## Temurah Daf 6a

###### Temurah 6a:1
[Temurah 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:1)

״נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ״ — זֶה קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, וּתְנַן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ תְּמִימִין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
“Either a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short, **that may you offer for a gift;** but for a vow it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23). **This** verse teaches that only blemished animals may be **consecrated** for **Temple maintenance. And we learned** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who consecrates unblemished** animals for **Temple maintenance, even though he has** transgressed **a prohibition, what he did is done.** This is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rava.**


###### Temurah 6a:2
[Temurah 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:2)

אָמַר לָךְ [רָבָא]: מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְרַבּוּ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, נִתְרַבּוּ תְּמִימִין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Rava** could **say to you: From the** same **place** that it was derived earlier **that blemished** animals **are included,** i.e., that their consecration **for** sacrifice **on the altar** is effective after the fact, it is likewise derived that **unblemished** animals **are included,** that their consecration **for Temple maintenance** is effective. But in general, transgressions are not effective.


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

וַהֲרֵי גָּזֵל, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״לֹא תִגְזוֹל״, וּתְנַן: הַגּוֹזֵל עֵצִים וַעֲשָׂאָן כֵּלִים, צֶמֶר וַעֲשָׂאָן בְּגָדִים — מְשַׁלֵּם כִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵילָה, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But there is** the case of **robbery,** with regard to **which the Merciful One states:** “You shall not oppress you neighbor, and **you shall not rob** him” (Leviticus 19:13), **and we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 93b): **One who robs** another of **wood and fashions it** into **vessels,** or one who robs another of **wool and fashions it** into **garments, pays** the victim **according to** the value of the goods at **the time of the robbery,** but he need not return the vessels or garments, since by changing the stolen items he acquired them. If he can acquire the stolen item, this is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rava.**


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

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל״ — כְּמָה שֶׁגָּזַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Rava** could **say to you: It is different there, as the verse states:** “He shall restore the stolen item **that he took by robbery”** (Leviticus 5:23). This teaches that he must return the original item only if it is still **like** that **which he took by robbery** and has not been altered. But in general, transgressions are not effective.


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

וּלְאַבָּיֵי, הַאי ״אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: עַל גְּזֵילוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, עַל גְּזֵילוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו אֵינוֹ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to** the opinion of **Abaye, this** phrase: **“That he took by robbery,” is necessary** to teach that one who takes a false oath denying he robbed another, who must then pay an additional fifth of the value of the stolen item when he returns it, need **add a fifth** only **for** denying **his** own act of **robbery,** but **for** denying **his** deceased **father’s** act of **robbery** when sued by the victim as the robber’s heir, he need **not add** an additional **fifth.**


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

וַהֲרֵי מַשְׁכּוֹן, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא תָבֹא אֶל בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲבוֹט עֲבוֹטוֹ״, וּתְנַן: מַחֲזִיר אֶת הַכַּר בַּלַּיְלָה וְאֶת הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה בַּיּוֹם — תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But there is** the case of **collateral,** with regard to **which the Merciful One states:** “When you lend your neighbor any manner of loan, **you shall not go into his house to fetch his pledge”** (Deuteronomy 24:10), teaching that a creditor may not seize collateral if the debtor delays payment. **And we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 113a): If the creditor nevertheless seized two items as collateral, **he returns a mattress by night,** as the debtor requires it for sleeping, **and a plow,** which is needed for his daytime work, **by day.** The creditor may keep possession of seized collateral when it is not being used, which is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rava.**


###### Temurah 6a:7
[Temurah 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:7)

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Rava** could **say to you: It is different there, as the verse states:** “And if he be a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge; **you shall restore [*hashev tashiv*]** to him the pledge” (Deuteronomy 24:12–13). The repetition of the verb teaches that the creditor must return the collateral many times, e.g., he must return a plow each morning and take it back each night, and return a mattress each night and take it back each morning, but he does not have to return the collateral permanently. But in general, transgressions are not effective.


###### Temurah 6a:8
[Temurah 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:8)

וּלְאַבָּיֵי, אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אִיסּוּרָא עֲבַד, אִי בָּעֵי נַיהְדַּר וְאִי בָּעֵי לָא נַהְדַּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. (חסר לישנא אחרינא)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And according to** the opinion of **Abaye,** that transgressions are generally effective, the repetition of the verb may be explained as follows: **If the Merciful One had not stated: “*Hashev tashiv*,” I would say** that a creditor who seizes collateral from the home of the debtor has **performed a prohibition,** but having done so, **if he desires, he may return** the collateral, **and if he desires, he may not return** it. The verse therefore **teaches us** that he must return the items the debtor needs.


###### Temurah 6a:9
[Temurah 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:9)

וַהֲרֵי פֵּאָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקוּצְרֶךָ״, וּתְנַן: מִצְוַת פֵּאָה לְהַפְרִישׁ מִן הַקָּמָה, לֹא הִפְרִישׁ מִן הַקָּמָה — יַפְרִישׁ מִן הָעֳמָרִים, לֹא הִפְרִישׁ מִן הָעֳמָרִים — יַפְרִישׁ מִן הַכְּרִי עַד שֶׁלֹּא מֵירְחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But there is** the case of **produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [*pe’a*],** with regard to **which the Merciful One stated:** And when you reap the harvest of your land, **you shall not wholly reap the corner of your field”** (Leviticus 23:22), but one must leave a corner of the field for the poor. **And we learned** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Pe’a* 1:5): The optimal way to fulfill **the mitzva of *pe’a*** is for the owner **to separate** it **from the standing** grain, i.e., grain that has not been harvested. If **he did not separate** it **from the standing** grain, **he separates** it **from the sheaves** of grain that have already been harvested. If **he did not separate** it **from the sheaves, he separates** it **from the pile** of grain, **as long as he has not** yet **smoothed** the pile.


###### Temurah 6a:10
[Temurah 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:10)

מֵירְחוֹ — מְעַשְּׂרוֹ וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ; מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ: אַף מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָעִיסָּה, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְאַבָּיֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Once **he smooths** the pile of grain, it becomes obligated in tithes. Therefore, **he** must first **tithe** the grain **and** then **give** a portion of the produce **to** the poor as *pe’a*, so that the poor need not tithe what they receive. Additionally, the Sages **said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:** If he did not separate *pe’a* during any of these stages, and he milled the grain and kneaded it into dough, **he separates** *pe’a* **even from the dough** and gives it to the poor. Even if the owner harvested the grain, the *pe’a* is still not considered his, which is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Abaye.**


###### Temurah 6a:11
[Temurah 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:11)

אָמַר לָךְ אַבַּיֵּי: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״תַּעֲזוֹב״, ״תַּעֲזוֹב״ יַתִּירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **Abaye** could **say to you: It is different there, as the verse states: “You shall leave** them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 19:10), and subsequently, it again states: **“You shall leave** them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). The **superfluous** phrase teaches that the owner must give *pe’a* in any event, even if he harvests the grain and kneads it into dough. But in general, transgressions are effective.


###### Temurah 6a:12
[Temurah 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:12)

וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: יֵשׁ לְךָ עֲזִיבָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁכָּזוֹ, וְאֵיזוֹ? זֶה הַמַּפְקִיר כַּרְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava,** who maintains that in general transgressions are not effective, could **say to you** that the extra verse teaches that **there is another** type of **leaving** over one’s grain **that is like this. And what is that? It is** the case of **one who renounces ownership of his vineyard.**


###### Temurah 6a:13
[Temurah 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:13)

דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּפְקִיר כַּרְמוֹ, וְהִשְׁכִּים לַשַּׁחַר וּבְצָרוֹ — חַיָּיב בְּפֶרֶט וְעוֹלֵלוֹת, בְּשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵאָה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one renounced ownership of his vineyard,** thereby exempting it from tithes and gifts to the poor, **and he rose early in the morning,** retook possession of it, **and harvested it, he is** still **obligated in** the mitzva of **individual fallen** grapes left for the poor **[*peret*], and** in the mitzva of **incompletely formed clusters** of grapes left for the poor **[*olelot*],** and **in** the mitzva of **forgotten** clusters of grapes left for the poor, **and in** the mitzva of ***pe’a*, but he** remains **exempt from the** mitzva to **tithe** his produce. His obligation to give the gifts to the poor even though the vineyard was at some point ownerless is derived from the repeated phrase: “You shall leave them for the poor.”


###### Temurah 6a:14
[Temurah 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּשַׁנִּינַן כֹּל הָנֵי שִׁינּוּיֵי, דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And now that we have given all of these answers,** explaining that Abaye and Rava concede to one another in all the above cases, **with regard to what** cases do **Abaye and Rava disagree?**


###### Temurah 6a:15
[Temurah 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/6a:15)

בְּרִבִּית קְצוּצָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי, וְכִדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: רִבִּית קְצוּצָה יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּינִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi answered: **They disagree with regard to fixed [*ketzutza*] interest, and** their dispute is **like** that **of Rabbi Elazar** and Rabbi Yoḥanan. **As Rabbi Elazar said:** If a debtor paid **fixed interest** and petitions the court to have it returned to him, since the Torah prohibits the charging of interest, it **is repossessed** from the creditor **by** the **judges** of the court.