Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

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].

And if you will ask, “And why do we administer lashes for exchange — behold, it is a negative commandment that is rectifiable by a positive commandment, and that [commandment] is, ‘and it and its exchange will be consecrated’”; the Sages, may their memory be blessed, have already given a reason for that matter. And they said (Temurah 4b) it is because there are two negative commandments about it, as I have written in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 352); and a positive commandment does not come and uproot two negative commandments. And they also said another reason — since the negative commandment of exchange is not the same as the positive commandment about it: As if the community, or partners make an exchange, they do not create an exchange (it is not effective), even if they are warned not to exchange (it is forbidden). And since the negative commandment is not the same as the positive commandment, we do not say about it that its law is like a negative commandment that is rectifiable by a positive commandment. And if you will ask further, “And why do we administer lashes for this negative commandment, as it is possible to transgress it without an act, with speech alone — and the principle is established for us that we do not administer lashes for any negative commandment that does not have an act [involved] with it”; we have already written the answer in many places: That they, may their memory be blessed, explicitly excluded (Shevuot 21a) swearing, exchanging and cursing his fellow with [God’s] name from this principle. As the Torah was very stringent about them to make them liable for lashes, even though there is no act [involved] with them.

And do not ruminate that it is on account of the bending of the lips, as it is an act. As behold, it is concluded in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 65a that it is not an act. Rather without an act at all there is a liability for lashes with some sins. And they are the three mentioned, one who puts out a bad name and a colluding witness. Some of them the lashes are explicit in the Torah about them — such as one who puts out a bad name and a colluding witness. And some of them we learned out from Scripture, such as swearing — as we learn in Shevuot 21a in the chapter [entitled] Shevuot Shtayim. And some commentators said about some of them that it is because an act will come out from it in the end — such as this of exchange, since the beast became consecrated with his speech and one who benefits from it will misappropriate it.

The root of this commandment and some of its laws are all written in this Order in the next commandment.

And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. As even at this time, if a man transgressed and consecrated a beast for the altar and afterwards exchanged it [in front of] witnesses and [with] a warning, he is liable for lashes.