in terms of it being permitted to shear its wool and to perform labor with it. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that there is an additional stringency that applies to substitution but not to consecration: The Torah rendered the status of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally with regard to substitution, as in both cases the substitute is consecrated. But it did not render the status of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally with regard to consecrated items, since unwitting consecration is ineffective.

Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal are not sacred through consecration, and if they were sacred beforehand, e.g., one consecrated an animal and it subsequently became a tereifa, they do not sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that substitution applies whether one substitutes unwittingly or intentionally? The Gemara answers that the verse states: ''He shall not alter it, nor substitute it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall substitute his animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy'' (Leviticus 27:10). The apparently superfluous term ''shall be'' serves to include the case of one who acts unwittingly like that of one who acts intentionally, with regard to substitution.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which one who acts unwittingly is considered like one who acts intentionally with regard to substitution? Ḥizkiyya said: The circumstances are of one who thinks that it is permitted to substitute one animal for another. With regard to a substitute, the animal becomes consecrated, and the individual is liable to receive lashes for transgressing the Torah’s prohibition, due to the inclusion of ''shall be,'' despite the fact that he acted unwittingly. But in the equivalent case, where one unwittingly sanctified an animal that was unfit to be an offering, he is not liable to receive lashes, as in this case one is liable to receive lashes only if he acted intentionally and with prior warning.

The Gemara cites an alternative version of Ḥizkiyya’s statement: With regard to a non-sacred animal that was declared a substitute, the animal becomes consecrated, despite the fact that one acted unwittingly. But with regard to sacrificial animals, if it was consecrated unwittingly it is not consecrated.

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan both state a different example of the ruling discussed by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. They say that the case is of one who thinks to say: This animal shall be a substitute for a burnt offering that I own, but he unwittingly said: This animal shall be a substitute for a peace offering that I own. In such a case involving substitution he is liable to receive lashes, but if he erred in this manner with regard to consecration, he is exempt from lashes. The Gemara cites an alternative version: With regard to a substitute of a peace offering, if one unwittingly declared it a substitute, it is consecrated. With regard to sacrificial animals, if the animal was unwittingly consecrated, it is not consecrated.

The Gemara cites another alternative version of the difference between substitution and consecration of an animal: The case is of one who thinks to say: The first black animal that comes out of my house will be a substitute, but he unwittingly said: The first white animal that comes out of my house will be a substitute. With regard to a substitute, the white animal is consecrated, and the individual therefore is liable to receive lashes for transgressing the Torah’s prohibition, despite the fact that he acted unwittingly. Conversely, in a similar case of sacrificial animals, e.g., one meant to say: The first blemished black animal that comes out of my house shall be consecrated, but he unwittingly said: The first blemished white animal shall be consecrated, if a white animal came out of his house, the animal is not consecrated, and therefore he is not liable to receive lashes.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says another case of unwitting substitution of an animal. This is referring to a case of one who says: Let this animal emerge from its sanctity and become non-sacred, and let that animal enter in its place and become consecrated. This person acted unwittingly, because he mistakenly thought that in this manner the consecrated animal would no longer be sacred. With regard to a similar case involving sacrificial animals, where he has a sacrificial animal that developed a blemish and he incorrectly says: Any animals that have developed a blemish may be eaten without redemption, and he proceeded to eat the animal without first redeeming it, he is not liable to receive lashes. But with regard to a substitute, if he did this he would be liable to receive lashes, as stated above.

Rav Sheshet says yet another example of unwittingly performing substitution: It is referring to a case of one who says: I will enter this house and consecrate an animal intentionally, or: I will enter this house and substitute an animal intentionally, and he entered and substituted or consecrated unintentionally, i.e., he acted absentmindedly. For his transgression with regard to substitution he is liable to receive lashes, and for his transgression with regard to sacrificial animals he is not liable to receive lashes.

§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal, are neither sacred through consecration nor do they sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution. Shmuel says in explanation: They are not sanctified by substitution, i.e., if one said that an animal in any of these categories should be a substitute for a sacrificial animal, it does not become sanctified. And the clause that they do not sanctify non-sacred animals means that if one of these types of animal was sanctified and one attempted to render a non-sacred animal a substitute for it, that non-sacred animal does not become sanctified.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: But since these animals do not become sanctified, how can it even be suggested that they could sanctify another non-sacred animal? Rather, you find that the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies only when one sanctifies an animal and afterward it became a tereifa, or when one sanctifies a fetus and it emerged from the womb by caesarean section. But with regard to an animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite, you can find this ruling only in a case of the offspring of consecrated female animals, which have sanctity without an act of consecration. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the offspring of a consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it consecrated as a substitute.

