Sifra 13.0.12

Bechukotai, Chapter 9

1) (Vayikra 27:9) ("And if it be a beast, of which men present an offering to the L–rd, all that he gives of it to the L–rd shall be holy.") If one said "The leg of this animal is a burnt-offering," I might think that the entire animal becomes a burnt-offering; it is, therefore, written "all that he gives of it to the L–rd shall be holy" — but all of it is not holy. I might then think that the animal becomes chullin (non-sacred); it is, therefore, written "shall be" — it retains its holiness. What shall he do? He sells it to those who must bring a burnt-offering, and its monies become chullin, except for (the monies for) that foot. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah, R. Yossi, and R. Shimon say: Whence is it derived that even if he said "Its foot is a burnt-offering," all of it becomes a burnt-offering? From "all that he gives of it to the L–rd shall be holy" — "shall be holy," to include all of it.

2) I might think that dedications to Temple maintenance (bedek habayith) are (also) susceptible of substitution (viz. Vayikra 27:10) it is, therefore, written "offering" — to exclude dedications to Temple maintenance, which are not offerings.

3) I would then exclude dedications to Temple maintenance, which are not offerings, but I would not exclude communal dedications (of offerings); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:10) "He shall not exchange it." I would then exclude communal offerings, but I would not exclude offerings in partnership; it is, therefore, written (again) "and he shall not substitute for it" — An individual can make a substitution, but not the community or partners.

4) R. Shimon said: Was not ma'aser (a tithe) was in the category (of all consecrated animals in respect to substitution). Why, then, was it singled out for special mention? (viz. Vayikra 27:33) To teach: Just as ma'aser is an individual (as opposed to a communal) offering, so all (such animals) are included (in respect to substitution), and just as ma'aser is an altar offering, so all (such animals are included).

5) (Vayikra 27:10) "and he shall not substitute for it." The consecrated animal is susceptible of substitution, but not its substitute. R. Yehudah said: And the offspring (consecrated animals) are not susceptible of substitution.

6) "good by bad or bad by good": Whole animals by blemished ones, or blemished ones by whole ones. Whence is it derived that "bad" signifies "blemished"? From (Devarim 17:1) "You shall not sacrifice to the L–rd your G d an ox or a sheep in which there is a blemish, any bad thing." "and if he substitutes substitutes": to include women (in the laws of substitution). "and if he substitutes, substitutes": to include the heir. "beast for beast": one (non-sacred beast) for two (sacred ones), or two (non-sacred ones) for one (sacred one), one for a hundred or a hundred for one. R. Shimon says: (One) beast for (one) beast, and not (one) beast for (many) beasts. They said to him: (One) beast is called a beast, and many beasts are called a beast, as it is written (Yonah 4:11) "and many beast."

7) "beast for beast": not beast for birds and not birds for beast, and not beast for meal-offerings and not meal-offerings for beast, and not beast for them.

8) "beast for beast": and not beast for fetuses, and not fetuses for beast, and not limbs for fetuses, and not fetuses for limbs, and not limbs for whole animals and not whole animals for them.

9) R. Yossi says: Limbs are substituted for whole animals, but whole animals are not substituted for them. R. Yossi said: Is it not true of consecration that if one said: Let the foot of this beast be a burnt-offering, that the whole beast becomes a burnt-offering? In the same way, if he said: Let the foot of this (beast) be in place of that, then the whole beast becomes a substitute for it.

10) "then it and its substitute shall be holy": Where does the holiness "take"? In the house of the owner, (but once it has been given to the Cohein, he cannot substitute for it). So it is with the substitute.

11) (From this verse we learn that) a bechor can be substituted for in the house of the owner, but not in the house of the Cohein. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yochanan asked: Why can (the Cohanim) not make a substitute for the bechor? R. Akiva answered: A sin-offering and a guilt-offering are a gift to the Cohein, and a bechor is a gift to the Cohein. Just as there is no substitution for a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, so, there is no substitution for a bechor. R. Yochanan b. Nuri: Why can he not substitute for a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? Because he does not own them while they are alive — as opposed to a bechor, which he does own while it is alive! R. Akiva: You refuted the rationale, but how will you refute the verse, "then it and its substitute will be holy"? Just as the holiness "takes" in the house of the owner, so, substitution takes place in the house of the owner, (and not in the house of the Cohein).

12) And once it (bechor, or sin-offering, or guilt-offering) has been given to the Cohein, it is not susceptible of substitution.

13) "then it and its substitute shall be holy": The sacred (animal) is susceptible of substitution, but not its substitute.

14) (The verse is needed,) for (without it) would it not follow otherwise, viz.: If a consecrated animal, where consecrations does not "take" (ab initio) in an animal with a fixed blemish, is susceptible of substitution, then a substituted animal, where consecration does "take" in an animal with a fixed blemish, how much more so should it be susceptible of substitution! It must, therefore, be written "then it … shall be holy" — the holy is susceptible of substitution, but the substitute is not susceptible of substitution.

15) "shall be holy": We are hereby taught that holiness "takes" upon it (the substitute even) with a fixed blemish. (And the verse is needed,) for (without it) would it not follow otherwise, viz.: If in a holy (animal), which is susceptible of substitution, consecration does not "take" (ab initio) in an animal with a fixed blemish, then a substitute, which is not susceptible of substitution, how much more so should consecration not "take" in an animal with a fixed blemish! It must, therefore, be written "shall be holy." We are hereby taught that holiness "takes" upon it (the substitute) even with a fixed blemish.

16) R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: "shall be holy": to equate unwitting (consecration) to witting.