פירוש על תמורה 1:1

הכל ממירין – All persons can cause the seizure of the substitute in holiness together with the original by exchanging a consecrated animal, that seizes the holiness of the exchange of an unconsecrated animal, if he said, “this is place of that one of something consecrated,” whether by the mouth of men or by the mouth of women, as for example, if woman exchanged/substituted it, it seizes the sanctity of exchange by her mouth. And the word "והכל" /”All” that is taught here includes someone who inherits that if he substituted/exchanged a sacrifice that someone bequeathed to him during his lifetime, his substitution is a substitution.

Introduction The first mishnah of Temurah explains who has the ability to substitute a non-sacred animal for an already dedicated one. Remember: when one does this, both animals become sacred. The substitution in essence fails to remove the holiness from the original animal but succeeds in making the substituted animal holy. So throughout this tractate whenever the mishnah says “can substitute” what it means is that the substituted animal is sacred. It does not mean that the original animal becomes non-sacred.

לא שאדם רשאי להמיר – because it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “[One may not exchange] or substitute another for it.”

All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. The owner of a sacrifice has the ability to substitute one animal for another. The mishnah immediately notes that what this means is that when one tries to make such a substitution the substituted animal becomes holy. It is not permitted to try to make such a substitution, and one who does try to do so is punished, for transgressing the negative commandment of “do not make a substitute” (Leviticus 27:10).

מומר – holiness was seized upon it and both of them (i.e., the formerly designated animal that was consecrated and the formerly unconsecrated animal that has just been substituted) are holy.

Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. People can substitute only sacrifices that they actually own. Israelites can substitute sacrifices that they bring and priests can substitute sacrifices that they bring on their own behalf, but not sacrifices that other people bring to them to offer.

וסופג את הארבעים – he is flogged [for transgressing] the negative commandment (Leviticus 27:10): “or substitute another for it,” and even though it is a negative commandment/prohibition that does not involve an action/לאו שאין בו מעשה. For we hold that any negative commandment/prohibition that does not involve an action we don’t flog that person except for false conspiring witnesses and [someone who] substitutes an animal for another or someone who curses another (or himself) using the name of God. But if you should say that this is a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment [לאו הניתק לעשה](unless there is no possibility of fulfilling this positive commandment), as it is written (Leviticus 27:33): “[If he does make substitution for it,’ then it and its substitute shall both be holy,” but we don’t flog a person or a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment. One can say, that it is different here, as the negative commandment includes more than the positive commandment within it, for everyone who says the word/speaks is whipped, but not every person who says the word does a substitution, for partners and the community do not do substitutions, for since the positive commandment is not equivalent to the negative commandment, it is not called a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment.

Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners. When it comes to an asham (guilt offering) or a hatat (sin offering) brought to a priest by an Israelite all agree that priests cannot affect substitutes for them. Even though the priest does get to eat the meat of the asham and hatat, they are still not his when they are alive, and therefore he cannot substitute for them. The argument is over the first-born. Rabbi Akiva says that the first-born is like the asham and the hatat and the priest cannot substitute for them. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri responds that there is a difference. The priest receives the meat of the asham and hatat only once the animals have been sacrificed. He has no share in them when they are alive, and therefore he cannot substitute for them, because substitution must be done with a live animal. But when it comes to a first-born, the animal is given to the priests when it is alive, and therefore, if a priest substitutes for it, the substitution is effective. Rabbi Akiva responds with a midrash. The Torah compares the sanctity of the substitute with the sanctity of the original animal. Since the sanctity of the original animal has to occur with the original owners, so too the sanctity of the substitute must occur with the original owners.

הכהנים ממרימין את שלן – sacrifices that the Kohen set aside to offer for himself, but if he Kohen substituted for it, it causes the seizure of the substitute/exchange of the animal [to be holy].

לא בחטאת ולא באשם – that the Israelite gave him that he sacrifice/offer for him, but if the Kohen substituted another, he doesn’t do that substitution on his own, for he has no portion in it, but rather from the time of the offering of those sacrifices on the altar and onwards, he (i.e., the Kohen) is worthy of the flesh [of the animal], but a person does not cause the seizure of something which is not his (Tractate Temurah 9a).

ולא בבכור – that an Israelite gave him.

וכי מפני מה אין הכהנין ממירים בבכור – for doesn’t all of it belong to the Kohen and while it is alive, we give it to him, and the Israelite cannot gain atonement through it.

מה חטאת ואשם אין ממירין – because it is clearly obvious to us that he Kohanim do not take possession of them other than from offering up of the portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar and beyond.

מה לי אינו ממיר בחטאת ואשם – that is to say, it is the law that the Kohanim do not make a substitution with the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, etc.

והיה הוא ותמורתו – there is an analogy between substitution to something consecrated itself.

היכן קדושה חלה – on that which is dedicated to the Temple, in the house of the owners.

אף תמורה – does not take effect other than in the house of the owners, but in the home of the Kohen it does not take effect completely, therefore, a Kohen cannot substitute for a firstling. But an Israelites, if he made a substitution for it, it is seized in holiness, for it was in domain that sanctification occurs with the firstling. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.