רבי אומר
Rabbi says: And for what purpose now is tithe specially mentioned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Subject to the law of exchange, since all dedications are included in the law of exchange. For Rabbi holds that for declaring a private offering subject to the law of exchange there is no need for a special mention of tithe, since Scripture says, 'he shall etc.' in the singular. That the dedication must be one for the altar is also inferred from the word korban mentioned in connection with the law of exchange. We therefore see that Rabbi holds that dedications for the Temple repairs are not called korban. Also as regards R. Simeon's exception from the law of exchange of the case of a burnt-offering brought from the surpluses of sacrificial appropriations because dedications must be something which come obligatorily, Rabbi will maintain that surpluses can go for communal offerings. The ruling also concerning partners and congregations not being able to effect exchange can be inferred from the text, He shall not alter, etc., since it is couched in the singular number (Rashi) .');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
To not exchange consecrated things: To not exchange consecrated things — meaning to say one should not exchange a beast that has been consecrated for another beast afterwards, but it should rather be offered itself. And about this is it stated (Leviticus 27:10), “He shall not substitute nor exchange for it.” And from when they exchanged it — meaning, that they said, “This instead of that”; “This in exchange for that”; or what is similar to these expressions, which is the essence of exchange (Temurah 26b) — there is liability for lashes in the thing, even though there is no act [involved] with it. [This is the case] even if there was somewhat of an error in the case. How is this? One who intends to say, “Behold this is in exchange for the burnt-offering that I have,” but he says, “in exchange for the peace-offering that I have” — behold, this is an exchange and he is lashed; as nonetheless regarding the exchange it was volitional. But if his thought was that it was permissible to exchange, he is certainly not lashed. For one, it was inadvertent. And also, we only administer lashes with witnesses and a warning — and behold there is no warning [in such a case].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
