Temurah 5:6

0:00Timura peric, hey Mishna, V5, 6th, the last, the peric, and since in the previous mission we discussed, what are the effective expressions to affect Timura? Here we'll discuss a little more about the proper formulation. The basic point this Mishna is that when one declares them into via Timura, meaning that B should be the substitute for A, there has to be a specific A in mind. It has to be a specific existing conscript animal for which B is going to be the substitute. Therefore says the Mishna, if a person says Harezu Tachas Khatas, or Harezu Tachas Ola, if one says this Chulin B animal should be in the place of Achatas, or in the place of An Ola, Lo Amr Clum, that's holachically inconsequential, nothing has happened, because since he didn't identify a specific Khatas, or Ola, etc, that he was intending to transfer the Calusia from, so then it doesn't matter, it's not effective. If he says Tachas Khatas Zoo, however, if right in front of him there is a specific animal

1:03which is conscripted as the Khatas, and he has another animal which is Chulin, and he says that this Chulin animal should be Tachas, this Khatas, since certainly that yes is effective, and simply if it says the Tachas Ola Zoo, or he says this Chulin animal should be in the place of this Ola, which is conscripted then, that certainly will be effective. This note will get us there, at the point is we're going to contrast that where you have an obvious animal in front of you, or even if you don't have an animal in front of you, there is a known specific animal. If a person says Tachas Khatas, if a Tachas Ola, she usually besokha bias. If a person says this Chulin animal should be the replacement for a Khatas that I have back in my home, or the Ola that I have back in my home, if there is specifically one Khatas, and this specific one he has in mind, or when Ola he specifically has that one in mind, when he says it, even though the animal is not specific in front of him, since he's identifying a specific particular animal, which will be the source of the Kaddusha to transfer onto this new Chulin animal, then the Varavkaya, and then his words stand

2:08there effective. Okay, now effectively the Mishna has a new paragraph here. We're going to talk about a consecrating invalid animal. So we're not talking about Tamura here, we're just talking to the primary consecration. The Mishna says, Amar al-Bahema Tameya, if a person says regarding a non-Kosha animal, like a camel, Balbalas Mum, or a kosha animal that has a permanent blemish, or this is a three-legged cow, and he says, Haray al-Ola, he says that the camel, Shmin Ola, or that the three-legged cow, Shmin Ola, then Loha Marklum, that statement has no hallulachic effect whatsoever, because it's a sect, it's sort of incoherent Ola, there's no such thing as an Ola of a three-legged cow, no such thing as an Ola of a camel. Haray al-Ola, now if he said however not, this is an Ola, this should be for an Ola, in English that's the best I can do, and he would just, it's a subtlety without the lament, so we're saying, instead of saying Haray al-Ola, this is an Ola, he says, Haray al-Ola, this should be for an Ola, so then instead of, the understanding is, he's not

3:14intending to invest this particular camel with the, Caduceus Aguf of being a Corban, it means he's saying this animal should be set aside as Caduceus Dhamman for its value to purchase a Corban, an Ola, the same way I could say this money is set aside for purchasing an Ola, or I could say this object, you know, this barrel of wine is conscreded for purchasing the value to purchase a Corban, so if I can say this camel is set aside for it's value to purchasing an Ola, and if he does that, you Makhru, the hallulachic, you have to then go and sell that camel or sell that through the account via V, but they may him Ola, and then use the proceeds of that sale, which I have, the money would have the Caduceus of the, of an Ola, of like the value of an Ola, and use that to purchase a proper Corban Ola and bring that.