Temurah 5

מיתיבי אונס שגירש אם ישראל הוא מחזיר ואינו לוקה ואי אמרת כיון דעבר אמימרא דרחמנא לקי הא נמי לילקי תיובתא דרבא

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 divorcée, 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.

אמר לך שאני התם דאמר קרא כל ימיו כל ימיו בעמוד והחזיר

The Gemara answers that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as the verse states: “He may not send her away all his days” (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.

ולאביי אי לאו דאמר רחמנא כל ימיו הוה אמינא איסורא הוא דעבד ליה אי בעי ליהדר ואי בעי לא ליהדר קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Abaye, what is derived from the phrase “all his days”? The Gemara answers: If the Merciful One did not state “all his days,” 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 “all his days” teaches us that he is obligated to remarry her.

לישנא אחרינא מיתיבי אונס שגירש אם ישראל הוא מחזיר ואינו לוקה ואם כהן הוא לוקה ואינו מחזיר קתני אם ישראל הוא מחזיר תיובתא דאביי

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.

שאני התם דרחמנא אמר כל ימיו כל ימיו בעמוד והחזיר

The Gemara answers that it is different there, as the Merciful One states: “He may not send her away all his days” (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.

ורבא אמר לך אי לא כתב רחמנא כל ימיו הוה אמינא לילקי וליהדר דהוה ליה לאו גרידא דכתיב לא יוכל לשלחה אהכי כתב קרא כל ימיו לשווייה לאונס ללא תעשה שניתק לעשה דאין לוקין עליו

The Gemara comments: And as for Rava, he could say to you that if the Merciful One had not stated “all his days,” 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 “all his days,” 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.

והרי תורם מן הרעה על היפה דרחמנא אמר מכל חלבו

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: “Out of all that is given you, you shall set apart all of that which is due to the Lord, of all the best thereof” (Numbers 18:29).

חלבו אין גירועין לא ותנן אין תורמין מן הרעה על היפה ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה אלמא מהני תיובתא דרבא

And the Sages interpret this verse as follows: “Of all the best thereof,” 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.

אמר לך רבא שאני התם כרבי אילעא דאמר רבי אילעא מנין לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה שנאמר ולא תשאו עליו חטא בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו אם אינו קדוש נשיאות חטא למה מיכן לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה

The Gemara explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ile’a. As Rabbi Ile’a 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: “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof” (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.

ולאביי אי לאו דאמר רחמנא ולא תשאו עליו חטא הוה אמינא הכי אמר רחמנא עביד מצוה מן המובחר ואי לא עביד חוטא לא מיקרי קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Abaye, that all transgressions are legally effective, what does the phrase “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it” teach? The Gemara answers: If the Merciful One had not stated: “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it,” 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.

והרי ממין על שאינו מינו דאמר רחמנא כל חלב יצהר ליתן חלב לזה וחלב לזה ותנן אין תורמין ממין על שאינו מינו ואם תרם אין תרומתו תרומה אלמא לא מהני תיובתא דאביי

The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the case of one who separates teruma from one type of produce to exempt another type of produce, as the Merciful One states: “All 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” (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.

אמר לך אביי שאני התם דאמר קרא ראשיתם ראשית לזה וראשית לזה וכן אמר רבי אילעא ראשית

The Gemara answers that Abaye could say to you: It is different there, as the verse repeats this prohibition and states: “The first part of them,” 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’a likewise says that the phrase in the verse “the first part of them” is the exception that proves the rule.

ולרבא אי לאו דאמר רחמנא ראשית הוה אמינא תירוש ויצהר דכתיב בהו חלב חלב דאין תורמין מזה על זה

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

אבל תירוש ודגן דגן ודגן דחד חלב כתיב בהו כי תרים מהאי אהאי לא לקי כתב רחמנא ראשית ליתן חלב לזה וחלב לזה

But as for wine and grain, or one type of grain and another type of grain, with regard to which the term “best” 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: “The first part of them,” to teach that one must give the best of this and the best of that.

לישנא אחרינא הא תירוש ודגן דחד חלב כתיב בהו תרים מהאי אהאי כתב רחמנא ראשית

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

והרי חרמים דאמר רחמנא לא ימכר ולא יגאל ותנן חרמי כהנים אין פודין אותם אלא נותנין לכהן אלמא לא מהני תיובתא דאביי

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of dedications of property to the priests, with regard to which the Merciful One states: “No 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” (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.

אמר לך שאני התם דאמר רחמנא קדש קדשים הוא בהווייתו יהא

The Gemara explains that Abaye could say to you: It is different there, as the Merciful One states: “Is most holy,” 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.

ולרבא האי הוא למעוטי בכור דתניא בבכור נאמר לא תפדה ונמכר הוא במעשר נאמר לא יגאל ואינו נמכר לא חי ולא שחוט ולא תם ולא בעל מום

And according to the opinion of Rava, this term: “Is most holy,” 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: “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy” (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: “It shall not be redeemed” (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.

והרי תמורה דאמר רחמנא לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אתו ותנא לא שאדם רשאי להמיר אלא שאם המיר מומר וסופג את הארבעים אלמא מהני תיובתא דרבא

The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the case of substitution, with regard to which the Merciful One states: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it” (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.

אמר לך שאני התם דאמר קרא והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קדש

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

ולאביי אי לאו דאמר רחמנא והיה הוא ותמורתו הוה אמינא תצא זו ותכנס זו קמשמע לן

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: “Both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy,” 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.

והרי בכור דאמר רחמנא לא תפדה ותנן יש להן פדיון ולתמורותיהן פדיון חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר אלמא לא מהני תיובתא דאביי

The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the case of a firstborn offering, with regard to which the Merciful One states: “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy” (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.

אמר לך שאני התם דאמר קרא הם בהווייתן יהו

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

ולרבא האי הם למה ליה הן קריבין ואין תמורתן קריבין

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, who maintains that transgressions are not effective, why does he need the term “They are holy”? 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.

ולאביי האי סברא מנא ליה אם שור אם שה לה׳ הוא לה׳ קריב ואין תמורתו קריבה

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: “Whether it be ox or sheep, it is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 27:26). One can infer from this wording that it is sacrificed to the Lord but its substitute is not sacrificed.

ורבא אין הכי נמי דמההוא קרא אלא הם למה לי לימד על בכור ומעשר שנתערב דמן בכל העולין שקריבין לגבי מזבח

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 “They are holy” 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.

ואביי האי סברא מנא ליה מולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר והלא דם הפר מרובה משל שעיר מיכן לעולין שאין מבטלין זה את זה דתניא ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר שיהו מעורבין דברי רבי יאשיה

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’s service on Yom Kippur: “And 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” (Leviticus 16:18). One might ask: But isn’t 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 “And he shall take of the blood of the bull, and of the blood of the goat” 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.

ורבא התם מזה בפני עצמו ומזה בפני עצמו וסבר לה כרבי יונתן

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.

והרי מעשר דאמר רחמנא לא יגאל ותנן יש להן פדיון ולתמורותיהן חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר אלמא לא מהני תיובתא דאביי

The Gemara continues its analysis of the dispute between Abaye and Rava. But isn’t there the case of an animal tithe offering, with regard to which the Merciful One states: “It shall not be redeemed” (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.

אמר לך שאני התם דיליף עברה עברה מבכור

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: “Whatsoever passes [ya’avor] under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32), and the term “avara” that is stated with regard to a firstborn offering: “You shall set apart [veha’avarta] to the Lord all that opens the womb” (Exodus 13:12). It was already derived above that a firstborn offering cannot be redeemed. But in general, transgressions are effective.

הרי הקדימה תרומה לביכורים דאמר רחמנא מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר ותנן המקדים אף על פי שהוא בלא תעשה מה שעשה עשוי

The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the case of one who separated teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, with regard to which the Merciful One states: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses” (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.

אמר לך רבא שאני התם דאמר קרא מכל מעשרתיכם תרימו תרומה

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

ולאביי מיבעיא ליה כדאמר רב פפא לאביי אלא מעתה אפילו הקדימו בכרי נמי ניפטר

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.

אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא מכל מעשרתיכם תרימו

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “From all that is given you, you shall set apart.” 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.

מה ראית לרבות את הכרי ולהוציא את השיבלין מרבה אני את הכרי שישנו בכלל דיגון ומוציא אני את השיבלין שאין בכלל דיגון

Rav Pappa asked: What did you see that leads you to include the first tithe taken from the pile in the category: “All that is given,” 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: “The first fruits of your grain…you shall give him” (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.

והרי אלמנה לכהן גדול דרחמנא אמר אלמנה וגרושה לא יקח ותנן כל מקום שיש קדושין ויש עבירה הולד הולך אחר הפגום

The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the case of a widow betrothed to a High Priest, with regard to which the Merciful One stated: “A 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” (Leviticus 21:14–15)? 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.

שאני הכא דאמר קרא לא יחלל זרעו

The Gemara explains that Rava could say: It is different there, as the verse states: “And he shall not profane [lo yeḥallel] his seed.” 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.

ולאביי נימא קרא לא יחל מאי לא יחלל אחד לו ואחד לה

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 yaḥel, which would have the same meaning. What is indicated by the use of the longer form: Lo yeḥallel? 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.

והרי הקדיש בעלי מומין למזבח דרחמנא אמר כל אשר בו מום לא תקריבו ותנן המקדיש בעלי מומין לגבי מזבח אף על פי שהוא בלא תעשה מה שעשה עשוי תיובתא דרבא

The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the case of one who consecrated blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar, with regard to which the Merciful One states: “But whatsoever has a blemish, that you shall not bring; for it shall not be acceptable for you” (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.

אמר לך רבא שאני התם דאמר קרא ולנדר לא ירצה רצוי הוא דלא מרצה הא מיקדש קדשי

The Gemara explains that Rava could say to you: It is different there, as the verse states with regard to blemished animals: “But for a vow it shall not be accepted” (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.

ולאביי אי דלא אמר רחמנא ולנדר לא ירצה הוה אמינא כעובר מצוה וכשר קמשמע לן

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: “But for a vow it shall not be accepted,” 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.

והרי מקדיש תמימין לבדק הבית דאמר רחמנא

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: