Temurah 4a — the Talmud in English

And we answer [according to the version and the first explanation of Rashi]:

You cannot say this.

It is impossible to say as you say, that the verse, “If you will not observe to do, to fear the Lord,” comes to impose lashes only upon one who utters the Name of Heaven in vain.

For it is written [

Leviticus 19]

“You shall not curse the deaf.”

And it implies that whether one curses him without specification or curses him in the Name of the Name, he has transgressed the prohibition.

And

now,

if you can say plausibly

that the verse, “If you will not observe to do, to fear the Lord, and the extraordinary,” comes to impose lashes

upon one who curses his fellow

in the Name, then

its warning—

the warning for one who curses his fellow in the Name—

is from here,

from here is his warning , from what

is written, “You shall not curse the deaf” —

But if you can say

that the verse, “If you will not observe… and the extraordinary…” comes to impose lashes upon one who

utters the Name of Heaven in vain,

it is difficult:

from where is its warning,

where do we find that the Torah warned concerning this, so that we can say that in this verse the Torah imposed upon him the punishment of lashes?

And in brief: We do not find a “warning” for one who utters the Name of Heaven in vain; therefore, it is impossible to say that it imposes a punishment.

And we answer:

You cannot say

that one who curses his fellow in the Name will be punished with a punishment more severe than lashes, and certainly he is atoned for with lashes alone.

For it is written, “You shall not curse the deaf,”

and from this verse the Sages derived in tractate Sanhedrin [66a] the exposition of “an established principle from two verses.” A prohibition is stated concerning one who curses the deaf, and he is the lowest among the people, that is, the wretched among the people; and it is stated [Exodus 22], “And a leader among your people you shall not curse,” and he is the important one among the people. And from both of them they learn a prohibition concerning one who curses his fellow. And there they also learn that this applies specifically to one who curses with the Name of the Name, from what the Torah said concerning one who curses his father and mother [Leviticus 24], “When he pronounces the Name”— And just as concerning a leader he is punished only with lashes alone, so too when he curses him with the Name of the Name; likewise, one who curses the deaf [or another Israelite who is lower than a leader and more important than a deaf person] is not punished with more than lashes.

The Torah states a prohibition against cursing the deaf, who is the lowest-ranking member of the people, meaning the most unfortunate among them; and it states [Exodus 22], “You shall not curse a prince among your people,” referring to the most prominent member of the people. From these two verses they learn the prohibition against cursing one’s fellow. There they also learn that this applies specifically when one curses by invoking the Divine Name, from what the Torah states concerning one who curses his father and mother [Leviticus 24], “When he pronounces the Name”—

Therefore, it is impossible to say as the questioner’s difficulty, that one who curses his fellow in the Name is not satisfied with lashes.

And if you wish, say:

It is impossible to say that one who utters the Name of Heaven in vain will be punished with lashes, because,

granted

if the verse, “If you will not observe, and the extraordinary,” comes to impose lashes

upon one who curses his fellow,

it is well to say so,

and its warning is from here,

we have found a warning for him in the Torah—

for it is written, “You shall not curse the deaf”—

it is difficult:

But if you can say

that the verse, “If you will not observe… and the extraordinary,” comes to impose lashes upon one who

utters the Name of Heaven in vain,

it is difficult:

from where is its warning?

We have not found in the Torah that he was warned concerning this.

And it is necessary to say that the Torah imposes lashes upon one who curses his fellow in the Name.

And we raise a difficulty against what the Gemara answered [according to both explanations], that we have not found in the Torah a warning for one who utters the Name of Heaven in vain:

Is that so?

Why have we not found it?

But it is written [

Deuteronomy 6]

“You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve,”

and this is a warning for one who utters the Name of Heaven in vain.

And we answer: That verse

that one—

it is a warning of a positive commandment.

That is, the wording “no” or “do not,” or one of the expressions of warning, was not stated, but rather in the wording of “do”; and a warning of a positive commandment is not called a warning .

