Temurah Chart #6
Chart for Temurah Daf 27a
THE FOUR QUESTIONS OF ABAYE (1)
| (A) ANIMALS OF KODESH |
(B) ANIMALS OF CHULIN |
||
| THE TEXT OF OUR GEMARA | |||
| 1 | FIRST QUESTION | 2 Ba'alei Mum | 2 Tamim (2) |
| 2 | SECOND QUESTION |
1 Tam 1 Ba'al Mum |
1 Tam 1 Ba'al Mum (3) |
| 3 | THIRD QUESTION | 2 Tamim 1 Ba'al Mum |
3 Tamim (4) |
| 4 | FOURTH QUESTION | 3 Tamim 1 Ba'al Mum |
4 Tamim (5) |
| LISHNA ACHARINA | |||
| 5 | FIRST QUESTION | 1 Tam 1 Ba'al Mum |
2 Tamim (6) |
| 6 | SECOND QUESTION | 1 Tam 1 Ba'al Mum |
3 Tamim (7) |
| 7 | THIRD QUESTION | 2 Tamim 1 Ba'al Mum |
3 Tamim (8) |
| 8 | FOURTH QUESTION | --- | --- |
Temurah Chart #2
Chart for Temurah Daf 27b
THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN REBBI YOCHANAN AND REISH LAKISH
| (A) REBBI YOCHANAN |
(B) REISH LAKISH |
||
| 1 | REBBI YONAH (9) | There is Bitul Mekach | There is no Bitul Mekach |
| 2a | REBBI YIRMIYAH (ACCORDING TO RASHI) (10) | The person presumably intended to mis-assess the item; hence the sale is valid | The person did not intend to mis-assess the item; hence the sale is invalid |
| 2b | REBBI YIRMIYAH (ACCORDING TO TOSFOS) (11) | Unintentional mis-assessment does not cause Bitul Mekach | Unintentional mis-assessment does cause Bitul Mekach |
| 3 | IY BA'IS EIMA (12) | There is no Ona'ah for Hekdesh | There is Ona'ah for Hekdesh |
==========
FOOTNOTES:
==========
(1) This chart is based on the words of Rashi and Rabeinu Gershom.
(2) The question is: When the person does not place his hand on either animal, do we assume he that he is using the word "Tachas" for its permitted usage (Chilul) rather than for its forbidden usage (Temurah)? (The question could also have been asked regarding a situation in which there is only one Ba'al Mum of Hekdesh and one Tam of Chulin, as Rashi (DH l'Atfusei) and Tosfos (DH Ba'i) point out.)
(3) The question is: If we assume that a person normally uses the word "Tachas" for its permitted usage (Chilul) rather than for its forbidden usage (Temurah; see above, footnote #2), do we also make that assumption even when we know that the person is also using the word for a forbidden usage (with regard to the Tam of Hekdesh, upon which Chilul cannot be performed)? (According to this version of the question, it is difficult why the Gemara mentions one Ba'al Mum of Chulin.)
(4) The question is: Do we assume that the person is making the Tamim animals of Hekdesh into Temuros (because he cannot perform Chilul on them), but on the Ba'al Mum he is performing Chilul (since we assume that a person wants to perform the permitted act rather than the forbidden one), or do we assume that since -- in this case -- the person is making most of the Hekdesh animals into Temuros (as opposed to the previous case (row 2, and footnote #3), he probably intends to make the minority (i.e. the Ba'al Mum) into a Temurah as well?
(5) The question is: If, in the previous (row 3, and footnote #4), we assume that the person is not making all of the Hekdesh animals into Temuros, because we assume that a person wants to perform the permitted act rather than the forbidden one (even though he is making most of them into Temuros), what do we assume in this case? Do we say that here, too, he does not intend to make a Temurah for the Ba'al Mum (since we assume that a person wants to perform the permitted act rather than the forbidden one), or do we say that since the person is "Muchzak" to make Temuros (that is, he is certainly making three of the four Hekdesh animals into Temuros), he is also making the Ba'al Mum of Hekdesh into a Temurah as well?
(6) See above, footnote #3. (The question according to this text, however, does not pose a problem as to why the Gemara mentions one Ba'al Mum of Chulin.)
(7) The question is: Perhaps in the first question (row 5), when the person placed his hands on the two animals of Chulin it is clear that he intends to make them Temuros, even though doing so is prohibited (as Rav Ashi said earlier). What, though, is the Halachah when the person places his hands on the three animals of Chulin? Do we assume that he is making the three animals into Temuros, since his hands were on the Chulin animals (as Rav Ashi stated), or do we assume that he meant to perform the act that is permitted (i.e. Chilul and not Temurah), and he placed his hands on the Chulin animals merely because they were more numerous than the Kodesh animals? (It is important to note that Rashi does not quote this part of the Lishna Acharina in full, causing considerable confusion as to his true intent.)
(8) The question is: Perhaps in the first question (row 5), when the person placed his hands on the two animals of Chulin, it is clear that he intends to make them Temuros, even though doing so is prohibited (as Rav Ashi said earlier). What, though, is the Halachah when the person lines up ("Rami Remuyei") each Kodesh animal opposite one Chulin animal? Will that make us change our assumption? In such a case, do we assume that the person's intention in lining up the animals is in order to denote that he is not performing the exact act with all of the pairs of animals (that is, with the Tamim of Hekdesh is making Temuros, but with the Ba'al Mum of Hekdesh he is performing Chilul), or do we assume that since he placed his hands on the Chulin animals and not on the Hekdesh animals, he intends to make all of them into Temuros?
(9) According to Rebbi Yonah, the argument is whether or not the law of Bitul Mekach applies to Hekdesh.
(10) According to Rebbi Yirmeyah (according to Rashi), everyone agrees that there the law of Bitul Mekach does not apply to Hekdesh. Rather, the argument is whether we assume that the person intentionally mis-assessed the value of the item.
(11) According to Rebbi Yirmeyah (according to Tosfos), the argument is whether or not an unintentional mis-assessment of value causes Bitul Mekach.
(12) According to this version, the argument is whether or not Ona'ah invalidates the sale of Hekdesh.