הלכות תמורה

The act of transferring the holiness of a sacrificial animal involves the owner of the animal saying with regard to an ordinary animal that he possesses: "This should be substituted for this" or "This is a replacement for this." Needless to say, holiness is transferred if one says: "This should be substituted for this sin-offering" or "... substituted for this burnt-offering." Similarly, holiness is transferred if one says: "This should be substituted for the sin-offering I possess at home" or "...substituted for the burnt-offering I possess in such-and-such a place."If, by contrast, one said with regard to an ordinary animal: "This should be substituted for a burnt-offering" or "This is substituted for a sin-offering," his words are of no consequence. If he states: "The holiness of this is conveyed to this," a transfer of holiness is not brought about.

The following rules apply when there were two animals before a person, one ordinary animal and one consecrated animal that became blemished. If he placed his hand on the ordinary animal and said: "This one is substituted for this," he has brought about a forbidden exchange of holiness and he is liable for lashes. If, by contrast, he placed his hand on the consecrated animal and said: "This is substituted for this," he has exchanged its holiness and transferred it to the ordinary animal. This is not a forbidden exchange of holiness, but instead, is comparable to redeeming the blemished sacrificial animal with this ordinary animal.

The following rule applies when there were three animals consecrated for the altar before a person and one of them was blemished and awaiting redemption and also three unblemished ordinary animals. If he says: "These are substituted for these," the holiness of two of the consecrated animals is transferred to two of the ordinary animals through the convention of temurah and he is liable for two sets of lashes. The third ordinary animal is substituted for the blemished animal through the convention of chillul. We assume that he sought to use that convention rather than the convention of temurah. The rationale is that since the person had a forbidden course of action, temurah and a permitted course of action, chillul, we operate under the assumption that a person will not abandon the permitted course of action and follow the forbidden one. Therefore he is not liable for three sets of lashes.Similarly, if one says: "These ten ordinary animals are substituted for these ten consecrated animals," and one of the consecrated animals is blemished, the person is liable for only nine sets of lashes, for he intended to transfer the holiness of the tenth animal through the convention of chillul. Even though he had established a halachic presumption by being liable for many sets of lashes, since there is a permitted way for him to transfer the animal's holiness, we presume that he will not abandon the permitted course of action and follow the forbidden one.When there are two consecrated animals and one of them is blemished and two ordinary animals and one of them is blemished, and one says: "These are substituted for these," the holiness of the unblemished animal is transferred to the unblemished animal through the convention of temurah and he is liable for one set of lashes and the holiness of the blemished animal is transferred to the blemished animal through the convention of chillul. The rationale is that we presume that he will not abandon the permitted course of action and follow the forbidden one.

When one says: "The holiness of an animal designated as a burnt-offering and one designated as a peace-offering is transferred to this animal," his statements are of consequence. The animal should be sold and half of the proceeds used to bring the exchange of a burnt-offering and half used to bring the exchange of a peace-offering.If one said: "The holiness of an animal designated as a burnt-offering and the holiness of an animal dedicated as a peace-offering are transferred to this animal," we examine if that was his original intent. If it was, his words are of consequence. If his original intent was merely to transfer the holiness of a burnt-offering, and he afterwards, added "the holiness of a peace-offering" later, only his original statements are of consequence. Even though he retracted them immediately thereafter, only the holiness of a burnt-offering was transferred to the animal.