Therefore, what is stated, “If you will not observe to do… and the Lord will make your blows extraordinary,” does not come to impose lashes upon one who utters the Name of Heaven in vain, for we have not found a warning for him, but rather upon one who curses his fellow in the Name, for whom we have found a warning.

We learned above:

They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina: Also one who gives teruma before first fruits .

And the Gemara understood that he means that one who gives teruma before first fruits is lashed, even though there is no action involved.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina,

that it is forbidden to do so?

The verse says [

Exodus 22]

“Your fullness and your flow you shall not delay,”

and we expound:

“Fullness”—

these are first fruits,

and it is called “fullness” because immediately when the produce becomes full and its work is completed, it becomes established for the obligation of first fruits. And “

your flow”—this is

teruma,

and because it “causes to flow” [forbids when it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce, and is nullified only when there are one hundred non-sacred portions corresponding to it], it is called “flow” in the language of the Torah.

And the Torah said

“You shall not delay”

the “fullness” for the “flow”; rather, first he should separate first fruits and afterward teruma. And when he did not do so, and separated teruma before first fruits, he transgressed this prohibition and is lashed .

It was stated,

we learned in the beit-midrash: If

he gave teruma before first fruits,

two amoraim disputed this law, and they are:

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina.

One,

one of the two, and it was not specified which one,

said, “He is lashed.” And one said, “He is not lashed.”

And since it was not specified who said “He is lashed” and who said “He is not lashed,” the Gemara says:

It can be determined,

it is possible to “determine” [to establish]

that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina is the one who said, “He is lashed.”

Since Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said: Also one who gives teruma before first fruits.

And he said this as an addition to the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who said: With regard to every negative commandment in the Torah, if he did not perform an action in it, he is exempt, except for one who swore, one who substitutes, and one who curses his fellow in the Name. And it implies that he came to add and say that also for the prohibition of giving teruma before first fruits one is lashed .

And we raise a difficulty:

On the contrary, it can be determined,

it should be established

that it is Rabbi Elazar who said, “He is lashed.”

And the Gemara brings a Mishna in tractate Demai [chapter 7, mishna 6], and Rabbi Elazar’s statement concerning the words of the Mishna, to establish that Rabbi Elazar said “He is lashed”:

For we learned: If two baskets were before him [

baskets]

of tevel —

And he said, “The tithes

of this one—

in this one,”

that is, the first tithe and second tithe [or alternatively, the tithe for the poor] that I am obligated to separate from this basket shall be separated from this second basket,

the first one is tithed,

and corrected from the prohibition of tevel, even though he has not yet removed the tithes from the second one for the first one.

And likewise, if he said, “The tithes

of this one in this one, and of this one in this one,”

meaning that the tithes of the first shall be from the second, and those of the second shall be in the first,

the first one is tithed,

as it is clear that its tithes are in the second basket. But

the second one is not tithed,

because as soon as he said, “of this one in this one,” the first one was corrected and its produce became exempt from tithes. It follows that when he then said, “and of this one in this one,” he wished to separate from the first, which was exempt, for the second, which was obligated, and his words accomplish nothing, because one does not tithe from that which is exempt for that which is obligated. And the second will be corrected only when he separates [after he removes the tithes of the first] from it for itself, or separates for it from another basket.

But if he said, “These two baskets

their tithes are the tithe of one basket in its fellow,”

meaning: these two tithes that I am destined to separate from these two baskets shall be the tithes of each one in its fellow’s basket, then this is

a designation of the name.

That is, both are corrected, and the produce is already permitted for eating, even though he has not yet removed the tithes from them, and afterward he will remove them. And in this manner it is not applicable to say that one of them is not tithed because the second is exempt and “one does not tithe from that which is exempt for that which is obligated,” because both were corrected at one time and with one utterance. Here there is not “from that which is exempt for that which is obligated,” but rather “from that which is obligated for that which is obligated.”

And it was stated concerning this,

we learned concerning the first two laws of the Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar says: He is lashed, because he gave the second tithe in it

of the second one

before the first tithe in its fellow.

