meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah/English/merged.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה תמורה
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah
  
  Introduction
  
  “Temurah” means “substitute” and Tractate Temurah deals with cases where a person tries to substitute a non-sacred animal for another animal that has already been dedicated to be a sacrifice. This subject is dealt with in two parts of Leviticus 27, which I have quoted below:
  Leviticus 27: 9-10 9 If [the vow concerns] any animal that may be brought as an offering to the Lord, any such that may be given to the Lord shall be holy. 10 One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good; if one does substitute one animal for another, the thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy.
  Leviticus 27:32-33 32 All tithes of the herd or flock — of all that passes under the shepherd's staff, every tenth one — shall be holy to the Lord. 33 He must not look out for good as against bad, or make substitution for it. If he does make substitution for it, then it and its substitute shall both be holy: it cannot be redeemed.
  Since there are not that many laws that are connected to substituting non-sacred animals for sacrifices, our tractate also deals with the status of the offspring of dedicated animals. The commonality between these two subjects is that the sanctity of one animal (the substitute or the offspring) comes as a result of the sanctity of the other animal (the original sacrifice or the parent).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The first mishnah of Temurah explains who has the ability to substitute a non-sacred animal for an already dedicated one. Remember: when one does this, both animals become sacred. The substitution in essence fails to remove the holiness from the original animal but succeeds in making the substituted animal holy. So throughout this tractate whenever the mishnah says “can substitute” what it means is that the substituted animal is sacred. It does not mean that the original animal becomes non-sacred.
  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.  The owner of a sacrifice has the ability to substitute one animal for another. The mishnah immediately notes that what this means is that when one tries to make such a substitution the substituted animal becomes holy. It is not permitted to try to make such a substitution, and one who does try to do so is punished, for transgressing the negative commandment of “do not make a substitute” (Leviticus 27:10).
  Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal].  People can substitute only sacrifices that they actually own. Israelites can substitute sacrifices that they bring and priests can substitute sacrifices that they bring on their own behalf, but not sacrifices that other people bring to them to offer.
  Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: 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: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall 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.  When it comes to an asham (guilt offering) or a hatat (sin offering) brought to a priest by an Israelite all agree that priests cannot affect substitutes for them. Even though the priest does get to eat the meat of the asham and hatat, they are still not his when they are alive, and therefore he cannot substitute for them. The argument is over the first-born. Rabbi Akiva says that the first-born is like the asham and the hatat and the priest cannot substitute for them. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri responds that there is a difference. The priest receives the meat of the asham and hatat only once the animals have been sacrificed. He has no share in them when they are alive, and therefore he cannot substitute for them, because substitution must be done with a live animal. But when it comes to a first-born, the animal is given to the priests when it is alive, and therefore, if a priest substitutes for it, the substitution is effective. Rabbi Akiva responds with a midrash. The Torah compares the sanctity of the substitute with the sanctity of the original animal. Since the sanctity of the original animal has to occur with the original owners, so too the sanctity of the substitute must occur with the original owners.
  
  Mishnah 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”? (1) Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish.  One can substitute any type of animal for any other type of animal. The reason this works is that the substitution is not effective, so it doesn’t really matter if there is a match between the original and the substitute. One can even substitute a blemished (bad) animal for an unblemished (good) sacrifice. The mishnah clarifies that if the original sacrifice was blemished, the blemish must have occurred after it was sanctified. When one sanctifies a blemished animal, he is really sanctifying its value because the animal itself cannot be sacrificed, and when one sanctifies the value of an animal, it cannot be substituted for.
  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” (, just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one.  According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter how many animals are substituted or substituted for. Since the substitution is ineffective, all of the original animals remain holy, and all of the substitute animals become holy. Rabbi Shimon derives from the verse that one can only do a one for one substitute. The Torah uses singular language to designate that both the original animal and the substitute animal must be singular. So if one tries to substitute many hullin animals for a sacred animal, the hullin animals do not become sacred.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a person who tries to substitute either parts of an animal or embryos for a whole dedicated animal, or vice versa.
  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.  According to the first opinion, one can substitute only whole animals for other whole animals. One cannot substitute parts or embryos for whole animals, or whole animals for parts or embryos that have been dedicated to the Temple.
  Rabbi Yose says: limbs [of hullin] can be substituted for whole [dedicated animals], but whole [animals of hullin] cannot be substitute for them.  According to Rabbi Yose if a person says, “This limb is in place of this dedicated animal,” the limb does become holy as a substitute. Once the limb is holy its holiness “spreads” over the entire animal and the entire animal is holy.
  Rabbi Yose said: When it comes to dedicating animals, is it not true that if one says: “This foot shall be an olah (a burnt,” the whole [animal] becomes an olah? Similarly, if one says, “This foot shall be in place of this [whole dedicated animal],” the whole [animal] should become a substitute in its place!  Rabbi Yose explains his opinion by analogizing it to a case where a person dedicates the limb of an animal. In such a case the entire animal becomes an olah (assuming that is what he said it would be). So too, when one tries to substitute a limb for an entire animal, the entire substitute animal becomes holy.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah has nothing to do with temurah. It is here because it is similar to tomorrow’s mishnah, which does have some connection to our tractate.
  [Anything which has become subject to the law of terumah through] a mixture can affect a [second] mixture only in proportion.  If terumah and hullin (non-sacred things) become mixed up with, for instance, terumah wine and hullin wine, and there are 100 parts hullin for every part terumah, one can simply remove one part terumah, and the remainder becomes hullin. However, if there is less than a 100 to 1 ratio, the mixture, called “meduma” has to be treated with the stringency of terumah. It can only be eaten or drunk by priests. If this “meduma” mixture becomes mixed in with other hullin, it only affects the hullin according to the amount of terumah that is in the meduma. As long as there are 100 parts hullin for every part terumah in the “meduma” mixture, the entire mixture can be treated as hullin. We should note that it is forbidden to intentionally mix meduma with more hullin in order to nullify the presence of the terumah. Our mishnah refers to a case where this occurs accidentally.
  [Dough] leavened [through terumah] can affect [other dough] only in proportion.  If hullin dough is leavened by terumah sour dough, the hullin dough must be treated as terumah. However, if some of this dough falls into more hullin dough, it causes the new dough take on the status of terumah only if there was enough terumah in it to leaven the new dough. This is basically the same principle we saw in section one, just in reference to dough.
  Drawn water can disqualify a mikweh only in proportion.  If a mikveh has less than 40 seahs of water, and three logs of drawn water fall into it, the mikveh is disqualified. If, however, these three logs of drawn water became mixed in with water that was not drawn, water that can be used for a mikveh, then they disqualify the mikveh only according to amount of drawn water that is in the mixture. To summarize: in all of these cases, there is a mixture of problematic substances (terumah or drawn water) and non-problematic substances. If this mixture is mixed in with something else that is not problematic (hullin or a mikveh) we only consider the problematic parts of the mixture when determining the status of what it fell into.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Hatat water does not become hatat water except with the putting of ashes [in the water].  “Hatat water” is the water mixed in the ashes of the red heifer that is used in the purification ritual. The water does not become hatat water until the ashes are put into them. This also can mean that if there is some water that already has the ashes mixed in, and then more water falls in, they must again put more ashes in so that the new water can become “hatat water.”
  A doubtful graveyard cannot make another doubtful graveyard.  A field in which there was a grave and then was plowed becomes a “doubtful graveyard.” This status extends for 100 cubits from where the grave was. However, if the “doubtful graveyard” is then plowed again, it does not make another doubtful graveyard.
  Nor can terumah be made after terumah.  If one separates terumah from his produce, and then separates terumah a second time, the second batch of terumah is not terumah.
  A substitute cannot make another substitute.  If one has an animal that is holy because he attempted to substitute it for another animal, and then he tries to substitute another animal for the substitute, the second substitute is not holy. That is what the mishnah means when it says, “A substitute [that has already been made holy] does not 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.  The sages debate whether when one substitutes an animal for the offspring of a dedicated animal, the substitute is holy. The sages say that it is not, for they hold that only the originally dedicated animal can make another animal into a substitute. Rabbi Judah expands the laws of substitutes and holds that even the offspring can make a substitute.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah provides some limits to the applicability of the law of substitutes.
  Birds and menahot do not make a substitute, since it only says “a beast” (Leviticus 27:10).  The laws of substitutes apply only to beasts, cows, goats and sheep. They do not apply to bird offerings or meal offering (menahot).
  A congregation or partners cannot make a substitute, since it says: “He shall not substitute for it” an individual can make a substitute but a congregation or partners cannot make substitute.  The laws of substitutes apply only to sacrifices brought by individuals and not to those brought by the congregation or to those brought by partners. This is derived from the singular language used by the Torah.
  One cannot make a substitute with [objects] dedicated for Temple repairs. Rabbi Shimon said:  Now is not tithe included [in the laws of substitutes]? Then why was it specially mentioned?  In order 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.  If someone has an animal that is dedicated not to be a sacrifice but to be sold for profit for Temple repairs, that animal cannot make a substitute. Rabi Shimon derives this midrashically from the comparison of the two sets of verses that deal with substitutes in Leviticus 27. The first set deals with regular animals and the second set (vs. 32-33) deals with tithes. Why would the Torah mention tithes, asks Rabbi Shimon, if not to teach us some extra information that we could not have learned from the first group of verses? Rabbi Shimon answers that these verses are there to compare animal tithes with other sacrifices that can make a substitute. Just as tithes are brought in order to offer them as sacrifices, and not to go to Temple repairs, so too only animals brought to be offered can make a substitute. Similarly, just as tithes are brought by individuals, so too only sacrifices brought by individuals can make substitutes, and not those brought by the congregation.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah compares the laws of sacrifices brought by an individual with the laws of sacrifices brought by the congregation.
  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 three ways in which sacrifices brought by an individual differ from the public sacrifices brought by the congregation. First of all, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, sacrifices brought by an individual can make substitutes whereas those brought by the congregation do not. Second, sacrifices brought by the congregation must always be brought from male animals. Third, if an individual is obligated to bring a sacrifice within a certain time, and the time passes, he must still bring the sacrifice and all of its libations (wine and oil). In contrast, if a congregational sacrifice, such as a tamid (daily) or musaf (additional) offering is not brought at its correct time, the congregation need not bring it later, nor need they bring its libations at a later time. The one caveat is that if the offering was sacrificed at the correct time and the congregation for some reason did not bring its libations, they must do so at a later date.
  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: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim  which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.  Congregational sacrifices can be brought on Shabbat and if there are no ritually clean priests, even impure priests can bring them. However, individual sacrifices are never offered on Shabbat and if there are no pure priests to offer them, they simply must wait until a priest is purified. While the first opinion seems to hold that the reason for this difference between congregational and individual sacrifices is that the former is brought by the many and the latter is not, Rabbi Meir points out that there are two individual sacrifices that do not conform to these rules. The griddle cakes that the priest offers on a daily basis (see Menahot 4:5) and the bull he offers on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:7) are both individual sacrifices and yet they both override the Shabbat and the laws of impurity. Rabbi Meir explains that the reason a sacrifice overrides Shabbat and the impurity laws is that its time is fixed. Congregational sacrifices and a couple of individual sacrifices have fixed times, whereas other individual sacrifices do not. That is why they do not override the Shabbat or impurity laws.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to explain the differences between sacrifices of an individual and those of the congregation.
  To understand our mishnah we must discuss the category of a hatat (a sin-offering) that is left to die. There are five types of hatats that must be left to die: 1) the offspring of a hatat; 2) the substitute of a hatat; 3) a hatat whose owners have died; 4) a hatat whose owners were atoned for by a different hatat; 5) a hatat whose year has passed.
  The sages in our mishnah argue whether these laws apply to all hatats, or just to those brought by an individual. The argument is really only over the last two categories, because the first three are not relevant to a congregational hatat. The hatat brought by the congregation is always male (so no offspring, at least not that we can be certain about) and it cannot make a substitute (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah). Furthermore, it is impossible to conceive of a hatat brought by the congregation whose owners have all died. Therefore, the argument is only about the last two categories, and whether they apply to the congregational hatat.
  A hatat of an individual whose owners have been atoned for is left to die, whereas that of a congregation is not left to die. Rabbi Judah says: it is left to die.  If a person sets aside an animal to be a hatat, a sin-offering, and then loses the offering, and then sets aside and brings a different animal to be a hatat, the first animal, if found, must be left to die. According to the Bavli, it is put into a pen and is starved to death. Our mishnah limits this to the hatat of an individual. According to the first opinion, the hatat of a congregation is not left to die. Rather, it goes out to pasture until it becomes blemished at which point it can be sold and the proceeds used to buy another sacrifice. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that the same rules apply to the hatat of the congregation.
  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.  Rabbi Shimon defends the first opinion. Just as the first three types of hatat are left to die only if they belong to an individual and not to the congregation, so too when it comes to the other two types of hatat, the rules of being left to die apply only to that brought by the individual and not to that brought by the congregation. In other words, although it is possible for there to be a hatat whose congregation has already been atoned for or a hatat brought by a congregation, but whose year has already passed, nevertheless, these hatats are not left to die.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah compares the laws that relate to dedicating something to the Temple with the laws that relate to an animal that has been substituted. As the rabbis love to do, they note that sometimes the laws governing dedications are more stringent, whereas at other times, the laws governing substitutes are more stringent.
  In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications.  This section introduces the rest of the mishnah.
  In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent 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.  There are three ways in which dedications are treated more stringently than substitutes, all of which we have learned before. In 1:5-6 we learned that a dedicated animal can make a substitute but that a substitute cannot make another substitute. In 2:1 we learned that only individuals can make substitutes. In 1:3 we learned that one can dedicate embryos and limbs but that one cannot make them a substitute for a dedicated animal.
  [The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent 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.  One can substitute a permanently blemished animal for an unblemished animal, as we learned in 1:2. When the person comes to redeem the blemished animal from its holiness, which he must do because it cannot be sacrificed, the substituted animal does not become completely hullin, non-sacred. It still retains its holiness in that it cannot be sheared or worked. All that one can do with it is slaughter it for food. In contrast, if one dedicates an animal that already has a permanent blemish, it can be redeemed and when it is redeemed it can be sheared and put to work (see Hullin 10:2). In this way we can see that the laws governing the substitute are more stringent.
  Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication.  If one substitutes an animal for another animal in error, the substitution works and the animal becomes holy, despite the fact that he didn’t know what he was doing. This is not so when it comes to dedications.
  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.  “Kilayim” is an animal born of two different species, for instance a goat and sheep. A “tumtum” is an animal whose sex cannot be easily determined and a hermaphrodite (“androgynous”) is one who has signs of being both male and female. These animals cannot be dedicated, and if one tries to dedicate them, they are not holy. Furthermore, they cannot cause other animals to become holy. For instance, if they are already holy due to the fact that their parents were dedicated animals, they cannot make a substitute. One who tries to substitute another animal for them, the substituted animal is not holy. This is true even for Rabbi Judah who in mishnah five said that offspring of dedicated animals can make a substitute.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The third chapter discusses the status of the offspring and the substitutes of sacrifices, and whether or not they have the same exact status as the original/mother animal.
  In our mishnah the sages debate the status of the offspring of a shelamim, an offering of well-being.
  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, till the end of time, are regarded as shelamim, and they require the laying on of hands, libations and the waving of the breast and shoulder.  According to the first opinion, animals whose sanctity is derived from the original shelamim offering are treated exactly like shelamim. This means they require laying on of the hands (semikhah) before they are sacrificed, they require libations (grain, wine and oil) and the breast and shoulder must be waved, as is done with the shelamim itself. This would include the offspring of the original shelamim, the substitute and its offspring, and even any offspring of other offspring of the original or its substitute.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a shelamim must not be offered as a shelamim. The sages say: it is offered.  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that the offspring of a shelamim is not offered as a shelamim. Rather it must be left to die of starvation, as was the case in mishnah 2:2. The other sages again reiterate their opinion from section one.
  Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards 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 dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered.  According to Rabbi Shimon everyone holds that the offspring of the offspring or the offspring of the offspring of the substitute may not be offered as a shelamim. The reason for this prohibition is that if we let such animals be offered as shelamim, people would see that owners delaying bringing their offerings to the Temple and rather holding them long enough for a third generation to be born. The only reason to do so is that the person wants to grow flocks of shelamim, since he can eat most of the meat. This is a problem for two reasons. First of all, the Torah says that one should not delay in bringing one’s vows to the Temple. Second, it is prohibited to shear or work these animals and if he keeps them around for a long time, the chances that he will transgress this commandment go up. To prevent people from holding on to their shelamim offerings, Rabbi Shimon says that we rule that their third generation can no longer be eaten. The sages and Rabbi Eliezer debate only with regard to the original offspring. It is, after all, possible that the shelamim (or its substitute) will have offspring without having a long delay between its sanctification and its being brought to the Temple. Therefore, the sages say that this offspring can be offered.
  Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards 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 dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered.  Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testify that they have a tradition that supports the sages in their dispute with Rabbi Eliezer. Furthermore, Rabbi Papias testifies that they did eat the offspring of a shelamim. This testimony is found also in tractate Eduyot (testimonies) 7:6. There the testimony is explicitly brought as a refutation of Rabbi Eliezer.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah deals with the offspring and substitutes of a todah (thanksgiving offering) or of an olah (whole burnt offering).
  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, only they do not require the accompaniment of loaves of bread.  Basically, the animals whose holiness comes about as a result of a todah (offspring, and their offspring) have the status of a todah. The one difference is that the original todah is brought with a bread offering, whereas the offspring is brought without a bread offering. This law was derived midrashically in Menahot 7:4.
  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 require flaying, cutting into pieces and to be altogether burned.  The substitute of an olah is a case where a person substituted a male animal for an olah. If one substitutes a female for the male olah, then the female is holy, and its offspring is sacrificed as an olah. But the olah itself does not have halakhic offspring, because the olah is a male. All of the offspring in this section, therefore, refer to a case where a female was substituted for a male. These offspring must all be flayed, cut into pieces and then burned on the altar. These laws are outlined in the first chapter of Leviticus.
  
  Mishnah 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.  An olah must be a male animal. If one sets aside a female animal to be an olah, he has sanctified it, but it cannot be offered up in the manner he wished. To solve this problem, we let the animal go out to pasture until it is blemished. Once it is blemished it can be sold, because it can no longer be sacrificed. Our mishnah points out that if the female animal has male offspring, the same process is undergone by that animal. We can’t sacrifice it because its sanctity came from its mother and its mother was improperly dedicated to be an olah. In both cases the profits from the sale go towards buying another olah. Rabbi Elazar disagrees and holds that the male offspring can be offered as an olah, even though its mother could not.
  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 asham (a guilt-offering) must also be male. The same solution is employed as was used above. There is an additional issue with the asham. If before he buys the new asham he brings another animal through which he atones for his guilt, then he can’t use the proceeds from the blemished asham to buy a new asham, because one can’t bring two ashamot for one sin. In this case, the proceeds go to a fund that is used to buy freewill offerings. Rabbi Shimon says that they can sell the original asham without even waiting for it to be blemished. In his opinion, the fact that it can’t be sacrificed as an asham already is a blemish, and we need not wait for another one.
  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.  As stated above, one can’t bring two ashamot for one sin. So while an asham can make a substitute, the substitute cannot be offered as an asham. Neither can the offspring or any subsequent offspring of the substitute or the asham. According to the first opinion, all of these animals must go out to pasture, become blemished and then sold for money to be used for freewill offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says that these animals must be left to die, just as they are in the case of a hatat (see 2:2; we will learn more about the hatat in the next mishnah). Rabbi Elazar says that he can bring olot (burnt offerings) with the proceeds. His opinion will be explained in tomorrow’s mishnah.
  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.  If the asham itself cannot be sacrificed because either its owner died or he already achieved atonement through another animal, then the same debate about what to do with the proceeds of its sale occurs as we saw in section three above.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.
  But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages?  In the last two sections of yesterday’s mishnah Rabbi Elazar and the sages argued what to do with the proceeds from the sale of an asham that couldn’t have been sacrificed. Rabbi Elazar said they would buy an olah, and the sages said that the money would go into the treasury of funds used to buy freewill offerings. The problem is that the money from this fund would be used to buy olot, which can be brought as freewill offerings. So what is the difference between Rabbi Elazar’s opinion and that of the sages?
  Only in 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.  The difference is that when an individual brings the olah, as Rabbi Elazar stated, he must lay his hands upon the sacrifice, he is responsible for the libations (wine, grain and oil) and if he is a priest, he gets to sacrifice it, and he keeps its hide, as the officiating priest always does with an olah.
  Whereas 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 although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].  However, if it is brought from the funds for freewill offerings, then it is a communal sacrifice. He does not lay his hands on it, the libations come from communal funds and even if he is a priest, he does not get to sacrifice it himself. Rather the duty falls to whatever division of priests is serving in the Temple that week, and they receive the hide.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah, the final of our chapter, deals with the first-born and a tithed animal.
  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.  The substitute and offspring of a first-born and an animal tithed, and all of their subsequent substitutes and offspring, all are treated just like a first-born or a tithe. They can be eaten by their owners once they have become blemished [the priest who receives the first-born is considered its owner once he receives it]. However, the substitute of a first-born is not sacrificed, as is the first-born.
  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: 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.  The mishnah now lists ways in which the first-born and tithe differ from all other animals dedicated to be sacrifices. If a blemish occurs to any other dedicated animal, it must be redeemed for money, and only then it can be eaten. Once it is redeemed, the animal can be sold and slaughtered in the marketplace, and its meat can be weighed out, because the animal is no longer holy. In contrast, the first-born and tithe are not redeemed, so they remain holy. Therefore, when they are eaten, they must not be treated in the normal way that meat is treated, for this is considered to be disgraceful. [As an aside, it is interesting to note that the sages believed that the way in which meat is treated is considered as either disgraceful or respectful to the animal]. Other animals are sometimes dedicated outside the land of Israel and then brought to Israel to be sacrifices. In contrast, while a first-born and tithe outside the land is holy, they are not generally brought to the land of Israel. However, if they are brought to the land of Israel, the same rules apply when they are blemished they can be eaten, and if they are not, they are sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon explains that the difference between the first-born and tithe on the one hand and the other dedications is that the former have a “remedy” when they are outside of Israel. There, they can go out to pasture and then when they become blemished, they can be eaten by their owners. There is no real reason to bring them to the land of Israel. In contrast, while other dedicated animals can be let out to pasture and become blemished, even once they are blemished they must be redeemed and a sacrifice must be brought with the proceeds. In which case, it is just as easy to bring them directly to Israel to be sacrificed themselves.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter four is about the hatat, the sin-offering. As we have learned in 2:2, there are five types of hataot (pl. of hatat) that are left to die because they can’t be sacrificed and neither can they be eaten. Our mishnah deals with these five hataot.
  The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die.  These are the first three categories of hataot that are left to die. Basically, once the owner has been atoned for, the hatat cannot be sacrificed. The first two cannot be sacrificed because the owner received atonement from the original animal. If the owner died, then he no longer needs atonement so his hatat too cannot be sacrificed.
  A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], 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.  When it comes to the fourth and fifth types of hatat that must be left to die, it depends on whether the owners have already received atonement through another animal. If the owners have already been atoned for by bringing another animal as a hatat, then the original hatat (the one whose year had passed or which had been lost and then was found) must be left to die. If the owner tries to substitute for it, it no longer can make a substitute. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, as it is always forbidden to derive benefit from dedicated animals; however, if one does derive benefit from it, it is not considered sacrilege because the animal is not really sanctified any more. If, however, the original hatat is found (and is blemished) or passed a year before the owners had been atoned for, then the animal need not be left to die. The hatat whose year had passed is let out to pasture until it is blemished and then it can be sold. The hatat that was found blemished can be sold immediately. With the proceeds he buys a new hatat, and that hatat has all of the sanctity of regular hatat. It can make a substitute and if one derives benefit from it, he has committed sacrilege and will have to make restitution.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with the case of someone who set aside an animal to be a hatat, and then it was lost.
  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.  As we explained in yesterday’s mishnah, once the owners received atonement from another animal, the original animal cannot be used as a hatat and rather must be left to die.
  If one set aside money for his hatat and they were lost and he offered a hatat instead of it, if then the money was found, it goes to the Dead Sea.  Similarly, one cannot use money set aside to purchase a hatat if he already received atonement from another hatat. Rather the money must be thrown into the Dead Sea, which is another way of saying that it must be put somewhere where he cannot derive any benefit from it.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with various scenarios where one sets aside a hatat or money for a hatat and it or the money is lost, and then he sets aside another hatat or more money to buy another hatat and he then finds the first one before he offers the second one.
  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.  This case, and all of the cases in this mishnah, differ from those in yesterday’s mishnah because in these cases the original money or hatat is found before a replacement hatat is offered. In this first section, both sets of money must be used to buy a hatat. They are mixed in together to buy one hatat through which the owner receives atonement and any extra money goes to a fund for freewill offerings.
  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.  In this case, the second hatat is blemished so it can be sold. If it had been unblemished, it could have been sacrificed (as we shall see in section five). Here, since it is blemished it is sold and again, both sums are used to buy one hatat and the extra goes for freewill offerings.
  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.  This is similar to the situation in section two, except here he originally set aside a hatat and then set aside money. Again, since the hatat is blemished, it can be sold and both sums are used to buy one hatat.
  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.  Again, a very similar scenario, except this time both animals were set aside (and not just money for animals). Since both are blemished, the same procedure as above is followed.
  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, the words of Rabbi. 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.  Ah! Finally a debate! In this case both the original hatat and the replacement hatat are unblemished. According, to Rabbi [Judah HaNasi] one of the two hataot has to be left to die, and the other one can be sacrificed. The rabbis disagree. Since the first hatat wasn’t yet sacrificed, neither of them needs to be left to die. The only type of hatat that is lost that needs to be left to die is one where the replacement hatat was sacrificed. Here, since the replacement wasn’t yet sacrificed, both can go out to pasture until they are blemished. The rabbis also add in that the only case where the money must be thrown into the Dead Sea is the case that we discussed in yesterday’s mishnah the replacement hatat was sacrificed. If the replacement hatat was not sacrificed then the hatat is left to become blemished and then both sums are used to buy a new hatat.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of our chapter has another case of a hatat that must be left to die.
  If one set aside a hatat and it is blemished, he sells it and brings another with its money.  In this case he can’t sacrifice the first hatat because it is blemished. Therefore, he sells it and brings another with the proceeds.
  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.  Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon thinks that this too can become a case of a hatat left to die. Even though the original hatat was sold and now belongs to another person, if it is still alive when the second animal is offered, it still counts as a hatat whose owners had received atonement from another hatat and it too must be left to die. In other words, even though the first hatat wasn’t a “lost hatat” it still must be left to die if it is alive when the owners receive atonement.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The first three mishnayot of our chapter deal with what is called “acting deceptively with regard to the first born.” The first-born animal has to be offered as a sacrifice, unless it is blemished. The idea with acting deceptively is that the owner of the animal giving birth wants to use the offspring as another sacrifice that he is obligated to bring. For instance, he vowed to bring an olah, and now he wants to bring the first-born and have it count as the olah. This is sort of like “double-dipping” when it comes to sacrifices, but we can easily understand why this was helpful to someone who might not be able to afford to give away both the first-born and another animal that he owes as a sacrifice.
  How can we act deceptively with regard to the first-born?He says in respect of a pregnant animal which was giving birth for the first time: if what is in the inside of this [animal] is a male, let it be an olah. If it then gave birth to a male, it is offered as an olah.  One can dedicate an animal while it is still in its mother’s womb. Since this animal was dedicated before it was born and become a “first-born” it has the status of an olah and he can use it as such.
  [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.  He can make the animal into a shelamim (an offering of wellbeing) by stipulating that it will be a shelamim if it is female. Note that this has nothing to do with the acting deceptively with a first-born because a female animal does not have the status of a first-born. It is only taught here because of the clauses that follow.
  [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.  The person can make a double stipulation and then if both are born, the male is an olah and the female is a shelamim.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. The situation discussed is when a person says about a pregnant animal, “If it gives birth to a male, then it shall be an olah, and if it gives birth to a female, it shall be a shelamim.”
  If it gave birth to two males, one of them shall be offered as an olah and the second shall be sold to persons obligated to bring an olah and its money becomes hullin.  If it gives birth to two males he does not need to bring both as olot (pl. of olah) because he vowed to bring only one olah. However, the sanctity of an olah does apply to the animal because it is unclear which of them he vowed to be his olah. So what he can do is sell the animal as an olah to another person to be used as an olah and that money he can keep as his own, as hullin (non-sacred money).
  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.  The same is true when it comes to the shelamim, because only a female animal can be a shelamim.
  If [the animal] gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: no holiness attaches to them.  A tumtum (an animal with neither sexual signs) and a hermaphrodite (one with signs of being both male and female) do not count full as either male or female. Since neither of them fulfills the conditions of his vow, neither of them is holy.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah deals with someone who wants to make a pregnant animal one type of sacrifice but dedicate its offspring to be a different type.
  If one says: “The offspring of this [pregnant animal] shall be an olah and it [the animal itself] shall be a shelamim,” his words stand.  If he first dedicates the offspring and then the mother, there is no problem. The mother will be a shelamim and the offspring an olah (if it is male). Note that it is probably intentional that the mother is a shelamim and the offspring an olah, because the owner doesn’t get any parts of the olah, whereas he does get to eat a majority of the shelamim. Naturally, he would be more interested in making the larger animal into the sacrifice that he can eat.
  But if he says [first]: “It [the animal] shall be a shelamim” [and then], “and its offspring shall be an olah,” [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of an shelamim, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if he intended [to say] this at first, since it is impossible to mention both kinds [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand; but if after he already said [intentionally]: this shall be a shelamim, and then he changed his mind and says: its offspring shall be an olah, [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of a shelamim.  The problem here is that he first makes the mother into a shelamim and then tries to make the offspring into an olah. According to Rabbi Meir, once the mother is a shelamim, its offspring will automatically have the same status. He cannot change that by trying to make it into an olah. Rabbi Yose disagrees. If from the outset he intended to make the mother a shelamim and the offspring an olah, but he just happened to dedicate the mother first, then his words do stand. The fact that he dedicated the mother right before the offspring does not matter. However, if he intended at first to make the mother into a shelamim, and then later changed his mind, then both the mother and the offspring are shelamim.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah contains a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose that is very similar to the debate found in yesterday’s mishnah.
  [If one says:] “Behold, this animal shall be the substitute of an olah and the substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah, the words of Rabbi Meir.  Again in this situation a person said two things that are contradictory. One animal cannot be a substitute for both an olah and a shelamim. According to Rabbi Meir, we take into consideration only his first words, and the animal is the substitute of an olah, and not the substitute of a shelamim.
  Rabbi Yose says: if he originally intended this, since it is impossible to mention both names [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand. But if after he had already said: “This shall be the substitute of an olah,” he changed his mind and then said: “The substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah.  Rabbi Yose says that if he intended to make the animal both the substitute of a shelamim and the substitute of an olah, his words count. Such an animal is half a substitute for an olah and half for a shelamim. Obviously it cannot be sacrificed; rather it must be let out to pasture until it is blemished, then sold and with half of the proceeds he brings an olah and with the other half he brings a shelamim. If, however, he said one thing and then changed his mind, his first words count. Once one has dedicated an animal or made it into a substitute, he cannot subsequently change his mind.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches what actual words are capable of making one animal a substitute for another. We should again remember that the laws of “temurah” refer to one who tries to make one animal holy in place of another animal that is already dedicated. The substitution works in making the new animal holy, but it does not work in making the original animal into hullin (non-sacred). In other words, he was trying to redeem one animal for another, but since he used the language of substituting, his redemption fails.
  [If one says:] “Behold this [animal] is tahat [instead of] this,” [or] “Behold this is temurat [a substitute] this,” [or] “Behold this is halufat [in place of] this,” [each of these] is a substitute.  There are three different words that can cause a substitute to be made: “tahat” “temurat” and “halufat.” If any of these three phrases are used the new animal is holy and the original animal is still holy.
  [If however one says:] “This shall be redeemed for this,” it is not the case of a [valid] substitute. And if the dedicated animal was blemished, it becomes hullin and he is required to make up [the hullin] to the value [of the dedicated animal].  However, if one uses the word for redeem, then he has not made a substitute. If the original dedicated animal is not blemished then it cannot be redeemed and his words do not have any effect. If the dedicated animal was blemished then his redemption is successful and the original animal is now hullin and the substitute animal is holy. However, he must make sure that the value of the hullin animal he used to redeem is at least equal to the value of the dedicated animal that was being redeemed, as is always the case when redeeming blemished sacrifices.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction The final mishnah of chapter five discusses the precise language that must be used for a substitute to be valid.
  [If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [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 stand.  In order for the substitute to be valid he must specify the animal that is being substituted for. If he does not specify an animal that he owns, then his words have no validity.
  If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah.  One cannot make an unclean animal (such as a pig or camel) into an olah, or any sacrifice for that matter. If one takes such an animal and declares it to be an olah, he has said nothing. However, if he says that the animal will “be for an olah” we interpret him as meaning that the animal will be used to bring another animal for an olah. Therefore the unclean or blemished animal can be sold and with its proceeds an olah is brought.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter six contains information concerning animals that cannot be put onto the altar for various reasons.
  All [animals] forbidden for the altar render [others] unfit however few there are.  If an animal is one of the kinds of animals that cannot be put onto the altar, then if it becomes mixed up with other animals, all of the animals are forbidden, even if there were many permitted animals and only one forbidden one. In other words, there is no measure in which the forbidden animals are nullified, as there are in other forbidden mixtures.
  [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 ( [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped (ne’ [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through a caesarean section,What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It [the animal itself] is forbidden, but what is upon it, is permitted.  This is the list of animals that cannot be put on the altar. We have explained these in Zevahim 8:1 and our mishnah and the following ones will deal below with categories b-c. Kilayim is an animal born from two different species of parents, such as a goat and a sheep. A terefah is an animal with a wound/disease that will cause it to die imminently.
  And what is meant by ne'evad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it [the animal itself] and that which is upon it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten.  “Muktzeh” means “set aside” and here it refers to an animal that has been set aside to be used in an idolatrous ritual, but that has not yet been used. It itself cannot be offered as a Jewish sacrifice, but anything on it, jewels, a saddle, etc. is not yet forbidden.
  “Ne’evad” means that the animal has already been used in idolatry. Here the prohibition is broader and includes even the things that decorate the animal. However, both animals can be eaten as non-sacrificial meat as long as they were not already slaughtered for the sake of idolatry.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  According to Deuteronomy 23:19 one may not bring “a prostitute’s fee or the pay of a dog into the house of the Lord.” The rabbis understand these two things to be an animal used to pay a prostitute or an ox used as payment for a dog. Neither of them can be used as a sacrifice.
  The next three mishnayot explain what constitutes the “a prostitute’s fee” or “the pay of a dog.”
  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].  According to Albeck, this means that a man gives even 100 lambs to a prostitute as her fee, none of the lambs can be used as a sacrifice. The Talmud adds that even if her stated fee was only one lamb and he gave her another 99 lambs as a bonus, they are all prohibited.
  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.  A slave owner has a right to give his female Canaanite(non-Jewish)  slave to his male Hebrew slave. Rabbi Meir says that if someone tries to pay another slave owner for him to have his female slave sleep with his male slave, it is not prostitution and the fee is not a prostitute’s fee. According to Rabbi Meir the reason is that a Hebrew slave cannot marry a female Canaanite slave, therefore the master has a right to designate her to have relations with someone not for the sake of marriage. The other sages hold that he could marry her and therefore when she is paid to have relations with him it is a prostitute’s fee.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  What is meant by the “price of a dog”?If one says to his fellow, here is this lamb instead of [this] dog.  The price of a dog means an animal used to pay for a dog. Such an animal cannot be used as a sacrifice. Assumedly, the dog was considered a lowly animal in the biblical world and therefore something used to buy a dog itself had a lowly status and could not be used a sacrifice.
  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].  The lamb taken by one partner in exchange for the dog taken by the other partner is considered to be the “price of a dog.”
  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.  The mishnah here reverses the biblical “prostitute’s fee and price of a dog” and comes up with “the fee of a dog and price of a prostitute.” The “fee of a dog” is when someone gives a lamb to his fellow in return for a dog to be used for sexual relations (I know, a bit sick, but that’s what it says). The “price of a prostitute” refers to a case where one exchanges a prostitute for a lamb. These lambs are not prohibited because the Torah prohibits only two things the prostitute’s fee and the price of a dog. Any other combo, no matter how morally troubling, does not cause the lamb to become prohibited.
  Their offspring are permitted [for the altar since it says]: “[Both of these]” implying they but not their offspring.  Only the animal itself is prohibited, not their offspring.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah is the last mishnah to deal with the topic of “the price of a dog” and the “fee of a prostitute.”
  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 one pays a prostitute with money (I think today that this is preferred over giving her a lamb), the money can later be used to buy a sacrifice.  The only thing that becomes prohibited is something can be sacrifice, such as wine, oil and flour.
  If he gave her dedicated [animals] they are permitted [for the altar].  If he gives her an animal already dedicated to the Temple, it does not become prohibited. This is because an animal that is already dedicated is not his money any more, and one cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him.
  If he gave her birds [of hullin] they are disqualified.  The mishnah includes birds as being prohibited if given to a prostitute for her fee.
  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, is it not all the 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.  The mishnah now explains why one might have even thought that these laws don’t apply to a bird. We have already learned in section two that the laws of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog don’t apply to dedicated animals. The laws concerning blemishes (that a blemished animal cannot be sacrificed) do, however, apply to dedicated animals. This makes the laws governing dedicated animals more stringent than the laws governing birds, which are not disqualified by defects. Therefore, if the laws of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog don’t apply to the more stringent case of dedicated animals, all the more so they should not apply to the more lenient case of the bird. Therefore, the Torah teaches “for any vow” to let us know that birds are included in the prohibition.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  With regard to any animals that are disqualified for the altar, their offspring are permitted for the altar.  If an animal cannot be offered for the altar, for instance an animal given as prostitute’s fee or the price of a dog (see mishnah three), its offspring can still be offered.
  The offspring of a terefah: Rabbi Elazar says it may not be offered on the altar.  Rabbi Elazar says that when it comes to a terefah, an animal with a physical defect that will eventually cause it to die, the offspring cannot be offered. Evidently, according to Rabbi Elazar, such a defect is inherited.
  Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: a ritually clean animal which nursed from a terefah is disqualified from the altar.  The milk in this animal’s stomach is prohibited because it comes from a terefah. Therefore, according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, it is prohibited from the altar.
  Any dedicated animal which became terefah one may not dedicate them, since we may not redeem dedicated [animals] in order to give them to dogs to eat.  One cannot dedicate a living terefah to be a sacrifice because there would be nothing to do with that animal. It cannot be offered on the altar because it is a terefah. It cannot be redeemed, because the only thing one could do with it after it is redeemed is feed it to the dogs, and this is considered disgraceful to a formerly holy thing. Therefore, one should not dedicate it in the first place.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The first three mishnayot of our chapter deal with the differences between the laws that apply to things that are dedicated to the altar to be sacrifices and things that are dedicated to the Temple for their proceeds to be used for Temple repairs.
  Our mishnah deals with the first half of this equation laws that apply to dedications to the altar that don’t apply to dedications made for Temple repair.
  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;  If one tries to make a substitute for an animal that has been dedicated to be a sacrifice, then the substitute is holy and the original animal retains its holiness. This is not so when it comes to an animal dedicated for Temple repairs (see 1:6).
  They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant   and ritual uncleanness;  If while offering an animal to be a sacrifice one has the intention to eat it or offer its innards on the altar after its prescribed time has expired, the animal is piggul and anyone who eats it is liable for karet (see Zevahim 2:2-3). Remnant (notar) is the meat of a sacrifice that has been left over after its time has expired. Ritual uncleanness refers to either the person eating the sacrifice, or the meat of the sacrifice. These laws refer only to the animals dedicated to be sacrifices, but not to animals dedicated for Temple repairs.
  Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption;  The offspring and milk of animals dedicated for the altar are always forbidden, even if the animals should become blemished and are then redeemed. Their holiness remains after redemption, and therefore things that come from them are also holy. See Hullin 10:2.
  If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty;  Slaughtering such an animal outside the Temple is forbidden and will make one liable for karet (see Zevahim 14:1-2).
  And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.  Artisans who work in the Temple, building or repairing or other such work, their wages are not paid from animals dedicated for the altar. However, their wages can come from animals dedicated for Temple repairs.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is the second half of yesterday’s mishnah. Here we learn that there are laws that apply to dedications made for the repair of the Temple that don’t apply to animals dedicated to be sacrifices.
  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.  If one dedicates something to the Temple, even an animal that can be a sacrifice, it automatically goes towards Temple repair. If he wishes it to be a sacrifice, he must specify that the animal is to be a sacrifice.
  Dedication for the repairs of the temple can have an effect on all things,  Anything can be dedicated to be used for repairs for the Temple, even an animal that cannot be sacrificed, such as a pig or camel. The animal is sold and the proceeds go to the Temple. In contrast, only an unblemished kosher animal, bird or other sacrificable object can be dedicated to be put on the altar.
  The law of sacrilege applies to things that grow from them.  If one makes use of something that comes from an animal dedicated for Temple repair, such as milk from an animal or eggs from a bird, he has committed sacrilege (illicit use of holy property). The same is not true if he makes use of the same object that comes from an animal that has been dedicated to be a sacrifice. We will learn more about the laws of sacrilege in tractate Meilah.
  And there is no benefit to be derived from them for the priest.  Priests do not derive any personal benefit from animals or any other product dedicated for Temple repair. In contrast, they receive part of all animals dedicated to be sacrifices, either part of the meat or the hide.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  In today’s mishnah we learn ways in which dedications for the repairs of the Temple are treated the same as dedications for the altar.
  Both dedications for the altar and dedications for the repairs of the Temple may not be changed from one holiness to another.  Once someone has dedicated an animal for a certain purpose he cannot change that purpose. For instance, if one dedicated an animal to be an olah, he can’t later change his mind and make it into a shelamim. Similarly, if one dedicated an animal to be sold and used for Temple repairs, he can’t change his mind and dedicate it for the altar.
