Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 5 for kids: Both Animals Stay Holy

תמורה ה׳

✨ Abaye and Rava ask what happens when someone does something the Torah forbids: does the action still count? They test their answers with teruma, dedicated animals, and substitutions.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 5a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 5b 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 5

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 5 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 5a, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. This one too should be flogged — For Abaye, who says one is flogged when a forbidden act takes effect, it makes sense that he is not flogged here: his act does not stand, since he can take her back. But Rava says one is flogged for disobeying God even when the act does not take effect. Why, then, is he not flogged here?
  2. He may not send her away all his days — This means that if he divorces her, he must take her back; throughout his life he remains obligated to do so. Thus he has not violated God’s command. In other cases, Rava says, a person is flogged for disobeying God even if the act has no effect.
  3. And according to Abaye — If an ineffective act does not bring lashes, why does the verse need “all his days” to teach that he must take her back? Even without those words, Abaye would say he is not flogged, since he can take her back.
  4. He has done something forbidden — He sinned by divorcing her, but is not flogged. He may choose whether or not to take her back.
  5. This teaches us — “All his days” teaches that he must take her back. He therefore remains obligated to do so and is not flogged; in this reading, his exemption is not simply because a positive command can remedy the prohibition.
  6. Another version: a refutation of Abaye — Abaye says a forbidden act takes effect, but here the divorce does not stand, since he can take her back. Rava, who says such an act does not take effect, has no difficulty. Abaye answers that this case is different: “all his days” obligates the rapist who divorced her to take her back.
  7. And Rava could say to you — Since Rava holds that violating a Torah prohibition does not take effect, why is “all his days” needed? Without it, I would have thought that the man is flogged for disobeying God and must then take her back. The verse teaches otherwise.
  8. And he would be a rapist — Without “all his days,” we might think that a rapist who divorces his victim has violated a prohibition with no positive command to remedy it, and so is flogged. “All his days” obligates him to take her back, making this a prohibition that can be remedied and for which he is not flogged. This is the conclusion of this version of the discussion.
  9. Its best — He should separate teruma from good-quality produce for good-quality produce.
  10. Not inferior produce — He should not separate poor-quality produce for good-quality produce. This is what the Torah tells him not to do, though it is a prohibition inferred from a positive command, not an explicit negative command.
  11. His teruma is valid teruma — The separation takes effect, contrary to Rava’s view that a forbidden act does not take effect.
  12. And according to Abaye — Abaye says a forbidden act takes effect. Why, then, is “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it” needed to show that separating poor-quality produce for good-quality produce takes effect?
  13. The best — He separates teruma from good-quality produce.
  14. He would not be called a sinner — I might have thought that using inferior produce is merely forbidden, without making him a sinner.
  15. This teaches us — “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it” teaches that he is indeed called a sinner.
  16. To give the best of each — The word “best” appears once for wine and once for oil. This teaches that teruma from each must be separated on its own, from the best of its own kind, such as oil for oil.
  17. And the best of the other — Wine must likewise be separated for wine, not one kind for another, such as oil for wine or wine for oil.
  18. His teruma is not valid teruma; thus it has no effect, contrary to Abaye — Abaye says a forbidden act takes effect.
  19. It is different there, for the verse says “their first part” — Scripture repeats the requirement to teach that separating teruma from one kind for another does not take effect.
  20. And Rabbi Ile’a says the same — The separation does not take effect because Scripture repeats the requirement with the words “their first part.”
  21. And according to Rava — Since Rava already holds that a forbidden separation does not take effect, why is “their first part” needed? Rava answers that without it, I might have thought that the repeated word “best” bars separation from one of those kinds for the other.
  22. The correct reading is: But for wine and grain, only one “best” is written — “All the best of the wine and of the grain” might have suggested that one may separate grain for wine or wine for grain, or even one grain for another, such as wheat for barley. Scripture therefore adds “their first part.”
  23. Property devoted to priests — Property devoted by Israelites and given to priests.
  24. Thus redemption has no effect — If someone redeems it, nothing changes, as the teaching says it cannot be redeemed.
  25. In its original state — Redemption does not turn it into ordinary property.
Tosafot on Temurah 5a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. An objection was raised: A rapist who divorced her—if he is an Israelite, he takes her back and is not flogged — At this point, the Gemara assumes that he is not flogged because the divorce is ineffective, not because the prohibition can be rectified by remarrying her. Since he must take her back, Rava’s view—that one is flogged for disobeying God’s command even when the act is ineffective—would require flogging here too. For Abaye, he is not flogged precisely because his act is ineffective. But if the divorce is ineffective, why is a man who has relations with her not liable for adultery, even before the rapist takes her back? And why is a priest who divorced her flogged and forbidden to take her back? Should the divorce not be entirely void? Divorce is compared to death: just as death releases her from her husband, so does divorce. The divorce is ineffective only as a permanent dismissal, since he must take her back. The Gemara does not yet understand ‘all his days’ as making this a prohibition rectified by a positive command, because the command to marry her precedes the prohibition. It therefore asks why, according to Rava, he is not flogged for his ineffective act.
  2. Rava could say: It is different there, for Scripture says ‘all his days’; throughout his life he remains obligated to take her back — This fully makes the prohibition rectifiable by a positive command. It is not a prohibition preceded by a positive command: ‘all his days’ teaches that, if he sends her away, the dismissal must not last all his days, for he must take her back. Although the phrase could have been attached to the command to marry her, its placement after ‘he may not send her away’ shows that it was written to make the prohibition rectifiable. Without ‘all his days,’ the command to marry her would concern marriage before any divorce and would not establish an obligation to take her back.
  3. If it is not consecrated, why would he bear sin? — One might answer that he bears sin for disobeying God’s command. Rabbi Samson of Sens explains the question differently: Why would Scripture need to mention sin here? We already know from ‘of all the best thereof’ that separating inferior produce is sinful.
  4. It is different there, for Scripture says ‘their first portions’: a first portion for this and a first portion for that — But in the last chapter of Bekhorot, Abaye derives from this verse that one may not separate teruma from one kind of grain for another. That derivation comes from the word ‘first portion’; the derivation here comes from ‘their first portions.’
  5. And according to Rava, had the Merciful One not said ‘their first portions’… — But the last chapter of Bekhorot says that even without ‘their first portions,’ the word ‘all’ implies that the verse cannot refer to just one kind of grain. This discussion must therefore follow the view that ‘first portion’ is needed to distinguish one kind of grain from another.
Rashi on Temurah 5b, in English Tab translation (28)
  1. Of a firstborn it says, “You shall not redeem” — its owner cannot redeem it and then treat it as an ordinary animal, for example by shearing it or using it for work.
  2. But it may be sold — if it develops a blemish, its owner may sell it to a priest as a firstborn. The verse says “You shall not redeem” to teach that sale is permitted.
  3. But it may not be sold — as explained in Bekhorot, “it shall not be redeemed” is said of the animal tithe, and “it shall not be sold or redeemed” is said of devoted property. Just as sale is forbidden for devoted property, so it is for the animal tithe. Since the firstborn and the animal tithe are linked, we might think a firstborn also cannot be sold. The wording about devoted property excludes the firstborn from that rule, allowing its sale.
  4. It is different there — for that verse says, “For they will not be accepted.”
  5. The correct text is: “But consider the firstborn, of which it says, ‘You shall not redeem; they are holy.’” The explanation from here onward follows.
  6. This one would leave — the original animal would lose its sanctity, and its substitute would become holy in its place; we would not know that both become holy.
  7. The verse teaches us — that both animals become holy.
  8. The correct text is: “But consider the firstborn, of which it says, ‘You shall not redeem; they are holy.’” The explanation from here onward follows.
  9. And we learned — what distinguishes the firstborn and animal tithe from other offerings? Other consecrated animals that develop a disqualifying blemish may be slaughtered and sold in the marketplace and sold by weight like ordinary meat. This is not considered disrespectful to sacred animals, because it benefits the Temple treasury: more buyers will pay a higher redemption price. The benefit from a firstborn goes to the priest, and from an animal tithe to its owner; sacred animals are not treated less respectfully for their private gain.
  10. They can be redeemed — when other consecrated animals develop a blemish and are redeemed, the redemption money takes on their sanctity and the animals become ordinary. The same applies to their substitutes. But redemption money does not take on the sanctity of a blemished firstborn.
  11. It is different there, for the verse says of the firstborn, “They are holy”: they remain as they are — redemption does not remove their sanctity. Rashi does not address the animal tithe here, because the objection concerns only the firstborn; the Gemara raises and answers the animal-tithe question later.
