הַכֹּל מְמִירִים, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים. לֹא שֶׁאָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהָמִיר, אֶלָּא, שֶׁאִם הֵמִיר, מוּמָר, וְסוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. הַכֹּהֲנִים מְמִירִים אֶת שֶׁלָּהֶם, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְמִירִים אֶת שֶׁלָּהֶם. אֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים מְמִירִים לֹא בְחַטָּאת וְלֹא בְאָשָׁם וְלֹא בִבְכוֹר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, וְכִי מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מְמִירִים בִּבְכוֹר. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן, וְהַבְּכוֹר מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן. מַה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם אֵין מְמִירִים בּוֹ, אַף הַבְּכוֹר לֹא יְמִירֶנּוּ בוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, מַה לִּי אֵינוֹ מֵמִיר בְּחַטָּאת וּבְאָשָׁם, שֶׁאֵין זָכִין בָּהֶן בְּחַיֵּיהֶם. תֹּאמַר בִּבְכוֹר, שֶׁזָּכִין בּוֹ בְחַיָּיו. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר, וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ (ויקרא כז), הֵיכָן קְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו, בְּבֵית הַבְּעָלִים, אַף תְּמוּרָה בְּבֵית הַבְּעָלִים: Everyone substitutes a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, both men and women. That is not to say that it is permitted for a person to effect substitution; rather, it means that if one substituted a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal, the substitution takes effect, and the non-sacred animal becomes consecrated, and the consecrated animal remains sacred. And the one who substituted the non-sacred animal incurs the forty [sofeg et ha’arba’im] lashes. The priests substitute for their own offerings and Israelites substitute for their own offerings. The priests substitute neither for a sin offering, nor for a guilt offering, nor for a firstborn offering that they received from an Israelite, as those animals are not their property, and one does not substitute an animal that is not his. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: For what reason can priests not substitute for a firstborn offering that they received from an Israelite? Does it not belong to them? Rabbi Akiva said to him: A sin offering and a guilt offering are a gift to the priest, and the firstborn offering is likewise a gift to the priest. Just as in the cases of a sin offering and a guilt offering, priests that receive one of them from an Israelite cannot substitute for it, so too with regard to a firstborn offering, priests that receive it from an Israelite cannot substitute for it. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: What is this comparison for him? If a priest does not substitute for a sin offering and a guilt offering, which priests do not acquire during the animals’ lifetimes, will you say the same with regard to a firstborn, which priests do acquire during the animal’s lifetime? Rabbi Akiva said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “Then both it and its substitute shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10), which juxtaposes the consecration of the consecrated animal with that of its non-sacred substitute? Where is the consecrated animal imbued with sanctity? It is in the house of the owner. So too, the substitute animal is consecrated in the house of the owner. Therefore, the priest cannot substitute for the firstborn that he received because he is not the owner that initially consecrated it. It is written: “He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good; and if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and its substitute shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10). The mishna enumerates the consecrated and non-sacred animals this verse applies to.
מְמִירִין מִן הַבָּקָר עַל הַצֹּאן וּמִן הַצֹּאן עַל הַבָּקָר, מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים עַל הָעִזִּים וּמִן הָעִזִּים עַל הַכְּבָשִׂים, מִן הַזְּכָרִים עַל הַנְּקֵבוֹת וּמִן הַנְּקֵבוֹת עַל הַזְּכָרִים, מִן הַתְּמִימִים עַל בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין וּמִבַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין עַל הַתְּמִימִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ רַע בְּטוֹב. אֵיזֶהוּ טוֹב בְּרָע, בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן אֶת מוּמָם. מְמִירִים אֶחָד בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם בְּאֶחָד, אֶחָד בְּמֵאָה וּמֵאָה בְּאֶחָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְמִירִים אֶלָּא אֶחָד בְּאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז), וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ, מַה הוּא מְיֻחָד, אַף תְּמוּרָתוֹ מְיֻחָדֶת: One substitutes for consecrated animals from the flock of sheep or goats, and the sanctity takes effect upon animals from the herd of cattle, and one substitutes from the herd and the sanctity takes effect upon animals from the flock. And one substitutes from the sheep and the sanctity takes effect upon the goats, and from the goats upon the sheep; and from the males upon the females, and from the females upon the males; and from the unblemished animals upon the blemished animals, and from the blemished animals upon the unblemished animals. The source for this is as it is stated: “He shall neither exchange it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). And which is the case of good for bad where the substitution takes effect? It is a case where one substitutes for blemished animals whose consecration preceded their blemish. But if an animal was consecrated after it was blemished, substitution for it does not take effect. One substitutes one non-sacred animal for two consecrated animals and two non-sacred animals for one consecrated animal, and one substitutes one non-sacred animal for one hundred consecrated animals and one hundred non-sacred animals for one consecrated animal. Rabbi Shimon says: One substitutes only one non-sacred animal for one consecrated animal, as it is stated: “Then both it and its substitute shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10). Just as “it” indicates one specific animal, so too, its substitute can be only one specific animal.
אֵין מְמִירִין אֵבָרִים בְּעֻבָּרִים וְלֹא עֻבָּרִים בְּאֵבָרִים, וְלֹא אֵבָרִים וְעֻבָּרִים בִּשְׁלֵמִים וְלֹא שְׁלֵמִים בָּהֶן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, מְמִירִים אֵבָרִין בִּשְׁלֵמִים וְלֹא שְׁלֵמִים בְּאֵבָרִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וַהֲלֹא בְמֻקְדָּשִׁין, הָאוֹמֵר רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה, כֻּלָּהּ עוֹלָה, אַף כְּשֶׁיֹּאמַר רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ תַּחַת זוֹ, תְּהֵא כֻלָּהּ תְּמוּרָה תַּחְתֶּיהָ: One does not substitute non-sacred limbs for consecrated fetuses, i.e., if one says that a certain limb of a non-sacred animal is substituted for a fetus in the womb of a consecrated animal, it is not consecrated. And likewise, one does not substitute non-sacred fetuses for consecrated limbs. And one substitutes neither non-sacred limbs nor fetuses for whole consecrated animals nor non-sacred whole animals for consecrated limbs or fetuses. Rabbi Yosei says: One substitutes non-sacred limbs for whole consecrated animals, but not whole animals for consecrated limbs. Rabbi Yosei said: But isn’t it so with regard to sacrificial animals, that if one says: The hind leg of this animal is a burnt offering, the entire animal is a burnt offering? So too, when he says: The non-sacred hind leg of this animal is in exchange for that animal, the entire animal is a substitute in exchange for it.
אֵין הַמְדֻמָּע מְדַּמֵּעַ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. אֵין הַמְחֻמָּץ מְחַמֵּץ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. אֵין הַמַּיִם הַשְּׁאוּבִים פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן: If teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, was intermingled with non-sacred produce, and it is impossible to distinguish between them, if the ratio of non-sacred produce to teruma was less than one hundred to one, the teruma is not nullified and all the produce is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden. If the mixture was then intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture renders it a mixture of teruma only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture. And dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden even if the ratio between the non-sacred and the teruma is greater than one hundred to one. If a portion of that dough was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original leavening agent in the entire dough, and the second dough is forbidden only if the quantity of the original teruma leavening agent inside it is sufficient to leaven it. And if three log of drawn water were poured into a ritual bath with less than forty se’a to complete the requisite forty se’a, the ritual bath is invalidated. But drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, as explained in the Gemara.
אֵין מֵי חַטָּאת נַעֲשִׂין מֵי חַטָּאת אֶלָּא עִם מַתַּן אֵפֶר. אֵין בֵּית הַפְּרָס עוֹשֶׂה בֵית הַפְּרָס, וְלֹא תְרוּמָה אַחַר תְּרוּמָה, וְלֹא תְמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְמוּרָה, וְלֹא הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְמוּרָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְמוּרָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, הֶקְדֵּשׁ עוֹשֶׂה תְמוּרָה, לֹא הַוָּלָד וְלֹא תְמוּרָה עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה: And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by placement of water onto the ashes. And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Sages decreed ritual impurity on a field in which a grave was plowed, scattering the bones throughout the field. This field is called a beit haperas. That impurity extends to the area of one hundred cubits surrounding the grave. Nevertheless, they did not decree impurity on the second field if one plowed from that field into another field. And there is no teruma after teruma. Once one designates produce from his crop as teruma, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as teruma, it is not teruma. And a substitute animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute; rather, it remains non-sacred. And the offspring born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Sages said to him: A consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, but the offspring does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.
הָעוֹפוֹת וְהַמְּנָחוֹת אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא (ויקרא כז) בִּבְהֵמָה. הַצִּבּוּר וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִים אֵינָן עוֹשִׂים תְּמוּרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), לֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ, יָחִיד עוֹשֶׂה תְמוּרָה, לֹא הַצִּבּוּר וְלֹא הַשֻּׁתָּפִים עוֹשִׂים תְּמוּרָה. קָרְבְּנוֹת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וַהֲלֹא הַמַּעֲשֵׂר בַּכְּלָל הָיָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא, לְהָקִישׁ אֵלָיו, מַה מַּעֲשֵׂר קָרְבַּן יָחִיד, יָצְאוּ קָרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר. מַה מַּעֲשֵׂר קָרְבַּן מִזְבֵּחַ, יָצְאוּ קָרְבְּנוֹת בֶּדֶק הַבָּיִת: The birds sacrificed as offerings, i.e., doves and pigeons, and the meal offerings do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes, as only the term “an animal” is stated with regard to substitution, in the verse: “And if he substitutes an animal for an animal” (Leviticus 27:10). A consecrated animal belonging to the community or to partners does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, as it is stated in the same verse: “He shall neither exchange it nor substitute it.” One derives from the singular pronoun in the verse that an individual renders a non-sacred animal a substitute, but the community and partners do not render a non-sacred animal a substitute. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes. Rabbi Shimon said: The fact that animals belonging to the community or partners do not render animals exchanged for them substitutes is derived as follows: The animal tithe was included in the category of all offerings, and why was it singled out in the verse: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred unto the Lord. He shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he substitute for it; and if he substitutes it, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:32–33)? Rabbi Shimon explains: It was singled out to juxtapose substitution to the animal tithe, to tell you: Just as the animal tithe is brought exclusively as an individual offering, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are individual offerings, excluding communal offerings and the offerings of partners from the halakha of substitution. And just as the animal tithe is an offering sacrificed on the altar, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are offerings sacrificed on the altar, excluding items consecrated for Temple maintenance from the halakha of substitution.