Rav Pappa said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? He holds that the halakhot of these categories of animal is like that of a non-kosher domesticated animal: Just as a non-kosher domesticated animal is not sacrificed as an offering and inherent sanctity does not rest upon it, so too, these animals in the categories of a tereifa, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, or a hermaphrodite may not be sacrificed as offerings and inherent sanctity does not rest upon them.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: But why aren’t animals in these categories compared to a blemished animal, which may not be sacrificed as an offering but nevertheless inherent sanctity does rest upon it? Rava said to Rav Pappa in response: Although a blemished animal is not sacrificed on the altar, another animal of its same type, i.e., an unblemished animal, is sacrificed as an offering. By contrast, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite may never be sacrificed. Rav Pappa said to Rava: If so, what will you say about a tereifa, as other animals of its type are sacrificed. According to your explanation, why doesn’t inherent sanctity rest upon a tereifa?

Rather, Rava retracts his previous answer and instead says: The halakhot of animals in these categories are like those of a non-kosher domesticated animal, in the following manner: Just as the category of a non-kosher domesticated animal is an inherent disqualification, and such an animal cannot be sanctified or render another animal sanctified, so too the same applies to any other category of animal that is an inherent disqualification, such as a tereifa, an animal born by caesarean section, a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite. This serves to exclude blemished animals, which are disqualified only because they lack certain limbs.

Rav Adda raised a difficulty with regard to this answer and said to Rava: Is the disqualification of a blemished animal always because it is lacking a limb? But isn’t the phrase: Too long or closed hooves, written in the passage of the Torah addressing blemishes that disqualify an animal; and these are inherent disqualifications. The verse states: ''Either a bull or a lamb that has any limb too long or closed hooves, you may offer for a voluntary offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted'' (Leviticus 22:23).

Rather, Rava again retracted his previous answer and said: The explanation of Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is as I explained initially. The halakhot of animals in these categories are like those of a non-kosher domesticated animal: Just as a non-kosher domesticated animal is not sacrificed on the altar and neither are any animals of its type, so too these halakhot apply to any animal that is not sacrificed on the altar and neither are any animals of its type. This serves to exclude a blemished animal, because other animals of its type are sacrificed on the altar.

What did you say to challenge this explanation? You said that in the case of a tereifa, there are other animals of its type that are sacrificed, and if so, why doesn’t inherent sanctity rest upon a tereifa? The answer is that a tereifa is not similar to a blemished animal, as a non-kosher animal is forbidden for consumption, and a tereifa is forbidden for consumption. This serves to exclude a blemished animal, which is permitted for consumption.

§ With regard to a tereifa, Shmuel says: One who consecrates an animal that is a tereifa is required to wait until it develops a permanent blemish, on account of which he may redeem it. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this statement of Shmuel. Since the meat of a tereifa is unfit for consumption and may only be fed to the dogs, why does it require redemption? Should one learn from this that one redeems sacrificial animals in order to feed them to the dogs? But this is contrary to the accepted halakha (see 31a).

Rather, say that the statement of Shmuel was as follows: If one consecrates an animal that is a tereifa, it becomes sanctified until it is time for the animal to die, so that even after its death it must be buried and may not be redeemed. And Rabbi Oshaya says: If one consecrates an animal that is a tereifa, this is like nothing other than one who consecrates mere wood and stones, which cannot become sanctified with inherent sanctity but only for their value, and which therefore can be redeemed. Consequently, a consecrated tereifa animal may be redeemed even if it is going to be fed to the dogs.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Shmuel. We learned in a mishna (31a): With regard to all sacrificial animals that became tereifa, one may not redeem them and render them non-sacred, because their consumption is forbidden; and one does not redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to the dogs. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason that they may not be redeemed is because they became tereifa after they had already been consecrated. Consequently, if they were already tereifa from the outset, when they were consecrated, one may redeem them. The Gemara answers: Perhaps this tanna holds that anywhere that an animal itself is not fit for sacrifice, inherent sanctity does not rest upon it at all.

The Gemara raises another challenge to Shmuel’s opinion from the mishna. Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar says: An animal crossbred from diverse kinds, and a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section, and a tumtum animal, and a hermaphrodite animal are not sacred through consecration and they do not sanctify non-sacred animals by means of substitution. And Shmuel says in explanation: They are not sacred with regard to substitution, i.e., if one said that any of these animals should be a substitute for a sacrificial animal it does not become sanctified; and they do not sanctify non-sacred animals, i.e., if one of these types of animal was sanctified and one attempted to render a non-sacred animal a substitute for it, that non-sacred animal does not become sanctified.

And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: But since they do not become sanctified, how can they sanctify another non-sacred animal? Rather, you find the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies only when one sanctifies an animal and afterward it becomes a tereifa. The Gemara explains the difficulty: This indicates that if it was a tereifa from the outset, then inherent sanctity does not rest upon it; this ruling contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who says that such an animal must be buried when it dies.