Daily Mitzvah (Rambam)

The 106th prohibition is that we are forbidden from exchanging an animal that has been designated for a sacrifice [with another animal]. This is called Temurah.

The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "One may not exchange it nor offer a substitute for it."

This prohibition is mentioned separately2 regarding ma'aser [of cattle].3 The reason [for the apparent repetition] is given in the Sifra: "Ma'aser was already included in the general prohibition. Why did it need to be mentioned separately? In order to compare [the general prohibition] to it: just as ma'aser, for which exchanging is forbidden, is kadshei mizbe'ach,4 so too the only animals that are covered by the prohibition, 'One may not exchange it' are only kadshei mizbe'ach [and not kadshei bedek habayis]."5

One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.

The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Temurah.

Footnotes

1.

Lev. 27:10.

2.

Ibid., 27:33.

3.

See P78.

4.

There are two distinct types of sanctity: kadshei mizbe'ach and kadshei bedek habayis. The former are animals dedicated as offerings, whereas the latter become property of the Temple treasury.

5.

Perhaps the Rambam's intention in quoting the Sifra is to prove that verses 10 and 33 do not constitute separate commandments. Rather, they both come together to define the single commandment. See N170.

The 87th mitzvah is that an animal that has been designated as a substitute [for a sanctified animal] itself becomes sanctified.1

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "[If he replaces one animal with another,] both the original animal and its replacement shall be sanctified."

Our3 Sages said explicitly in tractate Temurah4 that G‑d's statement5 (exalted be He), "no substitutions may be made" is a lav she'nitak l'aseh6 (a prohibition with a remedial positive commandment): [after the statement is made that lashes are never given for a lav she'nitak l'aseh, the Gemara asks,] "But what about Temurah, which is a lav she'nitak l'aseh [and the punishment is still lashes]!"

There, the Gemara elaborates on the reason why Temurah is punished by lashes even though it is a lav she'nitak l'aseh: "One positive commandment cannot outweigh two prohibitions." This means that the prohibition of Temurah is said twice: [1] "one may not exchange it," [2] "nor offer a substitute for it."7 However, there is only one positive command: "both the original animal and its replacement shall be consecrated."

We have therefore explained what we set out to do [i.e., to prove that this counts as a positive mitzvah].

The details of this mitzvah — when the substitution is binding and when it is not, what is its status, and how it is sacrificed — are explained in tractate Temurah.

Footnotes

1.

As explained in the previous mitzvah (N106) one is forbidden from making such a substitution. However, if one did so, this mitzvah dictates that both animals become sanctified.

2.

Lev. 27:10.

3.

Evidently the Rambam's intention in quoting the Gemara is to show that this command is referred to as an "aseh." It therefore counts as a positive mitzvah, and is not just a statement of fact, etc. See below.

4.

4b.

5.

Lev. 27:33.

6.

See N214.

7.

Lev. 27:10.