web analytics
July 13, 2014 / 15 Tammuz, 5774
Israel at War: Operation Protective Edge
 
 
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim's Restaurant in Tiberias Restaurant in Tiberias Enriches Holocaust Survivors’ Wellbeing

The generosity of Mrs. Lee Steinberg of New York helped establish the Meir Panim Free Restaurant in Tiberias.



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
Egyptian guards at the border with the Gaza Strip following Egyptian court ban on Hamas. March 5, 2014
Arab World Hopes Israel Continues Operation and Destroys Hamas
Latest Judaism Stories
Leff-071114

Sometimes when Chazal say that two different people are really one, they do not mean it literally, but rather figuratively.

Pinchas 10 Minute Parsha

The midrash says that Pinchas, (this parsha), and Eliyahu, prophet of Kings, are one and the same.

Lessons-Emunah-logo

The simple act of kindness should be the reward itself. Anything more in the form of a reward is gravy.

Business-Halacha-logo

“It is sometimes possible through hataras nedarim, nullification of vows,” replied Rabbi Dayan, “but it’s not simple for charity pledges.

The kohen gadol may not enter the Temple unless his hair is cut every seven days.

We need to understand why Moshe Rabbeinu decided to ask that his sons inherit his position after this new halacha was introduced.

Ancient Cities, Ancient Walls
(Megillah 3b-4a)

Question: I recently returned from a trip abroad and wanted to say HaGomel. When I mentioned this to the officers of my synagogue, however, they told me – as per the instructions of the synagogue’s rabbi – that I would have to wait until Shabbos to do so. I was not given any reason for this and did not wish to display my ignorance, so I quietly acquiesced. Can you please explain why I had to wait?

Name Withheld
(Via E-Mail)

Moshe served dual major roles for bnei Yisrael. He was their teacher and their leader.

An opinion recorded in the Talmud states that prayers correspond to the daily sacrifices offered in the Temple that are mentioned in this week’s portion (Berachot 26b, Numbers 28:4). It’s been argued that this opinion may be the conceptual base for our standardized prayer. Since sacrifices had detailed structure, our prayers also have a set text. […]

Is the fact that we can spend time with our families just a fringe benefit of Shabbos or an integral aspect?

Respect for basic human dignity is such a powerful concept that it overwhelms some areas of Jewish law.

If it is not prohibited when there is a purpose for inflicting the tza’ar, why was Bilam chastised for tza’ar ba’alei chaim?

Question: I recently returned from a trip abroad and wanted to say HaGomel. When I mentioned this to the officers of my synagogue, however, they told me – as per the instructions of the synagogue’s rabbi – that I would have to wait until Shabbos to do so. I was not given any reason for this and did not wish to display my ignorance, so I quietly acquiesced. Can you please explain why I had to wait?

Name Withheld
(Via E-Mail)

More Articles from Raphael Grunfeld
Grunfeld-Raphael-NEW

The kohen gadol may not enter the Temple unless his hair is cut every seven days.

Grunfeld-Raphael-NEW

A commonly employed and permissible device regarding the prohibition of wearing fresh clothes during the Nine Days is to don them for a moment or two before the Nine Days.

The prayer of Mashiv haruach u’morid hageshem mentions God’s rainmaking powers but it is not an immediate request for rain.

According to the Bach, Rosh Hashanah is referred to as moed, festival, the same term the Torah uses to describe Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot.

If the survival of Judaism is dependent on the next generation, there is no doubt that the most important person in the synagogue is the Candy Man.

From this decree on, the two days of Rosh Hashanah, unlike the two days of Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot, were no longer celebrated out of doubt but out of certainty.

Because the Torah requires one to count “seven complete weeks” one should count at the beginning of the day, which in Jewish law begins on the preceding night.

A few background principles regarding the prohibitions of chametz mixtures on Pesach may provide some shopping guidance.

    Latest Poll

    Israel's Iron Dome Anti-Missile System:





    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

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: