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.

[Concerning] the offspring of a todah and [the todah’s] temurah; the offspring [of the todah and its temurah] and the offspring of their offspring: these are [all treated] like the todah [itself], except that they do not require bread.  The temurah of an olah, the offspring of the temurah [of an olah]; [i.e., the temurah’s] offspring, and the offspring of its offspring, ad infinitum, these are [all treated] like the olah [itself]. [Thus,] they require skinning and dis- membering, and [are consigned] in their entirety to the fires.

If one designates a female [animal] as an olah, and she gave birth to a male, [the offspring] is left to graze until it develops a blemish, and should [then] be sold and [the owner] should bring an olah with the proceeds. R’ Elazar says: [The offspring] itself is offered as an olah.  If one designates a female [animal] as an asham, it should [be sent to] graze until it be- comes blemished, then it should be sold and [its owner] should bring an asham with its proceeds. And if [the owner’s] asham was [already] brought, its proceeds should fall to [the Temple chests for] voluntary offerings. R’ Shimon says: It should be sold [even] without a blemish.  [Concerning] the temurah of an asham and the offspring of its temurah: [i.e., the temurah’s own] offspring, the offspring of her off- spring ad infinitum, they should [be sent to] graze until they become blemished, then they should be sold, and their proceeds should fall [to the Temple chests] for voluntary offerings. But R’ Eliezer says: They should be left to die. And R’ Elazar says: [The owner] should bring olah-offerings with their proceeds.  An asham whose owner died and one whose owner received atonement should be sent to graze until they become blemished, then they should be sold, and their proceeds should fall to [the Temple chests for] voluntary offerings. But R’ Eliezer says: They should be left to die. And R’ Elazar says: [The owner] should bring an olah-offering with their proceeds.

But is not the voluntary [communal] offering also an olah, so what is the difference between the words of R’ Elazar and the words of the Sages? Rather, when [an animal] comes as an obligatory offering, [the owner] must lean on it and bring wine libations, and its libations are bought from his [funds]. And if [the owner] was a Kohen, the [right to perform] its service and its hide belong to him. But when it is a voluntary [communal] offering, [the owner] does not lean on it and does not bring libations for it; but [rather] and its libations are bought from communal funds. [And] even if [the owner] is a Kohen, [the right to perform] its service and its hide belong to the members of the mishmar.

[Concerning] the temurah of the firstborn [ani-mal] and the [animal] tithe, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring ad infinitum: all these are like the original firstborn- and tithe-offerings, but they are eaten by the owners when they become blemished.  What [is the difference] between a firstborn or tithe animal and all the other offerings? That all of- ferings may be sold in the market and slaughtered in the market, and may be weighed against a litra weight, with the exception of the firstborn and tithe [animals]; and [all offerings] are subject to redemption, and their temuros likewise are subject to redemption, with the exception of the firstborn and tithe animals; and [all sacrificial offerings] are brought from outside the Land [of Israel], with the exception of a bechor or maaser animal, However, if [bechor or maaser animals] were brought: if they are unblemished, they are offered; if they are blemished, they are eaten in their blemished state by the owners. R’ Shimon says: What is the reason [for this difference]? It is that bechor and maaser animals have a remedy in their [present] place, but [in the case of] all other offerings, even if they develop a blemish, they remain in their consecrated state.

The offspring of a chatas, the temurah of a chatas, and a chatas whose owners have died are left to die. [A chatas] whose year has passed and [one] that was lost and [then] found blemished: if the owners [then] atoned for their sin, [the original chatas] is left to die; it does not make a temurah; and one may not derive benefit [from it], but nor is one liable for me’ilah. But if the owners did not yet atone for their sin, [the original chatas] should be left to graze until it develops a blemish, and it should be sold and he should [then] bring another [offering] with its proceeds; it makes a temurah, and one is liable for me’ilah.

If one designates [an animal as] his chatas and it was lost, and he [then] offered another one in its place, and afterward the first one was found, it must be left to die. If one designates money for his chatas and it was lost, and he offered a chatas in its place, and afterward the money was found, [the coins] go to the Dead Sea.

If one designates money for his chatas-offering and it was lost, and he [then] designated other money in its place but he did not manage to buy a chatas with it before the first money was found, he should bring from this [money] and from that [money] a chatas, and the remaining [money] falls to [the Temple chest] for voluntary offerings. If one designates money for his chatas-offering and it was lost, and he then designated a chatas [animal] in its place, but he did not manage to offer it before the money was found, and the chatas is now blemished, [the blemished chatas] should be sold, and he should bring from this [money] and from that [money] a chatas, and the remaining [money] falls to [the Temple chest] for voluntary offerings. If one designates his chatas [animal] and it was lost, and he [then] designated money in its place, but he did not manage to buy a chatas with [that money] before his chatas was found, and that chatas is now blemished, [the blemished chatas] should be sold, and he should bring from this [money] and from that [money] a chatas, and the remaining [money] falls to [the Temple chest] for voluntary offerings. If one designates his chatas [animal] and it was lost, and he then designated another [animal] in its place, but he did not manage to offer it before the first [chatas] was found, and both [chataos] are now blemished, they should both be sold, and he should bring from this [money] and from that [money] a chatas, and the remaining [money] falls to [the Temple chest] for voluntary offerings. If one designates his chatas [animal] and it was lost, and he then designated another in its place, but he did not manage to offer it before the first [chatas] was found, and both were unblemished, one of them should be offered as a chatas and the second one is left to die; these are the words of Rebbi. But the Sages say: A chatas is not left to die unless it was found after the owners received atonement; and [chatas] money does not go to the Dead Sea unless it was found after the owners received atonement.

. If one designates a chatas and it is [now] blemished, he sells it and brings with its proceeds another [chatas]. R’ Elazar the son of R’ Shimon says: If the second [chatas] was offered before the first was slaughtered, [the first chatas] must be left to die, for the owner has already received atonement.

How does one use subterfuge regarding a bechor? [Concerning] an animal that was pregnant with her first offspring, one declares, “What is in this one’s womb, if [it is] a male, it is an olah,” [if] she gave birth to a male, it is offered as an olah. And [if he declares,] “If it is a female, it is a shelamim-offering,” if she gave birth to a female, it is offered as a shelamim. [If one declares,] “If [the fetus] is a male, it is an olah, and if [it is] a female, it is a shelamim-offering”: [If] she [then] gave birth to a male and a female, the male is offered as an olah, and the female is offered as a shelamim.

If she gave birth to two males, one of them is offered as an olah, and the second one is sold to those who have an olah obligation, and its proceeds are chullin. If she gave birth to two females, one of them is offered as a shelamim, and the second one is sold to those who have a shelamim obligation, and its proceeds are chullin.  [If] she gave birth to a tumtum or an androgyne, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: No sanctity takes effect upon them.

If one declares, “The fetus of this [pregnant ani-mal] is an olah, and she herself is a shelamim,” his declarations stand. [But if he declared,] “[The pregnant animal] is a shelamim and her fetus is an olah,” [the fetus] is the offspring of a shelamim; [these are] the words of R’ Meir. R’ Yose said: If he intended to [say] this from the outset, since it is impossible to utter two designations simulta- neously, his declarations stand. However, if after he declared, “This [pregnant animal] is hereby a shelamim,” he [then] reconsidered and declared, “Her fetus is an olah,” [the fetus] is the offspring of a shelamim.