Temurah 54

Chapter 54

א והאמר רבי ירמיה אקרקעות דחולין ורבי יונה אמר אהקדשות תרווייהו משמיה דר' יוחנן אמרי אונאה אין להן ביטול מקח יש להם

1 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the overreaching was more than a sixth the sale is annulled. There will thus be a contradiction according to R. Jonah between the two opinions of R. Johanan.');">1 - One can still say that the reference is to the cancellation of the sale2

ב לעולם אביטול מקח ואיפוך

2 and reverse [the names].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish above and say: R. Johanan holds that he is required to make up the value in accordance with the Biblical law, whereas Resh Lakish holds that it is according to the Rabbinical law.');">3

ג ומי מצית אמרת איפוך הניחא למ"ד אהקדשות וכ"ש אקרקעות

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

ד אלא למאן דאמר אקרקעות אבל הקדשות אין להן ביטול מקח היכי איפוך להא

4 and therefore all the more does the rule apply to immovable properties.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the sale is annulled. It is therefore right that we reverse the names of the disputants so that it is R. Johanan who will maintain that the money has to be made up according to the Biblical law.');">5

ה אמר רבי ירמיה לא תיפוך

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]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And maintain that R. Johanan holds that the money must be made up to the value of the dedication according to the Biblical law, since there will thus be a contradiction between the two opinions of R. Johanan.');">6 - R'Jeremiah can answer you: There is no need for you to reverse [the names].7

ו לימא בדשמואל קא מיפלגי דאמר שמואל הקדש שוה מנה שחיללו על שוה פרוטה מחולל דר' יונה לית ליה דשמואל ורבי ירמיה אית ליה דשמואל

6 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

ז לא בין דמר ובין דמר אית ליה דשמואל דרבי יונה סבר כי אמר שמואל דיעבד אבל לכתחלה לא אמר ורבי ירמיה סבר אפילו לכתחלה

7 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 t 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.

ח ואיבעית אימא לעולם לא תיפוך ודקא קשיא לך מתניתין אלו דברים הקדשות כדרב חסדא

8 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

ט דאמר רב חסדא אין להן אונאה אינן בתורת אונאה דאפילו פחות מכדי אונאה חוזר

9 since in their case money, even less than the amount which constitutes overreaching,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture meaning as follows: In the cases of overreaching of 'one another', there is a difference between less than a 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.');">14 has to be returned.

י אמר עולא לא אמרו אלא בשמוי בתרי אבל בשמוי בתלתא ואע"ג דאתי במאה לא הדר

10 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

יא איני והאמר רב ספרא היכא אמר מאה כתרי ותרי כמאה לענין עדות אבל לענין אומדנא בתר דעות אזלינן

11 there is no redress. But it is not so! Has not R'Safr 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

יב ותו תלתא ותלתא לא אזלינן בתר בתרא דיד הקדש על העליונה

12 And, moreover, even if there were three against three,18 do we not follow the latter set, since hekdesh always has the preference!19

יג קסבר עולא צריך לעשות דמים מדבריהם וכל דרבנן אקילו בה רבנן

13 - '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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if three persons made the assessment, even if three others came afterwards and gave an estimate more favourable to hekdesh, we keep to the first estimate.');">20 <big>MISHNAH: </big>[IF ONE SAYS:] BEHOLD THIS ANIMAL SHALL BE INSTEAD21

יד <big>מתני׳</big> הרי זו תחת עולה תחת חטאת לא אמר כלום תחת חטאת זו ותחת עולה זו תחת חטאת ותחת עולה שיש לי בבית היה לו דבריו קיימים

14 OF A BURNT-OFFERING, [THIS SHALL BE] INSTEAD OF A SIN-OFFERING,22 HE HAS SAID NOTHING.

טו אמר על הבהמה טמאה ועל בעלת מום הרי אלו עולה לא אמר כלום הרי אלו לעולה ימכרו ויביא בדמיהם עולה

15 [BUT IF HE SAYS:] INSTEAD OF THIS23 SIN-OFFERING AND INSTEAD OF THIS BURNT-OFFERING,24

טז <big>גמ׳</big> אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מתני' דלא כרבי מאיר דאי כר"מ הא אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה

16 [ 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.

יז הרי אלו לעולה ימכרו ויביא בדמיו עולה טעמא דבהמה טמאה ובעלת מום דלא חזיין לא בעיין מומא אבל מפריש נקבה לאשם או לעולה בעיין מומא

17 [BUT IF HE SAYS:] BEHOLD THEY SHALL BE FOR25 A BURNT-OFFERING, THEY ARE SOLD AND THE BURNT-OFFERING IS BOUGHT WITH THEIR MONEY.

יח א"ר יהודה אמר רב מתני' דלא כר"ש דתנן ר"ש אומר תימכר שלא במום

18 <big>GEMARA: </big>Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: The Mishnah26 is not the opinion of R'Meir, for if i were the opinion of R'Meir he holds that a man does not utter words for no purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where, for example, a man dedicated the value of a child less than one month old, since the man knows that there is 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.) .');">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 aside a female animal for a guilt-offering or a burnt-offering, a blemish is required [before selling].28

יט <big>הדרן עלך כיצד מערימין</big>

19 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Another version: But if he said concerning a female animal: 'Behold this shall be a burnt-offering', it is consecrated 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');">30 [

Previous Chapter Next Chapter