1) THE DISPUTE BETWEEN REBBI SHIMON AND THE CHACHAMIM
OPINIONS: The Chachamim in the Mishnah maintain that one may make Temurah from, and to, multiple animals. One can make one animal of Chulin by using two or more animals of Hekdesh, and one can make two or more animals of Chulin become Temurah by using just one animal of Hekdesh. Rebbi Shimon disagrees and maintains that Temurah can be made only from one animal of Hekdesh to one animal of Chulin. Rebbi Shimon supports his view from the verse, "v'Hayah Hu u'Semuraso Yiheyeh Kodesh" -- "and it and its Temurah will be Kodesh" (Vayikra 27:10). Just as "Hu" implies one animal, the Temurah must be one animal.
RASHI (from DH v'Ha Ta'amei until the end of the page) and TOSFOS (DH v'Ha) present two versions of the beginning of the Gemara which discusses the dispute in the Mishnah. Their first version is similar to that of our text of the Gemara, but their second version is significantly different.
(a) In our text of the Gemara, the Gemara quotes a Beraisa that records the same dispute as the one in the Mishnah, but it gives a different source for the views of the Chachamim and Rebbi Shimon. The Beraisa says that each Tana derives his opinion from the words, "[v'Im Hamer Yamir] Behemah bi'Vehemah" -- "[if you do exchange] an animal [of Kodesh] for another animal [that is not Kodesh]" (Vayikra 27:10). The Chachamim assert that the word "Behemah" implies multiple animals. Rebbi Shimon argues that the verse clearly indicates that Temurah is done with only one animal, and it never involves more than one animal of either Hekdesh or Chulin. The Chachamim reject this argument by pointing out that the word "Behemah" indeed connotes more than one animal, as in the verse "u'Vehemah Rabah" -- "and many animals" (Yonah 4:11). Rebbi Shimon responds that the word "Rabah" in that verse alters the meaning of "Behemah"; the word "Behemah" alone never connotes multiple animals.
The Gemara then asks, what is the real source for Rebbi Shimon's opinion? Is it really the word "Behemah" in the verse? If it is, then why does the Mishnah say that his source is the phrase, "Hu u'Semuraso," which implies that Temurah is made with only one animal of Chulin and one animal of Hekdesh?
Reish Lakish answers that the verse quoted by the Mishnah ("Hu u'Semuraso") is the real source for Rebbi Shimon's view. Rebbi Shimon requires the verse of "Behemah" only to teach that one may use the same animal of Hekdesh in multiple acts of Temurah (each of which involves only one animal of Chulin and one animal of Hekdesh).
Tosfos rejects this text. How can Reish Lakish say that Rebbi Shimon learns that one can make Temurah many times with the same animal from "Behemah"? Rebbi Shimon's words in the Beraisa clearly imply that only one Temurah animal is being discussed in the verse, not multiple animals.
(b) In the second version, the Gemara begins by saying that Rebbi Shimon told the Chachamim his Derashah of "Hu u'Semuraso," which implies that Temurah can be made only with one animal of Chulin and one animal of Hekdesh. The Chachamim rejoined that the verse of "Behemah" teaches that multiple animals can be used for Temurah, since the word "Behemah" implies many animals, as is evident from the verse in Yonah (4:11). Rebbi Shimon says that, on the contrary, the verse in Yonah is a proof to his position, because only when the word "Rabah" is used does it mean multiple animals; "Behemah" alone indicates only one animal.
At this point, the Gemara's discussion ends, and Reish Lakish begins a new, but related, topic. Reish Lakish says that Rebbi Shimon agrees that one may use the same Hekdesh animal in many Temurah transactions, as long as each one involves only one animal of Hekdesh and one animal of Chulin.
It is apparent that the first version is more consistent with our text. However, the second version of the Gemara contains two lines of our text (the two lines before Reish Lakish's comment) which are missing from the first version. In fact, our text of the Gemara seems to be a third version that is not discussed by Rashi or Tosfos!
(c) The text of our Gemara is the same as the first version (in (a) above) until the answer of Reish Lakish. At that point, our text includes the answer that Rebbi Shimon's source is "Hu u'Semuraso." When the Chachamim mention "Behemah bi'Vehemah," Rebbi Shimon says that this is not a proof against his position, but rather it is a support to his position. Reish Lakish then begins a new topic and teaches that Rebbi Shimon agrees that one may make multiple Temuros with the same Hekdesh animal (as long as each act involves only one animal of Hekdesh and one animal of Chulin). (Y. MONTROSE)
2) THE SOURCE FOR REBBI SHIMON'S OPINION
QUESTION: The Gemara points out an apparent contradiction. In the Mishnah, Rebbi Shimon's source that one may make a Temurah only from one animal of Hekdesh to one animal of Chulin (and one cannot make multiple animals of Chulin become Temurah from one animal of Hekdesh, or make one animal of Chulin become Temurah from two animals of Hekdesh) is the verse, "v'Hayah Hu u'Semuraso" (Vayikra 27:10). In the Beraisa, however, Rebbi Shimon's source for this ruling is the word, "Behemah."
Reish Lakish answers this question. RASHI offers two explanations for Reish Lakish's answer (see previous Insight). According to his first explanation, Reish Lakish answers that Rebbi Shimon learns from "Behemah" that the rule that one cannot make one animal into a Temurah for two animals (or vice versa) is limited to a situation in which both Temuros are being made at once. If one makes a single animal Temurah for a Korban, and then later he makes another animal Temurah for the same Korban, then both are Temuros. According to this explanation of Reish Lakish's answer, the words in the Gemara from "me'Ikara" until "Ta'ama Didi" should be omitted (Hagahos ha'Gra #3).
In his second explanation of the answer, Rashi accepts the Girsa as it appears in our text. He explains that the Gemara means that Rebbi Shimon learns his Halachah from "Behemah" only as a rejoinder to those who argue with him on the basis of that word. His real source for this Halachah is the verse, "Hu u'Semuraso."
According to both explanations, why does Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah need to learn his Halachah from "Hu u'Semuraso"? The word "Behemah" should suffice to teach this law.
ANSWER: Perhaps even Rebbi Shimon is not certain that the word "Behemah" (as opposed to "Behemah Rabah," as the Gemara discusses) is always singular and means only one animal. It may be that Rebbi Shimon knows that "Behemah" is singular in this verse only because he learns from the words "Hu u'Semuraso" that Temurah is limited to a single animal. (This is similar to the approach of TOSFOS in Zevachim 77b, DH Odu.) (M. KORNFELD)
3) DOES REBBI AVIN AGREE WITH THE LAW OF REBBI YEHOSHUA BEN LEVI?
QUESTION: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi who rules that only when one redeems an original item of Hekdesh must he add a Chomesh (fifth) to its value. When he redeems an item which itself was used to redeem an item of Hekdesh, he does not add a Chomesh.
The Gemara then quotes Rebbi Avin who asks a question, the intention of which is not clear. The Gemara proposes that Rebbi Avin's question involves the following case. A person owned a Korban Asham which became blemished. He subsequently transferred the Kedushah of the Asham (while adding a Chomesh) to a second animal. This second animal also received a Mum, and the owner transferred the Kedushah of that animal as well to a different animal to fulfill his obligation to bring an Asham. Does the person now need to pay a Chomesh for redeeming the second animal? Do we say that since the Kedushah is the same as the first Asham (Kedushah Achas) for which he already paid a Chomesh, he no longer needs to pay a Chomesh, or do we say that since these are two different animals (Shnei Gufin), he must pay a Chomesh to redeem the second animal just as he paid a Chomesh to redeem the first animal?
The question, according to this explanation, seems strange. The Gemara just discussed the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the owner pays a Chomesh only when he redeems the original item that he made Hekdesh, and not for any secondary items of Hekdesh. Why should the Gemara assume that Rebbi Avin might be arguing with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi?
(a) RASHI (DH Iy Shnei Gufin) explains that there is a difference between the two cases. In Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's case, the person does not add a different degree of Kedushah when he is Makdish the second animal. Rashi explains the specific case to be one in which a person was Makdish an animal which was a Ba'al Mum to Bedek ha'Bayis, and then he transferred the Hekdesh onto another Ba'al Mum. The second animal is not redeemed with a Chomesh.
In contrast, Rebbi Avin's question involves a case in which the animal was fit originally to be offered as a Korban but then it became a Ba'al Mum (after it was made Hekdesh). When the owner transfers the Kedushah onto an animal which is fit for a Korban, he elevates the Kedushah of the first animal, which was unable to be brought as a Korban, to an animal which now may be brought as a Korban. The Kedushah of the second animal, therefore, is considered "Hekdesh Rishon," and not "Hekdesh Sheni."
(b) The HAGAHOS HA'GRA (#7) has a different approach. In the case of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, a person adds an additional item to an original declaration of Hekdesh. If the owner already redeemed the original item and paid a Chomesh, then he no longer must pay a Chomesh to redeem the additional item.
Rebbi Avin's question involves a case in which a person had set aside an animal for a Korban Asham, redeemed it with a Chomesh, and transferred the Kedushah to a different animal. He then added a third animal to the Kedushah of the second animal. Do we say that the third animal has the same status as the additional item of Hekdesh in the case of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or do we say that only when something is added to an original Hekdesh item does it not require a Chomesh, but when it is added to the Hekdesh of an animal which is Kadosh only because it was used to redeem a Korban, its redemption requires a Chomesh? This is the question of Rebbi Avin. (Y. MONTROSE)