Temurah, chapter five, mishnah five. This mishnah comes to answer the question: what wording must a person use in order to bring about temurah? The case under discussion is this: a person has before him a consecrated animal, and he brings a second animal, unblemished and unconsecrated, and declares that it should be a substitute for the first animal. This declaration does indeed take effect as temurah, and this is the Torah prohibition that carries lashes, and from now on both animals are consecrated. The question is: which other formulations are also effective?
A fundamental point to keep in mind: when a person says that animal B should be a substitute for animal A, the focus is on animal B. He is not removing animal A from its sanctity; he is placing B alongside it. Both of them will end up consecrated, but the thrust of the declaration is directed at B and not at A, and this is the key to understanding the entire mishnah.
The formulations that bring about temurah:
"Harei zo tachas zo" - animal B comes in place of animal A, in its stead.
"Temuras zo" - animal B is the temurah, the substitute for animal A.
"Chalifas zo" - animal B is the exchange for animal A.
With each of these formulations temurah takes effect: both animals are consecrated, and the one who made the declaration has transgressed a Torah prohibition.
"Harei zo mechulleles al zo":
By contrast, one who says of animal A that it is redeemed onto animal B - this is not temurah, and his statement accomplishes nothing. True, the language of chillul (redemption) is familiar from many contexts, such as transferring maaser sheni onto money or redeeming the sanctity of sheviis onto money, where a person redeems the sanctified item, transfers its sanctity onto the money, and then uses the item for ordinary purposes. But two reasons prevent this language from working here:
Chillul is redemption, and redemption is not the same as exchange and substitution.
The focus of this wording is on animal A - to redeem it - and not on animal B - to invest it with sanctity.
And as a general rule, chillul is not effective with an unblemished animal that was consecrated as an offering. One who says about such an animal "zo mechulleles al zo" - nothing has happened: animal A remains consecrated and designated for an offering, and animal B remains unconsecrated.
When the consecrated animal is blemished:
However, if animal A developed a permanent blemish, it now stands to be redeemed. The usual way is to redeem it onto money and then buy another animal with that money, but skipping the stage of money is also effective: one who redeems a blemished consecrated animal onto another animal - his redemption is valid. In the words of the mishnah: "Ve'im hayah hekdesh baal mum - yotzei lechullin" - meaning that the original animal is redeemed and permitted to be eaten. Nevertheless, one still may not shear it or work with it, and "vetzarich laasos damim" - the monetary reckoning must be made.
What does this mean? According to the Bartenura, following the Rambam, by Torah law one may redeem animal A onto animal B, and it makes no difference which of them is worth more - the redemption takes effect. But the Sages ruled that it is improper for hekdesh to suffer a loss: if the original animal that became blemished was worth one hundred, and the new animal onto which he redeemed it is worth sixty - although A is redeemed and B is consecrated, hekdesh has lost forty. Therefore he must add forty to hekdesh beyond the sixty, so that hekdesh does not lose the original value of one hundred.
Offerings for the altar as opposed to Temple maintenance:
It is worth noting that the concepts of temurah and chalifah apply to a korban alone, and do not operate with regard to bedek habayis (funds for Temple maintenance) or with regard to items that carry nothing more than monetary sanctity. If someone has in his possession a consecrated pan, or money belonging to bedek habayis, and he declares that a certain item should be its temurah, his statement accomplishes nothing. The term "tachas", on the other hand, which means "in place of", is effective in both cases.
In summary: We have learned that there are formulations that work only with offerings for the altar, others that work specifically with items that are not consecrated or with blemished consecrated animals, and others that work in both cases:
"Temurah" and "chalifah" - take effect only with offerings for the altar.
"Mechulelet" - takes effect with non-sacred property and with blemished consecrated animals, but not with an unblemished animal that was consecrated as a korban.
"Tachas", meaning "in place of" - takes effect in both cases: to transfer sanctity by way of temurah from a korban, and likewise with bedek habayis, with items that were consecrated for their value alone.