Mishnah Temurah

1 All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. Priests have the power to substitute their own animal and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own animal. Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: what is the reason priests do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham priests have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born priests have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: Priests have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham because they do not have a claim on these offerings while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born to which the priests do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Doesn’t Scripture already say: “Then it and its substitute will be holy?”Leviticus 27:10 Now where does the holiness of the original animal occur? In the house of the owners. So too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.

2 One can substitute herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals. Sheep for goats and goats for sheep. Males for females and females for males. Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good.”Leviticus 27:10 What is meant by “good for bad”? Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish. One can substitute one hullin animal for two consecrated animals, and two hullin animals for one consecrated animal. One hullin animal for a hundred consecrated animals and a hundred hullin animals for one consecrated animal. Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute,”Leviticus 27:10 just as “it” the consecrated animal is only one, so its substitute must also be only one.

3 One cannot substitute limbs of hullin for dedicated embryos. Or embryos of hullin for dedicated limbs. Or embryos and limbs of hullin for whole dedicated animals. Or whole animals of hullin for them. Rabbi Yose says: limbs of hullin can be substituted for whole dedicated animals, but whole animals of hullin cannot be substituted for them. Rabbi Yose said: When it comes to dedicating animals, isn’t it true that if one says: “This foot is an olah a burnt offering,” the whole animal becomes an olah? Similarly, if one says, “This foot is in place of this whole dedicated animal,” the whole animal should become a substitute in its place!

4 Anything which has become subject to the law of terumah through a mixture can affect a second mixture only in proportion. Dough leavened through terumah can affect other dough only in proportion. Drawn water can disqualify a mikweh only in proportion.

5 Hatat water does not become hatat water except with the putting of ashes in the water. A doubtful graveyard cannot make another doubtful graveyard. Nor can terumah be made after terumah. A substitute cannot make another substitute. The offspring of a dedicated animal cannot make a substitute. Rabbi Judah says: the offspring of a dedicated animal can make a substitute. They said to him: a dedicated animal can make a substitute, but neither the offspring of a dedicated animal nor a substitute can make a substitute.

6 Birds and menahot do not make a substitute, since it only says “a beast.”Leviticus 27:10 A congregation or partners cannot make a substitute, since it says: “He must not substitute for it.” An individual can make a substitute but a congregation or partners cannot make a substitute. One cannot make a substitute with objects dedicated for Temple repairs. Rabbi Shimon said: Isn’t tithe included in the laws of substitutes? Why was it specifically mentioned? To make a comparison with it: tithe is a private offering, it thus excludes congregational offerings. And tithe is a dedication for the altar, it thus excludes offerings dedicated for Temple repairs.

1 There are laws relating to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and laws relating to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute. Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are laws relating to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and the laws of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or the laws of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: don’t the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim count as sacrifices of individuals that nevertheless override the Shabbat and the laws of ritual impurity? The rule therefore depends on whether the time for the offering is fixed.

2 A hatat of an individual whose owners have been atoned for is left to die, whereas a hatat of a congregation is not left to die. Rabbi Judah says: it is left to die. Rabbi Shimon said: Just as we have found with regard to the offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat and a hatat whose owners died, that these rules apply only to an individual but not to a congregation, so too the rules concerning the hatat whose owners have been atoned for and a hatat whose year has passed apply only to an individual but not a congregation.

3 In some ways the laws relating to dedications are stricter than those relating to a substitute, and in some ways those relating to a substitute are stricter than those relating to dedications. In some ways the laws relating to dedications are stricter than those relating to a substitute. For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them. The laws relating to a substitute are stricter than those relating to dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they treated an unintentional act like an intentional one when it comes to a substitute, but not when it comes to dedication. Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.

1 The following are sacrifices whose offspring and substitutes are the same as them: The offspring of shelamim and their substitutes, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of time, are regarded as shelamim, and they require the laying on of hands, libations and the waving of the breast and thigh. Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a shelamim must not be offered as a shelamim. The sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them about the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they disagree about? The offspring of a shelamim: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, but the sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testified regarding the offspring of a shelamim that it is offered as a shelamim. Rabbi Papias said: I testify that we had a cow of a shelamim and we ate it on Pesah and we ate its offspring as a shelamim on the festival of Sukkot.

2 The offspring of a todah and its substitute, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, are considered as a todah, but they do not require loaves of bread. The substitute of an olah, the offspring of its substitute, its offspring and the offspring of its offspring, until the end of time, are regarded as an olah: they must be skinned, cut into pieces and completely burned.

3 If one set aside a female animal for an olah and it gave birth to a male, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an olah. Rabbi Elazar says: the male animal itself is offered as an olah. If one sets aside a female animal for an asham, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an asham. If he has already offered an asham in its place, its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Shimon says: it is sold without waiting for a blemish. The substitute of an asham, the young of its substitute, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, go out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. They are then sold and their money goes for a freewill-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot burnt sacrifices with their money. An asham whose owner died or whose owner obtained atonement through another animal goes out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot burnt sacrifices with their money.

4 Can’t a nedavah freewill-offering also be an olah? What is the difference between Rabbi Elazar’s opinion and the sages’ opinion? The difference is that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him. And if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. When he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands on it, he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and even if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division officiating that particular week.

5 The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished. What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed on the one hand and other dedications on the other? All blemished dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They other dedications and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They other dedications come from outside the land to the land, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. If they however came from outside the holy land unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon said: what is the reason? Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.

1 The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement afterwards, through another animal, it is left to die, and it does not make a substitute. It is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the laws of sacrilege do apply.

2 If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he sacrificed another in its place, if then the first animal is found, it is left to die. If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he offered a hatat instead of it, if then the money was found, it goes to the Dead Sea.

3 If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the first money was found, he brings a hatat from both sums, and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both sums, and the rest is used as a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both sums, and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both sums and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, This is Rabbi’s opinion. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement.

4 If one set aside a hatat and it is blemished, he sells it and brings another with its money. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: if the second animal was offered before the first was killed, it is left to die, since the owners have already obtained atonement.

1 How can we act deceptively with regard to the first-born? He says concerning a pregnant animal which was giving birth for the first time: if what is inside this animal is a male, let it be an olah. If it then gave birth to a male, it is offered as an olah. If he said: if it is a female, let it be a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a female, it is offered as a shelamim. If he said: if it is a male, let it be an olah, and if a female let it be a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a male and a female, the male is offered as an olah and the female is offered as a shelamim.

2 If it gave birth to two males, one of them is offered as an olah and the second is sold to persons obligated to bring an olah and its money becomes hullin. If it gave birth to two females, one of them is offered as a shelamim and the second is sold to persons obligated to bring shelamim and the money becomes hullin. If the animal gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: they do not become holy.

3 If one says: “The offspring of this pregnant animal is an olah and it the animal itself is a shelamim,” his words take effect. But if he says first: “It the animal is a shelamim” and then, “and its offspring is an olah,” its offspring is regarded as the offspring of a shelamim, This is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. Rabbi Yose says: if he intended to say this at first, since it is impossible to mention both kinds of sacrifices simultaneously, his words take effect. But if after he already said intentionally: this is a shelamim, and then he changed his mind and says: its offspring is an olah, its offspring is regarded as the offspring of a shelamim.

4 If one says: “This animal is the substitute of an olah and the substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah, This is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. Rabbi Yose says: if he originally intended this, since it is impossible to mention both names of sacrifices simultaneously, his words take effect. But if after he had already said: “This is the substitute of an olah,” he changed his mind and then said: “The substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah.

5 If one says: “This animal is tahat instead of this,” or “This is temurat a substitute this,” or “This is halufat in place of this,” each of these is a substitute. If however one says: “This is redeemed for this,” it is not a valid substitute. And if the dedicated animal was blemished, it becomes hullin and he must make up the hullin to the value of the dedicated animal.

6 If one says: “This animal is instead of a hatat,” or “instead of an olah,” his words have no effect. But if he says: “Instead of this hatat” or “Instead of this olah,” or “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words take effect. If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “These are an olah,” his words have no effect. But if he says: “They are for an olah,” they are sold and he brings an olah with their money.

