Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 4 for kids: Can a Mistake Be Fixed?

תמורה ד׳

🔧 This daf asks what happens when someone does something the Torah forbids. Can a mistake be fixed? Does the act still count?

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 4a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 4b 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 4

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 4 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 4a, in English Tab translation (12)
  1. You shall not curse the deaf — This prohibition covers an ordinary curse and a curse using God’s name. The verse about fearing His name teaches that the latter is punished with lashes. Another explanation: One cannot say that lashes alone are insufficient atonement. The prohibition against cursing the deaf is linked to the prohibition against cursing a leader, for which lashes suffice. The discussion in Sanhedrin applies this to a curse using God’s name, based on the law of cursing one’s father. This explanation is from Rabbi Yitzhak son of Rabbi Menahem, not from my teacher.
  2. Or, if you wish, say — The verse about fearing God’s name concerns one who curses another person using that name, since Scripture does not impose a punishment without first stating a prohibition.
  3. Granted, if you say — If the verse concerns cursing another person using God’s name, “You shall not curse the deaf” supplies the prohibition. The verse here then says that one who does so is punished with lashes.
  4. Where is its prohibition? — We have found the punishment, “The Lord will make your plagues extraordinary,” but where does Scripture prohibit saying God’s name in vain?
  5. Why not? — Why say there is no prohibition against saying God’s name in vain? The command to fear God supplies it, and the verse about extraordinary plagues supplies the punishment.
  6. That is a warning stated as a positive commandment — It does not count as a prohibition. Thus the verse about fearing God’s name concerns cursing another person using that name, which is prohibited by “You shall not curse the deaf.” It cannot concern saying God’s name in vain, for which no prohibiting verse has been found.
  7. These are the first fruits — Scripture calls them “the fullness” because produce becomes designated for first fruits as soon as it is fully grown and its preparation is complete.
  8. This is teruma — Scripture calls it “the outflow” because teruma can make a mixture prohibited and is nullified only in a ratio of one to one hundred. The verse says not to delay the first fruits until after teruma; one who reverses their order is flogged.
  9. The tithe of this basket is in that basket — He designates produce in the second basket as the tithe owed from the first, whether or not he also says the reverse. The first basket becomes tithed even before he physically separates the tithe. The second does not: once its produce has been designated as tithe for the first, that exempt produce cannot serve as tithe for produce still obligated in tithe.
  10. If he said, “Their tithes shall be each basket in the other” — He designates both tithes together: the tithe owed from each basket is to come from the other.
  11. He has designated the tithes — He may eat from both baskets immediately, even before separating anything. Neither tithe comes from exempt produce, because both designations take effect at once, while both baskets are still obligated.
  12. Because he put its second tithe before its first tithe — By designating the tithe for one basket from the other, he makes the second tithe of one basket precede the first tithe that he must separate from the other. This also applies if he states the two designations in sequence. First and second tithes must be separated in order; “You shall not delay the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses” forbids delaying an earlier separation until after a later one. Alternatively, the Mekhilta derives the order of separations from this verse: first fruits before teruma, teruma before first tithe, and first tithe before second tithe. Each earlier separation has more scriptural names and takes precedence. Thus, just as Rabbi Elazar says one is flogged for putting second tithe before first tithe, he also says one is flogged for putting teruma before first fruits.
Tosafot on Temurah 4a, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. You cannot say that — Since we find an explicit prohibition against cursing another person, it is better to apply this verse about flogging to someone who curses another using God’s name than to someone who utters God’s name in vain, for which we find no explicit prohibition.
  2. The fullness of your harvest refers to first fruits — Rashi explains that they are called “fullness” because produce becomes subject to the obligation of first fruits as soon as the harvest is gathered and its work is complete. He explains that “the outflow of your presses” refers to teruma because teruma can make produce with which it is mixed forbidden, yet can itself be nullified in a sufficiently large mixture. But this is unconvincing, since that rule is rabbinic. Rabbi Moshe of Pontoise explains that teruma is called “outflow” because it applies to liquids, whereas first fruits are brought only from the fruit itself, not from its juice, as stated in Chullin 120b.
  3. If two baskets of untithed produce were before him, and he said, “The tithe of this one is in that one,” the first is tithed — For example, if each basket contains one hundred figs, ten figs in the second become the first tithe for the first. He also designates the second tithe, so all one hundred figs in the first basket are tithed. This concerns produce of doubtful tithe status, since it does not mention separating teruma. The teaching appears in Demai 7:6.
  4. “The tithe of this one is in that one, and the tithe of that one is in this one”: The first is tithed — As soon as he makes the first declaration, the first basket is tithed and exempt. When he then makes the second, he is trying to separate tithe from exempt produce for produce still obligated in tithes, which has no effect.
  5. “Their tithes are a tithe, each basket in the other”: He has designated the tithes — Both baskets are tithed through this simultaneous declaration. Although the rule is that something that cannot take effect in sequence cannot take effect simultaneously, here he intends to tithe both baskets. His words are therefore understood as leaving enough untithed produce in the first basket to tithe the second, allowing both designations to take effect.
  6. Rabbi Elazar said about this: He is flogged for placing its second tithe before the other basket’s first tithe — The first basket’s first and second tithes are treated as already separated, while the second basket’s first tithe remains within its untithed produce. Rabbi Elazar is referring to the first clause, where he says, “The tithe of this one is in that one.” The Jerusalem Talmud says, “For the first, a positive commandment; for the second, a prohibition.” This can mean that if he designated both tithes within the first basket at once, he failed to put the first tithe before the second, violating a positive commandment but not a prohibition against placing the second first. For the second basket, there is a prohibition: By tithing the first basket within it, he placed the first basket’s second tithe before the second basket’s first tithe. Some have the reverse reading, “For the first, a prohibition; for the second, a positive commandment.” On that reading, “the first” refers to the mishna’s first clause, where he placed second tithe before first tithe; “the second” refers to its later clause, where he designated both baskets’ tithes simultaneously, violating only the positive commandment.
  7. For placing its second tithe before the other basket’s first tithe — Although the verse speaks only of first fruits and teruma, it also teaches that teruma precedes first tithe and first tithe precedes second tithe: “You shall not delay the outflow of your presses” applies to everything included in that obligation. Terumot 3:7 explains the order: First fruits precede teruma because they are called “first fruits”; teruma precedes first tithe because it is called “teruma” and “first”; and first tithe precedes second tithe because it contains something called “first,” namely the teruma separated from the tithe. The Mekhilta gives another reason. Rashi explains that first fruits have four names—“first,” “fullness,” “teruma,” and “first fruits”—while teruma has three: “first,” “outflow,” and “teruma.” First tithe has two, “tithe” and “teruma of the tithe,” and second tithe has only one, “second tithe.” Thus, “You shall not delay the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses” teaches that the item with more names must precede the one with fewer. Just as Rabbi Elazar says that one is flogged for placing second tithe before first tithe, so too one is flogged for placing first tithe before teruma or teruma before first fruits.
Rashi on Temurah 4b, in English Tab translation (21)
  1. And he answers that this refers to exemption — So Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina does not contradict himself. He means that even one who declares produce teruma before separating the first fruits has violated a prohibition without performing an action and is not flogged.
  2. And why is substitution different, so that he is flogged? — As stated above, one who takes an oath or effects substitution is an exception.
  3. Is it because his speech — When he says, “This animal is in place of that one,” he effects a change: what was unconsecrated becomes consecrated.
  4. Read: One who separates teruma before the first fruits also effects a change through speech — He names the produce teruma, thereby giving it the sanctity of teruma.
  5. A prohibition followed by a positive commandment — The prohibition is “You shall not delay your first fruits and your teruma” (Exodus 22:28), and the commandment is “Out of all your tithes you shall set apart” (Numbers 18:29). As explained later, the latter applies to one who separated a tithe before teruma, violating the prohibition against delay: he must go back and separate the teruma. Thus the commandment removes liability for lashes, even though it does not appear next to the prohibition.
  6. But substitution is a prohibition followed by a positive commandment — The prohibition is “He shall not exchange it,” and the commandment is “If he does substitute” (Leviticus 27:10).
  7. Two prohibitions and one positive commandment — The prohibitions are “He shall not exchange it” and “nor substitute it.” That is why he receives forty lashes.
  8. But consider the rapist — This refers to one who rapes a virgin; the verse says, “He may not send her away” (Deuteronomy 22:29).
  9. And one positive commandment — The verse says, “She shall be his wife.”
  10. If he is an Israelite, he takes her back — He is obligated to take her back and can fulfill both the positive commandment and the prohibition by doing so. A priest cannot remarry a woman he has divorced, so he is flogged for violating “He may not send her away all his days.” In his case, the positive commandment does not remove liability for lashes. This challenges the view that one is not flogged for a prohibition followed by a positive commandment.
  11. Read: Priests are different, for Scripture assigns them greater holiness — As it says, “Speak to the priests: None shall become impure for a dead person.” Because their holiness is stricter, they can be flogged even for a prohibition followed by a positive commandment, though an Israelite would not be. Alternatively, the answer about substitution is that its prohibition applies to everyone, since everyone is forbidden to substitute. The challenge from the rapist is then that the prohibition against dismissing her does not apply equally to all: an Israelite can take her back, but a priest cannot. Why, then, is the priest flogged? The answer is again that priests are held to a stricter standard. For Israelites, the prohibition and the commandment apply alike, and he is not flogged because he can take her back.
  12. To place a positive commandment after it — “What remains of it” follows the prohibition, making this a prohibition followed by a positive commandment.
  13. A prohibition without an action — By leaving it over, he performs no action.
  14. And Rabbi Ya’akov — Since he says that the exemption has a different basis, what does he derive from “What remains of it”? He does not need it to make this a prohibition followed by a positive commandment.
  15. As we learned — In the tractate Pesachim, in the chapter ‘How Is It Roasted?’
  16. They are burned on the sixteenth — Not on the fifteenth, which is a festival; consecrated food is not burned on a festival.
  17. Why? Scripture says, ‘What remains of it,’ and refers to a second morning — The first morning is the fifteenth of Nisan: do not leave any until then. If some remains until the next morning, burn it on the sixteenth, a weekday of the festival.
  18. ‘Do not do’ — This means a prohibition.
  19. It takes effect — What he did stands, since he is flogged.
  20. It does not take effect — As explained below.
  21. Read: ‘And the reason he is flogged is that he transgressed,’ and so on.
Tosafot on Temurah 4b, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. Every prohibition rectifiable by a positive commandment carries no lashes—yet what about substitution? — How could Abaye question this rule? The mishna says that one who takes a mother bird with her young releases her without lashes; the same rule is stated for leftover Passover meat, which must be burned, and for a rapist who divorces the woman he was required to marry, who remarries her without lashes. Rabbeinu Yitzhak explains that Abaye accepted those cases because each positive command immediately follows its prohibition in the Torah. He questioned the rule for separating gifts in the wrong order, because “out of all your tithes you shall set apart” does not immediately follow the prohibition against delaying them. He therefore cited substitution: although its positive command follows its prohibition, lashes apply because the person does not actively fulfill that command—the second animal becomes holy automatically. Perhaps the command concerning tithes, though fulfilled actively, should likewise not count as rectifying the violation because it is not adjacent to the prohibition. Restoring stolen property is different: although its command is not adjacent to the prohibition, restitution can only occur after theft. Separating gifts, by contrast, can be done without first violating a prohibition.
  2. But a rapist has one prohibition and one positive commandment, yet the commandment does not override the prohibition — That challenges your reasoning. You hold that “out of all your tithes you shall set apart,” though speaking only of separating teruma before the tithe, also rectifies another error in the order of separation. Thus, if a positive command rectifies part of a prohibition, you treat it as rectifying the whole. But the rapist’s command to remarry rectifies his prohibition against divorce when he is an Israelite, not when he is a priest. Evidently, rectification in one case does not extend to every case.
  3. Are you speaking of priests? Priests are different, for the Torah gave them greater holiness — Rashi explains that this is why they are treated more strictly and flogged, even though their prohibition does not apply to everyone. Rabbeinu Yitzhak disagrees: because the Torah forbids a priest to marry a divorcee, the command to remarry cannot rectify his divorce. This differs from “you shall set apart,” which teaches that an error in separating gifts can be corrected, whether one separated a tithe before teruma or teruma before first fruits.
  4. As in a dispute between tanna’im — This refers not to the preceding discussion of a prohibition rectifiable by a positive commandment, but to the dispute about a prohibition that involves no action.
  5. And Rabbi Ya’akov: What does he do with ‘but what remains’? — One might ask: Is that phrase not needed to teach that the leftovers must be burned? The question concerns its placement: if it does not make the prohibition rectifiable, why put it immediately after the prohibition rather than elsewhere?
  6. Rava said: It accomplishes nothing — If so, why is a Passover offering slaughtered while its owner possesses leaven not invalid? The Jerusalem Talmud cites a verse validating it. And why may a firstborn animal whose ear was deliberately blemished be eaten? We understand its restriction to be a penalty, not an inherent prohibition. The answer is that it is no worse than an animal that became blemished on its own, which is permitted. This also explains why deliberately blemishing its ear does not make the animal forbidden to eat under ‘You shall not eat any abominable thing.’ Meat cooked in milk is different: it is forbidden even if the meat fell into the milk by itself. An animal that became blemished on its own is permitted, so deliberately blemishing it does not bring it under that eating prohibition. This requires further study.

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 4.