Temurah 7

לא מצית אמרת דכתיב

- You cannot say this, since it is written: Thou shalt not curse the deaf.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 14. Implying whether without the Name or with the Name, for which there is a prohibitory law. The texts therefore, 'If thou wilt not observe to do' and 'Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful' inform us that there is punishment of lashes for one who curses his fellow with the Name. Aliter: You cannot say that atonement with lashes alone is not sufficient in a case where one curses his fellow with the Name, for by means of an analogy in Sanh. ');">¹</span>

(ויקרא יט, יד) לא תקלל חרש

Or if you prefer [another solution] I may say:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi.');">²</span>

ואי אמרת בשלמא לקלל את חבירו אזהרתיה מהכא דכתיב

There is no difficulty [if the text above]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'If thou wilt not observe to do'.');">³</span>

לא תקלל חרש

refers to one who curses his fellow [with the Name]; its warning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' in order that the transgression of a prohibition should entail lashes, a text giving the warning is first necessary.');">⁴</span>

אלא אי אמרת מוציא ש"ש לבטלה אזהרתיה מהיכא

in that case would be derived from here, since it is written: Thou shalt not curse the deaf.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we have explained that the text implies even with the Name. Therefore here we have the warning, and the punishment of lashes is derived from the text: If thou wilt not observe to do.');">⁵</span>

אלמה לא

But if you say that it refers to one who utters the Lord's name for no purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is therefore punishable with lashes.');">⁶</span>

והכתיב

whence is its warning derived?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where is the Biblical warning that it is forbidden to pronounce the Lord's name for no purpose?');">⁷</span>

(דברים ו, יג) את ה' אלהיך תירא ואותו תעבוד

- But why not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Can we not find a text giving the required warning?');">⁸</span>

ההוא אזהרת עשה הוא

But does not Scripture say: Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve Him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VI, 13 'which informs us that the Deity's name must be treated with respect.');">⁹</span>

משום רבי יוסי בר' חנינא אמרו

- That text is only a positive admonition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not therefore called a warning. Consequently we explain the text: If thou wilt not observe to do . . then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful as referring to the case of one who curses his fellow with the Name and not to a case of one who pronounces the Lord's name to no purpose.');">¹⁰</span>

אף המקדים תרומה לביכורים

'[The Rabbis] said in the name of R'Jose son of R'Hanina: In the case also of one who names terumah before bikkurim.'

מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא

What is the reason of R'Jose son of R'Hanina? - The verse says: Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fulness of thy harvest and of the outflow of thy presses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 28.');">¹¹</span>

אמר קרא

'The fulness of thy harvest', this refer to the bikkurim;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the reason why bikkurim is described as 'fulness' is because soon after the grain is full and ripened it is ready for bikkurim. Another reason (R. Gershom) is because bikkurim is given when the grain is still intact, prior to any separation. lgns');">¹²</span>

(שמות כב, כח) מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר מלאה אלו ביכורים ודמעך אלו תרומה ואמרה

'the outflow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' .');">¹³</span>

לא תאחר

of thy presses', this refers to terumah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah is called dema' (mixture) because the mixing of secular grain with it, to the extent of one hundred and one times its quantity, neutralizes it.');">¹⁴</span>

איתמר הקדים תרומה לביכורים

and [Scripture] says: Thou shalt not delay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning that the proper sequence of the setting aside of the various priestly dues must be observed.');">¹⁵</span>

ר"א ור' יוסי ברבי חנינא חד אמר

It was stated: If one named terumah before bikkurim there is a difference of opinion between R'Eleazar and R'Jose son of R'Hanina.

לוקה וחד אמר

One says he is punishable with lashes, while the other says he is not punishable with lashes.

אינו לוקה

You may conclude that it is R'Jose son of R'Hanina who says that he is punishable [with lashes], since R'Jose son of R'Hanina says: Also one who names terumah before bikkurim is punishable [with lashes].

תסתיים דר' יוסי בר' חנינא הוא דאמר לוקה מדאמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא

On the contrary, you may conclude that it is R'Eleazar who says that he is punishable [with lashes].

אף המקדים תרומה לביכורים (לוקה)

For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dem. VII, 6.');">¹⁶</span>

אדרבה תסתיים דר' אלעזר הוא דאמר לוקה דתנן

If one has before him two baskets of tebel [untithed produce] and he says: The tithe of this [basket] shall be in that one, the first basket is considered tithed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although he had not actually made the separation.');">¹⁷</span>

היו לפניו שתי כלכלות של טבל ואמר מעשר של זו בזו הראשונה מעושרת

[If he says:] The tithe of this one shall be in the other one, and the tithe of the other one in this one, the first is tithed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the tithe has been set aside on its behalf from the second basket.');">¹⁸</span>

של זו בזו ושל זו בזו הראשונה מעושרת והשניה אינה מעושרת

whereas the second is not tithed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first basket is now exempt, and we cannot in turn set aside the tithe from it on behalf of the second basket which is still subject to tithe.');">¹⁹</span>

מעשרותיהם מעשר כלכלה בחבירתה קרא את השם

[If he says:] Their tithes shall serve for another, he has named them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We cannot say here that we are separating what is exempt from tithe on behalf of what is subject to tithe, for in both baskets the separation is viewed as taking place simultaneously and with one declaration.');">²⁰</span>

ואתמר רבי אלעזר אמר

And it was stated: R'Eleazar says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar's words refer to the first case where one names tithe of the second basket for the first basket and where it is ruled that only the first basket is exempted.');">²¹</span>

לוקה מפני שהקדים מעשר שני שבה למעשר ראשון שבחבירתה

He is punishable with lashes because he named the second tithes [of the one basket] before the first tithes of the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we hold that when he names tithe this includes also the second tithes. Thus the first basket was exempted from both the first and second tithes, whilst the second basket is still tebel, even in respect of the first tithe. There is therefore the penalty of lashes because he named the second tithes before the first tithes. For, although the text only speaks of delaying with reference to terumah and bikkurim, the same law applies to the correct sequence of the two tithes and also to terumah and tithes.');">²²</span>

תסתיים

This is proved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is R. Eleazar who holds that one is punishable for changing the sequence of the priestly dues.');">²³</span>

אלא ר' יוסי בר' חנינא דאמר אינו לוקה לימא קשיא דר' יוסי בר' חנינא אדר' יוסי ברבי חנינא

Then it is R'Jose son of R'Hanina who holds that he is not punishable with lashes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is R. Eleazar who says that he is punishable with lashes, therefore the Tanna who differs from him and holds that one is not punishable with lashes must be R. Jose son of R. Hanina.');">²⁴</span>

לא רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא

Must it then be said that there is a contradiction between the two rulings of R'Jose son of R'Ham'na?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he says above that one who names terumah before bikkurim is punishable with lashes.');">²⁵</span> - No. R'Jose son of R'Ham'na