Gemara Clarity

Temurah 27b

תמורה כ״ז ע״ב

Learn Temurah 27b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Temurah 27b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Paying the difference when הקדש is sold for the wrong price (אונאה, ביטול מקח, appraisals), and the closing משנה of כיצד מערימין on 'in place of' and unfit animals

Overview

רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש argue about someone who redeemed הקדש for less than it was worth: is the difference owed by Torah law or only by rabbinic law? A teaching in רבי יוחנן's name about אונאה and ביטול מקח seems to clash with his view. רבי ירמיה applies that teaching to regular land and רבי יונה applies it to הקדש. The גמרא first answers by switching the two names, but then shows that the switch works only for רבי יונה's version. רבי ירמיה says that in his version no switch is needed. The גמרא then explains the gap between רבי יונה and רבי ירמיה through שמואל's rule about redeeming הקדש for a פרוטה: both accept the rule, but they disagree about whether it applies only after the fact (דיעבד) or even from the start (לכתחילה). It also offers another answer: never switch the names, and read the משנה of אלו דברים the way רב חסדא does. עולא then rules that an appraisal of הקדש by three people is final, because the appraisal is only rabbinic. The פרק ends with a new משנה about saying 'in place of' an offering and about setting aside unfit animals 'for' an offering, and רב shows that this משנה does not follow רבי מאיר or רבי שמעון.

Opening lines

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אַקַּרְקָעוֹת דְּחוּלִּין,

But didn't Rabbi Yirmeya say this regarding non-sacred lands,

וְרַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר אַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת,

and Rabbi Yona said it regarding consecrated property,

תַּרְוַויְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי:

and both of them said it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

אוֹנָאָה אֵין לָהֶן,

They do not have the rules of exploitation (overcharging),

The steps (19)

  1. ChallengeA challenge from רבי יוחנן's teaching about אונאה and ביטול מקח
  2. ResolutionIt is about ביטול מקח, but switch the names
  3. ChallengeCan we really switch? It works for רבי יונה's version
  4. ChallengeThe switch fails for רבי ירמיה's version
  5. Resolutionרבי ירמיה: Do Not Switch the Names
  6. QuestionDo They Argue About שמואל's Rule?
  7. RejectionBoth Accept שמואל; They Argue About Doing It in the First Place
  8. ResolutionAnother Answer: Keep the Names and Explain the משנה Like רב חסדא
  9. Resolutionרב חסדא's reading: holy property is never stuck with a mistaken price
  10. Statementעולא: an appraisal by three cannot be reopened
  11. ChallengeChallenge from רב ספרא: for appraisals we follow the majority
  12. ChallengeSecond challenge: even three against three should favor holy property
  13. Resolutionעולא holds the appraisal rule is only rabbinic
  14. Statementמשנה: 'in place of' an offering works only for a specific one
  15. Statementמשנה: 'a burnt offering' versus 'for a burnt offering' with an unfit animal
  16. Statementרב: the משנה does not follow רבי מאיר
  17. StatementInference: only completely unfit animals can be sold without a blemish
  18. Statementרב: The משנה does not follow רבי שמעון
  19. ConclusionHadran — Closing כיצד מערימין