Temurah 5b — the Talmud in English

And the question returns concerning Rava: Why did the Torah write “it” to teach us that they have no redemption? After all, even without a scriptural decree, we would also know that “it is ineffective,” and its redemption is not a redemption?

And we answer:

And according to Rava,

indeed the Torah did not need to teach us concerning the dedications to priests that they have no redemption.

And the “it”

that the Torah wrote is needed for another matter,

to exclude the firstborn,

a firstborn of a kosher animal, and to teach us that it has a “sale,” as will be explained. And this is how we expound it: only “it”—that is, dedications to priests—has no sale. But a firstborn has a sale.

For it was taught:

Concerning 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,”

to teach us that its owners are not permitted to redeem it, to remove it to non-sacred status.

But

it is sold;

they are permitted to sell it to another person,

and the purchaser shall conduct himself with it according to the sanctity of the firstborn, since the Torah prohibited only redemption.

Concerning an animal tithe

it is

stated [Leviticus 27]

“It shall not be redeemed,”

and we expound [Bekhorot 32a] by a gzera shava, “it shall not be redeemed,” “it shall not be redeemed,” from dedications to priests: just as dedications are forbidden also in sale, as it is stated [there], “It shall not be sold and it shall not be redeemed,” so an animal tithe is not sold.

And

therefore

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

And according to this Rava answers: Since it could have occurred to one’s mind to prohibit sale even in the case of a firstborn, 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 discussion], it could have occurred to one’s mind to prohibit it. Therefore the Torah said “it” concerning dedications, to teach us that only dedications have no sale, but a firstborn has a sale.

And the Gemara raises an objection against Rava from “exchange.”

But what of exchange, 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:

It is not that a person is permitted to substitute, but that if he substituted, it is substituted, and he receives the forty lashes.

Evidently,

that this proves that the act is effective.

it is proved from here that

“it is effective. A refutation of Rava!”

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

And we answer:

Rava could say to you: There it is different,

the prohibition of substitution differs from the other prohibitions of the Torah,

for the Merciful One said

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

“And if he shall substitute a substitution, then it and its substitute shall be holy.”

But now the question returns concerning Abaye: Why did the Torah need to say concerning substitution that “it is effective”? After all, with all the prohibitions of the Torah as well, “if he acted, it is effective”?

And we answer:

And according to Abaye,

what the Torah wrote, “shall be holy,” does not come to inform us that sanctity takes hold of the substitute animal, since with all the prohibitions of the Torah as well, “it is effective”; rather, it comes to inform us that the first one, the offering animal, remains in its sanctity and does not leave for non-sacred status. For

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

we would have said:

This one shall go out,

the first one from its sanctity,

and this one shall enter

in its place, and both of them would not be holy.

It teaches us

that the first one remains in its sanctity. And the Gemara raises an objection against Abaye from “a firstborn” of a kosher animal.

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

[there]

“You shall not redeem.” And we learned,

and we learned in the Mishna that if one transgressed the statement of the Merciful One and redeemed it, its redemption did not take hold.

Below [21a], the Mishna discusses the difference between a firstborn and an animal tithe in which a blemish occurred, and other consecrated animals in which a blemish occurred. For all consecrated animals, including a firstborn and an animal tithe, when a blemish occurred in them, they are permitted for eating and forbidden for shearing and labor. However, it is forbidden to treat a firstborn and an animal tithe contemptuously, and to sell them in a butcher’s shop and weigh them by the pound [as one weighs non-sacred meat], whereas other consecrated animals are permitted this, even though there is contempt for consecrated property in it, because the benefit of their sale is for the consecrated property. That is, since they are slaughtered in the marketplace, their value increases, and the profit will fall to the consecrated property. This is not so with a firstborn and an animal tithe, which belong to private persons—the firstborn to the priest and the tithe to the owners; one does not treat consecrated animals contemptuously through a sale in order to benefit their owners.

And further we learned there: other disqualified consecrated animals, that is, consecrated animals in which a blemish occurred,

have redemption,

and the redemption takes hold, and they go out to non-sacred status,

and

also

their substitutes

have

redemption

when a blemish occurred in them.

Except for the firstborn and the animal tithe,

which have no redemption, and if one redeemed them, they do not go out to non-sacred status.

Evidently,

if one redeemed a firstborn,

it is not effective. A refutation of Abaye!

And we answer:

Abaye could say to you,

There it is different,

a firstborn differs from the other prohibitions of the Torah, because

the verse says

[there]: “But a firstborn ox, you shall not redeem; holy

they.”

And we expound from the word “they”:

They shall remain in their state,

that the redemption does not remove it from its sanctity, even though it is blemished.

And we ask:

And according to Rava, what do I need this “they” for?!

After all, the Torah need not inform us that it does not leave its sanctity, since with all the prohibitions of the Torah as well, “it is not effective.”

And we answer: Rava expounds another exposition from “they”:

They are offered, but their substitutes are never offered,

rather, they are given to priests. And they are not like other substitutes of consecrated animals, whose law is to be offered with the sanctity of the same offering from which the sanctity took hold.

And we ask:

And according to Abaye, this principle,

this law that the substitute of a firstborn is not offered,

from where does he derive it?

After all, from “they” he expounded that “it is not effective,” and it is not superfluous for an exposition.

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

whether an ox or whether a sheep, it is the Lord’s.”

And we expound:

“It”

alone

is offered, but its substitute is not offered.

And we ask:

And Rava,

why did he need to expound from “they” that its substitute is not offered? After all, it is expounded from “it”?

And we answer:

Indeed so! For it emerges from that verse,

as it is learned from “it.”

Rather,

the question returns to Rava:

“They”—what do I need it for?

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

The verse taught

concerning a firstborn and an animal tithe that

if

their blood became mixed with all

the blood of the other offerings

that ascend

upon the altar,

which are offered with regard to the altar,

it is possible to sprinkle the mixed blood, and the flesh becomes permitted through this sprinkling, and the offerings that ascend do not nullify one another. And this is how we expound it: “Holy are they”—they shall remain in their state even if their blood became mixed. And from a firstborn we learn this for all other offerings.

And we ask:

And Abaye,

who learns from “they” that redemption is “not effective” for a firstborn,

this principle,

this law that “the offerings 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 of the offerings of the Day of Atonement.

After the priest sprinkled the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat of the Day of Atonement between the staves of the Ark and upon the curtain, he placed some of their blood upon the horns of the inner altar. And the Sages disagreed concerning this placing upon the horns of the inner altar. Rabbi Yoshiyah said that he mixed the blood of the bull with the blood of the goat and placed some of the mixed blood. And Rabbi Yonatan said that he placed some of the blood of the bull separately and some of the blood of the goat separately.

And it is written there [Leviticus 16]:

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

And according to Rabbi Yoshiyah, who holds that the bloods were mixed, it is difficult:

But the blood of the bull is greater than the blood of the goat,

and the blood of the goat was nullified in the blood of the bull; why, then, did the Torah call it “the blood of the goat”? Rather,

from here

you learn

concerning “the offerings that ascend,” that they do not nullify one another.

And this derivation is according to the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah.

For it was taught

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

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

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

That they shall be

the bloods

mixed, the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah.

And Rava

holds that one does not derive from the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat, because

there,

he did not mix their blood, but

sprinkled

from the blood of the bull

separately, and sprinkled

from the blood of the goat

separately, and he follows Rabbi Yonatan.

“It shall not be redeemed”—

And therefore he needed to learn from “they,” written concerning a firstborn, that “all the offerings that ascend are offered with regard to the altar.”

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

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

“It shall not be redeemed”—

And we learned,

we learned [below, 21a] that for all other disqualified consecrated animals

there is redemption, and for their substitutes there is redemption, except for the firstborn and the animal tithe.

They have no redemption, and if one redeemed the animal tithe, it is not redeemed [as explained above].

Evidently,

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

“it is not effective. A refutation of Abaye!”

And we answer:

Abaye could say to you: There it is different,

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

he derives it,

its law is learned by a gzera shava,

“passed over,” “passed over,” from a firstborn.

Concerning a firstborn it is stated [Exodus 13], “And you shall pass over every firstborn of the womb,” and concerning an animal tithe it is stated [Leviticus 27], “Every tenth animal that passes under the rod.” And we expound: just as a firstborn has no redemption, so an animal tithe has no redemption. Therefore, “it is not effective.”

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

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

But if he placed first

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

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

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

the offering before the first fruits,

And we learned,

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

One who places first

teruma before first fruits,

even though he

transgresses

a prohibition, what he did is effective,

and his teruma is teruma.

A refutation of Rava!

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

And we answer:

Rava could say to you: There it is different, for the verse says [Numbers 18]

“From all your gifts you shall raise,”

and it comes to teach us that “it is effective,” even though he transgressed a prohibition.

for another derivation.

And the question returns to Abaye: Why did the Torah write “From all your gifts you shall raise”? After all, with all the prohibitions of the Torah, “it is effective”?

And we answer:

And according to Abaye, it is needed for him,

for another exposition.

As

Rabbi Pappa said to Abaye,

and Abaye answered him.

In tractate Beitza [13b], Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: An Israelite who acted first and separated the first tithe from his produce before its completion, when the produce had not yet become obligated in terumot and tithes, his separation takes effect. And if he gave the first tithe to a Levite before he separated the great teruma from the produce for the priest, the Levite is exempt from separating the great teruma from the first tithe that he received. And although through this the priest loses his terumot, nevertheless, we expound from what the Torah said to the Levite [Numbers 18], “And you shall raise from it the gift of the Lord, a tithe from the tithe,” that the Levite separates a tenth from the tithe that he receives [called the tithe-teruma] and gives it to the priest. And we expound that the Levite gives the priest the “tithe-teruma” that he raises from the first tithe alone, and he does not give “great teruma.”

