Temurah - Chapter 2

The ordinary animal.

The sacrificial animal. Rabbi Akiva Eiger clarifies that both animals must be alive at the time the statement is made.

Without specifying which animal consecrated as a burnt-offering he meant.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 5:6), the Rambam explains that the prooftext for this mitzvah (Leviticus 27:10) states: “Do not exchange it and do not transfer its holiness,” implying that there is a specific animal involved.

Mechullelet, the term the Rambam uses, refers to a convention that is effective when transferring the holiness of a blemished sacrificial animal to a non-blemished one. This convention is not, however, effective in bringing about a forbidden transfer.

The proper course of action for such an animal is to use the convention called chillul in which the holiness of the animal is transferred to money or another animal and then the blemished animal can be sold as an ordinary animal. Nevertheless, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 13, one can also transfer the holiness in a forbidden manner, using the convention referred to as temurah. In that instance, even though the holiness is transferred, the original animal still remains holy.

Placing his hand on the forbidden animal indicates that his fundamental intent was to cause the ordinary animal to be consecrated which involves the convention of temurah (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Placing his hand on the consecrated animal indicates that his fundamental intent was to redeem the consecrated animal which involves the convention of chillul (ibid.).

Which is a desirable and required act.

I.e., for the altar and not for the improvement of the Temple. In such an instance, their bodies, not only their worth becomes consecrated.

Without placing his hands on any of the animals and indicating his intent in that manner (Rashi, Temurah 27a).

We follow this assumption even when as, in this instance, the person has shown that he is willing to violate the prohibition involved.

I.e., the repetition of an action three times establishes a chazzakah, a halachic presumption, on which basis a person's conduct is judged. Since the person transgressed more than three times, one might conclude that he is not concerned with the violation of this commandment at all. Hence, he should be liable for a tenth set of lashes as well, for there is no basis for the assumption that he transferred the holiness of the tenth animal through the convention of chillul.
This conclusion is not accepted. Instead, even in such a situation, we rely on the presumption that a person will not abandon a permitted course of action and follow a forbidden one.

I.e., through chillul.

And perform temurah.

Although the person is violating a prohibition by making one transfer through the convention of temurah, we assume that he will not desire to commit a second transgression and transfer the holiness of both animals through this same convention. Instead, even though he will transfer the holiness of the unblemished animal through temurah, he will transfer the holiness of the blemished animal through the convention of chillul. It is necessary to state this situation, because generally, chillul is used to transfer the holiness of a blemished animal to an unblemished one and not to another blemished one (Rav Yosef Corcus).
When the holiness of the blemished animal is transferred to another blemished animal, we assume that this is being done through the convention of chillul, because when mentioning the prohibition against temurah, Leviticus 27:10 speaks about substituting “good for bad or bad for good.” “Good” refers to an unblemished animal, “bad,” a blemished one. Implied is that there is no concept of substituting bad for bad, i.e., one blemished animal for another, through the convention of temurah (Rashi, Temurah 27a).

This is speaking about a situation where the person had both an animal designated as a burnt-offering and one designated as a peace-offering before him or in his home.

I.e., it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and then sold (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 15:3).

Since he is speaking of one transfer of holiness - even though it involves two animals - it is as if he consecrated an animal, half as a burnt-offering and half as a peace-offering, as described in ibid.; see also Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

I.e., if his intent was to have half of it consecrated as a burnt-offering and half, as a sin-offering, as in the previous instance.

After contracting a disqualifying blemish, the animal should be sold and half of the proceeds used to bring a burnt-offering and half used to bring a peace-offering.

The phrase translated as "immediately thereafter," toch kedei dibbur, has a very specific halachic meaning: "Within the time it takes to say Shalom Elecha, Rebbi" ("Greetings, my master"; Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 5:3; see also Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 15:1), the Rambam explains that generally if one seeks to retract his statements immediately, the retraction is effective. There are, however, several instances, for example, marriage, the acceptance of a false divinity, blasphemy, the consecration of sacrifices, and the transfer of holiness from one animal to another where retraction is not possible. Hence, his original statement is binding and the holiness of a burnt-offering alone is transferred to the animal.