1)

(a)Abaye asked what the Din will be if someone who has before him two Hekdesh animals that are Ba'alei-Mumin and two Chulin Tam animals, and who, without placing his hands on either of them, declares 'Harei Eilu Tachas Eilu' - whether he means to be Matfis the Chulin animals on the Hekdesh ones, or to be Mechalel the Kodshim ones on the Chulin ones.

(b)We would prefer him to have in mind 'le'Achuli' - which is permitted (whereas 'le'Atfusi' is subject to Malkos).

(c)Despite the fact that the same She'eilah would be applicable if there was only one of each, Abaye asked the She'eilah with regard to two Hekdesh animals and two Chulin ones - because of the series of She'eilos which follows (that will only apply to at least two Hekdesh and two Chulin animals).

2)

(a)Abaye follows with a similar She'eilah, but where one of the Hekdesh animals and one of the Chulin animals is a Ba'alas-Mum and where he declares 'Harei Eilu Tachas Eilu'. This She'eilah assumes that a person will not sin if he can achieve the same results without sinning, in which case in the previous She'eilah, he must have meant le'Achuli ...

(b)... and the She'eilah is - whether he means to be Matfis the Temimah on the Temimah and Mechalel the Ba'alas-Mum on the Ba'alas-Mum, or to be Matfis the Temimah on the Ba'alas-Mum and the Ba'alas-Mum on the Temimah (see also Hagahos ha'Gra).

(c)The reason that ...

1. ... 'Temimah Tachas Temimah' can only be 'le'Atfusi' is - because one cannot redeem Temimim.

2. ... 'Ba'alas-Mum Tachas Ba'alas-Mum can only be le'Achuli - is because the Torah writes "Tov be'Ra O Ra be'Tov" (but not 'Ra be'Ra').

(d)This case might be worse than the previous one - because Mah Nafshach, one of the declarations must be le'Atfusi (so maybe the other one is too).

3)

(a)Still assuming that a person will not sin if he can achieve the same results without sinning, Abaye then asks a third She'eilah, in a case where one of three Hekdesh animals is a Ba'alas-Mum, and the three Chulin animals are Temimos. He might concede here, that all three animals, even the Ba'alas-Mum, are le'Atfusi - since, regarding the other two animals, he certainly sinned, and if two out of three cases are le'Atfusi, it is likely that the third case is too.

(b)Finally, Rav Ashi asks exactly the same She'eilah as Abaye's previous one, only where there are not three animals of both Hekdesh and three of Chulin, but four. Assuming that in the previous She'eilah, he did not sin (in spite of the majority) ...

(c)... and perhaps (even though we do not go after the majority in this regard) where there are three animals which are definitely le'Atfusi, we will go after the Chazakah, and assume that the fourth animal is le'Atfusi, too.

(d)The outcome of all the She'eilos is - Teiku.

4)

(a)Regarding our Mishnah 'Im Haysah Hekdesh Ba'alas-Mum Yotzei le'Chulin, ve'Tzarich La'asos Damim'. Rebbi Yochanan explains 'Yotzei le'Chulin' d'Oraysa, ve'Tzarich La'asos Damim, mi'de'Rabbanan' whereas according to Resh Lakish - both are d'Oraysa.

(b)We cannot attribute the Mishnah's reason (for the assessment) to the Din of Ona'ah (where Hekdesh is losing one sixth), because of the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, where the Tana specifically states that Avadim, Karka'os, Sh'taros and Hekdeshos - are not subject to Ona'ah.

(c)Neither can it refer to Bitul Mekach, due to a Machlokes there between Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rebbi Yonah in the name of their Rebbe - Rebbi Yochanan.

5)

(a)With regard to the same Mishnah they both comment 'Ona'ah Ein lahem, Bitul Mekach Yesh lahem'. Ona'ah refers to - a discrepancy of exactly a sixth (a fifth according to our way of reckoning), requiring the difference to be returned; Bitul Mekach, to - more than a sixth, which renders the entire transaction null and void.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah says this with reference to Karka of Chulin; Rebbi Yonah with reference to - all Hekdesh.

6)

(a)Initially, we try to establish our Mishnah by Bitul Mekach, reconciling Rebbi Yochanan's opinion here ('ve'Tzarich La'asos Damim mi'Divreihem') with Rebbi Yonah in his name ('Bitul Mekach Yesh lahem') - by switching his opinion with that of Resh Lakish, so that he will now hold ' ... d'Oraysa).

(b)This answer is problematic - in that, according to Rebbi Yirmiyah, who confines their Machlokes to Karka'os de'Chulin (but that as far as Hekdesh is concerned, Rebbi Yochanan concedes that it is not subject to Bitul Mekach), switching the opinions will merely create a new problem.

(c)Rebbi Yirmiyah will therefore explain ...

1. ... the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - as it appears originally.

2. ... our Mishnah, according to Rebbi Yochanan - with regard to Bitul Mekach (which according to Rebbi Yochanan, does not apply to Hekdesh any more than Ona'ah does).

7)

(a)According to our current interpretation of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan ('mi'de'Rabbanan') and Resh Lakish ('d'Oraysa'), we try to connect it with a statement by Shmuel, who rules, that if someone redeems a Manah's-worth of Hekdesh for a P'rutah - his transaction is valid.

(b)We therefore suggest - that Rebbi Yochanan concurs with Shmuel, whereas Resh Lakish does not.

(c)We reconcile Resh Lakish with Shmuel however - by establishing Shmuel (according to him) where he intended to redeem a Manah's-worth for a P'rutah, but not where he intended to redeem it according to its value, which is how our Mishnah speaks.

(d)Alternatively, we leave Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish intact, even according to Rebbi Yonah, and our Mishnah refers to Ona'ah (not Bitul Mekach). As for the Kashya from the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, we interpret "Ish es Achiv" (the source from which the Tana precludes Hekdesh from Ona'ah), like Rav Chisda, who learns from there to preclude Hekdesh not from Ona'ah, but) - from the Din of Ona'ah, inasmuch as it applies even to less than a sixth (and the difference must be returned).

8)

(a)Ula restricts the ruling in our Mishnah (of a Hekdesh Ba'al-Mum requiring assessment) to where the initial assessment was performed by two people - but where it was performed by three, it is not necessary to reassess it (and the owner is no longer liable to pay the difference) ...

(b)... even in a case where three people assessed it at a sixth less than its market value, and a hundred subsequently reassessed it correctly.

(c)We query this however, from a statement by Rav Safra, who qualifies the principle 'Two is like a hundred' - confining it to Eidus (testimony), but when it comes to assessment, we always follow the majority opinion.

(d)We also ask from a logical standpoint, even if it a matter of three against three - where one ought to go after the second opinion (which assessed the animal at a higher price, in order to save Hekdesh a loss, as we generally do).

9)

(a)Ula nevertheless maintains that we do not negate the assessment of the three people, even against a hundred - because, as Rebbi Yochanan holds, the assessment is only mi'de'Rabbanan to begin with, and the Chachamim did not obligate the owner to go any further (that assessing the animal in front of a Beis-Din).

10)

(a)Our Mishnah rules, in a case where the owner declares ...

1. ... 'Zu Tachas Olah' or 'Zu Tachas Chatas' (assuming the Olah or Chatas is standing in front of him) - that his declaration is invalid.

2. ... 'Zu Tachas Chatas Zu' or Tachas Olah Zu' - that it is valid.

3. ... 'Zu Tachas Chatas ve'Olah she'Yesh li ba'Bayis' - that, provided he does indeed possess such a Korban at home, his declaration is valid.

(b)With reference to a Beheimah Teme'ah or a Ba'alas-Mum - the Tana invalidates the declaration 'Harei Eilu Olah', but validates 'Harei Eilu le'Olah'.

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes our Mishnah not like Rebbi Meir, who rules - that someone who is Ma'arich a baby of less than a month old - must pay his Damim to Hekdesh ...

(d)... because of the principle 'Ein Adam Motzi Devarav le'Vatalah', in which case ...

(e)... he will issue a similar ruling in the opening case in our Mishnah ('Harei Zu Tachas Olah').

11)

(a)We extrapolate from the final case in our Mishnah 'Beheimah Temei'ah u'Ba'alas-Mum ... Harei Eilu le'Olah, Yimachru ... ' - that 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham', which (unlike the cases in the Mishnah) is eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach, will require a Mum before being sold.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav therefore establishes our Mishnah not like Rebbi Shimon - who specifically rules in the Mishnah in 'Eilu Kodshim' 'Timacher she'Lo be'Mum'.