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.

A city whose roofs constitute its wall, or one that was not surrounded by a wall from the time of Joshua the son of Nun, is not [treated] according to [the law of] the houses of walled cities. These are the houses of walled cities: Three courtyards consisting of two houses each, surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua the son of Nun; for example, Old Katzra of Tzipporim, Chakra of Gush Chalav, Old Yodphas, Gamla, Gedod, Chadid, Ono, and Jerusalem; and the same for all that are like them.

The houses of the open towns are accorded the advantages of the houses of walled cities, and the advantages of fields: They may be redeemed immediately, and they may be redeemed for the entire twelve months like houses; and they go out in Yovel, and with the deduction of money, like fields. These are the houses of open towns: Two courtyards consisting of two houses each, even if they are surrounded by a wall from the time of Joshua the son of Nun, are judged as houses of open towns.

[If] a Yisrael inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Levi, he does not redeem according to this order. And so, too, [if] a Levi inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Yisrael, he does not redeem according to this order. As it says (Lev. 25:33): For the houses of the cities of the Leviim — unless he is [both] a Levi and in the cities of the Leviim; [these are] the words of Rabbi. The Sages, however, say: These matters were stated only concerning the cities of the Leviim. We may not make a field into a clearing, nor a clearing into a field, nor a clearing into a city, nor a city into a clearing. R’ Eliezer said: To what does this apply? To the cities of the Leviim. But in cities belonging to Yisraelim we may make a field into a clearing, but not a clearing into a field; [and we may make] a clearing into a city, but not a city into a clearing; lest they destroy the cities of Yisrael. The Kohanim and the Leviim may sell at any time, and redeem at any time; as it says (Lev. 25:32): The Leviim shall have an eternal [right of] redemption.