. 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.

[If one declares,] “This [animal] is hereby a temurah for an olah, a temurah for a shelamim,” it is thereby a temurah for an olah; [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 designa- tions simultaneously, his declarations stand. However, if after he declared, “This is hereby a temurah for an olah,” he [then] reconsidered and declared “a temurah for a shelamim,” it is a temurah for an olah.

[If one declares,] “This [unconsecrated ani-mal] is hereby in place of this [offering],” “the substitute of this,” [or], “the exchange of this,” [the unconsecrated animal] thereby becomes a temurah. [However, if he declares,] “This [offering] is hereby deconsecrated onto that [unconsecrated animal],” [the unconsecrated animal] is not a temurah. But if the consecrated animal was blemished, then it becomes unconsecrated, but he must make up its value.

[If one declares,] “This [animal] is hereby in place of a chatas,” or, “in place of an olah,” he has not said anything. [However, if he declares,] “In place of this chatas,” or “in place of this olah,” or “in place of a chatas,” or “in place of an olah” “that I have in the house”; if he had [such an offering], his words stand.  If one declared regarding a nonkosher animal or blemished animal, “These are hereby an olah,” he has not said anything. “These are hereby for an olah,” [then] they are sold and he brings with their proceeds an olah.

All [animals] that are forbidden [to be offered] on the Altar render forbidden [other animals] in any amount: [an animal] that sodomized, [an animal] that was sodomized, a designated animal, one that was worshiped, a [harlot’s] wage, a [dog’s] exchange, a hybrid, a tereifah, and one delivered through Caesarean section.  What is a designated animal? One that was designated for idolatrous [purposes]. It itself is prohibited, but what is upon it is permitted.  What is one that was worshiped? Any animal that was worshiped [as an idol]. It and what is upon it is forbidden.  Both this and this are permitted to be eaten.

What is a [harlot’s] wage? If one says to a harlot, “Take this lamb for your wage,” even [if he gives her] one hundred [lambs], they all are forbidden. Similarly if one says to his fellow, “Take this lamb and let your maidservant spend the night with my slave,” Rebbi says it is not a [harlot’s] wage, but the Sages say it is a [harlot’s] wage.

What is a dog’s exchange? If one says to his fellow, “Take this lamb in exchange for this dog.” Similarly, [if] two partners divided [their animals between them], one took ten [lambs] and one took nine [lambs] and a dog, [the lambs] that are [taken] against the dog are prohibited, [while those] that are [taken] with the dog are permitted.  A dog’s wage and a harlot’s exchange, these are permitted, as it is stated: “two,” and not four. The offspring [of an esnan and of a mechir kelev] are permitted, as it is stated: “they,” and not their offspring.

[If] he gave [the harlot] coins, they are per-mitted. Wine, oil, flour, or any similar item that can be offered on the Altar, is prohibited.  [If] he gave [the harlot] consecrated items, they are permitted. [If he gave her] birds, they are prohibited. For logic would dictate, if consecrated [animals], which a blemish disqualifies, are not subject to [the disqualification of] a [harlot’s] wage and a [dog’s] exchange, birds, which a blemish does not disqualify, is it not logical [to assume] that they are not subject to [the disqualification of] a harlot’s wage and a dog’s exchange? Scripture therefore states: For any vow, to include a bird.

[Regarding] all [animals] that are prohibited for the Altar, their offspring are per- mitted. [Regarding] the offspring of a tereifah, R’ Eliezer says: It may not be offered on the Altar. But the Sages say: It [may be] offered.  R’ Chanina the son of Antignos says: A non-tereifah that suckled from a tereifah is disqualified from [being offered] on the Altar.  [Regarding] all consecrated [animals] that be- came tereifos, we may not redeem them, because one may not redeem consecrated [animals] in order to feed them to dogs.

There are [laws pertaining] to items consecrated to the Altar that are not [applicable] to items consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple, and there are [laws pertaining] to items consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple that are not [applicable] to items consecrated to the Altar. Items consecrated to the Altar can produce a temurah, and we are liable on their account for piggul, nossar, and tamei. Their offspring and milk are prohibited after their redemption, one who slaughters them outside [the Temple] is liable, and we do not give of them to craftsmen for their fee. This is not the case with things consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple.

There are [laws pertaining] to items consecrated for Temple upkeep that are not [applicable] to items consecrated to the Altar [as follows]: Unspecified consecrations are [assumed to be] for Temple upkeep, Temple-upkeep sanctity takes effect upon all things, we transgress me’ilah [by benefit- ing] from that which grows from them, and there is in them no benefit for the Kohanim.

[Concerning] both Altar consecrations and Temple-upkeep consecrations, we cannot change them from one sanctity to another sanctity. [However,] we may consecrate them with a consecration of appraisal, and we may make them [the object of] a cherem vow. And if they died, they must be buried. R’ Shimon says: [With regard to animals] consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple, if they died, they may be redeemed.