Does one receive lashes for transgressing a negative commandment that involves no action? For a negative commandment that has a positive action to counteract it.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Temurah 4
לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ״, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ — אַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ״, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מוֹצִיא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה — אַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהֵיכָא?
The Gemara responds: You cannot say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to one who pronounces the name of Heaven in vain, as it is written: “You shall not curse the deaf” (Leviticus 19:14), which prohibits all curses, even those using God’s name. Granted, if you say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to cursing another, one can say that the separate warning of punishment for this prohibition is from here, as it is written: “You shall not curse the deaf.” One verse articulates the prohibition, and the other indicates liability for punishment. But if you say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to pronouncing the name of Heaven in vain, from where is the warning of this prohibition? A prohibition requires two verses to include liability for punishment.
אַלְּמָה לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבוֹד״! הָהוּא אַזְהָרַת עֲשֵׂה הוּא.
The Gemara counters: Why not, i.e., what is the difficulty? But isn’t it written: “You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve” (Deuteronomy 6:13)? Fearing God certainly includes not pronouncing His name in vain, and this verse can therefore serve as the warning. The Gemara answers: That verse is a warning stated as a positive mitzva. In order to qualify as a warning, the verse must prohibit, not command.
מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר״ — ״מְלֵאָה״ אֵלּוּ בִּיכּוּרִים, ״וְדִמְעֲךָ״ אֵלּוּ תְּרוּמָה, וְאָמְרַתְּ ״לֹא תְאַחֵר״.
§ It was stated (3a): They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: Also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is liable to be flogged. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the prohibition mentioned by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina? The verse states: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses” (Exodus 22:28). When the verse states: The fullness of the harvest, these are the first fruits; and when the verse states: “And the outflow of your presses,” this is teruma. And the verse says: “You shall not delay,” i.e., do not delay the separation of the first fruits by separating teruma beforehand.
אִיתְּמַר: הִקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא הוּא דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה, מִדְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים לוֹקֶה.
It was stated: If one separated teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, disagreed. One said that he is flogged, and one said that he is not flogged. The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that it is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said that he is flogged, from the fact that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said earlier: Also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is flogged.
אַדְּרַבָּה, תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הוּא דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה, דִּתְנַן: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי כַּלְכַּלּוֹת שֶׁל טֶבֶל, וְאָמַר: ״מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ״ — הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת.
The Gemara suggests: On the contrary, it may be concluded that it is Rabbi Elazar who said that he is flogged, as we learned in a mishna (Demai 7:6): If two baskets of untithed produce were before someone, and he said: The tithe of this basket is in that basket, then the produce of the first basket is thereby tithed. And when he separates sufficient tithe from the second basket to exempt both baskets, the produce of the second basket will be considered tithed as well.
״שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ וְשֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ״ — הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת. ״מַעַשְׂרוֹתֵיהֶם מַעְשַׂר כַּלְכַּלָּה בַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ״ — קְרָא אֶת הַשֵּׁם.
If he said: The tithe of this basket is in that basket, and the tithe of that basket is in this basket, the produce of the first basket is tithed, as stated, but the produce of the second basket is not tithed. Since the produce of the first basket had just been tithed, it could not be used to tithe the second, since the tithe may be separated only from untithed produce. If he said: Their tithes should be separated as tithe, each basket in the other, he has declared the assignation of tithe concurrently, and the produce of both baskets is thereby tithed.
וְאִתְּמַר, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִקְדִּים מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבָּהּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ. תִּסְתַּיֵּים.
And it was stated with regard to the first clause of that mishna that Rabbi Elazar said: He is flogged, because he separated the second tithe of the produce of the first basket prior to the separation of the first tithe of the other basket. One must always separate tithes in order, the first tithe before the second tithe. If Rabbi Elazar holds that one is flogged for separating tithes in the wrong order, he presumably also holds that one is flogged for separating teruma before first fruits. The Gemara affirms: It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who said he is flogged.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, לֵימָא קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, it follows that it is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said that he is not flogged. Shall we say then that the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, here poses a difficulty to the earlier statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, that one who separates teruma before separating first fruits is flogged?
לָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא
The Gemara answers: No, when Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, stated simply: Even one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits,
אַפְּטוּרָא קָאֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים.
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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵימֵר דְּלָקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה? מַקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים נָמֵי לִילְקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה!
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ״.
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.
יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכֹל לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה לָא לָקֵי?
§ 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?
וְהָא מֵימֵר, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְלָקֵי, דִּתְנַן: לֹא שֶׁאָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהָמִיר, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הֵמִיר — מוּמָר, וְסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים.
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.
הָוֵי לְהוּ תְּרֵי לָאוֵי וְחַד עֲשֵׂה, וְלָא אָתֵי חַד עֲשֵׂה וְעָקַר תְּרֵי לָאוֵי.
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.
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!
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.
כֹּהֲנִים קָאָמְרַתְּ?! כֹּהֲנִים — טַעְמָא אַחְרִינָא הוּא, דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא קְדוּשָּׁה יַתִּירָא.
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.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״לֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ 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.
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.
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.
וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, הַאי ״וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרוֹפוּ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא?
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?
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.
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.
וְאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְהַנּוֹתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרוֹפוּ״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן בּוֹקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ.
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.
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.
§ 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.
Follow
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot!
Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
Temurah 4
לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ״, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ — אַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ״, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מוֹצִיא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה — אַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהֵיכָא?
The Gemara responds: You cannot say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to one who pronounces the name of Heaven in vain, as it is written: “You shall not curse the deaf” (Leviticus 19:14), which prohibits all curses, even those using God’s name. Granted, if you say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to cursing another, one can say that the separate warning of punishment for this prohibition is from here, as it is written: “You shall not curse the deaf.” One verse articulates the prohibition, and the other indicates liability for punishment. But if you say that Deuteronomy 28:59 is referring to pronouncing the name of Heaven in vain, from where is the warning of this prohibition? A prohibition requires two verses to include liability for punishment.
אַלְּמָה לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבוֹד״! הָהוּא אַזְהָרַת עֲשֵׂה הוּא.
The Gemara counters: Why not, i.e., what is the difficulty? But isn’t it written: “You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve” (Deuteronomy 6:13)? Fearing God certainly includes not pronouncing His name in vain, and this verse can therefore serve as the warning. The Gemara answers: That verse is a warning stated as a positive mitzva. In order to qualify as a warning, the verse must prohibit, not command.
מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר״ — ״מְלֵאָה״ אֵלּוּ בִּיכּוּרִים, ״וְדִמְעֲךָ״ אֵלּוּ תְּרוּמָה, וְאָמְרַתְּ ״לֹא תְאַחֵר״.
§ It was stated (3a): They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: Also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is liable to be flogged. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the prohibition mentioned by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina? The verse states: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest and the outflow of your presses” (Exodus 22:28). When the verse states: The fullness of the harvest, these are the first fruits; and when the verse states: “And the outflow of your presses,” this is teruma. And the verse says: “You shall not delay,” i.e., do not delay the separation of the first fruits by separating teruma beforehand.
אִיתְּמַר: הִקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא הוּא דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה, מִדְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים לוֹקֶה.
It was stated: If one separated teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, disagreed. One said that he is flogged, and one said that he is not flogged. The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that it is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said that he is flogged, from the fact that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said earlier: Also one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits is flogged.
אַדְּרַבָּה, תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הוּא דְּאָמַר לוֹקֶה, דִּתְנַן: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי כַּלְכַּלּוֹת שֶׁל טֶבֶל, וְאָמַר: ״מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ״ — הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת.
The Gemara suggests: On the contrary, it may be concluded that it is Rabbi Elazar who said that he is flogged, as we learned in a mishna (Demai 7:6): If two baskets of untithed produce were before someone, and he said: The tithe of this basket is in that basket, then the produce of the first basket is thereby tithed. And when he separates sufficient tithe from the second basket to exempt both baskets, the produce of the second basket will be considered tithed as well.
״שֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ וְשֶׁל זוֹ בָּזוֹ״ — הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ מְעוּשֶּׂרֶת. ״מַעַשְׂרוֹתֵיהֶם מַעְשַׂר כַּלְכַּלָּה בַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ״ — קְרָא אֶת הַשֵּׁם.
If he said: The tithe of this basket is in that basket, and the tithe of that basket is in this basket, the produce of the first basket is tithed, as stated, but the produce of the second basket is not tithed. Since the produce of the first basket had just been tithed, it could not be used to tithe the second, since the tithe may be separated only from untithed produce. If he said: Their tithes should be separated as tithe, each basket in the other, he has declared the assignation of tithe concurrently, and the produce of both baskets is thereby tithed.
וְאִתְּמַר, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִקְדִּים מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבָּהּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ. תִּסְתַּיֵּים.
And it was stated with regard to the first clause of that mishna that Rabbi Elazar said: He is flogged, because he separated the second tithe of the produce of the first basket prior to the separation of the first tithe of the other basket. One must always separate tithes in order, the first tithe before the second tithe. If Rabbi Elazar holds that one is flogged for separating tithes in the wrong order, he presumably also holds that one is flogged for separating teruma before first fruits. The Gemara affirms: It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who said he is flogged.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, לֵימָא קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, it follows that it is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said that he is not flogged. Shall we say then that the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, here poses a difficulty to the earlier statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, that one who separates teruma before separating first fruits is flogged?
לָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא
The Gemara answers: No, when Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, stated simply: Even one who separates teruma prior to the separation of the first fruits,
אַפְּטוּרָא קָאֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ: אַף הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים.
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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵימֵר דְּלָקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה? מַקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לְבִיכּוּרִים נָמֵי לִילְקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְדִיבּוּרוֹ עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה!
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ״.
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.
יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכֹל לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה לָא לָקֵי?
§ 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?
וְהָא מֵימֵר, דְּלָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְלָקֵי, דִּתְנַן: לֹא שֶׁאָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהָמִיר, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הֵמִיר — מוּמָר, וְסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים.
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.
הָוֵי לְהוּ תְּרֵי לָאוֵי וְחַד עֲשֵׂה, וְלָא אָתֵי חַד עֲשֵׂה וְעָקַר תְּרֵי לָאוֵי.
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.
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!
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.
כֹּהֲנִים קָאָמְרַתְּ?! כֹּהֲנִים — טַעְמָא אַחְרִינָא הוּא, דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא קְדוּשָּׁה יַתִּירָא.
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.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״לֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ 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.
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.
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.
וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, הַאי ״וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרוֹפוּ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא?
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?
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.
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.
וְאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְהַנּוֹתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרוֹפוּ״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן בּוֹקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ.
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.
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.
§ 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.
Follow
