QUESTION: The Mishnah says that if one pledges to bring a bull as a Korban, and the bull then develops a blemish and becomes disqualified from being brought as a Korban, he may bring in its place two bulls which together equal the value of the one that became disqualified.

The Gemara (beginning of 108b) asks that this law seems to contradict the previous Mishnah (107b). The Mishnah there states that one who pledges to bring a bull worth one Manah may not bring two bulls worth the same as the one that he pledged. The Gemara answers that there is an important difference between the two cases of the Mishnah. The Mishnah here says that the person pledges to bring "this" bull. Once this bull becomes disqualified, the person has no further obligation to bring a Korban, since his pledge obligated him only to bring this bull. He may bring, therefore, the value of this bull (in the form of two bulls), since he has no real obligation anymore to fulfill his pledge. The previous Mishnah is discussing a case in which the person says that he is obligating himself to bring a bull worth one Manah, and he does not specify any particular bull. In that case, he is obligated to bring a bull worth one Manah, regardless of whether the animal he intended to bring becomes disqualified, and he cannot fulfill his obligation by bringing two bulls that together equal one Manah.

The Gemara's answer implies that it is preferable to bring one expensive animal as a Korban than to bring two animals that are each worth less, but together equal the same as the expensive animal. The Chachamim (who argue with Rebbi on 107b) maintain that one may fulfill his obligation to bring a Korban of lesser value by bringing a Korban of greater value. If it is preferable to bring two animals which together equal the value of one expensive animal, then even in the case of the previous Mishnah one should be able to fulfill his obligation with two animals that equal the value of the animal that he pledged.

However, the next Sugya contradicts this. The Mishnah states that one who brought two bulls that both became blemished may bring one bull that equals the value of the two blemished bulls. Rebbi argues that one may not replace the two bulls with a single bull of equal value. The Gemara explains that this is a case of switching a larger Korban for a smaller Korban, which Rebbi does not permit. Even though the Gemara before established that in the case of the Mishnah here there is no real obligation to replace the Korbanos, Rebbi argues that if one does want to replace them, then l'Chatchilah he should not replace them with a Korban of lesser value. RASHI (DH Gadol v'Havei Katan) explains that two animals are always better than one, which is why the two animals that were originally designated as Korbanos are considered a more preferable Korban than one expensive animal.

How can these two contradictory Sugyos be reconciled? What is considered a more preferable Korban -- one expensive animal or two inexpensive animals?

(a) The RASHASH discusses this apparent contradiction at length, and he concludes that it is more preferable to offer one expensive animal than to offer two less-expensive animals. What does the second Gemara mean when it says that two inexpensive animals are better than one expensive one? The Rashash answers that the Gemara there is merely suggesting a way to understand Rebbi before it is determine that he argues with the entire Mishnah. Once the Gemara concludes that Rebbi argues with the entire Mishnah, the Gemara returns to its position that the single, expensive Korban is greater.

The YAD BINYAMIN proves that the Rashash's conclusion is correct from the statement of Rav Menashya bar Zevid in the name of Rav later in the Gemara. Rav Menashya says in the name of Rav that when one declares, "This bull and its monetary value are upon me for an Olah," the Korban is "Hukva." Apparently, this means that the one who made the pledge may not bring two cheaper animals in place of the bull that he pledged. According to the Chachamim who maintain that one may bring a more expensive Korban than the one that was pledged, it is apparent that if two animals would be a more preferable Korban, they should still be acceptable! It is clear that Rav Menashya bar Zevid in the name of Rav maintains that one expensive animal is more preferable.

(b) The EIZEHU MEKOMAN explains that bringing two animals is better than bringing one expensive animal. Why, then, does the previous Mishnah say that one cannot fulfill his pledge to bring a bull worth one Manah by bringing two Korbanos that together are worth a Manah, even according to the Chachamim? He answers this question based on an intriguing Rashi on the previous Mishnah. Rashi (107b, DH Shor b'Manah) says that the reason why one may not bring two animals in place of one is "because the person set the [value of the] first bull at a Manah." Why does Rashi give that reason? The reason should be that by bringing two animals, one brings a Korban of a lower quality! Why does Rashi say that it is because the value of the animal that was pledged was set at one Manah? The two replacement animals are also worth a Manah!

The Eizehu Mekoman explains that Rashi's intention is as follows. The reason why the two animals may not be brought in place of the bull worth one Manah is not that they are considered a Korban of a lower quality, but that even the Chachamim maintain that when a person sets the monetary value of the Korban that he pledges, he cannot change it, even if he wants to bring a better Korban in its place. Moreover, the case in the previous Mishnah does not seem to be discussing the Halachah of bringing a lesser Korban, because that subject is discussed in the Mishnah before the argument about bringing a lesser or better Korban. (The Eizehu Mekoman says that he later saw this explanation in the SEFER YASHAR V'TOV (107b).) (Y. MONTROSE)

OPINIONS: In the first case of the Mishnah here, when one pledges one of his sheep or bulls to Hekdesh, and he has only two sheep or two bulls, he must give the larger one to Hekdesh. The reason for this presumably is that one who is Makdish an item does so "b'Ayin Yafah," generously, and therefore it is assumed that he meant to give the larger animal.

The Gemara asks that if the person must give the larger animal because of "b'Ayin Yafah Makdish," then what is the reasoning behind the law of the next case of the Mishnah? The Mishnah states that when the person has three animals, the middle animal is Hekdesh. Why is it not assumed that he meant to be Makdish the largest animal because of the principle of "b'Ayin Yafah Makdish"?

Shmuel answers that the Mishnah, in the second case, does not mean that the second animal is certainly Hekdesh. Rather, the Mishnah is saying that we must suspect that the middle animal is the one which the owner meant. We are unsure about whether he meant the largest animal because it is considered "b'Ayin Yafah Makdish," or he meant the middle-sized animal because it is larger than the smallest animal and thus is also considered "b'Ayin Yafah Makdish."

Accordingly, Rebbi Chiya explains, the owner of the animals should wait until the middle animal develops a blemish and transfer the Kedushah that it may have onto the largest animal, and bring the largest animal as the Korban.

How does this transferal of Kedushah take place?

(a) RASHI (DH u'Machil) says that if the middle animal indeed was made Hekdesh, then when the middle animal develops a blemish "he transfers its Kedushah to the largest animal." Rashi implies that the owner himself must actively transfer the Kedushah, just as he would actively transfer the Kedushah from any other animal which was designated to be a Korban and then developed a blemish.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 16:8) writes that "he should wait until the middle animal receives a blemish, and then the Kedushah will transfer to the largest animal alone." What does the Rambam mean when he says that "the Kedushah will transfer"?

1. The KESEF MISHNEH and MAHARI KURKUS explain that the Rambam disagrees with Rashi and maintains that the possible Kedushah automatically transfers from the middle animal to the largest animal, without any involvement from the owner. The Mahari Kurkus explains that the Rambam infers this from the Gemara. Shmuel says that "we suspect that the second animal is also Hekdesh." This implies that we assume that the animal which the owner intended to sanctify is the largest one, and there is merely a slight suspicion that he intended to give the middle. This is why this case differs from all of the other cases of a Korban that becomes blemished, where the Kedushah is transferred by itself. Applying this logic, the Mahari Kurkus states that if the largest animal develops a blemish, we do not say that the middle animal receives the rest of the Kedushah, since the largest animal is the real Korban, and not the middle animal. (The Mahari Kurkus concludes, however, that the simple meaning of the Gemara's words "u'Machil Lei l'Kedushasei" -- "and he transfers it from its Kedushah" -- supports the view of Rashi.)

The TOSFOS YOM TOV and TIFERES YISRAEL argue with the Mahari Kurkus' ruling in a case in which the largest animal develops a blemish. They assert that in such a case the animal's Kedushah may be transferred to the middle-sized animal. However, the owner must compensate for the difference in value between the middle-sized animal and the largest animal by bringing other Korbanos with that money. They do not accept the Mahari Kurkus' explanation that there is merely a small suspicion that the middle animal is Kadosh.

Although the Tiferes Yisrael clearly learns (like Rashi) that the Kedushah must actively be transferred by the owner, the view of the Tosfos Yom Tov in this matter is unclear. The KEREN ORAH (47b), who similarly maintains that the Kedushah can be transferred both from the middle-sized animal to the largest one, and from the largest animal to the middle-sized one (and who understands that the Rambam means that the transfer is automatic), explains that this is also the opinion of the Rambam. He explains that when there is only one animal left without a blemish, it becomes evident which animal is the true Korban, and the Kedushah automatically takes affect on that animal. (The EIZEHU MEKOMAN has difficulty with this explanation, because it seems to require the application of "Bereirah," and the Halachah is that Bereirah does not apply to a Halachah d'Oraisa.)

2. The SEFAS EMES maintains that the Rambam means (like Rashi) that the owner must transfer the Kedushah. It seems that the Sefas Emes is bothered by the simple interpretation of the text, and therefore he does not accept the explanation of the Kesef Mishneh, which he calls "Tamuha Tuva" ("very perplexing"). (Y. MONTROSE)