Now we turn to the second Mishnah in the first chapter of Maseches Temurah. The foundation of the matter is the verse "v'im hameir yamir behemah b'vehemah" - the animal the Torah is speaking about is the domesticated animal: cattle, goats and sheep. Anything that falls under the category of behemah - a cow, a goat or a sheep, male or female, old or young - is considered an animal, and is fit to serve not only as the source of the sanctity (for that is what consecrated animals are), but also as the recipient of it, and therefore temurah can be made with any of them.
"Memirin min habakar al hatzon":
"Memirin min habakar al hatzon" - one may bring a cow or an ox that is not yet consecrated, and it will receive the sanctity by becoming a temurah for a consecrated animal of the flock (and "flock" includes both goats and sheep).
"umin hatzon al habakar" - one may bring a goat or a sheep, an animal of the flock, and it will be the temurah for the ox or the cow that was consecrated.
"min hakevasim al ha'izim" and "umin ha'izim al hakevasim" - similarly, one may exchange sheep for goats, and goats for consecrated sheep.
"min hazachar al hanekeivos" and "umin hanekeivos al hazachar" - a consecrated female may be exchanged for a male, and the sanctity of a male may be invested in a female animal.
"min hatemimim al ba'alei mumin uva'alei mumin al hatemimim" - even from an unblemished animal onto a blemished animal, and from a blemished animal onto an unblemished animal.
And the source of all this: "shene'emar: lo yachalifenu v'lo yamir oso tov b'ra o ra b'tov" - the verse states explicitly that one may not exchange and may not substitute; "tov b'ra" - bringing an unblemished animal in place of a blemished one, "o ra b'tov" - a blemished animal in place of an unblemished one. The Mishnah then continues and explains: "eizehu tov b'ra? Ba'alei mumin shekadam hekdeshan es muman".
A blemished animal whose consecration preceded its blemish:
Let us explain the matter: how can a blemished animal be consecrated in the first place? The rule is that an animal with a permanent blemish, such as a split lip, about which the owner declares "this animal shall be an olah" - no sanctity of the body takes effect upon it. It does not receive the sanctity of the altar and is not fit to be brought upon it; rather, only monetary sanctity takes effect upon it - not an intrinsic sanctity, but an external sanctity, the sanctity of its value. This means that it can no longer be brought as a korban because of its blemish, and all that can be done is to sell it or redeem it, and with the money to buy another animal for that same type of korban. So one who consecrated it as an olah redeems it for money, and with that money buys another animal to bring as an olah.
If so, what is the case in which there is a consecrated animal that is blemished, and whose sanctity is transferred onto an unconsecrated, unblemished animal? After all, if it has only monetary sanctity, it has no power to transfer sanctity, since there is no temurah with something that has only monetary sanctity.
To this the Mishnah answers: "ba'alei mumin shekadam hekdeshan es muman" - the case is an animal that was consecrated while it was still unblemished and whole, and only afterward, before it was brought as a korban, became blemished. In such a case sanctity of the body took effect upon it, an intrinsic sanctity fit to go up on the altar; and even though now it cannot be offered because of its permanent blemish, and the halachah is that it must be redeemed - since it possesses sanctity of the body, temurah can be made with it. This is the point of the Mishnah.
"Memirin echad bishnayim ushnayim b'echad":
The Mishnah continues and says: "Memirin echad bishnayim ushnayim b'echad" - if there are two consecrated animals, one may make temurah with them upon a third animal; and likewise "shnayim b'echad," that one may take two animals and bring upon them the sanctity of a single consecrated animal. And likewise "echad b'meah u'meah b'echad" - one in place of a hundred, or a hundred in place of one.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says: "ein memirin ela echad b'echad" - there is no temurah except one for one, and one cannot exchange one for more than one. And his reason: "shene'emar: v'hayah hu us'muraso" - the verse uses the singular; just as "hu" is singular and refers to one, so too "temuraso" is singular and refers to one - one alone, and not more than one.
The root of the dispute:
The dispute revolves around the question of whether the word "behemah" (animal) can also serve as a plural. It is similar to the English word "fish," which is used both for a single fish and for many fish, or the word "sheep" - one sheep or many sheep. Can there be, then, one "behemah" and two "behemah"?
At first glance the answer is no, but there is a proof from the book of Yonah: the verse says "u'behemah rabbah," meaning many animals. This was said about the city of Nineveh, which contained a hundred and twenty thousand people and many animals. So we see that "behemah" can indeed be used as a plural. Rabbi Shimon responds: that is true, but only in conjunction with the word "rabbah" - "behemah rabbah," many animals; "behemah" on its own, however, is not a plural. For this reason Rabbi Shimon maintains his position that one may only exchange one for one.
The halachah:
The halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon but rather the first Tanna, that one may indeed exchange one for two and two for one. Therefore, a person who brings two animals, or ten animals, and consecrates them all by exchanging them for the one consecrated animal receives lashes for each and every animal he consecrated; and if he brought ten, he is liable ten times.