Temurah

But according to Raba1 the text ‘it is’ comes to exclude the case of a firstling. For it has been taught: With reference to a firstling, it says: Thou shalt not redeem,2 implying that it may be sold.3 In connection with a tithing animal, it says: It shall not be redeemed,4 and may neither be sold alive nor dead, neither unblemished nor blemished.5 But is there not the case of temurah6 concerning which the Divine Law says: He shall not alter it nor change it,7 and yet we learnt: NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES. Consequently we see that [a forbidden act] has a legal effect. This refutes Raba?8 — [Raba] can answer you: The case there9 is different, for Scripture says: ‘Then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy’, implying that it [the exchanged animal] must retain its sacred character. And Abaye?10 — If the Divine Law had not said: ‘Then it and the exchange thereof [shall be holy’], I might have thought that the consecrated animal ceases [to be holy] and this one [the exchanged animal] enters into holiness. [Scripture] therefore informs us [that this is not so.]11 But is there not the case of a firstling of which the Divine Law says: But the firstling of a cow or the firstling of a sheep or the firstling of a goat thou shalt not redeem,12 and we have learnt:13 [Sacrifices rendered unfit for the altar]14 have redemption themselves15 and their exchanges,16 except in the case of a firstling or a tithing animal?17 Consequently we see that [a forbidden act] has no legal effect.18 This refutes Abaye?19 — He [Abaye] will answer you: The case is different there,20 for Scripture says: [Holy] they [are]21 intimating that they remain in their sacred status. And what will Raba do with the word ‘they’?22 — It intimates that ‘they’ are offered up but not their exchanges.23 And whence does Abaye derive this ruling?24 — [He derives it from the text:] Whether it be an ox or sheep, to the Lord it is;25 ‘it’ [the firstling itself] is offered up but not its exchange. And Raba?26 — It is indeed so that he does derive it27 from that text.28 Then what need is there for the text ‘they are’? It teaches that if the blood of a firstling or a tithing animal became mixed up with things which are offered up,29 they are still offered on the altar.30 And whence does Abaye derive this ruling? — [He derives it from the text:] And shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat.31 Now is not the blood of the bullock more than the blood of the goat? This proves that things which are offered up do not neutralize one another. For it has been taught: ‘And shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat’, intimating that they must be mixed up.32 These are the words of R. Josiah. And Raba?33 — There34 he sprinkles the blood of the bullock separately and the blood of the goat separately, for he accepts the view of R. Jonathan. 35 But is there not the case of a tithing animal in reference to which the Divine Law says:36 ‘It shall not be redeemed’, and we have learnt: They have redemption themselves and their exchanges except in the case of a firstling or tithing animal?37 Consequently we see that a forbidden act has no legal effect!38 This refutes Abaye? — He [Abaye] will answer you: The case is different there,39 since we draw an analogy40 between the term ‘passing’41 used in connection with an animal tithed and the term ‘passing’42 used in connection with a firstling.43 But is there not the case of one who names terumah before bikkurim, concerning which the Divine Law says: Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fulness of thy harvest and of the outflow of thy press,44 and we have learnt: If one [names] terumah before bikkurim, although he is guilty of transgressing a negative command,45 his action is valid?46 This refutes Raba?47 — Raba will answer you: The case is different there,48 since Scripture says: Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering.49 And Abaye?50 — He needs [the words ‘Out of all your gifts’] for [answering the question which] R. Papa put to Abaye: If this be the case,51 then even if he [the Levite, anticipated the priest] when [the grain was] in the pile, he should be exempt from the obligation of terumah?52 And [Abaye] answered him: To meet your query Scripture says: Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering.53 But why do you see fit to include the case of when [the grain was] in the pile,54 and to exclude the case of grain in the ear?55 — I include the case of [grain] in the pile because it comes under the title of corn, whereas I exclude the case of grain in the ear because it does not come under the title