Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 3 for kids: Words and Actions

תמורה ג׳

🗣️ This daf asks how the rules for offerings apply when a gentile consecrates an animal. It also asks when someone can receive lashes for breaking a rule by speaking, without doing another action.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 3a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 3b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Temurah 3

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 3 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 3a, in English Tab translation (18)
  1. The right to choose the recipient is his — the person who separates the teruma may give it to whichever priest he wishes. Alternatively, if someone gives him a sela to give the teruma to his grandson, who is a priest, the sela belongs to the person separating it, not to the person whose produce was covered. The latter cannot claim that he paid for his own teruma. Rabbi Abbahu’s statement addresses three separate matters.
  2. There, it comes through an Israelite — an Israelite initially consecrated the animal. We therefore follow the person for whom it atones: both its initial consecration and its final offering are in the hands of an Israelite, who is subject to the law of substitution.
  3. This is the correct reading: ‘But here, his question is whether we require it to remain, from beginning to end, in the possession of someone who can effect substitution.’ If a gentile consecrates an animal to atone for an Israelite, must it be in the possession of someone eligible to effect substitution throughout? Perhaps its initial consecration by a gentile prevents substitution, even though it atones for an Israelite. Or perhaps substitution takes effect because it ultimately comes into the hands of the Israelite for whom it atones. The question remains unresolved.
  4. And he derives the law of leftover offerings from ‘profane’ in the law of ritual impurity — offerings consecrated by gentiles are not subject to the prohibition against eating leftovers.
  5. And concerning leftovers it says, ‘Whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the holy item of the Lord’ — just as ‘profane’ in the law of ritual impurity applies to offerings of Israelites and not gentiles, so does ‘profane’ here.
  6. We are now explaining the entire baraita, which teaches that they cannot effect substitution — why can they not effect substitution?
  7. This is the correct reading: ‘The substitution of an animal is linked to the animal tithe’ — as taught later: The animal tithe was included among other consecrated animals; why was it singled out? To link the others to it: just as the tithe is an individual offering and can be substituted, so can every individual offering, excluding communal offerings.
  8. The animal tithe is linked to the grain tithe — as taught in Bekhorot: ‘You shall surely tithe’ speaks of two tithes, the animal tithe and the grain tithe.
  9. Concerning the grain tithe it says, ‘The tithe of the children of Israel’ — this means Israelites, not gentiles. The same applies to the animal tithe and, because these laws are linked, to substitution. Thus animals consecrated by gentiles cannot be substituted.
  10. ‘A native’ — this means an Israelite; a gentile does not bring libations at all.
  11. Could his burnt offering require no libations — not even libations supplied by the community?
  12. Therefore Scripture says, ‘Thus’ — this makes libations obligatory for his offering, supplied by the community. According to the alternative reading, an Israelite may bring libations even on their own, while a gentile may not. Yet ‘thus’ establishes that a gentile’s offering requires libations, even at his own expense; payment for them is accepted from him.
  13. This is the correct reading: ‘Why? Because “to the Lord” is written concerning them,’ not ‘holy to the Lord.’ The verse concerning gentiles’ vows and voluntary offerings says, ‘which he offers to the Lord.’ This teaches that their offerings are treated like other consecrated offerings: one is liable for misuse and for eating them as piggul, among other prohibitions.
  14. But one who effects substitution performs no physical act — substitution depends on speech.
  15. It is Rabbi Yehuda’s view — he discusses this matter later.
  16. One who performs no physical act is exempt, except for one who swears, and so forth — these exceptions incur lashes despite involving no physical act, as explained later.
  17. ‘By the Name’ — by God’s name.
  18. How do we know that one who swears incurs lashes?
Tosafot on Temurah 3a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. One may not benefit from them by rabbinic law — Rabbi Yaakov asks why this is only rabbinic. Since the verse “any man” includes gentiles who vow offerings, perhaps the prohibition is biblical, just as the Gemara says of an Israelite’s peace offerings: one may not benefit from them by Torah law even though the law of misuse does not apply to them. The answer is that, since these offerings lack sanctity with respect to piggul, notar, and eating while ritually impure, they also lack sanctity sufficient to prohibit benefit by Torah law.
  2. And notar is derived through a verbal analogy between “profanation” and “profanation” from ritual impurity — The verse concerning ritual impurity specifies “the children of Israel,” excluding gentiles. Rabbi Meir asks why notar is not instead derived from the case of an impure priest serving while impure. Zevachim says that gentiles’ offerings may not be brought in impurity: if the High Priest’s frontplate does not secure acceptance for them, whether the impurity was inadvertent or deliberate, how could they be offered in impurity? The answer is that it is preferable to derive notar from the impurity mentioned in the same verse. As Levi teaches in Zevachim, “They shall not profane the holy items of the children of Israel” speaks of two forms of profanation: disqualification through notar and disqualification through impurity.
  3. And the grain tithe — Its verse says “the children of Israel,” excluding gentiles. This follows Rabbi Shimon, who accepts that interpretation. The Rabbis disagree, and the first version of the derivation fits their view.
  4. What is teruma? Something inherently sanctified — One might ask: the prohibition of deliberate misuse of consecrated property is derived from teruma through the shared word “sin.” Why not likewise limit that prohibition to offerings sanctified for the altar? Yet the prohibition also applies to property consecrated for Temple maintenance, as the Mishnah in Keritot indicates when it counts misuse of consecrated property among the liabilities arising from a single act of eating. Likewise, several rules derived from teruma in the last chapter of Me’ila—concerning damage and benefit, and an agent who carries out his instructions—would then not apply to property consecrated for Temple maintenance. The answer is that this passage excludes such property specifically because it says “to the Lord.”
  5. But one who makes a substitution violates a prohibition without performing an act, yet receives lashes — Why not ask the same question about one who defames his wife or conspiring witnesses, who also receive lashes for prohibitions involving no act? Because the Torah explicitly prescribes lashes for them. But when Ulla says in Makkot that one can receive lashes for a prohibition without an act, deriving this from one who defames his wife, why does the Gemara object that his case is different because it involves a penalty? Why not cite an oath-taker, one who makes a substitution, or another case here as proof? Those cases could indeed have been cited, but the Gemara’s answer suffices; alternatively, these cases may not be comparable. And when the Gemara asks here about substitution, why not answer, as it does later, that speech brings about an act? It could have, but it gives another adequate answer.
  6. Even one who sets aside teruma before first fruits — The Gemara later explains the reason from the verse “Do not delay your fullness and your outflow”: “fullness” means first fruits, and “outflow” means teruma, so the verse forbids delaying first fruits until after teruma. The Sifrei gives another reason: first fruits take precedence because they have four names. Rashi cites it later.
Rashi on Temurah 3b, in English Tab translation (38)
  1. He does not absolve him — As the verse says, “For the Lord will not hold him guiltless.”
  2. No absolution at all — This would mean that the earthly court does not flog him.
  3. We have found a source for an oath taken in vain — The verse says, “Who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7). This includes, for example, swearing to contradict something known to everyone.
  4. A false oath — The Gemara explains below what kind of oath this means.
  5. From where do we derive it? — From where do we derive that he is flogged for it?
  6. He performed an action — It would be right to flog him, since he ate and thereby acted.
  7. And did not eat — Failing to eat is not an action.
  8. Would he be flogged in such a case? — This is a rhetorical question: surely not.
  9. Because the warning is uncertain — If warned to eat the loaf he swore to eat, he can say he still has time. He can say that throughout the day; afterward, he can say he forgot both the oath and the warning. He is therefore not flogged.
  10. Let it be a case of “I ate” or “I did not eat” — That is, he falsely swore that he had not eaten when he had, or that he had eaten when he had not. Because the oath concerns the past, its violation involves no action.
  11. What distinguishes “I ate” from “I did not eat”? — Why exclude “I will eat” followed by not eating from lashes, but not these oaths? Neither involves an action.
  12. A false oath like an oath taken in vain — As derived above from the verse’s use of “in vain” twice.
  13. Just as an oath taken in vain concerns the past — If one swears that a stone pillar is silver, it was already stone before the oath, just as it is now. As stated above, the earthly court flogs him and absolves him. So too, lashes apply to a false oath about the past, such as “I ate” or “I did not eat,” but not to “I will eat” followed by not eating, which concerns the future.
  14. I swear that I will not eat this loaf, and so on — He swore three times not to eat that loaf.
  15. He is liable only once — As stated in Shevuot, an oath does not take effect on top of an existing oath.
  16. And this is an oath of utterance — The verse speaks of one who “utters with his lips, to do harm or to do good.” Here he says aloud that he will not eat the loaf; he has not taken anything from another person. By contrast, for an oath concerning testimony or a deposit, one brings a guilt offering for an intentional violation as for an unwitting one.
  17. What does this exclude? — Which oath does it exclude from lashes for an intentional violation?
  18. Does it not exclude “I ate” or “I did not eat”? — Although these are oaths of utterance, perhaps he is not flogged, since “to do harm or to do good” implies a future act rather than a past one. If so, what case of a false oath does incur lashes?
  19. He does not bring an offering — Because “to do harm or to do good” concerns the offering. He is nevertheless flogged for the oath, as for an oath taken in vain.
  20. Who said — Rabbi Yishmael said in Shevuot 25a that one is liable to bring an offering only for an oath concerning the future.
  21. This is an oath taken in vain — These words begin the latter clause of the mishna cited above.
  22. And does the first clause not exclude “I ate” or “I did not eat”? — On this reading, an unwitting violation of such an oath would certainly require an offering.
  23. And what distinguishes them? — Why exclude “I will eat” followed by not eating from an offering, but include “I ate” or “I did not eat”? The answer is that it is more reasonable for the first clause to exclude “I will eat” followed by not eating.
  24. It deals with the future — It says, “I swear that I will not eat it,” so it excludes another future-oriented oath, such as “I will eat” followed by not eating.
  25. But would it deal with the future and exclude the past? — This is a rhetorical question, referring to past-oriented oaths such as “I ate” or “I did not eat.”
  26. Do not include substitution — Do not count substituting one animal for another as a prohibition that involves no action.
  27. His speech performs an action — He turns an unconsecrated animal into a consecrated one.
  28. If you do not take care to do, and so on — The verse continues, “to fear the Name”: one must fear uttering God’s name in vain. Someone who curses another using the Name also utters it in vain. The verse then says that the Lord will bring extraordinary blows upon him, meaning lashes.
  29. Even a truthful oath — The verse warns against taking even a truthful oath in God’s name; if one does so, the extraordinary blows mean that he receives lashes.
  30. It is explicitly written — Scripture expressly permits taking such an oath.
  31. To appease another person — The oath may keep the other person from demanding money from him, but he should still receive lashes for putting himself in a position where he must swear.
  32. And by His name you shall swear — This permits a truthful oath.
  33. To uphold a commandment — He swears so that he cannot retract his commitment, as it says, “I have sworn and will fulfill it.” The verse “and by His name you shall swear” is needed to teach that such an oath is permitted.
  34. But isn’t there another verse, “and by His name you shall swear”? — The phrase appears twice, once in Va’etchanan and once in Eikev. One verse permits an oath to uphold a commandment, and the other permits a truthful oath.
  35. Then what does it teach? — What is the purpose of the verse “If you do not take care,” and so on?
  36. One who curses another using the Name — He certainly receives lashes, even though he performs no action.
  37. God’s name in vain — But would someone who curses another using the Name not receive lashes? He replies: Is that not all the more reason?
  38. Where he commits two prohibitions, lashes will not suffice — Even after receiving lashes, he has not thereby attained full atonement.
Tosafot on Temurah 3b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. An oath not to eat this loaf, then an oath not to eat it, and he ate it—he is liable only once — The order is deliberate. If he first swore not to eat it, meaning the whole loaf, and then swore not to eat this loaf, which also includes eating part of it, he would be liable twice. Tractate Shevuot explains why the mishna repeats the wording “not to eat it.”
  2. And what is different? — Rashi explains the question as: Why exclude “I will eat” when he did not eat from liability for an offering, but include “I ate” or “I did not eat” as liable for an offering based on the latter clause? This is difficult: if the latter clause instead excluded “I will eat” when he did not eat, there would be no question; the question arises only if it is read the other way around. Rabbeinu Yitzhak explains the question differently: Why interpret the mishna according to Rabbi Akiva? Read it according to Rabbi Yishmael: the first clause excludes false oaths about the past from an offering, and the latter clause excludes an unfulfilled oath to eat from lashes. The Gemara answers that the latter clause concerns the future.
  3. And how do we know this for one who curses another using God’s name? — Lashes are derived from “If you do not take care to observe and perform … the Lord will bring extraordinary plagues.” The prohibition comes from “You shall not curse a deaf person,” or from that same passage itself.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Temura 3.