## Temurah Daf 5a

###### Temurah 5a:1
[Temurah 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:1)

מֵיתִיבִי: אוֹנֵס שֶׁגֵּירֵשׁ, אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא — מַחְזִיר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ כֵּיוָן דַּעֲבַר אַמֵּימְרָא דְּרַחֲמָנָא לָקֵי, הָא נָמֵי לִילְקֵי! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from 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. And if you say,** like Rava, that **since one violates the statement of the Merciful One, he is flogged, this one should be flogged as well** for divorcing his victim. But according to the opinion of Abaye, it stands to reason that he should not be flogged, since his remarriage nullifies the effects of the divorce. This should be **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rava.**


###### Temurah 5a:2
[Temurah 5a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:2)

אָמַר לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״כׇּל יָמָיו״, כׇּל יָמָיו בַּעֲמוֹד וְהַחְזֵיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rava could **say to you:** It **is different there, as the verse states:** “He may not send her away **all his days”** (Deuteronomy 22:29). This teaches that for **all his days,** he remains **under** the obligation to **arise and remarry** her. Once he remarries her, it turns out that he did not divorce her for all of his days and therefore did not violate the prohibition. This is why he is not flogged.


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

וּלְאַבָּיֵי, אִי לָאו דַּאֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל יָמָיו״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אִיסּוּרָא הוּא דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ, אִי בָּעֵי לֶיהְדַּר וְאִי בָּעֵי לָא לֶיהְדַּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Abaye,** what is derived from the phrase “all his days”? The Gemara answers: **If the Merciful One did not state “all his days,” I would say** that **he has violated a prohibition** by divorcing her, and that **if he desires** he may choose **to remarry** her, **and if he** so **desires** he may choose **not to remarry** her. The phrase “all his days” **teaches us** that he is obligated to remarry her.


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

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא. מֵיתִיבִי: אוֹנֵס שֶׁגֵּירֵשׁ — אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא מַחְזִיר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, וְאִם כֹּהֵן הוּא לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר. קָתָנֵי: ״אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא מַחְזִיר״ — תְּיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara records **another version** of the discussion, in which it **raises an objection** from the *baraita*: With regard to **a rapist who** married and then **divorced** his victim, **if he is an Israelite, he remarries** her **and he is not flogged. But if he is a priest, he is flogged and he does not remarry** her. The *baraita* **teaches** that **if he is an Israelite he remarries** her and he is not flogged, indicating that he must take her back because his divorce was not effective. This is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Abaye,** who holds that transgressions are legally effective.


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

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״כׇּל יָמָיו״, כׇּל יָמָיו בַּ״עֲמוֹד וְהַחְזֵיר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that it **is different there, as the Merciful One states:** “He may not send her away **all his days”** (Deuteronomy 22:29), which teaches that for **all his days,** he remains **under** the obligation to **arise and remarry** her. Therefore, it is only in this specific case that the divorce is not effective.


###### Temurah 5a:6
[Temurah 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:6)

וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: אִי לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל יָמָיו״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לִילְקֵי וְלֶיהְדַּר, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ לָאו גְּרֵידָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יוּכַל לְשַׁלְּחָהּ״. אַהָכִי כְּתַב קְרָא ״כׇּל יָמָיו״, לְשַׁוּוֹיֵיהּ לְאוֹנֵס לְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה, דְּאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** as for **Rava,** he could **say to you** that **if the Merciful One had not stated “all his days,” I would say** that the Israelite **should be flogged and should** still **remarry** her, **for it is solely a prohibition** that he has violated, **as it is written: He may not send her away. Therefore, the verse writes “all his days,” to render** the case of **a rapist a prohibition** whose violation can be **rectified by** fulfilling **a positive mitzva, for which one is not flogged.**


###### Temurah 5a:7
[Temurah 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:7)

וַהֲרֵי תּוֹרֵם מִן הָרָעָה עַל הַיָּפָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״מִכׇּל חֶלְבּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But there is** the case of one who **separates *teruma* from poor-quality** produce **for superior-quality** produce, i.e., he separated *teruma* from the inferior produce in order to fulfill the obligation of separating *teruma* from other produce that is high-quality. This is prohibited, **as the Merciful One states:** “Out of all that is given you, you shall set apart all of that which is due to the Lord, **of all the best thereof”** (Numbers 18:29).


###### Temurah 5a:8
[Temurah 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:8)

חֶלְבּוֹ — אִין, גֵּירוּעִין — לָא. וּתְנַן: אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הָרָעָה עַל הַיָּפָה, וְאִם תָּרַם — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. אַלְמָא מַהֲנֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And the Sages interpret this verse as follows: “Of all **the best thereof,” yes,** but one should **not** separate **poor-quality** produce. **And** yet **we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 2:4): **One may not separate *teruma* from poor-quality** produce **for superior-quality** produce, **and if one did separate *teruma*** in that manner, **his *teruma* is** valid ***teruma*. Apparently,** his action **is effective,** which is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rava.**


###### Temurah 5a:9
[Temurah 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:9)

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כְּרַבִּי אִילְעָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: מִנַּיִן לְתוֹרֵם מִן הָרָעָה עַל הַיָּפָה שֶׁתְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא תִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ״. אִם אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, נְשִׂיאוּת חֵטְא לָמָּה? מִיכָּן לַתּוֹרֵם מִן הָרָעָה עַל הַיָּפָה שֶׁתְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Rava** could **say to you: It is different there, in accordance with** the statement of **Rabbi Ile’a. As Rabbi Ile’a said: From where** is it derived **with regard to one who separates *teruma* from poor-quality** produce **for superior-quality** produce **that his *teruma* is** valid ***teruma*? As it is stated** with regard to *teruma*: **“And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof”** (Numbers 18:32). The verse defines separation from inferior produce as a transgression but teaches that it is nevertheless effective, because **if it is not consecrated** as *teruma*, **why** would one **bear a sin** for accomplishing nothing? **From here** it is derived **with regard to one who separates *teruma* from poor-quality** produce **for superior-quality** produce **that his *teruma* is** valid ***teruma*.**


###### Temurah 5a:10
[Temurah 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:10)

וּלְאַבָּיֵי, אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלֹא תִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָכִי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: עֲבֵיד מִצְוָה מִן הַמּוּבְחָר, וְאִי לָא עָבֵיד — ״חוֹטֵא״ לָא מִיקְּרֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Abaye,** that all transgressions are legally effective, what does the phrase “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it” teach? The Gemara answers: **If the Merciful One had not stated: “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it,” I would say** that **this is what the Merciful One said: Perform the mitzva in the optimal** manner by separating *teruma* from superior-quality produce, **but if one did not perform** the mitzva in that manner, **he is not called a sinner.** The verse **teaches us** that one who fails to perform this mitzva in the optimal manner sins.


###### Temurah 5a:11
[Temurah 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:11)

וַהֲרֵי מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל חֵלֶב יִצְהָר״, לִיתֵּן חֵלֶב לָזֶה וְחֵלֶב לָזֶה, וּתְנַן: אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, וְאִם תָּרַם — אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, אַלְמָא לָא מַהֲנֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But isn’t there** the case of one who separates *teruma* **from** one **type** of produce **to** exempt **another type** of produce, **as the Merciful One states: “All the best of the oil,** and all the best of the wine, and of the grain, the first part of them which they give to the Lord” (Numbers 18:12)? This teaches that one is obligated **to give the best of one** type of produce **and the best of another** type of produce, each individually. **And we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 2:4): **One may not separate *teruma* from** one **type** of produce **for another type, and if one did separate *teruma*** in that manner, **his *teruma* is not** valid ***teruma*. Apparently,** the transgression **is not effective.** This is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Abaye.**


###### Temurah 5a:12
[Temurah 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:12)

אָמַר לָךְ אַבַּיֵּי: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״רֵאשִׁיתָם״ — רֵאשִׁית לָזֶה וְרֵאשִׁית לָזֶה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: ״רֵאשִׁית״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Abaye** could **say to you:** It **is different there, as the verse** repeats this prohibition and **states: “The first part of them,”** indicating that one must give **a first part for this** type of produce **and a first part for that** type of produce. If the verse had not taught so explicitly in this case, one would have assumed that the transgression is effective. **And Rabbi Ile’a likewise says** that the phrase in the verse **“the first part** of them” is the exception that proves the rule.


###### Temurah 5a:13
[Temurah 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:13)

וּלְרָבָא, אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״רֵאשִׁית״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ ״חֵלֶב״ ״חֵלֶב״, דְּאֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rava,** that transgressions are not effective, what does the term “the first part of them” teach? The Gemara answers: **If the Merciful One had not stated: “The first part** of them,” **I would say** that the prohibition applies only to **wine and** olive **oil, with regard to which it is written: “Best…best,”** teaching **that one may not separate *teruma* from this** type **for that** type.


###### Temurah 5a:14
[Temurah 5a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:14)

אֲבָל תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן, דָּגָן וְדָגָן, דְּחַד ״חֵלֶב״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ, כִּי תָרֵים מֵהַאי אַהַאי — לָא לָקֵי. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״רֵאשִׁית״, לִיתֵּן חֵלֶב לָזֶה וְחֵלֶב לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** as for **wine and grain,** or one type of **grain and** another type of **grain, with regard to which** the term **“best” is written** only **once, when one separates *teruma* from this** grain or wine **for that** grain or wine, he is not held liable for transgressing Torah law, and **he is not flogged.** Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “The first part** of them,” to teach that one must **give the best of this and the best of that.**


###### Temurah 5a:15
[Temurah 5a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:15)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, הָא תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן, דְּחַד ״חֵלֶב״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ — תָּרֵים מֵהַאי אַהַאי. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״רֵאשִׁית״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara records **another version** of the last point: But as for **wine and grain, with regard to which** the term **“best” is written** only **once, one may separate *teruma* from this for that** *ab initio*. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “The first part** of them,” to teach that even in the case of wine and grain, one may not separate *teruma* from one for the other.


###### Temurah 5a:16
[Temurah 5a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:16)

וַהֲרֵי חֲרָמִים, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וּתְנַן: חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָם, אֶלָּא נוֹתְנָין לַכֹּהֵן. אַלְמָא לָא מַהֲנֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But there is** the case of **dedications** of property to the priests, with regard to **which the Merciful One states: “No** devoted item, that a man may devote unto the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of the field of his possession, **shall be sold or redeemed;** every devoted item is most holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). **And we learned** in a mishna (*Arakhin* 28b): **Items dedicated to priests are not redeemed; rather, one gives them to the priest. Apparently,** if one transgresses the prohibition and redeems a dedicated item, his action **is not effective.** This seems to be **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Abaye.**


###### Temurah 5a:17
[Temurah 5a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5a:17)

אָמַר לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא״ — בַּהֲוָויָיתוֹ יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Abaye could **say to you: It is different there, as the Merciful One states: “Is most holy,”** to teach that **it shall be as it is.** Once it is dedicated, its status cannot be changed by means of redemption. But in other matters the transgression is effective.