Temurah

for [the untithed grain of] his fellow,1 the power of disposing of it2 belongs to him [who separated].3 What does Rami b. Hama [say to this]?4 — There,5 [as the dedication] came through the agency of an Israelite, we go by him to whom atonement is made and thus both the beginning6 and the end7 are in the hand of an Israelite. But here,8 the question is: Do you require that both the beginning and the end should remain in the control of one who can effect an exchange,9 or not?10 The question remains undecided. The Master said: ‘No secular use may be made of dedications of a gentile, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to them’. [The ruling that] no secular use may be made of them is Rabbinical,11 and that the law of sacrilege does not apply to them is Biblical. What is the reason? — It is written: If a soul commit a trespass and sin through ignorance.12 We draw an analogy between [the word] ‘sin’ here and sin mentioned in connection with terumah;13 and with reference to terumah it is written: The children of Israel,14 [intimating] but not gentiles.15 ‘Nor are these subject to the law of piggul, nothar and uncleanness ; because in connection with uncleanness it is written: Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel16 and that they profane not My holy name, etc.;17 and we infer that nothar [does not apply to the dedications of gentiles] by means of an analogy between the word ‘profaned’18 and the word ‘profaned’ mentioned in connection with the law of uncleanness: with reference to uncleanness it is written: ‘The children of Israel and that they profane not, etc.’, and in connection with nothar it is written: Therefore everyone that eateth it shall bear his iniquity because he hath profaned the hallowed things of the Lord.19 And we derive the case of piggul20 by means of an analogy between the word ‘iniquity’21 and the word ‘iniquity’ mentioned in connection with nothar; for in connection with piggul it is written: And the soul that eateth of it shall bear its iniquity.22 And in connection with nothar it is written: Therefore everyone that eateth it shall bear his iniquity for he hath profaned the hallowed things of the Lord,23 and so in connection with all [these cases24 we apply the text] ‘the children of Israel’25 but not gentiles. ‘Gentiles cannot effect an exchange’, because it is written: He shall not alter it nor change it,26 and earlier in the context it is written: Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them when a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons,27 [thus referring to the children of Israel and not to gentiles]. Another version: Gentiles cannot effect an exchange. What is the reason? There is an analogy between the exchange of an animal and the tithing of animals,28 and there is also an analogy between animal tithing and the tithing of grain;29 and in connection with the tithing of grain it is written: But the tithes of the children of Israel which they offer unto the Lord;30 ‘the children of Israel’ but not gentiles.31 ‘Nor can they bring drink-offerings, but the animal offering of a gentile requires [the accompaniment of] drink-offerings.These are the words of R. Simeon.’ Whence is this proved? — Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says:] All that are home born;32 a home born33 brings drink-offerings but the gentile does not bring drink-offerings. One might think that a burnt-offering of a gentile does not require drink-offerings! The text therefore states: After this manner. 34 ‘Said R. Jose: In all these cases I favour the strict view’. What is the reason? — The words ‘unto the Lord’35 are used [in connection with the dedications of gentiles].36 ‘This applies only to things dedicated for the altar, but with things dedicated [for their value] to be used for Temple needs, the law of sacrilege applies’. What is the reason? — Since when we derive the law of sacrilege on the basis of the analogy of ‘sin’ and ‘sin’37 mentioned in connection with terumah,38 there must be some resemblance to terumah which is dedicated as such.39 But with things dedicated to be used for Temple needs, which are dedicated for their value, the case is not so. Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: In the case of every negative command mentioned in the Torah [the transgression of] which involves action is punishable with lashes, but if it involves no action, it is exempt [from lashes]. And is this a general rule, that a negative command [the transgression of which] does not involve an action is not punishable with lashes? But is there not the case of one who exchanges [an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated animal] which involves no action,40 and yet it is punishable [with lashes]? For we have learnt: NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE, BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES! — Rab can answer you: This [our Mishnah] is the opinion of R. Judah who holds: A negative command [the transgression of] which involves no action is punishable with lashes. But how can you explain the Mishnah in accordance with the view of R. Judah, surely have we not explained the first clause [of the Mishnah] as not being in accordance with the view of R. Judah? For the Mishnah states: ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE; [and it was asked]: What does hakkol [all] include? [And the answer was that] it includes the case of an heir, not in accordance with R. Judah!41 This Tanna [of the Mishnah] agrees with R. Judah on one point, [namely] that a negative command [the transgression of] which involves no action is punishable with lashes, but differs from him in another point, for whereas R. Judah holds that an heir cannot lay hands [on the head of his father's sacrifice] and that an heir cannot effect an exchange, our Tanna holds that an heir can lay hands [on the head of his father's sacrifice] and can effect an exchange. R. Iddi son of R. Abin reported in the name of R. Amram, R. Isaac and R. Johanan: [R. Judah reported]42 in the name of R. Jose the Galilean: In respect of every negative command laid down in the Torah, if one actually does something [in transgressing it], he is punishable with lashes ‘ but if he does not actually do anything [in transgressing it] he is not punishable, except in the cases of one who takes an oath, exchanges [an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated animal], and curses his fellow with the Name,43 in which cases though he committed no action, he is punished [with lashes]. [The Rabbis] said in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina: In the case also of one who named44 terumah before bikkurim.45 Whence do we derive that one who takes an oath is punishable [with lashes]? — R. Johanan reported in the name of R. Meir:46 [Scripture says:] For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain;47 thus intimating that the Heavenly tribunal through a gentile, although the atonement was for an Israelite, its exchange is not holy. consecrator is a gentile, the exchange is sacred. dedications of a gentile can only be of a rabbinical character; and this leniency is indicated by the fact that other laws like piggul etc. do not apply to them. children of Israel, so the law of nothar does not apply to the dedication of a gentile. Israel’. term of ma'aser (tithe); and on the basis of this, by reason of the analogy mentioned above between an exchanged animal and a tithed animal, we derive the ruling that a gentile cannot effect an exchange. drink-offerings in connection with animal sacrifices. followed by ‘unto the Lord’, thus intimating that gentile dedications are subject to the same laws as those of Israelites. as will be subsequently explained. grain and saying that it should be terumah.