Temurah 10

But according to Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who says a forbidden act is not valid; what need has he for the phrase 'it is'?');">¹</span>

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 17. Redemption is forbidden so that the owners should not treat it as unconsecrated, as regards shearing its wool and working it.');">²</span>

implying that it may be sold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a blemish occurred in the firstling the owner may sell it as a firstling to a priest, since Scripture only forbids its redemption, but not its selling; v. Bek. 31b.');">³</span>

In connection with a tithing animal, it says: It shall not be redeemed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 28.');">⁴</span>

and may neither be sold alive nor dead, neither unblemished nor blemished.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because we draw an analogy between ma'aser and dedications, just as in the latter both redemption and selling are 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 tuv an animal tithed as regards its selling. Therefore the word (it is) used in connection with dedications comes to exclude a firstling animal from the restriction of selling.');">⁵</span>

But is there not the case of temurah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unconsecrated animal exchanged for a consecrated one.');">⁶</span>

concerning which the Divine Law says: He shall not alter it nor change it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10.');">⁷</span>

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who says that a forbidden act has no validity.');">⁸</span>

- [Raba] can answer you: The case there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of temurah.');">⁹</span>

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to his view that a forbidden act has a legal effect, what need is there for the text, Then it and the exchange thereof, etc.?');">¹⁰</span>

- 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.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But that both become consecrated.');">¹¹</span>

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 17.');">¹²</span>

and we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 21a.');">¹³</span>

[Sacrifices rendered unfit for the altar]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having become blemished. The difference between a firstling and a tithing animal and other disqualified sacrifices 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.');">¹⁴</span>

have redemption themselves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The money acquires holiness and the animal becomes hullin.');">¹⁵</span>

and their exchanges,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which a blemish occurred. They become hullin and the money of redemption acquires holiness, after redemption.');">¹⁶</span>

except in the case of a firstling or a tithing animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Blemished firstlings and tithing animals are not redeemable and remain sacred. The redemption money therefore does not acquire holiness, v. infra 21a.');">¹⁷</span>

Consequently we see that [a forbidden act] has no legal effect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a blemished firstling or a blemished tithing animal.');">¹⁸</span>

This refutes Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that a forbidden act has a legal effect.');">¹⁹</span>

- He [Abaye] will answer you: The case is different there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah just quoted.');">²⁰</span>

for Scripture says: [Holy] they [are]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So lit. E. V. 'They are holy'; Num. XVIII, 17.');">²¹</span>

intimating that they remain in their sacred status.

And what will Raba do with the word 'they'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he holds that a forbidden act is not valid, the redemption here of a firstling is of no legal effect. Consequently there is no need for the word 'they' to teach us the same thing.');">²²</span>

- It intimates that 'they' are offered up but not their exchanges.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they do not receive any holiness by substitution.');">²³</span>

And whence does Abaye derive this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That substitutes do not become sacred.');">²⁴</span>

- [He derives it from the text:] Whether it be an ox or sheep, to the Lord it is;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So lit. E. V. 'it is the Lord's'. Lev. XXVII, 26.');">²⁵</span>

'it' [the firstling itself offered up but not its exchange.

And Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since we derive the ruling excluding the substitute of the firstling from holiness from the text 'whether it be an ox etc.', what need is there for the text 'holy they are' to teach the same thing?');">²⁶</span>

- It is indeed so that he does derive it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a substitute of a firstling is not sacred.');">²⁷</span>

from that text.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Whether it be an ox'.');">²⁸</span>

Then what need is there for the text 'they are'?

It teaches that if the blood of a firstling or a tithing animal beca mixed up with things which are offered up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., blood of several sacrifices that have become mixed up.');">²⁹</span>

they are still offered on the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the flesh is rendered permissible by the sprinkling, for things which are offered up do not neutralize one 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.');">³⁰</span>

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 18. Scripture continuing: And put it upon the horns of the altar.');">³¹</span>

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that the sprinkling is done from both the blood of the bullock and the goat after mixing.');">³²</span>

These are the words of R'Josiah.

And Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since we derive the ruling that we may sprinkle the mixed blood of sacrifices from the text. 'And shall take from the blood of the bullock, etc.', what need is there for the words 'they are', used in connection with the law of a firstling?');">³³</span>

- There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the text: And shall take from the blood of the bullock, etc.');">³⁴</span>

he sprinkles the blood of the bullock separately and the blood of the goat separately, for he accepts the view of R'Jonathan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who says that we do not mix the blood of the bullock with the blood of the goat to sprinkle on the horns of the altar; v. Zeb. 81a.');">³⁵</span>

But is there not the case of a tithing animal in reference to which the Divine Law says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 33.');">³⁶</span>

'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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 25 notes. What is the difference between an animal tithed and a firstling on the one hand, and other sacrifices?');">³⁷</span>

Consequently we see that a forbidden act has no legal effect!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Mishnah says it has no redemption.');">³⁸</span>

This refutes Abaye? - He [Abaye] will answer you: The case is different there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to a tithed animal.');">³⁹</span>

since we draw an analogy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 9a.');">⁴⁰</span>

between the term 'passing'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All that passes under the rod (Lev. XXVII, 32) .');">⁴¹</span>

used in connection with an animal tithed and the term 'passing'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That thou shall cause to pass (set apart) ; Ex. XIII, 12.');">⁴²</span>

used in connection with a firstling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And just as for a firstling there is no redemption (v. supra) so a tithed animal has no redemption. But elsewhere, Abaye maintains, it may be that a forbidden act has a legal effect.');">⁴³</span>

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 3a, ');">⁴⁴</span>

and we have learnt: If one [names] terumah before bikkurim, although he is guilty of transgressing a negative command,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Thou shalt not delay, etc.'.');">⁴⁵</span>

his action is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what he has done is done'. Ter. III, 6.');">⁴⁶</span>

This refutes Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek.');">⁴⁷</span> - Raba will answer you: The case is different there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where terumah was named before bikkurim.');">⁴⁸</span> since Scripture says: Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 29, intimating that although you have named first tithe before terumah you can still separate terumah; and the same applies to terumah and bikkurim.');">⁴⁹</span> And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he holds that a prohibited act can have legal effect, what need is there for the text 'Out of all your gifts, etc.'?');">⁵⁰</span> - He needs [the words 'Out of all your gifts'] for [answering the question which] R'Papa put to Abaye: If this be the case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Bez. ');">⁵¹</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then is the Levite exempt from the obligation of terumah only when the grain is in ear?');">⁵²</span> And [Abaye] answered him: To meet your query Scripture says: Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah. I.e., that he must, in certain circumstances, set aside terumah as well as the tithe from the tithe.');">⁵³</span> But why do you see fit to include the case of when [the grain was] in the pile,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As requiring the Levite to give terumah.');">⁵⁴</span> and to exclude the case of grain in the ear?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As not requiring the Levite to give terumah.');">⁵⁵</span> - 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 14.');">⁵⁶</span> and we have learnt: Wherever betrothal is valid and yet involves a transgression,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a result, as e.g., in the case of a widow marrying a High priest.');">⁵⁷</span> the child has the legal status of the party which causes the transgression!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which is defective'. In this case, the widow or divorcee, and the child becomes a halal (profane, unfit for the 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?');">⁵⁸</span> - The case is different there since Scripture says: Neither shall he profane his seed among his people.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 15, implying that such marriages produce halalim (unfit for the priesthood) but not mamzerim (illegitimate children) . Consequently we see that the betrothal in this case is valid.');">⁵⁹</span> And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he holds that a prohibited act has a legal effect, what need is there for the text: Neither shall he profane etc.');">⁶⁰</span> - Let Scripture then say: 'Lo yahel'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would imply that it refers to the status of the child alone. kkjh k');">⁶¹</span> Why 'lo yehalel'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' the extra indicates a further teaching.');">⁶²</span> One [profanation refers] to it [the child]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it becomes a halal. vkkj');">⁶³</span> and the other to [the woman] herself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she becomes profaned () and therefore if she is the daughter of a priest, she cannot eat her father's 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.');">⁶⁴</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 20; which text is explained (infra) as meaning: Ye shall not consecrate.');">⁶⁵</span> And it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek.');">⁶⁶</span> If one dedicates blemished animals for the altar, although he infringes a negative command, the act is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they are sacred to the extent of their value.');">⁶⁷</span> This refutes Raba!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that a forbidden act has no legal effect.');">⁶⁸</span> - Raba can answer you: The case is different there, since Scripture says: 'For it shall not be acceptable for you',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 20. So Bah.');">⁶⁹</span> [intimating that] it is not acceptable but that its consecration is legal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the extent of its value for the altar.');">⁷⁰</span> And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he holds that a forbidden act has a legal effect, what need is there for this text?');">⁷¹</span> - If Scripture had not stated: 'For it shall not be acceptable for you', I might have thought the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of one who consecrates a blemished animal.');">⁷²</span> 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it cannot be offered up on the altar.');">⁷³</span> But is there not the case of one who dedicates unblemished animals for Temple repairs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not for sacrifice on the altar.');">⁷⁴</span> concerning which the Divine Law says: