Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in the last עמוד of מסכת הוריות which is דף י"ד, but we will start on דף י"ג עמוד ב' from the first line of the wide lines. And this גמרא here comes in continuation to the סוגיא before, where the גמרא was talking about who comes first. But here the גמרא also tells us certain ענינים about who comes first and in which way you have to act toward the נשיא, etc. The גמרא says: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, כשהנשיא נכנס, when the נשיא comes in, כל העם עומדים, everybody gets up, ואין יושבין, and they don't sit down, עד שיאמר להם שבו, till the נשיא says to them, sit down. כשאב בית דין נכנס, when the אב בית דין comes in, who is not in the same level as a נשיא, but he is next, second in command to the נשיא, so then עושים לו שורה אחת מכאן ושורה אחת מכאן, they make for him one line on this side and one line on this side. In other words, in the aisle he passes through, the people sitting by the aisle on each side, they would stand up, עד שישב במקומו, until he sits down, and when he sits down, they're allowed to sit down. כשחכם נכנס, when the חכם comes in, and this is the person who is in the third level, אחד עומד ואחד יושב, one stands up and one sits down, עד שישב במקומו, till he sits down in his place. In other words, when he passes through the aisle, as he passes through the people, when he comes to the person, that's when he stands up. But the people in front of the line don't have to stand up till he gets there, and when he gets there, the people before sit down. So it comes out that one stands

up and then he sits down, the next one stands up and he sits down, and the next one stands up, and that's how it goes on. Then it continues: בני חכמים ותלמידי חכמים, the children of the חכמים or the תלמידי חכמים, בזמן שהרבים צריכים להם, at a time when the public needs them, מדלגין על ראשי העם, they step on the heads of people. When they have to enter, they go over the people, they actually step on the people, and they go to their place. יצא לצורך, if one of them goes out for his needs, נכנס, he could come back, ויושב במקומו, and he sits back into his place. ובני תלמידי חכמים שממונים אביהם פרנס על הציבור, the children of the תלמידי חכמים that their fathers are appointed as leaders in the community, בזמן שיש בהם דעת, if the children have שכל, have wisdom to understand, לשמוע, to listen, נכנסים, they go in, ויושבים לפני אביהם, and they sit in front of their fathers, ואחוריהם כלפי העם, and their back is to the people. They sit facing their fathers because they're able to listen, so they sit facing and they listen, and their back is to the other people. בזמן שאין בהם דעת לשמוע, when they don't have the דעת to understand, to listen, in other words they're still too small, נכנסים, they go in, ויושבים לפני אביהם, and they sit in front of their fathers, ופניהם כלפי העם, and their face faces the people. אלעזר ברבי צדוק אומר, אלעזר ברבי צדוק says, אף בבית המשתה עושים אותם סניפין, also when it comes to a party, they make these children of this תלמידי חכמים as סניפין, as branches to their fathers. Which means in order to give כבוד to their fathers, they sit the children next to their fathers. So the children are considered like סניפין, which means like branches coming out of the fathers, they're an extension of their fathers, so by giving כבוד to the children, really you're giving כבוד to the fathers. And that's why you would seat them, even by the parties, next to their fathers. The גמרא says:

אמר מר, we said before, יצא לצורך, if one of them went out for his needs, נכנס, he can come back, ויושב במקומו, and sit in his place. אמר רבא, רבא says, לא אמרו, this was not said, אלא לקטנים, if he has to go out for קטנים, which means for the minor functions of the human body. אבל לגדולים, but if he went out for the major function of the human body, לא, then we don't let him back in. הוה ליה למיבדק נפשיה מעיקרא, he should have checked himself before. דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב, because רב יהודה said in the name of רב, לעולם ילמד אדם עצמו, a person should always train himself, להשכים ולהעריב, to go to the bathroom in the morning and in the evening, and not to have to go in the middle of the day, כדי שלא יתרחק, in order for him not to be too far, because in those days, you had to go out to the bathroom outside of the house. Now, people could see what you do, so in order they shouldn't see, you would have to go far away. So the best thing to do is train yourself to go in the morning and in the evening, so during the day you wouldn't have to go. So these תלמידים here also, they should have trained themselves to do this, and they shouldn't have to go out in the middle of the day. So if they have to go out for קטנים, it's something you can't help, so it's not their fault, so we let them back in. But if they go out for גדולים which they could have avoided, it is their fault, and we don't let them back in. Then the גמרא says: אמר רבא, רבא said, or according to the other גירסא, in הגדות the words are אמר רבא, but the גמרא says this:

והאידנא דחלשא עלמא, now that the world is weak, which means people are weaker than before, אפילו לגדולים נמי, even if they go out for גדולים they also let them back, because concerning גדולים too, a person could never be sure that he won't have to go again, you can't train yourself in such a way because our bodies are weaker, and therefore, even when he goes out for גדולים it is also called an אונס, it's not his fault, and we would let him back. Then the גמרא says, we learned before, רבי אלעזר בר רבי צדוק אומר, רבי אלעזר בר רבי צדוק said, אף בבית המשתה, עושים אותם סניפין, also by the party we would make them סניפין to their fathers, which means we would seat them next to their fathers in order to give כבוד to the fathers. אמר רבא, so רבא said, בחיי אביהן ובפני אביהן, this is only done in the lifetime of their fathers and in front of their fathers. If their fathers came to a party, then they would put them there. But if the father wasn't alive, or even if he was alive, but he wasn't by that party, they wouldn't give כבוד to the children. The only reason to give כבוד to the children, was this is כבוד for the father. So if the father is there, then this is כבוד for the father, but if the father isn't there, there is no reason to do it. Then the גמרא says,

אמר רבי יוחנן, and רבי יוחנן said, בימי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל נשנית משנה זו, that in the time of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, this משנה was learned. This that we learned before, the סדר, that when the נשיא goes in everyone gets up; when the אב בית דין goes in, they only make a line from each side of the aisle; and when the חכם goes in, they don't even do that, but one gets up and one sits down, one gets up and one sits down; this was learned in the time of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. This תקנה was made through רבן שמעון בן גמליאל in his time. And the גמרא brings the whole story how that happened. The story is, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל נשיא, that שמעון בן גמליאל was the נשיא, רבי מאיר was the חכם, and רבי נתן was the אב בית דין, the head of the בית דין. כי הוה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל התם, when רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was there, הוו קיימי כולי עלמא מקמיה, everyone would stand up for him. In other words, when he would walk in, everybody would stand up. כי עיילי רבי מאיר ורבי נתן, when רבי מאיר and רבי נתן would come in, הוו קיימי כולי עלמא נמי מקמייהו, so also everybody would stand up for them. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said, לא בעיא למהוי היכירא בין דידי לדידהו, shouldn't there be a difference between me and them? תקין הא משנה, so that time he was מתקן, he established this ברייתא that we said before: that for the נשיא everyone must stand up; for the אב בית דין, only the two lines by the aisle; and for the חכם, one should stand and one should sit.

ההוא יומא, that day that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל made this תקנה, לא הוו רבי מאיר ורבי נתן התם, that רבי מאיר and רבי נתן weren't there, they weren't in the בית מדרש. למחר, the next day, כי אתו, when they came in, חזו דלא קמו מקמייהו כי דרגילו מילתא, that people didn't stand up for them as they used to. אמרו, they said, מאי האי? What is this? אמרו להו, they told them, הכי תיקן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, this is what רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was מתקן. אמר ליה רבי מאיר לרבי נתן, so רבי מאיר said to רבי נתן, אנא חכם ואת אב בית דין, I am the חכם, you are the אב בית דין, נתקין מילתא כי לדידן, that will be good for us. Or another גירסא they said, נתקין מילתא כי היכי דלישמען, which means it will be for a זכר, let's do something that they will remember us constantly. Or another גירסא is, נתקין מילתא כי היכי דלישני, let us be מתקן something that we will learn, which means let's learn something that he doesn't know. מאי נעביד ליה, what should we do to him? נימא ליה, let's say to him, גלי לן עוקצין, let's teach עוקצין, let's teach, let's learn מסכת עוקצין, דלית ליה, and he doesn't know that. They knew he doesn't know מסכת עוקצין. וכיון דלא גמר, since he won't be able to teach that, נימא ליה, let's tell him, the פסוק says, מי ימלל גבורות ה' ישמיע כל תהלתו, he who talks about the strength of ה' will make heard all his praise. And we דרשן, למי נאה למלל גבורות ה', for who is it nice to teach the גבורות, the strength of ה', which means the תורה? למי שיכול להשמיע כל תהלתו, the one that's able to make heard all his praises, which means the one that knows the whole תורה, all the ענינים, he is the one that's able to teach. And since he doesn't know עוקצין, so we'll tell him he is not fit for the job of being the נשיא, נעבריה, so we will depose him, ואהא אנא אב בית דין, I will become the אב בית דין, ואת נשיא, you will become the נשיא. שמעינהו רבי יעקב בן קורשי, רבי יעקב בן קורשי heard them say that, אמר, he said, דילמא חס ושלום אתיא מילתא לידי כיסופא, maybe חס ושלום it'll come to an embarrassment. אזל, so he went, יתיב אחורי עליתיה דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, he sat down behind the study of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, פשט גרס ותנא גרס ותנא, he learned and repeated and learned again מסכת עוקצין. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said, מאי דקמא, what is this here? Why is he sitting here and learning עוקצין? דילמא חס ושלום איכא בבית מדרשא מידי, maybe there's something going to happen in the בית מדרש. יהב דעתיה, so he put his mind to it, וגרס, and he learned מסכת עוקצין that evening. למחר, the next day, אמרו ליה, they said to him, רבי מאיר and רבי נתן said to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, ניתי מר וניתני בעוקצין, let's, master, let's learn in עוקצין. פתח ואמר, he opened and he said, and he taught עוקצין. And he did know how to teach it. בתר דאוקים, after he got off, אמר להו, he said to them, אי לאו דגמירנא, if I wouldn't have learned it last night, כספתוני, you would have embarrassed me. פקדי, so he commanded אפקוהו מבית מדרשא. He put them out of the בית מדרש. They wouldn't let them into the בית מדרש. הוו כתבי קושייתא בפתקי, so while they were out of the בית מדרש, they wrote questions on a piece of paper, on a פתקא, ושדו התם, and they sent it in. דהוה מפרק, whatever they were able to answer inside, they answered. דלא הוה מפרק, whatever they weren't able to answer, כתבו פירוקי ושדו, they would write the answer on another piece of paper and send it back in. אמר להו רבי יוסי, and רבי יוסי said to them there, תורה מבחוץ ואנו מבפנים, the תורה is outside and we're inside! Because they are the ones that learn the best. They had the questions and they even know the answers. So we're inside and the תורה is outside. אמר להן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, so רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said to them, ניעילינהו, let's let them back in, מיהו נגזרינהו, but let's fine them, דלא נימרו שמעתא משמייהו, that we shouldn't give over any דינים in their name. אסיקו לרבי מאיר אחרים, so they gave רבי מאיר's name אחרים, that whenever they would say a דין in the name of רבי מאיר they wouldn't mention his name, they would just say אחרים, אחרים אומרים, others say, and that was רבי מאיר. ולרבי נתן יש אומרים, and they, רבי נתן they gave the title יש אומרים, so whenever it says יש אומרים, some say, this is רבי נתן. אחוו להו בחלמיהו, they showed to them in their dreams, זילו פייסוהו לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, go apologize to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. רבי נתן אזל, רבי נתן went, רבי מאיר לא אזל, רבי מאיר didn't go. אמר, he said, דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין, the words of dreams don't make any better and don't make any worse. You don't have to do anything if it's told to you in dreams. כי אזל רבי נתן, when רבי נתן went, אמר ליה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, so רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said to him, נהי the truth is דאהני לך קמרא דאבוך למהוי אב בית דין, the golden belt of your father helped you to become אב בית דין. In other words, his father had an honorable position, so because of that you were אב בית דין. נשוינך נמי נשיא? You also want that we should make you into a נשיא? And the גמרא continues, מתני ליה רבי לרבי שמעון בריה, רבי, who was a descendant of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, taught his son רבי שמעון, אחרים אומרים, אחרים say, אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב, that if it would have been תמורה, it wouldn't have been brought as a קרבן on the מזבח. And this refers to the דין of טעות מעשר. There is a דין of מעשר בהמה, which means that you have to every year the new cattle has to be brought into a stable, and you have to let them out one by one, and you count 1, 2, 3 till you come to 10, and the tenth one is מעשר. And it says at the end of מסכת בכורות, that if by mistake you said on the ninth one that it was the tenth, on the tenth you said nine, and on the eleventh you also said tenth, so all three are קדוש. Just like מעשר בהמה, the tenth is קדוש, all three are קדוש. The ninth one you have to wait till it gets a מום and then you can eat it. The tenth one is the one that's really מעשר, and the eleventh one is brought as a קרבן שלמים. And this eleventh one is also עושה תמורה, makes תמורה. The דין of תמורה is that if you have a בהמה which is a קרבן, and you take another בהמה and you put next to it and you say, 'let the second one be instead of the first, be the תמורה of the first', so the דין is that even though you're not allowed to do it, but if you did do it, והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש, so then both are קודש. The one that was the original קרבן remains a קרבן, and the second one that you wanted to exchange for the first also becomes a קרבן. So here too, this eleventh one which you're supposed to bring as a קרבן, since you called it עשירי, you said 10 on it, therefore you also have to bring it as a קרבן, it's עושה תמורה. That means that if you will take a another בהמה which is חולין and put next to it and say, 'let that be in exchange of this', so that other one would also have the same דין as this eleventh one which is a קרבן. This is the opinion of רבי מאיר. But רבי יהודה said to רבי מאיר, וכי יש תמורה עושה תמורה? Can תמורה make another תמורה? The דין is that אין תמורה עושה תמורה. That a תמורה itself cannot make another תמורה. For instance, if you have a בהמה that became a קרבן because it was exchanged for another בהמה which was a קרבן. Now if you're going to want to exchange this exchanged one for a third one, now the third one will not get the קדושה of the second בהמה, because תמורה cannot make another תמורה. And that's what רבי יהודה said to רבי מאיר: How can you say that this eleventh one could make תמורה when the דין is that אין תמורה עושה תמורה? And this eleventh one is similar to תמורה. Why is this eleventh one holy? Not because it really is the tenth; really it's the eleventh! The only reason it's holy because by mistake you said on it number עשירי. So this is similar to a תמורה of the tenth, it's like a תמורה of the tenth. Since it's like a תמורה of the tenth, and the דין is אין תמורה עושה תמורה, so then this eleventh cannot make another תמורה. But רבי מאיר answered to רבי יהודה, that how can you say that this eleventh has a דין of תמורה, this is תמורת מעשר, when the דין is that תמורת מעשר you do not bring as a קרבן on the מזבח? This is the opinion of רבי מאיר. That רבי מאיר holds in תמורה דף כ"א עמוד א' that we learn out from the פסוק concerning מעשר בהמה, קודש הם, הם קריבין ואין תמורתן קריבה. That תמורת מעשר is not brought as a קרבן on the מזבח. תמורה of other קרבנות becomes a קרבן itself, but תמורת מעשר רבי מאיר holds is not נקרב on the מזבח. And that's what רבי מאיר said to רבי יהודה: You want to claim that this אחד עשר, this 11th, cannot make another תמורה, since this 11th itself is like a תמורה, and אין תמורה עושה תמורה. I'll tell you that this 11th is not like a תמורה. Why? Because if it would have been like a תמורה, so it would have been תמורת מעשר, and the דין is that תמורת מעשר is not brought on the מזבח. And since you do bring this 11th as a קרבן on the מזבח, obviously it is not like תמורה. And since it is not like תמורה, so then it could make another one תמורה. So when רבי told his son רבי שמעון what רבי מאיר said, the לשון he used was that אחרים אומרים, אחרים said, אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב. If it would have been תמורה, if this 11th would have been תמורה, you wouldn't have brought it as a קרבן on the מזבח. אמר ליה, so his son רבי שמעון said to him, מי הם הללו, who are these people, שמימיהם אנו שותים, their waters we drink, which means we repeat words of תורה in their name, ושמותם אין אנו מזכירים, and we don't mention their name. You said אחרים אומרים, others say. Who are these others? אמר ליה, so he said to him, בני אדם שביקשו לעקור כבודך וכבוד בית אביך. These are people who wanted to destroy your honor and the honor of your father's household. They wanted to destroy the honor of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, who is your grandfather. אמר ליה, so he said to him, doesn't the פסוק say: גם אהבתם, their love, גם שנאתם, and also their hate, גם קנאתם, and also their jealousy, כבר אבדה, is already lost. So much time passed since then that the whole jealousy and the whole thing, the whole episode is over. So why continue in such a way not to mention their name? אמר ליה, so רבי said to him, האויב תמו, פסוק says that the enemy ceased, but חרבות לנצח, but the swords remain forever. אמר ליה, so he said to him, הני מילי, when is this said, היכא דאהנו מעשיהו, when their actions were successful, but רבנן לא אהנו מעשיהו, but the רבנן here, the actions of רבי מאיר and רבי נתן were not successful. So why should we still not mention their name? הדר אתניה ליה, so he repeated and learned to him again, and this time he did mention their name, but he said, אמרו משום רבי מאיר, they said in the name of רבי מאיר, אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב. If it would have been תמורה, they wouldn't have brought it as a קרבן

on the מזבח. אמר רבא, רבא said, אפילו רבי, דענוותן הוא, even רבי who was an ענו, who was a very humble person, תנא אמרו משום רבי מאיר, still when he did mention his name, he only said they said in the name of רבי מאיר. אמר רבי מאיר לא אמר, he still didn't say the לשון אמר רבי מאיר, רבי מאיר said. He just said they said in the name of רבי מאיר. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רבי יוחנן, רבי יוחנן said, פליגו בה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן, there's a מחלוקת between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and the רבנן. חד אמר, one of them says, סיני עדיף, that סיני is better, וחד אמר, and one says, עוקר הרים עדיף, that the one that tears out the mountains is better. סיני refers to a person who is a big בקי. He knows everything. He knows משנה and ברייתא as it was given מהר סיני, that's why he is called סיני. עוקר הרים means a person who is a חריף ומפולפל, a person who is very sharp and is able with סברא to dig deeper into the ענין that he learns. The one that's סיני, he just knows the שמועות, he knows the דינים, but he is not that strong in פלפול, in going deeper into the טעמים, into the reasons of these הלכות, and being able to compare one הלכה to the other and being sharp in these דינים. The עוקר הרים, the one that tears mountains, means the one that is very sharp in his learning, and he knows the טעמים more. And the מחלוקת here between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and the רבנן, one says that סיני is better, and one says that עוקר הרים is better. And the גמרא says that רב יוסף סיני, רב יוסף was סיני, and רבה עוקר הרים, רבה was עוקר הרים. שלחו מתמן, they sent the question there, to ארץ ישראל, איזה מהם קודם,

which one is greater, because they were supposed to appoint a ראש ישיבה, and they wanted to know which of the two should they appoint. שלחו להו, so they sent them back, סיני עדיף, סיני is greater, דאמר מר, because we know, הכל צריכין למרי חטיא, that everyone depends on the owner of the wheat. First you have to have the הלכות. Then you could take these הלכות and make a פלפול out of it, look into the reasons of the הלכות. But if you don't have the הלכות לכתחילה, what good and what use is your פלפול? So therefore, the most important part is the סיני, and then second to that comes the עוקר הרים. So it came out that since רב יוסף was סיני, so they should have appointed רב יוסף as ראש ישיבה. ואפילו הכי, still, לא קיבל רב יוסף עליה, רב יוסף did not accept it upon himself because of the כבוד of רבה, he didn't accept it upon himself to become the ראש ישיבה. מלך רבה עשרין ותרתין שנין, that רבה was ראש ישיבה for 22 years. והדר, and then, after רבה passed away, מלך רב יוסף, that's when רב יוסף became the ראש ישיבה. כל שני דמלך רבה, all those years that רבה was the ראש ישיבה, רב יוסף אפילו אומנא לביתו לא קרא. By רב יוסף, even a מקיז דם, a person who pulls out blood if you have a high blood pressure, didn't go into his house. And there are a few פשטים here. One פשט is that he wanted to show that he has no authority whatsoever, so even if a מקיז דם had to come to him, he wouldn't let him come to his house. He would make him come to רבה's house, and there he would have him do it. Or another פשט is that during all these years, he didn't show any authority at all. All he did was sat and learned תורה, and he didn't even have time for a מקיז דם to come to him whenever he had to do it. Then there is another פשט that this was a reward that השם gave him, that because he didn't accept to be the ראש ישיבה, which means he showed his ענוה so strong, that's why השם rewarded him that no one in his household for those 22 years were ever sick, not even this small sickness of having to take out blood. Then the גמרא says,

אביי ורבא ורבי זירא ורבה בר מתנה הוו יתבי. אביי and רבא and רבי זירא and רבה בר מתנה were sitting. והוו צריכי רישא, and they needed a head, they needed somebody to be the head. אמרי, they said, כל דאמר מילתא ולא מפרק, anybody who is going to say something that no one will be able to ask questions on it, ליהוי רישא, he will be the head. דכולהו איפרק, the things that they all said had questions on it. דאביי לא איפרק, what אביי said, no one could shlog off, no one could ask questions. חזייה רבה לאביי, so רבה saw אביי, דגבה רישיה, he picked up his head. אמר ליה, he said to him, נחמני, he called אביי נחמני because he was his name was נחמני, he said פתח ואימא, open up and say. In other words, you're picking up your head and you think you're big, it is not because of your greatness, but מן השמים they gave it to you. And therefore, start and say. Or another פשט why he called him נחמני meant to say you don't know anything of your own, it's all taken from רב נחמן who was your רבי. So when he, that means that when he saw him pick up his head, he wanted to tell him, don't feel so big about yourself. Then the גמרא says איבעיא להו, there was a question that רבי זירא ורבה בר מתנה, הי מנייהו עדיף? רבי זירא or רבה בר מתנה, which of the two is better? Because רבי זירא חריף ומקשי, רבי זירא was sharp and could ask a lot of questions, which is similar to עוקר הרים, ורבה בר מתנה מתון ומסיק, רבה בר מתנה was calm, but he used to come to conclusions, which means he was similar more to סיני. מאי, what is it, which one is greater? And the גמרא says תיקו, this remains a question that is not answered. הדרן עלך כהן משיח וסליקא לה מסכת הוריות. הדרן עלך כהן משיח וסליקא לה מסכת הוריות. הדרן עלך כהן משיח וסליקא לה מסכת הוריות. In this

גמרא, the באר שבע asked the question, what is the connection between the מחלוקת of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and the רבנן, that one says סיני is עדיף and one says עוקר הרים is עדיף, to the whole story the גמרא brings before that רבי מאיר and רבי נתן wanted to take רבן שמעון בן גמליאל away from his נשיאות? And he says that the connection is very strong. Because, as we see from the גמרא before, that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל did not know עוקצין, while רבי מאיר and רבי נתן did know עוקצין, so obviously, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was not סיני. So he was עוקר הרים. And רבי מאיר and רבי נתן, they did know עוקצין, they knew more, so they were סיני. So the מחלוקת here when it says that there's a מחלוקת between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and the רבנן, who are the רבנן? Those are רבי מאיר and רבי נתן. And it says חד אמר סיני עדיף, one says סיני is greater, that is רבי מאיר and רבי נתן, that's the רבנן. And then it says חד אמר עוקר הרים עדיף, one says עוקר הרים is stronger, that is רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, because he was עוקר הרים. And this is the connection between this גמרא and the גמרא before. But the ליובאוויטשער רבי שליט״א in the ספר לקוטי שיחות, חלק י״ב, in the 12th volume in פרשת בחקתי, says that he doesn't understand the פשט of the באר שבע. Because we find

בפירוש in the גמרא סנהדרין דף כ״ד עמוד א׳, there it says, כל הרואה רבי מאיר בבית המדרש כאילו עוקר הרי הרים וטוחנן זה בזה, it's as if he would tear out mountains of mountains and grind them one with each other. So we see בפירוש in the גמרא that רבי מאיר was עוקר הרים. Also the גמרא says in עירובין דף י״ג עמוד ב׳, גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו, that the אייבערשטער knows that no one in רבי מאיר's generation was as great as רבי מאיר. ומפני מה לא נקבע הלכה כמותו? Why didn't they establish the הלכה like רבי מאיר? שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו, because his חברים could not stand, could not enter into the depth of his understanding. So we see בפירוש that רבי מאיר's מעלה mainly was in the depth of the understanding. So he was עוקר הרים. Also the גמרא says there, תלמיד היה לו לרבי מאיר וסומכוס שמו, רבי מאיר had a תלמיד, his name was סומכוס, שהיה אומר על כל דבר ודבר של טומאה מ״ח טעמי טומאה ועל כל דבר ודבר של טהרה מ״ח טעמי טהרה, that for everything of טומאה he had 48 reasons of טומאה, and for everything of טהרה he had 48 reasons of טהרה. So who was this? A תלמיד of רבי מאיר. And the גמרא stresses the point that was a תלמיד of רבי מאיר. The גמרא doesn't just say that סומכוס was able to do it. The גמרא says רבי מאיר had a תלמיד name was סומכוס that could do this, because this shows the מעלה of רבי מאיר. So we see here that רבי מאיר's מעלה was in the ענין of טעמים, he was able to give forty-eight טעמים of טומאה and forty-eight טעמים of טהרה, even his תלמיד, certainly רבי מאיר himself. So the גמרא here certainly stresses that רבי מאיר was עוקר הרים. Also, the גמרא says in סוטה דף כ' at the end of עמוד א', מעיקרא אתא לקמיה דרבי עקיבא. First רבי מאיר came to רבי עקיבא. כיון דלא מצי קאי אליבא, since he couldn't understand what he was learning, אתא לקמיה דרבי ישמעאל. He came to רבי ישמעאל. וגמר גמרא. There he learned גמרא. רש״י says, what does that mean? המשניות הסתומות כמו שהן, he learned the closed משניות the way they are. And then הדר אתא לקמיה דרבי עקיבא, סבר סברא. Then he came to רבי עקיבא and there he learned סברא. What does רש״י say on סבר סברא? לעמוד על עיקר טעמי המשנה ולהבין דבר מתוך דבר. There he got into the עיקר of the טעמים, the reasons of the משנה, to understand one thing from another. So we see that even while he was a תלמיד of רבי עקיבא yet, he already was עומד על עיקר טעמי המשניות, which means already then he had the חריפות of עוקר הרים, because it's so understood that to know the טעמים of the משניות, that is the ענין of עוקר הרים. As we see in תוספות עירובין דף מ״ה עמוד א', תוספות brings a ראיה that רב חסדא was עוקר הרים from the fact that the גמרא says there that רב ששת מרתע כולי גופיה מפלפולא דרב חסדא, that רב ששת was scared of the פלפול of רב חסדא. What is פלפול? רש״י says there, חריף וסבר היה ביותר ועמוק בשאלתו, and he was very חריף וסבר. So we see סבר means חריף. But here when the גמרא says that רבי מאיר learned by רבי עקיבא סבר סברא, that means he learned the חריפות, the טעמים of the משניות, which is עוקר הרים, as תוספות says בפירוש there that רב חסדא was עוקר הרים because he had פלפול, which רש״י says means סבר. Also in the גמרא in יומא דף פ״ג רש״י says on the words סברא לא ידעינן that it means לתת טעם לדבר מדעתו. The גמרא in סוכה דף כ״ח עמוד א' רש״י says, והדר מעיין בסברא, רש״י says it means מה טעמו של דבר ואם יש להשיב כלום. So we see that סבר means טעמים. טעמים, that is עוקר הרים. So when it says that רבי מאיר learned סברא by רבי עקיבא, that means that when he was still by רבי עקיבא, he was already עוקר הרים. And we also see in תוספות in גיטין דף ס״ז עמוד א', תוספות says that רבי מאיר is חריף ומקשה לרבי ישמעאל לא סגי דלא מסיק. Now, חריף ומקשה is similar to the ענין of עוקר הרים, so תוספות says בפירוש that רבי מאיר was עוקר הרים. Also the גמרא says in סוטה דף מ״ט עמוד ב', משמת רבי עקיבא בטלו זרועי תורה, and רש״י says it means those people who are מעמיק סברא ולירד לעומק טעמי תורה שבעל פה. And since רבי מאיר was a תלמיד of רבי עקיבא, so רבי מאיר followed this also. The גמרא also says in סנהדרין that there is סתם מתניתין, and תוספתא, ספרא, ספרי, וכולהו אליבא דרבי עקיבא. And רבי מאיר was a תלמיד מובהק of רבי עקיבא. Not only because of the גמרא we mentioned before, but it says בפירוש in ירושלמי ברכות פרק ב' הלכה א', that רבי מאיר יתיב דרש ואמר שמועתא משמיה דרבי ישמעאל, that רבי מאיר would דרשן and say דינים in the name of רבי ישמעאל, ולא אמר שמועתא משמיה דרבי עקיבא, and he wouldn't say any דינים in the name of רבי עקיבא. And the reason was not because he didn't say any דינים from רבי עקיבא, but because he didn't have to mention his name, the גמרא says there, because כל עלמא ידעין דרבי מאיר תלמידיה דרבי עקיבא, because everyone knew he was a תלמיד of רבי עקיבא. So he was a תלמיד מובהק of רבי עקיבא. So if רבי עקיבא's דרך was the ענין of עוקר הרים, so was רבי מאיר's דרך of עוקר הרים. So all these ענינים show that רבי מאיר was עוקר הרים. So how can the באר שבע say that the פשט here is that רבי מאיר was סיני and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was עוקר הרים? And

even concerning רב נתן, we find a רמז in the גמרא that רב נתן was also עוקר הרים. Because the גמרא says in בבא קמא דף נ״ג עמוד א' and in בבא מציעא דף קי״ז עמוד ב', that רב נתן דיינא הוא ונחית לעומקא דדינא. He was a דיין and he goes into the עומק of the דין. So even though it's not a hundred percent ראיה, but a רמז there is that he goes into the עומק, which means that he was עוקר הרים. So based on all that, it seems like רבי מאיר and רב נתן were עוקר הרים. So how can the באר שבע say that רבי מאיר and רב נתן were the סיני? And then there are more questions the ליובאוויטשער רבי שליט״א asked on this גמרא. When they gave the קנס to רבי מאיר and רב נתן that they shouldn't say any שמועות in their names, why did they choose for רבי מאיר דוקא the כינוי אחרים, and יש אומרים for רב נתן? Why דוקא אחרים? So תוספות in סוטה דף י״ב עמוד א' says that שמועות שקיבל מאלישע בן אבויה קורא אותם אחרים מפני שהיה שמו אחר. That those דינים that רבי מאיר said in the name of אלישע בן אבויה, when he said those דינים, they called him אחרים because he said it in the name of אלישע בן אבויה who was called אחר, but all other שמועות, the גמרא says in his name. But then תוספות says that this is not the פשט, but that only those דינים that were said after the מעשה that happened here as the גמרא tells it in הוריות, then he was called אחרים, but anything that was quoted from him from before, he's not called אחרים. And the same thing is said that were said after the מעשה that happened here as the גמרא tells it in הוריות, then he was called אחרים, but anything that's quoted from him from before, he's not called אחרים. And the same thing it says in ספר כריתות ולשון לימודים, שער א' סוף סימן ל', which is brought down in סדר הדורות, that the things he said after this מעשה, he's called אחרים. But the question is, this reason is not good enough, because it is very hard to say that after this מעשה רב מאיר only said few דינים. Because if you compare the דינים that the גמרא quotes in the name of אחרים compared to how many דינים he said when he is called רב מאיר, it is very hard to say that all the דינים that he is called רב מאיר were all said before this מעשה. So there must be another reason why he is called אחרים, and there must be another reason also why only sometimes he is referred to as אחרים, and sometimes he is called רב מאיר. And another question he asks: in the

גמרא here, when the גמרא wants to bring that רבי taught רב שמעון his son and didn't mention רב מאיר's name, the גמרא here brings concerning which דין it was. And the גמרא says he said to him that אחרים said, אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב. Why is it important to mention concerning which דין רבי said this to his son רב שמעון? The main thing is that he said it in the name of אחרים. So the גמרא could have said that רבי taught his son and said אחרים אומרים, and he should have asked him, "Why do you say אחרים, why don't you mention the name?" From the גמרא is משמע that the גמרא wants to bring which דין it is, and later on in the גמרא again, after the גמרא said that he did listen to him and did mention his name, the גמרא again repeats what it was about. There certainly the גמרא could have said that he told him אומרים משמיה דרב מאיר, and we would know what it's about because it is concerning the same דין as we said before. Nevertheless, the גמרא repeats it again and says that later הדר אתניה ליה אומרים משמיה דרב מאיר אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב. So it's משמע as if this דין of אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב has a connection to this whole ענין in this גמרא. And therefore the ליובאוויטשער רבי says that he thinks that the פשט in the גמרא is based on the same גאנג as the באר שבע, that the מחלוקת here between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and the רבנן whether סיני עדיף or עוקר הרים עדיף is really the מחלוקת between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and רב מאיר and רב נתן, but just the opposite than what the באר שבע says: not that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was the עוקר הרים, and רב מאיר and רב נתן, they were the סיני; just opposite, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, he was the סיני, and רב מאיר and רב נתן, they were the עוקר הרים. As we said before that we see from all these גמרות that רב מאיר was עוקר הרים and so too רב נתן. And this also fits to the סדר in the גמרא, because the רדב"ז says in הלכות מעשר שני פרק ו הלכה ג that whenever the גמרא says פליגי בה, that there's a מחלוקת between two, חד אמר like this and חד אמר like this, and the גמרא doesn't prove who says what, because sometimes the גמרא says תסתיים and proves who said what, but wherever the גמרא doesn't say that, then בפשטות we have to accept that the first name that is mentioned, he is the one that has the first opinion, and the second name that's mentioned, he is the one of the second opinion. And therefore here, when it says פליגי בה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן, חד אמר סיני עדיף וחד אמר עוקר הרים עדיף, so we

have to say that the first name that's mentioned, which is רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, he is of the opinion that סיני עדיף, and the second name, which is the רבנן, which we've been saying is רב מאיר and רב נתן, they are of the opinion of עוקר הרים עדיף. And that fits to all these גמרות that רב מאיר and רב נתן were עוקר הרים. And therefore we'll have to say that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was סיני. This will also explain why the גמרא says in גיטין דף עה and many other places that כל מקום ששנה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במשנתנו הלכה כמותו, חוץ, that in most places the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, it fits to this גמרא. Because if we're saying that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל is סיני, and סיני עדיף, that's the מסקנא in the גמרא here, so therefore the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל because he is סיני and סיני עדיף. איי, the question is, but in the story that the גמרא tells, it says that they said, "Let's ask him to learn עוקצין, גלי עוקצין דלית ליה. Let's ask him to learn עוקצין, which he doesn't know." It's משמע that he wasn't סיני, as the ראיה of the באר שבע is. So the ליובאוויטשער רבי says the פשט in the גמרא would have to be that he doesn't have the חריפות and the טעמים to be able to answer the קשיות in the ענין of עוקצין. But that doesn't mean that he didn't know the דינים themselves of עוקצין, because if that would be so, then how is it possible that in one night he should learn all the דינים of עוקצין? ובפרט it's not משמע in the גמרא that he had someone teach it to him. He learned it himself. Plus, it wouldn't be a כבוד for the נשיא to ask someone to teach him. So therefore we must say that he knew עוקצין, he just didn't go into the דקדוק הטעמים of the משניות, and what he did that night was that he sat down and went into the עומק of the ענינים of עוקצין. And this fits with the לשון that they said, "Let's tell him, 'גלי עוקצין'." What does "גלי" mean? To learn. We find in עירובין דף נג סוף עמוד א, the גמרא says the לשון there, דגלו מסכתא, and רש"י in his second פשט there, what does "גלו" mean? מפרשי שמועתיהן ומדקדקין בטעמו של דבר. So we see that the word "גלו" means the טעמו של דבר, and that's really what they meant to ask him, that he should tell them the טעמים of the ענינים of עוקצין. And this is the reason why they chose עוקצין דווקא, because the גמרא says in ברכות דף כ׳ עמוד א׳ and in תענית כ״ד עמוד א׳ that רב יהודה כולה תנוייה בנזיקין הוה, most of his learning was in נזיקין, וכי הוה מטי רב יהודה בעוקצין, when he would come to עוקצין, אמר הוויות דרב ושמואל קא חזינא הכא. And רש״י says, what does that mean? כלומר טעם המשניות הללו קשה עלי, the reasons of these משניות are hard on me. So we see from there that the reasons behind the דינים in עוקצין are very hard. So that's why רב מאיר and רב נתן, when they wanted to show their חריפות in the עומק טעמי המשניות, which is עוקר הרים, which was lacking by רבן שמעון בן גמליאל because he was the סיני, so they chose the משניות which has the hardest טעמים, that's why they chose עוקצין. If the פשט would be that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was the עוקר הרים, and what he was missing was סיני, so probably it wasn't only עוקצין that he didn't know, other מסכתות also he didn't know. So why did they choose עוקצין? But according to this פשט that he was really סיני, but he was not עוקר הרים, so what was missing by him were the טעמים, so they chose that משניות which has the hardest טעמים, which is עוקצין. And as the גמרא תא קא says there in ברכות and in תענית, that רבא learned עוקצין בתליסר מתיבתא, which רש״י says means בי״ג פנים, many different reasons, all this is the ענין of עוקר הרים. אי the לשון was they said to him גלי עוקצין דלית ליה, so as we said before, לית ליה doesn't mean he doesn't have it at all, but it means he doesn't have, he doesn't know the חריפות and the טעמים. And אי the גמרא says that they said, let's ask him עוקצין דלית ליה, וכיון דלא גמר נימא ליה מי ימלל גבורות ה׳, since he will not be גומר, and גמר usually is בנגוד, in contrast to סברא, סברא we said before was עוקר הרים, so גמר בפשטות would mean סיני. And the לשון they said was, כיון דלא גמר, is משמע that he would not know it at all, so we must say that here לא גמר also means he has not learned the טעמים of the ענין of עוקצין. Because in גמר we also have different דרגות, as we see in many places in the גמרא, for instance בבא בתרא דף קמ״ה עמוד ב׳, there it says that גמר is בנגוד, is in contrast to בעל שמועות, even though normally גמרא is the בעל שמועות. So we see that sometimes the word גמר is not the בעל שמועות, which is the סיני, but it is the עוקר הרים. And it says בפירוש in הלכות תלמוד תורה of the אלטר רבי, the בעל התניא, פרק ב׳ הלכה א׳, he writes there that only לסבור סברות בעומק עיון טעמי ההלכות is called לסבור, אבל ידיעת הטעמים בדרך קצרה, but also טעמים is נכלל, included in לימוד. So we see לימוד doesn't only mean פשוט to learn the הלכות themselves, but also to go into the טעמים. אי, רש״י says concerning the ענין of when they said, let's ask him to teach עוקצין דלית ליה, that רש״י says שאין סדור לו, and סדור usually would mean the ענין of סיני, because רש״י himself later on in the דיבור המתחיל סיני עדיף, רש״י says, who is סיני? מי ששנה משנה וברייתא סדורין לו כנתינתן מסיני. So we see רש״י uses the לשון סדור, and it means סיני. We

must say that in סדור גופא there are two מדרגות, two kinds. You have סדורין לו מפי השמועה, which is the ענין of סיני, and then you have the normal סדור לו means that he is, it is סדור so that he is able to know even the טעמי ההלכה. And even though they wanted to prove that he is not fit for the job of the נשיא is because of the פסוק מי ימלל גבורות ה׳, and they דרשנ׳ט, the מי נאה למלל גבורות ה׳? מי שיכול להשמיע כל תהלתו. Now that means who knows everything as סיני, as רש״י says בפירוש in מכות דף י׳, that what does כל תהלתו mean? That he is בקי במקרא ובמשנה בהלכות ובאגדות. So it seems like it means סיני, so according to that, the complaint they had against him was that he wasn't סיני, and what we're saying the whole time now, the complaint was that he wasn't עוקר הרים, so we must say that this גופא was their מחלוקת. They learned that when it says ישמיע כל תהלתו, that means that you have to have the עוקר הרים in everything, and he learned that it's enough if you have סיני in everything. So when רש״י over there in מכות says that it means if you are a בקי, that goes according to the opinion of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. But when they wanted to say to him that he is not fit because he is not ישמיע כל תהלתו, they meant because he is missing in the ענין of עוקר הרים. And this

בכלל answers the קושיא of the מהרש״א, who asks, what was the opinion of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל? לכאורה they are right, doesn't the פסוק say מי ימלל גבורות ה׳ ישמיע כל תהלתו? And the מהרש״א answers that he learned that this doesn't have anything to do with תורה, this goes on סיפור שבחו של מקום, as the גמרא says in מגילה דף י״ח. So according to this פשט, we don't have to be דוחק and to make the מחלוקת far apart, that they learned it goes on תורה and he learned it goes on סיפור שבחו של מקום, but according to this we could say that even he learned that it goes on תורה, but he just learned that it goes on ענין of סיני of תורה, and they learned that it goes on ענין of עוקר הרים of תורה. Now based on this, that we're saying that the מחלוקת between them was that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was סיני and רב מאיר and רב נתן were עוקר הרים, this will explain why they changed the name of רב מאיר to אחרים דווקא, and why, when the גמרא brings what רבי taught to his son רב שמעון, the גמרא also brings the דין that it was said concerning אילו היה תמורה לא היה קדוש. And he explained as follows: because this מחלוקת whether סיני is עדיף or עוקר הרים is עדיף, we could say the יסוד of this מחלוקת is the famous חקירה, what is more important, כמות or איכות? כמות, which is the quantity, or איכות, which is the quality. As רבי יוסף ענגיל speaks about it in לקח טוב כלל ט״ו, and other ספרים also discuss this חקירה, whether ריבוי הכמות מכריע האיכות. When you have more כמות, more quantity, does that outweigh the איכות, or we still say that the איכות, the quality, is always more important than the quantity? And we find it in different places in ש״ס. And just to

give one example of the גמרא in הוריות itself, in the previous דף י״ג, where it says that there's a מחלוקת between two ברייתות, when we have the קרבן יחיד, the חטאת that the יחיד brings, one of them brings a כשבה and one brought a שעירה, which one comes first? So the גמרא says that there's one opinion that the שעירה comes first, because the שעירה has a דין that by עבודה זרה you would bring a שעירה, while a כשבה cannot be brought by עבודה זרה. And the other one holds that the כשבה is more important, because there is more on the מזבח from the כשבה, because it has an אליה. So he says this is really the מחלוקת. If you follow the כמות, so we say that since the כשבה has more כמות, there's a bigger part, more quantity of that בהמה that is used for a קרבן, that's why that's first, because כמות is more important. The one that holds that איכות is more important, he says that you have to look into the איכות, into the quality of the קרבן. So since you see that the שעירה has a quality of a קרבן even for עבודה זרה, so obviously the quality of this שעירה is stronger, greater than the quality of the כשבה. So the מחלוקת there is whether the כמות is more important or the איכות is more important. So the ליובאוויטשער רבי says that the מחלוקת whether סיני is more important or עוקר הרים is more important is the same מחלוקת. סיני is more כמות, he knows more, he has more quantity, he knows more הלכות, but in איכות, in the quality of the learning, it is not that great. The one that is עוקר הרים is more in quality and less in quantity. And this is really the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and רבי נתן against רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, who was סיני and held סיני עדיף, because he held that the quantity is more important, while רבי מאיר and רבי נתן, they felt that the איכות is more important, that's why they were עוקר הרים and they held that עוקר הרים עדיף. And this is the reason that when they קנס them, they made רבי מאיר's name אחרים, because even though they wanted to קנס them, to fine them, but nevertheless they wanted to give them a name that would at least bring out their מעלה, even though רבן שמעון בן גמליאל held that his מעלה was greater, but nevertheless the name that he wanted to give them should at least show what their מעלה is. What was רבי מאיר's מעלה? That he was in a different איכות than the others. He was in a different quality, and that is the meaning of the name אחרים. אחרים means others, other means a different category. So this stresses the point that רבי מאיר was in a special איכות, in a different category. If it was just in כמות, a person who is greater than someone else in כמות, in quantity, you can't call him אחרים, because he's not in a different category, the same category, just more in quantity. When is something considered in a different category? If it's a different quality, a different איכות, and that's why they called him אחרים to show that his מעלה was עוקר הרים, which is a different איכות compared to the one that is סיני. And even though רבי נתן, we said before, was also עוקר הרים, but it's משמע that the עוקר הרים of רבי מאיר was greater, so that's why the name אחרים they chose for רבי מאיר. And as the לשון in the גמרא that we brought before is that רבי מאיר was עוקר הרי הרים וטוחנן זה בזה. He wasn't just עוקר הרים, he was עוקר הרי הרים, which means it was in עוקר הרים גופא, he was the greatest of the עוקרי הרים. So therefore between the two, רבי מאיר and רבי נתן, they gave רבי מאיר the name אחרים and not רבי נתן. And this is also the reason why we see in the whole סוגיא here רבי מאיר is mentioned before רבי נתן, even though רבי מאיר was just the חכם, and רבי נתן was the אב בית דין, and the אב בית דין comes before the חכם, as the גמרא said before, כשהנשיא נכנס, then כשאב בית דין נכנס, then כשהחכם נכנס. So the אב בית דין comes before the חכם. So why is רבי מאיר mentioned the whole time before רבי נתן? And the reason is because within the two, רבי מאיר was a greater חריף, he was more עוקר הרים. But then the question is, if he was greater, why didn't he become the אב בית דין and רבי נתן would have been the חכם? The reason is because, as the גמרא says, אהני ליה קמרא דאבוה, the חשיבות of the father of רבי נתן, the יחוס of רבי נתן helped him to have a higher position, while רבי מאיר did not have the יחוס, as we know רבי מאיר was a בן גרים, as the גמרא says in גיטין דף נ״ו. Now based on this, that the מחלוקת between them was whether סיני עדיף or עוקר הרים עדיף, that רבי מאיר held עוקר הרים עדיף and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל held סיני עדיף, and the יסוד of this מחלוקת is whether כמות is greater or איכות is greater, this will also explain why the גמרא brought concerning which דין רבי said to the son of ר׳ שמעון that אחרים אומרים, that it was concerning the דין of אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב. So let's look at the דין of תמורה that we're talking about here concerning the מעשה. The

case is when a person called תשיעי עשירי, the ninth one he called עשירי, the tenth one he called nine, and the eleventh one he called tenth. And here we had a מחלוקת between ר׳ מאיר and ר׳ יהודה, that according to ר׳ מאיר the eleventh one is a קרבן and is עושה תמורה, and according to ר׳ יהודה it's not. And ר׳ יהודה said to ר׳ מאיר: How can you say that the eleventh one is עושה תמורה, וכי יש תמורה עושה תמורה? And ר׳ מאיר answered that it's not תמורה, the eleventh one is not considered תמורה, and therefore it could make another one תמורה, because אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב. Because if the אחד עשר, the reason it would be holy was because it has a גדר of תמורה, you wouldn't bring it on the מזבח, because ר׳ מאיר holds, as we said before, that תמורת מעשר is not a קרבן. What is the סברא of the מחלוקת between ר׳ מאיר and ר׳ יהודה? The סברא is as follows: that ר׳ יהודה holds that when you call the אחד עשר עשירי, that calling cannot be מחדש that this בהמה which really shouldn't be מעשר should turn into מעשר. The only thing that it could do is that it could take the קדושה of the tenth one, and it could be נתפשט, it could also transfer to the אחד עשר, to the eleventh one. And therefore it comes out that the eleventh one is not a קדושה עצמית, is not its own קדושה of מעשר, but it's only an extension of the tenth. Now, an extension of the tenth is the same idea as תמורה. What is תמורה? That when you want to exchange one קרבן for the other, the דין is that the קדושה of the first קרבן is extended to the second. So therefore, he says, here too, since we see that the eleventh gets the קדושה of the tenth, it's an extension of the tenth, so it's like a תמורה of the tenth. So whatever דין is concerning תמורה would apply here too. And since by תמורה the דין is אין תמורה עושה תמורה, and the reason is because the whole ענין of תמורה is only an extension of the קדושה of the first one, so that התפשטות of קדושה can't go too far. If it would be its own קדושה, it could be extended. The whole קדושה of the תמורה is only an extension, so the התפשטות can't extend any further. The same thing here too: since the eleventh is only an extension of the tenth, so that extension cannot travel any further, and therefore it cannot make תמורה. But obviously, ר׳ מאיר holds that the דין that the eleventh one is קדוש is not because it's an extension of the tenth. It is a דין בגזירת המלך, as רש״י and ברטנורא, the רב, say on the משנה. It is a גזירה of השם, that just like השם said that the tenth one is מעשר, השם also said that if you called the eleventh ten, it also becomes מעשר. Now, since the eleventh one according to ר׳ מאיר is not an extension of the קדושה of the tenth, so then this דין that אין תמורה עושה תמורה would not apply here, because the only reason אין תמורה עושה תמורה is because since the תמורה itself is an extension, so that can't extend any further. But in this case, since the eleventh according to ר׳ מאיר is not an extension, it is its own קדושה, so it could extend further, and therefore it could make תמורה. And ר׳ מאיר brings a ראיה to his opinion, because he says that if the eleventh would only have the קדושה of התפשטות, similar to תמורה, by תמורת מעשר the דין is that the extension of מעשר cannot make the תמורה become a קרבן, for whatever reason, but that's the דין by the extension of the קדושה of מעשר. So if the eleventh was only be an extension of the קדושה of מעשר, the eleventh also wouldn't be brought as a קרבן. And therefore he says, since we see that the eleventh is brought as a קרבן, that's a ראיה that באמת it is its own קדושה, it's קדושה עצמית, and therefore it could make תמורה. But now we could ask a question on ר׳ יהודה: What forces ר׳ יהודה to say that the דין of the eleventh is only an extension of the tenth? Since we learn it out from the פסוק, 'וכל מעשר בקר וצאן', that every מעשר, which means even the eleventh, if you call it עשירי it has a קדושה, so why does he feel this is only an extension of the tenth, and therefore he says this cannot go further? Why doesn't he learn like ר׳ מאיר that this is a דין עצמי that the תורה said that the eleventh one becomes מעשר, and then the דין would be it would make תמורה? So בפשטות we have to say that ר׳ יהודה has a ראיה to his שיטה, because we know the דין that concerning טעות מעשר, that it also becomes מעשר, if you make a mistake and you call one tenth, when really it's not the tenth, it also becomes מעשר, this דין is only on the ninth and on the eleventh, but not if it happened on the eighth or the seventh, etc., or the 12th, 13th, etc., only on the ninth and eleventh. And the גמרא gives the reason for that in דף ס׳ עמוד ב׳: 'מה הוא אינו מקודש אלא בסמוך' — just like the tenth itself is only holy close to itself, he is the closest to itself — 'אף אותו אינו מתקדש אלא בסמוך'. So too, if you have טעות מעשר, only if it's close to it it becomes holy. Which means only the ninth which is close to the tenth, and only the eleventh which is close to the tenth, but not the eighth, the seventh, or the 12th and 13th. So ר׳ יהודה says that from here we see that the קדושה of the eleventh is only a התפשטות, only an extension of the קדושה of the tenth. Because if the קדושה of the eleventh would be its own קדושה, so what difference does it make whether it's close to it to the tenth or not? The דין should be that by anyone that you said עשירי, it should be holy, as the פסוק says, וכל מעשר בקר וצאן. Why is it that the קדושה is only חל if it is בסמוך, if it is close to the tenth? Obviously because it is a התפשטות of the tenth. And that's why he says, since it's only an extension of the tenth, we know that in the case of extension, it can't extend further, אין תמורה עושה תמורה, so this טעות מעשר, this eleventh, also can't make תמורה. But now the question is, since we have two opposite ראיות, we have a ראיה that it is not an extension of the קדושה of עשירי from the fact that you bring it as a קרבן on the מזבח, we have a ראיה that it is an extension from the fact that the קדושה is only חל if it's close to the tenth, why is it that רב מאיר picks the ראיה rather that it is not an extension from the fact that it is brought as a קרבן on the מזבח, and doesn't want to use the ראיה that it is an extension from the fact that it's only קדוש because it's close to the tenth? And רבי יהודה, there is no קשיא why he chooses that ראיה over the other ראיה, because רבי יהודה בכלל holds that תמורת מעשר is also brought as a קרבן. The whole ראיה of רב מאיר is that it's not an extension is because if it would be like תמורה, it wouldn't be brought as a קרבן, that is only according to רב מאיר himself who holds that תמורת מעשר is not a קרבן, but רבי יהודה holds תמורת מעשר is a קרבן, so according to him you have no ראיה, you only have one ראיה, from the fact that it's close to the tenth, it's a ראיה that it's only התפשטות. But according to רב מאיר, the ראיה that רבי יהודה brings would fit according to רב מאיר also, so why does רב מאיר better accept the ראיה that it's not a התפשטות from the fact that this is brought as a קרבן, rather than the ראיה that it is a התפשטות from the fact that it is only קדוש because it's close to the tenth?

And the answer would is would be based on what we said before: the ראיה from this that the קרבן is קדוש only because it's close to the one before, to the tenth, is a ראיה from the כמות of the דין. Because the whole ענין of being close, of being the eleventh and not the twelfth, is a ענין in כמות, in quantity. So therefore this is a ראיה from the כמות of the קדושה. This proves that the כמות of the קדושה is transferred from the tenth to the eleventh, but it has nothing to do with the איכות, with the quality of the קדושה. While the other ראיה that we have, that it is brought as a קרבן on the מזבח, and if it would be like תמורה, it shouldn't have been brought as a קרבן on the מזבח, this is a ראיה from the איכות of the קדושה, because this ענין that it is a קרבן is an איכות, is a quality in this קדושה. So therefore, רב מאיר, who holds that איכות is more important, he says that the ראיה from this דין that it is brought as a קרבן on the מזבח, which is a דין in the איכות of the קדושה, is a stronger ראיה than the ראיה that we have from the fact that it's only close to the tenth, which is from the כמות of the ראיה. And therefore he says, that from here, since we see that it is קרב on the מזבח, is a ראיה that the איכות of the קדושה is a קדושה עצמית, that the eleventh is קדוש in its own קדושה, and therefore it could make תמורה. אי, סוף כל סוף the שאלה is, why is the דין that the קדושה is only חל if it is close to the tenth, which means the eleventh? So we'll say that according to רב מאיר, this דין of סמוך is only like a סימן when this קדושה עצמית can be חל. As we know, a lot of times there are two ענינים: certain things are a סימן and certain things are a סיבה. Certain things are only a סימן, a hint, and certain things are a cause. So רב מאיר will hold that the fact that it has to be סמוך to the tenth is only a סימן when can this קדושה of the מעשר be חל. The תורה, for whatever reason, felt that the סימן for it is if it's the eleventh, if it's close to the tenth, but not this is the cause of the קדושה, because we see from the איכות of the קדושה that it is brought on the מזבח is a ראיה that this has its own קדושה. So here we see how these words that רב מאיר said, אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב, is connected to this ענין that רב מאיר was עוקר הרים, and therefore he held that איכות is stronger, and this was the reason why they called him אחרים, and this was the whole מחלוקת between him and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, and therefore, when רבי wanted to tell his son רב שמעון the whole story, and teach him that we do not mention the name of רב מאיר, so he brought also concerning which דין he said it, and he said it concerning אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב, because that's the way he expressed what was behind this whole מחלוקת between רב מאיר and רבן שמעון בן

גמליאל. And based on that we could say, that why do we find that not in too many places in the גמרא is רב מאיר called אחרים? Because only in those places that that opinion of רב מאיר is connected to his שיטה that איכות is stronger, which was the reason why they called him אחרים, as we said before, only in those places he is referred to as אחרים. But in those מחלוקות between רב מאיר and others that has nothing to do with this שיטה of איכות עדיף, there he is not called אחרים, but there he is called רב מאיר. But it is possible that we must have both conditions. As we said before, if it happened after this מעשה, plus it has to do with the שיטה of איכות עדיף, that's when he is referred to as אחרים. But if it's only one of the two, if it happened after the מעשה, מעשה, but it has nothing to do with the שיטה, or even if it has to do with the שיטה, but it didn't happen after the מעשה, so maybe there he is still referred to as רב מאיר. And that's why in most places he is referred to as רב מאיר, only in a few places he is referred to as אחרים.