Malkus For Temurah

לרפואת הרב אברהם יוסף בן חנה ושרה לאה בת רבקה בתוך שח"י. 

The Rambam [Temurah 1-1] says:

כָּל הַמֵּמִיר לוֹקֶה עַל כָּל בְּהֵמָה וּבְהֵמָה שֶׁיָּמִיר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז י) "לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ" וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ חוּץ מִנִּשְׁבָּע וּמֵמִיר וּמְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּשֵׁם. שְׁלֹשָׁה לָאוִין אֵלּוּ אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל וְלוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן. וְלָמָּה לוֹקִין עַל הַתְּמוּרָה וַהֲרֵי לָאו שֶׁבָּהּ נִתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז לג) "וְאִם הָמֵר יְמִירֶנּוּ וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ". מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲשֵׂה וּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. וְעוֹד שֶׁאֵין לָאו שֶׁבָּהּ שָׁוֶה לַעֲשֵׂה. שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה אִם הֵמִירוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מֻזְהָרִין שֶׁלֹּא יָמִירוּ.

Anyone who transfers holiness from one animal to another is liable for lashes for every animal from which he transferred the holiness, as Leviticus 27:10 states: "Do not exchange it and do not transfer its holiness," even though he did not perform a deed. According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that any negative commandment that does not involve a deed is not punishable by lashes with the exception of one who takes a false or unnecessary oath, one who transfers the holiness of a sacrificial animal, and one curses a colleague mentioning God's name. These three negative commandments can never involve a deed at all, and yet one is liable for lashes for their violation.

Why is one liable for lashes for transferring the holiness of an animal, it is a negative commandment that can be corrected by a positive commandment, as it states: "If he will transfer its holiness, it and the animal to which its holiness will be transferred shall be consecrated"? Because it has one positive commandment and two negative commandments and because the negative commandment it involves is not of the same nature as the positive commandment. This is reflected in the ruling that if the Jewish community or partners try to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the transfer is not effective. Nevertheless, they are warned not to transfer the holiness.

Why does the Rambam need 2 reasons why there is מלקות even though it is a לאו הניתק לעשה [from now on "לה"ל"] which usually spells no מלקות. A]  B/c there are two לאווין [as it says לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו] and one עשה. B] The לאו is not of the same nature as the עשה but rather encompasses more than the עשה. The עשה [that the Kedushah is transferred to the second animal] doesn't apply to a צבור and שותפין, only the לאו [that you are not allowed to attempt to transfer the Kedushah] does. If there are more לאווין than the עשה or the עשה is not of the same nature as the לאו then there is no פטור of לה"ל. 

The הגהות מיימוניות says according to the Rambam תמורה is a לאו שיש בו מעשה b/c via his speech a מעשה is done [i.e. the animal goes from חולין to קדשים]. If so, how can the Rambam say that the לאו includes  more than the עשה. As far MALKUS is concerned, the לאו is equal to the עשה. This is b/c when תמורה is done for a קרבן צבור or קרבן שותפין when the קדושה is not transferred to the animal, the speech doesn't effect a מעשה and thus there is no malkus בצבור ושותפין [b/c there is מעשה]. If so, the לאו doesn't encompass more than the עשה. The לאו applies to a קרבן יחיד and the עשה also applies to a קרבן יחיד, while the לאו [with a מעשה, thus incurring malkus] doesn't apply to צבור ושותפין nor does the עשה [b/c the 2nd animal isn't sanctified]. Only with respect to the איסור does the לאו encompass more than the עשה b/c the לאו applies to a צבור ושותפין while the עשה doesn't and applies only to a קרבן יחיד. Since the issue here is whether there is malkus, this reason given by the Rambam explaining the חיוב מלקות, namely that the לאו includes more than the עשה, doesn't apply!!??

This question is asked by the חידושי הרי"ם [Yo"d 14] and the כוכב מיעקב [Simman 129].