of corn. But is there not the case of a widow married by a High Priest, concerning which the Divine Law says: A widow or a divorced woman, these shall he not take,56 and we have learnt: Wherever betrothal is valid and yet involves a transgression,57 the child has the legal status of the party which causes the transgression!58 — The case is different there since Scripture says: Neither shall he profane his seed among his people.59 And Abaye?60 — Let Scripture then say: ‘Lo yahel’.61 Why ‘lo yehalel’?62 One [profanation refers] to it [the child]63 and the other to [the woman] herself.64 But is there not the case of one who dedicates blemished animals for the altar, concerning which the Divine Law says: But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer.65 And it has been taught:66 If one dedicates blemished animals for the altar, although he infringes a negative command, the act is valid?67 This refutes Raba!68 — Raba can answer you: The case is different there, since Scripture says: ‘For it shall not be acceptable for you’,69 [intimating that] it is not acceptable but that its consecration is legal.70 And Abaye?71 — If Scripture had not stated: ‘For it shall not be acceptable for you’, I might have thought the case72 should be similar to that of one who transgresses a religious command, but that it [the animal] is fit [even to offer up]. [The text therefore] informs us [that it is not so].73 But is there not the case of one who dedicates unblemished animals for Temple repairs,74 concerning which the Divine Law says: its wool and working it. redemption, but not its selling; v. Bek. 31b. forbidden, similarly in the former, i.e., a tithing animal, selling is also forbidden. Now I might have supposed that the law of the firstling animal would be the same as that of an animal tithed as regards its selling. Therefore the word tuv (it is) used in connection with dedications comes to exclude a firstling animal from the restriction of selling. exchange thereof, etc.? is that the flesh of the latter may be sold by weight and in shops like ordinary flesh, and this is not considered an unbecoming treatment of sacrifices since all profits accrued thereby go to the Sanctuary. But in regard to the flesh of a firstborn or a tithing animal, since the benefit accrues to the owners — in the case of the firstborn to the priest and in the case of a tithing animal to the Israelite owners — we do not allow them to be sold in the shop and by weight, as not in keeping with the treatment becoming to sacred things. does not acquire holiness, v. infra 21a. there is no need for the word ‘they’ to teach us the same thing. etc.’, what need is there for the text ‘holy they are’ to teach the same thing? another. From here we apply the same ruling to all cases of things which are offered up. The meaning of the text ‘holy they are’ is therefore that they remain in their sacred status, even if the blood is mixed up with the blood of other sacrifices. the blood of the bullock, etc.’, what need is there for the words ‘they are’, used in connection with the law of a firstling? altar; v. Zeb. 81a. sacrifices? Abaye maintains, it may be that a forbidden act has a legal effect. and the same applies to terumah and bikkurim. secures his terumah (v. Glos.) although thereby he causes the priest a loss, for a priest in the normal way receives two portions for every hundred and now after the Levite has taken his first tithe, the terumah will be only for the remaining ninety, nevertheless the Levite is not required to make good the priest's loss. The reason is because Scripture says the Levite must give a tenth part from the tithe (Num. XVIII, 26) implying that he need give not only a tithe from the tithe but both tithe and terumah. If, however, the Levite anticipated the priest when the grain was stacked up in piles, i.e., when it became liable to both terumah and tithes, then the Levite must make up for the terumah when he separates his tithe. Thereupon R. Papa said to Abaye: If you exempt the Levite from giving terumah because of the text: A tenth part of the tithe. priesthood) v. Kid. 66b. Consequently we see here that a forbidden act has a legal effect, for it says that the betrothal is valid. For if a prohibited act has no legal effect, should the betrothal be valid? (illegitimate children). Consequently we see that the betrothal in this case is valid. terumah. It is for this purpose that the text is necessary and not to teach that the betrothal is valid, despite the prohibition involved, as there is no need of an extra text to inform us of this, since in every case, according to Abaye, the ruling is that a forbidden act is valid.