One might ask: But isn鈥檛 there more blood of the bull than of the goat? Why is the blood of the goat not nullified? From here it is derived that offerings brought upon the altar do not nullify one another, as it is taught in a baraita that the phrase in the verse 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull, and of the blood of the goat鈥 serves to teach that they must be mixed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Accordingly, Abaye derives that mixtures of blood may be sacrificed.

讜专讘讗 讛转诐 诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

And as for Rava, he holds that there, the High Priest would take from this blood of the bull by itself and from that blood of the goat by itself, rather than mixing them together. And in this matter, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, who disagrees with Rabbi Yoshiya.

讜讛专讬 诪注砖专 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜转谞谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讜诇转诪讜专讜转讬讛谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专 讜诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara continues its analysis of the dispute between Abaye and Rava. But isn鈥檛 there the case of an animal tithe offering, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33)? And we learned in a mishna (21a): All sacrificial animals that became blemished are subject to redemption through sale, and their substitutes are also subject to redemption through sale, except for the firstborn and the animal tithe offering. Apparently, if one attempts to redeem an animal tithe offering, his act is not effective, and this seems to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讬诇讬祝 注讘专讛 注讘专讛 诪讘讻讜专

The Gemara explains that Abaye could say to you: It is different there, as one derives that halakha from the halakha of a firstborn offering, by verbal analogy between the term avara that is stated with regard to an animal tithe offering: 鈥淲hatsoever passes [ya鈥檃vor] under the rod鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), and the term avara that is stated with regard to a firstborn offering: 鈥淵ou shall set apart [veha鈥檃varta] to the Lord all that opens the womb鈥 (Exodus 13:12). It was already derived above that a firstborn offering cannot be redeemed. But in general, transgressions are effective.

讛专讬 讛拽讚讬诪讛 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪诇讗转讱 讜讚诪注讱 诇讗 转讗讞专 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of one who separated teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, with regard to which the Merciful One 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)? The verse was expounded earlier (4b) as teaching that one must separate first fruits before separating teruma. And we learned in a mishna (Terumot 3:6): If one separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, although he has transgressed a prohibition, what he did is done, and produce has the status of teruma. This appears to refute the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 诪注砖专转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淔rom all that is given you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord鈥檚 teruma (Numbers 18:29), thereby teaching that the separation of teruma is effective in any case. But in general, transgressions are not effective.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 谞诪讬 谞讬驻讟专

And according to the opinion of Abaye that transgressions are generally effective, that verse is required to teach another halakha, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye (Beitza 13b): Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish stated that if the first tithe was separated while the grain was still on the stalks, that amount is exempt from teruma, even though the amount of teruma the priest receives is thereby reduced. If that is so, then even if the Levite preceded the priest by taking the first tithe after the grain had been threshed and arranged in a pile, we should exempt that grain from the obligation of teruma as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 诪注砖专转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淔rom all that is given you, you shall set apart.鈥 This verse teaches that the Levites must designate a portion of all the gifts they receive and give it to the priests, even if they received them before teruma had been separated.

诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻专讬 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛砖讬讘诇讬谉 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讻专讬 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讻诇诇 讚讬讙讜谉 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛砖讬讘诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讚讬讙讜谉

Rav Pappa asked: What did you see that leads you to include the first tithe taken from the pile in the category: 鈥淎ll that is given,鈥 and to exclude that which is taken from the stalks? Abaye answered: I include a tithe taken from the pile, as it has been processed to the point where it is included in the category of grain, since it is written: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain鈥ou shall give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4); and I exclude a tithe taken from the stalks, as it is not included in the category of grain and is not yet obligated in teruma.

讜讛专讬 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讜转谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜讬砖 注讘讬专讛 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of a widow betrothed to a High Priest, with regard to which the Merciful One stated: 鈥淎 widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a harlot, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife. And he shall not profane his seed among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:14鈥15)? And we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 66b): Any case where there is a valid betrothal and yet there is a transgression, the offspring follows the flawed lineage. For example, if a widow, who may not marry a High Priest, nevertheless did so, the offspring may not marry a priest. Still, the marriage is in force, contrary to the opinion of Rava.

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜

The Gemara explains that Rava could say: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane [lo ye岣llel] his seed.鈥 The verse states only that the offspring is profaned, not that he has the status of a mamzer, which would hold for one born of a union between two people with regard to whom marriage cannot take effect. Rava infers from the verse that the betrothal of a High Priest and a widow specifically does take effect. But in general, transgressions are not effective.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讞诇 诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讛

And according to the opinion of Abaye, that transgressions are generally effective, what is derived from that phrase? Abaye can say: If it merely means to teach that the betrothal takes effect, let the verse state simply: Lo ya岣l, which would have the same meaning. What is indicated by the use of the longer form: Lo ye岣llel? This teaches that there are two profanations: One for him, i.e., that the offspring is profaned, and one for her, i.e., that the mother is disqualified from marrying even a common priest.

讜讛专讬 讛拽讚讬砖 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讗砖专 讘讜 诪讜诐 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of one who consecrated blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淏ut whatsoever has a blemish, that you shall not bring; for it shall not be acceptable for you鈥 (Leviticus 22:20)? And we learned in a baraita: If one consecrates blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar, even though he has transgressed a prohibition, what he did is done, and the consecration takes effect. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇谞讚专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 专爪讜讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪专爪讛 讛讗 诪讬拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬

The Gemara explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as the verse states with regard to blemished animals: 鈥淏ut for a vow it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 22:23). Since the verse specifies only that it is its sacrifice which does not effect acceptance, one may consequently infer that if one consecrates them, they are still consecrated. But in general, transgressions are not effective.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇谞讚专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻注讜讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜讻砖专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

And according to the opinion of Abaye, that transgressions are generally effective, what does this phrase teach? Abaye can say that if the Merciful One had not stated: 鈥淏ut for a vow it shall not be accepted,鈥 I would say that one who consecrated it is considered like one who transgressed a mitzva but the offering is still fit to be sacrificed. The verse therefore teaches us that it may not be sacrificed as an offering.

讜讛专讬 诪拽讚讬砖 转诪讬诪讬谉 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of one who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance, with regard to which the Merciful One states:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 5

诪讬转讬讘讬 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 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讬讜谉 讚注讘专 讗诪讬诪专讗 讚专讞诪谞讗 诇拽讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诇拽讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗

The Gemara raises an objection from 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. And if you say, like Rava, that since one violates the statement of the Merciful One, he is flogged, this one should be flogged as well for divorcing his victim. But according to the opinion of Abaye, it stands to reason that he should not be flogged, since his remarriage nullifies the effects of the divorce. This should be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讞讝讬专

The Gemara answers that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淗e may not send her away all his days鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). This teaches that for all his days, he remains under the obligation to arise and remarry her. Once he remarries her, it turns out that he did not divorce her for all of his days and therefore did not violate the prohibition. This is why he is not flogged.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讬讛讚专 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 诇讬讛讚专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Abaye, what is derived from the phrase 鈥渁ll his days鈥? The Gemara answers: If the Merciful One did not state 鈥渁ll his days,鈥 I would say that he has violated a prohibition by divorcing her, and that if he desires he may choose to remarry her, and if he so desires he may choose not to remarry her. The phrase 鈥渁ll his days鈥 teaches us that he is obligated to remarry her.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪讬转讬讘讬 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 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara records another version of the discussion, in which it raises an objection from the baraita: With regard to a rapist who married and then divorced his victim, if he is an Israelite, he remarries her and he is not flogged. But if he is a priest, he is flogged and he does not remarry her. The baraita teaches that if he is an Israelite he remarries her and he is not flogged, indicating that he must take her back because his divorce was not effective. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye, who holds that transgressions are legally effective.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讞讝讬专

The Gemara answers that it is different there, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e may not send her away all his days鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), which teaches that for all his days, he remains under the obligation to arise and remarry her. Therefore, it is only in this specific case that the divorce is not effective.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬诇拽讬 讜诇讬讛讚专 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讙专讬讚讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇砖诇讞讛 讗讛讻讬 讻转讘 拽专讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 诇砖讜讜讬讬讛 诇讗讜谞住 诇诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛 讚讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

The Gemara comments: And as for Rava, he could say to you that if the Merciful One had not stated 鈥渁ll his days,鈥 I would say that the Israelite should be flogged and should still remarry her, for it is solely a prohibition that he has violated, as it is written: He may not send her away. Therefore, the verse writes 鈥渁ll his days,鈥 to render the case of a rapist a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva, for which one is not flogged.

讜讛专讬 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诪讻诇 讞诇讘讜

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, i.e., he separated teruma from the inferior produce in order to fulfill the obligation of separating teruma from other produce that is high-quality. This is prohibited, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淥ut of all that is given you, you shall set apart all of that which is due to the Lord, of all the best thereof鈥 (Numbers 18:29).

讞诇讘讜 讗讬谉 讙讬专讜注讬谉 诇讗 讜转谞谉 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 讜讗诐 转专诐 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讗诇诪讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗

And the Sages interpret this verse as follows: 鈥淥f all the best thereof,鈥 yes, but one should not separate poor-quality produce. And yet we learned in a mishna (Terumot 2:4): One may not separate teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, and if one did separate teruma in that manner, his teruma is valid teruma. Apparently, his action is effective, which is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 诪谞讬谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讘讛专讬诪讻诐 讗转 讞诇讘讜 诪诪谞讜 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 谞砖讬讗讜转 讞讟讗 诇诪讛 诪讬讻谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ile鈥檃. As Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said: From where is it derived with regard to one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce that his teruma is valid teruma? As it is stated with regard to teruma: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof鈥 (Numbers 18:32). The verse defines separation from inferior produce as a transgression but teaches that it is nevertheless effective, because if it is not consecrated as teruma, why would one bear a sin for accomplishing nothing? From here it is derived with regard to one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce that his teruma is valid teruma.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讜讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讞讜讟讗 诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Abaye, that all transgressions are legally effective, what does the phrase 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it鈥 teach? The Gemara answers: If the Merciful One had not stated: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it,鈥 I would say that this is what the Merciful One said: Perform the mitzva in the optimal manner by separating teruma from superior-quality produce, but if one did not perform the mitzva in that manner, he is not called a sinner. The verse teaches us that one who fails to perform this mitzva in the optimal manner sins.

讜讛专讬 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讞诇讘 讬爪讛专 诇讬转谉 讞诇讘 诇讝讛 讜讞诇讘 诇讝讛 讜转谞谉 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讜讗诐 转专诐 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of one who separates teruma from one type of produce to exempt another type of produce, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淎ll the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the grain, the first part of them which they give to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 18:12)? This teaches that one is obligated to give the best of one type of produce and the best of another type of produce, each individually. And we learned in a mishna (Terumot 2:4): One may not separate teruma from one type of produce for another type, and if one did separate teruma in that manner, his teruma is not valid teruma. Apparently, the transgression is not effective. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 专讗砖讬转诐 专讗砖讬转 诇讝讛 讜专讗砖讬转 诇讝讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 专讗砖讬转

The Gemara answers that Abaye could say to you: It is different there, as the verse repeats this prohibition and states: 鈥淭he first part of them,鈥 indicating that one must give a first part for this type of produce and a first part for that type of produce. If the verse had not taught so explicitly in this case, one would have assumed that the transgression is effective. And Rabbi Ile鈥檃 likewise says that the phrase in the verse 鈥渢he first part of them鈥 is the exception that proves the rule.

讜诇专讘讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 专讗砖讬转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬专讜砖 讜讬爪讛专 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讞诇讘 讞诇讘 讚讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, that transgressions are not effective, what does the term 鈥渢he first part of them鈥 teach? The Gemara answers: If the Merciful One had not stated: 鈥淭he first part of them,鈥 I would say that the prohibition applies only to wine and olive oil, with regard to which it is written: 鈥淏est鈥est,鈥 teaching that one may not separate teruma from this type for that type.

讗讘诇 转讬专讜砖 讜讚讙谉 讚讙谉 讜讚讙谉 讚讞讚 讞诇讘 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻讬 转专讬诐 诪讛讗讬 讗讛讗讬 诇讗 诇拽讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 专讗砖讬转 诇讬转谉 讞诇讘 诇讝讛 讜讞诇讘 诇讝讛

But as for wine and grain, or one type of grain and another type of grain, with regard to which the term 鈥渂est鈥 is written only once, when one separates teruma from this grain or wine for that grain or wine, he is not held liable for transgressing Torah law, and he is not flogged. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he first part of them,鈥 to teach that one must give the best of this and the best of that.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讗 转讬专讜砖 讜讚讙谉 讚讞讚 讞诇讘 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 转专讬诐 诪讛讗讬 讗讛讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 专讗砖讬转

The Gemara records another version of the last point: But as for wine and grain, with regard to which the term 鈥渂est鈥 is written only once, one may separate teruma from this for that ab initio. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he first part of them,鈥 to teach that even in the case of wine and grain, one may not separate teruma from one for the other.

讜讛专讬 讞专诪讬诐 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讜诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜转谞谉 讞专诪讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转诐 讗诇讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of dedications of property to the priests, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淣o devoted item, that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted item is most holy unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). And we learned in a mishna (Arakhin 28b): Items dedicated to priests are not redeemed; rather, one gives them to the priest. Apparently, if one transgresses the prohibition and redeems a dedicated item, his action is not effective. This seems to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讘讛讜讜讬讬转讜 讬讛讗

The Gemara explains that Abaye could say to you: It is different there, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淚s most holy,鈥 to teach that it shall be as it is. Once it is dedicated, its status cannot be changed by means of redemption. But in other matters the transgression is effective.

讜诇专讘讗 讛讗讬 讛讜讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讻讜专 讚转谞讬讗 讘讘讻讜专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转驻讚讛 讜谞诪讻专 讛讜讗 讘诪注砖专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 诇讗 讞讬 讜诇讗 砖讞讜讟 讜诇讗 转诐 讜诇讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐

And according to the opinion of Rava, this term: 鈥淚s most holy,鈥 serves to exclude the case of a firstborn offering from the prohibition of sale. As it is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to a firstborn offering: 鈥淏ut the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17). But if it develops a blemish it may still be sold. By contrast, it is stated with regard to the animal tithe offering: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), and the animal tithe may not be sold, not when alive and not when slaughtered, not when unblemished and not when blemished.

讜讛专讬 转诪讜专讛 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻谞讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬专 讗转讜 讜转谞讗 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 讗诇诪讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of substitution, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e shall not exchange it, nor substitute it鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), and it is taught 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 forty lashes. Apparently, his action is effective, and this seems to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜转诪讜专转讜 讬讛讬讛 拽讚砖

The Gemara explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as that same verse states: 鈥淎nd if he shall at all substitute animal for animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy,鈥 which teaches that his action is effective in this context specifically.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜转诪讜专转讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转爪讗 讝讜 讜转讻谞住 讝讜 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

And according to the opinion of Abaye, that transgressions are effective in general, that clause is still necessary, because if the Merciful One had not stated: 鈥淏oth it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy,鈥 I would say that this initially consecrated animal will leave its consecrated state, and that non-sacred animal will enter into sanctity instead. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the first animal retains its sanctity as well.

讜讛专讬 讘讻讜专 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转驻讚讛 讜转谞谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讜诇转诪讜专讜转讬讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专 讜诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of a firstborn offering, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淏ut the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17)? And we learned in a mishna (21a): All sacrificial animals that became blemished are subject to redemption through sale, and their substitutes are also subject to redemption through sale, except for the firstborn and the animal tithe offerings. Apparently, if one attempts to redeem a firstborn offering, his action is not effective, and this seems to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛诐 讘讛讜讜讬讬转谉 讬讛讜

The Gemara explains that Abaye could say to you: It is different there, as that same verse states: 鈥淭hey are holy,鈥 thereby teaching that they shall always be as they are, even if one attempts to redeem them.

讜诇专讘讗 讛讗讬 讛诐 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讛谉 拽专讬讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转谉 拽专讬讘讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, who maintains that transgressions are not effective, why does he need the term 鈥淭hey are holy鈥? The Gemara answers: This term teaches that if one substituted another animal for a firstborn offering or for an animal tithe offering, they, the originally consecrated animals, are sacrificed, but their substitutes, although they have sanctity, are not sacrificed.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诐 砖讜专 讗诐 砖讛 诇讛壮 讛讜讗 诇讛壮 拽专讬讘 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转讜 拽专讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye, from where does he derive this conclusion that the substitutes are not sacrificed? The Gemara answers: The verse states concerning firstborn offerings: 鈥淲hether it be ox or sheep, it is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 27:26). One can infer from this wording that it is sacrificed to the Lord but its substitute is not sacrificed.

讜专讘讗 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讛讛讜讗 拽专讗 讗诇讗 讛诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 砖谞转注专讘 讚诪谉 讘讻诇 讛注讜诇讬谉 砖拽专讬讘讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: And what does Rava derive from that verse? The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so that he, like Abaye, derives from that verse, not from Numbers 18:17 as originally suggested, the halakha that the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed. Rather, why do I need the term 鈥淭hey are holy鈥 which appears in that verse? It teaches with regard to a firstborn offering or an animal tithe offering whose blood was mixed with the blood of any other offering brought upon the altar that the blood is nevertheless sacrificed on the altar as it would have been individually.

讜讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 讜讛诇讗 讚诐 讛驻专 诪专讜讘讛 诪砖诇 砖注讬专 诪讬讻谉 诇注讜诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 砖讬讛讜 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

The Gemara asks: And Abaye, from where does he derive this conclusion, that such blood is sacrificed? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse concerning the High Priest鈥檚 service on Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the corners of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). One might ask: But isn鈥檛 there more blood of the bull than of the goat? Why is the blood of the goat not nullified? From here it is derived that offerings brought upon the altar do not nullify one another, as it is taught in a baraita that the phrase in the verse 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull, and of the blood of the goat鈥 serves to teach that they must be mixed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Accordingly, Abaye derives that mixtures of blood may be sacrificed.

讜专讘讗 讛转诐 诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

And as for Rava, he holds that there, the High Priest would take from this blood of the bull by itself and from that blood of the goat by itself, rather than mixing them together. And in this matter, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, who disagrees with Rabbi Yoshiya.

讜讛专讬 诪注砖专 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙讗诇 讜转谞谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讜诇转诪讜专讜转讬讛谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专 讜诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara continues its analysis of the dispute between Abaye and Rava. But isn鈥檛 there the case of an animal tithe offering, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淚t shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:33)? And we learned in a mishna (21a): All sacrificial animals that became blemished are subject to redemption through sale, and their substitutes are also subject to redemption through sale, except for the firstborn and the animal tithe offering. Apparently, if one attempts to redeem an animal tithe offering, his act is not effective, and this seems to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讬诇讬祝 注讘专讛 注讘专讛 诪讘讻讜专

The Gemara explains that Abaye could say to you: It is different there, as one derives that halakha from the halakha of a firstborn offering, by verbal analogy between the term avara that is stated with regard to an animal tithe offering: 鈥淲hatsoever passes [ya鈥檃vor] under the rod鈥 (Leviticus 27:32), and the term avara that is stated with regard to a firstborn offering: 鈥淵ou shall set apart [veha鈥檃varta] to the Lord all that opens the womb鈥 (Exodus 13:12). It was already derived above that a firstborn offering cannot be redeemed. But in general, transgressions are effective.

