TEMURAH 27 (14 Av 5779) - Dedicated by Rabbi Kornfeld and family in honor of the marriage of his daughter Sarah to David Tzvi Formal. May they build together a Bayis Ne'eman b'Yisrael, raising children and grandchildren to a life of Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!

1)

(a)Abaye asked what the Din will be if someone who has before him two Hekdesh animals that are Ba'alei-Mumin and two Chulin Tam animals, and who, without placing his hands on either of them, declares 'Harei Eilu Tachas Eilu'. What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(b)Why would we prefer him to have in mind 'le'Achuli'?

(c)Why did Abaye ask the She'eilah with regard to two Hekdesh animals and two Chulin ones, bearing in mind that the same She'eilah would be applicable if there was only one of each?

1)

(a)Abaye asked what the Din will be if someone who has before him two Hekdesh animals that are Ba'alei-Mumin and two Chulin Tam animals, and who, without placing his hands on either of them, declares 'Harei Eilu Tachas Eilu' - whether he means to be Matfis (Le'Atfusi) the Chulin animals on the Hekdesh ones, or to be Mechalel (Le'Achuli) the Kodshim ones on the Chulin ones.

(b)We would prefer him to have in mind le'Achuli - which is permitted (whereas le'Atfusi is subject to Malkos).

(c)Despite the fact that the same She'eilah would be applicable if there was only one of each, Abaye asked the She'eilah with regard to two Hekdesh animals and two Chulin ones - because of the series of She'eilos which follows (that only apply to at least two Hekdesh and two Chulin animals).

2)

(a)Abaye then repeats the same She'eilah, but where one of the Hekdesh animals and one of the Chulin animals is a Ba'al-Mum. What must he then hold with regard to the previous She'eilah?

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

(c)Why can ...

1. ... 'Temimah Tachas Temimah' only be le'Atfusi?

2. ... 'Ba'alas-Mum Tachas Ba'alas-Mum only be le'Achuli?

(d)Why might this case be worse than the previous one?

2)

(a)Abaye now repeats the same She'eilah, but where one of the Hekdesh animals and one of the Chulin animals is a Ba'alas-Mum. Abaye now assumes that a person will not sin if he can achieve the same results without sinning, in which case in the previous She'eilah, he must have meant le'Achuli ...

(b)... and the She'eilah is - whether he means to be Matfis the Temimah on the Temimah and Mechalel the Ba'alas-Mum on the Ba'alas-Mum, or to be Matfis the Temimah on the Ba'alas-Mum and the Ba'alas-Mum on the Temimah (see also Hagahos ha'Gra).

(c)The reason that ...

1. ... 'Temimah Tachas Temimah' can only be le'Atfusi is - because one cannot redeem Temimim.

2. ... 'Ba'alas-Mum Tachas Ba'alas-Mum can only be le'Achuli - is because the Torah writes "Tov be'Ra O Ra be'Tov" (but not 'Ra be'Ra').

(d)This case might be worse than the previous one - because Mah Nafshach, one of the declarations must be le'Atfusi (so maybe the other one is, too).

3)

(a)Still assuming that a person will not sin if he can achieve the same results without sinning, Abaye asks a third She'eilah, in a case where one of three Hekdesh animals is a Ba'alas-Mum, and the three Chulin animals are Temimos. Why might he concede here, that all three animals, even the Ba'alas-Mum, are le'Atfusi?

(b)Finally, Rav Ashi asks exactly the same She'eilah as Abaye's previous one, only where there are not three animals of both Hekdesh and three of Chulin, but four. What does Rav Ashi assume regarding the previous She'eilah?

(c)And what makes him think that the Halachah here will be any different?

(d)What is the outcome of all the She'eilos?

3)

(a)Still assuming that a person will not sin if he can achieve the same results without sinning, Abaye asks a third She'eilah, in a case where one of three Hekdesh animals is a Ba'alas-Mum, and the three Chulin animals are Temimos. He might concede here, that all three animals, even the Ba'alas-Mum, are le'Atfusi - since, regarding the other two animals, he certainly sinned, and if two out of three cases are le'Atfusi, it is likely that the third case is too.

(b)Finally, Rav Ashi asks exactly the same She'eilah as Abaye's previous one, only where there are not three animals of both Hekdesh and three of Chulin, but four. Assuming that in the previous She'eilah, he did not sin (in spite of the majority) ...

(c)... and perhaps (even though we do not go after the majority in this regard) where there are three animals which are definitely le'Atfusi, we will go after the Chazakah, and assume that the fourth animal is le'Atfusi, too.

(d)The outcome of all the She'eilos is - Teiku.

4)

(a)Regarding our Mishnah 'Im Haysah Hekdesh Ba'alas-Mum Yotzei le'Chulin, ve'Tzarich La'asos Damim', Rebbi Yochanan explains 'Yotzei le'Chulin' d'Oraysa, ve'Tzarich La'asos Damim', mi'de'Rabbanan'. What does Resh Lakish say?

