json/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Kodashim/Bartenura on Mishnah Temurah/English/Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Bartenura on Mishnah Temurah",
    "versionSource": "sefaria.org",
    "versionTitle": "Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020",
    "versionNotes": "",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "ברטנורא על משנה תמורה",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Rishonim on Mishnah",
        "Bartenura",
        "Seder Kodashim"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            [
                "הכל ממירין – All persons can cause the seizure of the substitute in holiness together with the original by exchanging a consecrated animal, that seizes the holiness of the exchange of an unconsecrated animal, if he said, “this is place of that one of something consecrated,” whether by the mouth of men or by the mouth of women, as for example, if woman exchanged/substituted it, it seizes the sanctity of exchange by her mouth. And the word \"והכל\" /”All” that is taught here includes someone who inherits that if he substituted/exchanged a sacrifice that someone bequeathed to him during his lifetime, his substitution is a substitution.",
                "לא שאדם רשאי להמיר – because it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “[One may not exchange] or substitute another for it.”",
                "מומר – holiness was seized upon it and both of them (i.e., the formerly designated animal that was consecrated and the formerly unconsecrated animal that has just been substituted) are holy.",
                "וסופג את הארבעים – he is flogged [for transgressing] the negative commandment (Leviticus 27:10): “or substitute another for it,” and even though it is a negative commandment/prohibition that does not involve an action/לאו שאין בו מעשה. For we hold that any negative commandment/prohibition that does not involve an action we don’t flog that person except for false conspiring witnesses and [someone who] substitutes an animal for another or someone who curses another (or himself) using the name of God. But if you should say that this is a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment [לאו הניתק לעשה](unless there is no possibility of fulfilling this positive commandment), as it is written (Leviticus 27:33): “[If he does make substitution for it,’ then it and its substitute shall both be holy,” but we don’t flog a person or a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment. One can say, that it is different here, as the negative commandment includes more than the positive commandment within it, for everyone who says the word/speaks is whipped, but not every person who says the word does a substitution, for partners and the community do not do substitutions, for since the positive commandment is not equivalent to the negative commandment, it is not called a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment.",
                "הכהנים ממרימין את שלן – sacrifices that the Kohen set aside to offer for himself, but if he Kohen substituted for it, it causes the seizure of the substitute/exchange of the animal [to be holy].",
                "לא בחטאת ולא באשם – that the Israelite gave him that he sacrifice/offer for him, but if the Kohen substituted another, he doesn’t do that substitution on his own, for he has no portion in it, but rather from the time of the offering of those sacrifices on the altar and onwards, he (i.e., the Kohen) is worthy of the flesh [of the animal], but a person does not cause the seizure of something which is not his (Tractate Temurah 9a).",
                "ולא בבכור – that an Israelite gave him.",
                "וכי מפני מה אין הכהנין ממירים בבכור – for doesn’t all of it belong to the Kohen and while it is alive, we give it to him, and the Israelite cannot gain atonement through it.",
                "מה חטאת ואשם אין ממירין – because it is clearly obvious to us that he Kohanim do not take possession of them other than from offering up of the portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar and beyond.",
                "מה לי אינו ממיר בחטאת ואשם – that is to say, it is the law that the Kohanim do not make a substitution with the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, etc.",
                "והיה הוא ותמורתו – there is an analogy between substitution to something consecrated itself.",
                "היכן קדושה חלה – on that which is dedicated to the Temple, in the house of the owners.",
                "אף תמורה – does not take effect other than in the house of the owners, but in the home of the Kohen it does not take effect completely, therefore, a Kohen cannot substitute for a firstling. But an Israelites, if he made a substitution for it, it is seized in holiness, for it was in domain that sanctification occurs with the firstling. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva."
            ],
            [
                "ממירין מן הבקר על הצאן וכו'- as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “if one does substitute one animal one for another, [the thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy],” but sheep and male and female cattle are all called בהמה/animals.",
                "טוב ברע – [that which is] good of unconsecrated [animals], shall not be substituted for [that which is] bad of holy/sanctified [animals], [as it is written (Leviticus 27:10)]: “if one does substitute [one animal for another],”so we see that those animals with a blemish (i.e., unfit for the altar) can serve as substitutes. And on anything with a blemish can effectuate substitution, as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “either good for bad or bad for good,” that implies that an unconsecrated animal with a blemish with a pure sanctified animal.",
                "ואיזהו טוב ברע – that is to say, what is something bad that is consecrated that effectuates substitution? All that its sanctification preceded its blemish. But if the blemish preceded its sanctification, that sanctification does not take effect upon it, substitution is not made, for it could have been written [in the Torah \"לא ימיר טוב ברע\" /he will not exchange good for bad or \"רע [בו]\"/that has something bad in it, and it would imply [או רע] /[or something bad], he should not exchange not with something good and not with something bad, the final, טוב/good that the All-Merciful wrote (Leviticus 27:10), why do I need it? To tell you that it should be good from its outset, that at the time that it is sanctified, it was pure and again a blemish befell it, one can do a substitution; if it was bad from the outset, that a blemish befell it prior to its being sanctified, one doesn’t do a substitution.",
                "מרימין אחד – of an unconsecrated animal with two sanctified [animals], as for example, that he said, “this one is in place of those.”",
                "ושנים – [and two] unconsecrated [animals for one that is sanctified, as for example, these will be in place of this one.",
                "מה הוא מיוחד – as it is written (Leviticus 27:10]: “the thing [vowed and its substitute shall both be holy].”"
            ],
            [
                "אברים בעוברים – limbs of unconsecrated [animals] with consecrated fetuses. For if he said: “may the foot of this animal be substituted/in exchange for the sanctified fetus that is in the womb of that animal,” the sanctity does not apply upon the limb.",
                "ולא עוברים באברים – for if he said: “this fetus that is inside of this unconsecrated animal will be substituted for the foot of this sanctified animal, the fetus is not holy.",
                "ולא עוברים ואברים – of unsanctified [animals] with sanctified peace-offerings.",
                "ולא שלמים – [peace-offerings] of unsanctified [animals] [substituted for] fetuses and/or limbs of a holy [animal].",
                "ממירין אברים בשלימים – he said, “may the foot of this unconsecrated animal be in substitution/exchange for this holy animal,” the exchange takes effect on the limb and it spreads throughout the animal, it is totally exchanged/substituted and offered.",
                "ולא שלימים בהן – for there is no power/strength in one limb of a holy animal to perform an exchange/substitution.",
                "והלא במוקדשין – at the beginning of the sanctification when he says, “the foot of this [animal]is a burnt offering.”",
                "כולה עולה – as we derive from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 27:9): “any such that may be given to the LORD shall be holy,” when he says, “that it shall be holy,” to include all of it. But the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher."
            ],
            [
                "אין המדומע מדמע אלא לפי חשבון (that which became subject to the law of Terumah through an admixture, can affect a second mixture only in proportion (i.e., according to the quantity of real Terumah/heave-offering contained therein) – a SEAH of Terumah that fell in less than one-hundred of unconsecrated produce and it became דמע/subject to the law of Terumah, and it fell from this mixture to an other place, we require one-hundred from the unconsecrated produce according to what there is of Terumah in this SEAH of this mixture, but we don’t require one-hundred SEAH corresponding to of all of that SEAH of the mixture of [consecrated] Terumah and unconsecrated produce, for it is not considered all Terumah to prohibit the secondary unconsecrated produce.",
                "ואין המחומץ מחמץ אלא לפי חשבון (that which contains leaven does not impart the status of leaven [to something else] only by due measure) – unconsecrated started dough that became leavened in leaven of heave-offering, it is entirely forbidden to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim). But if there fell from that started dough into another unconsecrated started dough and it became leavened, it does not forbid it other than according to the due measure [in the prescribed proportion] of the leavened heave-offering that it became combined with, and it does not forbid the last [batch] other than if there fell in from the first [batch] such a large measure that there is in the leaven of the Terumah combined in it enough I order to leaven the last [batch] without the combination/mixture of the unconsecrated produce that was combined with heave-offering.",
                "ואין המים שאובים פוסלים את המקוה אלא לפי חשבון – a Mikveh/ritual bath which has in it twenty-one SEAH of rain water, we fill up on the shoulder nineteen SEAH (i.e., a SEAH is equal to 144 egg bulks) and we conduct the water to the Mikveh though a channel (see Talmud Temurah 12b) and they are ritually pure. Bug even though three LOG (i.e., a LOG is equal to six egg bulks) of drawn water disqualify the Mikveh/ritual bath, the drawing of the water is kosher when it is done when conducting the water through a channel and there was there at first most of the measurement of the Mikveh which is twenty-one SEAH of rain water, and that is according to the due measure, for the drawn waters do not disqualify the Mikveh when they are accomplished by conducting the water through a channel, unless they are twenty SEAH of drawn water, as there isn’t a majority from rain water in the Mikveh. Such appears to be the explanation of this Mishnah, and so I have explained in the Tractate Terumah (Chapter 5, Mishnah 6), in the chapter, “a SEAH of Terumah,” but in the Gemara (Tractate Temurah 12b) this is its explanation, according to the measurement of the utensils, for three LOGS of drawn water do not disqualify the Mikveh until they fell from three utensils or less into the Mikveh, but if there fell from four utensil, or more, they do not disqualify, and this is what it means when it says that drawn water does not disqualify the Mikveh other than according to the due measure, for they calculate the utensils from which fell the LOGIM of water into the Mikveh and they count them, if they are three utensils or less, they invalidate the Mikveh. But if from three utensils and higher, they do not disqualify it. And our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Yosi ben Honi, for he holds that they LOGIM that fell from more than three utensils do not disqualify [the Mikveh], but it is not the Halakh."
            ],
            [
                "אין מי חטאת נעשים מי חטאת אלא עם מתן אפר – at the time when one places in it the ashes [of the red heifer] it becomes the purification waters, therefore, we require that there will be first water in a utensil and afterwards the ashes. But if he placed the ashes first and afterwards the water, it is disqualified, for there was no water there at the time of the placing of the ashes that it would become purification water, and furthermore, it does not become purification water. And there is Scripture as it is written (Numbers 19:17): “and fresh water shall be added to them in a vessel,” that implies that the water is placed in the utensil and not to the ashes, but rather, “ונתן עליו “/shall be added to them – to warn that after he puts in [the ashes] on the water, he should combine them well with his finger and return the water that is underneath it upon it.",
                "אין בית הפרס עושה בית הפרס (an area in which there uncertainty concerning the location of a grave or a corpse does not make [another field into] a grave area) – a field that was plowed as a grave, if he returned and plowed a grave area and fields that are around it, we don’t presume that are the rest of the fields is like a grave area and to state that the plough drags the bones to the fields that surround it, that one grave is not made into a grave area, but rather, all that entire field that lost the grave and it is not known where it is, with the turn of the fullness of the plough to here and another turn of the fullness of the plough to there in the same manner that it the people of the value are accustomed to plough their fields, if to the east or west or north or south, for perhaps one of its two heads was the grave and from there the bone rolled into one of the fields that is from this side or that, but the Sages estimated that with the turn of the fullness of the plough it is appropriate for the bones to roll by the plough, more not. And how much is the turn of the fullness of the plough? One-hundred cubits.",
                "ואין תרומה אחר תרומה – partners who separated Terumah one after the other, the first Terumah/heave-offering is not Terumah, for since the second [person] went back and separated Terumah, he releaved his intention that the first Terumah was not satisfactory to him, and it was for him that the first [person] separated Terumah without the knowledge of his fellow [partner], and similarly, the second. But our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Akiva, and it is not the Halakha. But rather, if the first [person] separated Terumah according to the [appropriate] measure which is one from fifty, the heave-offering of the second [person] is not Terumah. But if the first [person] only separated in a selfish/illiberal manner, as for example, that he separated at one out of sixty, the second person’s heave-offering is Terumah.",
                "ואין תרומה עושה תמורה – as Scripture (Leviticus 27:33) stated: “then it and its substitute shall both be holy: [it cannot be redeemed],” and not the heave-offering of his heave-offering.",
                "ולא הולד עושה תמורה – as Scripture stated (Leviticus 27:33): “then it,” it and not the offspring.",
                "רבי יהודה אומר הולד עושה תמורה (an offspring [of a consecrated animal] does produce a substitute) – as Scripture stated (Leviticus 27:33): \"ותרומתו יהיה-קדש\" “[and its substitute] shall [both] be [holy],” to include the offspring. But the Rabbis hold \"יהיה\"/”shall be” – to include something done inadvertently as something done willfully, for if he thought [to substitute] black [and he substituted] the white, that regarding Holy Things, he did not sanctity, because it was consecration by error, but regarding substitution, he sanctified it. And the Halakha is according to the Sages. But however, even though substitutions [for a substitute] do not produce a substitute, we hold that we substitute and we go back and substituted with one animal, and even several animals for one sanctified animal, whether at one time or one after the other, all of them are substitutions."
            ],
            [
                "שלא נאמר אלא בבהמה – but if he exchanged, he should exchange/substitute an animal/בהמה for an animal/בהמה.",
                "קדשי בדק הבית אין עושין תמורה – for concerning exchange/substitution, it is written (Leviticus 27:9): “(If [the vow concerns] any animal that may be brought) as an offering [to the LORD],” and the Holy Things for the repair of the Temple house are not called an offering/קרבן .",
                "אמר ר' שמעון והלא המעשר בכלל היה – Rabbi Shimon holds that the Holy Things for the repair of the Temple are called קרבן/an offering, therefore, we don’t derive it that it produces a substitute other than from here. ",
                "But isn’t the tithe part of this category, in the category of all the Holy Things that produce a substitute/exchange?",
                "ולמה יצא – as it is written regarding it that it makes a substitution, as it is written regarding a tithe (Leviticus 27:33): “He must not look out for good as against bad, or make substitution for it.”",
                "מה מעשר קרבן יחיד – and one performs an exchange [with an individual sacrifice], even every sacrifice/offering of an individual one can make a substitution.",
                "יצאו קרבנות צבור – and those of partners, but the tithe is not have partnership, as we learned in the last chapter of [Tractate] Bekhorot [56b] (it is listed incorrectly in the commentary of Bartenura itself) (Numbers 18:15): “[The first issue of the womb of every being, man or beast, that is offered to the LORD] shall be yours/יהיה לך “ – but not in partnership.",
                "יצאו קרבנות בדק הבית – and even though they are called an offering/קרבן – as it is written (Numbers 31:50): “So we have brought as an offering to the LORD such articles of gold as each of us came upon,” it is not the offering of the altar like the tithe. But the Sages stated above that the Holy Things for the Repair of the Temple house are not called an offering/קרבן, as they hold, assuming that it they are called the “offering of the LORD/קרבן ה' “(see Numbers 31:50), it is not called a sacrifice to God/קרבן לה' like the rest of the sacrifices of the Altar."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "יש בקרבנות היחיד. וקרבנות הצבור אין נוהגים אלא בזכרים – for most of them are burnt-offerings and the burnt-offering is a male, but they don’t bring peace-offerings other than the sheep for Atzeret/Shemini Atzeret which are males, and their sin offering is also written in all of them (Numbers 29:38): “and one goat for a purification offering [ - in addition to the regular burnt offering, its grain offering and libation],” (though this expression is also found in verses 22, 28, 31 and 34 as well as Numbers 28:22).",
                "קרבנות היחיד חייבין באחריותן (for offerings of individuals are they liable to be answerable [replacing animals set aside for he individual if said animals are lost]) – that is to say, there are from those whose time has been fixed, that even after their appropriate time has passed, one is obligated to offer them, such as, for example, the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth and the sacrifices of a leper, if his eighth day passed, he is obligated to offer them after the [appropriate] time. Bu the sacrifices of the community that have a [designated] time, if their time had passed their sacrifice is nullified.",
                "משקרב הזבח – that if the sacrifice was offered in its [designated] time, but did not offer its libations with it, they are obligated to offer them, even from here until ten days. As it is written in the [Torah] portion of Pinhas in all of them (Numbers 29:18,21 24,27, 30, 33 – in slightly different forms): “the grain offerings and libations for the bulls, [rams, and lambs, in the quantities prescribed],” to tell you that the grain offerings and libations of community sacrifices were offered even at night, and even on the next day, if they made the offering at its proper time but they didn’t come to offering the meal offerings and drink-offerings/libations, they would offer them when they had the opportunity even after several days.",
