| א. שאלה כללית במבנה הפרק |
A. General Question about the Structure of the Chapter
ד"ה מבן עשרים שנה ועד בן ששים שנה: היה ראוי להיות סידור הכתובים: "אם מבן חדש ועד בן חמש שנים", "ואם מבן חמש שנים ועד בן עשרים שנה", "ואם מבן עשרים שנה ועד בן ששים שנה" "ואם מבן ששים שנה ומעלה", וסיום הפרשה...
מבן עשרים שנה ועד בן ששים שנה, “from twenty years and up until sixty years of age, etc.” Actually, the order in which the ages are listed here should have read: “from one month to five years old; from five years old to twenty years; from twenty years old to sixty years; from sixty years old and older," in the case of a male, followed by the parallel rules about the ages of females donating their “valuation” to G’d...
Explain why the order of the verses in our chapter is as it is, and not according to age order.
ב. טעם דיני ערכין ותמורה - הרמב"ם
| B. The Reason for Appraisals and Exchange - Rambam |
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל חֻקֵּי הַתּוֹרָה גְּזֵרוֹת הֵם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּסוֹף מְעִילָה. רָאוּי לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן בָּהֶן וְכָל מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לִתֵּן לוֹ טַעַם תֵּן לוֹ טַעַם. הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה הֵבִין רֹב הַטְּעָמִים שֶׁל כָּל חֻקֵּי הַתּוֹרָה. יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (ויקרא כז י) (ויקרא כז ל) "וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ". כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁאָמַר (ויקרא כז טו) "וְאִם הַמַּקְדִּישׁ יִגְאַל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ וְיָסַף חֲמִישִׁית כֶּסֶף עֶרְכְּךָ עָלָיו". יָרְדָה תּוֹרָה לְסוֹף מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הָאָדָם וּקְצָת יִצְרוֹ הָרַע. שֶׁטֶּבַע שֶׁל אָדָם נוֹטֶה לְהַרְבּוֹת קִנְיָנוֹ וְלָחוּס עַל מָמוֹנוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּדַר וְהִקְדִּישׁ אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁחָזַר בּוֹ וְנִחַם וְיִפְדֶּה בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוְיוֹ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה אִם פָּדָה לְעַצְמוֹ יוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. וְכֵן אִם הִקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף שֶׁמָּא יַחְזֹר בּוֹ וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִפְדּוֹתָהּ יַחְלִיפֶנָּה בִּפְחוּתָה מִמֶּנָּה. וְאִם תִּתֵּן לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְהַחְלִיף הָרַע בְּיָפֶה יַחְלִיף הַיָּפֶה בְּרַע וְיֹאמַר טוֹב הוּא. לְפִיכָךְ סָתַם הַכָּתוּב בְּפָנָיו שֶׁלֹּא יַחְלִיף. וּקְנָסוֹ אִם הֶחְלִיף וְאָמַר וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים כְּדֵי לָכֹף אֶת יִצְרוֹ וּלְתַקֵּן דֵּעוֹתָיו. וְרֹב דִּינֵי הַתּוֹרָה אֵינָן אֶלָּא עֵצוֹת מֵרָחוֹק* מִגְּדוֹל הָעֵצָה** לְתַקֵּן הַדֵּעוֹת וּלְיַשֵּׁר כָּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (משלי כב כ) "הֲלֹא כָתַבְתִּי לְךָ שָׁלִישִׁים בְּמֹעֵצוֹת וָדָעַת". לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ קֹשְׁטְ אִמְרֵי אֱמֶת לְהָשִׁיב אֲמָרִים אֱמֶת לְשלְחֶיךָ:
Even though all the laws of the Torah are [arbitrary] decrees, as we explained at the end of the Laws of Desecration, it is worthwhile to meditate about them and assign reasons to whatever part of it you can assign a reason to. Behold the early sages said "Solomon understood the reasons of most of the Torah's Laws." [In light of this] it appears to me that this which the Torah says "and both it and its replacement shall be holy" is similar to the subject where it says "and if the one who sanctifies redeems his house and adds a fifth of your appraisal to it." The Torah descends to the end of a person's train of thought and some of his evil inclination for a person's nature urges him to increase his possessions and conserve his money and even if he pledged and sanctified, he may retract and regret it and redeem it for less than its worth. Therefore if he redeems it privately, the Torah [makes him] add a fifth. Similarly if he sanctified an animal [with] corporeal sanctity he may regret it and since he cannot redeem it, he may come to exchange it for one that is [worth] less and if he were given permission to exchange the worse [animal] for a better one, he would exchange the better animal for a worse one and call it better. Therefore the Scripture closed [the way] in front of him that he may not exchange and fined him if he did exchange and said "both it and its replacement will be holy." And all of these things are to subdue the will and refine the character and most of the laws of the Torah are nothing but advice from faraway1 from the Master of Advice2 to refine the character and to straighten the actions. Thus it says "Have not I written unto thee excellent things of counsels and knowledge; That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth, that thou mightest bring back words of truth to them that send thee?"
1. In Rambam's explanation, what is meant here by, "to meditate about the statutes of the Torah?"
2. What is the difficulty (or the wonder) in two of the laws in our chapter which particularly elicit "meditation?"
* המליצה שאולה מישעיה כ"ה א'.
1] The literary allusion is from Isaiah 25:1.
** המליצה שאולה מירמיהו ל"ב י"ט.
2] The literary allusion is from Jeremiah 32:19.
| ג. "ואם בהמה" - מבנה תחבירי |
C. "And if it be a beast" - Syntactic Structure
"And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Lord, all that any man giveth of such unto the Lord shall be holy."
1. What is the subject of the conditional phrase at the beginning (the conditional clause)?
2. What is the object of the aforementioned beginning phrase?
3. How are we to understand the word, "whereof," in the aforementioned phrase?
| ד. החלפה והמרה |
| D. Substitution and Exchange |
"לֹ֣א יַחֲלִיפֶ֗נּוּ וְלֹֽא־יָמִ֥יר אֹת֛וֹ ט֥וֹב בְּרָ֖ע אוֹ־רַ֣ע בְּט֑וֹב"
"He shall not substitute it, nor exchange it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good"
ד"ה לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו: זה דרך כלל, ואחר כך פירש הפרטים שלא ימיר אותו לא טוב ברע ולא רע בטוב. ולדעת בעל הטעמים נראה כי התמורה היא טוב ברע, והחילוף רע בטוב; ויש לזה סיועים: (ישעיהו ט' י') "וארזים נחליף", (ישעיהו מ') "וקווי ה' יחליפו כח", (תהלים ק"ו) "וימירו את כבודם בתבנית שור...".
S.v. He shall not substitute it, nor exchange it: This is the generalization. And then it explained [its] details - that he should not exchange it good with bad, nor bad with good. But according to the author of the cantillation marks, it appears that exchange (temurah) [means] of good with bad, and substitution (chiluf) is of bad with good. And there is support for this: "We shall substitute cedars" (Isaiah 9:9); "Those that fear the Lord shall substitute (renew) strength" (Isaiah 40:31); "And they exchanged their glory with the edifice of a bull"...
1. If we accept the opinion of Shadal, how are we to accordingly understand the words of Jacob (Genesis 31:41), "and you exchanged my wages ten counts."
2. What is strange about the word order according to Shadal's explanation; and how is it possible to resolve that?
| ה. החלפת קרבן בכסף או בזהב |
| E. Exchanging a Sacrifice with Silver or Gold |
"לֹ֣א יַחֲלִיפֶ֗נּוּ וְלֹֽא־יָמִ֥יר אֹת֛וֹ ט֥וֹב בְּרָ֖ע אוֹ־רַ֣ע בְּט֑וֹב"
"He shall not substitute it, nor exchange it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good"
The rabbis taught, "'He shall not substitute it' - with that of others; 'nor exchange it' - with his own."
לפי הפשט חליפין הוא על דבר אחר, שיתן חלף העולה ממון או כלי כסף וזהב לקודש, אע"פ שחליפתו שוה יותר ממנו, "ולא ימיר" הוא שנותן דבר זה עצמו תמורתו, בקר בבקר, עז בעז או כשב בכשב, אבל בהמה על כסף וכיוצא אינו נופל עליו אלא לשון חליפין.
R. Naftali Herz Wessely (Biur):
According to the simple meaning, substitution (chalifin) is with something else, such that he gives money or a silver vessel to the [sanctuary] as a substitute for a burnt-offering, even if its substitute is worth more than it. But "nor shall he exchange it," is when he gives the same [type of] item as its exchange - cattle with cattle, a goat with a goat or a sheep with a sheep. But an animal with silver or that which is similar to it is referred to as substitution.
מלבי"ם:
ד"ה לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר: יש הבדל בין חלופין לתמורה. המחליף הוא בבחינת הדבר שהדבר חולף ממקומו ואחר בא תחתיו. כמו (בראשית מ' א') "ויחלף שמלותיו" – שמלה במקום שמלה. וכן (בראשית ל"א) "והחליף את משכרתי", וכן (ישעיהו ט' ט') "וארזים נחליף" בא דבר אחר במקומו; ומשתתף עם "חלף ועבר" מגזרת קל על החלפת המקום. אבל התמורה היא בבחינת האדם הממיר בלבד, לא בבחינת הדבר. ובא לרוב על נושאים הגיוניים (הושע ד' ז') "כבודם בקלון אמיר" (תהלים ק"ו) "וימירו את כבודם בתבנית שור", שהכבוד לא נעשה בו שינוי, רק הממיר השיג קלון...
Malbim:
S.v. You shall not substitute nor it, nor exchange it: There is a difference between substitution (chilufin) and exchange (temurah). One who substitutes does so regarding the item, such that the item leaves (cholef) its place and another one comes in its place - as in (Genesis 40:1), "and he changed his clothes" - a cloak in the place of a cloak. And likewise (Genesis 31:7), "and he exchanged my wage"; and also Isaiah 9:9), "we shall substitute cedars" - something came in its place. And it works like "it left and passed (chalaf)" in the simple construction, about substitution of place. However, exchange (temurah) is only regarding the person that exchanges [something], not regarding the thing. And it usually come about conceptual matters - "I will exchange your glory with shame" (Hosea 4:7); "And they exchanged their glory with the edifice of a bull" (Isaiah 40:31), such that no change happened to the glory [itself], but rather the one who exchanged it acquired shame...
... And it appears to require more explanation: The word, substitution (chalifin), is different than the word, exchange (temurah), in that substitution is a change in the body of the thing, such that another comes in its place, as in "and change your clothes" (Genesis 35:1); whereas exchange is only an emotional change, as in "And they exchanged their glory with the edifice of a bull" (Isaiah 40:31). And the matter is understood.
1. According to which of the definitions given above can we explain the words of the Talmud in Temurah 9a?
2. According to which of the above definitions can we explain the law that if one substitutes a sacrifice with silver or gold - even though he transgresses a negative commandment - his actions are ineffective, and the [silver or gold] does not become sanctified? And what is the proof to this law from the verses in our chapter?
| ו. בטעם הדיוק "יהיה קדש" |
| F. About the Reason for the Inference from "shall be holy" |
"and if he shall at all exchange beast for beast, then both it and that for which it is exchanged shall be holy."
רנה"ו, ("באור"):
ד"ה והיה הוא ותמורתו וכו': צחות הלשון הוא לפי שהקרבן קדוש קדושת הגוף ואם החליפו או המירו לא עשה כלום, כי אי אפשר שיצא מקדושתו, לא יתכן לומר עליו "יהיה קדש". כי הוא קדוש ועומד, אבל על התמורה שהיתה חולין ועתה נעשית קודש, עליה נכון לומר: "יהיה קדש"... לפי שהתמורה היתה מתחילה חולין אמר "יהיה קדוש" שבעתיד יהיה הכל קודש.
R. N. H. Wessely (Biur):
S.v. Then both it and that for which it is exchanged shall be holy:
This is elegance of the language. As a sacrifice acquires holiness of its body. Hence if you substitute for it or exchange it, it is not effective. Since it is impossible for it to release its holiness, it would not fit to say about it, "it shall be holy" - since it is in a permanent state of holiness. But regarding the exchange which was profane and is now becoming holy, it is proper to say, "it shall be holy." Since the exchange was originally profane, it states, "it shall be holy." As in in the [immediate] future, everything will be holy.
1. What is the difficulty in our verse that R. Wessely is trying to resolve?
אין הנגינה סובלת הפירוש הזה... ועוד...
2. R. Moses Mendelssohn (as the editor of Biur) notes about this explanation, "The cantillation does not lend itself to such an explanation."
הסבר במה סותר פירוש זה את הנגינה ומהי החולשה השניה של פירוש זה?
Explain in what way this explanation contradicts the cantillation. And what is the second weakness in the explanation?
3. Can you resolve the difficulty alluded to above in a different way?
| ז. בביאור הביטוי "כערכך הכהן" |
| F. In Explanation of the Expression, "as you appraise it - the priest." |
"And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad; as you appraise it - the priest - so shall it be."
ר' יוסף אבן כספי:
משנה כסף ד"ה כערכך הכהן: הכנוי לכהן, כי הוא יתברך יצוה זה לכהן, כמו שאמר (פסוק ח') "והעריך אותו הכהן". ודע כי השמות מצטרפים אם לפועל אם לפעול, כמו שהתבאר בהגיון. ולכן נאמר על דרך משל סבלות ישראל, כמו שאמר פרעה (שמות ה' ד') "לכו לסבלותיכם". ונאמר (שמות ו' ו') "סבלות מצרים". כי הסבל מצטרף אל המסביל ואל הסובל. והקש על זה בכל מקום. כי בזה יוסרו ספקות רבות נעלמו מאלופי הקדמונים, להעלם מהם מלאכת ההגיון.
R. Yosef Ibn Kaspi, Mishneh Kesef:
S.v. As you value it - the priest: The reference (you) is to the priest, as He, may He be blessed commanded this to the priest; as it is stated (verse 18), "and the priest will appraise it."
And you should know that the nouns combine with verbs [both] as subjects and objects, as is explained in the Treatise on Logic. And hence - as an example- it is said, "the burdens of Israel," as Pharaoh said (Exodus 5:4), "Go to your burdens"; but it is [also] said, "the burdens of Egypt" (Exodus 6:6). [This is] because the burden combines with both the one who demands the burden and the one who carries it. And you can use this [rule] in every place, since many questions are resolved by it; [even though] they were hidden from the great predecessors, to whom the study of logic was hidden.
1. What is his difficulty in our verse?
3. Explain his words that are underlined.