web analytics
October 23, 2014 / 29 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim with Soldiers 5774 Roundup: Year of Relief and Service for Israel’s Needy

Meir Panim implements programs that serve Israel’s neediest populations with respect and dignity. Meir Panim also coordinated care packages for families in the South during the Gaza War.



More On Temurah (Temurah 2,3 and 9)


Jews participating in the ceremony known as 'Redemption of the first born donkey' or 'Pidyon Peter Chamor'

Jews participating in the ceremony known as 'Redemption of the first born donkey' or 'Pidyon Peter Chamor'
Photo Credit: Abir Sultan/Flash90

The act of temurah, consecrating another animal in place of an already consecrated animal, incurs the punishment of malkot, lashes. This is somewhat surprising. There is a halachic rule that a prohibition that does not involve an overt act does not incur the punishment of malkot – “lav she’einbBo ma’aseh, ein lokin alav.”

Thus, even though the Torah prohibits one from hating another person in one’s heart, no malkot are administered for doing so because no act is involved. But neither does temurah involve an act. It merely involves the articulation of the words “zu temurat zu,” “this animal is a substitute for that hekdesh animal.” Why then does a person incur malkot?

The answer is that the rule lav she’ein bo ma’aseh, ein lokin ala does not apply to a situation in which the lo ta’aseh, the prohibited act, violates not just one injunction of the Torah but two. In the case of temurah, there are two injunctions involved. The first is expressed by the words of the Torah “lo yachlifenu” – “he should not exchange it,” and the second is expressed by the words “lo yamir” – “he shall not substitute it.”

This also explains why another exculpatory rule that would ordinarily absolve a violator from the punishment of malkot does not apply in the case of temurah. This exculpatory rule is known as “lav hanitak le’aseh.” It provides that a person does not incur lashes for violating a commandment if the Torah prescribes a cure for such violation.

For example, the Torah commands us not to steal. But the Torah also provides a cure for theft. It requires the thief to return the stolen article. Similarly, the Torah commands us not to take the eggs from under the nesting mother. But the Torah also provides a cure by instructing one to send the bird away if one does so. Accordingly, neither the act of theft nor the act of taking the eggs from under the nesting bird incurs the punishment of malkot.

Temurah, it would seem, should be no different. True, the Torah proscribes the violation of temurah. But it also gives the cure, namely that both the substituted animal and the original hekdesh animal remain hekdesh. Why then does the rule of lav hanitak le’aseh not absolve the person who violated the laws of temurah from receiving the punishment of lashes?

The answer is as before – that this exculpatory rule does not apply in a situation in which one prohibited act violates two negative commandments.

Since temurah is a way – albeit a prohibited way – of making an animal hekdesh, it follows that, as is the case with hekdesh, a person can only effect temurah with an animal that belongs to him but not with an animal that belongs to someone else. Accordingly, a kohen cannot effect temurah with an animal of a non-kohen that is offered up on the altar as a chattat, a sin offering, or an asham, a guilt offering.

Even though the kohen has ownership rights in certain parts of the chattat and asham animal that are not burned on the altar, these rights are only triggered once the animal is slaughtered and its blood is sprinkled on the altar. Before that occurs, no part of the chattat and asham offering belong to the kohen and he therefore has no power to effect temurah with respect to them.

Similarly, a kohen cannot effect temurah with a firstborn – bechor – animal that an Israelite dedicates to the him because at the time of dedication, the bechor animal still belongs to the Israelite. A kohen could, of course, effect temurah in a bechor that was born to his own flock.

It is only the person who receives atonement from the sacrifice of the animal that has the power to effect temurah but not someone who donates the animal for the atonement of someone else.

An animal owned by more than one person cannot be rendered hekdesh through temurah because, in describing temurah, the Torah uses the singular form, thereby excluding a jointly owned animal. Similarly, an animal brought for communal atonement rather than individual atonement is not subject to the laws of temurah.

Temurah can only be effected with respect to animals that are intended for the altar but not with respect to animals that are given to the Temple for sale for their proceeds to be used for bedek habayit, the upkeep of the Temple. Neither can temurah be effected with bird offerings or with menachot, meal offerings.

In the absence of the Temple, the laws of temurah might seem a little detached from our lives. But they send an important message. Just as we cannot take our property with us after our lifetime, we cannot claw back property that we have given during our lifetime.

About the Author: Raphael Grunfeld’s book, “Ner Eyal on Seder Moed” (distributed by Mesorah) is available at OU.org and your local Jewish bookstore. His new book, “Ner Eyal on Seder Nashim & Nezikin,” will be available shortly.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “More On Temurah (Temurah 2,3 and 9)”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Chaye Zisel Braun
Funeral for Chaye Zisel Braun Underway [photos]
Latest Judaism Stories
Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis

Boundaries must be set in every home. Parents and children are not pals. They are not equals.

Rabbi Avi Weiss, head of theYeshivat Chovevei Torah. Rabbi Asher Lopatin will be replacing him as head of the school.

Noah and his wife could not fathom living together as husband and wife and continuing the human race

Rabbi Sacks

The Babel story is the 2nd in a 4-act drama that’s unmistakably a connecting thread of Bereishit

Bible1

Our intentions are critical in raising children because they mimic everything we parents do & think

A humble person who achieves a position of prominence will utilize the standing to benefit others.

Myth #1: It is easy to be a B’nai Noach. It is extraordinarily hard to be a B’nai Noach.

The creation of the world is described twice. Each description serves a unique purpose.

Question: I recently loaned money to a friend who has been able to repay only part of it. This was an interest-free loan. We exchanged a signed IOU, not a proper shtar with witnesses, since I have always trusted her integrity and only wanted a document that confirms what was loaned and what was repaid. Now that shemittah is approaching, what should I do? Should I forgive the loan? And if my friend is not able to repay it, may I deduct the unpaid money from my ma’aser requirement?

Name Withheld

To the surprise of our protectzia-invested acquaintances, my family has thrived in our daled amos without that amenity, b’ezras Hashem.

Shimon started adjusting the branches on the roof. In doing so, a branch fell off the other side of the car and hit the side-view mirror, cracking it.

I, the one who is housed inside this body, am completely and utterly spiritual.

Should we sit in the sukkah on a day that may be the eighth day when we are not commanded to sit in the sukkah at all?

For Appearance’s Sake
‘Shammai Did Not Follow Their Own Ruling’
(Yevamos 13b 14a)

If one hurts another human being, God is hurt; if one brings joy to another, God is more joyous.

I’m grateful to Hashem for everything; Just the same, I’d love a joyous Yom Tov without aggravation.

Bereshit: Life includes hard choices that challenge our decisions, leaving lingering complications.

More Articles from Raphael Grunfeld
Grunfeld-Raphael-logo

Should we sit in the sukkah on a day that may be the eighth day when we are not commanded to sit in the sukkah at all?

Grunfeld-Raphael-logo

We are told that after returning home from Ne’ilah and breaking our fast, the first activity we should engage in is building a sukkah.

In addition to Yom Kippur, there is at least one other instance when a person may fast on Shabbat – the case of a ta’anit chalom, in which a person wishes to fast to prevent an ominous dream from becoming reality.

We must eat, sleep, work, and care for our dependants. How much time is left over after all that?

If mourning is incompatible with Yom Tov, why is it not incompatible with Shabbat?

On Chol HaMoed some work is prohibited and some is permitted. According to some opinions, the work prohibition is biblical; according to others, it’s rabbinical.

Based on the opinion of the Ramban, the Territorial School believes that leaving any territory of the Land of Israel in the possession of non-Jews is a violation of a biblical mandate.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/halacha-hashkafa/more-on-temurah-temurah-23-and-9/2012/03/14/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: