TEMURAH 20 (7 Av) - (7 Av) - Dedicated in memory of Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens, N.Y., Niftar 7 Av 5757, by his wife and daughters. G-d-fearing and knowledgeable, Simcha was well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah. He will long be remembered.
1)
(a)The Tana Kama of a Beraisa rules that a female animal that one designates as an Olah, Pesach or Asham can make a Temurah. What basic Halachah do these three Korbanos share?
(b)Rebbi Shimon disagrees. What distinction does he draw between a Nekeivas Olah and a Nekeivas Pesach and Asham? What principle guides his ruling by the latter pair?
(c)Then what makes a Nekeivas Olah different?
1)
(a)The Tana Kama of a Beraisa rules that a female animal that one designates as an Olah, Pesach or Asham - all of which must be males, can make a Temurah.
(b)Rebbi Shimon disagrees - with regard to a Nekeivas Pesach and Asham, since they are not fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach (seeing as there is no such thing as a Pesach or Asham Nekeivah that goes on the Mizbe'ach) ...
(c)... unlike a Nekeivas Olah, which is Kasher by an Olas ha'Of (all of which we already explained in the previous Sugya).
2)
(a)On what grounds does Rebbi disagree with Rebbi Shimon regarding a Nekeivas Pesach?
(b)Then on what grounds does he agree with him regarding a Nekeivas Asham, since, by the same token, a Mosar Asham is brought as an Olah?
2)
(a)Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Shimon regarding a Nekeivas Pesach - since Mosar Pesach is brought as a Shelamim.
(b)Nevertheless, he agrees with him regarding a Nekeivas Asham, even though, by the same token, a Mosar Asham is brought as an Olah - because he holds it is brought in the form of a Nidvas Tzibur (and a Korban Tzibur does not make a Temurah, as we have already learned).
3)
(a)What does Rebbi Shimon hold with regard to a Kohen Gadol who designated a Parah in lieu of his Par on Yom Kipur?
(b)Which Parah is in fact, sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf?
(c)Then why will Rebbi Shimon not concede that the Parah which the Kohen Gadol designated in lieu of his Par is sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf, due to the precedent of Parah Adumah?
3)
(a)Rebbi Shimon concedes that, if a Kohen Gadol designated a Parah in lieu of his Par on Yom Kipur - the Kedushah does not take effect.
(b)The Parah which in fact, is sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf is - the Parah Adumah.
(c)Nevertheless, Rebbi Shimon will not concede that the Parah which the Kohen Gadol designated in lieu of his Par is sanctified with Kedushas ha'Guf, in spite of the precedent of Parah Adumah - because even though the Kedushah of the Parah Adumah is Kedushas ha'Guf, since it does not go on the Mizbe'ach) it is to all intents and purposes, Kedushas Damim (and we have already learned that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis do not make a Temurah).
4)
(a)What is the difference between the Chatas of a Yachid and the Chatas of the "Nasi" (the king)?
(b)What do we therefore suggest if, according to Rebbi Shimon, a Yachid designates a Sa'ir, or a king, a Se'irah, for his Chatas?
(c)On what grounds do we refute this suggestion?
(d)How, in the case of a Yachid who designates a female animal for his Olah, do we find the Din of Nekeivas ha'Of applicable to him?
4)
(a)A Yachid who sins - brings a Kisbah or Se'irah as a Chatas, whereas the "Nasi" (the king) brings a Sa'ir.
(b)We therefore suggest that if, according to Rebbi Shimon, a Yachid designates a Sa'ir, or a king, a Se'irah, for his Chatas - the Kedushah should take effect, since we now have the precedent of both a Sa'ir and a Se'irah being Kadosh.
(c)We refute this suggestion however - on the grounds that we do not find the Sa'ir and the Se'irah by the same person, whereas in the case of a Yachid who designates a female animal for his Olah, we do ...
(d)... - in the case of a rich man who declares all his property Hefker, and enters the status of a poor man, who is subject to an Olas ha'Of.
5)
(a)What is the Din of a Yachid who designates a Sa'ir for his Chatas, and is then anointed king?
(b)Seeing as he is the same person, why does the Kedushah not take effect on the Sa'ir?
(c)The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Menachos, holds that someone who undertakes to bring an Olah S'tam, must bring (at least) a lamb. What does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah say?
(d)Based on this Mishnah, how do we now establish Rebbi Shimon, to answer the Kashya why a Nekeivas Olah is Kadosh, even though the sinner (even if he was Chayav as Olah S'tam) would not normally bring a pigeon or a young dove?
5)
(a)If a Yachid who designates a Sa'ir for his Chatas, and is then anointed King - the Sa'ir is not Kadosh ...
(b)... because even though he is the same person - he would have to sin before he could bring a Sa'ir.
(c)The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Menachos, holds that someone who undertakes to bring an Olah S'tam, must bring (at least) a lamb. According to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah - he is permitted to bring an Olas ha'Of.
(d)To answer the Kashya why a Nekeivas Olah is Kadosh, even though the sinner (even if he was Chayav as Olah S'tam) would not normally bring an Olas ha'Of, we now establish Rebbi Shimon - like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who holds that he, in fact, may.
6)
(a)The Mishnah in Shekalim discusses someone who declares all his property Hekdesh. What does the Tana say about animals ...
1. ... that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, assuming they are females?
2. ... that are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach at all?
(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer, males belonging to the former category, are sold as Olos, and the proceeds, like those of female animals, go to Bedek ha'Bayis. According to Rebbi Yehoshua, the male animals are brought directly as Olos. What does he say about the female animals?
(c)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba queries Rebbi Yehoshua's latter ruling, based on the fact that the animal comes from a rejected Kedushah. What ought the Din then to be?
(d)What did he ask Rebbi Yochanan, according to the second Lashon, based on the fact that the male animals are brought directly as Olos?
6)
(a)The Mishnah in Shekalim discusses someone who declares all his property Hekdesh. The Tana rules that animals ...
1. ... that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach, assuming they are females - must be sold as Shelamim and the proceeds go, together with those ...
2. ... that are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach - to Bedek ha'Bayis.
(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer, male animals belonging to the former category, are sold as Olos, and the proceeds, like those of female animals, go to Bedek ha'Bayis. According to Rebbi Yehoshua, the male animals are brought directly as Olos, whereas the female animals - are sold as Shelamim, but the proceeds are used to purchase Olos.
(c)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba queries Rebbi Yehoshua's latter ruling, based on the fact that the animal comes from a rejected Kedushah, in which case the Din ought then to be - 'Yir'u ad she'Yista'avu ... '.
(d)According to the second Lashon - he asked Rebbi Yochanan the same question, only based on the fact that the male animals are brought directly as Olos (a proof that they are Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf), even though the remainder of the property is not.
7)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan replied that Rebbi Yehoshua holds like Rebbi Shimon. To which ruling of Rebbi Shimon was he referring?
(b)What problem did Rebbi Chiya bar Aba have with this answer, bearing in mind that Rebbi Yehoshua is talking about Nekeivas Olah?
(c)Rebbi Yochanan answered that Rebbi Yehoshua holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in a Beraisa. What does he say with reference to Rebbi Shimon in this regard?
7)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan replied that Rebbi Yehoshua holds like Rebbi Shimon - who learns that whenever the animal cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach, Kedushas ha'Guf does not take effect.
(b)The problem Rebbi Chiya bar Aba had with this answer, is the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua is talking about Nekeivas Olah - where Rebbi Shimon Shimon concedes that Kedushas ha'Guf takes effect (as we learned earlier).
(c)Rebbi Yochanan answered that Rebbi Yehoshua holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in a Beraisa, who states - that Rebbi Shimon says the same by Nekeivas Olah as he does by Nekeivas Asham.
20b----------------------------------------20b
8)
(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that Temuras Asham, and V'lad Temuras Asham (ad Sof Kol ha'Doros) goes to Nedavah. What is the basis of this ruling with regard to ...
1. ... Temuras Asham?
2. ... V'lad Temurah ... ?
(b)Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Yamusu'. What does Rebbi Elazar say?
8)
(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that Temuras Asham, and V'lad Temuras Asham (ad Sof Kol ha'Doros) goes to Nedavah. The basis of this ruling with regard to ...
1. ... Temuras Asham is - the principle 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah, be Asham Ro'eh'.
2. ... V'lad Temurah ... is - the principle 'Mosros li'Nedavah Azli'.
(a)Seeing as 'Nedavah' of the Tana Kama is an Olah too, what is the difference between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar?
(b)What are the two practical differences between the two opinions, assuming that the owner is a Yisrael?
(c)What additional difference will there be if the owner is a Kohen?
9)
(a)Although 'Nedavah' of the Tana Kama is an Olah too, the difference between him and Rebbi Elazar is - that according to him it is a Nidvas Tzibur, whereas Rebbi Elazar holds that it is a Nidvas Yachid (or a Chovas Yachid, according to some texts).
(b)Assuming that the owner is a Yisrael, the two practical differences between the two opinions, are - that according to Rebbi Elazar, the owner performs Semichah and brings Nesachim out of his own pocket, whereas according to the Tana Kama, a Nidvas Tzibur does not require Semichah, and the Nesachim come out of public funds.
(c)If he is a Kohen - in addition to the above - he will be permitted to bring the Korban himself (even if is not his Mishmar that is serving), and to take the skin for himself, according to Rebbi Elazar, whereas according to the Tana Kama - both the Avodah and the skin go to the members of the Mishmar which is serving that week.
10)
(a)Having taught us the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer ('Yamus') and the Rabbanan ('Yir'eh') by ...
1. .... Asham, why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat it by Temuras Asham?
2. ... Temuras Asham, why does he need to repeat it by Asham?
(b)According to the Yerushalmi, we would have confined Rebbi Eliezer's ruling to an Asham, where both animals are alive. So what if they are? Why would Rebbi Eliezer have decreed there more than by the case of V'lad Temurah?
(c)Which two transgressions would he transgress, if he were to switch them round?
(d)How does Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah qualify the Machlokes? In which case will both Tana'im agree that the V'lad ha'Temurah is brought as an Asham?
10)
(a)Having taught us the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer ('Yamus') and the Rabbanan ('Yir'eh') by ...
1. .... Asham, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it by Temuras Asham - because we would otherwise have confined Rebbi Eliezer's ruling to Asham, where the Chachamim decreed after the Kaparah (where min ha'Torah, the Asham is Ro'eh) on account of before the Kaparah, where Ro'eh is forbidden; whereas Temuras Asham, which is not brought anyway, Rebbi Eliezer may have well conceded that it is Ro'eh.
2. ... Temuras Asham, he needs to repeat it by Asham, because (using the reverse logic) we would otherwise have confined the Rabbanan's ruling to Temuras Asham, since there is no reason to decree before the Kaparah because of after the Kaparah ... .
(b)According to the Yerushalmi, we would have confined Rebbi Eliezer's ruling to Asham, where both animals are alive, and we are afraid - that seeing as he brings one of them on the Mizbe'ach, he will not care to switch them round, to bring the Temuras Asham, and to send the Asham itself li'Re'iyah.
(c)If he were to switch them round, he would transgress - a. bringing the Temurah as an Asham (which as we shall see shortly, is forbidden), and b. bringing an Olah with the Kedushas Damim of an Asham (which remains an Asham, since the Kaparah has not yet taken place).
(d)Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah qualifies the Machlokes - by confining it to after the Kaparah, but before the Kaparah - both Tana'im will agree that the V'lad Temurah is brought directly as an Asham (should the original Asham get lost).
11)
(a)Rava queries Rav Nachman from two angles. First of all, he argues, one cannot receive atonement from an animal that comes via a sin. Which sin is he referring to
(b)How will he reconcile this with the fact that Temuras Olah and Shelamim are brought as an Olah and a Shelamim respectively?
(c)His second query is from Rebbi Chiya earlier in the Perek, who cited a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (in Rebbi Shimon). What distinction did the Tana there draw between V'lad Rishon and V'lad Sheini?
(d)What does that have to do with the V'lad Temurah about which we are talking?
11)
(a)Rava queries Rav Nachman from two angles. First of all, he argues, one cannot receive atonement from an animal that comes via a sin - namely, that of "Lo Yachlifenu ... ".
(b)The fact that Temuras Olah and Shelamim are brought as an Olah and a Shelamim respectively is no problem - because neither of them comes to atone.
(c)His second query is from Rebbi Chiya earlier in the Perek, who cited a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (in Rebbi Shimon). The Tana there draws a distinction between - V'lad Rishon, which is brought directly, and V'lad Sheini, which is not ...
(d)... in which case, seeing as the Temurah (which comes from the original Kedushah) falls under the category of 'V'lad', its V'lad is V'lad Sheini, and ought not to be brought on the Mizbe'ach.
12)
(a)So we reverse Rav Nachman's statement, and he now says that Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue before the Kaparah. What will they both hold after the Kaparah?
(b)Which problem ...
1. ... have we solved with this answer?
2. ... still remains?
(c)So we remain with a Kashya on Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah. According to some texts however, we amend Rav Nachman's statement again. What will both Tana'im then hold in a case of after the Kaparah?
12)
(a)So we reverse Rav Nachman's statement, and he now says that Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue before the Kaparah, but after the Kaparah they will both hold - that the V'lad Temurah is brought as an Olah.
(b)With this answer, we ...
1. ... have solved - the first problem (since the V'lad Temurah is not now being brought as an atonement).
2. ... are still left - with the second problem, since the V'lad Temurah, which is a second Kedushah, ought not to be brought as an Olah any more than as an Asham.
(c)So we remain with a Kashya on Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah. According to some texts however, we amend Rav Nachman's statement again, and both Tana'im will hold that after the Kaparah - 'Ro'eh, ve'Yavi be'Damav Olah'.
13)
(a)What did Rebbi Avin bar Chiya ask Rebbi Avin bar Kahana in connection with the son of a Nekeivas Asham?
(b)We suggest that Rebbi Avin bar Chiya might have resolved it himself from Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's statement earlier. What did Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina say about Rebbi Elazar, regarding 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham'?
(c)Then why did he not do so?
(d)What did Rebbi Avin bar Kahana, in fact, reply?
13)
(a)Rebbi Avin bar Chiya asked Rebbi Avin bar Kahana - whether the son of a Nekeivas Asham is brought as an Olah or not.
(b)We suggest that Rebbi Avin bar Chiya might have resolved it himself from the earlier statement of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina - that Rebbi Elazar will agree that 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Asham, Ein B'nah Karev Asham' (even though it was designated as an Asham, 'Kal-va'Chomer an Olah').
(c)He did not do so however - because he had not heard of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's statement.
(d)In fact, Rebbi Avin bar Kahana replied - that it is.
14)
(a)On what grounds did Rebbi Avin bar Kahana reject the Kashya that Rebbi Elazar is bound to agree that it cannot be brought as an Olah, since the mother does not have the name of an Olah? What may otherwise be Rebbi Elazar's reason regarding 'Mafrish Nekeivah le'Olah'?
(b)How does Rebbi Avin bar Chiya query Rebbi Avin bar Kahana's ruling, from our Mishnah which, citing Rebbi Elazar, rules 'V'ladan ... ad Sof Kol ha'Doros Yir'u ... ve'Yavi bi'Demeihen Olos'?
(c)How does Rebbi Avin bar Kahana refute the Kashya?
14)
15)
(a)What did Rebbi Avin bar Chiya (who came from Eretz Yisrael) comment on the answer of Rebbi Avin bar Kahana (who was a Bavli)?
(b)What would he (Rebbi Avin bar Chiya) then have answered (see Hagahos ha'Gra)?
15)
(a)Rebbi Avin bar Chiya (who came from Eretz Yisrael) commented on the answer of Rebbi Avin bar Kahana (who was a Bavli) - that the Bavli'im tend to give forced answers ('Shinuyi Dechiki').
(b)He would have answered that our Mishynah is speaking where all the babies that were born were females (See Hagahos ha'Gra).
