All [people] can make a temurah, both men and women. [This is] not [to say] that one is permitted to perform a temurah act, rather, that if he did perform a temurah act, it is effective, and he receives forty [lashes].  Kohanim can make a temurah with [offer- ings] of their own, and Yisraelim can make a temurah with [offerings] of their own. [However,] Kohanim cannot make a temurah with a chatas, with an asham, or with a bechor. R’ Yochanan ben Nuri said: But why can [the Kohen] not make a temurah with a bechor? R’ Akiva said to him: A chatas and an asham [are] gifts to the Kohen, and a bechor [is] a gift to the Kohen; just like [the Kohen] cannot make a temurah with a chatas or an asham, so too he should not [be able to] make a temurah with a bechor. R’ Yochanan ben Nuri said to [R’ Akiva]: What [difference does it make] to me that [the Kohen] cannot make a temu- rah with a chatas or asham, in which [the Kohanim] receive no rights during [the animal’s] lifetime; will you say [the same] with regard to a bechor, in which [the Kohanim] do receive rights during its lifetime? R’ Akiva said to him: But it has already been stated: then it and its substitute shall be holy. Where did sanctity devolve upon [the original sacrifice]? In the owner’s house; so too, a temurah [act is effective only when the original offering] is in the owner’s house.

We can make a temurah from cattle to [animals of] the flocks, and from [animals of] the flocks to cattle; from sheep to goats, and from goats to sheep; from males to females, and from females to males; from unblemished animals to blemished animals, and from blemished animals to unblemished animals, for it is stated: He shall not exchange it nor shall he substitute it [whether] good for bad or bad for good. What is [the case] of good for bad? [A case of] blemished [animals] whose conse- cration preceded their blemish.  We can make a temurah [by substituting] one [unconsecrated animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two for one, [and even by substituting] one for a hundred, and a hundred for one. R’ Shimon says: One cannot make a temurah except one for one, for it is stated: then it and its substitute [shall be holy]; just as “it” is a single animal, so too its substitute is a single animal.

We cannot make a temurah [by substituting unconsecrated] limbs for [consecrated] fetuses, nor [by substituting unconsecrated] fetuses for [consecrated] limbs, nor [by substituting unconsecrated] limbs or fetuses for [consecrated] whole [animals], nor [by substi- tuting unconsecrated] whole [animals] for them. R’ Yose says: We can make a temurah [by substi- tuting unconsecrated] limbs for [consecrated] whole [animals] but not [by substituting uncon- secrated] whole [animals] for [consecrated] limbs. R’ Yose said: But is not [the law] in the case of [directly] consecrated animals [that] if one says, “The leg of this [animal] is hereby an olah,” its en- tirety is [consecrated as] an olah, so too when one says, “The leg of this [unconsecrated] animal [shall be] substituted for this [consecrated animal],” the entirety [of the substitute] should become a temurah in place of [the consecrated animal]?

A meduma mixture does not create another me-duma mixture except according to calculation. And [dough that was] leavened [with terumah] does not render [forbidden another dough it] leavened except according to calculation. And drawn water does not disqualify a mikveh except according to calculation.

Mei chatas does not become [valid] mei chatas except with the placement of [the parah adumah] ashes.  A beis hapras does not create [another] beis hapras, [there is] no terumah after terumah, a temurah cannot make a temurah, and the offspring [of an offering] cannot make a temurah. R’ Yehudah says: The offspring [of an offering] can make a temurah. They said to [R’ Yehudah]: A con- secrated offering can make a temurah, [but] neither the offspring [of an offering] nor a temurah can make a temurah.

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].

These are the kodashim whose offspring and temurah exchanges are similar to [the original kodashim] themselves: [Concerning] the offspring of a shelamim and the temurah of the [shelamim]; their offspring and the offspring of their offspring ad infinitum, these are all deemed shelamim. [Thus,] they require leaning, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh. R’ Eliezer says: The offspring of a shelamim may not be offered as a shelamim; but the Sages say: It may be offered. R’ Shimon said: [R’ Eliezer and the Sages] did not disagree concerning the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim, or concerning the offspring of the offspring of a temurah, that it may not be offered. Concerning what did they disagree? Concerning the offspring [itself]. R’ Eliezer says: It may not be offered. Whereas the Sages say: It may be offered. R’ Yehoshua and R’ Papyas testified con- cerning the offspring of a shelamim that it is offered as a shelamim. R’ Papyas said: I testify that we had a cow that was a shelamim-sacrifice and we ate it on Pesach, and we ate its offspring as a shelamim on the festival.