ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(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 does declare an animal a Temurah - receives Malkos.
(a) The Reisha of our Mishnah seems to permit being Meimir, whereas the Seifa goes on to forbid it Lechatchilah as we explained. We refute the very suggestion that one can ask on the Reisha from the Seifa - on the basis of 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 ... .
(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) Rebbi Yehudah, we explain, 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'.
(a) If the second of the three "Korbano" written in connection with Shelamim comes to preclude the Korban of a Nochri, and the third - to preclude Korban Chavero (i.e. 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 that - 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 (i.e. Nochri) and Korban Chavero (both of which convey the message that one cannot be a Shali'ach to perform Semichah for somebody else.
(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.
(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.
(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 Chatas ha'Adam" - that women are subject to all punishments (e.g. 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, in seeming contrast to the Beraisa, they would both agree that a woman who declares a Temurah is Patur from Malkos.
(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).
(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 (known as 'Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish' [thirteen for an average child, twelve for one who understands in whose honor he is making a 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 ... " (i.e. Malkos), is subject to "Vehayah hu u'Semuraso Yih'yeh Kodesh" (i.e. his Temurah is effective), and whoever is not, not.
(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.
(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) And 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 Korban nevertheless requires Nesachim.
(c) 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.
(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 n animal declared 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, 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').