And there in the Gemara Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

But if it is so,

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

even

if

he preceded

the priest—the son of Levi—to take the first tithe,

in the heap,

after the grain had been smoothed and they had not yet separated teruma gedola from it, but had only proceeded and separated the first tithe from it,

he too should be exempt,

and why did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish state his ruling specifically when the Levite preceded the priest to take the first tithe while the grain was still in ears?

He said to him

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

Upon you,

so that you should not say this,

the verse says: “From all your gifts you shall raise up.”

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 grain’s processing [the smoothing of the heap]!

And Rav Pappa challenged him:

What have you seen to include the heap and exclude the ears?

That is to say, from where do you know that from the verse “From all your gifts you shall raise up” you include a case in which he preceded him in the heap, requiring him to separate teruma gedola, whereas from the verse “And you shall raise up from it the gift of the Lord” you exclude a case in which he preceded him while the grain was in ears, exempting him from teruma gedola?

And Abaye answered him:

I include the heap

because

it is included in “grain,”

and the obligation of teruma gedola has already taken effect upon it, as it is said concerning teruma [Deuteronomy 18], “the first of your grain”; therefore, it is logical to establish the verse that comes to benefit the priest when he has already become obligated.

And I exclude the ears, for they are not included in threshing.

And the verse that comes to exempt the separation of teruma for the priest is logically established when he has not yet become obligated .

And now, according to Abaye, the verse “From all your gifts you shall raise up” is not superfluous to teach us that it is effective, but rather to teach us the obligation of separating teruma gedola when the Levite preceded the priest after the grain had been smoothed in the heap .

And the Gemara challenges Rava from “a high priest who betrothed a widow.”

But a widow for a high priest,

who transgressed the command of the Merciful One,

for the Merciful One said Leviticus 21

(Leviticus 21),

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

and this taking means betrothal, for 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:

Every place where there is betrothal,

where the betrothal takes effect,

and there is a transgression

in these betrothals,

the child

born from these marriages

follows the defective one,

and he is a chalal; and the Gemara explains there that this means a widow for a high priest. And from what the Mishna said, “there is betrothal,” it is proven that the betrothal takes effect despite having been performed through a transgression.

A refutation of Rava

who holds, “it is not effective.”

And we answer:

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

there

“He shall not profane his offspring,”

meaning, if he takes a widow, he will profane his offspring. And it is implied: he makes chalalim, but he does not make mamzerim. Were the betrothal not to take effect, the child would be a mamzer. And since the Torah revealed that the child is not a mamzer, it is proven that the betrothal takes effect and is effective.

That is to say, “the non-effectiveness of betrothal” and “mamzer status” are two matters dependent 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. And the challenge returns upon Abaye: why was the Torah required to inform us that it is effective?

The question now returns to Abaye:

And we answer:

And according to Abaye,

if this is what it came for,

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

let it say,

let the verse say

“he shall not profane.” What

why did the verse say

“he shall not profane”?

Rather, the verse came to inform us of 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 eating teruma, even if she is the daughter of a priest [who eats teruma when she returns to her father’s house ].

And this is what the Torah came to teach us by saying, “And he shall not profane,” and not that it is effective, since according to Abaye there is no novelty in this, as in all the prohibitions of the Torah the act is effective.

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

But one who consecrates

animals

with blemishes for the altar,

and it is forbidden to do so, because

the Merciful One said Leviticus 22

(Leviticus 22),

“Whatever has a blemish, you shall not offer,”

and we expound from this verse [below, 6b] a prohibition even against consecrating—

And we learned,

one who consecrates animals with blemishes for the altar [and not for the maintenance of the Temple!],

[and not for the Temple treasury],

even though he

transgresses

a prohibition, what he did is effective,

and the consecration takes effect, and it is sacred and is sold, and from their proceeds he brings an offering to the altar.

It is proven that it is effective.

A refutation of Rava!

And we answer:

Rava could say to you: There it is different,

for the Torah explicitly revealed that it is effective.

For the verse says

there, “Whatever has a blemish, you shall not offer,

for it shall not be acceptable for you.”

And we expound:

it is the acceptable one that does not effect acceptance, but this one is consecrated.

And it is difficult according to Abaye: why was the Torah required to reveal that it is sacred? Is it not the case that in all the prohibitions of the Torah the act is effective?

And we answer:

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

that is, we would have said,

let it be

like one who transgresses a commandment, and

nevertheless,

valid

even to offer it, as with the other prohibitions of the Torah, that if he acts, it is effective; therefore

it informs us

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

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

But one who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance,

and it is forbidden to do so, because

the Merciful One said

there

“And an ox or a sheep that is stretched out or split-hoofed,