He shall not alter it, nor exchange it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good. If he shall at all exchange animal for animal, then both it and that for which it is exchanged shall be holy.
Not to substitute or exchange a consecrated animal for another
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא־יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ־רַע בְּטוֹב
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מהמיר קדשים. והוא אמרו לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר, וכבר באה האזהרה מיוחדת במעשר, והסבה מה שזכרו בספרי והוא אמרם מעשר בכלל היה ולמה יצא להקיש אליו מה מעשר קדשי מזבח ואין תמורתו מותרת אף כל קדשים אין תמורתן מותרת, והוא אמרו ולא ימיר, ואמרו לא יחליפנו אמנם הוא בקדשי מזבח לבד, והממיר לוקה. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בתמורה. (אם בחקותי, הלכות תמורה פ"א):
He prohibited us from substituting consecrated animals. And that is His saying, "One may not exchange nor substitute for it" (Leviticus 27:10). And the prohibition already appeared specifically about the [animal] tithe. And the reason is that which they mentioned in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Bechukotai, Chapter 9:4): And that is their saying, "The tithe was in the category [of all consecrated animals]. Why, then, was it singled out? To make a comparison to it: Just as the tithe is consecrated animals that go on the altar and its substitution is not permitted; so too, is the substitution of all consecrated animals that go on the altar not permitted." And that is His saying, "nor substitute for it," and His saying, "One may not exchange" - however that is only with consecrated animals that go on the altar. And one who substitutes [it] is lashed. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Temurah. (See Parashat Bechukotai; Mishneh Torah, Substitution 1.)
Hebrew: Sefer HaMitzvot, Warsaw 1883 (public domain). English: Sefaria Edition, trans. Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2021 (CC0). Via Sefaria; translator’s footnotes omitted.
Literary form: a prohibition
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
- Requires a standing Temple
Classical halakhic consequences
The consequences the classical halakhah attaches to this commandment, grouped by who imposes them. Where a category has none recorded, that absence is itself meaningful.
Imposed by a court
- Lashes (malkot)
At the hands of Heaven
No divinely-imposed consequence is recorded.
Ritual remedy
No ritual remedy is recorded.
How the streams of Judaism treat this commandment
The streams of Judaism read the same commandment differently — an ongoing plurality, not a ranking. Each position below is reported as the catalog records it; none is presented as the correct one.
- Orthodox Binding
- Conservative Not binding
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Not binding
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
Where this commandment meets modern human-rights frameworks
One modern normative lens, attributed to it — not GEBible’s assessment. Each row names the framework it measures against and the catalog’s own classification of the relation.
This framework catalogues tensions; it records agreement in only one of its entries. The near-total tension rate is the shape of the instrument, not a finding.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Maimonides (Hilkhot Temurah 1:1) prescribes lashes for deliberately exchanging one dedicated animal for another; modern proportionality principles preclude corporal punishment for what amounts to an internal administrative act within a private votive transaction causing no harm to any third party.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
Post-Enlightenment penal codes do not recognize the substitution of a dedicated religious animal as a criminal offense, and flogging is not a permissible sanction in any contemporary secular legal system for such an act.
-
rabbinic tradition
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that corporal jurisdiction lapsed with the dissolution of the Sanhedrin; additionally, the commandment presupposes a functioning Temple sacrificial system, making it doubly inoperative in the current era.