I would like to point out that there is a decsion in the Rambam that seems hard to understand. The Rambam decided the law that the animal of the partners can be sacrificed [work of the sacrifices ch 15 law 4] and yet a when there is a case of a female sheep sanctified for the Passover sacrifice that gives birth to a male sheep, that male sheep and its mother go to pasture and cannot be sacrificed. [tmura ch 4 law 7] The problem with this is not just that it is hard to answer but rather that it seems that any answer would have to come to terms with why Rav did not answer that answer. What I mean is this there is a case of a two partners that own a sheep and one of them sanctified it. and later bought the other half. R Yochana said it cannot be sactified because animals can be pushed off from the holiness of the alter. The gemara asks on this Why did R Yochanan bother telling this to us? We know it already from the Mishna that when there is a case of a female that is sanctified for the Passover it must not be sacrificed. Now Rav said that the animal of the partners can be sacrificed and to answer the question that the mishna seems to say the exact same law, rav answer that mishna is not like the law. The Rambam decided the law like Rav. So the question comes up how can he also decided the law like the mishna? These are two contrary decisions. The problem is that no matter what answer you would, give for this question, the further question would have to be raised then why did Rav not answer that. After all, Rav had a simple answer. The case of the partners is where the animal was nor really pushed off but just not ready temporaryly. That is different an the case of the femalele sheep that is definitely pushed off from being a a Passover sacrifice forever. Not matter how you answer. the question will always come up why did rav not say so. But instead insisted on the most extreme answer that the mishna is not like the law. Both Rav Shach and Rav Aaron Kotler suggested answers, but I do not see how it is possible to escape the problem that any answer one might give has to answer why Rav did not answer the same way? ----------------------------------------I would like to point out that there is a decsion in the רמב’’ם that seems hard to understand. The רמב’’ם decided the law that the animal of the partners can be sacrificed and yet a when there is a case of a female sheep sanctified for the Passover sacrifice that gives birth to a male sheep. that male sheep and its mother go to pasture and cannot be sacrificed. The problem with this is not just that it is hard to answer but rather that it seems that any answer would have to come to terms with why רב did not answer that answer. What I mean is this there is a case of a two partners that own a sheep and one of them sanctified it and later bought the other half. ר’ יוחנן said it cannot be sactified because animals can be pushed off from the holiness of the alter. The גמרא asks on this Why did ר’ יוחנן bother telling this to us? We know it already from the משנה that when there is a case of a כבשה that is sanctified for the פסח it must not be sacrificed. Now רב said that the animal of the partners can be sacrificed, and to answer the question that the משנה seems to say the exact same law, רב answered that משנה is not like the law. The רמב’’ם decided the law like רב. So, the question comes up how can he also decided the law like the משנה? These are two contrary decisions. The problem is that no matter what answer you would, give for this question, the further question would have to be raised then why did רב not answer that. After all, רב had a simple answer. The case of the partners is where the animal was nor really pushed off but just not ready temporaryly. That is different FROM the case of the female sheep that is definitely pushed off from being a Passover sacrifice forever. Not matter how you answer. the question will always come up why did רב not say so. But instead insisted on the most extreme answer that the משנה is not like the law.