Temurah 5

for [the untithed grain of] his fellow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to exempt his neighbour's grain from tithes.');">¹</span>

the power of disposing of it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the pleasure of (conferring) a benefit', i.e., the satisfaction one feels in obliging somebody.');">²</span>

belongs to him [who separated].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rami b. Hama could thus solve his query from R. Abbuha's statement.');">³</span>

What does Rami B'Hama [say to this]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. 'he said to him'.');">⁴</span>

- There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case cited by R. Abbuha.');">⁵</span>

[as the dedication] came through the agency of an Israelite, we go by him to whom atonement is made and thus both the beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consecration of the animal.');">⁶</span>

and the end<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrificing for atonement.');">⁷</span>

are in the hand of an Israelite.

But here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to Rami b. Hama's inquiry.');">⁸</span>

the question is: Do you require that both the beginning and the end should remain in the control of one who can effect an exchange,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e, an Israelite whose substitution makes the animal sacred. But where in the beginning the animal's dedication was through a gentile, although the atonement was for an Israelite, its exchange is not holy.');">⁹</span>

or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the person for whom atonement is made is an Israelite who can effect an exchange, although the consecrator is a gentile, the exchange is sacred.');">¹⁰</span>

The question remains undecided.

The Master said: 'No secular use may be made of dedications of a gentile, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to them'.

[The ruling that] no secular use may be made of them is Rabbinical,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the law of sacrilege does not apply to them, then necessarily the prohibition of making secular use of the dedications of a gentile can only be of a rabbinical character; and this leniency is indicated by the fact that other laws like piggul etc. do not apply to them.');">¹¹</span>

and that the law of sacrilege does not apply to them is Biblical.

What is the reason? - It is written: If a soul commit a trespass and sin through ignorance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 15.');">¹²</span>

We draw an analogy between [the word] 'sin' here and sin mentioned in connection with terumah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XVIII, 32. On terumah v. Glos. s.v.');">¹³</span>

and with reference to terumah it is written: The children of Israel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 28.');">¹⁴</span>

[intimating] but not gentiles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the grain of a gentile is not subject to terumah.');">¹⁵</span>

'Nor are these subject to the law of piggul, nothar and uncleanness ; because in connection with uncleanness it is written: Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus excluding gentiles.');">¹⁶</span>

and that they profane not My holy name, etc. ;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 2.');">¹⁷</span>

and we infer that nothar [does not apply to the dedications of gentiles] by means of an analogy between the word 'profaned'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in connection with nothar.');">¹⁸</span>

and the word 'profaned' mentioned in connection with the law of uncleanness: with reference to uncleanness it is written: 'The children of Israel and that they profane not, etc.' , and in connection with nothar it is written: Therefore everyone that eateth it shall bear his iniquity because he hath profaned the hallowed things of the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 8. And just as the laws of ritual uncleanness do not apply to the sacrifice of a gentile, since it says the children of Israel, so the law of nothar does not apply to the dedication of a gentile.');">¹⁹</span>

And we derive the case of piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it does not apply to a gentile dedication.');">²⁰</span>

by means of an analogy between the word 'iniquity'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used with reference to piggul.');">²¹</span>

and the word 'iniquity' mentioned in connection with nothar; for in connection with piggul it is written: And the soul that eateth of it shall bear its iniquity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VII, 18.');">²²</span>

And in connection with nothar it is written: Therefore everyone that eateth it shall bear his iniquity for he hath profaned the hallowed things of the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIX, 8.');">²³</span>

and so in connection with all [these cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nothar, piggul and uncleanness.');">²⁴</span>

we apply the text] 'the children of Israel'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because all are compared to the law of ritual uncleanness where Scripture explicitly mentioned the 'children of Israel'.');">²⁵</span>

but not gentiles.'

Gentiles cannot effect an exchange', because it is written: He shall not alter it nor change it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXVII, 10.');">²⁶</span>

and earlier in the context it is written: Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them when a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid 2.');">²⁷</span>

[thus referring to the children of Israel and not to gentiles].

Another version: Gentiles cannot effect an exchange.

What is the reason?

There is an analogy between the exchange of an animal and the tithing of animals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 13a.');">²⁸</span>

and there is also an analogy between animal tithing and the tithing of grain;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Bk. 53b.');">²⁹</span>

and in connection with the tithing of grain it is written: But the tithes of the children of Israel which they offer unto the Lord;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 24.');">³⁰</span>

'the children of Israel' but not gentiles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same ruling which excludes a gentile therefore applies to animal tithing, as both kinds of tithing come under the term of ma'aser (tithe) ; and on the basis of this, by reason of the analogy mentioned above between an exchanged animal and a tithed animal, we derive the ruling that a gentile cannot effect an exchange.');">³¹</span>

'Nor can they bring drink-offerings, but the animal offering of a gentile requires [the accompaniment of] drink-offerings.

These are the words of R'Simeon.'

Whence is this proved? - Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says:] All that are home born;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 13.');">³²</span>

a home born<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a Jew.');">³³</span>

brings drink-offerings but the gentile does not bring drink-offerings.

One might think that a burnt-offering of a gentile does not require drink-offerings! The text therefore states: After this manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 13. The emphatic expression 'after this manner' intimates the indispensableness of bringing drink-offerings in connection with animal sacrifices.');">³⁴</span>

'Said R'Jose: In all these cases I favour the strict view'.

What is the reason? - The words 'unto the Lord'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 18.');">³⁵</span>

are used [in connection with the dedications of gentiles].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the words 'a man, a man' in this passage which are explained as including the consecrations of gentiles are followed by 'unto the Lord', thus intimating that gentile dedications are subject to the same laws as those of Israelites.');">³⁶</span>

'This applies only to things dedicated for the altar, but with things dedicated [for their value] to be used for Temple needs, the law of sacrilege applies'.

What is the reason? - Since when we derive the law of sacrilege on the basis of the analogy of 'sin' and 'sin'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 7.');">³⁷</span>

mentioned in connection with terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 22.');">³⁸</span>

there must be some resemblance to terumah which is dedicated as such.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not merely for its value.');">³⁹</span>

But with things dedicated to be used for Temple needs, which are dedicated for their value, the case is not so.

Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: In the case of every negative command mentioned in the Torah [the transgression of] which involves action is punishable with lashes, but if it involves no action, it is exempt [from lashes].

And is this a general rule, that a negative command [the transgression of which] does not involve an action is not punishable with lashes?

But is there not the case of one who exchanges [an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated animal] which involves no action,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One only pronounces the words: 'This unconsecrated animal shall be instead of that consecrated animal'.');">⁴⁰</span>

and yet it is punishable [with lashes]?

For we have learnt: NOT THAT ONE IS PERMITTED TO EXCHANGE, BUT THAT IF ONE DID SO, THE SUBSTITUTE IS SACRED AND HE RECEIVES FORTY LASHES! - Rab can answer you: This [our Mishnah] is the opinion of R'Judah who holds: A negative command [the transgression of] which involves no action is punishable with lashes.

But how can you explain the Mishnah in accordance with the view of R'Judah, surely have we not explained the first clause [of the Mishnah] as not being in accordance with the view of R'Judah?

For the Mishnah states: ALL PERSONS CAN EXCHANGE; [and it was asked]: What does hakkol [all] include?

[And the answer was that] it includes the case of an heir, not in accordance with R'Judah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2a.');">⁴¹</span>

This Tanna [of the Mishnah] agrees with R'Judah on one point, [namely] that a negative command [the transgression of] which involves no action is punishable with lashes, but differs from him in another point, for whereas R'Judah holds that an heir cannot lay hands [on the head of his father's sacrifice] and that an heir cannot effect an exchange, our Tanna holds that an heir can lay hands [on the head of his father's sacrifice] and can effect an exchange.

R'Iddi son of R'Abin reported in the name of R'Amram, R'Isaac and R'Johanan: [R'Judah reported]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mak. 16a; Shebu. 21a.');">⁴²</span>

in the name of R'Jose the Galilean: In respect of every negative command laid down in the Torah, if one actually does something [in transgressing it], he is punishable with lashes ' but if he does not actually do anything [in transgressing it] he is not punishable, except in the cases of one who takes an oath, exchanges [an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated animal], and curses his fellow with the Name,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Deity. And although in all these instances no action is performed, the transgression is punishable with lashes, as will be subsequently explained.');">⁴³</span>

in which cases though he committed no action, he is punished [with lashes]. [The Rabbis] said in the name of R'Jose son of R'Hanina: In the case also of one who named<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not actually separating the terumah, for this would be an action but merely casting his eyes over a portion of the grain and saying that it should be terumah.');">⁴⁴</span> terumah before bikkurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The first fruits', the correct order of separating dues being first bikkurim and then terumah.');">⁴⁵</span> Whence do we derive that one who takes an oath is punishable [with lashes]? - R'Johanan reported in the name of R'Meir:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Shebu. ');">⁴⁶</span> [Scripture says:] For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. xx, 7.');">⁴⁷</span> thus intimating that the Heavenly tribunal