Temurah

whereas the dust of usury1 cannot be reclaimed through the judges. R. Johanan, however, says: Even stipulated usury is not reclaimed through the judges.2 Thereupon he [R. Aha] said to him: But do they3 differ merely in opinion? Do they not differ in the interpretation of Scriptural texts? For R. Isaac said: What is the reason of R. Johanan? Scripture says: He hath given forth upon usury and hath taken increase: shall he then live? He shall not live,4 thus intimating that the taking of usury is a matter that affects life5 but is not subject to restoration.6 R. Aha b. Adda says: From here:7 Scripture says, ‘But fear thy God’,8 intimating that the taking of usury is a matter of fearing God but is not subject to restoration. Raba says: From here:7 [Scripture says:] He hath done all these abominations: he shall surely die: his blood shall be upon him.9 Now, lo, if he begat a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood.10 Lenders on interest are compared to shedders of blood. Just as shedders of blood cannot make restoration [of the lives lost], so lenders on interest are not required to make restoration [of interest]. And R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What is the reason of R. Eleazar?11 Scripture says: That thy brother may live with thee,12 thus intimating that he must return the interest so that he [the borrower] may live with you. But then wherein do Abaye and Raba [really] differ? — On the question whether a change13 enables one to obtain ownership.14 Another version: The difference will be15 in the various answers [given above].16 [Still] another version: The difference17 will be in the matter of stipulated usury. According to Abaye he [the debtor] does not return the interest whereas according to Raba he is required to return the interest.18 But does not Abaye also hold that we reclaim stipulated usury through the judges? For Abaye said: If one claims four zuz from his fellow as interest, and the latter gave the lender in his shop for it a garment to the value of five [zuz], we recover four [zuz] from him and the remaining [zuz] we say he gave as a gift. Raba says however: We recover from him five [zuz]. What is the reason? The whole [sum] came to him as interest.19 — Rather then the difference of opinion between Abaye and Raba is in whether a change confers ownership.20 Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says:] Whatsoever hath a blemish, that ye shall not offer.21 Now what does the text teach us? If it means that ye shall not kill, is this not stated below?22 Why then does the text state: ‘Ye shall not offer’? It means, Ye shall not dedicate. Hence [the Sages] said: He who dedicates blemished animals for the altar23 is guilty on all five counts; for transgressing the prohibitory laws with reference to offering,24 to dedicating,25 killing,26 sprinkling and burning wholly or partly.27 They [the Sages] said in the name of R. Jose: [He is guilty] also [on account of the prohibition of] the receiving of the blood. The Master said: ‘If it means, Ye shall not kill, is not this mentioned below?’ Where is this stated? — It has been taught: Blind or broken or maimed ye shall not offer these unto the Lord.28 What does Scripture teach us here? If it means not to dedicate,29 this is already stated above.30 Then what does Scripture mean by ‘Ye shall not offer’? [That] ye shall not kill. [The text:] Nor make an offering by fire of them29 refers to the burning [of the sacrifices on the altar].31 From this I could only prove the burning of the whole sacrifice [as being prohibited]. Whence, however, will you deduce that the same applies to a part [of a sacrifice]? Because the text states: Of them.32 Whence will you deduce the prohibitory law for the sprinkling of the blood [of blemished animals]? The text states: Upon the altar.33 [The succeeding words:] ‘Unto the Lord’ include the case of a scapegoat.34 But do [the words]: ‘Unto the Lord’ come to include [something additional]? Has it not been taught:35 Now36 if you expound the word korban [offering], am I to understand it to include the case of animals dedicated for Temple repairs,37 which are described as korban as for instance when it says: We have therefore brought the Lord's korban?38 The text, however, states: And hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of the meeting.39 [We therefore argue as follows]: In respect of whatever is fit for the door of the tent of the meeting,40 one may become liable on account of the prohibition of slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple court; but in respect of whatever is not fit for the door of the tent of the meeting,41 one cannot become liable on account of the prohibition of slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple court. Shall I therefore exclude these42 but not the Red Heifer43 and the scapegoat, since they are fit for ‘the door of the tent of the meeting’?44 Therefore the text states: ‘Unto the Lord’; [the law concerning slaughtering outside the Temple court applies] only to those designated as ‘unto the Lord’,45 but these46 are excluded, for they are not designated ‘unto the Lord’!47 — Said Raba: There we go according to the context [and48 here we go according to the context]. There,49 since the text, ‘Unto the door of the tent of the meeting’ includes,50 therefore the text, ‘Unto the Lord’ in that connection excludes.51 Here, however, as the text ‘by fire’ excludes,52 therefore the text, ‘Unto the Lord’ in that connection includes. 53 The reason then why a blemished scapegoat is not brought is because Scripture says, ‘Unto the Lord’. But if Scripture had not included [the case of a scapegoat] by means of the text, ‘Unto the Lord’, I might have thought that it was permissible to bring a blemished scapegoat. But consider: The lot54 designates only such as are fit ‘for [the Lord]’?55 — Said R. Joseph: This represents the opinion of Hanan the Egyptian. [For it has been taught:] Hanan the Egyptian said: Even if there was blood56 in the cup,57 he brings another [goat]58 to pair with it.59 Granted that you can understand from Hanan the Egyptian that there is no rejection,60 can you Understand that there is no casting of lots? Perhaps he brings two new goats and casts lots?61 Rather said R. Joseph: This62 will represent the view of R. Simeon, for it has been taught: If one [of the two animals] died, he brings the other without casting lots.63 Raba says: [The text]64 is not required save for the case where e.g., [the scapegoat] became blemished on that day65 and he redeemed it for another [animal].66 but if at a later date, he demands a larger sum. Therefore because he waits for the money, the buyer pays more, and this is called the ‘dust of usury’. which one or the other of these Amoraim can say that the case is different. because of the text. valid. and made it into a vessel or wool and made it into a garment. According to Abaye the action is valid, for he acquires ownership and therefore he only pays the price of the wood or wool; whereas according to Raba the act is not valid, for he does not acquire ownership of the article and therefore must return the garment or the article. And when in the Gemara above we raise a difficulty for Raba from the relevant Mishnah: If one steals etc., do not reply that the case is different from the Mishnah because of a text, but answer that Raba will hold according to one Tanna in B.M. 61a who says that a change in an object does not confer ownership, whereas Abaye holds with another Tanna there who holds that a change does confer ownership. For other interpretations v. Rashi. will give in answer to the Baraitha or Mishnah as quoted above in the Gemara. Abaye, who says a forbidden act has a legal effect will explain any particular Baraitha or Mishnah which appears to contradict this according to his view, and Raba, who holds that a prohibited act has no legal effect, will explain any particular Baraitha or Mishnah according to his point of view. blemished animal on the altar. sent away’. court one is guilty of excision? Scripture, however, says: Korban (offering) Lev. XVII, 4, thus implying that guilt is only incurred in connection with a korban. Now if you expound, etc. bracelets, etc. intended to include. respect of a sacrifice which is not burnt and is dedicated in its blemished state, one does not incur any guilt for its dedication. I might therefore have thought that a scapegoat, since it is not burnt, is in the same category. prohibitory law of ‘Ye shall not offer it’. which ‘for Azazel’, then necessarily both must be fit, as either may be destined ‘for the Lord’. Lord’ has already been slaughtered. Now just as according to Hanan one can bring a second animal for the scapegoat without casting lots, so it might be assumed he can bring it in a blemished condition. The special text therefore, ‘Unto the Lord’ is necessary to inform us that this is not so. not denied as having suffered a disability in the process of the ritual, thus becoming rejected from the altar. We can consequently proceed with the selection of another animal for the scapegoat. The first Tanna, however, will hold that the blood is poured out, since there was a break in the ritual. which shall be ‘for the Lord’ and which for the scapegoat. The animal which is designated ‘for the Lord’ he leaves to pasture until blemished, and the other one, on which the lot for Azazel has fallen, he brings and pairs it with the slaughtered goat. Now since he must cast lots, the second animal, in order to become a scapegoat, must be unblemished. blemished state. that the scapegoat should be unblemished. The Scriptural text ‘Unto the Lord’ therefore teaches us that it is not so.