Hi,
As we go through Temurah, a question occurred to me that I hope is not misguided.
Temura is a lav that is associated with malkos (done b'meizid) - (although it seems there is also a case where it may be b'shogeg also).
This would seem to mean that temura would require hasra'ah, such that anyone in the parsha of actually getting malkos recognizes that 1: He is not doing a positive thing and 2: He can be makdish the second animal directly if he is so inclined (and maybe even 3: he will not be getting out of sacrificing the first animal because both are hekdesh so he is not accomplishing anything productive anyway).
Is the only practical case of temura with malkos one who is warned that he being makdish an animal against ratzon Hash-m, but doesn't realize that the first animal will retain its kedusha and is trying to change (downgrade?) the animal to preserve the first at the expense of knowing that he is doing an aveiroh? There is even a case (daf 9) where one is makdish an animal leaving aside the possibility that someone else can make a temura from his animal. (this seems pretty sophisticated for something that isn't productive in a positive sense).
(I know there are other areas of halacha, i.e. ben sorer u'moreh) that arguably never happened and we learn l'hagdil torah and to appreciate the sugyah.
In many of those cases, the situation is obscure, or it is a question of how to deal with a series of possibilities that may never coincide. (there is also not a whole masechta devoted to it). With the understanding that Temura is based on pesukim, Temura seems a bit different and I am just trying to appreciate where it is comning from as we go down the journey.
Respectfully,
Moshe Rubin
brooklyn, new york
1) Yes, indeed, the Sefer ha'Chinuch #351 writes that one does not receive Malkus for Temurah without witnesses and Hasra'ah. However, it should be noted that the Rambam (Hilchos Temurah 1:2) writes that if a person wrongly thought that it is permitted to do Temurah and he did so, the Temurah is effective but he does not receive Malkus. So this may make it easier for us to understand some things in this Masechta, because we need to know what the Halachah is if people did Temurah without appreciating the seriousness of the prohibition.
2) It is important to see what the Rambam writes at the end of the Hilchos Temurah about the reason for the Isur. He explains that the Torah perceived people's thought processes and some of the nature of their Yetzer ha'Ra. A person's nature is that he wishes to increase his material possessions and it is difficult for him to part with his money. He was Makdish an animal but then he began to regret it. He knows that he cannot redeem the animal, because it now posseses Kedushas ha'Guf, but at least he thinks he can exchange it for a less valuable animal. If the Torah would permit him to switch a poorer quality animal with a higher quality one, in the course of time he will allow himself to switch a high quality animal with a low quality animal and say that this is also valid. This is why the Torah prohibits all exchanges and, in addition, gives him a fine if he does exchange them, and makes both animals remain holy.
3) The Rambam concludes that the aim of all of these Dinim is to help a person conquer his Yetzer ha'Ra and improve his outlook on the world. In fact, most of the Mitzvos of the Torah are ways in which Hash-m, Who understands us best, guides us so that we can think and act in the proper manner.
4) It seems that we do not find with Hasra'ah that one explains to the potential offender why something is forbidden. Rather, Hasra'ah means a "warning." We warn him what the punishment will be for his action.
I think we now may appreciate how it is possible, in practical terms, that people might want to switch the Kedushah of one animal onto a different animal.
5) I would like to add to what I wrote above. I saw that the Shitah Mekubetzes 9a, in the Hashmatos at the back of the Gemara (DH Havah Amina Teitzei), writes an interesting idea. He writes that when someone does Temurah, he is not intending to make the first animal into Chulin.
The Sefas Emes (beginning of 9a) writes that he does not want to take away the Kedushah from the first animal, but, on the other hand, he does not want to offer it as a sacrifice either. This is why a person does Temurah; he wants to sacrifice the second animal, since it is less valuable.
I was thinking that this also might be included in what the Rambam wrote, as we saw above. It might be that a person made an animal Hekdesh, but then he decided that it would be a shame to bring such an animal as a Korban. He knows that once one has made an animal Hekdesh, he may no longer transform Kedushas ha'Guf into Chulin. However, this person's Yetzer ha'Ra still wishes to retain his wealth, and he still feels that it is a shame to bring such a valuable animal as a Korban. Therefore, he decides that he will transfer its Kedushah onto a less valuable animal. The second animal will be offered as a Korban, while the first one will remain alive. Even though, technically speaking, the first animal belongs now to Hekdesh and does not belong to him, as long as it is alive people call it his animal because they remember that it used to belong to him before he was Makdish it. It is very prestigious for everyone to say that he was Makdish this valuable, impressive animal.
This is why the Torah says that one recieves Malkus merely for doing Temurah of the valuable animal onto the less valuable one. Once one was Makdish an animal one should be prepared to sacrifice it soon. If one tries to avoid bringing the Korban, he receives Malkus for trying to avoid bringing a Korban.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom