<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הכל ממירין</strong></big><br><br>
what is the ruling? And if you adopt the opinion that one kind of holiness cannot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>28</sup></span> [effect exchange again], what is the ruling in the case o two kinds of holiness and one body?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one were atoned for through another guilt-offering and the first lost guilt-offering was then found and transformed into a burnt-offering. Thus here there are two kinds of holiness with the same body. hgch, ueh,');"><sup>29</sup></span> Let this question remain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' is the term of the Jerusalem Talmud and has the same meaning as in the Babylonian Talmud.');"><sup>30</sup></span> MISHNAH
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
