Zamiana (Temura) — Rambam

Zamiana (Temura)

Zamiana (Temura) — Rambam w serwisie Beth HaMidrash: tekst hebrajski i jego polskie tłumaczenie, z Raszim i wielkimi komentatorami. Za darmo, online.

כָּל הַמֵּמִיר לוֹקֶה עַל כָּל בְּהֵמָה וּבְהֵמָה שֶׁיָּמִיר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז י) "לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ" וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ חוּץ מִנִּשְׁבָּע וּמֵמִיר וּמְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּשֵׁם. שְׁלֹשָׁה לָאוִין אֵלּוּ אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל וְלוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן. וְלָמָּה לוֹקִין עַל הַתְּמוּרָה וַהֲרֵי לָאו שֶׁבָּהּ נִתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז לג) "וְאִם הָמֵר יְמִירֶנּוּ וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ". מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲשֵׂה וּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. וְעוֹד שֶׁאֵין לָאו שֶׁבָּהּ שָׁוֶה לַעֲשֵׂה. שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה אִם הֵמִירוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מֻזְהָרִין שֶׁלֹּא יָמִירוּ. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַיָּחִיד שֶׁהֵמִיר הֲרֵי הַתְּמוּרָה קֹדֶשׁ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵמִיר בְּשַׁבָּת לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. וְאֶחָד מִן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁהֵמִיר. אוֹ מִי שֶׁהֵמִיר בְּקָרְבָּן מִקָּרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר. הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהֶן שֻׁתָּפוּת הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה וְאֵין הַתְּמוּרָה קֹדֶשׁ:Anyone who transfers holiness from one animal to another is liable for lashes for every animal from which he transferred the holiness, as Leviticus 27:10 states: "Do not exchange it and do not transfer its holiness," even though he did not perform a deed. According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that any negative commandment that does not involve a deed is not punishable by lashes with the exception of one who takes a false or unnecessary oath, one who transfers the holiness of a sacrificial animal, and one who curses a colleague mentioning God's name. These three negative commandments can never involve a deed at all, and yet one is liable for lashes for their violation.Why is one liable for lashes for transferring the holiness of an animal, it is a negative commandment that can be corrected by a positive commandment, as ibid.:33 states: "If he will transfer its holiness, it and the animal to which its holiness will be transferred shall be consecrated"? Because it has one positive commandment and two negative commandments and because the negative commandment it involves is not of the same nature as the positive commandment.This is reflected in the ruling that if the Jewish community or partners try to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the transfer is not effective. Nevertheless, they are warned not to transfer the holiness. Thus when an individual transfers the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the animal to which he transferred the holiness is consecrated. Even if he transfers holiness on the Sabbath, he is liable for forty lashes. If, by contrast, a partner in a sacrificial animal endeavors to transfer its holiness or an endeavor is made to transfer the holiness of an animal designated for a communal sacrifice - since that person has a share in these sacrifices he is liable for lashes, but the animal to which he endeavored to transfer the holiness is not consecrated.

אֶחָד הַמֵּמִיר בְּזָדוֹן אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִיר בִּשְׁגָגָה הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה וְלוֹקֶה. כֵּיצַד. הַמִּתְכַּוִּן לוֹמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי. הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה וְלוֹקֶה. אֲבָל אִם דִּמָּה שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהָמִיר וְהֵמִיר אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֶכָּנֵס לְבַיִת זֶה וְאָמִיר מִדַּעְתִּי וְנִכְנַס וְשָׁכַח וְהֵמִיר שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ:Whether one transfers the holiness of an animal as an intentional transgression or one does so inadvertently, the transfer of holiness is effective and the person is liable for lashes.What is implied? One intended to say: "This animal should be considered as an exchange for an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering that I possess," and instead, he said: "This animal should be considered as an exchange for an animal consecrated as a peace-offering that I possess," the transfer of holiness is effective and he is liable for lashes. If, however, he thought that it was permitted to transfer holiness or he said: "I will enter that house and transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal willfully," and instead, he entered and transferred the holiness of the animal unknowingly, the transfer of holiness is effective, but he is not liable for lashes for it.

אֵין אָדָם מֵמִיר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּקָרְבָּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם אָמַר בַּעַל הַקָּרְבָּן כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לְהָמִיר בִּבְהֶמְתִּי יָבוֹא וְיָמִיר הֲרֵי זֶה מֵמִיר בָּהּ. הֵמִיר קָרְבָּנוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ אֵינָהּ תְּמוּרָה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ:A person cannot transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal that does not belong to him. If the owner of a sacrificial animal says: "Whoever desires to transfer the holiness of my sacrificial animal may come and do so," another person may transfer the holiness of that animal.If a person transferred the holiness of a sacrificial animal belonging to him to another animal that does not belong to him, the transfer is not effective. The rationale is that a person cannot consecrate an entity that does not belong to him.

הַמִּתְכַּפֵּר הוּא שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה אֲבָל לֹא הַמַּקְדִּישׁ. כֵּיצַד. הִקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ חֲבֵרוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ קָרְבְּנוֹת נָזִיר שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהֶם פְּלוֹנִי הַנָּזִיר. אוֹתוֹ הַנָּזִיר הוּא שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בָּהֶן תְּמוּרָה אֲבָל לֹא זֶה שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁלּוֹ:It is the one who will receive atonement who has the potential to exchange the holiness of a sacrificial animal, not the person who consecrates it.What is implied? A person consecrated an animal so that his colleague could gain atonement through its sacrifice, e.g., one consecrated the animals required for the sacrifices of a nazirite so that so-and-so, the nazirite, could gain atonement thereby. It is that nazirite who can transfer their holiness, but not the person who consecrated them, because they do not belong to him.

הַיּוֹרֵשׁ מֵמִיר. הִנִּיחַ בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁנֵי בָּנָיו וּמֵת הֲרֵי זוֹ קְרֵבָה וְאֵין מְמִירִין בָּהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵם בָּהּ שֻׁתָּפִין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:An heir can transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal he inherits. If a person dies, leaving a sacrificial animal to his two sons, this animal should be offered, but its holiness cannot be transferred. The rationale is that the sons are partners and partners cannot transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal, as we explained.

Mishneh Torah, Substitution.1