Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 14, 2019 | 讬状讙 讘讗讘 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Temurah 27

Since the wording “this in place of this” can be understood as substitution or redemption, how can we tell what the person meant? On what does it depend? If the original animal was blemished, can one assume that the intent was redemption because of a principle that if one has a choice of doing something permitted and something forbidden, it can be assumed that one will choose the permitted option. One who redemms a blemished animal with another animal, needs to add more money if the value of the second animal is less than the first. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree if this is a law from the Torah or the rabbis. The gemara tries to determine how much of a price difference there is – 1/6 or more or less and also try to understand the debate in light of a debate of Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Yirmia about if there is “bitul mekach” by sanctified items or not.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗诐 转讞转讬讛 转注诪讚 讛讘讛专转

鈥淏ut if the white leprous spot stays in its place [ta岣eha]鈥 (Leviticus 13:23). In this verse, the word 鈥ta岣eha鈥 indicates that the white leprous spot remains in its place. This usage of the word is fitting for substitution, since when sanctity is transferred by substitution from a consecrated animal to a non-sacred animal, the sanctity of the consecrated animal remains in place, despite the fact that the non-sacred animal is also consecrated.

讚讗讞讜诇讬 讚讻转讬讘 转讞转 讛谞讞砖转 讗讘讬讗 讝讛讘 讜讛诇讻讱 讙讘讬 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讚注讘讚讬谉 转诪讜专讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗转驻讜住讬 讛讜讗 讙讘讬 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬谉 转诪讜专讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讞讜诇讬 讛讜讗

Yet ta岣t is also a term that indicates desacralization, as it is written: 鈥淚n place of [ta岣t] brass I will bring gold, and in place of iron I will bring silver, and in place of wood brass, and in place of stones iron鈥 (Isaiah 60:17). In this verse, ta岣t means replacement, which is what occurs in desacralization, where one item is replaced by another. And therefore, the term should be understood in accordance with the context: With regard to animals consecrated for sacrifice upon the altar, which render a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged a substitute, ta岣t is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another. With regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, which do not render a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged a substitute, ta岣t is a term that indicates desacralization.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讞讜诇讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讛拽讚砖 讘注诇 诪讜诐

Rava said: Even with regard to animals consecrated for sacrifice upon the altar, which render a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged a substitute, you can find that ta岣t is a term that indicates desacralization. For example, in a case where a consecrated animal was blemished and can be desacralized because it is unfit to be sacrificed, and one placed that consecrated animal next to a non-sacred animal and said: This animal is in place of [ta岣t] that animal. Although the blemished sacred animal can render a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute, in this context the term ta岣t means desacralization.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗砖讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘注诇 诪讜诐 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讞讜诇讬 讜诪砖讻讞转 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗转驻讜住讬 讬讚讜 讗拽讜讚砖 讞讜诇 讛讜讬 讬讚讜 讗讞讜诇 拽讜讚砖 讛讜讛

Rabbi Ashi said: Even in the case of a blemished animal, mentioned by Rava, sometimes you find that ta岣t is a term that indicates desacralization and sometimes you find that ta岣t is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another. If the owner鈥檚 hand is resting on the consecrated animal and he says: This animal is in place of [ta岣t] that animal, it is a term of desacralization, as the placement of his hand indicates that his intention is to desacralize the consecrated animal, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal. If the owner鈥檚 hand is resting on the non-sacred animal when he says: This animal is in place of that animal, then ta岣t is a term of substitution, as the placement of his hand indicates that his intention is for the non-sacred animal to be consecrated with the same sanctity as the consecrated animal.

讘注讬 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 拽讚砖 讘注诇讜转 诪讜诐 讜砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 转诪讬诪讜转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 转讞转 讗诇讜 诪讛讜

Abaye raises a dilemma: If there were standing before him two sacrificial animals that were blemished and two non-sacred animals that were unblemished,and, without placing his hands on any animal, he says: These animals are hereby in place of [ta岣t] those animals, what is the halakha?

诪讬 讗诪专 诇讗转驻讜住讬 讜诇拽讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬转专讗 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 讛讬转专讗 讜注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Did he intend to say ta岣t as association, i.e., to consecrate the two non-sacred animals as substitutes, and therefore he is flogged two sets of lashes for the two violations of the prohibition against consecrating an animal as a substitute? Or perhaps, does one say that since anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, a person does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition? If so, here too his intention was to desacralize the two blemished animals, and therefore he is not flogged.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬转专讗 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 讜注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 拽讜讚砖 讜讗讞转 诪讛谉 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讜砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞转 诪讛谉 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 转讞转 讗诇讜 诪讛讜

And if you say that anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, a person does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition, in a case where there were standing before him two sacrificial animals, one of which was blemished and one of which was unblemished, and two non-sacred animals, one of which was blemished and one of which was unblemished, and he said: These animals are hereby in place of [ta岣t] those animals, what is the halakha? Although he certainly intended to transfer the sanctity of the unblemished sacrificial animal to a non-sacred animal by substitution, it is unclear which of the two non-sacred animals he intended to consecrate as a substitute.

诪讬 讗诪专 转诪讬诪讛 转讞转 转诪讬诪讛 诇讗转驻讜住讬 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 转讞转 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诇讗讞讜诇讬

Once again, the Gemara explains the dilemma: Did he intend to say that the unblemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated as a substitute in place of the unblemished consecrated animal, and with regard to this pairing he intended to associate the sanctity by substitution, while the blemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated in place of the blemished consecrated animal, and for this pairing he intended to desacralize the consecrated animal. If so, he is flogged only for the first pairing and not for the second pairing.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转诪讬诪讛 讚讞讜诇讬谉 转讞转 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讚讛拽讚砖 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讚讞讜诇讬谉 转讞转 转诪讬诪讛 讚讛拽讚砖 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇拽讬

Or perhaps, he intended that the unblemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated as a substitute in place of the blemished consecrated animal, and the blemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated as a substitute in place of the unblemished consecrated animal, and since he intended to perform substitution in both cases he is flogged for both pairings.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬转讬专讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗讞讜诇讬 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诇拽讬 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖诇砖 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 拽讚砖 讜讗讞转 诪讛谉 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 转诪讬诪讜转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 转讞转 讗诇讜

And if you say that anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, one does not perform the prohibition, this would resolve the previous dilemma, as his intention must have been to desacralize the blemished consecrated animal, and therefore he is not flogged two sets of lashes, one can raise the following dilemma: In a case where there were three sacrificial animals before him, one of which was blemished while the other two were unblemished, and three non-sacred animals, all of which were unblemished, and he said: These animals are hereby in place of [ta岣t] those animals, what is the halakha?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讚转诪讬诪讜转 转讞转 转诪讬诪讜转 诇讗转驻讜住讬 转诪讬诪讜转 谞诪讬 转讞转 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诇讗转驻讜住讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬转讬专讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讜讛讛讬讗 讘转专讬讬转讗 诇讗讞讜诇讬 讛讜讬

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Do we say that since he intended for the unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as substitutes in place of the unblemished consecrated animals, i.e., to associate their sanctity, so too he intended to consecrate the unblemished non-sacred animal as a substitute in place of the blemished consecrated animal, i.e., to associate its sanctity, and he therefore is flogged three sets of lashes? Or perhaps, here too one applies the principle that anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, a person does not perform the prohibition. If so, his intention with regard to this latter blemished consecrated animal was to desacralize it, and therefore he is not flogged for transferring its sanctity to a substitute.

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讻转讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 讘讗讬住讜专讬 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讛转讬专讗 讜注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 讗专讘注 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 拽讚砖 讜讗讞转 诪讛谉 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讜讗专讘注 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 转讞转 讗诇讜 诪讛讜

And if you say that here too, since this man has not yet been established as one who regularly transgresses a prohibition, until he has done so three times, therefore it is assumed that he does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition, Rav Ashi therefore raises the following dilemma: If there were four sacrificial animals standing before him, one of which was blemished and the other three were unblemished, and four non-sacred animals, all of which were unblemished, and he said: These animals are hereby in place of [ta岣t] those animals, what is the halakha?

讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讙讘专讗 讘讗讬住讜专讬 (讘讻讜诇谉) 诇拽讬 讘讗专讘注 诪诇拽讬讜转

Again, the Gemara clarifies the dilemma: Here, since it is certain that he intended for three unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as substitutes in place of the three unblemished consecrated animals, this man has been established as one who regularly transgresses a prohibition. Therefore, it is assumed that he also intended for one of the unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as a substitute in place of the blemished consecrated animal, which means he is liable to be flogged four sets of lashes for the four substitutions.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讘讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 讛讬转讬专讗 讜注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讜讛讜讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 诇讗讞讜诇讬 讛讜讬 转讬拽讜

Or perhaps, even though in this case he has been established as one who transgresses the prohibition, nevertheless even such a person does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition. And if so, his intention with regard to this latter blemished animal was to desacralize it. The Gemara concludes that all of these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

讗诐 讛讬转讛 讛拽讚砖 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讬爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches: If the consecrated animal was blemished, and he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, the consecrated animal is desacralized. The owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals, and if the consecrated animal was worth more than the non-sacred animal, he must pay the difference to the Temple treasury.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讜爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗祝 爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐 讚讘专 转讜专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The consecrated animal is desacralized by Torah law even if the consecrated animal was worth one hundred dinars and the non-sacred animal was worth only one peruta. But by rabbinic law, the owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals and to pay the difference to the Temple treasury, so that the Temple treasury not suffer a loss. And Reish Lakish says: Even the requirement to conduct an appraisal, to ascertain the relative value of the two animals and to pay the difference to the Temple treasury, applies by Torah law.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讗讗讜谞讗讛 讘讛讗 谞讬诪讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗祝 爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐 讚讘专 转讜专讛

What are we dealing with here, i.e., what is the case that is subject to the disagreement between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish? If we say that they disagree in a case where the difference in value between the two animals was exactly one-sixth, which is the difference in value that constitutes exploitation by Torah law, and the halakha is that such a transaction is valid but one must return the difference in value, would Reish Lakish say that even in such a case the requirement to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals applies by Torah law?

讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜讛砖讟专讜转 讜讛拽专拽注讜转 讜讛讛拽讚砖讜转

But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 56a): These are matters that, even if the disparity between the value and the payment is one-sixth, are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Slaves, documents, lands, and consecrated property.Since consecrated property is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, why would Reish Lakish say that one must repay the difference in value between the two animals to the Temple treasury by Torah law?

讗诇讗 讗讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讘讛讗 谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐 诪讚讘专讬讛诐

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagree with regard to a case of nullification of a transaction, i.e., where the difference in value between the two animals was greater than one-sixth. Would Rabbi Yo岣nan say in such a case that one is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals by rabbinic law?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗拽专拽注讜转 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 讗讛拽讚砖讜转 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讬砖 诇讛诐

But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yirmeya say this ruling with regard to non-sacred lands, and Rabbi Yona said it with regard to consecrated property, and both of them said it in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: They are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, in the case of a disparity of one-sixth. But they are subject to nullification of a transaction, in the case of a greater disparity. If so, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yona, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that when the disparity between the value and the payment is greater than one-sixth, the transaction is nullified by Torah law. But in that case, why would Rabbi Yo岣nan rule here that only by rabbinic law is he required to calculate the difference and pay its value?

诇注讜诇诐 讗讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讜讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara answers: Actually, they disagree in a case of nullification of a transaction, i.e., more than one-sixth, and one should reverse attribution of the opinions; the opinion previously attributed to Rabbi Yo岣nan is actually that of Reish Lakish, and the opinion attributed to Reish Lakish is the ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讗讬驻讜讱 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讛拽讚砖讜转 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讗拽专拽注讜转

The Gemara asks: But how can you say that one should reverse the attribution of the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish? This works out well according to the one who says that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that consecrated property is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation if the disparity between the value and the payment is one-sixth, but it is subject to nullification of the transaction if the disparity between the value and the payment is greater than one-sixth. According to this opinion, that of Rabbi Yona, it is apparent all the more so that lands are subject to nullification if the disparity is greater than one-sixth.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗拽专拽注讜转 讗讘诇 讛拽讚砖讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讛讬讻讬 讗讬驻讜讱 诇讛讗

But according to the one who said that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that only lands are subject to nullification if the disparity is greater than one-sixth, but with regard to consecrated property there is no nullification of a transaction, i.e., Rabbi Yirmeya, how can he reverse attribution of that opinion, and claim that Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that he is required to pay the difference in value by Torah law?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱

Rabbi Yirmeya said: According to my opinion, do not reverse attribution of the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish. In other words, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that he is required to pay the difference in value by rabbinic law. This is consistent with Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 ruling that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that there is no nullification of a transaction in the case of consecrated property. Only Rabbi Yona would reverse attribution of the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish in order for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion to be consistent with his statement, as cited by Rabbi Yona, that there is nullification of a transaction in the case of consecrated property.

诇讬诪讗 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讚砖 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讞讜诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

It has been established that Rabbi Yona maintains that according to Rabbi Yo岣nan consecrated property is subject to nullification of a transaction, whereas Rabbi Yirmeya disputes that claim. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that they disagree with regard to a statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars [maneh] that one desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to a coin worth one peruta, is desacralized. Since consecrated property is not subject to nullification of a transaction, it is desacralized by coins worth any sum. The suggestion is that Rabbi Yona is not of the opinion that the halakha follows the ruling of Shmuel, and Rabbi Yirmeya is of the opinion that the halakha follows the ruling of Shmuel.

诇讗 讘讬谉 讚诪专 讜讘讬谉 讚诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 住讘专 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬注讘讚 讗讘诇 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; both this Sage and that Sage are of the opinion that the halakha follows the ruling of Shmuel. The difference between them is that Rabbi Yona maintains that when Shmuel stated his halakha, he was referring to consecrated property that one desacralized after the fact, but he did not say that one may do so ab initio; and Rabbi Yirmeya maintains that Shmuel rules that it is permitted to desacralize consecrated property with coins worth any sum, even ab initio.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 讛拽讚砖讜转 讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗

If you wish, say instead, with regard to the dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yo岣nan: Actually, do not reverse the attribution of their respective opinions. In fact, they disagree with regard to a disparity of one-sixth, and Reish Lakish holds that one is required to pay the difference value by Torah law. And as for that which poses a difficulty for you with regard to the opinion of Reish Lakish, that it is taught in the mishna: These are matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Slaves, documents, lands, and consecrated property, which indicates that one is required to pay the difference in value by rabbinic law, that mishna should be understood in accordance with the explanation of Rav 岣sda.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谞谉 讘转讜专转 讗讜谞讗讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讞讜讝专

As Rav 岣sda said: What is the meaning of the phrase: Are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? This means that they are not subject to the standard principles of exploitation at all; rather, more stringent halakhot apply in these cases. As, even if the disparity is less than the measure of exploitation, i.e., less than one-sixth, one may renege on the transaction, and in the case of consecrated property he is required to pay the value of the disparity.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讜讬 讘转专讬 讗讘诇 讘砖诪讜讬 讘转诇转讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗转讬 讘诪讗讛 诇讗 讛讚专

搂 With regard to a case in which there was a disparity between the assessed value of property and its actual value, where one must pay the difference to the Temple treasury, Ulla said: The Sages said that one must pay the value of the disparity to the Temple treasury only if the value of the consecrated property was initially assessed by only two people and afterward three other people determined that the consecrated property was worth more. But in a case where the value of the consecrated property was initially assessed by three people, as required by halakha, and that amount was paid to the Temple treasury, even if afterward one hundred people came and assessed the value of the consecrated property at a higher value, one need not return the disparity of value to the Temple treasury.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 诪讗讛 讻转专讬 讜转专讬 讻诪讗讛 诇注谞讬谉 注讚讜转 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讘转专 讚注讜转 讗讝诇讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Safra say: Where did one say the ruling that one hundred witnesses are like two witnesses, and two witnesses are like one hundred witnesses? That principle applies specifically to the matter of testimony. But with regard to the matter of assessments, we follow the majority of opinions. If so, in Ulla鈥檚 case, one should follow the assessment of the one hundred and pay the disparity to the Temple treasury.

讜转讜 转诇转讗 讜转诇转讗 诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讘转专讗 讚讬讚 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

And furthermore, even in a case where three people initially assessed the value of the consecrated property, and afterward three other people assessed the consecrated property at a higher value, don鈥檛 we follow the latter assessment? Isn鈥檛 there is a principle that the Temple treasury of consecrated property always has the advantage?

拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 讜讻诇 讚专讘谞谉 讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Ulla holds that the halakha that the owner is required to conduct an appraisal, to ascertain the relative value of the two animals and to pay the difference to the Temple treasury, applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law, and the Sages were lenient with regard to all rabbinic laws. Therefore, even if one hundred people assessed the value of the consecrated property at a higher value than the earlier assessment, one is not required to pay the disparity in value to the Temple treasury.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 讝讜 转讞转 注讜诇讛 转讞转 讞讟讗转 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 转讞转 讞讟讗转 讝讜 讜转讞转 注讜诇讛 讝讜 转讞转 讞讟讗转 讜转讞转 注讜诇讛 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讘讬转 讛讬讛 诇讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬诐

MISHNA: If one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of a burnt offering, or: It is in place of a sin offering, he has said nothing, as he did not say that it was in place of a specific offering. If he said: It is in place of this sin offering, or: It is in place of this burnt offering, or if he said: It is in place of a sin offering that I have in the house, or: It is in place of a burnt offering that I have in the house, and he had that offering in his house, his statement stands, i.e., is effective.

讗诪专 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜注诇 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 注讜诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇注讜诇讛 讬诪讻专讜 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛诐 注讜诇讛

If he said with regard to a non-kosher animal and with regard to a blemished animal: These animals are hereby designated as a burnt offering, he has said nothing. If he said: These animals are hereby designated for a burnt offering, the animals should be sold, and he brings a burnt offering purchased with the money received from their sale.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专讬讜 诇讘讟诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of a burnt offering, he has said nothing. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say: A person does not utter a statement for naught. In other words, if one issues a statement that cannot be fulfilled as stated, it is interpreted in a manner that renders it relevant. Consequently, when he said: This non-sacred animal is in place of a burnt offering, he must have been referring to a burnt offering that he had in his house.

讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇注讜诇讛 讬诪讻专讜 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 注讜诇讛 讟注诪讗 讚讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬讬谉 诪讜诪讗 讗讘诇 诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 讗讜 诇注讜诇讛 讘注讬讬谉 诪讜诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches: If he said with regard to a non-kosher animal and with regard to a blemished animal: These animals are hereby designated for a burnt offering, the animals should be sold, and he brings a burnt offering purchased with the money received from their sale. The Gemara infers: The reason that these animals are sold is that they are non-kosher and blemished animals, which are not fit to be sacrificed, and therefore they do not require the development of a blemish for them to be sold. But in the case of one who separates a female animal for a guilt offering or for a burnt offering, which may be brought only from males, since a female animal is fit to be sacrificed as a different type of offering, the animal does require the development of a blemish for it to be sold.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 转讬诪讻专 砖诇讗 讘诪讜诐

Consequently, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (19b) that Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of one who designates a female animal for a guilt offering, since a female is unfit to be sacrificed as that offering, its halakhic status is like that of a blemished animal in the sense that it does not become inherently sacred; rather, only its value is sacred. Therefore, it may be sold without it having developed a blemish, and a guilt offering is purchased with the money received from its sale.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 诪注专讬诪讬谉

 

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Temurah 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 27

讜讗诐 转讞转讬讛 转注诪讚 讛讘讛专转

鈥淏ut if the white leprous spot stays in its place [ta岣eha]鈥 (Leviticus 13:23). In this verse, the word 鈥ta岣eha鈥 indicates that the white leprous spot remains in its place. This usage of the word is fitting for substitution, since when sanctity is transferred by substitution from a consecrated animal to a non-sacred animal, the sanctity of the consecrated animal remains in place, despite the fact that the non-sacred animal is also consecrated.

讚讗讞讜诇讬 讚讻转讬讘 转讞转 讛谞讞砖转 讗讘讬讗 讝讛讘 讜讛诇讻讱 讙讘讬 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讚注讘讚讬谉 转诪讜专讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗转驻讜住讬 讛讜讗 讙讘讬 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬谉 转诪讜专讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讞讜诇讬 讛讜讗

Yet ta岣t is also a term that indicates desacralization, as it is written: 鈥淚n place of [ta岣t] brass I will bring gold, and in place of iron I will bring silver, and in place of wood brass, and in place of stones iron鈥 (Isaiah 60:17). In this verse, ta岣t means replacement, which is what occurs in desacralization, where one item is replaced by another. And therefore, the term should be understood in accordance with the context: With regard to animals consecrated for sacrifice upon the altar, which render a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged a substitute, ta岣t is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another. With regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, which do not render a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged a substitute, ta岣t is a term that indicates desacralization.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讞讜诇讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讛拽讚砖 讘注诇 诪讜诐

Rava said: Even with regard to animals consecrated for sacrifice upon the altar, which render a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged a substitute, you can find that ta岣t is a term that indicates desacralization. For example, in a case where a consecrated animal was blemished and can be desacralized because it is unfit to be sacrificed, and one placed that consecrated animal next to a non-sacred animal and said: This animal is in place of [ta岣t] that animal. Although the blemished sacred animal can render a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute, in this context the term ta岣t means desacralization.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗砖讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘注诇 诪讜诐 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗讞讜诇讬 讜诪砖讻讞转 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗转驻讜住讬 讬讚讜 讗拽讜讚砖 讞讜诇 讛讜讬 讬讚讜 讗讞讜诇 拽讜讚砖 讛讜讛

Rabbi Ashi said: Even in the case of a blemished animal, mentioned by Rava, sometimes you find that ta岣t is a term that indicates desacralization and sometimes you find that ta岣t is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another. If the owner鈥檚 hand is resting on the consecrated animal and he says: This animal is in place of [ta岣t] that animal, it is a term of desacralization, as the placement of his hand indicates that his intention is to desacralize the consecrated animal, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal. If the owner鈥檚 hand is resting on the non-sacred animal when he says: This animal is in place of that animal, then ta岣t is a term of substitution, as the placement of his hand indicates that his intention is for the non-sacred animal to be consecrated with the same sanctity as the consecrated animal.

讘注讬 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 拽讚砖 讘注诇讜转 诪讜诐 讜砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 转诪讬诪讜转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 转讞转 讗诇讜 诪讛讜

Abaye raises a dilemma: If there were standing before him two sacrificial animals that were blemished and two non-sacred animals that were unblemished,and, without placing his hands on any animal, he says: These animals are hereby in place of [ta岣t] those animals, what is the halakha?

诪讬 讗诪专 诇讗转驻讜住讬 讜诇拽讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬转专讗 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 讛讬转专讗 讜注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Did he intend to say ta岣t as association, i.e., to consecrate the two non-sacred animals as substitutes, and therefore he is flogged two sets of lashes for the two violations of the prohibition against consecrating an animal as a substitute? Or perhaps, does one say that since anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, a person does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition? If so, here too his intention was to desacralize the two blemished animals, and therefore he is not flogged.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬转专讗 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 讜注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 拽讜讚砖 讜讗讞转 诪讛谉 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讜砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞转 诪讛谉 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 转讞转 讗诇讜 诪讛讜

And if you say that anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, a person does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition, in a case where there were standing before him two sacrificial animals, one of which was blemished and one of which was unblemished, and two non-sacred animals, one of which was blemished and one of which was unblemished, and he said: These animals are hereby in place of [ta岣t] those animals, what is the halakha? Although he certainly intended to transfer the sanctity of the unblemished sacrificial animal to a non-sacred animal by substitution, it is unclear which of the two non-sacred animals he intended to consecrate as a substitute.

诪讬 讗诪专 转诪讬诪讛 转讞转 转诪讬诪讛 诇讗转驻讜住讬 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 转讞转 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诇讗讞讜诇讬

Once again, the Gemara explains the dilemma: Did he intend to say that the unblemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated as a substitute in place of the unblemished consecrated animal, and with regard to this pairing he intended to associate the sanctity by substitution, while the blemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated in place of the blemished consecrated animal, and for this pairing he intended to desacralize the consecrated animal. If so, he is flogged only for the first pairing and not for the second pairing.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转诪讬诪讛 讚讞讜诇讬谉 转讞转 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讚讛拽讚砖 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讚讞讜诇讬谉 转讞转 转诪讬诪讛 讚讛拽讚砖 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇拽讬

Or perhaps, he intended that the unblemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated as a substitute in place of the blemished consecrated animal, and the blemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated as a substitute in place of the unblemished consecrated animal, and since he intended to perform substitution in both cases he is flogged for both pairings.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬转讬专讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗讞讜诇讬 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诇拽讬 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖诇砖 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 拽讚砖 讜讗讞转 诪讛谉 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 转诪讬诪讜转 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 转讞转 讗诇讜

And if you say that anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, one does not perform the prohibition, this would resolve the previous dilemma, as his intention must have been to desacralize the blemished consecrated animal, and therefore he is not flogged two sets of lashes, one can raise the following dilemma: In a case where there were three sacrificial animals before him, one of which was blemished while the other two were unblemished, and three non-sacred animals, all of which were unblemished, and he said: These animals are hereby in place of [ta岣t] those animals, what is the halakha?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讚转诪讬诪讜转 转讞转 转诪讬诪讜转 诇讗转驻讜住讬 转诪讬诪讜转 谞诪讬 转讞转 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 诇讗转驻讜住讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬转讬专讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讜讛讛讬讗 讘转专讬讬转讗 诇讗讞讜诇讬 讛讜讬

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Do we say that since he intended for the unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as substitutes in place of the unblemished consecrated animals, i.e., to associate their sanctity, so too he intended to consecrate the unblemished non-sacred animal as a substitute in place of the blemished consecrated animal, i.e., to associate its sanctity, and he therefore is flogged three sets of lashes? Or perhaps, here too one applies the principle that anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, a person does not perform the prohibition. If so, his intention with regard to this latter blemished consecrated animal was to desacralize it, and therefore he is not flogged for transferring its sanctity to a substitute.

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讻转讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 讘讗讬住讜专讬 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讛转讬专讗 讜注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 讗专讘注 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 拽讚砖 讜讗讞转 诪讛谉 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讜讗专讘注 讘讛诪讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 转讞转 讗诇讜 诪讛讜

And if you say that here too, since this man has not yet been established as one who regularly transgresses a prohibition, until he has done so three times, therefore it is assumed that he does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition, Rav Ashi therefore raises the following dilemma: If there were four sacrificial animals standing before him, one of which was blemished and the other three were unblemished, and four non-sacred animals, all of which were unblemished, and he said: These animals are hereby in place of [ta岣t] those animals, what is the halakha?

讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讙讘专讗 讘讗讬住讜专讬 (讘讻讜诇谉) 诇拽讬 讘讗专讘注 诪诇拽讬讜转

Again, the Gemara clarifies the dilemma: Here, since it is certain that he intended for three unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as substitutes in place of the three unblemished consecrated animals, this man has been established as one who regularly transgresses a prohibition. Therefore, it is assumed that he also intended for one of the unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as a substitute in place of the blemished consecrated animal, which means he is liable to be flogged four sets of lashes for the four substitutions.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讘讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 讛讬转讬专讗 讜注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讜讛讜讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 诇讗讞讜诇讬 讛讜讬 转讬拽讜

Or perhaps, even though in this case he has been established as one who transgresses the prohibition, nevertheless even such a person does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition. And if so, his intention with regard to this latter blemished animal was to desacralize it. The Gemara concludes that all of these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

讗诐 讛讬转讛 讛拽讚砖 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讬爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches: If the consecrated animal was blemished, and he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, the consecrated animal is desacralized. The owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals, and if the consecrated animal was worth more than the non-sacred animal, he must pay the difference to the Temple treasury.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讜爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗祝 爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐 讚讘专 转讜专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The consecrated animal is desacralized by Torah law even if the consecrated animal was worth one hundred dinars and the non-sacred animal was worth only one peruta. But by rabbinic law, the owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals and to pay the difference to the Temple treasury, so that the Temple treasury not suffer a loss. And Reish Lakish says: Even the requirement to conduct an appraisal, to ascertain the relative value of the two animals and to pay the difference to the Temple treasury, applies by Torah law.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讗讗讜谞讗讛 讘讛讗 谞讬诪讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗祝 爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐 讚讘专 转讜专讛

What are we dealing with here, i.e., what is the case that is subject to the disagreement between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish? If we say that they disagree in a case where the difference in value between the two animals was exactly one-sixth, which is the difference in value that constitutes exploitation by Torah law, and the halakha is that such a transaction is valid but one must return the difference in value, would Reish Lakish say that even in such a case the requirement to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals applies by Torah law?

讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讜谞讗讛 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜讛砖讟专讜转 讜讛拽专拽注讜转 讜讛讛拽讚砖讜转

But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 56a): These are matters that, even if the disparity between the value and the payment is one-sixth, are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Slaves, documents, lands, and consecrated property.Since consecrated property is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, why would Reish Lakish say that one must repay the difference in value between the two animals to the Temple treasury by Torah law?

讗诇讗 讗讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讘讛讗 谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐 诪讚讘专讬讛诐

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagree with regard to a case of nullification of a transaction, i.e., where the difference in value between the two animals was greater than one-sixth. Would Rabbi Yo岣nan say in such a case that one is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals by rabbinic law?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗拽专拽注讜转 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 讗讛拽讚砖讜转 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讬砖 诇讛诐

But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yirmeya say this ruling with regard to non-sacred lands, and Rabbi Yona said it with regard to consecrated property, and both of them said it in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: They are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, in the case of a disparity of one-sixth. But they are subject to nullification of a transaction, in the case of a greater disparity. If so, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yona, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that when the disparity between the value and the payment is greater than one-sixth, the transaction is nullified by Torah law. But in that case, why would Rabbi Yo岣nan rule here that only by rabbinic law is he required to calculate the difference and pay its value?

诇注讜诇诐 讗讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讜讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara answers: Actually, they disagree in a case of nullification of a transaction, i.e., more than one-sixth, and one should reverse attribution of the opinions; the opinion previously attributed to Rabbi Yo岣nan is actually that of Reish Lakish, and the opinion attributed to Reish Lakish is the ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讗讬驻讜讱 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讛拽讚砖讜转 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讗拽专拽注讜转

The Gemara asks: But how can you say that one should reverse the attribution of the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish? This works out well according to the one who says that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that consecrated property is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation if the disparity between the value and the payment is one-sixth, but it is subject to nullification of the transaction if the disparity between the value and the payment is greater than one-sixth. According to this opinion, that of Rabbi Yona, it is apparent all the more so that lands are subject to nullification if the disparity is greater than one-sixth.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗拽专拽注讜转 讗讘诇 讛拽讚砖讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讛讬讻讬 讗讬驻讜讱 诇讛讗

But according to the one who said that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that only lands are subject to nullification if the disparity is greater than one-sixth, but with regard to consecrated property there is no nullification of a transaction, i.e., Rabbi Yirmeya, how can he reverse attribution of that opinion, and claim that Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that he is required to pay the difference in value by Torah law?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱

Rabbi Yirmeya said: According to my opinion, do not reverse attribution of the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish. In other words, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that he is required to pay the difference in value by rabbinic law. This is consistent with Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 ruling that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that there is no nullification of a transaction in the case of consecrated property. Only Rabbi Yona would reverse attribution of the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish in order for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion to be consistent with his statement, as cited by Rabbi Yona, that there is nullification of a transaction in the case of consecrated property.

诇讬诪讗 讘讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讚砖 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讞讜诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

It has been established that Rabbi Yona maintains that according to Rabbi Yo岣nan consecrated property is subject to nullification of a transaction, whereas Rabbi Yirmeya disputes that claim. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that they disagree with regard to a statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars [maneh] that one desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to a coin worth one peruta, is desacralized. Since consecrated property is not subject to nullification of a transaction, it is desacralized by coins worth any sum. The suggestion is that Rabbi Yona is not of the opinion that the halakha follows the ruling of Shmuel, and Rabbi Yirmeya is of the opinion that the halakha follows the ruling of Shmuel.

诇讗 讘讬谉 讚诪专 讜讘讬谉 讚诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 住讘专 讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬注讘讚 讗讘诇 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; both this Sage and that Sage are of the opinion that the halakha follows the ruling of Shmuel. The difference between them is that Rabbi Yona maintains that when Shmuel stated his halakha, he was referring to consecrated property that one desacralized after the fact, but he did not say that one may do so ab initio; and Rabbi Yirmeya maintains that Shmuel rules that it is permitted to desacralize consecrated property with coins worth any sum, even ab initio.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 讛拽讚砖讜转 讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗

If you wish, say instead, with regard to the dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yo岣nan: Actually, do not reverse the attribution of their respective opinions. In fact, they disagree with regard to a disparity of one-sixth, and Reish Lakish holds that one is required to pay the difference value by Torah law. And as for that which poses a difficulty for you with regard to the opinion of Reish Lakish, that it is taught in the mishna: These are matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Slaves, documents, lands, and consecrated property, which indicates that one is required to pay the difference in value by rabbinic law, that mishna should be understood in accordance with the explanation of Rav 岣sda.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谞谉 讘转讜专转 讗讜谞讗讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讞讜讝专

As Rav 岣sda said: What is the meaning of the phrase: Are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? This means that they are not subject to the standard principles of exploitation at all; rather, more stringent halakhot apply in these cases. As, even if the disparity is less than the measure of exploitation, i.e., less than one-sixth, one may renege on the transaction, and in the case of consecrated property he is required to pay the value of the disparity.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讜讬 讘转专讬 讗讘诇 讘砖诪讜讬 讘转诇转讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗转讬 讘诪讗讛 诇讗 讛讚专

搂 With regard to a case in which there was a disparity between the assessed value of property and its actual value, where one must pay the difference to the Temple treasury, Ulla said: The Sages said that one must pay the value of the disparity to the Temple treasury only if the value of the consecrated property was initially assessed by only two people and afterward three other people determined that the consecrated property was worth more. But in a case where the value of the consecrated property was initially assessed by three people, as required by halakha, and that amount was paid to the Temple treasury, even if afterward one hundred people came and assessed the value of the consecrated property at a higher value, one need not return the disparity of value to the Temple treasury.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 诪讗讛 讻转专讬 讜转专讬 讻诪讗讛 诇注谞讬谉 注讚讜转 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讘转专 讚注讜转 讗讝诇讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Safra say: Where did one say the ruling that one hundred witnesses are like two witnesses, and two witnesses are like one hundred witnesses? That principle applies specifically to the matter of testimony. But with regard to the matter of assessments, we follow the majority of opinions. If so, in Ulla鈥檚 case, one should follow the assessment of the one hundred and pay the disparity to the Temple treasury.

讜转讜 转诇转讗 讜转诇转讗 诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讘转专讗 讚讬讚 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

And furthermore, even in a case where three people initially assessed the value of the consecrated property, and afterward three other people assessed the consecrated property at a higher value, don鈥檛 we follow the latter assessment? Isn鈥檛 there is a principle that the Temple treasury of consecrated property always has the advantage?

拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇注砖讜转 讚诪讬诐 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 讜讻诇 讚专讘谞谉 讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Ulla holds that the halakha that the owner is required to conduct an appraisal, to ascertain the relative value of the two animals and to pay the difference to the Temple treasury, applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law, and the Sages were lenient with regard to all rabbinic laws. Therefore, even if one hundred people assessed the value of the consecrated property at a higher value than the earlier assessment, one is not required to pay the disparity in value to the Temple treasury.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 讝讜 转讞转 注讜诇讛 转讞转 讞讟讗转 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 转讞转 讞讟讗转 讝讜 讜转讞转 注讜诇讛 讝讜 转讞转 讞讟讗转 讜转讞转 注讜诇讛 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘讘讬转 讛讬讛 诇讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬诐

MISHNA: If one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of a burnt offering, or: It is in place of a sin offering, he has said nothing, as he did not say that it was in place of a specific offering. If he said: It is in place of this sin offering, or: It is in place of this burnt offering, or if he said: It is in place of a sin offering that I have in the house, or: It is in place of a burnt offering that I have in the house, and he had that offering in his house, his statement stands, i.e., is effective.

讗诪专 注诇 讛讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜注诇 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 注讜诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇注讜诇讛 讬诪讻专讜 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛诐 注讜诇讛

If he said with regard to a non-kosher animal and with regard to a blemished animal: These animals are hereby designated as a burnt offering, he has said nothing. If he said: These animals are hereby designated for a burnt offering, the animals should be sold, and he brings a burnt offering purchased with the money received from their sale.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专讬讜 诇讘讟诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one said: This non-sacred animal is hereby in place of a burnt offering, he has said nothing. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir say: A person does not utter a statement for naught. In other words, if one issues a statement that cannot be fulfilled as stated, it is interpreted in a manner that renders it relevant. Consequently, when he said: This non-sacred animal is in place of a burnt offering, he must have been referring to a burnt offering that he had in his house.

讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇注讜诇讛 讬诪讻专讜 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 注讜诇讛 讟注诪讗 讚讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬讬谉 诪讜诪讗 讗讘诇 诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇讗砖诐 讗讜 诇注讜诇讛 讘注讬讬谉 诪讜诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches: If he said with regard to a non-kosher animal and with regard to a blemished animal: These animals are hereby designated for a burnt offering, the animals should be sold, and he brings a burnt offering purchased with the money received from their sale. The Gemara infers: The reason that these animals are sold is that they are non-kosher and blemished animals, which are not fit to be sacrificed, and therefore they do not require the development of a blemish for them to be sold. But in the case of one who separates a female animal for a guilt offering or for a burnt offering, which may be brought only from males, since a female animal is fit to be sacrificed as a different type of offering, the animal does require the development of a blemish for it to be sold.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 转讬诪讻专 砖诇讗 讘诪讜诐

Consequently, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (19b) that Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of one who designates a female animal for a guilt offering, since a female is unfit to be sacrificed as that offering, its halakhic status is like that of a blemished animal in the sense that it does not become inherently sacred; rather, only its value is sacred. Therefore, it may be sold without it having developed a blemish, and a guilt offering is purchased with the money received from its sale.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 诪注专讬诪讬谉

 

Scroll To Top