Temurah

[Anything too long or too short that mayest] thou offer for a freewill-offering,1 that is, for dedications for Temple repairs,2 and we have learnt: If one consecrates unblemished animals for Temple repairs, although he infringes a negative command,3 the act is valid? This refutes Raba?4 — Raba can answer you: From the same verse5 from which you include the case of blemished animals dedicated for the altar,6 you include the case of unblemished animals dedicated for Temple repairs.7 But is there not the case of one who steals, concerning which the Divine Law says: ‘Thou shalt not steal’,8 and we have learnt: If one steals9 wood and makes it into vessels or wool and makes it into garments, he pays [the value of the object] as it was at the time of the theft?10 This refutes Raba?11 — Raba can answer you: The case is different there, since Scripture says: That he shall restore [that which he took by robbery],12 intimating [that the restoration is to be] according to what he had robbed.13 And Abaye?14 — The text: That which he took by robbery15 is required in order to teach that he adds a fifth for his own robbery15 but not for that of his father.16 But is there not the case of one who takes the pledge,17 concerning which the Divine Law says: Thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge18 and we have learnt: ‘He [the creditor] returns the pillow at night and the plough in the day’?19 — This refutes Raba?20 — Raba can answer you: The case is different there,21 for Scripture says:22 Thou shalt surely restore [the pledge].23 And Abaye?24 — If the Divine Law had not stated ‘thou shalt surely restore [the pledge]’, I might have thought that he has only broken a prohibition,25 and if he wishes, he can restore the pledge, and if he wishes, he need not. The text therefore informs us [that it is not so].26 But is there not the case of pe'ah,27 concerning which the Divine Law says: Thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field,28 and we have learnt:29 [The proper performance of] the command of pe'ah is to separate from the standing corn. If he did not separate from the standing corn, he separates from the sheaves. If he did not separate from the sheaves, he separates from the pile [of grain] before he evens it. If he has evened it,30 he tithes it and then gives pe'ah to him [the poor man]. In the name of R. Ishmael it was said: He also separates from the dough?31 This refutes Abaye?32 — Abaye can answer you: The case is different there,33 since Scripture says: Thou shalt leave,34 [and again] thou shalt leave35 as redundant.36 And Raba?37 — He can answer you:38 There is another case of ‘leaving’ similar to this. And what is it? It is the case of one who renounces ownership of his vineyard, for it was taught: If one renounces ownership of his vineyard and wakes in the morning and harvests it, he is bound to give peret,39 the defective grapecluster,40 the forgotten sheaf41 and pe'ah, but he is exempt from tithe.42 Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: And now that you have given all these [various] answers,43 wherein do Abaye and Raba really differ? — They differ in the case of stipulated usury44 and will be on the lines of R. Eleazar's [statement]. For R. Eleazar said: Stipulated usury can be reclaimed through the judges, animals; v. infra 7b. value, for the altar. the case of blemished animals dedicated for the altar. Just as in the case of the latter, we say although there is a negative command the act is valid, so in the case of the former, though there is a negative command, the act is valid. But elsewhere, Raba maintains, a forbidden act has no legal effect. change which he has effected, in spite of the forbidden act of stealing; v. B. K. 93a which there is the extra penalty of adding a fifth to the value of the theft. prohibited act is valid, otherwise the pledge would not be the creditor's at all and he would have to restore the pillow even in the day (Tosaf.). pledge was taken without the warrant of the court; v. Tosaf. pledge’? however, differ from R. Ishmael and hold that the change in the name makes it exempt from pe'ah; v. B.K. 94a. since he has not separated pe'ah from the standing corn, he transgresses a negative command. He ought then, according to Abaye, to be exempt from pe'ah, as a forbidden act is valid. The difficulty will even more certainly arise according to Abaye, if we adopt the view of R. Ishmael, for he goes even further than the Rabbis as regards the duty of giving pe'ah. V. Sh. Mek. possession of it, and is still bound to separate pe'ah and to leave it for the poor. of giving all these things to the poor, this kind of renunciation does not exempt, on account of the additional command ‘thou shalt leave’ mentioned in connection with peret, pe'ah, etc. case may be, and the replies of each of these teachers explaining that, although elsewhere they maintain their own view on the subject as to whether a forbidden act has a legal effect or otherwise, the case of the particular Baraitha or Mishnah adduced was different, inasmuch as there existed a text to render it an exception. therefore the interest would not be reclaimed, in spite of transgressing the negative command relating to usury. Raba, however, will hold that the action has no legal effect and the interest therefore must be returned.