TEMURAH 27 (14 Av 5779) - Dedicated by Rabbi Kornfeld and family in honor of the marriage of his daughter Sarah to David Tzvi Formal. May they build together a Bayis Ne'eman b'Yisrael, raising children and grandchildren to a life of Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!
1) SANCTIFYING A BLEMISHED ANIMAL TO HAVE "KEDUSHAS DAMIM" OF A "KORBAN OLAH"
QUESTION: The Gemara asks the following question. A person has four animals in front of him -- one Ba'al Mum that was designated as a Korban, one Tam that was designated as a Korban, and two Chulin animals, one of which is a Ba'al Mum and one of which is a Tam. He declares, "These should be in place of these." What does he mean? Is he making a Temurah with the unblemished Korban and the unblemished Chulin animal, while he is redeeming the value of the blemished Korban onto the blemished animal of Chulin, or is he making a Temurah with both pairs? In other words, do we assume that he is transgressing the prohibition of Temurah only once, or that he is transgressing twice?
RASHI (DH u'Va'alas Mum) explains that if the owner of the animals declares that the monetary value of the blemished Korban should be redeemed onto the Ba'al Mum of Chulin, then it is not possible that he is making a Temurah. This is because the verse states with regard to Temurah, "neither a good animal for a bad one nor a bad one for a good one" (Vayikra 27:10), implying that Temurah takes effect only with a combination of one Ba'al Mum ("bad") with one Tam animal ("good"), but not with two Ba'alei Mumin. It seems from the Gemara that there is no prohibition involved in the act of redeeming the Kedushah from the sanctified Ba'al Mum onto the blemished animal of Chulin, the monetary value of which now becomes sanctified for the purpose of buying an animal to be brought as the original type of Korban.
The OLAS SHLOMO and MINCHAS CHINUCH (#285) question the words of TOSFOS (7a, DH Afilu) based on the Gemara here. The Torah prohibits sanctifying a Ba'al Mum as a Korban (7a). Tosfos asserts that not only is one prohibited to sanctify a Ba'al Mum as a Korban, but one is even forbidden to sanctify a Ba'al Mum so that its value should be used towards buying a Korban. The Gemara here, however, clearly implies that there is no prohibition at all against redeeming the monetary value of a Korban onto an animal that is a Ba'al Mum. How does Tosfos understand this Gemara?
(a) The YAD BINYAMIN says that there seems to be a clear difference between the two cases. In the case of the Gemara here, there is already a blemished animal that is sanctified as a Korban. To merely transfer its value onto another animal -- which is also a Ba'al Mum -- is not prohibited. Tosfos means that there is a prohibition against sanctifying a Ba'al Mum in the first place as a Korban, even when one sanctifies it merely for its monetary value.
However, the Yad Binyamin rejects this answer based on the Gemara earlier. The Gemara (6b) teaches that when one transfers the Kedushah of a sanctified Ba'al Mum onto an animal of Chulin which is also a Ba'al Mum, he is punished with Malkus for transgressing this prohibition. It follows that according to Tosfos, one should receive Malkus for transferring the monetary value of a sanctified Ba'al Mum onto a Ba'al Mum of Chulin!
(b) The CHAZON ISH (Temurah 31:3) answers simply that the Gemara here needs to be read differently, and that such a transfer of value indeed is prohibited as Tosfos earlier asserts. The question of the Gemara here is not whether the person is transgressing only one prohibition of Temurah or two prohibitions. Rather, the question is whether the person is doing one prohibition of Temurah and one prohibition of transferring Kedushah onto a Ba'al Mum, or whether he is doing two prohibitions of Temurah and one prohibition of transferring Kedushah onto a Ba'al Mum. (Y. MONTROSE)
2) MAKING A "TEMURAH" WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE ANIMAL
OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that when one says, "This animal is in place of a Chatas [or] in place of an Olah," he has said nothing. When he says, "... in place of this Chatas [or] in place of this Olah, [or] in place of a Chatas or Olah which I have in the house," then his words are effective.
In the first case of the Mishnah, in which the person says "... in place of a Chatas," and in which the Temurah does not take effect, does the person have a Chatas or Olah in his possession?
(a) RABEINU GERSHOM, in his explanation of the Mishnah, writes, "[If one says that] this animal is in place of a Chatas [or] in place of an Olah, and he has neither a Chatas nor an Olah, he has said nothing." The fact that Rabeinu Gershom adds that he does not actually have a Chatas or an Olah strongly implies that if he does have a Chatas or Olah, the Temurah would take effect even though he did not verbally specify with which animal he was making the Temurah.
(b) The MELECHES CHOSHEV and others point out that this does not seem to be the simple intent of the Mishnah. It seems that the Mishnah is teaching that two conditions must be fulfilled in order for the Temurah to take effect: the first is that one must specify the animal with which he is making the Temurah, and the second is that one must have actual possession of that animal. This also seems to be how the TIFERES YISRAEL and the LEKET HA'KOTZRIM understand the Mishnah. (Y. MONTROSE)