The following translation of the Mishnah comes from:
Jacob Neusner, The
Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988)
Zebahim 5:8:
5:8 A The firstling and the tithe [of
cattle] and the Passover are Lesser Holy Things.
B The act of slaughtering them is in any
place in the courtyard.
C And their blood requires a single act
of placing,
D provided that one places [the blood]
at the base.
E [The law] imposed a difference on
their manner of eating [from that of the Passover]:
(1) The firstling is eaten by priests.
(2) And tithe [of cattle] by any person.
F And they are eaten throughout the city
[cooked for food] in any [manner of cooking] food, for two days and one
[intervening] night.
G The Passover is eaten only at night.
H And it is eaten only up to midnight.
I And it is eaten only by those that
were assigned to it.
J And it is eaten only roasted. (p.
709)
Zebahim 10:3:
10:3 A (7) The firstling takes precedence
over tithe of cattle, because it is sanctified from the womb, and it is eaten
[only] by priests.
B (8) The tithe of cattle takes
precedence over fowl [even though the latter falls within Most Holy Things],
because it is an animal sacrifice [killed with a knife, unlike fowl],
and there pertain to it Most Holy Things: its blood and its sacrificial parts
[which are placed on the altar]. (p. 772)
Temurah 1:1:
1:1 A All substitute [a beast for one they
have first designated as a sacrifice] —
B all the same are men and women.
C Not that a man is permitted to effect
a substitution.
D But if one has effected a
substitution, it [that which is designated instead of the beast already
consecrated] is deemed a substitute [and also consecrated].
E And the man [who does so] incurs the
penalty of forty stripes.
F Priests effect a substitution in the
case of what belongs to them.
G And Israelites effect a substitution in
the case of what belongs to them.
H Priests do not effect a substitution
in the case either of a sin offering or of guilt offering or of a firstling.
I Said R. Yohanan ben Nuri, “And on
what account do they [the priests, who own firstlings] not effect a
substitution in the case of a firstling?”
J Said R. Aqiba, “A sin offering and a
guilt offering are a gift to the priest, and a firstling is a gift to the
priest.
K “Just as, in the case of a sin
offering and a guilt offering, they do not effect a substitution, so in the
case of a firstling, they should not effect a substitution.”
L Said to him R. Yohanan b. Nuri, “What
difference does it make to me that one does not effect a substitution in the
case of a sin offering and a guilt offering?
For in case of these, they [the priests] have no claim while they [the
beasts] are alive.
M “Will you say the same in the case of
the firstling, to which they [the priests] have a claim while [the firstling]
is still alive?”
N Said to him R. Aqiba, “But has it not
already been stated, Then both it and
that for which it is changed shall be holy (Lev. 27: 10)?
O “At what point does sanctity descend on
to it? In the house of the owner. So the substitute [becomes holy] in the house
of the owner.” (p. 824-25)
Temurah 5:2:
5:2 A [If in the case of B/F] it gave birth
to two males, one of them is to be offered as a burnt offering. And the second is to be sold to those who owe
a burnt offering. But its proceeds are
unconsecrated.
B [If in the case of C/F] it gave birth
to two females, one of them is to be offered as peace offerings, and the second
is to be sold to those who owe peace offerings.
But its proceeds are unconsecrated.
C [If] it gave birth to an offspring
whose sexual traits cannot be discerned or to one bearing the traits of both
sexes—
D Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says,
“Sanctity does not apply to them [at all].” (p. 832)
