Temurah

was speaking of exempting [from lashes];1 and he says thus: Transgression of a negative command which does not involve an action is not punishable with lashes. [The Rabbis] said in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina: Also one who names terumah before bikkurim.2 And why is it that one who exchanges is punishable [with lashes]?3 [Assumedly] because with his very words4 he performs an action.5 Then the case of one who names terumah before bikkurim should also be punishable with lashes, since with his words he performed an action?6 — Said R. Abin: It is different there,7 for [the prohibition of not delaying the priestly dues] is a negative command that is remediable by a positive command,8 since it is written: Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering. 9 R. Dimi was once sitting and repeating this tradition.10 Abaye asked him: And is it true that every negative command which is remediable by a positive command is not punishable [with lashes]? Is there not the case of one who exchanges [an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated animal] which is a negative command remediable by a positive command and is yet punishable with lashes? For we have learnt in our Mishnah: NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES. — [The case of one who exchanges is different, for]11 here are two negative commands12 and one positive command13 and one positive command cannot displace two negative commands.14 But is there not the case of one who violates [a woman] for which act there is one negative command15 and one positive command,16 and yet the positive command does not displace the negative command? For it has been taught:17 If one violates [a maiden] and then divorces her [after marriage],18 if he is an Israelite he takes her back and is not punished [with lashes];19 but if he is a priest, he is punished [with lashes]20 and he does not take her back!21 — You mention the case of priests. Their case is different, for the Divine Law22 invests them with added sanctity.23 This is a matter of dispute between Tannaim:24 And ye shall let nothing remain of it until the morning and that which remains of it until morning ye shall burn with fire.25 Scripture here has come to state a positive command26 following a negative command in order to inform us that one is not punishable with lashes on account thereof. So R. Judah.27 R. Jacob says: This comes not under this head,28 but the reason is because it is a negative command [the transgression of] which involves no action,29 and the transgression of a negative command in which no action is involved is not punishable with lashes. This implies [does it not] that R. Judah holds that it is punishable with lashes.30 And according to R. Jacob, what does the text: ‘And that which remains of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire’ come to teach? It is required for what we have learnt:31 The bones, the tendons and that which remains of the Paschal lamb are burnt on the sixteenth [of Nisan].32 If the sixteenth [of Nisan] fell on the Sabbath they are burnt on the seventeenth, because the burning of sacred things does not supersede either the Sabbath or Festivals. And Hezekiah said, and so taught a Tanna of the School of Hezekiah: What is the reason? Scripture says: ‘That which remains of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire’; the text came to give a second morning33 for its burning.34 Said Abaye: Any act which the Divine Law forbids35 , if it has been done, it has legal effect;36 for if you were to think that the act has no legal effect, why then is one punishable [on account thereof with lashes]? Raba however said: The act has no legal effect at all, and the reason why one is punishable with lashes on account thereof is because one has transgressed a command of the Divine Law. which does not involve an action is not punishable with lashes. R. Jose thereupon declares that the case also of one who named terumah before bikkurim is exempt from lashes for the same reason. This is contrary to the assumption held hitherto that R. Jose made him liable to lashes. law in order to merit punishment with lashes must involve an action, for here, in exchanging, no action is taken. prohibition by not naming the priestly dues in their right sequence, he can rectify the matter by setting aside the priestly due which has been omitted. In such a case, where a forbidden act can be repaired, there is no punishment of lashes. prohibition is remediable by the positive command. cannot repair the act and the positive command does not as a result displace the transgression. remediable by a positive command is not punishable with lashes. stricter in the case of a priest than in that of an Israelite, and therefore a priest is liable to lashes. which involves no action is punishable with lashes. punishable with lashes. which does not entail an action is punishable with lashes. i.e., the fifteenth; but that which remains till the second morning, you shall burn it in fire, i.e., on the sixteenth which is the intermediate day of the festival.