Substitution Chapter 1

כָּל הַמֵּמִיר לוֹקֶה עַל כָּל בְּהֵמָה וּבְהֵמָה שֶׁיָּמִיר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז י) "לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא יָמִיר אֹתוֹ" וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ חוּץ מִנִּשְׁבָּע וּמֵמִיר וּמְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּשֵׁם. שְׁלֹשָׁה לָאוִין אֵלּוּ אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל וְלוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן. וְלָמָּה לוֹקִין עַל הַתְּמוּרָה וַהֲרֵי לָאו שֶׁבָּהּ נִתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז לג) "וְאִם הָמֵר יְמִירֶנּוּ וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ". מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲשֵׂה וּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. וְעוֹד שֶׁאֵין לָאו שֶׁבָּהּ שָׁוֶה לַעֲשֵׂה. שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה אִם הֵמִירוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מֻזְהָרִין שֶׁלֹּא יָמִירוּ. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַיָּחִיד שֶׁהֵמִיר הֲרֵי הַתְּמוּרָה קֹדֶשׁ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵמִיר בְּשַׁבָּת לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. וְאֶחָד מִן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁהֵמִיר. אוֹ מִי שֶׁהֵמִיר בְּקָרְבָּן מִקָּרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר. הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהֶן שֻׁתָּפוּת הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה וְאֵין הַתְּמוּרָה קֹדֶשׁ:

Anyone who transfers holiness from one animal to another is liable for lashes for every animal from which he transferred the holiness, as Leviticus 27:10 states: "Do not exchange it and do not transfer its holiness," even though he did not perform a deed. According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that any negative commandment that does not involve a deed is not punishable by lashes with the exception of one who takes a false or unnecessary oath, one who transfers the holiness of a sacrificial animal, and one who curses a colleague mentioning G-d's name. These three negative commandments can never involve a deed at all, and yet one is liable for lashes for their violation. Why is one liable for lashes for transferring the holiness of an animal, it is a negative commandment that can be corrected by a positive commandment, as ibid.:33 states: "If he will transfer its holiness, it and the animal to which its holiness will be transferred shall be consecrated"? Because it has one positive commandment and two negative commandments and because the negative commandment it involves is not of the same nature as the positive commandment.This is reflected in the ruling that if the Jewish community or partners try to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the transfer is not effective. Nevertheless, they are warned not to transfer the holiness. Thus when an individual transfers the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the animal to which he transferred the holiness is consecrated. Even if he transfers holiness on the Sabbath, he is liable for forty lashes. If, by contrast, a partner in a sacrificial animal endeavors to transfer its holiness or an endeavor is made to transfer the holiness of an animal designated for a communal sacrifice - since that person has a share in these sacrifices he is liable for lashes, but the animal to which he endeavored to transfer the holiness is not consecrated.

אֶחָד הַמֵּמִיר בְּזָדוֹן אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִיר בִּשְׁגָגָה הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה וְלוֹקֶה. כֵּיצַד. הַמִּתְכַּוִּן לוֹמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי. הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה וְלוֹקֶה. אֲבָל אִם דִּמָּה שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהָמִיר וְהֵמִיר אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֶכָּנֵס לְבַיִת זֶה וְאָמִיר מִדַּעְתִּי וְנִכְנַס וְשָׁכַח וְהֵמִיר שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ:

Whether one transfers the holiness of an animal as an intentional transgression or one does so inadvertently, the transfer of holiness is effective and the person is liable for lashes. What is implied? One intended to say: "This animal should be considered as an exchange for an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering that I possess," and instead, he said: "This animal should be considered as an exchange for an animal consecrated as a peace-offering that I possess," the transfer of holiness is effective and he is liable for lashes. If, however, he thought that it was permitted to transfer holiness or he said: "I will enter that house and transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal willfully," and instead, he entered and transferred the holiness of the animal unknowingly, the transfer of holiness is effective, but he is not liable for lashes for it.

אֵין אָדָם מֵמִיר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּקָרְבָּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם אָמַר בַּעַל הַקָּרְבָּן כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לְהָמִיר בִּבְהֶמְתִּי יָבוֹא וְיָמִיר הֲרֵי זֶה מֵמִיר בָּהּ. הֵמִיר קָרְבָּנוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ אֵינָהּ תְּמוּרָה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ:

A person cannot transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal that does not belong to him. If the owner of a sacrificial animal says: "Whoever desires to transfer the holiness of my sacrificial animal may come and do so," another person may transfer the holiness of that animal. If a person transferred the holiness of a sacrificial animal belonging to him to another animal that does not belong to him, the transfer is not effective. The rationale is that a person cannot consecrate an entity that does not belong to him.

הַמִּתְכַּפֵּר הוּא שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה אֲבָל לֹא הַמַּקְדִּישׁ. כֵּיצַד. הִקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ חֲבֵרוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ קָרְבְּנוֹת נָזִיר שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהֶם פְּלוֹנִי הַנָּזִיר. אוֹתוֹ הַנָּזִיר הוּא שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בָּהֶן תְּמוּרָה אֲבָל לֹא זֶה שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁלּוֹ:

It is the one who will receive atonement who has the potential to exchange the holiness of a sacrificial animal, not the person who consecrates it. What is implied? A person consecrated an animal so that his colleague could gain atonement through its sacrifice, e.g., one consecrated the animals required for the sacrifices of a nazirite so that so-and-so, the nazirite, could gain atonement thereby. It is that nazirite who can transfer their holiness, but not the person who consecrated them, because they do not belong to him.

הַיּוֹרֵשׁ מֵמִיר. הִנִּיחַ בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁנֵי בָּנָיו וּמֵת הֲרֵי זוֹ קְרֵבָה וְאֵין מְמִירִין בָּהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵם בָּהּ שֻׁתָּפִין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

An heir can transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal he inherits. If a person dies, leaving a sacrificial animal to his two sons, this animal should be offered, but its holiness cannot be transferred. The rationale is that the sons are partners and partners cannot transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal, as we explained.

אֵין קָדְשֵׁי נָכְרִים עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֲבָל מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי שֶׁהֵמִיר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה. הִקְדִּישׁ הַנָּכְרִי בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵמִיר בָּהּ הַנָּכְרִי הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק תְּמוּרָה:

The holiness of sacrificial animals consecrated by gentiles may not be transferred according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, however, if a gentile transfers the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the transfer is effective. If a gentile consecrated a sacrificial animal with the intent that a Jew receive atonement through its being offered and then the gentile transferred its holiness to another animal, there is an unresolved question whether the transfer is effective.

אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים אִם הֵמִירוּ עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה:

When either a man or a woman seek to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the transfer is effective.

קָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים שֶׁהֵמִיר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה יֵשׁ בּוֹ סָפֵק אִם עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה אוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה:

Even though he is not liable for lashes, there is an unresolved question whether a transfer of holiness made by a minor who has reached the age when his vows are binding is effective or not.

אֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים מְמִירִין בְּחַטָּאת וּבְאָשָׁם שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵם שֶׁלָּהֶם אֵינָן זוֹכִין בָּהֶן מֵחַיִּים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם בַּבָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם. וְאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים מְמִירִין בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא זוֹכֶה בּוֹ מֵחַיִּים אֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה בּוֹ מִתְּחִלָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי תְּחִלָּתוֹ בְּבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא. אֲבָל הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁהֵמִירוּ בִּבְכוֹר כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא בְּבֵיתָם עוֹשִׂים תְּמוּרָה. וְכֵן כֹּהֵן שֶׁהֵמִיר בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁנּוֹלַד לוֹ לֹא בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁלָּקַח מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה:

The priests cannot transfer the holiness of animals to be sacrificed as sin-offerings and guilt-offerings that were given to them to offer. Although portions of the animal belong to them, they do not acquire them during the lifetime of the animal, for they do not receive a portion of the meat until the blood is cast on the altar. A priest cannot transfer the holiness of a firstborn animal; even though he does acquire it while it is alive, he does not acquire it at the outset. On the contrary, at the outset, it should be in the home of the Israelite. When, by contrast, an owner transfers the holiness of a firstborn animal, as long as it is in his household, the transfer is binding.Similarly, when a priest transfers the holiness of a firstborn animal born in his herd, not a firstborn animal given to him by an Israelite, the transfer is binding.

אֵילוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה אֲבָל פָּרוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִשֶּׁלּוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מִתְכַּפְּרִין בּוֹ הֲרֵי הֵם בּוֹ כְּשֻׁתָּפִין:

The holiness of the ram of the High Priest can be transferred to another animal. The holiness of his bull, by contrast, cannot be transferred to another animal. Even though it is brought from his own resources, since his priestly brethren derive atonement through its sacrifice, they are considered as partners in it.

