1)

MISTAKEN HEKDESH (Yerushalmi Perek 5 Halachah 1 Daf 20a)

îúðé' áéú ùîàé àåîøéí ä÷ãù èòåú ä÷ãù

(a)

(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): Mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh;

åáéú äìì àåîøéí àéðå ä÷ãù

(b)

Beis Hillel say, it is not Hekdesh.

ëéöã àîø ùåø ùçåø ùéöà îáéúé øàùåï äøé äåà ä÷ãù åéöà ìáï áéú ùîàé àåîøéí ä÷ãù åáéú äìì àåîøéí àéðå ä÷ãù

(c)

How is this? [If one said] 'the black ox that will leave my house first, will be Hekdesh', and a white ox left first, Beis Shamai say, it is Hekdesh; Beis Hillel say, it is not Hekdesh.

ãéðø æäá ùéòìä áéãé øàùåï äøé äåà ä÷ãù åòìä ùì ëñó áéú ùîàé àåîøéí ä÷ãù åáéú äìì àåîøéí àéðå ä÷ãù

(d)

[If one said] 'the gold coin that will be the first to come to my hand, will be Hekdesh', and a silver coin came first to his hand, Beis Shamai say, it is Hekdesh; Beis Hillel say, it is not Hekdesh.

çáéú ùì ééï ùúòìä ìéãé øàùåðä äøé äåà ä÷ãù åòìä ùì ùîï áéú ùîàé àåîøéí ä÷ãù åáéú äìì àåîøéí àéðå ä÷ãù:

(e)

'The barrel of wine which will be the first to come to my hand, will be Hekdesh', and a barrel of oil came first, Beis Shamai say, it is Hekdesh; Beis Hillel say, it is not Hekdesh.

âî' úîï úðéðï äîúëåéï ìåîø úøåîä åàîø îòùø îòùø åàîø úøåîä òåìä åàîø ùìîéí ùìîéí åàîø òåìä

(f)

(Gemara - Mishnah): If one intended to say 'Terumah', and he said 'Ma'aser', [or he intended to say] 'Ma'aser', and he said 'Terumah', 'Olah' and he said 'Shelamim', 'Shelamim', and he said 'Olah' [it has no effect, until his mouth says like his heart intended].

àîø øáé éøîéä áà ìåîø çåìéï åàîø òåìä ÷ãùä

(g)

(R. Yirmeyah): [In our Mishnah, Beis Shamai say that even if] he came to say 'Chulin', and he said 'Olah', it becomes Kadosh.

àîø øáé éåñé áîúëåéï ìä÷ãéù àðï ÷ééîéï àìà ùäåà èåòä îùåí ãáø àçø

(h)

(R. Yosi): It is when he intends to be Makdish, but he erred due to another matter (said unlike he intended).

(äéà îúðéúà) [ö"ì äãà îúðé' - ÷øáï äòãä] îä äéà

(i)

Question: How do we explain [the Mishnah about Terumah]?

òì ãòúéä ãøáé éøîéä áîçìå÷ú

(j)

Answer #1: According to R. Yirmeyah, Tana'im argue about it (it is like Beis Hillel, and unlike Beis Shamai).

òì ãòúéä ãøáé éåñé ãáøé äëì

(k)

Answer #2: According to R. Yosi, it is like everyone. (Even Beis Shamai agree that it does not become Hekdesh if his mouth contradicted the intent in his heart.)

[åé÷øà ä ã] áùôúéí ìà áìá éëåì ùàðé îåöéà àú äâåîø áìá

(l)

(Beraisa) Suggestion: [If one wanted to say a Shevu'ah, it takes effect if he said it] "vi'Sefasayim", and not [only] in his heart. Perhaps I exclude one who resolves in his heart [without intent to say it]!

ú"ì ìáèà

(m)

Rejection: "Levatei [... l'Chol Asher Yevatei " includes one who resolves in his heart. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.]

ùîåàì àîø äâåîø áìá àéðå çééá òã ùéåöéà áùôúéå

(n)

(Shmuel): One who resolves in his heart is not liable, unless he said it with his lips.

åäúðé [ùîåú ìä ëá] ëì ðãéá ìá æä äâåîø áìá

(o)

Question (Beraisa): "Kol Nediv Lev" - this is one who resolves in his heart;

àúä àåîø æä äâåîø áìá àå àéðå àìà äîåöéà áùôúéå

1.

Suggestion: You say that it is one who resolves in his heart - perhaps it is one who says with his lips!

ëùäåà àåîø [ãáøéí ëâ ëã] îåöà ùôúéê úùîåø åòùéú äøé äîåöéà áùôúéå àîåø äà îä àðé î÷ééí ëì ðãéá ìá æä äâåîø áìá

2.

Rejection: "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor v'Asisa" discusses one who says with his lips. How do I fulfill "Kol Nediv Lev"? This is one who resolves in his heart.

[ãó ë òîåã á] îàï ãîø ùîåàì ì÷øáï

(p)

Answer: Shmuel discusses [to be liable] a Korban.

úîï úðéðï äîëðñ îòåú åàîø äøé àéìå ìù÷ìé áéú ùîàé àåîøéí îåúøï ðãáä åáéú äìì àåîøéí îåúøï çåìéï

(q)

(Mishnah): If one gathers coins and says 'these are for my [half-]Shekel', Beis Shamai says, the excess is Nedavah. Beis Hillel says, the excess is Chulin;

ùàáéà îäï ù÷ìé ùåéï ùîåúøï çåìéï

1.

If he said 'I will bring my [half-]Shekel from them (the coins that he gathers), all agree that the excess is Chulin.

àéìå ìçèàúé ùåéï ùîåúøéäï ðãáä

2.

[If one gathers coins and says] 'these are for my Chatas', all agree that the excess is Nedavah.

ùàáéà îäï çèàúé ùåéï ùîåúøéäï çåìéï

3.

If he said 'I will bring my [half-]Shekel from them (the coins he gathers), all agree that the excess is Chulin.

ø' éåñé áùí øáé àìòæø îä ôìéâà áîëðñ ôøåèøåè àáì áàåîø àéìå ëì òîà îåãé ùäîåúø ðãáä

(r)

(R. Yosi citing R. Elazar): When do they argue? It is when he gathers small coins [one at a time], but if he said 'these', all agree that the excess is Nedavah;

øáé çæ÷éä øáé áéáé áùí øáé ìòæø îä ôìéâà áîëðñ ôøåèøåè àáì áàåîø àéìå ëì òîà îåãéé ùäîåúø çåìéï

(s)

(R. Chizkiyah citing R. Bivi citing R. Lazar): When do they argue? It is when he gathers small coins, but if he said 'these', all agree that the excess is Chulin.

àîø øáé çæ÷éä îúðéúà îñééò ìøáé áéáé àîø øáé ùîòåï îä áéï ù÷ìéí ìçèàú àìà ùäù÷ìéí éù ìäï ÷éöáä

(t)

Support (for R. Bivi - R. Chizkiyah - Mishnah - R. Shimon): What is the difference between Shekalim and Chatas? Shekalim have a limit (one cannot give more than a half-Shekel. There is no limit how much one may spend for a Chatas.)

îä ðï ÷ééîéï

1.

Question: What is the case?

àí áàåîø ùàáéà îäï ù÷ìéí ëì òîà îåãéé ùäîåúø çåìéï àí áàåîø ùàáéà îäí çèàúé ëì òîà îåãéé ùäîåúø çåìéï

i.

If he said 'I will bring Shekalim from them, all agree that the excess is Chulin! If he said 'I will bring my Chatas from them, all agree that the excess is Chulin!

àìà ëï àðï ÷ééîéï áàåîø àéìå ù÷ìéí òì éãé ù÷öáúï îï äúåøä îåúøï çåìéï çèàú òì éãé ùàéï ÷öáúï îï äúåøä îåúøä ðãáä

2.

Answer: Rather, the case is, he said 'these are Shekalim.' Since the Torah gave a limit, the excess is Chulin. Chatas, the Torah did not give a limit, so the excess is Nedavah.

îä òáã ìä øáé éåñé

(u)

Question: How can R. Yosi answer this? (He said that the excess is Nedavah!)

ôúø ìä áîëðñ ôøåèøåè ëá"ä

(v)

Answer: It is when he gathers small coins [one at a time], according to Beis Hillel.

2)

MISTAKEN SHEKALIM (Yerushalmi Perek 5 Halachah 1 Daf 20b)

äôøéù ù÷ìå ñáåø äåà ùäåà çééá åðîöà ùàéðå çééá ìà ÷ãù

(a)

If one separated his [half-]Shekel, and he thought that he was obligated, and it turns out he was not obligated, it is not Kadosh;

äôøéù ùðéí ñáåø ùçééá ùðéí åðîöà ùàéðå çééá àìà àçú àåúå äùðé îä àú òáã ìéä

(b)

Question: If one separated two [half-Shekalim], and he thought that he was obligated two, and it turns out he was obligated only one, how do you judge the second?

(ñáø ùäåà çééá åðîöà ùàéðå çééá áàåîø àéìå - ÷øáï äòãä îåç÷å) ðéùîòéðä îï äãà äôøéù çèàúå ñáåø ùäåà çééá åðîöà ùàéðå çééá ìà ÷ãùä

(c)

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa]. If one separated his Chatas, and he thought that he was obligated, and it turns out he was not obligated, it is not Kadosh;

äôøéù ùúéí ñáø ùäåà çééá ùúéí åðîöà ùàéðå çééá àìà àçú àåúä äùðééä [ö"ì øåòä äëà - äâø"à, ù÷ìéí á:â] îä àú òáã ìä

1.

Question: If he separated two [Chata'os], and he thought that he was obligated two, and it turns out he was obligated only one, the second is Ro'eh (grazes until it gets a Mum; it is sold, and the money goes to Nedavah). Here, how do you judge [the extra half-Shekel]?

(ñáåø ùçééá åðîöà ùàéðå çééá àå áàåîø àéìå - ÷øáï äòãä îåç÷å àìà øåòä äéàê àúä àåîø àéìå) [ö"ì ëî"ã àìå ìðãáä äëà ðîé ìðãáä ëî"ã àìå ìçåìéï äëà ðîé ìçåìéï - äâø"à]

(d)

Answer: According to the opinion (Beis Shamai) that [one who says] 'these' (are for my half-]Shekel, the excess is) for Nedavah, also here it is for Nedavah. According to the opinion (Beis Hillel) that 'these', [the excess is] Chulin, also here it is Chulin. (We explained this according to Hagahos HA'GRA in Shekalim; KORBAN HA'EDAH says that our text should be like in Shekalim.)

3)

MISTAKEN MENACHOS (Yerushalmi Perek 5 Halachah 1 Daf 21a)

úîï úðéðï äàåîø äøé òìé áîçáú [ãó ëà òîåã à] åäáéà áîøçùú áîøçùú åäáéà áîçáú

(a)

(Mishnah): 'It is Alai to bring [a Minchah cooked] in a Machavas', and he brought in a Marcheshes, or 'it is Alai to bring in a Marcheshes', and he brought in a Machavas [it is a new Nedavah, and he did not fulfill his vow].

øáé éåñé áùí øáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù ãáéú ùîàé äéà ãáéú ùîàé àåîøéí ä÷ãù èòåú ä÷ãù

(b)

(R. Yosi citing Reish Lakish): This is like Beis Shamai, for Beis Shamai say that mistaken Hekdesh is Hekdesh.

øáé æòéøà áòà ÷åîé øáé éåñé åìîä ìé ðï ôúøéï ìä ãáøé äëì áàåîø áîçáú àîøúé àáì àí àîø äøé òìé áîçáú åçæø åàîø áîøçùú éöà

(c)

Question (R. Ze'ira, to R. Yosi): Why don't we explain that it is like everyone, when he says 'I [know that] I said in a Machavas [and even so, I bring in a Marcheshes]', but if he said 'Harei Alai in a Machavas', and retracted and said 'in a Marcheshes' he was Yotzei?

àúà øáé çðéðà åøáé éñà áùí øáé éåçðï ãáøé äëì äéà

(d)

Remark: R. Chanina and R. Yosah citing R. Yochanan said that it is like everyone.

ø' éøîéä áòé àîø äøé òìé àå áîçáú àå áîøçùú åçæø åàîø áîçáú åçæø åàîø áîøçùú

(e)

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If he said 'Harei Alai in a Machavas or Marcheshes', and retracted and said 'in a Machavas', and retracted and said 'in a Marcheshes' [what is the law? Does he retract, or return to his initial version?]

øáé éåãä áø ôæé áùí øáé àçà øáé çîà áùí øáé éåñé ÷åáòï àôéìå áôä

(f)

(R. Yudah bar Pazi citing R. Acha, and R. Chama citing R. Yosi): One can fix (how he must offer it) even verbally (without putting it in a Kli).

ñáøéï îéîø àôéìå éîéí èåáéí ÷åáòéï àôéìå ëìéí ÷åáòéï

(g)

Assumption: Even Yom Tov fixes. Even Kelim fix (if he put it in a Kli, he must offer it in such a Kli).

1. Note: I do not understand the Reisha. If one may not offer a Minchah on Yom Tov, surely a vow to offer it on Yom Tov is not binding! If one may offer a Minchah on Yom Tov, just like one may offer Nedavos on Yom Tov, what is the Chidush of Yom Tov? If the text were reversed (even Kelim fix. Even Yom Tov fixes), I could explain that even Kelim fix, and even on Yom Tov, when one may not cook it. Even though Kohanim eat the Shirayim, he cooks primarily to fulfill Hilchos Minchah; the Heter of Ochel Nefesh does not apply. (PF)

4)

MISTAKEN TEMURAH (Yerushalmi Perek 5 Halachah 1 Daf 21a)

úîï úðéðï ø' éåñé áé ø' éåãä àåîø òùä ùåââ ëîæéã áúîåøä åìà òùä ùåââ ëîæéã áîå÷ãùéï

(a)

(Mishnah - R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah): [The Torah] made Shogeg like Mezid regarding Temurah (even if he was Shogeg, it takes effect), and it did not make Shogeg like Mezid regarding Kodshim.

çæ÷éä àîø ìùåââ áìà úòùä (åìîîéø) [ö"ì åìîæéã] áìà úòùä

(b)

(Chizkiyah): If he was Shogeg, he transgresses a Lav. If he was Mezid, he transgresses a Lav.

àáì àí áà ìåîø çåìéï åàîø òåìä ìà ÷ãùä

(c)

However, if he came to say 'Chulin', and he said 'Olah', it did not become Kadosh (even for Temurah).

àîø ø' éåçðï áà ìåîø (çåìéï åàîø) [ö"ì úîåøú çåìéï åàîø úîåøú - ÷øáï äòãä] òåìä ÷ãùä àáì àí áà ìåîø (òåìä åàîø çåìéï) [ö"ì çåìéï åàîø òåìä - ÷øáï äòãä] ìà ÷ãùä

(d)

(R. Yochanan): If he came to say 'Temuras Chulin', and he said 'Temuras Olah', it became Kadosh, but if he came to say 'Chulin', and he said 'Olah', it did not become Kadosh.

åúééà ãøáé éåçðï (áøáé éåñé áé øáé éåãä áúîåøä ëôúøä) [ö"ì ìøéá"é áúîåøä ëãòúéä - ÷øáï äòãä] ãøáé éøîéä òì ãáéú ùîàé áîå÷ãùéï

(e)

R. Yochanan holds like R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah in Temurah, like R. Yirmeyah explains Beis Shamai regarding Kodshim (that even a total mistake takes effect).

òì ãòúéä ãø' éåçðï ðéçà òùä ùåââ ëîæéã áúîåøä åìà òùä ùåââ ëîæéã áîå÷ãùéï [ö"ì ò"ã ãçæ÷éä îäå - ñôø ðéø]

(f)

Question: According to R. Yochanan, we understand '[the Torah] made Shogeg like Mezid' regarding Temurah [taking effect]. 'It did not make Shogeg like Mezid' regarding Kodshim. According to Chizkiyah, how can we explain this? (He holds that Temurah takes effect even b'Shogeg. He must explain 'Shogeg like Mezid' regarding Temurah regarding lashes. Regarding Kodshim, lashes do not apply even to Mezid (there is no Aveirah)!

áî÷ãéù áëåø

(g)

Answer #1: He was Makdish a Bechor.

åîé ÷ãù ìà ëï àîø øáé çééä åøáé àçà øáé éñà áùí ø' éåçðï ä÷ãéù áëåø òåìä ìîæáç àôéìå ìãîéí ìà ÷ãù

(h)

Objection: Does it become Kadosh?! Didn't R. Chiyah and R. Acha citing R. Yosa citing R. Yochanan said that if one was Makdish a Bechor [to be] an Olah to the Mizbe'ach, it did not become Kadosh even for Damim?!

ä÷ãéù áòì îåí ìîæáç àôéìå áúîåøä ìà ÷ãùä

1.

If one was Makdish a Ba'al Mum for the Mizbe'ach, even for Temurah (if he says that another animal is in place of it) it did not become Kadosh!

àìà äî÷ãéù áòì îåí òåáø

(i)

Answer #2: Rather, he was Makdish an animal with a temporary Mum.

(åîçåáø) [ö"ì åîçååø - ìá éøåùìéí] äåà ìîëåú

(j)

Objection: Are there lashes for this [even for Mezid]?!

àîø øáé éåãï àáåé ãøáé îúðéä [ãó ëà òîåã á] úéôúø áî÷ãéù úîéîéï ìáã÷ äáéú

(k)

Answer #3 (R. Yudan, the father of R. Matanyah): The case is, he was Makdish a Tam for Bedek ha'Bayis.

øáé éåñé áé øáé éåãä áùéèú àáéå

(l)

R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah holds like his father;

ä÷ãéù úîéîéí ìáã÷ äáéú òåáø áòùä îðééï áìà úòùä úìîåã ìåîø [åé÷øà ëá éæ] åéãáø ä' àì îùä ìàîø ìàå àîåø ãáøé ø' éåãä

1.

If one was Makdish a Tam for Bedek ha'Bayis transgresses an Aseh. What is the source that he transgresses a Lav? "Va'Ydaber Hash-m El Moshe Leimor" - [we read this like] Lav Amur (a Lav was said about it). R. Yehudah says so.

øáé äåä éúéá îúðé áôøùú àéï îîéøéï ááëåø åçìéó àáåé ãáø ôãéä çîúéä øáé

(m)

Rebbi was sitting and teaching in the Parshah of 'we do not make Temurah of Bechor.' The father of Bar Padyah passed. Rebbi saw him;

àîø [ö"ì ìéú - ÷øáï äòãä] àðà éãò îä (àðà) àîø ëãåï àðà îéîø åéãáø ä' àì îùä ìàîø (ìà ééîø) [ö"ì ìàå àîåø - ÷øáï äòãä] ãáøé øáé éåãä åëúåá ëï

(n)

Question (Rebbi): I do not know [to explain] what I said (this Drashah)! "Va'Ydaber Hash-m El Moshe Leimor" - [we read this like] Lav Amur. R. Yehudah says so.' Is it written so?!

[ðøàä ùö"ì ëéé, ëáñåèä ä:à] ãîø øáé àîé áùí øáé éåçðï âåøòéï ìãøåù îúçéìú äôøùä ìñåôä

(o)

Answer (Bar Padyah's father): It is like R. Ami said in the name of R. Yochanan - we remove [letters from words] and expound [through moving them] from the beginning of the Parshah to its end. (It connotes that R. Yochanan said so elsewhere. Perhaps he said so about "mi'Dam ha'Par"; we expound it as if it said 'Dam meha'Par' - Yoma 48a (PF).)

øáé çðéðä áùí øáé éøîéä åàôéìå áàîöò (äúéáä) [ö"ì ôøùä - ëï ðøàä âéøñú úåñôåú äåøéåú ã:à ã"ä ÷øé] [ùí á å] åéö÷ú òìéä ùîï îðçä äéà åéö÷ú (îùîï îðçä) [ö"ì ùîï òì äîðçä - ÷øáï äòãä] ìøáåú ëì äîðçåú ìéöé÷ä

1.

(R. Chaninah citing R. Yirmeyah): We do so even in the middle of a Parshah - "v'Yatzakta Aleha Shemen Minchah Hi" - [we expound as if it said] 'v'Yatzakta Shemen Al ha'Minchah' to include all Menachos for Yetzikah (pouring oil on them. "Aleha" is put between "Shemen" and "Minchah", and the Yud is removed from the middle, and it is divided into 'Al' and the letter 'Hei'.)