Temurah 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer [according to Rashi’s first version and interpretation]:

You cannot say that.

It is impossible to say as you claim, that the verse, “If you do not observe, to perform, to fear the Lord,” comes to impose lashes only for uttering the Divine Name in vain.

As it is written

Leviticus 19]

“You shall not curse the deaf.”

This indicates that whether one curses him without mentioning the Divine Name or curses him in the name of God, he has transgressed the prohibition.

And

now,

if you say

that the verse, “If you do not observe, to perform, to fear the Lord, and He will set apart,” comes to impose lashes

for cursing one’s fellow

in God’s name, then

its warning—

the warning against cursing one’s fellow in God’s name—is

from here:

from here is its warning, from

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

one who utters the Divine Name in vain,

it is difficult:

from where is its warning?

It is difficult:

from where is its warning—where do we find that the Torah warned against this, so that we can say that in this verse the Torah imposed lashes upon him?

In brief: We do not find a warning against one who utters the Divine Name in vain; therefore, it is impossible to say that he is liable for punishment.

And we answer:

You cannot say that one who curses his fellow in God’s name receives a punishment more severe than lashes; rather, he is certainly atoned for by lashes alone.

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

and from this verse the Sages derived in tractate Sanhedrin [66a] the exposition of a “verbal analogy based on two verses.”

A prohibition is stated with regard to one who curses the deaf, who is the lowest among the people—that is, the most unfortunate among them—and a prohibition is stated [Exodus 22] with regard to, “You shall not curse a prince among your people,” who is the most important among the people. From both of them we learn the prohibition against cursing one’s fellow. There they also learn that this applies specifically when cursing with the Divine Name, from what the Torah says concerning one who curses his father and mother [Leviticus 24], “When he pronounces the Name”— Just as one who curses a prince is punished only with lashes, even when he curses him using the Divine Name, so too one who curses the deaf [or any other Israelite who is of lower status than a prince but of higher status than a deaf person] is not punished with more than lashes. Therefore, it is impossible to say as the questioner did, that one who curses his fellow in God’s name should not suffice with lashes. Alternatively, you may say, it is impossible to say that one who utters the Divine Name in vain receives lashes, because granted that if the verse, “If you do not observe, and He will set apart,” comes to impose lashes

and from this verse the Sages derived in tractate Sanhedrin [66a] the principle of a “derivation from two verses.”

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”—

for cursing one’s fellow,

it is reasonable to say so,

and its warning is from here:

we find a warning against it in the Torah—

for

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

it is reasonable to say so:

But if you say

that the verse, “If you do not observe... and He will set apart,” comes to impose lashes on

one who utters the Divine Name in vain,

it is difficult:

from where is its warning?

We do not find in the Torah that he was warned against this.

It is therefore necessary to say that the Torah imposes lashes for cursing one’s fellow in God’s name.

And we raise an objection to what the Gemara answered [according to both interpretations], that we do not find a warning in the Torah against one who utters the Divine Name in vain:

Is that so?

Why do we not find one?

It is therefore necessary to say that the Torah makes one who curses his fellow by invoking the Divine Name liable to lashes.

But it is written

Deuteronomy 6]

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

and this is a warning against one who utters the Divine Name in vain.

And we answer: That verse—

that one—

is a positive-commandment warning.

That is, it does not employ the wording “do not” or “do not [do]” or one of the formulations of warning; rather, it is phrased as a positive commandment. A warning derived from a positive commandment is not considered a warning .

Therefore, what is stated, “If you do not observe, to perform... and the Lord will set apart your blows,” does not come to impose lashes on one who utters the Divine Name in vain, since we find no warning against him; rather, it comes to impose lashes on one who curses his fellow in God’s name, for whom we do find a warning. We learned above: They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina: Even one who gives teruma before the bikkurim . The Gemara understood this to mean that one who gives teruma before the bikkurim receives lashes, even though this involves no physical action. And the Gemara discusses: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina— that it is forbidden to do this? The verse says

is a warning expressed as a positive commandment.

That is, it does not use the wording “do not” or “do not let,” or one of the formulations of a warning; rather, it is phrased as a positive commandment. A warning expressed as a positive commandment is not considered a warning .

Exodus 22]

“You shall not delay your fullness and your flowing.”

And we interpret it:

“Your fullness”—

this is bikkurim, which are called “fullness” because as soon as the produce fills out and its work is completed, it becomes designated for the obligation of bikkurim. And “your flowing”—this is teruma, because it “causes flowing”—it renders ordinary produce prohibited when it becomes mixed with it, and is nullified only when there are one hundred parts of ordinary produce against it—therefore it is called “flowing” in the language of the Torah.

What is Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina’s reason

for prohibiting this?

He said: The verse states [Exodus 22],

“You shall not delay your fullness and your flow,”

and we interpret it as follows:

and we expound:

“Your fullness”—

these are the first fruits,

which are called “fullness” because as soon as the produce becomes full-grown and its processing is complete, it becomes designated for the obligation of first fruits. And

“your flow”—this is

teruma,

And the Torah says

“You shall not delay” the “fullness” until the “flowing”; one must first separate bikkurim and afterward teruma. When one fails to do so and separates teruma before bikkurim, he transgresses this prohibition and receives lashes . It was stated: We learned in the study hall: If one gave teruma before bikkurim, two amoraim disputed this law. They were: Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina. One,

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

said: He receives lashes. And one said: He does not receive lashes.

Since it was not specified who said that he receives lashes and who said that he does not, the Gemara says: It can be determined: It is possible to “determine” [to establish] that it was Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina who said that he receives lashes. Since Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said: Even one who gives teruma before bikkurim. He said this as an addition to the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: For every negative commandment in the Torah, if one did not perform an act, he is exempt, except for one who swears, one who substitutes an animal, and one who curses his fellow in God’s name. The implication is that he came to add that one also receives lashes for the prohibition against giving teruma before bikkurim .

And we object:

On the contrary, it can be determined:

It should be established

that it was Rabbi Elazar who said that he receives lashes.

The Gemara cites a Mishna in tractate Demai [chapter 7, mishna 6], and Rabbi Elazar’s statement concerning that Mishna, to establish that Rabbi Elazar said that he receives lashes:

As we learned: If two baskets

[of produce]

of tevel

were before him—

it is possible to “determine” [to establish]

that it was Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina who said that he is lashed.

And he said, “The tithes

of this

— in that,”

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

the first is tithed,

and freed from the prohibition of tevel, even though he has not yet removed the tithes from the second basket

for the first.

As we learned: If two baskets were before him

[baskets]

of untithed produce —

And he said, “The tithes

of this—

And likewise, if he said, “The tithes

of this into that, and of that into this,”

meaning that the tithes of the first basket shall come from the second, and those of the second from the first,

the first is tithed, as explained: its tithes are in the second basket. But the second is not tithed, because as soon as he said, “of this into that,” the first was corrected and its produce became exempt from tithes. Consequently, when he later said, “and of that into this,” he intended to separate from the first, which was exempt, for the second, which was obligated; his words accomplish nothing, since one may not separate tithes from exempt produce for obligated produce. The second will be corrected only when he separates from it for itself [after removing the tithes of the first], or separates for it from another basket. But if he said, “These two baskets, their tithes shall be the tithe of one basket in its fellow,” meaning: the two tithes that I am destined to separate from these two baskets shall be the tithes of each one in its fellow basket, then he has designated them. That is, both are corrected and the produce is already permitted for eating, even though he has not yet removed the tithes from them; he will remove them afterward. In this case it is not applicable to say that one of them is not tithed because the other is exempt and “one may not separate from exempt produce for obligated produce,” for both were corrected simultaneously and with one declaration. This is not “from exempt for obligated,” but rather “from obligated for obligated.” And in each one he initially left tevel in the amount of the tithes of the other. Tosafot. See there their proof for saying this. The Ra’avad, in his first interpretation, explains that this is indeed what he does: he separates from each one for the other. In his second interpretation, he explains that he may separate from whichever one he wishes for both. According to all interpretations, “he has designated them,” and he may not separate for them from another place, as Maimonides wrote in his commentary on the Mishna. See Maimonides [there, halakhot 12–13] and what the Griẓ wrote. And this is the wording of the Vilna Gaon in his work Shenot Eliyahu: “He has designated them” and it is as though he had mixed the baskets and the tithes, so he may separate from whichever basket he wishes, or a little from this one and complete it from the other, because according to his declaration they become like a mixture. This applies only in this respect: he has designated them, so he cannot correct them from another place, because he fixed their tithes within them. And it was stated concerning this, we learned concerning the first two laws of the Mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: He receives lashes, because he gave the second tithe of it — of the second basket—

before the first tithe of its fellow.

The order of separating and correcting the produce is as follows: bikkurim, teruma, first tithe, and second tithe [or, alternatively, the poor tithe], as will be explained below.

meaning that the tithes of the first basket are to be taken from the second, and those of the second from the first,

the first is tithed,

This is

Rashi’s version. As explained in the text, he gave the second tithe of the second basket before separating from

itself the first tithe from the portion of second tithe. See carefully the Shitta Mekubetzet in its omissions. And in the Melekhet Shlomo [there] the version reads: because he gave

the second tithe of its fellow before its first tithe.

According to the version of Tosafot as well—“because he gave its second tithe before the first tithe of its fellow”—it must be explained this way. Their intention in saying “of its fellow” is that the two baskets were treated as one.

Divrei Shaul.

he has designated the tithes.

That is, both baskets are corrected and the produce is already permitted to eat, even though he has not yet removed the tithes from them; he will remove them afterward. In this manner, it cannot be said that one of them is not tithed because the other is exempt and “one may not tithe from exempt produce for obligated produce.” Both were corrected simultaneously and in one statement. Thus this is not “from exempt produce for obligated produce,” but rather “from obligated produce for obligated produce.”

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 contained in it

of the second basket

before the first tithe contained in its fellow.

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

And these produce [from which bikkurim and teruma have already been separated] are still untithed with regard to maaser rishon and maaser sheni, and it is forbidden to eat them until maaser rishon is separated from them first, and afterward maaser sheni.

And in every separation of tithes from a single basket [for example, when it contains one hundred produce items, he first separates ten for maaser rishon. From the remaining ninety, he separates nine for maaser sheni], the first ten that he separated for maaser rishon are not untithed with regard to maaser sheni, as they are not subject to the obligation of rectification and separation of maaser sheni. For this is the order mandated by the Torah: those ten are separated first from the entire basket, and they are all maaser rishon.

Similarly, from the nine that are maaser sheni, it is not necessary to separate maaser rishon, since maaser rishon has already been separated from them.

But when he separates from the second basket on behalf of the first, when he separates the nine from the second basket as maaser sheni for the first, he has still not separated from the second basket maaser rishon for these nine. It follows that he separated maaser sheni from produce from which maaser rishon had not yet been separated, thereby placing maaser sheni before maaser rishon. He thus transgressed the prohibition of “you shall not delay,” and receives lashes.

The same is true when he said, “The produce of this one is for that one, and the produce of that one is for this one,” regarding which the Mishna stated that the first is tithed and its tithes are in the second.

But when he said, “One basket with its fellow,” he did not place maaser sheni before maaser rishon, because maaser sheni from both baskets was separated together with the deduction of maaser rishon from the fellow basket.

You might say: The Torah stated only a warning not to place teruma before bikkurim; but from where is it prohibited also to place maaser sheni before maaser rishon?

The answer is as follows: Just as we were warned not to place teruma first because it renders produce impure through admixture, and this is derived from the expression “your dima,” so too it is forbidden to delay maaser rishon, since it too is included in the law of admixture. For it contains terumat maaser, which also renders produce impure through admixture and whose status is like that of teruma in all its halakhot. Therefore, if he placed maaser sheni before maaser rishon, he transgressed this prohibition and receives lashes.

Alternatively: The order of separation is learned in the Mekhilta [Mishpatim, section 19], which teaches that one first separates the more stringent offering and afterward the less stringent one. And so we learned: “Your fullness and your dima you shall not delay.” “Your fullness”—these are bikkurim, which are taken from the fullness; “and your dima”—this is teruma. “You shall not delay”—that one should not place maaser sheni before maaser rishon, maaser rishon before teruma, or teruma before bikkurim. But one does not know which of them should be placed first: teruma before bikkurim, or bikkurim before teruma. You must say: bikkurim should be placed first [as they are more stringent], because they are called by four names: first, bikkurim, teruma, and fullness; whereas teruma is called by only three names: first, dima, and teruma. And teruma, which has three names, should precede maaser rishon, which has only two names: tithe and terumat maaser. And maaser rishon, which has two names, should precede maaser sheni, which has only one name: tithe.

From here they said: One who places teruma before bikkurim, maaser rishon before teruma, or maaser sheni before maaser rishon, even though he transgresses a prohibition — what he did is effective.

And the beraita concludes: The verse states, “Your fullness and your dima you shall not delay.” This indicates that the prohibition concerns delaying any one of the items in this order: one may not place the less stringent, later item before the more stringent, earlier one; it is not specifically referring to placing teruma before bikkurim.

And one may infer from the statement of Rabbi Elazar:

It is established!

It is therefore necessary to conclude that Rabbi Elazar is the amora who said that he receives lashes. For just as he said that one who places maaser sheni before maaser rishon receives lashes, so too one who places teruma before bikkurim receives lashes.

And we raise an objection:

Rather,

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

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina

is the one

who said: He does not receive lashes.

For this is what we learned: Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina—one of them said that he receives lashes, and the other said that he does not receive lashes. If so,

shall we say

that

there is a difficulty from the words of

Rabbi

Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina

regarding the statement of

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina, who says, “Even one who places teruma before bikkurim”?

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