(Permission is granted to redistribute this material as long as the Kollel
header and the subscription info at the end are included.)

_________________________________________________________________
CHARTS FOR LEARNING THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Email - daf@shemayisrael.co.il
_________________________________________________________________

Temurah Chart #6

Temurah Daf 27a

THE FOUR QUESTIONS OF ABAYE(1)
  (A)
ANIMALS OF KODESH 		(B)
ANIMALS OF CHULIN
THE TEXT OF OUR GEMARA
1) FIRST QUESTION 2 Ba'alei Mum 2 Tamim(2)
2) SECOND
QUESTION 		1 Tam
1 Ba'al Mum 		1 Tam
1 Ba'al Mum(3)
3) THIRD QUESTION 2 Tamim
1 Ba'al Mum 		3 Tamim(4)
4) FOURTH QUESTION 3 Tamim
1 Ba'al Mum 		4 Tamim(5)
LISHNA ACHARINA
5) FIRST QUESTION 1 Tam
1 Ba'al Mum 		2 Tamim(6)
6) SECOND QUESTION 1 Tam
1 Ba'al Mum 		3 Tamim(7)
7) THIRD QUESTION 2 Tamim
1 Ba'al Mum 		3 Tamim(8)
8) FOURTH QUESTION --- ---
==========
FOOTNOTES:
==========
 (1) This chart is based on the words of Rashi and Rabeinu Gershom.
(2) The question is: When the person does not place his hand on either animal, do we assume he that he is using the word "Tachas" for its permitted usage (Chilul) rather than for its forbidden usage (Temurah)? (The question could also have been asked regarding a situation in which there is only *one* Ba'al Mum of Hekdesh and *one* Tam of Chulin, as Rashi (DH l'Atfusei) and Tosfos (DH Ba'i) point out.)
(3) The question is: If we assume that a person normally uses the word "Tachas" for its permitted usage (Chilul) rather than for its forbidden usage (Temurah; see above, footnote #2), do we also make that assumption even when we *know* that the person is *also* using the word for a forbidden usage (with regard to the Tam of Hekdesh, upon which Chilul cannot be performed)? (According to this version of the question, it is difficult why the Gemara mentions one *Ba'al Mum* of Chulin.)
(4) The question is: Do we assume that the person is making the Tamim animals of Hekdesh into Temuros (because he cannot perform Chilul on them), but on the Ba'al Mum he is performing Chilul (since we assume that a person wants to perform the permitted act rather than the forbidden one), or do we assume that since -- in this case -- the person is making *most* of the Hekdesh animals into Temuros (as opposed to the previous case (row 2, and footnote #3), he probably intends to make the minority (i.e. the Ba'al Mum) into a Temurah as well?
(5) The question is: If, in the previous (row 3, and footnote #4), we assume that the person is *not* making all of the Hekdesh animals into Temuros, because we assume that a person wants to perform the permitted act rather than the forbidden one (even though he is making *most* of them into Temuros), what do we assume in this case? Do we say that here, too, he does not intend to make a Temurah for the Ba'al Mum (since we assume that a person wants to perform the permitted act rather than the forbidden one), or do we say that since the person is "Muchzak" to make Temuros (that is, he is certainly making *three* of the four Hekdesh animals into Temuros), he is also making the Ba'al Mum of Hekdesh into a Temurah as well?
(6) See above, footnote #3. (The question according to this text, however, does not pose a problem as to why the Gemara mentions one Ba'al Mum of Chulin.)
(7) The question is: Perhaps in the first question (row 5), when the person *placed his hands* on the two animals of Chulin it is clear that he intends to make them Temuros, even though doing so is prohibited (as Rav Ashi said earlier). What, though, is the Halachah when the person places his hands on the *three* animals of Chulin? Do we assume that he is making the three animals into Temuros, since his hands were on the Chulin animals (as Rav Ashi stated), or do we assume that he meant to perform the act that is permitted (i.e. Chilul and not Temurah), and he placed his hands on the Chulin animals merely because they were *more numerous* than the Kodesh animals? (It is important to note that Rashi does not quote this part of the Lishna Acharina in full, causing considerable confusion as to his true intent.)
(8) The question is: Perhaps in the first question (row 5), when the person *placed his hands* on the two animals of Chulin, it is clear that he intends to make them Temuros, even though doing so is prohibited (as Rav Ashi said earlier). What, though, is the Halachah when the person *lines up* ("Rami Remuyei") each Kodesh animal opposite one Chulin animal? Will that make us change our assumption? In such a case, do we assume that the person's intention in lining up the animals is in order to denote that he is *not* performing the exact act with all of the pairs of animals (that is, with the Tamim of Hekdesh is making Temuros, but with the Ba'al Mum of Hekdesh he is performing Chilul), or do we assume that since he placed his hands on the Chulin animals and not on the Hekdesh animals, he intends to make *all* of them into Temuros?

Main
Temurah Page		 List of Charts
and Graphics		 Insights
to the Daf
 Background
to the Daf		 Review the Daf
Questions and Answers 		Point by Point
Summary

For questions or sponsorship information, write to daf@shemayisrael.co.il