Temurah 9

Chapter 9

א מיתיבי אונס שגירש אם ישראל הוא מחזיר ואינו לוקה ואי אמרת כיון דעבר אמימרא דרחמנא לקי הא נמי לילקי תיובתא דרבא
1 An objection was raised: If one violates [a maiden] and then divorces her [after marriage], if he is an Israelit he must take her back and is not punished with lashes. Now if you say that since one has transgressed the command of the Divine Law one is punished with lashes, then here he, too, should be punished with lashes! This refutes Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that the implication of the ruling that he must take her back is that the divorce is of no effect since he is in duty bound to re-marry her. Now this would be in order according to Abaye who holds that the punishment of lashes is determined by the validity of the act; since the divorce is of no legal effect, he is not flagellated. But according to Raba, who holds that the punishment is inflicted because of transgressing a Scriptural command, irrespective of the effect of the act, here, too, he should be flagellated (v. Tosaf.) .');"><sup>1</sup></span> - Raba can answer you: The case is different there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha just quoted.');"><sup>2</sup></span> for Scripture says: 'All his days'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 29.');"><sup>3</sup></span> [intimating that] all his days, [if he divorces her] he is required to take her back.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Torah thus distinctly states that the divorce, even if effective, can never be of permanent character, as he is at all times in duty bound to take her back. The Torah is thus supplying a remedied action to the prohibition and consequently there are no lashes.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ב אמר לך שאני התם דאמר קרא (דברים כב, יט) כל ימיו כל ימיו בעמוד והחזיר
2 And what does Abaye<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Abaye, what need is there for a special text 'All his days' to inform us that one is in duty bound always to re-marry her and that therefore there is no punishment of lashes? Even without the text 'All his days', according to Abaye, there is no punishment of lashes, since he can take her back, his divorce having no permanent character.');"><sup>5</sup></span> say to this? - If the Divine Law had not said: 'All his days' I might have thought that there exists a mere prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By divorcing her.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ג ולאביי אי לאו דאמר רחמנא כל ימיו הוה אמינא איסורא הוא דעבד ליה אי בעי ליהדר ואי בעי לא ליהדר קמ"ל
3 but that if he wishes he can take her back, and if he wishes he need not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the re-marrying is optional.');"><sup>7</sup></span> The text 'All his days' therefore teaches us [that this is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that it is a definite duty to re-marry her, not a mere option, and that all his days he is required to take her back, should he send her away.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ד לישנא אחרינא מיתיבי אונס שגירש אם ישראל הוא מחזיר ואינו לוקה ואם כהן הוא לוקה ואינו מחזיר קתני אם ישראל הוא מחזיר תיובתא דאביי
4 .<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The whole passage is omitted in Ms. M.');"><sup>9</sup></span> But is there not the case of one who separates [terumah] from bad [grain] for good [grain], concerning which the Divine Law says: Of all the best thereof;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 29.');"><sup>10</sup></span> [he must bring as terumah] 'the best thereof',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he must separate from the best grain on behalf of the best grain.');"><sup>11</sup></span> but not from the inferior?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On behalf of the good grain, for it is forbidden to do so. This is a matter therefore for which there is a Scriptural prohibition, although there would not be the punishment of lashes in this case, since the prohibition is merely derived by implication from the positive precept.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ה שאני התם דרחמנא אמר כל ימיו כל ימיו בעמוד והחזיר
5 And yet we have learnt: We may not separate terumah from the bad [grain] for the good, but if one did so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if he set aside terumah'.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ו ורבא אמר לך אי לא כתב רחמנא כל ימיו הוה אמינא לילקי וליהדר דהוה ליה לאו גרידא דכתיב לא יוכל לשלחה אהכי כתב קרא כל ימיו לשווייה לאונס ללא תעשה שניתק לעשה דאין לוקין עליו
6 it is counted as terumah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his terumah is terumah'. V. Ter. II, 6.');"><sup>14</sup></span> Consequently we see [that a forbidden act] has a legal effect! Shall we say that this refutes Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that a forbidden act has no legal effect.');"><sup>15</sup></span> - Raba can answer you: The case is different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of terumah just mentioned.');"><sup>16</sup></span> for it will be as R'Ela For R'Elai said: Whence do we deduce that if one separated [terumah] from bad [grain] for good [grain] it is counted as terumah?
ז והרי תורם מן הרעה על היפה דרחמנא אמר (במדבר יח, כט) מכל חלבו
7 
ח חלבו אין גירועין לא ותנן אין תורמין מן הרעה על היפה ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה אלמא מהני תיובתא דרבא
8 It says: And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it when ye have heaved from it the best of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 32.');"><sup>17</sup></span> Now if the terumah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Set aside from inferior grain for good grain.');"><sup>18</sup></span> is not holy, wherefore should he bear sin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the act of separation.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
ט אמר לך רבא שאני התם כרבי אילעא דא"ר אילעא מנין לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה שנאמר (במדבר יח, לב) ולא תשאו עליו חטא בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו אם אינו קדוש נשיאות חטא למה מיכן לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה
9 Hence we infer that if one separates terumah from bad [grain] for good [grain] it is counted as terumah. And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he holds that a forbidden act has a legal effect, what need is there for the text 'And ye shall bear no sin, etc.', which implies that the setting aside of inferior grain as terumah for good grain has legal effect?');"><sup>20</sup></span> - If the Divine Law had not said: 'And ye shall bear no sin' I might have thought what the Divine Law means is, 'Perform a mizwah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A religious command.');"><sup>21</sup></span> in the best [way]',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Separate from the very best grain for terumah.');"><sup>22</sup></span> but if one did not do so, he is not called a sinner. [The text]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And ye shall bear no sin'.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
י ולאביי אי לאו דאמר רחמנא ולא תשאו עליו חטא ה"א הכי אמר רחמנא עביד מצוה מן המובחר ואי לא עביד חוטא לא מיקרי קמ"ל
10 therefore informs us [that this is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But that he actually is designated a sinner.');"><sup>24</sup></span> But is there not the case of one who separates from one species to serve as terumah for another species, concerning which the Divine Law says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 12.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יא והרי ממין על שאינו מינו דאמר רחמנא (במדבר יח, יב) כל חלב יצהר ליתן חלב לזה וחלב לזה ותנן אין תורמין ממין על שאינו מינו ואם תרם אין תרומתו תרומה אלמא לא מהני תיובתא דאביי
11 All the best of the oil [and all the be of the wine],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'best' being repeated in connection with oil and wine.');"><sup>26</sup></span> [intimating] that he must give the best [as terumah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On behalf of its own species of oil but not for wine.');"><sup>27</sup></span> for the one [species] and the best [as terumah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On behalf of its own species of wine but not for oil.');"><sup>28</sup></span> for the other?
יב אמר לך אביי שאני התם דאמר קרא (במדבר יח, יב) ראשיתם ראשית לזה וראשית לזה וכן אמר ר' אילעא ראשית
12 And we have learnt: One must not separate terumah from one species for another species, and if one did so, it is not counted as terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. II, 4.');"><sup>29</sup></span> Consequently we see that a forbidden act has no legal effect. Shall we say that this refutes Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who says that a forbidden act has a legal effect.');"><sup>30</sup></span> - Abaye can answer you: The case is different there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah just quoted.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
יג ולרבא אי לאו דאמר רחמנא ראשית הוה אמינא (במדבר יח, יב) תירוש ויצהר דכתיב בהו חלב חלב דאין תורמין מזה על זה
13 since Scripture says: The first part of them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 12.');"><sup>25</sup></span> thus implying the first of this [species]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., oil is to be separated for the same species.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
יד אבל תירוש ודגן דגן ודגן דחד חלב כתיב בהו כי תרים מהאי אהאי לא לקי כתב רחמנא ראשית ליתן חלב לזה וחלב לזה
14 
טו ל"א הא תירוש ודגן דחד חלב כתיב בהו תרים מהאי אהאי כתב רחמנא ראשית
15 and the first of that [species].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., wine is to be separated for the same species; thus teaching that fruit cannot be set aside except for its own species. For this reason it is not counted as terumah; but elsewhere a forbidden act may have a legal effect.');"><sup>33</sup></span> And Elai said likewise: [The text says:] 'The first part of them' [intimating the first of this spe and the first of that species].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
טז והרי חרמים דאמר רחמנא (ויקרא כז, כח) לא ימכר ולא יגאל ותנן חרמי כהנים אין (פודין אותם) אלא נותנין לכהן אלמא לא מהני תיובתא דאביי
16 And Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that a forbidden act has no legal effect; what need, according to him, is there for the text 'the first part of them', to tell us this? o,hatr');"><sup>35</sup></span> - If the Divine Law had not stated 'the first part of them'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi; cur. edd. have throughout 'first'.');"><sup>36</sup></span> I might have thought that [only] in the case of wine and oil, with reference to which the text says: 'The best', 'the best',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'best' is repeated. ids');"><sup>37</sup></span> we may not set aside one species for the other; but in the case of wine and corn, or corn and corn,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., wheat and barley, all of which come under the heading of corn () .');"><sup>38</sup></span> where 'the best'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And all the best of the wine and the corn, Num. XVIII, 12');"><sup>39</sup></span>
יז אמר לך שאני התם דאמ' רחמנא (ויקרא כז, כח) קודש קדשי' הוא בהווייתו יהא
17 is mentioned only once, we may separate one species for the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Rashi and Sh. Mek. Cur. edd.: where we separate one for the other there are no lashes.');"><sup>40</sup></span> The Divine Law therefore says: 'The first part of them', [to teach] that one must give 'the best' of one species and 'the best' of the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that we cannot separate from one species of fruit or grain for another.');"><sup>41</sup></span> Another version:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Raba's reply.');"><sup>42</sup></span> But in the case of wine and corn in connection with which 'the best' is mentioned only once, [I might think that] one may separate from this [wine] for that [corn]. Scripture therefore says: The firs part of them. But is there not the case of devoted things, with reference to which Scripture says: [Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he hath whether of man or of beast or of the field of his possession] shall be sold or redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 28.');"><sup>43</sup></span> And we have learnt: Things devoted to priests<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XVIII, 14.');"><sup>44</sup></span> are not subject to redemption but must be given to the priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ar. 28b.');"><sup>45</sup></span> Consequently we see that [a forbidden act]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the text: 'It shall not be sold, etc.'.');"><sup>46</sup></span> has no legal effect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it is redeemed, the redemption is of no avail, as stated.');"><sup>47</sup></span> Shall we say that this refutes Abaye? - He [Abaye] will answer you: The case is different there, for the Divine Law says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 28.');"><sup>48</sup></span> 'Every devoted thing most holy unto the Lord it is',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So lit.');"><sup>49</sup></span> intimating that it shall remain in its status.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It does not pass from its sacred state through redemption.');"><sup>50</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter