006b הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה ו ע"ב - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

Avak ribbit^[1] is not collected before judges. Rabbi Yochanan says: even fixed interest^[2] is not collected before judges.

אבק רבית - Arising from a sale: for example, a seller of his field who says: if you give me the money now, it is yours for a thousand zuz, and if at the threshing floor, for twelve maneh. Concerning fixed interest Abaye and Rava dispute: Abaye holds it works like Rabbi Yochanan, and Rava like Rabbi Elazar, since here there is no verse. Neither so nor so.

He said to him: 'There they dispute on reasoning.'

התם בסברא פליגי - He says in wonder: there they dispute about verses, etc.

'There they dispute on verses.'

As Rav Yitzchak said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yochanan? The verse says: 'He who lent on interest and took increase, shall he live? He shall not live'; he is given to life and not to restitution.

לחיים ניתן - That is: he shall not live and not be restored; even Rava agrees, since the verse is written.

Rava Acha bar Ada says: from here, 'and fear your God; I am HaShem' (Leviticus 25:36): he is given for fear and not for restitution.

Rava says: from here: 'He has done these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood is upon him' (Ezekiel 18:13). The verse equates the interest-takers with those who shed blood: just as the blood-shedders are not given restitution, so too those who take interest are not given restitution.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar? The verse says 'and your brother shall live with you' (Leviticus 25:36); it returns it so that he may live with you.

Then on what do Abaye and Rava^[3] dispute? On acquisition by transformation^[4].

בשינוי קונה - Abaye holds that a change which alters the object and goes against the owner's intent acquires it, except where verses are written; for Rava it acquires only where verses are written. Not explained for us is any difference between them beyond the answers. Also a change can be said of acquisition by change: for example, a thief who made wood into vessels, or wool into garments: for Abaye he acquires and pays only the wood and wool; for Rava he does not acquire and pays for the garments and vessels. When we challenged Rava from the case of the thief of wood who made vessels, we do not say there is a difference because the verse says 'asher gazal'; rather we say we follow the view that a change does not acquire. This is a dispute in Bava Kamma, one view holding that change acquires and derives it from 'asher gazal', the other that change does not acquire and derives it from 'and he shall return the robbery'. If so, why 'asher gazal'? To say he does not add a fifth on his father's robbery. The text reads: 'Alternatively, in these answers we answered'; and in the version I heard, concerning acquisition by change there is nothing: this is Yerushalmi and this is Bavli.

Some say: with these answers that we gave, concerning fixed interest: for Abaye it is not returned, for Rava it is returned.

But Abaye too holds that fixed interest is collected before judges, as Abaye said:

As Abaye said: One who took four zuz as interest from his fellow and gave the lender in his shop a cloak worth five for four; when we exact four from him, we exact four, and that zuz he gave as a gift.

But Rava says: we exact five from him. Why? All of it comes into his hands as interest.

Rather, Abaye and Rava dispute only about acquisition by change.

The Sages taught: 'Whatever has a blemish, you shall not offer' (Leviticus 22:20). Why is it said that 'if you do not slaughter, it is already stated below'? Rather, why does it say 'you shall not offer, you shall not consecrate'^[5]?

תנו רבנן אם בל תשחטו הרי כבר אמור למטה - That they shall not slaughter a blemished animal on the altar; the Gemara explains it below. The offering and the sprinkling of its blood, too, the Gemara explains below.

א"כ מה ת"ל לא תקריבו - That is: do not consecrate.

From here they said: one who consecrates a blemished animal to the altar transgresses five names^[6]: do not offer, do not consecrate, do not slaughter, do not sprinkle, do not burn. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehudah^[7] says: also the receiving of the blood^[8].

ה' שמות - Below it derives them.

המקדיש בעלי מומין - And he burns them all as a burnt-offering.

The Master said: 'if you do not slaughter, it is already stated below'^[9].

Where is it said? As it was taught: 'Whatever is blind, or broken, or maimed, or has a wen, you shall not offer' (Leviticus 22:22). Why does it say 'if you do not consecrate, it is already stated above'? Rather, why does it say 'do not offer, do not slaughter', and 'nor shall you offer from them as a fire-offering' (Leviticus 22:25)? These are fire-offerings.