1 All animals forbidden for the altar render others unfit however few there are. These are the animals forbidden for the altar: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or an animal that had sexual relations with a man, an animal set aside muktzeh for idolatry, or that had been worshiped neʿevad as an idol. Or that was the fee of a prostitute, or a dog’s exchange. Or that was kilayim. Or terefah. Or an animal born through a cesarean section. What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It the animal itself is forbidden, but what is on it, is permitted. And what is meant by neʿevad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it the animal itself and what is on it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten.

2 What is meant by “a prostitute’s fee”? If one says to a prostitute, “Take this lamb as your fee,” even if there are a hundred lambs, they are all forbidden for the altar. If one says to his fellow: Here is a lamb and have your female slave sleep with my servant, Rabbi Meir says: it the lamb is not regarded as a prostitute’s fee. But the sages say: it is regarded as a prostitute’s fee.

3 What is meant by the “price of a dog”? If one says to his fellow, here is this lamb instead of this dog. And similarly if two partners divided an estate and one took ten lambs and the other nine and a dog, all those taken in place of the dog are forbidden for the altar, but those taken with a dog are valid for the altar. An animal that is the fee of a dog and the price of a prostitute are permitted for the altar, since it says: “For both of these”Deuteronomy 23:19: “both,” but not four. Their offspring are permitted for the altar since it says: “Both of these” implying they but not their offspring.

4 If he gave her a prostitute money, it is permitted for use for the altar. But if he gave her wine, oil, flour and anything similar which is offered on the altar, it is forbidden for the altar. If he gave her dedicated animals they are permitted for the altar. If he gave her birds of hullin they are disqualified. For one might have reasoned as follows: if in the case of dedicated animals, where a blemish disqualifies them, the law of the prostitute’s fee and price of a dog does not apply to them, in the case of birds, where a blemish does not disqualify, isn’t there even more reason that the law of the prostitute’s fee and the price of a dog should not apply? Scripture says, “For any vow,”Deuteronomy 23:19 this includes a bird.

5 With regard to any animals that are disqualified for the altar, their offspring are permitted for the altar. The offspring of a terefah: Rabbi Eliezer says it may not be offered on the altar. But the sages say it may be offered. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: a ritually clean animal which nursed from a terefah is disqualified from the altar. One may not redeem any dedicated animal which became terefah, since we may not redeem dedicated animals in order to give them to dogs to eat.

1 There are laws which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications for repairs of the Temple, and there are laws which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar. Dedications for the altar effect a substitute. They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant and ritual impurity. Their offspring and milk are forbidden even after their redemption. If one kills them outside the Temple he is guilty. And wages are not paid from them to artisans, which is not the case with dedications for Temple repairs.

2 There are laws which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which don’t apply to dedications to the altar. Unspecified dedications go to the repairs of the Temple. Dedication for the repairs of the Temple can have an effect on all things, the law of sacrilege applies to things that grow from them. And there is no benefit to be derived from them for the priest.

3 Both dedications for the altar and dedications for the repairs of the Temple may not be changed from one holiness to another. One may dedicate them with a value-dedication, and one may dedicate their value to the priests. If they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: dedications for the repairs of the Temple, if they died, they are redeemed.

4 And the following are things which must be buried: A dedicated animal which had a miscarriage, the miscarriage must be buried. A dedicated animal which expelled a placenta, the placenta must be buried. An ox which was condemned to be stoned. The heifer whose neck was broken. The birds brought in connection with the purification of one with skin disease metzora. The hair of a nazirite. The first-born of a donkey. A mixture of meat cooked in milk. And hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court. Rabbi Shimon says: hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court must be burned. And similarly a wild animal killed in the Temple court is also burned.

5 And the following are to be burned: Chametz on Pesah is burned. Ritually impure terumah. Orlah. Kilayim mixed seeds in the vineyard. What is usually burned is to be burned and what is usually buried is to be buried. We may light a fire with the bread and oil of unclean terumah.

6 All dedicated animals which were slaughtered with the intention of being eaten after their set time or outside of their set place must be burned. An asham offered by one in doubt as to whether he has transgressed is to be burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is to be buried. A hatat of a bird that is brought for a doubt is burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is cast into the sewer. All things which must be buried must not be burned, and all things which must be burned must not be buried. Rabbi Judah says: if one wishes to follow a stricter rule and burn things which are buried, he is permitted to do so. They said to him: he is not allowed to change the prescribed method.