For the order of separating and correcting the produce is as follows: first fruits, teruma, first tithe, second tithe [or alternatively, tithe for the poor], as will be explained before us.

And these fruits [from which the bikkurim and teruma have already been separated] are tevel with respect to the first tithe and the second tithe, and it is forbidden to eat them until the first tithe is separated from them first, and afterward the second tithe.

And in every separation of tithes in a single basket [for example, when there are one hundred fruits in it, he first separates ten for the first tithe. And from the remaining ninety he separates nine for the second tithe], the first ten that he separated for the first tithe are not tevel with respect to the second tithe, for there is no obligation upon them of rectification and separation of the second tithe, since this is the order that the Torah obligated: that he separates them first from the entire basket, and they are all first tithe.

And likewise, from the nine constituting the second tithe, he need not separate the first tithe, since the first tithe has already been separated from them.

But when he separates from the second basket for the first one, when he separates the nine from the second basket as second tithe for the first one, he has still not separated from the second basket first tithe for these nine. And it turns out that he separated second tithe from fruits from which the first tithe had not yet been separated, and thereby he advanced the second tithe before the first tithe, and transgressed “You shall not delay,” and is flogged.

And the same is true when he said, “That of this one in that one and that of this one in that one,” concerning which the Mishna said that the first is tithed and its tithes are in the second.

But when he said, “One basket in its fellow,” he did not advance the second tithe before the first tithe, because the second tithe of the two baskets was separated together with the deduction of the first tithe from the fellow basket.

Lest you say: The warning was stated only against advancing teruma before bikkurim; but from where is it prohibited also to advance the second tithe before the first tithe?

Your answer is: Just as we were warned not to advance teruma, because it renders produce mixed, and this is learned from “your teeming produce,” so too it is forbidden to delay the first tithe, since it too is included in rendering produce mixed, for within it there is the tithe of teruma, which also renders produce mixed, and its law is like that of teruma in all its halakhot. Therefore, if he advanced the second tithe before the first tithe, he transgressed this prohibition, and is flogged.

Another formulation: The order of separation is learned in the Mekhilta [Mishpatim, section 19], that first one separates the more stringent and afterward the lenient, and thus we learned: “Your teeming produce and your presses you shall not delay”: “Your teeming produce”—these are bikkurim taken from the full crop; and “your presses”—this is teruma. “You shall not delay”—that you shall not advance the second tithe before the first, the first before teruma, or teruma before bikkurim. But he does not know which of them he should advance: whether teruma before bikkurim, or bikkurim before teruma. You say: Bikkurim should be advanced [for they are more stringent], because they are called by four names: first, bikkurim, teruma, and full crop; before teruma, which is called by only three names: first, pressing, and teruma. And teruma, which has three names, should be advanced before the first tithe, which has only two names: tithe and tithe of teruma. And the first tithe, which has two names, should be advanced before the second tithe, which has only one name: tithe.

From here they said: One who advances teruma before bikkurim, the first tithe before teruma, or the second tithe before the first, even though he transgresses a prohibition— what he did is effective.

And the beraita concludes: The verse states, “Your teeming produce and your presses you shall not delay.” It indicates that the prohibition is for delaying each one of this order, that he should not advance the later lenient one before the earlier stringent one, and not specifically teruma before bikkurim.

And it may be inferred from the words of Rabbi Elazar:

It follows conclusively!

From here it is necessary that Rabbi Elazar is the amora who said that he is flogged. For just as he said that one who advances the second tithe before the first is flogged, so too one who advances teruma before bikkurim.

And we raise an objection:

Rather,

if Rabbi Elazar is the one who said that he is flogged, it follows that

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina

is the one

who said: He is not flogged.

For thus we learned: Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina—one of them said that he is flogged, and the other said that he is not flogged. If so,

let us say,

shall we say,

is there a difficulty with the words of

Rabbi

Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina against

the words of Rabbi

Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina,

who says, “Even one who advances teruma before bikkurim”?