Parshat Bechukosai - Temurah

The possuk says in this week’s sedrah;

לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ רַע בְּטוֹב וְאִם הָמֵר יָמִיר בְּהֵמָה בִּבְהֵמָה וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ

“[If a person makes a korban then] he should not swap it and should not exchange it, neither a good animal for a bad one or a bad animal for a good one. If he did exchange it then both the original korban and the animal that he swapped it for will be hekdesh.”

There is a generally rule that you do not receive malkos for a lav she’ein bo maaseh – an aveira that does not involve an action, such as speaking lashon hara.  The Rambam (Hilchos Temurah 1:1) says that temurah is an exception to this rule;

כל הממיר לוקה ... ואף על פי שלא עשה מעשה מפי השמועה למדו שכל מצות לא תעשה שאין בה מעשה אין לוקין עליה חוץ מנשבע וממיר ומקלל את חבירו בשם שלשה לאוין אלו אי אפשר שיהיה בהן מעשה כלל ולוקין עליהן

“Anyone who swaps a korban for another receives malkos…and even although he did no action. Even although normally the halacha is that לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליה, we have a tradition that there are three exceptions to this rule; swearing falsely, making a temurah and cursing his friend with Hashem’s name.”

The Rambam continues with a practical difference that comes from his explanation that temura is a lav she'ein bo maaseh. The halacha is that partners in a korban cannot make a temurah. Nevertheless, the Rambam says, if one of them attempted to make a temurah he still receives malkos:

...מן השותפין שהמיר או מי שהמיר בקרבן מקרבנות הצבור הואיל ויש לו בהן שותפות הרי זה לוקה ואין התמורה קודש

"If a partner in a korban makes a temurah or if someone made a temurah of a korban tzibbur, because these are korbanos which have partnership in them, the person receives malkos but the temurah has no kedushah.”

Because the Rambam paskens that temurah is a lav sheein bo ma’aseh and he is punished for his speech, even if there is no outcome, he still said that he wanted to make a temurah and so receives malkos.

A left over korban Pesach

The gemara in zevachim 9a says that if someone had a korban pesach left over after pesach, then he can shecht it le'shem shelomim, and it becomes a shlomim. Before reaching this conclusion, the gemara goes through various suggestions as to which korban the pesach might be able to become. One of the suggestions of the gemara is that if the owner shechted the pesach le'shem temurah of a korban maaser (according to the sfas emes) then it should become a temurah of the korban maaser;

ואימא שחטיה לשם תמורה ליהוי תמורה למאי הילכתא למלקא עליה אי נמי למיקם עליה (ויקרא כז, כח) בלא ימכר ולא יגאל? אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, י) והיה הוא ותמורתו זו תמורה ואין אחר תמורה

"Let us say that if he shechted it to be a temurah then it should become a temurah – what difference would this make (it is anyway a korban)? The difference is that he would receive malkos… “

The gemara excludes this suggestion because there is a special possuk that tells you that an animal that is already a korban cannot become a temurah.

Reb Chaim Brisker z”l asks;

The gemara is not talking about a case where he said that the korban should be a temurah and then shechted the korban. Rather, the gemara is talking about a case where he simply shechted the pesach leshem temurah, to be a temurah. In the hava amina of the gemara this works. The pesach is considered to be a temurah for the korban maaser and the owner receives malkos. If so, we can prove that the reason that you receive malkos for making a temurah is for the outcome, not for the action of saying that the korban should become a temurah, because in this case there was only an outcome and no action. How then can the Rambam say that in the case of shutfin where there is only an action (of saying that the substitute should become a temurah) but no outcome, that you receive malkos?

Reb Chaim answers as follows;

The gemara says in Temurah (4b):

אמר אביי כל מילתא דאמר רחמנא לא תעביד אם עביד מהני דאי סלקא דעתך לא מהני אמאי לקי רבא אמר לא מהני מידי והאי דלקי משום דעבר אמימרא דרחמנא הוא

“Abaye said, anything that the Torah says you should not do if he did it it works… Rava says, it does not work...”

For example, a farmer is meant to give bikkurim and then terumah. What happens if he reverses the order and seperates terumah before he takes bikkurim? According to Abaye the grain is terumah, according to Rava the grain does not become terumah because he has transgressed the mitzva to seperate bikkurim first.

Regarding temurah, the Torah says;

לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ רַע בְּטוֹב וְאִם הָמֵר יָמִיר בְּהֵמָה בִּבְהֵמָה וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ

“He should not swap it and not exchange it…and if he does…then it and the substitute will be kodesh.”

Is the chiddush of the Torah that the original animal is a korban but really the swap worked, or is the chiddush of the Torah that the substitute is a korban becuase really you cannot swap the korbanos?

Says Reb Chaim – according to Abaye who says that kol milsa deamar rachmana lo saavid ee ovid mehani – if the Torah says do not do something and you did it anyway then it works, we can understand that although the Torah says do not swap the korban, if you did swap the korban it will still work. The substitute should be a korban and the original korban should be yotze lechullin. When the Torah says וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ, it is telling you a chiddush that the original korban is still a korban because really its kedushah should go away from it. If so, his statement actually worked and we can explain that the malkos is for the outcome that he wrought.

However, according to Rava who says that kol milsa deamar rachmana lo saavid ee ovid lo mehani – anything the Torah says do not do, if he did it then it does not work, then the second animal should not become a korban at all. It is the Torah that made it into a korban, and when the Torah says וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ, the chiddush is that the substitute becomes kodesh. According to Rava, it is not possible for the owner to make the second animal into a korban, because the Torah said this is ossur and therefore it will not work. The Torah makes it into a korban. We cannot say that the malkos is for the outcome becuase the owner did not perform the outcome, this is something effected by the Torah, and the malkos must be for his statement.

Therefore we can explain that;

• The Rambam who says that temurah is a lav sheein bo maaseh is according to Rava who says that כל מילתא דאמר רחמנא לא תעביד אם עביד לא מהני , making a temurah should never work. Torah makes the temurah hekdesh and the malkos is incurred for the statement of temurah. Subsequently, even if there is no outcome as in the case of shutfin, he will still receive malkos.
• The gemara that says in the case of shechting a left over korban pesach le'shem temurah that he receives malkos for making the pesach a temurah although there was no statement that the korban should be a temurahis goes according to Abaye. Abaye holds that כל מילתא דאמר רחמנא לא תעביד אם עביד מהני , so the kedusha of the temurah is created through the statement of the owner. The malkos is always for the outcome, not the statement. Therefore, as long as there is an outcome, even if there was no statement, he still receives malkos.