הָעוֹפוֹת וְהַמְּנָחוֹת אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא (ויקרא כז י) "בְּהֵמָה":

The holiness of fowl and meal-offerings cannot be transferred, for the relevant verses mention only animals.

קָרְבְּנוֹת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר (ויקרא כז לג) "לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין טוֹב לָרַע וְלֹא יְמִירֶנּוּ" וַהֲלֹא הַמַּעֲשֵׂר בִּכְלַל כָּל הַקָּדָשִׁים הָיָה וְלָמָּה יָצָא לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכְּלָל מָה מַעֲשֵׂר קָרְבַּן יָחִיד יָצְאוּ קָרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר וְכֵן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין מָה מַעֲשֵׂר קָרְבַּן מִזְבֵּחַ יָצְאוּ קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מָה מַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה הֻקַּשׁ לְמַעֲשַׂר דָּגָן שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא נָכְרִים יָצְאוּ קָרְבְּנוֹת נָכְרִים שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

The holiness of animals consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple may not be transferred, for with regard to the tithe offering, Leviticus 27:33 states: "He shall not distinguish between good and bad and he should not transfer its holiness." Now the tithe offering was part of the general category of all the sacrifices, why was it singled out?To teach us a concept that applies to the entire general category. The tithe-offering is the sacrifice of an individual, thus excluding communal offerings and sacrificial animals owned by partners. The tithe-offering is a sacrifice offered on the altar, thus excluding animals consecrated for the sake of the upkeep of the Temple. There is an association between the tithe-offerings and the tithes of the crops in which are obligated Jews and not non-Jews; thus excluding sacrifices of the gentiles whose holiness cannot be exchanged as stated.

הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַדֵּשׁ גּוּפָהּ קִדּוּשׁ גָּמוּר וְאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים. אֲבָל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלַת מוּם עוֹבֵר אוֹ שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ תְּמִימָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד לָהּ מוּם קָבוּעַ הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה:

When a person consecrates an animal that has a permanent disqualifying blemish, its holiness cannot be transferred to another animal, because its body has not been consecrated in a complete way; only its worth was consecrated. If, however, one consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish or one consecrates an unblemished animal and then it contracted a permanent blemish, its holiness can be transferred.

אֶחָד הַמֵּמִיר תָּמִים בְּבַעַל מוּם אוֹ בַּעַל מוּם בְּתָמִים אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִיר בָּקָר בְּצֹאן אוֹ צֹאן בְּבָקָר. אוֹ כְּבָשִׂים בְּעִזִּים אוֹ עִזִּים בִּכְבָשִׂים אוֹ נְקֵבוֹת בִּזְכָרִים אוֹ זְכָרִים בִּנְקֵבוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִיר אֶחָד בְּמֵאָה אוֹ מֵאָה בְּאֶחָד בֵּין בְּבַת אַחַת בֵּין בָּזוֹ אַחַר זוֹ. הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרָה וְלוֹקֶה כְּמִנְיַן הַבְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁהֵמִיר:

Whether one transfers the holiness of a blemished animal to an unblemished one or that of an unblemished animal to a blemished one, one transferred the holiness of sheep to cattle, or the holiness of cattle to sheep, or that of goats to sheep or that of sheep to goats, or that of males to females or that of females to males, or transferred the holiness of 100 animals to one or that of one to 100, whether he did so all at once or one after another, the transfer is effective and he is liable for the same number of sets of lashes as animals to which he transferred holiness.

אֵין הַתְּמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה וְלֹא וְלַד בְּהֵמוֹת הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז י) (ויקרא כז לג) "וְהָיָה הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ" הוּא וְלֹא וְלָדוֹ וּתְמוּרָתוֹ וְלֹא תְּמוּרַת תְּמוּרָתוֹ. אֲבָל הַמֵּמִיר בִּבְהֵמָה וְחָזַר וְהֵמִיר בָּהּ וְחָזַר וְהֵמִיר אֲפִלּוּ אֶלֶף כֻּלָּן תְּמוּרָה וְלוֹקֶה עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

The holiness of an animal to which holiness has been transferred cannot be transferred to another animal, nor may the holiness of the offspring of a consecrated animal be transferred to another animal. This is derived from Leviticus 27:10: "And it and the animal to which its holiness was transferred shall be holy." Implied is "it" and not its offspring, "the animal to which its holiness was transferred" and not an animal to which there was an attempt to transfer the holiness of the animal to which its holiness was transferred. If, however, one transferred the holiness of an animal and then transferred its holiness a second time, even 1000 times, the holiness has been transferred to each of them, and one is liable for lashes for each transfer, as we explained.

אֵין מְמִירִין אֵיבָרִים אוֹ עֻבָּרִים בִּשְׁלֵמִים וְלֹא שְׁלֵמִים בָּהֶן. כֵּיצַד. הָאוֹמֵר רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה זוֹ אוֹ יָדָהּ תַּחַת עוֹלָה זוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר עֻבַּר בְּהֵמָה זוֹ תַּחַת עוֹלָה זוֹ אֵינָהּ תְּמוּרָה. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר בְּהֵמָה זוֹ תַּחַת יָדָהּ אוֹ רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל עוֹלָה זוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בְּהֵמָה זוֹ תַּחַת עֻבָּרָהּ שֶׁל חַטָּאת זוֹ אֵינָהּ תְּמוּרָה:

The holiness of an entire animal may not be transferred to limbs or fetuses, nor may the holiness of the latter be transferred to an entire animal. What is implied? If one says: "The hindfoot of this animal..." or "Its forefoot should be substituted for this burnt-offering," or he said: "The fetus of this animal should be substituted for this burnt-offering," the holiness is not transferred. Similarly, if one says: "This animal should be substituted for the forefoot..." or "the hindfoot of this burnt-offering," or he said: "This animal should be substituted for the fetus of this sin-offering," the holiness is not transferred.

הַמֵּמִיר בְּכִלְאַיִם אוֹ בִּטְרֵפָה וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן אוֹ בְּטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵין הַקְּדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁהֵמִיר בְּגָמָל אוֹ בַּחֲמוֹר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינָן קָרְבָּן וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מָה בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְבַעַל מוּם. בַּעַל מוּם יֵשׁ בְּמִינָן קָרְבָּן. אֵלּוּ אֵין בְּמִינָם קָרְבָּן:

When one seeks to transfer the holiness of a consecrated animal to a hybrid, an animal that is tereifah, one born of Caesarian section, a tumtum, or an adrogynus, the holiness is not transferred to them and it is as if one sought to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal to a camel or a donkey. The rationale is that this type of animal is not fit for sacrifice. Therefore one who tries to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal to it is not liable for lashes. What is the difference between these and an animal that is blemished? There is the possibility of the type of animal that is blemished serving as a sacrifice, while these types of animals cannot serve as sacrifices.

הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע הֲרֵי הֵם כְּבַעַל מוּם וְעוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן:

An animal that was engaged in intercourse with humans - whether it acted as the male or female - is considered as a blemished animal and the holiness of a sacrificial animal can be transferred to it. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁחֶצְיָהּ קֹדֶשׁ וְחֶצְיָהּ חֹל לֹא עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂית תְּמוּרָה:

When an animal was half consecrated and half unconsecrated, holiness cannot be transferred to it, nor may its holiness be transferred.

כָּל הַחַטָּאוֹת שֶׁדִּינָן שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה וְכָל חַטָּאת שֶׁדִּינָהּ שֶׁתִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה:

The holiness of all of the sin-offerings that are consigned to death may not be transferred to another animal. By contrast, the holiness of all of the sin-offerings that are designated to pasture until they contract a blemish and are sold may be transferred to another animal.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְפִסְחוֹ אוֹ לְעוֹלָתוֹ אוֹ לַאֲשָׁמוֹ עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִקָּרֵב הוֹאִיל וְיָרְדוּ לִקְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים וַהֲרֵי הֵם תְּמִימִים יָרְדוּ לִקְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף. אֲבָל הַמַּפְרִישׁ שָׂעִיר לְחַטָּאתוֹ וְנָשִׂיא שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ שְׂעִירָה לְחַטָּאתוֹ וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ פָּרָה לְחַטָּאתוֹ. אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה שֶׁכָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה בְּחַטָּאוֹת לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה כְּלָל וַאֲפִלּוּ קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין:

When a person sets aside a female animal for his Paschal sacrifice, burnt-offering, or guilt-offering, its holiness can be transferred even though it is not fit to be offered. The rationale is that since its worth is consecrated and it is unblemished, it is considered as if its body was consecrated. If, by contrast, one separated a goat as a sin-offering, a king separated a she-goat as a sin-offering, and a High Priest separated a cow as a sin-offering, their holiness cannot be transferred. The rationale is that anyone who deviates from the commandments prescribed for a sin-offering does not cause the designated animal to be consecrated at all, not even its worth, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.