Temurah 3a — the Talmud in English

“Benefit of enjoyment” is the right that the Israelite has to give the teruma to the kohen whom he chooses according to his desire. This right is a monetary right, in which there is monetary profit, since an Israelite who has a grandson who is a kohen [the son of his daughter who married a kohen] says to an Israelite, the owner of the teruma: Take this sela for yourself, and give your terumot to my daughter’s son, the kohen."

And one who separates from his own produce for the tevel produce of his fellow—the “benefit of enjoyment” belongs to the one who separates, and it is he who may give the tithes to whichever kohen he wishes, and not the owner of the produce for whom it was separated. These are the words of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.

And it is proven from the second law that Rabbi Abbahu stated that the one for whom atonement is made performs temura, and not the one who consecrated. And it is difficult: Why did Rami bar Hama not resolve his problem from the words of Rabbi Abbahu?

And we answer:

And Rami bar Hama

holds that one cannot resolve it from the words of Rabbi Abbahu, because there is a distinction between the law of Rabbi Abbahu and his problem. For

there—

when an Israelite consecrated for an Israelite for whom atonement is made—

it is that it comes,

the sanctity of the offering comes

through the power of an Israelite

who consecrated it.

Therefore we follow the one for whom atonement is made, for it is

his,

since the offering is

its beginning and its end [

the consecration and the atonement]

in the hands of an Israelite.

For there is no deficiency in the very sanctity of the offering, and the entire discussion is who performs temura; and concerning this Rabbi Abbahu said that the one for whom atonement is made performs temura.

But here,

where the non-Jew consecrated it even before there is reason to discuss “who performs temura,” it is doubtful whether it is at all possible to perform temura upon it. Therefore

this is what he asks him: Do we require

whether, in order to perform temura, it is necessary

from beginning to end, that it be, therefore

that the animal stand

in the domain of the one who performs temura—

that is, in the hands of an Israelite who is fit to perform temura. And this animal, since it was not from beginning to end in the hands of an Israelite, but its initial sanctification was in the hands of a non-Jew, one does not perform temura upon it, despite the fact that the one for whom atonement is made is an Israelite.

Or not.

Since in the end it came into the hands of the Israelite for whom atonement is made, who is fit to perform temura, the sanctity of temura takes hold in it.

And we conclude:

Teyku!

The problem is not resolved.

The Gemara explains the entire beraita, and likewise in what Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosei disagreed.

The Master said: The consecrated property of

non-Jews is neither subject to enjoyment nor to misuse.

And we explain:

“neither subject to enjoyment,”

this is

rabbinic,

for they prohibited deriving benefit from them.

“nor subject to misuse”—

by Torah law.

What is the reason,

that is, from where do we expound that by Torah law there is no misuse?

For it is written

in the section of misuse [Leviticus 5],

“When a person commits a misuse and sins unintentionally.” And we derive

a gzera shava,

“sin”

“sin”

from teruma,

where it is also said [Leviticus 22], “And they shall not bear sin on account of it.”

And concerning teruma it is written

later in the section, “And they shall not profane the holy things

of the Israelites,”

and we expound:

“and not non-Jews.”

And we learn: Just as teruma does not apply to non-Jews, so misuse does not apply to the consecrated property of non-Jews.

We learned in the beraita:

And one is not liable on account of them for pigul, notar, or impurity.

And the Gemara explains:

For it is written concerning impurity [

Leviticus 22],

“Speak to Aaron and to his sons, and they shall separate themselves from the holy things of the Israelites, and they shall not profane the name of My holiness that they consecrate to Me.”

And we expound [Sifra 22:62]: “Separation” means nothing other than withdrawal—they shall withdraw from the holy things during the days of their impurity. It follows that impurity applies only to the holy things of Israelites.

And he derives notar

by a gzera shava,

“profanation,” “profanation,” from impurity.

For it is written concerning impurity, “the Israelites, and they shall not profane,” and it is written concerning notar [

Leviticus 19],

“And the one who eats it shall bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the holy thing of the Lord,”

and we expound: Just as the profanation stated concerning impurity refers to Israelites and not non-Jews, so the profanation stated concerning notar refers to Israelites and not non-Jews.

And he derives pigul

by a gzera shava,

“iniquity,” “iniquity,” from notar.

For it is written concerning pigul [

Leviticus 7],

“And the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity,” and it is written concerning notar [

Leviticus 19],

“And the one who eats it shall bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the holy thing of the Lord.”

Just as the iniquity stated concerning notar refers to Israelites and not non-Jews, so the iniquity stated concerning pigul refers to Israelites and not non-Jews.

And all of them,

pigul, notar, and impurity—

“the Israelites, and not non-Jews.”

We learned in the beraita:

And one does not perform temura.

And the Gemara explains:

For it is written

in the section of temura,

“He shall not exchange it and he shall not substitute it. And it is written at the beginning of the matter,”

at the beginning of that section [Leviticus 27],

“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When a person expresses a vow, according to your valuation,”

and later in that same section the laws of temura are stated, and we expound: Israelites perform temura, and non-Jews do not perform temura.

Another wording

we learned:

And one does not perform temura.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason,

that is, from where is it derived that non-Jews do not perform temura?

For the substitution of an animal was likened to animal tithe .

This section in which temura is stated concludes with animal tithe, as it says there: “And every tithe of cattle and flock, everything that passes under the rod—the tenth shall be holy to the Lord”; and the Sages expounded that this comes to liken, to learn the laws of temura from the laws of animal tithe—

And animal tithe,

was likened

to grain tithe,

the terumot and tithes given from grain produce; and they were likened to one another in Deuteronomy [14], where it says: “You shall surely tithe,” and the Sages expounded [Bekhorot 53b] the repetition of the wording as coming to include animal tithe [for the law explained there]—

And concerning grain tithe it is written [

Numbers 18],

“For the tithe of the Israelites that they shall raise up to the Lord”

I have given to the Levites; and we expound: The tithe of

the Israelites

shall be given to the Levites,

and not

that

of non-Jews.

And from grain tithe we learn to exclude non-Jews from animal tithe. And temura is learned from animal tithe.

We learned in the beraita:

“And they do not bring libations, but their offering requires libations”—

the words of Rabbi Shimon.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these words

that non-Jews do not bring libations by themselves?

For the Sages taught:

The Torah said in the section of libations [Numbers 15], “Every

native

shall do in this manner,” and we expound:

“Native,”

which means an Israelite,

brings libations

even by themselves.

And a non-Jew does not bring libations

by themselves.

And the beraita continues:

“Could it be that his burnt offering does not require libations?”

The verse states: “According to the number that you shall make, so shall you do for each one according to their number.” And we expound:

“In this manner”

for indispensability, so certainly his offering also requires libations, and he is obligated to bring libations. If he did not bring the money for the libations with it, they bring them from communal funds, as explained above.

We learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Yosei said: I see all of them as subject to stringency.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason

of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the law of the consecrated property of non-Jews is like the law of other consecrated property, and that one is subject to misuse in them, and one is liable on account of them for pigul, notar, impurity, and so forth?

The Torah said [Leviticus 22], “Any person, any person of the house of Israel … who brings his offering for all their vows and for all their freewill offerings,” and from what is stated, “any person, any person,” we expound that non-Jews make vows and bring freewill offerings like Israelites. And it is further said there, “which they shall bring to the Lord as a burnt offering,” and Rabbi Yosei expounded:

“To the Lord”

is written concerning them ,

to teach us that the offering of non-Jews has the law of other consecrated property.

We learned in the beraita:

“When are these words said,”

that according to Rabbi Shimon there is no misuse in the consecrated property of non-Jews,

“with regard to consecrated property of the altar. But with regard to consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple, one is subject to misuse in them.”

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason?

The Gemara said above that Rabbi Shimon exempts from misuse because they expounded “sin, sin” from teruma, and just as concerning teruma “the Israelites” was stated to exclude non-Jews, so too concerning temura.

Therefore, the Gemara explains, Rabbi Shimon holds

that when we derive misuse by “sin, sin” from teruma,

it is only with regard to consecrated property of the altar, which is sanctified with bodily sanctity, and which is

similar to teruma [

similar to teruma],

which is sanctified,

for it too has

bodily sanctity.

But with regard to the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple, whose

sanctity is

monetary sanctity,

to be sold, with their proceeds going to the maintenance of the Temple,

not

did Rabbi Shimon say to learn from teruma, since they are not similar to teruma.

Therefore, there is no exposition excluding the consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple of non-Jews from the law of misuse.

The passage concerning a prohibition that does not involve an act

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Every negative commandment in the Torah,

if he

performed an act in it—

he is liable

for lashes; and if he

did not perform an act in it—

he is exempt

from lashes. And we object:

Is this a general rule?

Is it indeed a “general rule” throughout the entire Torah?!

But

surely the negative commandment of

one who substitutes, which is a prohibition that does not involve an act,

whose prohibition depends only on speech,

and

nevertheless

he is lashed—

he receives lashes?

For we learned

as we learned in our Mishna:

“Not that a person

is permitted to perform temura, but if he performed temura—

it is a substitution, and he receives the forty lashes.”

And we answer:

Rav could say to you: Whose is this?

According to whose view is our Mishna?—

It is Rabbi Yehuda, who says

that one is lashed for a prohibition that does not involve an act.

But the other tannaim disagree and hold that one is not lashed for the prohibition of temura, because it does not involve an act .

And we object:

Can you establish the Mishna

is it possible to establish our Mishna

according to Rabbi Yehuda?

But you established the opening clause, and behold, you established the opening clause of the Mishna

not according to Rabbi Yehuda?

For it teaches,

for we learned at the beginning of the Mishna:

“Everyone performs temura.” And you said,

“Everyone”—what does it come to include?

What does the Mishna come to include by saying “everyone”? And you answered:

To include an heir,

who performs temura,

and not according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that an heir does not perform temura.

But you have established the Mishna as not in accordance with Rabbi Judah, so how is it possible to establish it in accordance with Rabbi Judah?

And we answer:

This tanna,

the tanna who taught our Mishna,

agrees with him in one matter,

agrees with Rabbi Judah’s words in one matter,

that for a negative commandment in which there is no act, one is flogged for it, but disagrees with him in one matter,

and disagrees with him in one matter.

For if Rabbi Judah held that an heir does not perform semikha, an heir does not perform substitution; whereas our tanna,

of our Mishna,

held that an heir performs semikha, an heir performs substitution.

And the Gemara continues with the law of lashes for a negative commandment in which there is no act.

Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Amram said that Rabbi Yitzhak said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Judah says

in the name of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean: For every negative commandment in the Torah, if one performed an act in it—

he is flogged; if one performed no act in it—

he is exempt—

Except for one who swears, one who performs substitution, and one who curses his fellow by the Name

of the Holy One, blessed is He, for these three negative commandments,

even though he performed no act, he is liable

to lashes. And the reason will be explained later in the sugya.

In the name of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina they said: Even one who precedes

to separate

the teruma before

he separated

the bikkurim,

is flogged, even though he performed no act. And this will be explained later.

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei the Galilean’s words.

One who swears—

from where do we know,

that he is flogged?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir

The verse says

[Exodus 20] “You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain

, for the Lord will not acquit whoever takes His Name in vain.”

And we derive: only

in the heavenly court—