(b)We cannot attribute the Mishnah's reason (for the assessment) to the Din of Ona'ah (where Hekdesh is losing one sixth), because of the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a. What does the Tana there say about Avadim, Karka'os, Sh'taros and Hekdeshos with regard to Ona'ah?

(c)Neither can it refer to Bitul Mekach, due to a Machlokes there between Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rebbi Yonah in the name of their Rebbe. Who was their Rebbe?

4)

(a)Regarding our Mishnah 'Im Haysah Hekdesh Ba'alas-Mum Yotzei le'Chulin, ve'Tzarich La'asos Damim'. Rebbi Yochanan explains 'Yotzei le'Chulin' d'Oraysa, ve'Tzarich La'asos Damim, mi'de'Rabbanan' whereas according to Resh Lakish - both are d'Oraysa.

(b)We cannot attribute the Mishnah's reason (for the assessment) to the Din of Ona'ah (where Hekdesh is losing one sixth), because of the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, where the Tana specifically states that Avadim, Karka'os, Sh'taros and Hekdeshos - are not subject to Ona'ah.

(c)Neither can it refer to Bitul Mekach, due to a Machlokes there between Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rebbi Yonah in the name of their Rebbe - Rebbi Yochanan.

5)

(a)With regard to the same Mishnah, they both comment 'Ona'ah Ein lahem, Bitul Mekach Yesh lahem'. What is the difference between Ona'ah and Bitul Mekach?

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah says this with reference to Karka of Chulin. What does Rebbi Yonah say it with reference to?

5)

(a)With regard to the same Mishnah they both comment 'Ona'ah Ein lahem, Bitul Mekach Yesh lahem'. Ona'ah refers to - a discrepancy of exactly a sixth (a fifth according to our way of reckoning), requiring the difference to be returned; Bitul Mekach, to - more than a sixth, which renders the entire transaction null and void.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah says this with reference to Karka of Chulin; Rebbi Yonah with reference to - all Hekdesh.

27b----------------------------------------27b

6)

(a)We initially try to establish our Mishnah by Bitul Mekach. How do we then reconcile Rebbi Yochanan's opinion here ('mi'Divreihem') with Rebbi Yonah in his name ('Bitul Mekach Yesh Lahem')?

(b)Why is this answer problematic?

(c)So how will Rebbi Yirmiyah explain ...

1. ... the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish?

2. ... our Mishnah, according to Rebbi Yochanan?

6)

(a)Initially, we try to establish our Mishnah by Bitul Mekach, reconciling Rebbi Yochanan's opinion here ('ve'Tzarich La'asos Damim mi'Divreihem') with Rebbi Yonah in his name ('Bitul Mekach Yesh lahem') - by switching his opinion with that of Resh Lakish, so that he will now hold ... d'Oraysa).

(b)This answer is problematic in that - according to Rebbi Yirmiyah, who confines their Machlokes to Karka'os de'Chulin (but that as far as Hekdesh is concerned, Rebbi Yochanan concedes that it is not subject to Bitul Mekach), switching the opinions will merely create a new problem.

(c)Rebbi Yirmiyah will therefore explain ...

1. ... the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - as it appears originally.

2. ... our Mishnah, according to Rebbi Yochanan - with regard to Bitul Mekach (which according to Rebbi Yochanan, does not apply to Hekdesh any more than Ona'ah does).

7)

(a)According to our current interpretation of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan (mi'de'Rabbanan) and Resh Lakish (d'Oraysa), we try to connect it with a statement by Shmuel. What does Shmuel say about a Manah's-worth of Hekdesh that one redeemed on a Perutah?

(b)How do we try to establish the Machlokes accordingly?

(c)How do we reconcile Resh Lakish with Shmuel, as well as with our Mishnah?

(d)Alternatively, we leave Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish intact, even according to Rebbi Yonah, and our Mishnah refers to Ona'ah (not Bitul Mekach). As for the Kashya from the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, we interpret "Ish es Achiv" (the source from which the Tana precludes Hekdesh from Ona'ah), like Rav Chisda. How does Rav Chisda interpret the Limud from there?

7)

(a)According to our current interpretation of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan (mi'de'Rabbanan) and Resh Lakish (d'Oraysa), we try to connect it with a statement by Shmuel, who rules, that if someone redeems a Manah's-worth of Hekdesh for a P'rutah - his transaction is valid.

(b)We therefore suggest that - Rebbi Yochanan concurs with Shmuel, whereas Resh Lakish does not.

(c)We reconcile Resh Lakish with Shmuel however - by establishing Shmuel (according to him) where he intended to redeem a Manah's-worth for a P'rutah, but not where he intended to redeem it according to its value, which is how our Mishnah speaks.

