Bird [offerings] and minchah-offerings cannot make a temurah, for [the laws of temurah] were stated only with [regard to] an animal.  The community and partners cannot make a temurah, for it is stated: He shall not substitute it, [which teaches that] an individual can make a temurah, [but] neither the community nor partners can make a temurah.  Offerings for the upkeep of the Temple cannot make a temurah. R’ Shimon said: But was not maaser [beheimah] included in the general category [of offerings that are sub- ject to temurah], and why was it singled out? To draw a comparison to it: Just as maaser [beheimah] is the offering of an individual, this excludes communal offerings. Just as maaser [beheimah] is an Altar offering, this excludes offerings for the upkeep of the Temple.

There are [laws] that apply to offerings of individuals that do not apply to communal offerings, and there are [laws] that apply to communal offerings that do not apply to offerings of individuals: For the offerings of individuals make a temurah, but communal offerings do not make a temurah; the offerings of individuals come as both males and females, but communal offerings come only as males; [with regard to] offerings of individuals [the owner] bears responsibility for [offering] them and [bears] responsibility for [offering] their nesachim, but [with regard to] communal offerings [the owners] do not bear responsibility for [offering] them nor responsibility for [offering] their nesachim. But they do bear responsibility for [offering] the nesachim once the offering has been brought.  There are laws that apply to communal offer- ings that do not apply to offerings of individuals: For communal offerings override the [strictures of] the Sabbath and [override the laws of] tumah, whereas offerings of individuals override neither [the strictures of] the Sabbath nor [the laws of] tumah. R’ Meir said: But are not the chavitim of the Kohen Gadol and the Yom Kippur bull offerings of individuals, yet they override the Sabbath and tumah?! Rather, [it is] because the time [for the offerings] is fixed.

[Regarding] an individual’s chatas whose owner received atonement, [it] must be left to die. But communal [chataos whose owners have received atonement] are not left to die. R’ Yehudah says: They must be left to die. R’ Shimon said: Just as we find with [regard to] the offspring of a chatas, and with the temurah of a chatas, and with a chatas whose owners have died, the matter was stated [only] regarding [the chatas of] an individual and not regarding a communal [chatas], so too [with regard to a chatas] whose owners have received atonement and [a chatas] whose year has passed, the matter was stated [only] regarding [the chataos] of individuals but not communal [chataos].

[In some respects the laws] of kodashim are more stringent than [the laws] of temurah, and [in other respects the laws] of temurah are more stringent than [the laws] of kodashim: For kodashim can make a temurah, but a temurah cannot make a temurah. A community and partners can consecrate koda- shim, but they cannot make a temurah; and we can consecrate [as kodashim] fetuses and limbs, but we cannot make a temurah [with them].  [The laws of] temurah are more stringent [than the laws of kodashim]: For [temurah] sanctity takes effect on a permanently blemished animal, and [the animal] does not become deconsecrated with respect to being sheared and worked with. R’ Yose the son of R’ Yehudah says: [The Torah] treated an unintentional act like an intentional act with regard to temurah, but it did not treat an unintentional act like an intentional one with regard to kodashim.  R’ Elazar says: A mixed breed, a tereifah, [an animal] born through Caesarean section, a tumtum, and an androgyne do not become sanctified and they do not sanctify [other animals].