Midrash for Temurah 17:66
לדברי האומר אין ממירין וחוזרין וממירין הפריש אשם להתכפר בו והמיר בו
because of the expression 'beast'? Is not the reason of R'Simeon because of the expression 'it', [his reasoning being] just as 'it' is only one, so its [substitute] must be only one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>47</sup></span> - At first, R'Simeon said to them that his reason was based on the text, 'Then it and the exchange thereof'. When he saw, however, that the Rabbis interpreted the text 'beast for beast', he said to then,: 'I also can derive the reason for my ruling from the same source Said Resh Lakish: R'Simeon agrees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although he holds in the Mishnah that exchange cannot be effected except with one hullin for one consecrated animal.');"><sup>48</sup></span> that one can effect an exchange repeatedly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same dedicated animal can be exchanged again and again with different animals. Lit., 'one has power to exchange and again to exchange'.');"><sup>49</sup></span> What is the reason? - For where has the holiness of the first dedicated animal gone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that another animal should be able to receive holiness, even up to a thousand, since Scripture declares: 'Then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy'.');"><sup>50</sup></span> But R'Johanan says: Just as one cannot effect an exchange with two hullin for one [consecration], so one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly [with the same animal]. There is a teaching in agreement with R'Johanan; there is a teaching in agreement with Resh Lakish.' There is a teaching in agreement with R'Johanan': Just as one cannot effect an exchange with one hullin for two [consecrations], so one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly. There is a teaching in accordance with the opinion of Resh Lakish: One might have thought that just as R'Simeon holds that one cannot effect an exchange with two [hullin] for one [consecrated animal], so one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly. The text therefore states: 'Then it and the exchange thereof', implying, even for a hundred [animals of hullin].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The substitutions are sacred.');"><sup>51</sup></span> R'Abin asked: How is it according to the authority who says<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 13b.');"><sup>52</sup></span> that one cannot effect an exchange repeatedly, if he set aside a guilt-offering with which to obtain atonement and made an exchange for it,