Latest update: May 27th, 2013
‘Lo Yachlifenu B’Shel Acheirim…’
The baraisa in our Gemara discusses the pasuk cited by our mishnah “Lo yachlifenu ve’lo yamir b’heima b’beheima v’hayah hu u’smuraso yih’yeh kodesh – He shall not exchange it nor substitute it, whether good for bad or bad for good, but if he does substitute one animal for another animal, then it and its substitute shall be holy” (Vayikra 27:10). The pasuk uses two terms to prohibit exchanging animals: “lo yamir – he shall not exchange” and “lo yachlif – he shall not substitute.”
The Gemara wonders why two terms are necessary. Why isn’t one sufficient? The baraisa explains, though, that “lo yamir” prohibits substituting an animal with one’s own animal whereas “lo yachlifenu” prohibits substituting an animal with somebody else’s animal.
Is It Yours?
The Gemara asks: How can a person attempt to transfer the sanctity of his korban to a friend’s animal by substituting one for the other? Isn’t there a rule that “one does not have the ability to sanctify an object that is not his”?
The Gemara answers that the baraisa is not referring to a case in which the non-sanctified animal is a friend’s. Rather, it is referring to a case in which the sanctified animal is a friend’s. In other words, the Torah teaches that one may not exchange a friend’s korban for one’s own animal; it is prohibited due to the temurah.
The Gemara asks: Even so, how does one have the ability to transfer kedushah from a friend’s animal without permission? The Gemara responds that the pasuk is referring to a case in which his friend announced, “Whoever wishes to perform temurah with my animal may do so.”
Getting Straight To The Point
The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 351) questions why the Gemara did not initially suggest this answer to begin with regarding the case of someone trying to transfer the kedushah of his animal onto that of his friend. The Gemara should have said that the pasuk is referring to a case in which the owner of the chullin animal announced, “Whoever wishes to perform temurah with my animal may do so.” What compelled the Gemara to first reverse the scenario – so that the friend’s animal is the one with kedushah?
Permitting Vs. Designating
The Minchas Chinuch answers that the announcement, “Whoever wishes to perform…” is not a “minui shlichus – a formal designation of a proxy or agent.” It is just a generic permission. This generic permission is sufficient to allow a friend to transfer kedushah from his animal. It is not enough, however, to allow someone to impart kedushah to his animal. For that, he must formally designate him as his agent to consecrate the animal.
This week’s Daf Yomi Highlights is based upon Al Hadaf, published by Cong. Al Hadaf, 17N Rigaud Rd., Spring Valley, NY 10977-2533. Al Hadaf, published semi-monthly, is available by subscription: U.S. – $40 per year; Canada – $54 per year; overseas – $65 per year. For dedication information contact Rabbi Zev Dickstein, editor, at 845-356-9114 or visit Alhadafyomi.org.
About the Author: RABBI YAAKOV KLASS, rav of Congregation K’hal Bnei Matisyahu in Flatbush, Brooklyn, is Torah Editor of The Jewish Press. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org. RABBI GERSHON TANNENBAUM, rav of Congregation Bnai Israel of Linden Heights, Boro Park, Brooklyn, is the Director of Igud HaRabbanim – The Rabbinical Alliance of America.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.