## Mishnah Temurah Chapter 1

###### Mishnah Temurah 1:1
[Mishnah Temurah 1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Temurah/r/1:1)

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:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Mishnah Temurah 1:2
[Mishnah Temurah 1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Temurah/r/1:2)

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:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Mishnah Temurah 1:3
[Mishnah Temurah 1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Temurah/r/1:3)

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:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Mishnah Temurah 1:4
[Mishnah Temurah 1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Temurah/r/1:4)

אֵין הַמְדֻמָּע מְדַּמֵּעַ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. אֵין הַמְחֻמָּץ מְחַמֵּץ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. אֵין הַמַּיִם הַשְּׁאוּבִים פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Mishnah Temurah 1:5
[Mishnah Temurah 1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Temurah/r/1:5)

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:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Mishnah Temurah 1:6
[Mishnah Temurah 1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Temurah/r/1:6)

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:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.