This Week's Article

Temura in Parts

Temurah (1:3) | Yisrael Bankier | 16 hours ago

This week we started masechet Temura. The masechet deals with the prohibition of attempting to exchange an animal for a korban to be used in its place. We learn that if one attempts to do so, it does not work, and both animals have kedusha. The third Mishnah however records the debate regarding where one attempts to perform a temurah with a limb of an animal.

The Chachamim maintain that it does not have the status of a temura whereas R' Yossi disagrees. R' Yossi argues that if one declared that the leg of an animal shall be an olah, the entire animal becomes a korban olah. We view it as if the kedusha hits the leg and spreads to the entire animal -- pashta. It follows that the same should be true in this case also -- the entire animal would be considered a temura. We shall try to understand this debate.

The Shoshanim LeDavid explains that the Chachamim do not agree with the R' Yossi's basic assumption. In other words, if one declared that he wanted the leg of an animal to be an olah, the animal would not be an olah. That technique would only work if it was connected to a vital organ. For example, if one declared that the heart or the head of an animal is an olah, then the Chachamim would agree that the entire animal becomes an olah. It therefore follows that they would also agree in such a case for the laws of temurah. That is because associating the neder with a vital organ is equivalent to associating it with the entire animal. Consequently, when R' Yossi presents his argument in the Mishnah, its starting point is only according to his position. According to this understanding, this debate is a corollary of another debate between R' Yossi and the Chachamim.

The Shoshanim LeDavid cites the Rambam (Temura 1:16) as support for this understanding. When the Rambam records the law of our Mishnah, he continues by providing the example where one attempts to use a leg in exchange. The Shoshanim LeDavid understands that this example is intentional as it is not a vital organ.

The Achiezerz (III 56:2) however does not find this to be a solid proof, considering that the Rambam provides the other case of, "this animal is in exchange for the front leg or the hind leg (of a korban)" In that case there is no difference between the different parts of the animal since it is not relying on pashta.

The Aruch HaShulchan (Kodshim 239:29) understands that the law by temurah had to be taught separately, because the law for temurah is different to kodshim. He explains that even if one stated that they want to make the head of an animal a temurah for a korban it would not work. In this respect it is different. Why?

The Biurim (Mishayot Raizman) cites the Kovetz Shiurim who cites R' Menachem Ziemba who explains the debate in our Mishnah as follows. From the simple reading of the Mishnah, it appears as though the Chachaim would agree with R' Yossi that for kodshim, it can take hold on a leg and spread to the rest of the animal. Nevertheless, when the Torah describes the prohibition of Temura it refers to "an animal [in exchange] for an animal". In other words, for temura to occur it must start with a full animal. Pashta will not help because for temura it must start with taking hold of the full animal. R' Yossi however disagrees arguing that since kedusha spreads it is considered as if one performed temura with the entire animal.

Based on this explanation we can explain the position of the Aruch HaShulchan. It makes no difference whether we are dealing with a vital organ. Let us return to the original understanding that the Chachamim maintain that sanctifying part of an animal only takes hold of the full animal if he selected a vital organ. The rational is because it is considered like the entire animal. That might hold true (to enable pashta) in that context, but it is still not the entire animal for the law of temura.

Download

Calendar