Temurah 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

The term “benefit of discretion” refers to the right of an Israelite to give the teruma to whichever kohen he chooses, according to his will. This right has monetary value, since it can produce financial gain. For example, an Israelite who has a grandson who is a kohen [the son of his daughter, who married a kohen] says to an Israelite who owns the teruma: “Take this sela for yourself, and give your terumot to my daughter’s son, the kohen.”

And when one separates produce of his own for the tevel produce of another, that “benefit of discretion” belongs to the one who made the separation. He is the one who may give the tithes to whichever kohen he wishes, and not the owner of the produce on whose behalf the separation was made. These are the words of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.

And it is proven from the second ruling stated by Rabbi Abbahu that the one for whom atonement is effected performs temura, and not the one who consecrated the offering. But this is difficult: Why did Rami bar Hama not resolve his question from the words of Rabbi Abbahu?

And we answer:

And Rami bar Hama

holds that his question cannot be resolved from the words of Rabbi Abbahu, because there is a distinction between Rabbi Abbahu’s ruling and his question. For

there—

when an Israelite consecrated an offering for which another Israelite would attain atonement—

it is that the sanctity comes

from the power

of the Israelite

who consecrated it.

For this reason we follow the one for whom atonement is effected, for it belongs

to him,

since the offering is

from beginning to end

—the consecration and the atonement—

in the possession of an Israelite.

For there is no deficiency in the offering’s essential sanctity; the entire question is who performs temura, and concerning this Rabbi Abbahu stated that the one for whom atonement is effected performs temura.

But here,

where a gentile consecrated the offering, before the question “Who performs temura?” can even be considered, it is uncertain whether it is possible to perform temura with regard to it at all. Therefore,

this is what he is asking: Do we require

that, in order to perform temura,

from beginning to end, it remain—this is unresolved

that the animal be

in the possession of the one who performs temura,

namely, in the possession of an Israelite who is fit to perform temura? Since this animal was not in the possession of an Israelite from beginning to end, but its initial sanctification took place in the possession of a gentile, one may not perform temura with regard to it, even though the one for whom atonement is effected is an Israelite.

Or not.

Since ultimately it came into the possession of the Israelite for whom atonement is effected, who is fit to perform temura, the sanctity of temura takes effect upon it.

And we conclude:

It is unresolved!

The question has not been resolved.

The Gemara explains the entire beraita, as well as the disagreement between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosei.

The Master said: The consecrated property

of gentiles is neither subject to the prohibition against deriving benefit nor subject to misuse of consecrated property.

And we explain:

“Not subject to the prohibition against deriving benefit”

is

by rabbinic decree,

as the Sages prohibited deriving benefit from it.

“Nor subject to misuse of consecrated property”—

by Torah law.

What is the reason—that is, from where do we derive that by Torah law there is no misuse of consecrated property in this case?

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

As it is written in the passage concerning misuse of consecrated property [Leviticus 5]:

“A person who commits a sacrilege and sins unintentionally.”

And we derive

a gezera shava:

“sin”

“sin”

from teruma,

where it is likewise stated [Leviticus 22]: “And they shall not bear sin because of it.”

And with regard to teruma it is written later in the passage:

“And they shall not profane the sacred offerings

of the Children of Israel.”

And we expound:

“And not gentiles.”

And we learn: Just as teruma does not apply to gentiles, so too misuse of consecrated property does not apply to the consecrated property of gentiles.

We learned in the beraita:

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

And the Gemara explains:

As it is written with regard to impurity [Leviticus 22]:

“Speak to Aaron and to his sons, and let them withdraw from the sacred offerings of the Children of Israel, and they shall not profane My holy Name that they consecrate to Me.”

And we expound [Torat Kohanim 22:62]: Withdrawal means separation; they must separate themselves from the sacred offerings during the days of their impurity. Thus, only with regard to the sacred offerings of Israel is there liability on account of impurity.

And we interpret this [Sifra, Leviticus 22:62]: “Separation” means nothing other than withdrawing—let them withdraw from the sacred offerings during the days of their impurity. It follows that the prohibition of impurity applies only to the sacred offerings of Israelites.

And he derives notar

by means of a gezera shava,

“profanation,” “profanation,” from impurity.

For with regard to impurity it is written, “the Children of Israel, and they shall not profane,” and with regard to notar it is written [Leviticus 19]:

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

And we expound: Just as the profanation stated with regard to impurity applies to Israel and not to gentiles, so too the profanation stated with regard to notar applies to Israel and not to gentiles.

and we interpret this: Just as the profanation stated concerning impurity applies to Israelites and not to gentiles, so the profanation stated concerning notar applies to Israelites and not to gentiles.

And he derives piggul

by means of a gezera shava,

“iniquity,” “iniquity,” from notar.

For with regard to piggul it is written [Leviticus 7]:

“And the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity,” and with regard to notar it is written [Leviticus 19]:

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

Just as the iniquity stated with regard to notar applies to Israel and not to gentiles, so too the iniquity stated with regard to piggul applies to Israel and not to gentiles.

“And the one who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred offering of the Lord.”

Just as the iniquity stated concerning notar applies to Israelites and not to gentiles, so the iniquity stated concerning piggul applies to Israelites and not to gentiles.

And all of them—

piggul, notar, and impurity—

are subject to the expression “the Children of Israel, and not gentiles.”

We learned in the beraita:

And they do not perform temura.

And the Gemara explains:

As it is written

in the passage concerning temura:

“He shall not exchange it, nor substitute another for it.” And it is written at the beginning of the subject,

at the beginning of that passage [Leviticus 27]:

“Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: When a person expresses a vow, in accordance with your valuation.”

And the laws of temura are stated later there in the same passage . And we expound: The Children of Israel perform temura, but gentiles do not perform temura.

Alternatively,

we learned:

And they do not perform temura.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason—that is, from where do we derive that gentiles do not perform temura?

that is, from where do we derive that gentiles do not perform substitution?

For animal temura was juxtaposed to animal tithe .

This passage, in which temura is stated, concludes with animal tithe, as it says there: “And every tithe of cattle and flock, every tenth animal that passes under the staff, shall be holy to the Lord.” The Sages expounded that this juxtaposition comes to teach that the laws of temura are derived from the laws of animal tithe—

And animal tithe

was juxtaposed

to grain tithe—

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

And with regard to grain tithe it is written [Numbers 18]:

“For the tithe of the Children of Israel

that they raise up to the Lord

I have given to the Levites.” And we expound: The tithe of

the Children of Israel

is to be given to the Levites,

and not

that

of gentiles. And from grain tithe we derive the exclusion of gentiles from animal tithe. And temura is derived from animal tithe.

From the grain tithe we learn that gentiles are excluded from the animal tithe, and substitution is learned from the 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 asks:

From where are these words derived,

that gentiles do not bring libations independently?

The Sages taught:

The Torah states in the passage concerning libations [Numbers 15]: “Every

citizen

shall do thus,” and we expound: A

citizen,

that is, an Israelite,

brings libations

even independently.

But a gentile does not bring libations

independently.

And the beraita continues:

One might think that his burnt offering does not require libations.

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

“Thus”

indicates indispensability, meaning that certainly his offering requires libations, and he is liable to bring libations. If he did not bring the money for the libations with it, they are brought from communal funds, as explained above.

We learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Yosei said: I see grounds to rule stringently in all of these cases.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason

for Rabbi Yosei’s view, according to which the law of the consecrated property of gentiles is like the law of other consecrated property, so that one is liable for misuse of it, and liable on its account for piggul, notar, impurity, and so on?

The Torah states [Leviticus 22]: “Any man, any man of the House of Israel … who offers his offering for any of their vows and for any of their freewill offerings.” From the words “any man, any man,” we derive that gentiles make vows and freewill offerings like Israelites. It further says there: “which they offer 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 gentiles has the status of other consecrated offerings.

We learned in the beraita:

When are these words stated,

that according to Rabbi Shimon there is no misuse of the consecrated property of gentiles?

With regard to consecrated offerings. But with regard to property consecrated for the repair of the Temple, there is misuse of it.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

The Gemara said above that Rabbi Shimon exempts one from misuse of consecrated property because he derived by means of “sin, sin” from teruma that, just as “Children of Israel” is stated with regard to teruma to exclude gentiles, so too this law applies with regard to temura.

Therefore, the Gemara explains, Rabbi Shimon holds:

When we derive the law of misuse of consecrated property by means of “sin, sin” from teruma,

this applies only to consecrated offerings, which possess essential sanctity, and which are

similar to teruma

in that they are similar to teruma,

which is consecrated—

for it too possesses

essential sanctity.

But with regard to property consecrated for the repair of the Temple, whose

sanctity is

sanctity of value,

so that it is to be sold and its proceeds used for the repair of the Temple,

Rabbi Shimon did not

derive the law from teruma, since such property is not similar to teruma.

Accordingly, there is no exposition excluding the consecrated property of gentiles designated for the repair of the Temple from the law of misuse of consecrated property.

Discussion concerning a negative commandment whose violation involves no action

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

if

one performed an action in violating it—

he is liable

to lashes; but if

he performed no action in violating it—

he is exempt

from lashes. And we challenge this:

Is this an absolute rule?

Is it indeed a rule applying throughout the entire Torah?!

But

the negative commandment of

one who performs temura, which is a negative commandment whose violation involves no action,

since its prohibition depends solely upon speech,

and

nevertheless

he receives lashes—

he is lashed?

For we learned

as we learned in our Mishna:

It is not that a person

is permitted to perform temura; rather, if he performed temura—

the substitute offering takes effect, and he receives forty lashes.

And we answer:

Rav could say to you: Whose view is this,

that is, according to whose view is our Mishna formulated?

It is Rabbi Yehuda’s, who says

that one receives lashes for a negative commandment whose violation involves no action.

But the other tannaim disagree and hold that one does not receive lashes for the negative commandment of temura, because its violation involves no action.

And we challenge this:

Can you establish our Mishna

that is, is it possible to establish our Mishna

according to Rabbi Yehuda?

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

not according to Rabbi Yehuda—

For it teaches,

as we learned at the beginning of the Mishna:

“Everyone performs temura.” And you said:

“Everyone”—what does this come to include?

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

It comes to include an heir,

who performs temura,

and this is not according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that an heir does not perform temura.

You have thus established that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda; how, then, is it possible to establish it in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda?

And we answer:

This tanna,

the tanna who taught our Mishna,

holds like him in one matter,

he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda in one matter,

that one is flogged for violating a prohibition that does not involve an act, but disagrees with him in one matter,

and disagrees with him in one matter.

For whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that an heir does not perform semikha, and an heir does not effect temura, whereas our tanna,

the tanna of our Mishna,

holds that an heir performs semikha, and an heir effects temura.

The Gemara continues discussing the דין of lashes for violating a prohibition that does not involve an act.

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

in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: With regard to every negative commandment in the Torah, if one performed an act in violating it—

he is flogged; if one did not perform an act in violating the negative commandment—

he is exempt—

except for one who swears, one who effects temura, and one who curses his fellow using the Name

of the Holy One, blessed be He, for these three prohibitions,

even though he did not perform an act, he is liable

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

They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Hanina: Even one who advances

to separate

teruma to

before he separated

bikkurim,

is flogged, even though he did not perform an act. This will be explained later.

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement.

One who swears—

from where do we know this,

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 hold guiltless anyone who takes His Name in vain.”

And we derive that only

in the heavenly court—