Temurah 7 – Five Prohibitions To Bring A Blemished Sacrifice

In analyzing the question whether one can effectively perform acts forbidden by the Torah, the Talmud used the case of sanctifying a blemished sacrifice (in its tenth challenge), and Rava had to explain how this sanctification at all takes effect. Now the Talmud proves that which it previously took for granted.

The Torah said, “A sacrifice with a blemish you shall not offer”. Since the prohibition to slaughter was already stated before, this “you shall not offer” must mean, “you shall not consecrate.” From here we see that one who consecrates a blemished animal and burns this sacrifice on the Altar, transgresses fives times: “do not consecrate,” “do not slaughter,” “do not throw the blood,” “do not burn all of it,” and “do not burn part of it.” Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehudah adds one more for receiving its blood.

What is the source of the opinion of Rabbi Yose? The Torah said, “Any sacrifice which is blemished you shall not offer... any whose testicles are crushed... you shall not offer... from the hand of a stranger you shall not offer.” The third “you shall not offer” is extra and applies to another law – receiving the blood. And the first teacher, why doesn't he agree? – He says that this is the normal language of the Torah, and nothing is to be derived from it.

Art: Albrecht Durer - Portrait of a stranger

Temurah 6 – So Finally, May Not or Can Not?

Earlier we learned about two ways of understanding “you shall not” in the Torah, as “you should not” but if you do, it's done, or as “you cannot,” and your act is ineffective, represented respectively by Abaye and Rava.

The fourteenth challenge is against Abaye, from the laws of pe'ah, corners of the field, which one must leave for the poor. If he has not left some standing crop as pe'ah, he can leave it from the sheaves, or any time until the end of the harvest process. Rabbi Ishmael says that he can separate it even from dough. How can Abaye say that “it's done” for this transgression? Rabbi Ishmael teaches that the farmer never acquires pe'ah, but it always remains the property of the poor! Abaye answers that the Torah repeated the commandment to leave pe'ah, to emphasize that the farmer never acquires it.

In all fourteen cases Abaye and Rava actually agreed with each other, even if for different reasons. If so, where do they differ? Perhaps they argue about illegal interest, Abaye saying that the lender acquired it and does not have to return it to the borrower, while Rava saying that he does? – No, interest is more serious than that. Rather, they argue about a thief who stole an item and changed its shape. Does he acquire the item, but has to repay its value (Abaye), or does he not acquire the item and has to return it, even if he changed it (Rava).

Art: Theodore Gerard - The Little Thief

Temurah 5 – You May Not or You Can Not

When the Torah said about something “You shall not,” did it mean “you may not,” but your act takes effect, or did it mean “you cannot,” and if you do it, it's ineffective anyway? The “you may not” is represented by Abaye, and “you can not” - by Rava. According to Abaye, if one violates a law, he is punished with lashes, because his act was effective. But according to Rava, why is he punished, if he achieved nothing? – Simply because he violated the statement of the Merciful One.

The Talmud presents fourteen challenges, some to Abaye and some to Rava. Below are a two of them.

One who violates a girl has to marry her and can never divorce her. If he does divorce her, he has to re-marry her (if she agrees), but he is not given lashes. Why not? According to Rava, he should receive lashes for just violating the commandment!? Rava answers that it is a special case: since he needs to re-marry her, in a sense he achieved nothing.

What about sacrifice exchange, where we learned that, although forbidden, the act takes effect? Rava will answer that it is an exception, since the Torah said “It and its exchange will be holy,” but normally an illegal act achieves nothing.

Art: Aert De Gelder - The Jewish Bride

Temurah 4 – Transgression Without An Action

As a rule, one can be punished only for actions, not speech or thoughts. There are exceptions to this rule, sacrifice exchange being one of them. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Chanina adds one more: one who first separates the kohen's portion, and afterwards the first fruit from his crop, as the Torah said, “Your first fruit and the kohen's portion don't delay.”  Since the kohen's portion can be designated in thought alone, one is liable to lashes for a thought.

Another rule is that if a prohibition can be remedied, then one does not receive lashes for it. But, is that always true? For example, sacrifice exchange has a remedy – treating the new sacrifice with the laws of sacrificial holiness, and one still gets lashes!? – Exchange is prohibited twice, “don't exchange and don't substitute”, so it is especially severe.

But consider a case of one who violates a young unmarried girl. He has to marry and never divorce her. If he does divorce her, he needs to take her back. If he can't take her back, because he is a Kohen, who is forbidden to marry a divorcée, he gets lashes. But why? He is not doing anything! – Kohanim are special, they have extra prohibitions.

Art: Pierre Auguste Renoir - Young Girl In A Straw Hat

Temurah 3 – Questions About Sacrifice Exchange

We can ask a few questions regarding sacrifice exchanges. Can a minor effect an exchange? If he is younger than twelve, there is not doubt that he cannot, because he cannot vow. But between twelve and thirteen his vows take effect. On the other hand, a minor is not punished, and since he cannot receive lashes, possibly he cannot effect exchange? We leave it unresolved.

Can an idolater effect exchange? Since he can bring sacrifices like an Israelite, perhaps he can. However, since he is never punished with lashes (unlike a minor who will reach the age of punishment), perhaps he cannot? Really, the answer here is clear that he cannot, because the Torah described the exchange only for “sons of Israel.” Rather, the questions is what happens when he promises a sacrifice on behalf of Jew. Is the one who consecrates the sacrifices or the one for whom it is consecrated more important? This is also left unresolved.

Why is one punished for exchange with lashes, if it is just words, and the usual rule is that one is only punished for an act (with some exceptions, such as cursing another with the name of God or makes a false oath)? However, the answer is that with his words he achieves an action, and therefore is punished as for an action.

Art: Italian School - Little Boy In Venice

Temurah 2 – Sacrifice Exchange

One may decide to exchange his sacrifice for another, a better or a worse one, pronouncing “let this animal become a sacrifice instead of that one.” This is forbidden by the Torah, but his words take effect: the second animal becomes sanctified, although the first one still remains a sacrifice. In addition, he violates a negative commandment, and is subject to lashes. Therefore, we have the first ruling: “All can effect exchange, a man or a woman, but this is not a permission to do so, rather, if he did it, it's done, and he is liable to lashes.”

Earlier we surveyed the use of “All do this and that” to show that the word “all” adds something not obvious. What does “All can effect exchange” add? It adds an heir who inherits a sacrifice of his father and who can effect exchange with that sacrifice (and get lashes for that). Then why is it not taught explicitly? Because it is not unanimous, and Rabbi Yehudah disagrees and says that just as the heir does not lean on the sacrifice, so too he cannot effect exchange. And Rabbi Meir (the author of all anonymous rulings)? – He agrees to the comparison, but the word “exchange” is said twice to include an heir.

Art: Follower of Jacob Gerritsz Cuyp - Double Portrait of Children, With a Goat

Arachin 34 – Cities of Levites

When the Israelites entered the Land of Israel, each tribe was designated a portion, except for the Levites. Instead, each tribe provided cities for them to settle. Should a Levite sell his house, he can redeem it any time in the future – unlike the Israelites who have but a year. However, these rules are obvious from the Torah, and the Talmud begins from the first non-obvious case.

If a regular Jew (Yisrael) inherited a house in the city of the Levites from his maternal grandfather, he redeems it like a regular Jew, only for a year – this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, who attaches importance to who the seller is. However, the Sages say that he does not have to be a Levi, but rather, all houses in the city of Levites follow the same rules.

Around the cities Torah mandates an open space for a thousand steps for beauty, and another thousand for farming, and these may not be exchanged.

Kohanim and Levites may sell their houses in walled cities and redeem them at any time, their houses never become permanent property of the buyer, who may always be forced by the Levi to sell them back.

Art: Georges Seurat - White Houses, Ville d'Avray