אלו אשים - The burning of the limbs and fat.

I would have only all of them; part of them, from where? The verse says 'from them' for the sprinkling of the blood; from where? The verse says 'upon the altar to HaShem' to include the scapegoat^[10]; and 'to HaShem' includes it.

לרבות שעיר המשתלח - That one who consecrates a blemished scapegoat is flogged for 'do not consecrate'.

And it was taught: 'Or sacrifice' (Leviticus 17:3-4): I would think even Temple-repair consecrated property^[11], which is also called a sacrifice, as it says 'and we shall bring the offering of HaShem' (Numbers 31:50). Therefore the verse says 'to the entrance of the tent of meeting': one who slaughters outside, where it is fit for the entrance of the tent of meeting, is liable on it for slaughtering outside^[12].

קרבן - The text reads: 'If sacrifice I would think ...' and it reverts to what precedes in the Sifra, where it is taught: one who slaughters chullin inside should be liable? The verse says 'korban': one is liable on the offering and not on chullin. 'If sacrifice I would think ...', i.e., if you are expounding 'korban', I would think even one who slaughters Temple-repair property outside is liable karet, since they are called korban, as stated: 'and we shall bring the offering of HaShem', gold vessels, armlets and bracelets, which are for the work of the Mishkan.

One that is not fit for the entrance of the tent of meeting, one is not liable on it for slaughtering outside. I would exclude these, and not exclude the red heifer and the scapegoat, which are fit for the entrance of the tent of meeting.

שאינו ראוי לפתח אהל מועד - For example: consecrations of Temple repair, which are not fit to come to the entrance of the tent of meeting, since they are blemished, as we said above: one who consecrates unblemished animals to Temple repair transgresses a negative commandment.

אוציא את אלו ולא אוציא את פרת חטאת - That a red heifer slaughtered outside, not in accordance with its mitzvah, not on its altar, is liable karet; similarly the scapegoat, if slaughtered outside, is liable karet, since both are unblemished: for the red heifer it is written 'in which there is no blemish' (Numbers 19:2), and the scapegoat we included above so that it have no blemish.

The verse says 'to HaShem': those that are dedicated to HaShem are included; these, which are not dedicated to HaShem, are excluded.

יצאו אלו - So it is to exclude the scapegoat.

Rava said: There, the context of the verse, 'and to the entrance', is to include what is consecrated to HaShem; here, where 'from them' serves to exclude, the words 'to HaShem' are needed to include.

התם - That is: 'and to the entrance' includes all unblemished consecrated animals, to make one liable for slaughtering them outside to HaShem; why do I need 'to HaShem'? Surely to exclude.

אבל הכא דאשה להוציא - But here, where 'from them' is for exclusion: regarding blemished animals it is written 'and do not offer from them', and it is implied that one who consecrates a blemished animal offered as a fire-offering is liable for 'do not consecrate'; but one not offered as a fire-offering is not. The scapegoat is thus excluded. Why, then, is 'to HaShem' needed to exclude? Surely it is to include it.

The reason the verse wrote 'to HaShem' is that it does not bring in the scapegoat.

Had 'to HaShem' not been written, I would have said that a blemished scapegoat is valid.

שפיר דמי - For consecration.

Since the lot^[13] is fixed only on what is fit,

הא אין הגורל - Because the lot of the Name fixes only what is fit for the Name; if one brings and draws lots without knowing which one the lot of the Name came up on, then of necessity both must be unblemished; so why do I need the verse?

Rav Yosef said: Whose view is this? It is that of Chanan hamitzri^[14], who says: even blood in a cup brings the other, and pairs him with it.

Granted that you learned from Chanan hamitzri that there is no postponement and a lottery is not needed; but did you learn that perhaps one brings and draws lots?

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Whose view is this? It is that of Rabbi Shimon^[15], as it was taught: 'If one of them died, the other is brought without a lottery'; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Rava says: it is needed for a case such as this: it became blemished^[16] on that same day, and they profaned it on its fellow.

