POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) WHAT MAKES TEMURAH
(a) (Beraisa): A female Olah, Pesach or Asham can make Temurah;
(b) R. Shimon says, a female Olah makes Temurah. A female Pesach or Asham does not make Temurah;
1. A Korban makes Temurah only if it (can be offered or) must be Ro'eh until it gets a Mum.
(c) Rebbi says, I disagree with R. Shimon regarding Pesach, for Mosar Pesach is Shelamim (which applies to females, therefore a female gets Kedushas ha'Guf).
(d) Question: Rebbi should disagree also regarding Asham, for Mosar Asham is offered for an Olah (and a female Olah gets Kedushas ha'Guf)!
(e) Answer: Rebbi holds like Chachamim, who say that Mosar Asham is Nidvas Tzibur, Temurah does not apply to Korbanos Tzibur (therefore, a female Asham does not make Temurah).
(f) We are thinking that R. Shimon holds that a female Olah makes Temurah because Shem Olah Al Imo, i.e. Olas ha'Of can be female.
(g) Question: If so, if a cow was Hukdash for Par Yom Kipur (which must be a male), it should get Kedushas ha'Guf, for a cow can be something else called Chatas, i.e. Parah Adumah!
(h) Answer: No. Parah Adumah is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which do not make Temurah.
(i) Questions: If a commoner was Makdish a male goat for his Chatas (which must be female), it should get Kedushas ha'Guf, for a Nasi brings a male for a Chatas;
1. Also, if a Nasi was Makdish a female (goat for his Chatas), it should get Kedushas ha'Guf, for a commoner brings a female!
(j) Answer: There, the animal Hukdash is not valid for that person.
(k) Question: If a commoner sinned and was appointed to be Nasi (he should bring a female), and he was Makdish a male, it should get Kedushas ha'Guf, for if he would sin now, he would bring a male!
(l) Answer: Right now, he did not sin yet, so he has no obligation to bring a male Chatas.
(m) Question: If so, why does a female Olah make Temurah? The Makdish is not obligated to bring Olas ha'Of!
(n) Answer: R. Shimon holds like R. Elazar ben Azaryah:
1. (Mishnah): If one said "Alai (it is incumbent on me to bring an) Olah," he must bring a lamb (or a bigger animal);
2. R. Elazar ben Azaryah says, he may bring a Tor or Ben Yonah (a bird).
(o) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If Reuven was Makdish his property and it included Behemos valid for Korbanos:
1. Males are sold (to be offered for Olos,) to people who need to bring Olos. Females are (similarly) sold to be (offered for) Shelamim. Their Damim and the rest of his property go to Bedek ha'Bayis;
2. R. Yehoshua says, males are themselves offered for Olos;
i. Females are sold to be Shelamim. The Damim is used to buy and offer Olos;
ii. The rest of his property goes to Bedek ha'Bayis.
(p) Version #1 - Question (R. Chiya bar Aba): Why does R. Yehoshua say that females be sold to be Shelamim, and we bring Olos with the Damim? They come from Kedushah Dechuyah! (They could not be offered for their initial Kedushah, i.e. Olah)!
(q) Version #2 - Question (R. Chiya bar Aba): Since R. Yehoshua says that males are themselves offered for Olos, this shows that Reuven wants to make Kedushas ha'Guf. We should say that females were Hukdash to be Shelamim. They should be Ro'eh! (end of Version #2)
(r) Answer (R. Yochanan): R. Yehoshua holds like R. Shimon, who says that anything that cannot be offered itself does not get Kedushas ha'Guf.
1. (Mishnah - R. Shimon): (A female Asham) may be sold without a Mum.
2. Since it itself cannot be offered, it does not get Kedushas ha'Guf.
(s) Question #1: R. Shimon said this regarding a female Asham, for Ein Shem Asham Al Imo. He would agree that a female Olah gets Kedushas ha'Guf, for Shem Olah Al Imo!
(t) Question #2: R. Shimon said (20a) that a female Olah makes Temurah!
(u) Answer (R. Yochanan): R. Yehoshua holds like R. Shimon according to a different Tana:
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Yehudah citing R. Shimon): Even if one was Makdish a female for an Olah, it does not make Temurah.
2) TEMURAS ASHAM AND ITS VLADOS
(a) (Mishnah): Temuras Asham and its Vlados for all generations must be Ro'eh. We bring Nedavah with the Damim;
(b) R. Eliezer says, they must die;
(c) R. Elazar says, (they are Ro'eh;) we bring Olos with the Damim.
(d) If the owner of an Asham died, or if he brought a different animal in place of it (because it was lost), the Asham is Ro'eh. We bring Nedavah with the Damim;
(e) R. Eliezer says, it must die;
(f) R. Elazar says, we bring Olah with the Damim.
(g) Question: Also Nedavah is an Olah. What do R. Elazar and the first Tana argue about?
(h) Answer: Olah is a Korban Yachid. The owner does Semichah and he himself brings the Nesachim. If he is a Kohen, he may offer it himself and keep the skin;
1. Nedavah is a Korban Tzibur. There is no Semichah, and the Tzibur brings the Nesachim. Even if the owner is a Kohen, the Mishmar offers it and keeps the skin.
(i) (Gemara): The argument must be taught in both cases:
1. Had we taught only about Asham she'Kipru Ba'aleha, one might have thought that when R. Eliezer says Tamus, this is a decree lest one bring an Olah (from the Asham's Damim) before (the other Asham was offered, i.e.) Kaparah;
2. Had we taught only about Temuras Asham, one might have thought that when Chachamim say that it is Ro'eh, Nedavah (Olah) is brought with its Damim, for there is no concern, but they would decree (like above) in the case of Asham she'Kipru Ba'aleha.
(j) (Rav Nachman): They argue (about Vlad Temuras Asham) only after Kaparah, but all agree that it may be offered for an Asham before Kaparah.
(k) Objection #1 (Rava): One may not get Kaparah through an Aveirah (Temurah)!
(l) Objection #2 (Rava): R. Chananya taught a Beraisa supporting R. Yehoshua ben Levi (who says that they argue only about Vlados, but all agree that Vladei Vlados are not offered. Vlad Temurah is two steps removed from the initial Hekdesh. I t is like Vlad Vlad!)
(m) These questions are left difficult.
(n) Question (R. Avin bar Chiya): May a Vlad Asham be offered for an Olah?
1. Question: We learn this from R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, who said that R. Elazar agrees that Vlad Asham may not be offered for an Olah!
2. Answer: He (and R. Avin bar Kahana, who answered him) had not heard R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's teaching.
(o) Answer (R. Avin bar Kahana): Yes, it may be offered.
(p) Objection (R. Avin bar Chiya): R. Elazar said only that Vlad Olah may be offered for an Olah, because Shem Olah Al Imo. This does not apply to Vlad Asham. He would admit that it may not be offered for an Olah!
(q) Answer (R. Avin bar Kahana): R. Elazar's reason is not because of Shem Olah Al Imo, but rather because the Vlad is valid for an Olah. The same applies to Vlad Asham.