''But if the white leprous spot stays in its place [taḥteha]'' (Leviticus 13:23). In this verse, the word ''taḥteha'' indicates that the white leprous spot remains in its place. This usage of the word is fitting for substitution, since when sanctity is transferred by substitution from a consecrated animal to a non-sacred animal, the sanctity of the consecrated animal remains in place, despite the fact that the non-sacred animal is also consecrated.

Yet taḥat is also a term that indicates desacralization, as it is written: ''In place of [taḥat] brass I will bring gold, and in place of iron I will bring silver, and in place of wood brass, and in place of stones iron'' (Isaiah 60:17). In this verse, taḥat means replacement, which is what occurs in desacralization, where one item is replaced by another. And therefore, the term should be understood in accordance with the context: With regard to animals consecrated for sacrifice upon the altar, which render a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged a substitute, taḥat is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another. With regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, which do not render a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged a substitute, taḥat is a term that indicates desacralization.

Rava said: Even with regard to animals consecrated for sacrifice upon the altar, which render a non-sacred animal for which they are exchanged a substitute, you can find that taḥat is a term that indicates desacralization. For example, in a case where a consecrated animal was blemished and can be desacralized because it is unfit to be sacrificed, and one placed that consecrated animal next to a non-sacred animal and said: This animal is in place of [taḥat] that animal. Although the blemished sacred animal can render a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute, in this context the term taḥat means desacralization.

Rabbi Ashi said: Even in the case of a blemished animal, mentioned by Rava, sometimes you find that taḥat is a term that indicates desacralization and sometimes you find that taḥat is a term that indicates the associating of one sanctity with another. If the owner’s hand is resting on the consecrated animal and he says: This animal is in place of [taḥat] that animal, it is a term of desacralization, as the placement of his hand indicates that his intention is to desacralize the consecrated animal, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal. If the owner’s hand is resting on the non-sacred animal when he says: This animal is in place of that animal, then taḥat is a term of substitution, as the placement of his hand indicates that his intention is for the non-sacred animal to be consecrated with the same sanctity as the consecrated animal.

Abaye raises a dilemma: If there were standing before him two sacrificial animals that were blemished and two non-sacred animals that were unblemished,and, without placing his hands on any animal, he says: These animals are hereby in place of [taḥat] those animals, what is the halakha?

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Did he intend to say taḥat as association, i.e., to consecrate the two non-sacred animals as substitutes, and therefore he is flogged two sets of lashes for the two violations of the prohibition against consecrating an animal as a substitute? Or perhaps, does one say that since anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, a person does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition? If so, here too his intention was to desacralize the two blemished animals, and therefore he is not flogged.

And if you say that anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, a person does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition, in a case where there were standing before him two sacrificial animals, one of which was blemished and one of which was unblemished, and two non-sacred animals, one of which was blemished and one of which was unblemished, and he said: These animals are hereby in place of [taḥat] those animals, what is the halakha? Although he certainly intended to transfer the sanctity of the unblemished sacrificial animal to a non-sacred animal by substitution, it is unclear which of the two non-sacred animals he intended to consecrate as a substitute.

Once again, the Gemara explains the dilemma: Did he intend to say that the unblemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated as a substitute in place of the unblemished consecrated animal, and with regard to this pairing he intended to associate the sanctity by substitution, while the blemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated in place of the blemished consecrated animal, and for this pairing he intended to desacralize the consecrated animal. If so, he is flogged only for the first pairing and not for the second pairing.

Or perhaps, he intended that the unblemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated as a substitute in place of the blemished consecrated animal, and the blemished non-sacred animal should be consecrated as a substitute in place of the unblemished consecrated animal, and since he intended to perform substitution in both cases he is flogged for both pairings.

And if you say that anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, one does not perform the prohibition, this would resolve the previous dilemma, as his intention must have been to desacralize the blemished consecrated animal, and therefore he is not flogged two sets of lashes, one can raise the following dilemma: In a case where there were three sacrificial animals before him, one of which was blemished while the other two were unblemished, and three non-sacred animals, all of which were unblemished, and he said: These animals are hereby in place of [taḥat] those animals, what is the halakha?

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Do we say that since he intended for the unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as substitutes in place of the unblemished consecrated animals, i.e., to associate their sanctity, so too he intended to consecrate the unblemished non-sacred animal as a substitute in place of the blemished consecrated animal, i.e., to associate its sanctity, and he therefore is flogged three sets of lashes? Or perhaps, here too one applies the principle that anywhere that there exists both a permitted and a prohibited manner to perform an action, a person does not perform the prohibition. If so, his intention with regard to this latter blemished consecrated animal was to desacralize it, and therefore he is not flogged for transferring its sanctity to a substitute.

And if you say that here too, since this man has not yet been established as one who regularly transgresses a prohibition, until he has done so three times, therefore it is assumed that he does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition, Rav Ashi therefore raises the following dilemma: If there were four sacrificial animals standing before him, one of which was blemished and the other three were unblemished, and four non-sacred animals, all of which were unblemished, and he said: These animals are hereby in place of [taḥat] those animals, what is the halakha?

Again, the Gemara clarifies the dilemma: Here, since it is certain that he intended for three unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as substitutes in place of the three unblemished consecrated animals, this man has been established as one who regularly transgresses a prohibition. Therefore, it is assumed that he also intended for one of the unblemished non-sacred animals to be consecrated as a substitute in place of the blemished consecrated animal, which means he is liable to be flogged four sets of lashes for the four substitutions.

Or perhaps, even though in this case he has been established as one who transgresses the prohibition, nevertheless even such a person does not cast aside the permitted manner and perform the prohibition. And if so, his intention with regard to this latter blemished animal was to desacralize it. The Gemara concludes that all of these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

§ The mishna teaches: If the consecrated animal was blemished, and he said: This consecrated animal is desacralized, with its sanctity transferred to that non-sacred animal, the consecrated animal is desacralized. The owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals, and if the consecrated animal was worth more than the non-sacred animal, he must pay the difference to the Temple treasury.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The consecrated animal is desacralized by Torah law even if the consecrated animal was worth one hundred dinars and the non-sacred animal was worth only one peruta. But by rabbinic law, the owner is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals and to pay the difference to the Temple treasury, so that the Temple treasury not suffer a loss. And Reish Lakish says: Even the requirement to conduct an appraisal, to ascertain the relative value of the two animals and to pay the difference to the Temple treasury, applies by Torah law.

What are we dealing with here, i.e., what is the case that is subject to the disagreement between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish? If we say that they disagree in a case where the difference in value between the two animals was exactly one-sixth, which is the difference in value that constitutes exploitation by Torah law, and the halakha is that such a transaction is valid but one must return the difference in value, would Reish Lakish say that even in such a case the requirement to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals applies by Torah law?

But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 56a): These are matters that, even if the disparity between the value and the payment is one-sixth, are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Slaves, documents, lands, and consecrated property.Since consecrated property is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, why would Reish Lakish say that one must repay the difference in value between the two animals to the Temple treasury by Torah law?

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree with regard to a case of nullification of a transaction, i.e., where the difference in value between the two animals was greater than one-sixth. Would Rabbi Yoḥanan say in such a case that one is required to conduct an appraisal to ascertain the relative value of the two animals by rabbinic law?