  One may dedicate them with a value-dedication, and one may conscribe them.  A person can use either type of dedicated thing to make a vow of value. This is a subject we just learned in Arakhin 8:7. A person can dedicate to the Temple the benefit that he gets from bringing an already dedicated ox (or other animal) to the Temple. In other words, how much would you pay to bring this ox as a sacrifice? If someone makes such a vow, he owes that much money to the Temple. Similarly one can conscribe an already dedicated thing. Again this means that he owes the monetary amount of benefit he is receiving by having the merit to bring this sacrifice.
  If they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: dedications for the repairs of the temple, if they died, they are redeemed.  If either type of dedicated animal dies, it cannot be redeemed because it cannot be stood up for a formal process of evaluation. Since there is no way to “remove” the holiness, the animal must be buried. Rabbi Shimon holds that animals dedicated for Temple repair can be redeemed without a formal process of evaluation. Therefore, they can be redeemed even after death.
  
  Mishnah 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 (.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. 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].At the end of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that animals dedicated, either for the altar or for Temple repair, that then die, must be buried because they cannot be redeemed. Our mishnah lists other things that must be buried.Section one: The aborted fetus carries the holiness of its mother, but it can’t be redeemed. Therefore it must be buried. The same is true with regard to the placenta mentioned in the next section. The placenta here refers to an early miscarriage which might have a fetus in it, and therefore it too must be buried.Section three: An ox which committed a crime (murder or sex with a human being) must be stoned. Once it is stoned, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it (see Exodus 21:28). The same is true with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken as part of the ritual that atones for an unknown murder. See Deuteronomy 21; Mishnah Kiddushin 2:9 and Avodah Zarah 5:9.Section five: There are two birds used in the purification of the leper (see Leviticus 14). One bird is slaughtered and the other bird is set free. It is forbidden to use these birds for any other purpose. The slaughtered bird must be buried, and if it should die before being released, the other bird must be buried as well. However, once the other bird is released, it is permitted.Section six: It is forbidden to derive any benefit from the hair that the nazirite shaves during the ritual which observed if he became impure (see Numbers 6:9). However, the hair that he shaves at the end of his term of naziriteship is burned (see vs. 18).Section seven:  The first born of a donkey must be redeemed with a sheep. It is prohibited to derive any benefit from the sheep after it has been used to redeem the donkey.Section eight: It is prohibited to derive benefit from milk and meat cooked together. If one does cook them together they must be buried, which basically means that the mixture must be thrown away.Section nine: According to the first opinion, if a non-sacred animal is slaughtered in the Temple court, it must be buried. Rabbi Shimon says that it must be burned, which is the same rule that applies to sanctified animals that become disqualified in the Temple court (see mishnah six below). He holds that all animals that are improperly slaughtered in the Temple court must be burned this is to prevent confusion.  Indeed, Rabbi Shimon holds that even though wild animals cannot be sacrificed they too must be burned.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  And the following are to be burned:Chametz on Pesah is burned;Unclean terumah;Orlah;Kilayim (mixed in the vineyard--that which it is customary to burn is to be burned and that which it is customary to bury is to be buried.We may kindle with the bread and oil of [unclean] terumah.In yesterday’s mishnah we learned which forbidden items must be buried. Today we learn that other forbidden things must be burned.Section one: If one finds chametz (leavened bread) on Pesah, he must burn it.Sections two-four: Unclean terumah, orlah (fruit in its first three years of growth) and seeds sewn in a vineyard must be burned. If these come in a form that is impossible to burn, such as juice made of orlah fruit, then it should be buried. But if it can be burned, than it should be burned.Section five: When burning unclean terumah, one may use the light and heat to derive benefit. This is not the case when it comes to burning chametz on Pesah, orlah, or kilayim. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from these substances, even from the fire in which they are being burned.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah in Temurah deals with prohibited things that must be burned.
  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 animal dedicated to be a sacrifice which was slaughtered with a disqualifying intention to eat it or burn it at the wrong time or place is fully disqualified and must be burned. The same is true with regard to a sacrifice that is in another way disqualified, such as remnant or a meat that has been made impure (see Leviticus 7:17, 19; see also Leviticus 6:23).
  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.  An “asham offered by one in doubt” is brought by someone who is not sure if he committed a sin that if he knew for certain he had committed he would have had to bring a hatat. If he brings this type of asham and then before its blood is sprinkled on the altar he finds out that he did not sin, the asham is disqualified. According to the first opinion it is to be burned, whereas Rabbi Judah holds that it is buried.
  A hatat of a bird that is brought for a doubt is burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is cast into the sewer.  This section could refer to a case where a woman is not sure if she gave birth (for instance she had a very early miscarriage and is unsure whether it was just some blood or was a miscarriage). After child birth a woman brings a hatat, but in this case her hatat is of doubtful status. It cannot be eaten. According to the first opinion, it is burned. Rabbi Judah says that it can be cast into the sewer that flows through the Temple courtyard, which is, according to the Tosefta, equivalent to burial. Rabbi Judah holds that both this and the doubtful hatat are looked at like non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple court, which means they are to be buried.
  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 be stringent with himself, to burn things which are buried, he is permitted to do so. They said to him: he is not allowed to change.  According to the sages, if one is obligated to burn or bury a specific item, he must do so in the specified manner. He cannot change from one means of disposal to the other. Rabbi Judah is more flexible and allows one to burn things that can be buried. He does not allow one to bury things that need to be burned. Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Temurah! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Temurah contained many quite technical details concerning sacrificial law (a topic you should be used to by now) but perhaps you will allow me a little “derashah” at this point. The verses in Leviticus 27 concerning substituting teach us that it is basically impossible to substitute one sanctified animal for another. Once an animal has become sacred, and dedicated to be a sacrifice, it must fulfill its destiny and become a sacrifice. Perhaps in a broader sense this teaches us that sometimes once something has attained a certain status, there just is no substitute for it. Once it has become “holy” in our lives, even if we try to put something else in its place, the holiness of the original object can never be removed. There are many things that play such a role in our lives, and I don’t wish to limit the imagination by specifying. Substitutions, sometimes, simply don’t work, and perhaps, in a very symbolic fashion, that is what these sacrificial laws are trying to teach us. I hope you have enjoyed Temurah. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Keritot.