Temura 5: Transgressions and Consequences, Biblical Directive Vs. Interpretation

Teruma:4 focused on whether or not there should be corrective action regarding the transgression of positive mitzvot and animal substitution.  In today's daf, the rabbis list forbidden acts where the punishments or lack of consequences are used to bolster either Abaye or Rava's points of view.  

One of those examples is the case of temura, the attempted exchange of a sanctified animal so that its holiness is transferred to another animal.  In such a case, the owner should receive forty minus one lashes and the forbidden act has consequences on the second animal, who becomes sanctified.  The Gemara uses this to disprove Rava's point of view.  Rava says that in this case, the Torah explicitly states that this will be the consequence of his action; there is no interpretation involved. 

The Sefat Emet teaches that the Gemara used this particular example to make a point about Rava's argument.  The law associated with temura is based on a forbidden act that happens; thus the law should be used as an archetype and we should derive a general principle from it. 

Rava believes that this case of temura is unique.  He argues that the Torah teaches that the forbidden act does not grant sanctity to the second animal.  Instead, it is the Biblical directive that sanctifies the second animal.  Rava believes that a forbidden act has no legal effect.