Bydło może zastąpić owce i owce bydło, owce kozy i kozy owce, samce samice i samice samce, nieskalane [zwierzęta] skażone [zwierzęta] i skazy nieskalane zwierzęta, jak to jest napisane (Księga Kapłańska 27: 10): „Nie zmieniaj tego i nie zastępuj go - dobre na złe lub złe na dobre”. Co jest „dobre za złe”? Skazy, których uświęcenie poprzedziło skażenie. Jedno zwierzę można zastąpić dwoma, a dwoma - jednym, jednym - stu, a stu - jednym. Rabin Szimon mówi: Zastępujemy tylko jeden za jeden, jak mówi (Księga Kapłańska 27:10): „to i jego zastąpienie” - tak jak „to” jest szczególne, tak też jego zastąpienie jest szczególne.
Bartenura on Mishnah Temurah
ממירין מן הבקר על הצאן וכו'- as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “if one does substitute one animal one for another, [the thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy],” but sheep and male and female cattle are all called בהמה/animals.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah
One can substitute Herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals; Sheep for goats and goats for sheep; Males for females and females for males; Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). What is meant by “good for bad”? (1) Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish. One can substitute any type of animal for any other type of animal. The reason this works is that the substitution is not effective, so it doesn’t really matter if there is a match between the original and the substitute. One can even substitute a blemished (bad) animal for an unblemished (good) sacrifice. The mishnah clarifies that if the original sacrifice was blemished, the blemish must have occurred after it was sanctified. When one sanctifies a blemished animal, he is really sanctifying its value because the animal itself cannot be sacrificed, and when one sanctifies the value of an animal, it cannot be substituted for.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Temurah
טוב ברע – [that which is] good of unconsecrated [animals], shall not be substituted for [that which is] bad of holy/sanctified [animals], [as it is written (Leviticus 27:10)]: “if one does substitute [one animal for another],”so we see that those animals with a blemish (i.e., unfit for the altar) can serve as substitutes. And on anything with a blemish can effectuate substitution, as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “either good for bad or bad for good,” that implies that an unconsecrated animal with a blemish with a pure sanctified animal.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah
One can substitute one [hullin animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; One [hullin animal] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and a hundred [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute” (, just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one. According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter how many animals are substituted or substituted for. Since the substitution is ineffective, all of the original animals remain holy, and all of the substitute animals become holy. Rabbi Shimon derives from the verse that one can only do a one for one substitute. The Torah uses singular language to designate that both the original animal and the substitute animal must be singular. So if one tries to substitute many hullin animals for a sacred animal, the hullin animals do not become sacred.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Temurah
ואיזהו טוב ברע – that is to say, what is something bad that is consecrated that effectuates substitution? All that its sanctification preceded its blemish. But if the blemish preceded its sanctification, that sanctification does not take effect upon it, substitution is not made, for it could have been written [in the Torah "לא ימיר טוב ברע" /he will not exchange good for bad or "רע [בו]"/that has something bad in it, and it would imply [או רע] /[or something bad], he should not exchange not with something good and not with something bad, the final, טוב/good that the All-Merciful wrote (Leviticus 27:10), why do I need it? To tell you that it should be good from its outset, that at the time that it is sanctified, it was pure and again a blemish befell it, one can do a substitution; if it was bad from the outset, that a blemish befell it prior to its being sanctified, one doesn’t do a substitution.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Temurah
מרימין אחד – of an unconsecrated animal with two sanctified [animals], as for example, that he said, “this one is in place of those.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Temurah
ושנים – [and two] unconsecrated [animals for one that is sanctified, as for example, these will be in place of this one.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Temurah
מה הוא מיוחד – as it is written (Leviticus 27:10]: “the thing [vowed and its substitute shall both be holy].”
