## Temurah Daf 3a

###### Temurah 3a:1
[Temurah 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:1)

עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ — טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**for** the purpose of exempting the produce **of another, the benefit of discretion** as to which priest or Levite will receive it **is his.** Apparently, the *halakhot* of substitution follow the one achieving atonement.


###### Temurah 3a:2
[Temurah 3a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם הוּא דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר מִתְכַּפֵּר, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ תְּחִילָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל הָכָא, הָכִי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מִי בָּעֵינַן מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף דְּתֵיקוּ בִּרְשׁוּת מַאן דְּעָבֵיד תְּמוּרָה? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama could **say to** this: **There,** in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, the offering **comes on behalf of** the **Jew** who consecrated it. **Due to that** reason, **we follow** the **one atoning, and** during both the **initial** consecration of the offering **and its ultimate** sacrifice the animal **is in the possession of a Jew,** who is able to effect substitution. **But here,** where a gentile consecrated the animal, **this is how he raises the dilemma: Do we require that from the initial** consecration of the offering **until the ultimate** act of sacrifice **it** must **be in the possession of one who** is able to **effect substitution** or not? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand [*teiku*]** unresolved.


###### Temurah 3a:3
[Temurah 3a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:3)

אָמַר מָר: מוּקְדְּשֵׁי גּוֹיִם לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. לֹא נֶהֱנִין — מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין — מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master said** in the *baraita* cited on the previous *amud*: With regard to animals **consecrated by gentiles,** one **may not derive benefit** *ab initio*, **but** if one benefited from them after the fact, he is **not** liable for **misusing** consecrated property. The Gemara explains: The *halakha* that one **may not benefit** from them *ab initio* is **by rabbinic law. And** that *halakha* that if one benefited from them after the fact **he is not** liable for **misusing** consecrated property is **by Torah law.**


###### Temurah 3a:4
[Temurah 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:4)

מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִּמְעֹל מַעַל וְחָטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה״, וְיָלְפִינַן ״חֵטְא״ ״חֵטְא״ מִתְּרוּמָה, וּבִתְרוּמָה כְּתִיב: ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְלֹא גּוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** that one is not liable for misuse? **As it is written** with regard to misuse of consecrated property: **“If anyone commit a trespass, and sin through error,** in the holy items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). **And we derive** a verbal analogy **from** the use of the word **“sin”** in this verse and the word **“sin”** used in the context of ***teruma*:** “They shall therefore keep My charge, lest they bear sin for it” (Leviticus 22:9). **And with regard to *teruma* it is written** explicitly: “Even of all the hallowed items of **the children of Israel”** (Numbers 18:8), from which one can infer: **But not** of **gentiles.** The *halakhot* of misuse as well, therefore, do not apply to animals consecrated by gentiles.


###### Temurah 3a:5
[Temurah 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:5)

וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם, מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ בְּטוּמְאָה: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקׇּדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** if one consumes **them,** i.e., animals consecrated by gentiles, **one is not liable for** committing a transgression, **with regard to** the prohibitions of ***piggul*, *notar*, or** consuming offerings while **ritually impure.** The source for this is a verse, **as it is written with regard to ritual impurity: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy items of the children of Israel,** which they hallow unto Me, **and that they profane not** My holy **name”** (Leviticus 22:2). This verse explicitly mentions items consecrated by the children of Israel, to emphasize that the *halakha* of distancing oneself from consecrated items while in a state of ritual impurity does not include items consecrated by gentiles.


###### Temurah 3a:6
[Temurah 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:6)

וְיָלֵיף נוֹתָר ״חִילּוּל״ ״חִילּוּל״ מִטּוּמְאָה, דִּכְתִיב גַּבֵּי טוּמְאָה: ״בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּוְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב גַּבֵּי נוֹתָר: ״וְאוֹכְלָיו עֲוֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא כִּי אֶת קֹדֶשׁ ה׳ חִלֵּל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And one derives** the exemption from ***notar*** by drawing a verbal analogy **between** the word **“profane”** used in the context of *notar* and the word **“profane”** used in the context of **ritual impurity. As it is written** in the verse cited above **with regard to ritual impurity:** “That they separate themselves from the holy items of **the children of Israel,** which they hallow unto Me, **and that they profane not** My holy name.” **And it is written with regard to *notar*: “But every one that eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the holy item of the Lord”** (Leviticus 19:8). Since the prohibition against consuming consecrated items while impure does not apply to the offerings of gentiles, neither does the prohibition of *notar*.


###### Temurah 3a:7
[Temurah 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:7)

וְיָלֵיף פִּיגּוּל ״עָוֹן״ ״עָוֹן״ מִנּוֹתָר, דִּכְתִיב גַּבֵּי פִּיגּוּל: ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאוֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ עֲוֹנָהּ תִּשָּׂא״, וּכְתִיב גַּבֵּי נוֹתָר: ״וְאוֹכְלָיו עֲוֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא כִּי אֶת קֹדֶשׁ ה׳ חִלֵּל״, וְכוּלְּהוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא גּוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the *tanna* of the *baraita* **derives** the gentiles’ exemption from ***piggul*** by verbal analogy **between** the word **“iniquity”** used in the context of *piggul* and the word **“iniquity”** used in the context of ***notar*, as it is written with regard to *piggul*: “And the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity”** (Leviticus 7:18), **and it is written with regard to *notar*: “But everyone that eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the holy item of the Lord”** (Leviticus 19:8). **And** based on these two verbal analogies, one concludes that with regard to **all of them,** i.e., *piggul*, *notar*, and ritually impure offerings, the prohibition against consumption applies only to offerings of **the children of Israel, but not** to those of **gentiles.**


###### Temurah 3a:8
[Temurah 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:8)

וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר״, וּכְתִיב בְּרֵישׁ עִנְיָן: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִיא נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** a gentile **cannot render** a non-sacred animal **a substitute** for one he has consecrated. The Gemara cites the source for this *halakha*: **As it is written** with regard to substitutions: **“He shall not exchange it, nor substitute** it” (Leviticus 27:10), **and it is written at the beginning of the matter: “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When a man shall clearly utter a vow** of persons to the Lord, **according to your valuation”** (Leviticus 27:2). Since the passage specifically addresses the children of Israel, the *halakhot* of substitution apply only to them, not to gentiles.


###### Temurah 3a:9
[Temurah 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:9)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאִיתַּקַּשָׁא תְּמוּרַת בְּהֵמָה לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן. וְגַבֵּי מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן כְּתִיב: ״(כֹּל) [כִּי אֶת] מַעְשַׂר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳... בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ — וְלֹא גּוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents **another version** of the source for this *halakha*: The *baraita* states: **And** a gentile **cannot render** a non-sacred animal **a substitute** for one he has consecrated. **What is the reason?** The reason is **that** the **substitution of** consecrated **animals is juxtaposed with the animal tithe** (see Leviticus 27:32), **and the animal tithe** is juxtaposed **with the grain tithe. And with regard to the grain tithe it is written: “For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they set apart as a gift to the Lord,** I have given to the Levites for an inheritance” (Numbers 18:24), indicating that the *halakhot* of the grain tithe apply only to the **children of Israel, but not** to **gentiles.** From the juxtapositions, one derives that the same holds for substitution.


###### Temurah 3a:10
[Temurah 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:10)

וְאֵין מֵבִיא (עֲלֵיהֶן) נְסָכִים, אֲבָל קׇרְבָּנוֹ טָעוּן נְסָכִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶזְרָח״ — אֶזְרָח מֵבִיא נְסָכִים וְאֵין הַגּוֹי מֵבִיא נְסָכִים. יָכוֹל לֹא תְּהֵא עוֹלָתוֹ טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כָּכָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And one does not bring libations** for a gentile as an independent offering, **but his offering requires libations.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Shimon.** The Gemara explains: **From where are these matters** derived? They are derived from a verse, **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to libations: “All that are **homeborn** shall do these after this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor to the Lord” (Numbers 15:13). One who is **homeborn,** i.e., a Jew, **brings libations, but a gentile does not bring libations.** One **might** have thought that a gentile’s **burnt offering should not require libations;** therefore, **the verse states: “So** shall it be done for each bull, or for each ram, or for each of the lambs, or of the goats” (Numbers 15:10–11). This teaches that every burnt offering, even that of a gentile, requires libations.


###### Temurah 3a:11
[Temurah 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי בְּכוּלָּן לְהַחְמִיר. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״לַה׳״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Yosei said: I see** the logic of the opinion that **in all of** these cases it is correct **to be stringent** about the offerings of gentiles. The Gemara explains: **What is the reason? With regard to** the offering of a gentile, **it is written:** “Whosoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which are brought **to the Lord** for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 22:18). The verse equates the offerings of gentiles, “the strangers in Israel,” with those of Jews, and indicates that the consecrated status of the former is identical to that of the latter.


###### Temurah 3a:12
[Temurah 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:12)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת — מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּכִי גָּמְרִינַן מְעִילָה ״חֵטְא״ ״חֵטְא״ מִתְּרוּמָה, דֻּומְיָא דִּתְרוּמָה (דקדוש) [דִּקְדוֹשָׁה] קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, אֲבָל בקדשי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת דִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to** animals **consecrated for the altar, but with regard to** animals **consecrated for Temple maintenance,** one who benefits **from them** is liable for **misusing** consecrated property. The Gemara explains: **What is the reason?** The reason is **that when we learn** that items consecrated by gentiles are not subject to liability for **misuse** by the verbal analogy between the word **sin** and another instance of the word **sin from** the context of ***teruma*,** this applies only to consecrated property that is **similar to *teruma*, which is consecrated** with **inherent sanctity. But with regard to** an item that has the **sanctity of the Temple maintenance, whose sanctity** inheres in its **value,** as it will ultimately be sold and the proceeds used for Temple maintenance, the analogy does **not** apply.


###### Temurah 3a:13
[Temurah 3a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:13)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: כׇּל ״לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה״ בַּתּוֹרָה, עָשָׂה (בָּהּ) מַעֲשֶׂה — חַיָּיב, לֹא עָשָׂה (בָּהּ) מַעֲשֶׂה — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that one who effects substitution receives lashes. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** With regard to **any prohibition in the Torah,** if one **performed an action** to transgress **it,** he is **liable** to receive lashes. But if he **did not perform an action** to transgress **it,** he is **exempt** from receiving lashes.


###### Temurah 3a:14
[Temurah 3a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:14)

וּכְלָלָא הוּא דְּלָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה פָּטוּר? וַהֲרֵי מֵימֵר, דְּלָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא, וְלָקֵי, דִּתְנַן: ״לֹא שֶׁהוּא רַשַּׁאי לְהָמִיר, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הֵמִיר מוּמָר, וְסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is** it an established **principle that** one who transgresses **a prohibition that does not involve an action** is **exempt? But there is** the prohibition of **substitution, which is a prohibition that does not involve an action, and** one is **flogged** for transgressing it, **as we learned** in the mishna: That is **not** to say **that it is permitted for** a person **to effect substitution; rather,** it means **that if one substituted** a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, **the substitution takes effect, and** the one who substituted the non-sacred animal **incurs the forty** lashes.


###### Temurah 3a:15
[Temurah 3a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:15)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה — לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav** could have **said to you:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna written? **It is** in accordance with that opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said:** With regard to **a prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for** transgressing **it.** The Rabbis, however, disagree.


###### Temurah 3a:16
[Temurah 3a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:16)

וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לְמַתְנִיתִין כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? וְהָא אוֹקֵימְתַּאּ לְרֵישָׁא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּקָתָנֵי ״הַכֹּל מְמִירִין״, ״הַכֹּל״ לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי יוֹרֵשׁ, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **But can you establish the mishna** as being **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda? But we established the first clause** of the mishna **as not** being **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, as it teaches: Everyone substitutes** a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, and the Gemara added (2a): **What** does the expansive term **everyone** serve **to include?** It serves **to include an inheritor, and** accordingly, this mishna is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that an inheritor cannot effect substitution.


###### Temurah 3a:17
[Temurah 3a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:17)

הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא — דְּלָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה לוֹקִין עָלָיו, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא — דְּאִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ, יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מֵמִיר, וְתַנָּא דִידַן סָבַר: יוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ, יוֹרֵשׁ מֵמִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The ***tanna*** of **this** mishna **holds in accordance with** the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda **with regard to one** matter, **that one is flogged for** transgressing **a prohibition that does not involve an action, and disagrees with him with regard to one** other matter, **as Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **an inheritor does not place** his **hands** on the head of the offering when he sacrifices it, and **an inheritor** is **not** able to **substitute** a non-sacred animal for a consecrated one that he inherited; **and the *tanna* of our** mishna **holds** that **an inheritor places** his **hands** on the head of the offering when he sacrifices it, and **an inheritor** is able to **substitute** a non-sacred animal for a consecrated one that he inherited.


###### Temurah 3a:18
[Temurah 3a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:18)

אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: כׇּל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה — לוֹקֶה, לֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה — פָּטוּר, חוּץ מִנִּשְׁבָּע, וּמֵימֵר, וּמְקַלֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ בַּשֵּׁם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה — חַיָּיב. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Idi bar Avin says** that **Rav Amram says** that **Rabbi Yitzḥak says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:** With regard to **every prohibition in the Torah,** if one **performed an action** to transgress **it,** he is **flogged.** But if he **did not perform an action** to transgress **it,** he is **exempt** from lashes, **except for one who takes an oath, and one who effects substitution, and one who curses another using the name** of God. For these three transgressions, **even though he did not perform an action,** he is **liable** to receive lashes. **They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: Also one who** separates ***teruma* prior to** designating the **first fruits** is flogged, even though *teruma* can be separated by intention alone, without an action.


###### Temurah 3a:19
[Temurah 3a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/3a:19)

נִשְׁבָּע מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אָמַר קְרָא ״כִּי לֹא יְנַקֶּה ה׳ אֵת אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא אֶת שְׁמוֹ לַשָּׁוְא״, בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַעְלָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the sources for these exceptions. **From where do we** derive that **one who takes an oath** using the name of God is flogged? **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Meir** that **the verse states: “For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain”** (Exodus 20:7). One can infer: **The higher,** i.e., heavenly, **court**