זו מחוללת על זו אין זו תמורה ואם היה הקדש בעל מום יוצא לחולין וצריך לעשות דמים
Said Abaye: All the authorities concerned agree [even R'Jose] that if he says: A half of an animal shall be burnt-offering and the other half an animal tithed, all are agreed that it is offered as a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he meant these dedications from the beginning, as his latter statement is of no account, since an animal tithed does not become holy except by passing through the shed and being numbered as the tenth. The same law applies if one says: Half the animal shall be a burnt-offering, the other half shall be an exchange, the latter statement having no effect, since there is no animal present for which an exchange might be effected');"><sup>8</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
