1. It all depends on the intentions of the person who does the Chilul. This can be understood with the help of the Mishnah Temurah 26b which states that if someone says "This animal is the Temurah of this holy animal" or "the Chalifah [swop] of this" then the second animal becomes Temurah. However, if he said "This animal is 'Mechulal' on this holy animal" this is ineffective. Rashi explains that the difference is that since he used a phrase of Chilul this is meaningless because a holy animal without a blemish can never become profane.

2. In our Gemara in Kidushin 55a (daf nun hei) the person who found the animal in the vicinity of Yerushalayim wants to make it into a Chulin animal. Since that is his intention it follows that it cannot become Temurah. This is why Tosfos Kidushin 55a DH Amar writes that he brings 2 animals and says "If this is an Olah it will be 'Mechulelet' on this. Since he used the word Chilul it cannot become Temurah. This is also why Tosfos writes a few lines afterwards that he must do this specifically in the way of Chilul.

I should point out that what I wrote above in (1) according to the Mishnah Temurah 26b that a holy animal without a blemish cannot become profane, is not actually the opinion of Rebbi Meir in our Sugya (according to the way Rashi learns) but rather this is the opinion of the other Tana'im who disagree with Rebbi Meir.

Dovid Bloom

1. It all depends on the intentions of the person who does the chilul. This can be understood with the help of the Mishnah Temurah 26b which states that if someone says "This animal is the temurah of this holy animal" or "the chalifat [swop] of this" then the second animal becomes temurah. However, if he said "This animal is 'mechulal' on this holy animal" this is ineffective. Rashi explains that the difference is that since he used a phrase of chilul this is meaningless because a holy animal without a blemish can never become profain.

2. In our Gemara in Kidushin 55a (daf nun hei) the person who found the animal in the vicinity of Yerushalayim wants to make it into a chuln animal. Since that is his intention it follows that it cannot become temurah. This is why Tosfos Kidushin 55a DH Amar writes that he brings 2 animals and says "If this is an olah it will be 'mechulelet' on this. Since he used the word chilul it cannot become temurah. This is also why Tosfos writes a few lines afterwards that he must do this specifically in the way of chilul. I should point out that what I wrote above in (1) according to the Mishnah Temurah 26b that a holy animal without a blemish cannot become profane, is not actually the opinion of R. Meir in our Sugya (according to the way Rashi learns) but rather this is the opinion of the other Tanaim who disagree with R. Meir.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Follow-up reply:

1. Here is a very slight addition to the above reply. The crucial thing is not exactly the intentions of the person, but it would be more accurate to say that the crucial thing is the "Lashon" that he used:- the way he said it. When one does Temurah one does not use the same Lashon - expression - that one uses when one does chilul. This is actually what Rashi writes in the Mishna Temurah 26b that I cited last time that Temurah is effected when one uses a lashon of temurah, whilst chilul is effected when one uses a lashon of chilul.

2. This is also stated by the Rambam Hilchos Temurah 2:1 who writes "Temurah is when the owner of the sacrifice says on a profane animal in his possession 'This shall be in place of this...' ". One learns from the Rambam that it all depends on the way you say it.

3. This is consistent with the Mishnah Kidushin 28b that merely saying that one pledges an item for the Beis Hamikdash is equilavent to actually handing it over to one's friend. In other words when it comes to Hekdesh, it all depends on what one says

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom