allen schuldenfrei asks:

I'm wondering whether a mistake may have been made concerning the bottom hebrew chart on the 1st page of temurah daf ches.

If I understand the gemara correctly, according to abba yosi's understanding of R' Yosi Haglili's position, only the bechor (middle column) is consdiered "mammon baalim" and therefore he would have to pay; while the shelamim is NOT considered "mammon baalim" and you would NOT have to pay. If my understanding is correct, then the bottom row is wrong both for the shelamim column and for the bechor column.

The gemara at this point is asking a question on Rav Nachman. Simply understood, the question is based on Abba Yosi's statment in the beraisa. Isn't it true that the same question on Rav Nachman can also be asked from Ben Azzai's statement as well?

Thank you.

allen schuldenfrei, baltimore, maryland usa

The Kollel replies:

1) Yes, Allen, you are right. On the bottom row of the chart, dealing with Abba Yosi according to Ben Azai, the shlamim column has accidentally got switched around with the bechor column.

What you write is stated in Rashi 8a DH Lo Amar that according to Abba Yosi Shelamim is not his mamon and only bechor is his mamon.

2) Yes I also agree with you that the same question on Rav Nachman can be asked from Ben Azai's statement.

(a)The proof for this is from the Gemara Baba Kama 13a which states that when Ben Azai said that the kodashim kalim referred to in the Beraita come to include Shelamim this can not mean that ben Azai is excluding Bechor because Shelamim possess greater kedusha than bechor since there are several mitzvot of korbanot which apply to shelamim but do not apply to bechor (Semichah, Nesachim, Tenufah). It follows that if shelamom are mamon baalim then bechor is certainly mamon baalim. The Gemara Baba Kama concludes that Ben Azai is coming to exclude Maaser which is not mamon baalim.

(b) You refer to Abba Yosi's understanding of R. Yosi Hagalili's position but I would suggest that it will be clearer if we call this Abba Yosi's understanding of Ben Azai's position.

Now according to the Gemara Baba Kama, Ben Azai (according to the first version of his opinion) maintains that both shelamim and bechor are mamon baalim whilst Abba Yosi according to Ben Azai maintains that only bechor is mamon baalim because bechor possesses less kedusha than shelamim. We observe that both versions of Ben Azai's opinion agree that bechor is mamon baalim. The Gemara concludes in Temurah 8a that this is referring to a Bechor Tam in the time of the Beit Hamikdash and we see that this kind of bechor is also mamon baalim.

(c) Therefore the question of the Gemara on Rav Nachman applies according to both versions of Ben Azai's opinion because Rav Nachman said that in the time of the Beit Hamikdash a Bechor Tam cannot be sold because the Cohen has no mamon rights in it, as Rashi 7b DH Ein Mochrin writes. In other words Rav Nachman said that bechor is not mamon baalim, so the Gemara asks on this from both versions of Ben Azai that bechor is mamon baalim.


Dovid Bloom