## Temurah Daf 4b

###### Temurah 4b:1
[Temurah 4b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:1)

אַפְּטוּרָא קָאֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
he was **referring** not to liability for lashes, but **to the exemption** from lashes stated in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan (3a). **And this** is what he **is saying: One is not flogged for** transgressing **a prohibition that does not involve an action**…**They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,** that **also one who** separates ***teruma* prior to** the separation of **the first fruits** is not flogged, since he performs no action.


###### Temurah 4b:2
[Temurah 4b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:2)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵימֵר דְּלָקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה? מַקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים נָמֵי לִילְקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is different** about **one who effects substitution, that he is flogged** despite not having performed an action? Is it **because he has performed an action with his speech,** by consecrating the animal? If so, one who separates ***teruma* prior to** the separation of **the first fruits should be flogged as well, because he has performed an action with his speech,** by consecrating the produce.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Avin said: It is different there,** in the case of one who tithes produce in the wrong order, **as it is a prohibition** whose violation **can be rectified by** fulfilling **a positive mitzva.** As a rule, if the Torah specifies a positive mitzva to be performed after transgressing a prohibition to rectify it, that prohibition does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the case here, **as it is written: “Out of all of your tithes you shall set apart** all of that which is due to the Lord” (Numbers 18:29), which teaches that one who separated tithes in the incorrect order or who separated *teruma* before separating the first fruits, must still separate the earlier tithes even after the later tithes, or the first fruits even after the *teruma*.


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

יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכֹל לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה לָא לָקֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Dimi was sitting and saying this *halakha*,** that one who separates *teruma* prior to separating the first fruits is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified. **Abaye said to him: And** is it correct that **one is not flogged** for transgressing **any prohibition** whose violation **can be rectified by** fulfilling **a positive mitzva?**


###### Temurah 4b:5
[Temurah 4b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:5)

וְהָא מֵימֵר, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְלָקֵי, דִּתְנַן: לֹא שֶׁאָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהָמִיר, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הֵמִיר — מוּמָר, וְסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** there is the case of **one who effects substitution, which is a prohibition** whose violation **can be rectified by** fulfilling **a positive mitzva,** as the verse states: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall at all change animal for animal, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy” (Leviticus 27:10). **And** even so, one who effects substitution **is flogged, as we learned** in the mishna (2a): 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 punishment of **the forty** lashes.


###### Temurah 4b:6
[Temurah 4b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:6)

הָוֵי לְהוּ תְּרֵי לָאוֵי וְחַד עֲשֵׂה, וְלָא אָתֵי חַד עֲשֵׂה וְעָקַר תְּרֵי לָאוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Dimi answered: **There are two prohibitions** specified in the verse as transgressed by one who effects substitution: “He shall not exchange it,” and: “Nor substitute it.” **But** there is only **one positive mitzva:** “Both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy.” **And one positive mitzva does not come and uproot two prohibitions.** Therefore, although generally, one who transgresses a prohibition that can be rectified is not flogged, one who effects substitution is flogged.


###### Temurah 4b:7
[Temurah 4b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:7)

וַהֲרֵי אוֹנֵס, דְּחַד לָאו וְחַד עֲשֵׂה, וְלָא אָתֵי חַד עֲשֵׂה וְעָקַר לָאו, דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹנֵס שֶׁגֵּירַשׁ — אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא מַחְזִיר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, וְאִם כֹּהֵן הוּא לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **But there is** the case of the **rapist** who forces himself upon a virgin, who is obligated to marry the victim if she wishes and is then prohibited from divorcing her. **As** here the verse states **one prohibition:** “He may not send her away all his days,” **and one positive mitzva:** “And she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29). This teaches that he can rectify the transgression of divorcing her by remarrying her. **And** yet, the **one positive mitzva does not come and uproot** the **prohibition, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a rapist who** married and then **divorced** his victim, **if he is an Israelite,** who is permitted to marry a divorcée, **he remarries** her **and he is not flogged. But if he is a priest,** who is prohibited from marrying a divorcée, **he is flogged and he does not remarry** her.


###### Temurah 4b:8
[Temurah 4b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:8)

כֹּהֲנִים קָאָמְרַתְּ?! כֹּהֲנִים — טַעְמָא אַחְרִינָא הוּא, דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא קְדוּשָּׁה יַתִּירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **You say** that a case that concerns **priests** challenges the principle that a rectifiable transgression does not make one liable for flogging. But in the case of **priests** there **is another reason** why they are flogged, **as the Merciful One increased** the severity of their transgressions, for they have **greater holiness.** By contrast, one who transgresses a prohibition unrelated to the priesthood will not be flogged if its violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva.


###### Temurah 4b:9
[Temurah 4b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:9)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״לֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Which prohibitions carry the punishment of lashes is **subject to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it is taught in a *baraita*: The verse states concerning the Paschal offering: “And **you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning,** but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). **The verse comes to place a positive mitzva after** the **prohibition** in order **to say that one is not flogged for** transgressing **it.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Temurah 4b:10
[Temurah 4b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:10)

רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה — אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ya’akov says:** He **is not** exempt from lashes **for** that **reason,** but **rather because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, and one is not flogged for** transgressing **any prohibition that does not involve an action.** The Gemara comments: **By inference,** it may be concluded **that Rabbi Yehuda holds** that one **is flogged for** transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an action.


###### Temurah 4b:11
[Temurah 4b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:11)

וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, הַאי ״וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרוֹפוּ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi Ya’akov,** who holds that the exemption from lashes stems from the prohibition’s not involving an action, **for what** purpose does the clause **“but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” come?**


###### Temurah 4b:12
[Temurah 4b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:12)

מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדִתְנַן: הָעֲצָמוֹת, וְהַגִּידִין, וְהַנּוֹתָר — יִשָּׂרְפוּ בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. חָל שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת — יִשָּׂרְפוּ בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת יוֹם טוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He requires it for that which we learned** in a mishna (*Pesaḥim* 83a): **The bones** of the Paschal offering that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal offering, **and the sinews, and the leftover** meat must all **be burned on the sixteenth** of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. If the **sixteenth occurs on Shabbat, they** must **be burned on the seventeenth, because** the mitzva to burn **them does not override Shabbat or** the **Festival.** Therefore, they are burned on the first weekday.


###### Temurah 4b:13
[Temurah 4b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:13)

וְאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְהַנּוֹתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרוֹפוּ״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן בּוֹקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Ḥizkiyya says, and so it is taught in the school of Ḥizkiyya: What is the reason** for this? **The verse states:** “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, **but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire.”** By using the word “morning” twice, **the verse comes to provide a second morning for** the offering’s **burning** if the first morning falls on Shabbat or a Festival.


###### Temurah 4b:14
[Temurah 4b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/4b:14)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא לָא תַּעֲבֵיד, אִם עָבֵיד — מַהֲנֵי, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לָא מַהֲנֵי — אַמַּאי לָקֵי? רָבָא אָמַר: לָא מַהֲנֵי מִידֵּי, וְהַאי דְּלָקֵי — מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַר אַמֵּימְרָא דְּרַחֲמָנָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Abaye said:** With regard to **any matter that the Merciful One states** in the Torah **not to perform, if one performed** it, his action **is effective,** but the violator is flogged. **As, if it enters your mind** that **it is not effective, why** would he be **flogged** for accomplishing nothing? **Rava said:** If one performed it, **it is not effective at all. And this** is the reason **that he is flogged: Because he transgressed the statement of the Merciful One.**