Temurah 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

The question concerning Rava therefore returns: Why did the Torah write “it” to teach us that they cannot be redeemed? After all, even without a scriptural decree, we would know that it is ineffective, and its redemption is not a valid redemption?

And we answer:

And according to Rava:

Indeed, the Torah did not need to teach us that ḥermei kohanim cannot be redeemed.

And the word “it”

that the Torah wrote is needed for another matter,

to exclude the firstborn

of a kosher animal, and to teach us that it can be sold, as will be explained. And this is how we expound it: Only “it”—that is, ḥermei kohanim—cannot be sold. But a firstborn can be sold.

As it is taught in a beraita,

with regard to a firstborn it is stated [Numbers 18]: “But the firstborn of an ox or the firstborn of a sheep or the firstborn of a goat

you shall not redeem,”

teaching us that its owner is not permitted to redeem it and thereby render it non-sacred.

But

it may be sold:

they are permitted to sell it to another person,

and the purchaser must treat it with the sanctity of a firstborn, since the Torah prohibited only redemption.

With regard to the animal tithe

it is

it is stated [Leviticus 27]:

“It shall not be redeemed,”

and we expound [Bekhorot 32a] by means of a gezerah shavah, “it shall not be redeemed” from “it shall not be redeemed” concerning ḥermei kohanim: Just as ḥerem is also prohibited from being sold, as it is stated [there]: “It shall not be sold and it shall not be redeemed,” so too an animal tithe may not be sold.

And

therefore,

it is not sold, neither alive nor slaughtered, and neither unblemished nor blemished.

Accordingly, Rava answers: Since one might have thought that even a firstborn may not be sold, and although the Torah did not explicitly prohibit this, nevertheless, since a firstborn and an animal tithe are derived from one another [as explained later in the sugya], one might have thought that sale is prohibited. Therefore, the Torah stated “it” with regard to ḥerem, teaching us that only ḥerem cannot be sold, but a firstborn can be sold.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rava from the case of “temura.”

But what of temura, concerning which the Merciful One said [Leviticus 27]:

“He shall not exchange it and he shall not substitute it,” and we learned

in our Mishna

A person is not permitted to substitute; rather, if he substituted, the substitute becomes consecrated, and he receives forty lashes.

It follows

that this proves that the act is effective.

Apparently,

it is evident from here that

“it is effective.” This is a refutation of Rava!

And we answer:

Rava could have said to you: The case there is different;

the prohibition concerning temura differs from the other prohibitions of the Torah,

for the Merciful One said

explicitly that his act is effective, as it is written:

“And if he shall indeed substitute, then it and its substitute shall be sacred.”

But now the question concerning Abaye returns: Why did the Torah need to state with regard to temura that “it is effective”? After all, with regard to all the prohibitions of the Torah, “if one acted, it is effective.”

And we answer:

And according to Abaye,

the Torah’s statement, “shall be sacred,” does not come to teach us that the sanctity takes hold of the substitute animal, since with regard to all the prohibitions of the Torah as well, the act is effective. Rather, it comes to teach us that the first animal, the sacrificial animal, remains in its sanctity and does not become non-sacred. For

had the Merciful One not said, “And it and its substitute shall be sacred,” we would have thought

that

this one would leave

its original sanctity,

and this one would enter

in its place, and the two would not both be sacred.

It therefore teaches us

that the first remains in its sanctity. And the Gemara raises an objection to Abaye from the case of a firstborn kosher animal.

But what of a firstborn, concerning which the Merciful One said

[there]:

“It shall not be redeemed”? And we learned,

and we learned in the Mishna that if one transgressed the word of the Merciful One and redeemed it, the redemption does not take effect.

Below [21a], the Mishna discusses the difference between a firstborn or an animal tithe that developed a blemish and other consecrated animals that developed a blemish. All consecrated animals, including a firstborn and an animal tithe, are permitted to be eaten once they develop a blemish, but it remains prohibited to shear them or use them for labor. However, in the case of a firstborn and an animal tithe, it is prohibited to treat them contemptuously by selling them in a butcher’s market and weighing them by the pound [as one weighs non-sacred meat], whereas other consecrated animals may be treated in this manner, despite the resulting disgrace to consecrated property, because the proceeds of their sale benefit the consecrated property. That is, since they are slaughtered in the market, their value increases, and the profit goes to the consecrated property. By contrast, a firstborn and an animal tithe belong to private individuals—the firstborn to the kohein and the tithe to its owners—and the sanctity of the animals may not be treated contemptuously in order to benefit their owners.

It was further taught there: Other animals disqualified from consecration—that is, consecrated animals that developed a blemish—

can be redeemed,

and the redemption takes effect, causing them to become non-sacred,

and

also

their substitutes

can be

redeemed

once they develop a blemish.

Except for a firstborn and an animal tithe,

which cannot be redeemed; and if one redeems them, they do not become non-sacred.

Apparently,

if one redeems a firstborn,

it is ineffective. This is a refutation of Abaye!

And we answer:

Abaye could have said to you:

The case there is different;

a firstborn differs from the other prohibitions of the Torah because

the verse states

[there]: “But the firstborn of an ox, you shall not redeem; it is sacred,

they.”

And we expound the word “they”:

They shall remain as they are,

meaning that redemption does not remove it from its sanctity, even when it is blemished.

And we ask:

And according to Rava, why do I need this word “they”?

After all, the Torah need not teach us that it does not leave its sanctity, since with regard to all the prohibitions of the Torah as well, the act is ineffective.

And we answer: Rava derives a different exposition from “they”:

They are offered, but their substitutes are never offered,

rather, they are given to the kohanim. They are not like the substitutes of other consecrated animals, whose law is that they are offered with the sanctity of the same sacrifice from which the sanctity was transferred to them.

And we ask:

And according to Abaye, this principle—

the law that the substitute of a firstborn is not offered—

from where does he derive it?

After all, from “they” he derives that the redemption is ineffective, and the word is not superfluous for another exposition.

And we answer: Abaye derives it from another verse, from the Torah’s statement [Leviticus 27]: “But the firstborn that is born as a firstborn to the Lord among animals,

whether ox or sheep, it belongs to the Lord.”

And we expound:

“It”

alone

is offered, but its substitute is not offered.

And we ask:

And Rava,

why did he need to derive from “they” that its substitute is not offered? After all, this is derived from “it.”

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so! It follows from that verse,

as it is derived from “it.”

Rather,

the question concerning Rava returns:

Why do I need “they”?

And we answer: For Rava, “they” is required for another exposition:

The verse taught

that

with regard to a firstborn and an animal tithe, if

their blood became mixed with all

the blood of other sacrifices

that ascend

upon the altar,

which are offered with regard to the altar,

it is possible to sprinkle the mixed blood, and through this sprinkling the meat becomes permitted to be eaten, and the sacrifices that “ascend” do not nullify one another. This is how we expound it: “They are sacred”—they shall remain as they are even if their blood became mixed. And from a firstborn we derive this law for all other sacrifices.

And we ask:

And Abaye,

who derives from “they” that redemption does not take effect with regard to a firstborn,

this principle—

the law that “the sacrifices that ascend do not nullify one another”—

from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

He derives it

from

a verse stated in the section concerning the Yom Kippur sacrifices.

After the kohein sprinkled the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat of Yom Kippur between the staves of the Ark and upon the curtain, he applied their blood to the horns of the inner altar. The Sages disagreed concerning this application to the horns of the inner altar. Rabbi Yoshiya said that he mixed the blood of the bull with the blood of the goat and applied the mixed blood. Rabbi Yonatan said that he applied the blood of the bull separately and the blood of the goat separately.

And it is written there [Leviticus 16]:

“And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat, and he shall place it upon the horns of the altar all around.”

According to Rabbi Yoshiya, who says that the bloods were mixed, the following question arises:

But the blood of the bull is more abundant than the blood of the goat,

and the blood of the goat should have been nullified by the blood of the bull; why, then, does the Torah call it “the blood of the goat”? Rather,

from here

you learn

with regard to the “sacrifices that ascend,” that they do not nullify one another.

This derivation applies according to Rabbi Yoshiya. As it is taught

in tractate Yoma [57b], the Torah said:

“And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat.”

That the bloods should be

And Rava holds that one cannot derive this law from the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat, because there,

mixed, the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.

the bloods

mixed, the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah.

And Rava

holds that one cannot derive the law from the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat, because

there,

he did not mix their blood; rather,

he sprinkled

the blood of the bull

separately, and he sprinkled

the blood of the goat

separately, and he follows the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan.

“It shall not be redeemed”—

Therefore, he needed to derive from “they,” written with regard to a firstborn, that “all the sacrifices that ascend are offered with regard to the altar.”

The Gemara continues to raise an objection to Abaye from the animal tithe.

But what of the animal tithe, concerning which the Merciful One said [Numbers 18]

“It shall not be redeemed”—

and we learned,

that we learned [below, 21a] that all other animals disqualified from consecration

can be redeemed, and their substitutes can be redeemed, except for a firstborn and an animal tithe,

which cannot be redeemed; and if one redeems an animal tithe, it is not redeemed [as explained above].

Apparently,

it is evident that it does not leave its sanctity through redemption, and

“it is ineffective.” This is a refutation of Abaye!

And we answer:

Abaye could have said to you: The case there is different;

an animal tithe differs from the other prohibitions of the Torah because

it is derived—

its law is derived by a gezerah shavah—

“you shall pass” from “you shall pass,” from a firstborn.

With regard to a firstborn it is stated [Exodus 13], “You shall pass over every firstborn of the womb,” and with regard to an animal tithe it is stated [Leviticus 27], “Every tenth animal that passes under the staff.” And we expound: Just as a firstborn cannot be redeemed, so too an animal tithe cannot be redeemed. Therefore, “it is ineffective.”

the offering before the first fruits, concerning which the Merciful One, the Torah, said [Exodus 22]:

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rava from the case of one who places teruma before the first fruits.

What of one who placed

the teruma before the first fruits, concerning which the Merciful One said [Exodus 22]

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

and we expound [above, 4a]: “Your fullness”—this is the first fruits; and “your tears”—this is teruma. The Torah prohibited placing teruma before the first fruits.

the offering before the first fruits,

And we learned,

and we learned in tractate Terumot [chapter 3, mishna 6]:

One who places

teruma before the first fruits,

even though he

transgresses

a negative commandment, what he did is effective,

and his teruma is teruma.

This is a refutation of Rava!

“From all your gifts you shall raise a portion,”

And we answer:

Rava could have said to you: The case there is different, as the verse states

[Numbers 18]

“From all your gifts you shall raise,”

and this comes to teach us that it is effective, even though he transgressed a negative commandment.

The question concerning Abaye returns: Why did the Torah write, “From all your gifts you shall raise”? After all, with regard to all the prohibitions of the Torah, the act is effective.

And we answer:

And according to Abaye, he needs it

for another exposition.

As

Rab Pappa said to Abaye,

and Abaye answered him.

In tractate Beitza [13b], Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If an Israelite proceeded to separate the first tithe from his produce before its processing was completed, when the produce was not yet obligated in terumot and tithes, his separation is valid. And if he gave the first tithe to a Levite before separating the great teruma from the produce for the kohein, the Levite is exempt from separating the great teruma from the first tithe he received. Although this causes the kohein to lose his teruma, nevertheless, we expound from what the Torah said to the Levite [Numbers 18]: “You shall raise from it the gift of the Lord, a tithe from the tithe,” that the Levite separates a tenth of the tithe he receives [called the tithe-offering] and gives it to the kohein. And we expound that the Levite gives the kohein the “tithe-offering” that he raises from the first tithe alone, and does not give him the “great teruma.”

And there, in the Gemara, Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

If that is so,

if we expound, “a tithe from the tithe, but not a teruma gedola from the tithe,” then

even

if

the Levite preceded

the priest in taking the first tithe,

from the pile,

after the produce had been smoothed and they had not yet separated teruma gedola from it, but had gone ahead and separated only the first tithe from it,

it should also be exempt, and why did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish state his ruling specifically when the Levite preceded the priest in taking the first tithe while the produce was still in sheaves?

so why did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish state his ruling specifically when the Levite took the first tithe earlier, while the produce was still in sheaves?

He said to him,

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

It is incumbent upon you

so that you will not say this:

The verse states: “From all your gifts you shall raise.”

The Torah commands the Levites to give the priests even teruma gedola from the first tithe, when they took the first tithe after the completion of the produce’s processing [the smoothing of the pile]!

Rav Pappa challenged him:

What did you see that led you to include the pile and exclude the sheaves?

In other words, from where do you know that from the verse “From all your gifts you shall raise” you include the case in which he preceded the priest with the pile, obligating him to separate teruma gedola, whereas from the verse “And you shall raise from it the gift of the Lord” you exclude the case in which he preceded him with the sheaves, exempting him from teruma gedola?

Abaye answered him:

I include the pile

because

it is included in the category of “grain,”

and the obligation of teruma gedola has already taken effect upon it, as it is stated concerning teruma [Deuteronomy 18], “the first of your grain.” Therefore, it is logical to interpret the verse that comes to benefit the priest as referring to a case in which the produce has already become obligated.

And I exclude the sheaves, which are not included in the category of produce that has undergone smoothing.

And it is logical to interpret the verse that comes to exempt the separation of teruma for the priest as referring to a case in which the produce has not yet become obligated .

Now, according to Abaye, the verse “From all your gifts you shall raise” is not superfluous to teach us that it is effective; rather, it teaches us the obligation to separate teruma gedola when the Levite preceded the priest after the produce had been smoothed in the pile .

The Gemara challenges Rava from the case of “a High Priest who betrothed a widow.”

But what of a widow to a High Priest,

who transgressed the command of the Merciful One,

as the Merciful One said [Leviticus 21],

(Leviticus 21),

“He shall not take a widow or a divorced woman,”

and this taking refers to betrothal, meaning that he is forbidden to betroth her .

And we learned

in tractate Kiddushin [66b] that the betrothal takes effect, and she leaves him only by means of a bill of divorce.

For we learned:

Wherever there is betrothal

that takes effect,

and there is a transgression

in this betrothal,

the child

born from this marriage

follows the disqualified parent,

and he is a halal. The Gemara explains there that this refers to a widow to a High Priest. From the fact that the Mishna says, “there is betrothal,” it is evident that the betrothal takes effect despite having been performed in transgression.

A refutation of Rava,

who maintains that it is not effective.

And we answer:

Rava could say to you: There it is different, as it is written

[there],

“He shall not profane his offspring,”

meaning that if he takes a widow, he profanes his offspring. This implies that he produces “halalim,” but he does not produce mamzerim. Had the betrothal not taken effect, the child would have been a mamzer. Since the Torah revealed that the child is not a mamzer, it is evident that the betrothal takes effect and is effective.

That is, “betrothal not taking effect” and “mamzerut” are two matters that depend upon one another. Where betrothal takes effect, the child is not a mamzer, and where the child is a mamzer, the betrothal does not take effect . Therefore, when the Torah revealed that the child is not a mamzer, it reveals that the betrothal is effective. The challenge against Abaye returns: why did the Torah need to inform us that it is effective?

The question now returns to Abaye:

why did the Torah need to teach us that the betrothal is effective?

And we answer:

And according to Abaye, if that were the purpose for which it came,

if it came to teach us that the child is not a mamzer, and consequently that the betrothal is effective,

let it say,

the verse should say,

“He shall not profane.” What is the meaning of

why does the verse say

“He shall not profane”?

Rather, the verse came to teach another exposition:

one applies to him,

the child becomes profaned,

and one applies to her,

the woman herself becomes profaned through this forbidden intercourse, and she is the zona mentioned in the Torah, who is forbidden to an ordinary priest [even if the High Priest does not divorce her but dies], and she becomes forbidden to eat teruma, even if she is the daughter of a priest [who eats teruma when she returns to her father’s home ].

This is what the Torah comes to teach us by saying, “He shall not profane,” and not that it is effective, since according to Abaye this contains no novelty, because in all the Torah’s prohibitions, the act is effective.

The Gemara challenges Rava from the law of “one who consecrates blemished animals for the altar.”

But what of one who consecrates

animals

with blemishes for the altar,

which is forbidden, because

the Merciful One said

[Leviticus 22],

“You shall not offer any animal in which there is a blemish,”

and we derive from this verse [below, 6b] a prohibition even against consecrating such an animal—

And we learned:

One who consecrates blemished animals for the altar

[and not for Temple maintenance],

even though he

transgresses

a prohibition, what he has done is effective,

and the consecration takes effect; the animal is sacred and is sold, and from the proceeds an offering is brought for the altar.

It is evident that it is effective.

A refutation of Rava!

And we answer:

Rava could say to you: There it is different,

as the Torah explicitly revealed that it is effective.

For the verse states

[there], “You shall not offer any animal in which there is a blemish

because it shall not be acceptable for you.”

And we expound:

It is the acceptance that it does not achieve; but it is indeed consecrated.

The difficulty for Abaye is: Why did the Torah need to reveal that it is sacred? In all the Torah’s prohibitions, the act is effective.

And we answer:

And according to Abaye, had it not been written, “because it shall not be acceptable for you,” we would have said,

we would have said,

let it be

like one who transgresses a mitzva, and

nevertheless

valid,

even to offer it, as with the other prohibitions of the Torah, where if one performs the act, it is effective; therefore

it teaches us

that it is not acceptable, and it is forbidden to offer it.

The Gemara challenges Rava from the case of “one who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance.”

But what of one who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance,

which is forbidden, because

the Merciful One said

[there],

“And an ox or a sheep that is stretched out or has a split hoof,