(d)Alternatively, we leave Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish intact, even according to Rebbi Yonah, and our Mishnah refers to Ona'ah (not Bitul Mekach). As for the Kashya from the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, we interpret "Ish es Achiv" (the source from which the Tana precludes Hekdesh from Ona'ah), like Rav Chisda, who learns from there to preclude Hekdesh not from Ona'ah, but) - from the Din of Ona'ah, inasmuch as it applies even to less than a sixth (and the difference must be returned).

8)

(a)What distinction does Ula draw between where the initial assessment of a Hekdesh Ba'al-Mum was performed by two people and where it was performed by three?

(b)What does he say in a case where three people assessed the animal at a sixth less than its market value, and a hundred subsequently reassessed it correctly?

(c)We query this however, from a statement by Rav Safra. What did Rav Safra say to qualify the principle Two is like a hundred?

(d)What else do we ask from a logical standpoint, even if it a matter of three against three?

8)

(a)Ula restricts the ruling in our Mishnah (of a Hekdesh Ba'al-Mum requiring assessment) to where the initial assessment was performed by two people - but where it was performed by three, it is not necessary to reassess it (and the owner is no longer liable to pay the difference) ...

(b)... even in a case where three people assessed it at a sixth less than its market value, and a hundred subsequently reassessed it correctly.

(c)We query this however, from a statement by Rav Safra, who qualifies the principle Two is like a hundred - confining it to Eidus (testimony), but when it comes to assessment, we always follow the majority opinion.

(d)We also query it from a logical standpoint, even if it a matter of three against three, inasmuch as - one ought to go after the second opinion (which assessed the animal at a higher price, in order to save Hekdesh a loss, as we generally do).

9)

(a)How does Ula answer these questions? Why does he nevertheless maintain that we do not negate the assessment of the three even against a hundred?

9)

(a)Ula nevertheless maintains that we do not negate the assessment of the three people, even against a hundred - because, as Rebbi Yochanan holds, the assessment is only mi'de'Rabbanan to begin with, and the Chachamim did not obligate the owner to go any further (than assessing the animal in front of a Beis-Din).

10)

(a)What does our Mishnah rule in a case where the owner declares ...

1. ... 'Zu Tachas Olah' or 'Zu Tachas Chatas', assuming that the Olah or Chatas is standing in front of him?

2. ... 'Zu Tachas Chatas Zu' or 'Tachas Olah Zu'?

3. ... 'Zu Tachas Chatas ve'Olah she'Yesh li ba'Bayis'? Under which circumstances will his words take effect?

(b)What distinction does the Tana draw between someone who declares, with reference to a Beheimah Teme'ah or a Ba'alas-Mum, 'Harei Eilu Olah' on the one hand, and 'Harei Eilu le'Olah' on the other?

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes our Mishnah not like Rebbi Meir. What does Rebbi Meir say about someone who is Ma'arich a baby of less than a month old?

(d)Why is that?

(e)With which case in our Mishnah then, does he disagree?

10)

(a)Our Mishnah rules, in a case where the owner declares ...

1. ... 'Zu Tachas Olah' or 'Zu Tachas Chatas' (assuming the Olah or Chatas is standing in front of him) that - his declaration is invalid.

2. ... 'Zu Tachas Chatas Zu' or Tachas Olah Zu' - that it is valid.

3. ... 'Zu Tachas Chatas ve'Olah she'Yesh li ba'Bayis' that - provided he does indeed possess such a Korban at home, his declaration is valid.

(b)With reference to a Beheimah Teme'ah or a Ba'alas-Mum - the Tana invalidates the declaration 'Harei Eilu Olah', but validates 'Harei Eilu le'Olah'.

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes our Mishnah not like Rebbi Meir, who rules that - someone who is Ma'arich a baby of less than a month old - must pay his Damim to Hekdesh ...

(d)... because of the principle 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah', in which case ...

(e)... he will issue a similar ruling in the opening case in our Mishnah ('Harei Zu Tachas Olah').

11)

(a)What do we extrapolate from the final case in our Mishnah 'Beheimah Temei'ah u'Ba'alas-Mum ... Harei Eilu le'Olah, Yimachru ... '? Why would 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham' be different?

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav therefore establishes our Mishnah not like Rebbi Shimon. What does Rebbi Shimon rule, in the third Perek, in this very case?

11)

(a)We extrapolate from the final case in our Mishnah 'Beheimah Temei'ah u'Ba'alas-Mum ... Harei Eilu le'Olah, Yimachru ... ' that - Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham, which (unlike the cases in the Mishnah) is eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach, will require a Mum before being sold.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav therefore establishes our Mishnah not like Rebbi Shimon - who specifically rules in the Mishnah in the third Perek 'Timacher she'Lo be'Mum'.

Hadran alach 'Keitzad Ma'amirin'

Perek Kol ha'Asurin

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF