## Temurah Daf 5b

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

וּלְרָבָא, הַאי ״הוּא״ לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּכוֹר, דְּתַנְיָא: בִּבְכוֹר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״ וְנִמְכָּר הוּא, בְּמַעֲשֵׂר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ וְאֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר, לֹא חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט, לא תָּם וְלֹא בַּעַל מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to** the opinion of **Rava, this** term: **“Is** most holy,” serves **to exclude** the case of **a firstborn** offering from the prohibition of sale. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **It is stated with regard to a firstborn** offering: “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, **you shall not redeem;** they are holy” (Numbers 18:17). **But** if it develops a blemish **it** may still be **sold.** By contrast, **it is stated with regard to** the animal **tithe** offering: **“It shall not be redeemed”** (Leviticus 27:33), **and** the animal tithe may **not be sold, not** when **alive and not** when **slaughtered, not** when **unblemished and not** when **blemished.**


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

וַהֲרֵי תְּמוּרָה, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אוֹתוֹ״, וְתָנָא: לֹא שֶׁאָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהָמִיר, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הֵמִיר — מוּמָר, וְסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. אַלְמָא מַהֲנֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But isn’t there** the case of **substitution,** with regard to **which the Merciful One states: “He shall not exchange it, nor substitute it”** (Leviticus 27:10), **and it is taught** 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 forty** lashes. **Apparently,** his action **is effective,** and this seems to be **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rava.**


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

אָמַר לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Rava could **say to you: It is different there, as** that same **verse states:** “And if he shall at all substitute animal for animal, then **both it and that for which it is substituted shall be holy,”** which teaches that his action is effective in this context specifically.


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

וּלְאַבָּיֵי, אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא תֵּצֵא זוֹ וְתִכָּנֵס זוֹ, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to** the opinion of **Abaye,** that transgressions are effective in general, that clause is still necessary, because **if the Merciful One had not stated: “Both it and that for which it is substituted** shall be holy,” **I would say** that **this** initially consecrated animal **will leave** its consecrated state, **and that** non-sacred animal **will enter** into sanctity instead. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that the first animal retains its sanctity as well.


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

וַהֲרֵי בְּכוֹר, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״, וּתְנַן: יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן, וְלִתְמוּרוֹתֵיהֶן פִּדְיוֹן, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, אַלְמָא לָא מַהֲנֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But isn’t there** the case of **a firstborn** offering, with regard to **which the Merciful One states:** “But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, **you shall not redeem;** they are holy” (Numbers 18:17)? **And we learned** in a mishna (21a): All sacrificial animals that became blemished **are subject to redemption** through sale, **and their substitutes** are also subject **to redemption** through sale, **except for the firstborn and the** animal **tithe** offerings. **Apparently,** if one attempts to redeem a firstborn offering, his action **is not effective,** and this seems to be **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Abaye.**


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

אָמַר לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״הֵם״, בַּהֲוָויָיתָן יְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Abaye could **say to you: It is different there, as** that same **verse states: “They are** holy,” thereby teaching that **they shall** always **be as they are,** even if one attempts to redeem them.


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

וּלְרָבָא, הַאי ״הֵם״ לְמָה לֵיהּ? הֵן קְרֵיבִין, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתָן קְרֵיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rava,** who maintains that transgressions are not effective, **why does he** need the term **“They are** holy”? The Gemara answers: This term teaches that if one substituted another animal for a firstborn offering or for an animal tithe offering, **they,** the originally consecrated animals, **are sacrificed, but their substitutes,** although they have sanctity, **are not sacrificed.**


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

וּלְאַבָּיֵי — הַאי סְבָרָא מְנָא לֵיהּ? ״אִם שׁוֹר אִם שֶׂה לַה׳ הוּא״ — לַה׳ קָרֵיב, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Abaye, from where does he** derive **this conclusion** that the substitutes are not sacrificed? The Gemara answers: The verse states concerning firstborn offerings: **“Whether it be ox or sheep, it is the Lord’s”** (Leviticus 27:26). One can infer from this wording that it **is sacrificed to the Lord but its substitute is not sacrificed.**


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

וְרָבָא, אִין הָכִי נָמֵי דְּמֵהָהוּא קְרָא, אֶלָּא ״הֵם״ לְמָה לִי? לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב דָּמָן בְּכׇל הָעוֹלִין שֶׁקְּרֵיבִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what does **Rava** derive from that verse? The Gemara responds: **Yes,** it **is indeed so that** he, like Abaye, derives **from that verse,** not from Numbers 18:17 as originally suggested, the *halakha* **that** the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed. **Rather, why do I** need the term **“They are** holy” which appears in that verse? It **teaches with regard to a firstborn** offering **or** an animal **tithe** offering **whose blood was mixed with** the blood of **any** other offering **brought upon** the altar **that** the blood **is** nevertheless **sacrificed on the altar** as it would have been individually.


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

וְאַבָּיֵי, הַאי סְבָרָא מְנָא לֵיהּ? מִ״וְּלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר״, וַהֲלֹא דַּם הַפָּר מְרוּבֶּה מִשֶּׁל שָׂעִיר! מִיכָּן לָעוֹלִין שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר״ — שֶׁיְּהוּ מְעוֹרָבִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Abaye, from where does he** derive **this conclusion,** that such blood is sacrificed? The Gemara answers: He derives it **from** the verse concerning the High Priest’s service on Yom Kippur: **“And he shall take of the blood of the bull, and of the blood of the goat,** and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 16:18). One might ask: **But isn’t there more blood of the bull than of the goat?** Why is the blood of the goat not nullified? **From here** it is derived **that** offerings **brought upon** the altar **do not nullify one another, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that the phrase in the verse **“And he shall take of the blood of the bull, and of the blood of the goat”** serves to teach **that they must be mixed.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.** Accordingly, Abaye derives that mixtures of blood may be sacrificed.


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

וְרָבָא, הָתָם — מִזֶּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וּמִזֶּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as for **Rava,** he holds that **there,** the High Priest would take **from this** blood of the bull **by itself and from that** blood of the goat **by itself,** rather than mixing them together. **And** in this matter, **he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yonatan,** who disagrees with Rabbi Yoshiya.


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

וַהֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״, וּתְנַן: יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן וְלִתְמוּרוֹתֵיהֶן, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, אַלְמָא לָא מַהֲנֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its analysis of the dispute between Abaye and Rava. **But isn’t there** the case of **an animal tithe** offering, with regard to **which the Merciful One states: “It shall not be redeemed”** (Leviticus 27:33)? **And we learned** in a mishna (21a): All sacrificial animals that became blemished **are subject to redemption** through sale, **and their substitutes** are also subject to redemption through sale, **except for the firstborn and the** animal **tithe** offering. **Apparently,** if one attempts to redeem an animal tithe offering, his act **is not effective,** and this seems to be **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Abaye.**


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

אָמַר לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּיָלֵיף ״עֲבָרָה״ ״עֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Abaye could **say to you: It is different there, as one derives** that *halakha* **from** the *halakha* of a firstborn offering, by verbal analogy between the term **“*avara*”** that is stated with regard to an animal tithe offering: “Whatsoever passes [*ya’avor*] under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32), and the term **“*avara*”** that is stated with regard to **a firstborn** offering: “You shall set apart [*veha’avarta*] to the Lord all that opens the womb” (Exodus 13:12). It was already derived above that a firstborn offering cannot be redeemed. But in general, transgressions are effective.


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

הֲרֵי הִקְדִּימָהּ תְּרוּמָה לַבִּיכּוּרִים, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר״, וּתְנַן: הַמַּקְדִּים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: But **isn’t there** the case of one who separated ***teruma* prior to the** separation of the **first fruits,** with regard to **which the Merciful One states: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses”** (Exodus 22:28)? The verse was expounded earlier (4b) as teaching that one must separate first fruits before separating *teruma*. **And we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 3:6): If **one** separates *teruma* **prior** to the separation of the first fruits, **although he has** transgressed **a prohibition, what he did is done,** and produce has the status of *teruma*. This appears to refute the opinion of Rava.


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

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ תְּרוּמָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Rava** could **say to you: It is different there, as the verse states: “From all that is given you, you shall set apart** that which is the Lord’s ***teruma*”** (Numbers 18:29), thereby teaching that the separation of *teruma* is effective in any case. But in general, transgressions are not effective.


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

וּלְאַבָּיֵי מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי נָמֵי נִיפְּטַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to** the opinion of **Abaye** that transgressions are generally effective, that verse **is required** to teach another *halakha*, **as Rav Pappa said to Abaye** (*Beitza* 13b): Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish stated that if the first tithe was separated while the grain was still on the stalks, that amount is exempt from *teruma*, even though the amount of *teruma* the priest receives is thereby reduced. **If that is so,** then **even** if the Levite **preceded** the priest by taking the first tithe after the grain had been threshed and arranged **in a pile, we should exempt** that grain from the obligation of *teruma* **as well.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא ״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to** Rav Pappa: **With regard to your** claim, **the verse states: “From all that is given you, you shall set apart.”** This verse teaches that the Levites must designate a portion of all the gifts they receive and give it to the priests, even if they received them before *teruma* had been separated.


###### Temurah 5b:18
[Temurah 5b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5b:18)

מָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַכְּרִי וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַשִּׁיבֳּלִין? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הַכְּרִי, שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּכְלַל דִּיגּוּן, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַשִּׁיבֳּלִין, שֶׁאֵינָן בִּכְלַל דִּיגּוּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa asked: **What did you see** that leads you **to include** the first tithe taken from **the pile** in the category: “All that is given,” **and to exclude** that which is taken from **the stalks?** Abaye answered: **I include** a tithe taken from **the pile, as** it has been processed to the point where **it is included in the category of grain,** since it is written: “The first fruits of your grain…you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4); **and I exclude** a tithe taken from **the stalks, as** it **is not included in the category of grain** and is not yet obligated in *teruma*.


###### Temurah 5b:19
[Temurah 5b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5b:19)

וַהֲרֵי אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה... לֹא יִקָּח״, וּתְנַן: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קִדּוּשִׁין וְיֵשׁ עֲבֵירָה — הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But isn’t there** the case of **a widow** betrothed **to a High Priest,** with regard to **which the Merciful One stated: “A widow, or one divorced,** or a profaned woman, or a harlot, these **shall he not take;** but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife. And he shall not profane his seed among his people” (Leviticus 21:14–15)? **And we learned** in a mishna (*Kiddushin* 66b): **Any case where there is** a valid **betrothal and** yet **there is a transgression, the offspring follows the flawed** lineage. For example, if a widow, who may not marry a High Priest, nevertheless did so, the offspring may not marry a priest. Still, the marriage is in force, contrary to the opinion of Rava.


###### Temurah 5b:20
[Temurah 5b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5b:20)

שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Rava could say: **It is different there, as the verse states:** “And **he shall not profane [*lo yeḥallel*] his seed.”** The verse states only that the offspring is profaned, not that he has the status of a *mamzer*, which would hold for one born of a union between two people with regard to whom marriage cannot take effect. Rava infers from the verse that the betrothal of a High Priest and a widow specifically does take effect. But in general, transgressions are not effective.


###### Temurah 5b:21
[Temurah 5b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5b:21)

וּלְאַבָּיֵי, נֵימָא קְרָא ״לֹא יַחֵל״, מַאי ״לֹא יְחַלֵּל״? אֶחָד לוֹ, וְאֶחָד לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to** the opinion of **Abaye,** that transgressions are generally effective, what is derived from that phrase? Abaye can say: If it merely means to teach that the betrothal takes effect, **let the verse state** simply: ***Lo yaḥel*,** which would have the same meaning. **What** is indicated by the use of the longer form: ***Lo yeḥallel*?** This teaches that there are two profanations: **One for him,** i.e., that the offspring is profaned, **and one for her,** i.e., that the mother is disqualified from marrying even a common priest.


###### Temurah 5b:22
[Temurah 5b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5b:22)

וַהֲרֵי הִקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ״, וּתְנַן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But isn’t there** the case of one who **consecrated blemished** animals **for** sacrifice on **the altar,** with regard to **which the Merciful One states:** “But **whatsoever has a blemish, that you shall not bring;** for it shall not be acceptable for you” (Leviticus 22:20)? **And we learned** in a *baraita*: If **one consecrates blemished** animals **for** sacrifice **on the altar, even though he has** transgressed **a prohibition, what he did is done,** and the consecration takes effect. This is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rava.**


###### Temurah 5b:23
[Temurah 5b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5b:23)

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וּלְנֶדֶר לֹא יֵרָצֶה״ — רִצּוּי הוּא דְּלָא מְרַצֵּה, הָא מִיקְדָּשׁ קָדְשִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Rava** could **say to you: It is different there, as the verse states** with regard to blemished animals: **“But for a vow it shall not be accepted”** (Leviticus 22:23). Since the verse specifies only **that it is** its sacrifice **which does not effect acceptance,** one may **consequently** infer that if one **consecrates** them, **they are** still **consecrated.** But in general, transgressions are not effective.


###### Temurah 5b:24
[Temurah 5b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5b:24)

וּלְאַבָּיֵי, אִי דְּלָא אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וּלְנֶדֶר לֹא יֵרָצֶה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כְּעוֹבֵר מִצְוָה וְכָשֵׁר, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to** the opinion of **Abaye,** that transgressions are generally effective, what does this phrase teach? Abaye can say that **if the Merciful One had not stated: “But for a vow it shall not be accepted,” I would say** that one who consecrated it is considered **like** one who **transgressed a mitzva but** the offering is still **fit** to be sacrificed. The verse therefore **teaches us** that it may not be sacrificed as an offering.


###### Temurah 5b:25
[Temurah 5b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/5b:25)

וַהֲרֵי מַקְדִּישׁ תְּמִימִין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But there is** the case of one who **consecrates unblemished** animals **for Temple maintenance,** with regard to **which the Merciful One states:**