כגון שהומם - After the lot, and they profaned him upon his fellow, and he was blemished too. This teaches that one who profaned is flogged for consecrating a blemished animal, so he used 'profaned': had it not been profaned upon a blemished one, there is no flogging^[17], since he did not consecrate the second.

ולא אוציא פרת חטאת ושעיר המשתלח - Rashi explains in Yoma (on 'two goats') that the text does not include the red heifer, for we learned in the last chapter of Zevachim: a red heifer burned outside its camp^[18], and a scapegoat offered outside, is exempt, since the verse says 'to the entrance of the tent of meeting they did not bring'. The Gemara asks: the scapegoat is not fit for the entrance of the tent, yet here it is taught. If the text included the red heifer, the same question could be asked about the red heifer. The answer there is: here before the lot, there after the lot; before the lot it was fit for the entrance and the verse excludes it if sacrificed outside; and it is taught explicitly in Yoma that before the lot one who slaughters it outside is liable. We can say that according to the conclusion of Zevachim it works: here before confession, there after confession; so both can be after the lot; but before the lot, one who slaughters outside is liable, as in Yoma.

וקרא למה לי כגון שהומם לאחר הגרלה וחיללו על חבירו - He too is blemished, and it teaches that this one who profaned is flogged, because he consecrated a blemished animal; therefore he used 'profaned': had it not been profaned upon a blemished one there is no flogging, since 'do not consecrate' applies only to the other.

Notes

1. 1. Avak ribbit ("dust of interest"): interest concealed inside a sale, such as selling a field at a higher price on condition of deferred payment.
2. 2. Ribbit ketzutzah (fixed interest): interest set in advance as a known sum or rate, unlike avak ribbit, which is not fixed in advance.
3. 3. Abaye and Rava: two Babylonian Amoraim of the fifth generation, heads of the academies of Sura and Pumbedita, who often disagree.
4. 4. Shinui kone (change acquires): when a person transforms another's object into something else (wood made into vessels), some hold he acquires it; Abaye and Rava disagree on this.
5. 5. Bal takriv, bal takdish: prohibitions derived from the verse "do not offer": one may not offer a blemished animal, nor consecrate it to the altar.
6. 6. Chamisha shemot (five names): the five negative commandments the one who consecrates a blemished animal transgresses: do not offer, do not consecrate, do not slaughter, do not sprinkle, do not burn.
7. 7. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehudah: a Tanna, son of Rabbi Yehudah; he adds that receiving the blood is also forbidden with a blemished animal.
8. 8. Kabbalat hadam (receiving the blood): the priest catches the animal's blood in a vessel in the Temple court before sprinkling it on the altar.
9. 9. That is, the prohibition on slaughtering a blemished animal is already stated elsewhere in the passage, so the Gemara asks what this verse adds.
10. 10. Sa'ir hamishtaleach (the scapegoat): the goat sent to Azazel in the wilderness on Yom Kippur; the verse includes it, to teach that it too may not be blemished.
11. 11. Kodshei bedek habayis (Temple repair consecrations): property dedicated to upkeep of the Temple; they are not slaughtered on the altar, but the Gemara notes they are called a korban.
12. 12. Shochtei chutz (slaughtering outside): one who slaughters an offering outside the sanctuary is liable to karet, based on Leviticus 17.
13. 13. Ha-goral (the lot): the drawing of lots between the two goats on Yom Kippur, deciding which is for Hashem and which for Azazel.
14. 14. Chanan hamitzri: a Tanna who holds that even blood in a cup suffices to bring the second goat without a new lottery.
15. 15. Rabbi Shimon: a Tanna; in his view, if one of the goats dies, the other is brought without a lottery.
16. 16. Huma (became blemished): here, one that became blemished after the lottery on Yom Kippur.
17. 17. Malkot (lashes): the court's punishment of lashes for a violation of a negative commandment.
18. 18. Parat chatat (the red heifer): burned outside the camp and used for purification of the impure; it is not offered on the altar.