1)

(a)What does our Mishnah say about a man or woman being Meimir (declaring a Temurah)?

(b)Does this mean that it is permitted to do so?

(c)What happens to someone who declares an animal a Temurah?

1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that - a man or woman can be Meimir (declare a Temurah) ...

(b)... not that it is permitted to do so - but that if one did, the Temurah takes effect.

(c)Someone who declares an animal a Temurah - receives Malkos.

2)

(a)The Reisha of our Mishnah seems to permit being Meimir, whereas the Seifa goes on to forbid it Lechatchilah, as we just explained. On what grounds do we refute the very suggestion that we can query the Reisha from the Seifa?

(b)So how do we explain the opening statement 'ha'Kol Mamirin'?

2)

(a)The Reisha of our Mishnah seems to permit being Meimir, whereas the Seifa goes on to forbid it Lechatchilah, as we just explained. We refute the very suggestion that we can query the Reisha from the Seifa - based on the fact that if there is a Kashya to be asked on the Reisha, then surely one ought to ask it from the Pasuk in Bechukosai, which specifies two La'avin for being Meimir "Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo Yamir Oso" (see Tosfos DH 've'Sofeg').

(b)We therefore explain the opening statement 'ha'Kol Mamirin' to mean that - anyone can create a Temurah with his declaration ... .

3)

(a)What does the word ha'Kol come to include?

(b)We establish our Mishnah not like Rebbi Yehudah. Besides Rebbi Meir's statement 'Yoresh Meimir', with which other ruling of Rebbi Meir does Rebbi Yehudah disagree?

(c)We explain that Rebbi Yehudah learns Techilas Hekdesh (Temurah) from Sof Hekdesh (Semichah). How will we reconcile this with the Sugya in Nazir, where it refers to Temurah as Sof Hekdesh?

(d)From which Pasuk in Vayikra does Rebbi Yehudah learn that an heir cannot perform Semichah?

3)

(a)'ha'Kol Mamirin' comes to include - Yoreish (the heir of the deceased owner of a Korban).

(b)We establish our Mishnah not like Rebbi Yehudah. Besides Rebbi Meir's statement 'Yoresh Meimir', Rebbi Yehudah also disagrees with his ruling 'Yoresh Somech'.

(c)We explain hat Rebbi Yehudah learns Techilas Hekdesh (Temurah) from Sof Hekdesh (Semichah). The Sugya in Nazir, which refers to Temurah as Sof Hekdesh - does so in contrast to the initial Hekdesh, but in contrast to Semichah, we refer to it as Techilas Hekdesh.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah learns that an heir cannot perform Semichah from the Pasuk in Vayikra - "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv'.

4)

(a)If the second of the three "Korbano" written in connection with Shelamim comes to preclude the Korban of a Nochri, what does the third one come to preclude?

(b)Rebbi Meir substitutes "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv' with "Korbano", 'Lerabos Kol Ba'alei Chovrin li'Semichah'. What does he mean by that?

(c)On what grounds does Rebbi Yehudah argue with him?

(d)Alternatively, he too, agrees that all the partners are Chayav to make Semichah, only he combines two of the three D'rashos of Rebbi Meir into one. Which two?

4)

(a)The second of the three "Korbano" written in connection with Shelamim comes to preclude the Korban of a Nochri, and the third one - to preclude Korban Chavero (the owner of the Korban must perform Semichah himself, and not through a Shali'ach).

(b)Rebbi Meir substitutes "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Aviv' with "Korbano", 'Lerabos kol Ba'alei Chovrin li'Semichah', by which he means that - all partners in a Korban are obligated to perform Semichah on it personally.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah argues with him - because, he says, it is illogical to include partners in the Din of Semichah, since none of them is the exclusive owner.

(d)Alternatively, he too, agrees that all the partners are Chayav to make Semichah, only he combines two of the three D'rashos of Rebbi Meir into one - Korban Akum (Nochri) and Korban Chavero (both of which convey the message that one cannot be a Shali'ach to perform Semichah for somebody else.

5)

(a)Why can we not learn from the third "Korbano" to preclude Nochrim from performing Semichah on their own Korbanos?

(b)Why, on the other hand, do we need a specific Pasuk to preclude Yoresh from Semichah? Why is he not included in "Korbano", 've'Lo Korban Chavero'?

5)

(a)We cannot learn from the third "Korbano" to preclude Nochrim from performing Semichah on their own Korbanos - since we know this already from Semuchin (the juxtaposition of the Pasuk in Vayikra "b'nei Yisrael" next to that of "ve'Samach", from which we learn that Yisrael perform Semichah, but not Nochrim.

(b)On the other hand, we need a specific Pasuk to preclude Yoresh from Semichah - because we would otherwise have thought that an heir is not considered Acher, but like the owner himself.

2b----------------------------------------2b

6)

(a)What does Rebbi Meir learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Im Hamer Yamir"?

(b)From where does he then learn that Yoresh Somech?

(c)Based on the Lashon of the Pasuk "Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo Yamir oso", what does Rebbi Yehudah learn from "ve'Im Hamir Yamir"?

(d)If Rebbi Meir learns Ishah from the 'Vav' in "ve'Im", what does Rebbi Yehudah learn from there?

6)

(a)Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Im Hamer Yamir" that - a Yoresh is Meimir.

(b)And he then learns that Yoresh Somech - from Temurah (Sof Hekdesh from Techilas Hekdesh).

(c)Based on the Lashon of the Pasuk "Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo Yamir oso" (which seems to be written specifically in the masculine to preclude women), Rebbi Yehudah learns from "ve'Im Hamir Yamir" - 'Lerabos es ha'Ishah li'Temurah'.

(d)Rebbi Meir learns Ishah from the 'Vav' in "ve'Im" - whereas Rebbi Yehudah learns nothing from it, since according to him, it is not superfluous.

7)

(a)What does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, as well as Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Ish O Ishah ki Ya'aseh mi'Kol Chatos ha'Adam"?

(b)What problem does this create with both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah?

(c)How do we answer the Kashya? Why can we not learn Temurah from other cases?

7)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, as well as Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, learns from the Pasuk in Naso "Ish O Ishah ki Ya'aseh mi'Kol Chatos ha'Adam" that - women are subject to all punishments (Malkos of Chayvei La'avin) just like men.

(b)The problem this creates with both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah is that - if not for the respective Pesukim that they quote, they would both agree that a woman who declares a Temurah is Patur from Malkos, in seeming contrast to the Beraisa?

(c)We answer by pointing out that one cannot learn Temurah from other cases - because the La'av of Temurah is anyway Eino Shaveh ba'Kol (not applicable across the board) since it does not apply to a Tzibur or to Shutfin (partners).

8)

(a)Rami bar Chama asks whether a Katan can be Meimir. Why can he not be referring to a Katan who has not reached the stage of Nedarim (Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish)? What constitutes a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish?

(b)On the one hand, we say, since he can be Makdish, perhaps he can also be Meimir. Why, on the other hand, based on the Pasuk "Lo Yachlifenu ... Vehayah hu u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh", might he (a 'Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish') not be able to be Meimar?

(c)We ask whether, assuming the Temurah of a Mufla ... is effective, a Nochri (who can also be Makdish) can be Matfis Temurah as well. From where do we know that he can be Makdish?

(d)Why, on the other hand, might he not be able to be Meimir, even though a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish is?

8)

(a)Rami bar Chama asks whether a Katan can be Meimir. He cannot be referring to a Katan who has not reached the stage of Nedarim (a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish) - twelve if he understands in whose honor he is making the Neder), since he cannot even be Makdish an animal to begin with, let alone be Meimir.

(b)On the one hand, we say, since he (a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish) can be Makdish, perhaps he can also be Meimar. On the other hand, he might not be able to - since the Torah writes "Lo Yachlifenu ... Vehayah hu u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh", in which we might extrapolate that whoever is subject to "Lo Yachlifenu ... " (Malkos), is subject to "Vehayah hu u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh" (his Temurah is effective), whereas whoever is not subject to the one, is not subject to the other either.

(c)We ask whether, assuming that the Temurah of a Mufla ... is effective, a Nochri (who can also be Makdish) can be Matfis Temurah as well. We know that he can be Makdish - from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Ish Ish mi'Beis Yisrael asher Yakriv ... ".

(d)On the other hand, he might not be able to be Meimir, even though a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish is - because unlike the latter, he will never enter the realm of punishments.

9)

(a)Rava resolves the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which discusses Kodshim of a Nochri. What does Rebbi Shimon there say about ...

1. ... deriving benefit from them, or being Mo'el if one did?

2. ... their being subject to Pigul, Nosar or Tum'ah?

3. ... their being subject to Temurah?

(b)What does he mean when he says 've'Ein Mevi'in Nesachim, Aval Korbano Ta'un Nesachim'?

(c)And to what is Rebbi Yossi referring when he says 'be'Chulan Ani Ro'eh Lehachmir'? With which of the two above rulings does he disagree?

(d)Which of Rebbi Shimon's above Halachos applies only to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but not to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis?

9)

(a)Rava resolves the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which discusses Kodshim of a Nochri. Rebbi Shimon rules there that ...

1. ... one may not derive benefit from them, but one is not Chayav Me'ilah if one did.

2. ... they are not subject to Pigul, Nosar, Tum'ah ...

3. ... or Temurah.

(b)When he says 've'Ein Mevi'in Nesachim, Aval Korbano Ta'un Nesachim', he means that - even though a Nochri cannot bring Nesachim on their own (like a Yisrael can), his Korbanos nevertheless require Nesachim.

(c)And when Rebbi Yossi says 'be'Chulan Ani Ro'eh Lehachmir' - he is referring to Rebbi Shimon's rulings 'Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin' and 'Ein Chayavin aleihem Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei'.

(d)Rebbi Shimon's ruling - 'Lo Mo'alin' applies only to Kodshei Mizbe'ach of a Nochri, but not to his Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which are subject to Me'ilah.

10)

(a)Rami bar Chama however, was not perturbed by Rava's proof. Why is that? In what case does the Beraisa not consider the Temurah of a Nochri effective, and in what case does he nevertheless think that perhaps it is?

(b)What are then the two sides of his She'eilah?

(c)We try to resolve the She'eilah from a ruling of Rebbi Avahu. What did Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about Reuven who is Makdish an animal, or who separates Terumah on behalf of Shimon? Who, in the first case ...

1. ... pays the Chomesh?

2. ... can be Meimir?

3. ... has the Tovas Hana'ah (the right to choose to which Kohen to give it, and to receive the money should a Yisrael offer him a Sela to give it to his daughter's son who is a Kohen) in the second case?

(d)How does Rami bar Chama reject this proof too? Why might even the Miskaper's Temurah not be effective on an animal that a Nochri designated on his behalf?

(e)What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

10)

(a)Rami bar Chama however, was not perturbed by Rava's proof, because the Beraisa, which does not consider the Temurah of a Nochri effective - is speaking about a Nochri who declares a Temurah on his own Korban, whereas his She'eilah was asked with reference to where he declares a Korban on behalf of a Yisrael, which might well be effective in spite of the Beraisa.

(b)And the two sides of his She'eilah are - whether we go after the one who is declaring the Temurah (the Nochri) or the one who will be atoned for by the Korban (the Yisrael).

(c)We try to resolve the She'eilah from a ruling of Rebbi Avahu, who said in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that if Reuven is Makdish an animal, or separates Terumah on behalf of Shimon, regarding the first case, it is ...

1. ... Reuven who pays the Chomesh.

2. ... Shimon who can be Meimir.

3. ... Reuven who has the Tovas Hana'ah (the right to choose to which Kohen to give it, and to receive the money should a Yisrael offer him a Sela to give it to his daughter's son who is a Kohen) in the second case.

(d)Rami bar Chama rejects this proof too however, inasmuch as there - both parties are Yisre'elim, and the beginning and the end are in the domain of a Yisrael, whereas in his case, perhaps even the Miskaper's Temurah may not be effective, since the beginning was in the hands of a Nochri.

(e)The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF