Rav Shach had two major teachers; one was Rav. Isar Meltzer and the other a son of Reb Chaim of Brisk. So here I would like to share a question I have that occurred to me when I was learning the Even Haazel of Rav Isar Meltzer. But I want to mention that I have still to learn the subject in more depth to see if this really is a good question. The issue comes up in Temura 19b where the Sages (tana kama) say one who says, ''This female sheep should go to be a guilt offering." {A female sheep can not be a guilt offering.} The law then is it can be redeemed only once it gets a blemish. The reason is once something that can be brought to the altar get holiness of money, then automatically it gets holiness of body. Raba said, "Therefore one who says on an animal that is not fit for the altar that its monetary value should go to buy a burnt offering, that it can be redeemed only when it gets a blemish. But if he said, 'It will go for the wine offerings,' then it can be redeemed with no blemish." My question is based on the Gemara in Shavuot page 10B and 11A where the entire page is dealing with the argument between Raba and Rav Chisda about the incense where Raba holds it has holiness of body. So, I ask, how can Raba hold the incense has holiness of body, but the wine offering does not? Also, one can ask about the derivation of Rabah. From the Mishna that if one sanctifies a female sheep to be a guilt offering, it needs a blemish to be redeemed, that therefore one who sanctifies a male sheep to be the monetary value of buying a burnt offering, it becomes itself a burnt offering. From where is this derivation? The cases are opposites. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ תמורה י''ט where the חכמים say one who says ''this female sheep should go for a אשם." The law then is it can be redeemed only once it gets a מום. The reason is once something that can be brought to the altar get קדושת דמים, then automatically it gets קדושת הגוף. Then רבה said therefore one who says on an בהמה that is not fit for the altar that its monetary value should go to buy a עולה, that it can be redeemed only when it gets a מום but if he said it will go for the נסכים then it can be redeemed with no מום. My question is based on the גמרא in שבועות י''א ע''א where the entire page is dealing with the argument between רבה and רב חיסדא about the קטורת where רבה holds it has קדושת הגוף. So, I ask, how can רבה hold the incense has קדושת הגוף but the נסכים does not? Also, one can ask about the derivation of רבה From the משנה that if one sanctifies a female sheep to be a אשם, it needs a מום to be redeemed, that therefore one who sanctifies a male sheep to be the monetary value of buying a עולה, it becomes itself a עולה. From where is this derivation? The cases are opposites. בתמורה י''ט שם החכמים אומרים מי שאומר ''הכבשה הזו היא אשם, החוק הוא שאפשר לפדות אותה רק ברגע שהיא מקבלת מום. הסיבה היא מיד שמשהו שניתן להביא למזבח קבל קדושת דמים, ואז אוטומטית הוא מקבל קדושת הגוף. אז רבה אמר לכן מי שאומר על בהמה שאינה מתאימה למזבח שהערך הכספי שלה צריך ללכת לקנות עולה, שאפשר לפדות אותו רק כאשר הוא מקבל מום, אבל אם הוא אמר שזה ילך על הנסכים אז אפשר לפדות את זה בלי מום השאלה שלי מבוססת על הגמרא בשבועות י''א ע''א שם כל העמוד עוסק בויכוח בין רבה לרב חיסדא לגבי הקטורת שבה רבה מחזיק יש קדושת הגוף. אז, אני שואל, איך יכול רבה להחזיק שהקטורת יש קדושת הגוף אבל הנסכים לא וכן אפשר לשאול על הלימוד של רבה מהמשנה שאם המקדש כבשה נקבה להיות אשם, היא צריכה מום להיפדות, ולכן מי שמקדש כבש זכר להיות ערך כספי של קניית עולה , זה הופך בעצמו לעולה. מאיפה הגזירה הזו? המקרים הם הפכים ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Another question is this R Yochanan said animals that are left over can be sold without a blemish. Rabah repeated this. Abyee asked, “Aren’t you the one who said ‘one who sanctifies an animal for holiness of money that can go to the altar automatically gets holiness of body.’” Rabah answered that is for one who said for the cost of a burnt offering while the case of R. Yochanan is the case one said the cost of wine offerings. --what could this mean? Leftover animals are sold for new plating of the vessels of the Temple to the sages or to the dessert of the altar. not wine offerings. [Of course this means the wine offering that go with the dessert of the altar--but why put it in such an odd way?]