讛专讬 讛拽讚讬诪讛 转专讜诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪诇讗转讱 讜讚诪注讱 诇讗 转讗讞专 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of one who separated teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, with regard to which the Merciful One 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)? The verse was expounded earlier (4b) as teaching that one must separate first fruits before separating teruma. And we learned in a mishna (Terumot 3:6): If one separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, although he has transgressed a prohibition, what he did is done, and produce has the status of teruma. This appears to refute the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 诪注砖专转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淔rom all that is given you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord鈥檚 teruma (Numbers 18:29), thereby teaching that the separation of teruma is effective in any case. But in general, transgressions are not effective.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 谞诪讬 谞讬驻讟专

And according to the opinion of Abaye that transgressions are generally effective, that verse is required to teach another halakha, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye (Beitza 13b): Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish stated that if the first tithe was separated while the grain was still on the stalks, that amount is exempt from teruma, even though the amount of teruma the priest receives is thereby reduced. If that is so, then even if the Levite preceded the priest by taking the first tithe after the grain had been threshed and arranged in a pile, we should exempt that grain from the obligation of teruma as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 诪注砖专转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淔rom all that is given you, you shall set apart.鈥 This verse teaches that the Levites must designate a portion of all the gifts they receive and give it to the priests, even if they received them before teruma had been separated.

诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻专讬 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛砖讬讘诇讬谉 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讻专讬 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讻诇诇 讚讬讙讜谉 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛砖讬讘诇讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讚讬讙讜谉

Rav Pappa asked: What did you see that leads you to include the first tithe taken from the pile in the category: 鈥淎ll that is given,鈥 and to exclude that which is taken from the stalks? Abaye answered: I include a tithe taken from the pile, as it has been processed to the point where it is included in the category of grain, since it is written: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain鈥ou shall give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4); and I exclude a tithe taken from the stalks, as it is not included in the category of grain and is not yet obligated in teruma.

讜讛专讬 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讗诇诪谞讛 讜讙专讜砖讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讜转谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜讬砖 注讘讬专讛 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of a widow betrothed to a High Priest, with regard to which the Merciful One stated: 鈥淎 widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a harlot, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife. And he shall not profane his seed among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:14鈥15)? And we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 66b): Any case where there is a valid betrothal and yet there is a transgression, the offspring follows the flawed lineage. For example, if a widow, who may not marry a High Priest, nevertheless did so, the offspring may not marry a priest. Still, the marriage is in force, contrary to the opinion of Rava.

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讝专注讜

The Gemara explains that Rava could say: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall not profane [lo ye岣llel] his seed.鈥 The verse states only that the offspring is profaned, not that he has the status of a mamzer, which would hold for one born of a union between two people with regard to whom marriage cannot take effect. Rava infers from the verse that the betrothal of a High Priest and a widow specifically does take effect. But in general, transgressions are not effective.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讗 讬讞诇 诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讛

And according to the opinion of Abaye, that transgressions are generally effective, what is derived from that phrase? Abaye can say: If it merely means to teach that the betrothal takes effect, let the verse state simply: Lo ya岣l, which would have the same meaning. What is indicated by the use of the longer form: Lo ye岣llel? This teaches that there are two profanations: One for him, i.e., that the offspring is profaned, and one for her, i.e., that the mother is disqualified from marrying even a common priest.

讜讛专讬 讛拽讚讬砖 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讗砖专 讘讜 诪讜诐 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讜转谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of one who consecrated blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar, with regard to which the Merciful One states: 鈥淏ut whatsoever has a blemish, that you shall not bring; for it shall not be acceptable for you鈥 (Leviticus 22:20)? And we learned in a baraita: If one consecrates blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar, even though he has transgressed a prohibition, what he did is done, and the consecration takes effect. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇谞讚专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 专爪讜讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪专爪讛 讛讗 诪讬拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬

The Gemara explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as the verse states with regard to blemished animals: 鈥淏ut for a vow it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 22:23). Since the verse specifies only that it is its sacrifice which does not effect acceptance, one may consequently infer that if one consecrates them, they are still consecrated. But in general, transgressions are not effective.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇谞讚专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻注讜讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜讻砖专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

And according to the opinion of Abaye, that transgressions are generally effective, what does this phrase teach? Abaye can say that if the Merciful One had not stated: 鈥淏ut for a vow it shall not be accepted,鈥 I would say that one who consecrated it is considered like one who transgressed a mitzva but the offering is still fit to be sacrificed. The verse therefore teaches us that it may not be sacrificed as an offering.

讜讛专讬 诪拽讚讬砖 转诪讬诪讬谉 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of one who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance, with regard to which the Merciful One states:

Scroll To Top