Temurah

Has not R. Jeremiah with reference to immovable properties of hullin, and R. Jonah with reference to dedications, both reported in the name of R. Johanan that only the law of overreaching does not apply to them but the law of a cancelled sale does apply to them?1 — One can still say that the reference is to the cancellation of the sale2 and reverse [the names].3 But how can you say that the names [shall be reversed]? This would be quite right according to the authority of [R. Jonah] who holds that [R. Johanan] refers to dedications,4 and therefore all the more does the rule apply to immovable properties.5 But according to the authority [of R. Jeremiah] who holds that [R. Johanan] refers only to immovable properties but that to dedications the law of cancellation of the sale does not apply, how can you reverse [the names of the disputants]?6 — R. Jeremiah can answer you: There is no need for you to reverse [the names].7 Must we say that R. Jonah and R. Jeremiah differ with regard to Samuel's dictum, for Samuel said: ‘If hekdesh8 of the value of a maneh9 was redeemed for the value of a perutah,10 it is a valid act’,11 R. Jonah not accepting Samuel's dictum whereas R. Jeremiah does accept Samuel's dictum? — No. Both Masters12 agree with Samuel, R. Jonah holding that Samuel's dictum only refers to a case where the act has been done but that it is not permissible in the first instance, whereas R. Jeremiah holds that is is permissible even in the first instance. And if you prefer [another solution], I may say: One still need not reverse [the names even according to R. Jonah], and as regards the difficulty you raise from the Mishnah which says: To the following [overreaching does not apply], dedications etc., this will be in accordance with the opinion of R. Hisda. For R. Hisda said: [What is the meaning of the Mishnah]: ‘To the following overreaching does not apply’? [It means:] They do not come under the law of overreaching,13 since in their case money, even less than the amount which constitutes overreaching,14 has to be returned. Said ‘Ulla: [The Mishnah]15 only refers to where two people made the assessment, but where three made the assessment, even if a hundred came [afterwards],16 there is no redress. But it is not so! Has not R. Safra said: The principle that two are on a par with a hundred only applies to the giving of evidence, but with regard to making an assessment,it is the opinion of all the authorities that we go by the views [expressed].17 And, moreover, even if there were three against three,18 do we not follow the latter set, since hekdesh always has the preference!19 — ‘Ulla holds: Our Mishnah when it says: HE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE UP TO THE VALUE OF THE DEDICATION, means in accordance with Rabbinic law, and with reference to a Rabbinic requirement, the Rabbis adopted the lenient view.20 MISHNAH. [IF ONE SAYS:] BEHOLD THIS ANIMAL SHALL BE INSTEAD21 OF A BURNT-OFFERING, [THIS SHALL BE] INSTEAD OF A SIN-OFFERING,22 HE HAS SAID NOTHING. [BUT IF HE SAYS:] INSTEAD OF THIS23 SIN-OFFERING AND INSTEAD OF THIS BURNT-OFFERING,24 [ OR] INSTEAD OF THE SIN-OFFERING AND INSTEAD OF THE BURNT-OFFERING WHICH I HAVE IN THE HOUSE, AND HE HAD IT IN THE HOUSE, HIS WORDS STAND. IF HE SAYS CONCERNING AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL OR A BLEMISHED DEDICATED ANIMAL: BEHOLD THESE SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING, HE HAS SAID NOTHING. [BUT IF HE SAYS:] BEHOLD THEY SHALL BE FOR25 A BURNT-OFFERING, THEY ARE SOLD AND THE BURNT-OFFERING IS BOUGHT WITH THEIR MONEY. GEMARA. Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: The Mishnah26 is not the opinion of R. Meir, for if it were the opinion of R. Meir he holds that a man does not utter words for no purpose. 27 BEHOLD THESE SHALL BE FOR A BURNT-OFFERING, THEY ARE SOLD AND A BURNT-OFFERING IS BOUGHT WITH THE MONEY. Now the reason is because it is an unclean animal or a blemished animal, since they are not fit [for the altar] and therefore they do not require a blemish [before selling], but if one set aside a female animal for a guilt-offering or a burnt-offering, a blemish is required [before selling].28 Rab Judah reports in the name of Rab: Our Mishnah will thus not be the opinion of R. Simeon.29 For we have learnt: R. Simeon says, It shall be sold even if without a blemish.30 [ Jonah between the two opinions of R. Johanan. the value in accordance with the Biblical law, whereas Resh Lakish holds that it is according to the Rabbinical law. thus excludes hekdesh. will maintain that the money has to be made up according to the Biblical law. Biblical law, since there will thus be a contradiction between the two opinions of R. Johanan. reserve the names of the disputants. opinion of R. Jeremiah and R. Jonah. sixth and a sixth, refunding not being obligatory in the former case but only in the latter. But with reference to hekdesh, even less than a sixth is returned. This is therefore what Resh Lakish means when he says that he is required to make up to the value of the dedication according to the Biblical law; whereas R. Johanan explains the Mishnah in the sense that there is no redress for overreaching, i.e., in the case of a sixth. favourable to hekdesh, we keep to the first estimate. burnt-offerings’. consequence. no fixed estimation for a child of that age, and so evidently he meant its value as sold in the market, for a person does not make an utterance without meaning something. And here, too, he means the animal he has in his house, or perhaps his intention was a consecration for its value (sh. Mek.). as such and is sold after becoming blemished and can effect exchange, since it is itself fit for a peace-offering. This is unlike the opinion of R. Simeon b. Judah who says (supra 20b) that even if he dedicated it for a burnt-offering, it cannot effect exchange for the animal does not become holy in itself, since he does not hold miggo (v. Rashi and R. Gershom).