  12. Mixed with any offerings brought on the altar — if firstborn or animal-tithe blood is mixed with the blood of another offering whose sprinkling permits its meat to be eaten, the blood may still be sprinkled. Offerings brought on the altar do not nullify one another. From this we learn the rule for other such offerings. “They are holy” means they remain so even when mixed.
  13. Of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat — he puts the blood on the corners of the inner altar. On this view, the High Priest mixes the Yom Kippur bull’s blood with the goat’s blood. Although there is more bull’s blood, the mixture is still called the goat’s blood, and sprinkling it is effective. This teaches that one altar offering does not nullify another.
  14. And Rava — he does not derive the rule from there, because, in his view, the High Priest does not mix the bloods. He applies each separately to the corners of the inner altar, following Rabbi Yonatan’s opinion in Yoma.
  15. “Passing” and “passing” — the firstborn verse says, “You shall set apart every first issue of the womb,” while the animal-tithe verse says, “Whatever passes under the rod.”
  16. What he did takes effect — and the animals become consecrated for their monetary value.
  17. As Rav Pappa said to Abaye — Beitzah discusses a Levite who took his first tithe while the grain was still in sheaves, before the major priestly portion was separated. The priest thereby lost the share he would have received from that tithe. Even so, the Levite is exempt from giving the major priestly portion from it, as the verse says, “A tithe of the tithe”: he must give the priestly portion of the tithe, but not the major priestly portion as well. Rav Pappa asked Abaye: If so, why specify sheaves? Should the Levite not also be exempt if he took the tithe after the grain had been piled up?
  18. From all your tithes — the Torah tells the Levites to give the Lord’s priestly portion, meaning the major priestly portion.
  19. The pile has become grain — once the grain is piled up, it becomes subject to the major priestly portion, as it says, “The first of your grain.”
  20. Wherever betrothal takes effect — this means cases in which betrothal is legally valid even though it violates a prohibition. The case specified there is a widow betrothed to a High Priest.
  21. The child follows the disqualified parent — the child is disqualified from priestly status. Thus the betrothal takes effect; otherwise the mishnah would not say it is legally valid.
  22. It is different there, for it says, “He shall not profane” — this implies that he produces children disqualified from priestly status, not children born of a union for which betrothal cannot take effect. So betrothal does take effect.
  23. And Abaye — if that were the verse’s only purpose, it could have used a shorter form of “profane,” implying that it refers only to the child.
  24. Why does it say the longer form of “profane”? — it teaches something more: both the child and the woman herself become disqualified. If she is a priest’s daughter, she may no longer eat the priestly portion in her father’s household. The verse is needed for her status, not to show that a prohibited betrothal takes effect; according to Abaye, prohibited acts generally take effect.
  25. You shall not offer — as the Gemara explains later, this prohibition means, “You shall not consecrate.”
  26. What he did takes effect — and the animals become consecrated for their monetary value.
  27. It is different there — for that verse says, “It will not be accepted.”
  28. And it is valid — even to be offered as a sacrifice; this is what the verse teaches us.
Tosafot on Temurah 5b, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. And for Rava, “it” serves to exclude a firstborn — But if Abaye uses “it” to teach that the property remains as it is, how does he know to exclude a firstborn? Rabbi Meir explains that the conclusion resolves this: the verse about a firstborn teaches that an attempted redemption has no effect, and the animal tithe is linked to the firstborn through the shared word “passing.” Devoted property can then be linked to the tithe through the shared word “redemption,” so its own word “it” is not needed to teach that it remains as it is.
  2. It is different there, for Scripture says, “He shall not profane” — This teaches that the union produces children disqualified from the priesthood, not mamzerim, and that betrothal takes effect with her. But the rule about betrothal must come from the extra second lamed in the Hebrew word for “profane.” Without that extra letter, the absence of mamzerim would not establish that betrothal takes effect: Rabbi Yehoshua says that only unions punishable by a court-imposed death penalty produce mamzerim, while unions punishable by karet do not, yet everyone agrees that betrothal does not take effect in the latter cases. The extra letter therefore teaches the rule about betrothal. This also fits the Gemara’s question: Why say “lo yechalel” rather than “lo yechal”?

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 5.