Study Temurah folio 27B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
But didn’t R' Yirmeya say this ruling with regard to non-sacred lands, and R' Yona said it with regard to consecrated property, and both of them said it in the name of R' Yoḥanan: They are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, in the case of a disparity of 1/6th. But they are subject to null
The Talmud answers: Actually, they disagree in a case of nullification of a transaction, i.e., more than 1/6th, and one should reverse attribution of the opinions; the opinion previously attributed to R' Yoḥanan is actually that of Reish Lakish, and the opinion attributed to Reish Lakish is the ru
The Talmud asks: But how can you say that one should reverse the attribution of the opinions of R' Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish? This works out well according to the one who says that R' Yoḥanan holds that consecrated property is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation if the disparity between the v
But according to the one who said that R' Yoḥanan holds that only lands are subject to nullification if the disparity is greater than 1/6th, but with regard to consecrated property there is no nullification of a transaction, i.e., R' Yirmeya, how can he reverse attribution of that opinion, and clai
R' Yirmeya said: According to my opinion, do not reverse attribution of the opinions of R' Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. In other words, R' Yoḥanan maintains that he is required to pay the difference in value by rabbinic law. This is consistent with R' Yirmeya’s ruling that R' Yoḥanan holds that there