                "חביתי כהן גדול (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 4, Mishnah 5)– which supersede the Sabbath and ritual purity, as it is written regarding them (Leviticus 6:13): “[a tenth of an ephah of choice flour] as a regular grain offering,” it is for you like the meal- offering of the regular offerings that supersede the Sabbath and ritual impurity. But regarding the daily offering, it is written (Numbers 28:2): “[Be punctilious in presenting to Me] at stated times/במועדו ,” and we state “at stated times,” even on Shabbat, even in ritual impurity, for if most of the Kohanim are ritually impure, we perform it while [they are] impure [from ritual contact with the dead].",
                "ופר יוה\"כ – the bullock of the High Priest.",
                "אלא שזמנן קבוע – meaning to say, that the reason is not dependent upon other than the fixed time, for every sacrifice whose time is fixed, if the time passed [for offering the sacrifice], he has no indemnity/payment, it supersedes the Sabbath and ritual impurity (but not the community sacrifices or those sacrifices whose time was not fixed). And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir."
            ],
            [
                "חטאת היחיד שכיפרו בעליו – that it was lost and he became expiated through another [animal], and afterwards, the first animal was found.",
                "ושל צבור – that atoned through another [animal].",
                "אינן מתות – that sin-offerings left to die (i.e., sin-offerings that were disqualified and consequently can no longer be sacrificed on the altar are confined In an enclosure until they die: the offspring of a sin-offering; an animal substituted for a sin-offering; a sin-offering whose owners have died; a sin-offering whose owners have already gained atonement through an other offering; and a sin offering of sheep or goats that is more than a year old), is a usage dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai (i.e., a traditional law or a traditional interpretation of a written law), and the first Tanna/teacher [of our Mishnah] holds, that for an individual sacrifice it was learned [regarding individual sin-offerings that were disqualified] but not that of the community.",
                "רבי יהודה אומר ימותו – that those of the community were also learned/derived.",
                "אמר ר' שמעון מה מצינו – meaning to say, we hold that five sin-offerings are left to die, that their owners have died, or that their owners acquired expiation through another [animal], or that its year has passed (for sheep and/or goats), the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitution of a sin-offering. For just as that three of them are not derived from that of a community [offering], for we do not have a case found with a community, for there is no feminine sin-offering for a community [offering], and the exchange of a sin-offering also, there is no community offering that one does a substitution/exchange, or that if its owners died, there are no community offerings where it the animals are left to die (see Tractate Temurah 15b).",
                "אף שכפירו בעליה ושעברה שנתה – even though it is possible that it may be found in a community, we don’t learn/derive that they died.",
                "ביחיד דברים אמורים – that the animals are left to die, but not for a community [offering]. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "ואין תמורה עושה תמורה – the All-Merciful (i.e., God), said: (Leviticus 27:10): “[the thing vowed] and its substitute [shall both be holy],” but not the substitute of the substitute.",
                "אברים ועוברים לא ממרים – for it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “[if one does substitute] one animal for another/בהמה בבהמה ” (see Tractate Temurah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3).",
                "על בעלת מום קבוע (for a permanent blemish)(see Tractate Temurah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2) - that if he substituted an unconsecrated animal with a blemish for an pure sanctified animal, a greater holiness devolves upon it that if he would redeem it, it would go to an unconsecrated state to be sheared and/or labor but rather, according to the laws of Holy Things, that since its sanctification preceded its blemish, that when they redeem them, there is no permission for shearing and working it but rather only a permission of eating, which is not the case with Holy Things, for if their blemish preceded their sanctification, they go out to an unconsecrated state through redemption to be sheared and to labor. But regarding substitution/exchange, Scripture reveals (Leviticus 27:10): “[One My not exchange] or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good,” it did not distinguish between a pure animal and one with a blemish.",
                "עשה שוגג כמזיד בתמורה – for if he thought to say, “a black bullock that went out of from my house first will be the exchange in place of that,” and it came out of his lips, “a white bullock,” regarding exchange/substitution, it is sanctified, and he is flogged, for Scripture reveals concerning this (Leviticus 27:10): “[the thing vowed and its substitute] shall both be holy;” for the altar it is not sanctified and he is not flogged, for an errant sanctification is not sanctified.",
                "הכלאים – (a cross-bred beast) - that comes from a he-goat and a sheep/ewe.",
                "לא קדשים (are not made holy) – through substitution/exchange. But even though that its holiness occurs in its exchange/substitution [of an animal] with a permanent blemish, it does not occur on these (i.e., cross-bred beasts, a torn animal, one born from the side, a beast lacking clear-cut sexual characteristics and one that has both male and female characteristics).",
                "ולא מקדישים (and do not impart [to a substitute] the status of holiness) – other things through substitution/exchange, if hey are holy. But something torn is found that it is holy, as for example, if he sanctified an animal and afterwards it became torn, and in this, it was necessary to state that even though it is holy, it does not impart the status of substitute. But mixed-bred animals and beasts lacking clear-cut sexual characteristics and one that has both male and female characteristics , from the beginning of their creation, they have been ruined , and you cannot find sanctity in them other than with the offspring of Holy Things, for their mother was sanctified before she was impregnated, for now of their own they are holy, for they are from the womb of their mother, and through them it was necessary to state that they don’t impart the status of substitute. But according to Rabbi Yehuda who stated that in the rest of the offspring, holy things do impart the status of substitute. But they are not similar to a defect, for [an animal] with a defect there is a sacrifice for its kind, but those which are not of its kind have no sacrifice and they are considered like an impure animal that does not impart the status of substitute. But we hold like Rabbi Yossi the son of Rabbi Eliezer and like Rabbi Eleazar, for o one disputes them in this."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "אלו קדשים. וולד ולדן עד סוף העולם – in the Gemara (Tractate Temurah 17b), the objection is raised, since it taught [in the Mishnah], “their offspring” (i.e., their offspring and the substitute’s offspring), why do I need, “the offspring of their offspring to infinity?” Because our teacher/Tanna heard Rabbi Eliezer who said further on [in this Mishnah] that the offspring of peace-offerings are not offered as peace-offerings, because of this, the Tanna taught, “the offspring of their offspring to infinity,” meaning to say, not only with their offspring do I not agree with you, (since for him, the young has the law of the mother), but even “to infinity,” I do not agree with you (since even then, the young has the law of the mother).",
                "ולד שלמים לא יקרב שלמים – but rather he brings it in to the vaulted chamber (i.e., closing the barn door without food until they died) and it dies [there]. According to the Rabbis, because of a decree, if you had said the offspring of peace-offerings have a remedy, one would come to delay to the mother until she would give birth and raise a herd from the the offspring, and they would come to have shearing and work.",
                "לא נחלקו על ולד ולד שלמים – the Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer that the offspring of offspring of peace-offerings that it should not be offered, for his intention was known from his actions that he needed to raise a herd/flock. But the legal decision is according to the first Tanna/teacher that the offspring of their offspring until eternity, they are like peace-offerings.",
                "העיד רבי יהושע וכו' – and not according to Rabbi Eliezer. And this testimony is true and [the] Halakha.",
                "ואכלנו ולדה שלמים בחג – it is stated on the holiday of Shavuot, for if he would wait and look forward to the holiday of Sukkot (which is the normal meaning of the word, חג when used without a modifier), it is found that he would violate a positive commandment (Deuteronomy 12:5-6): “there you are to go, and here you are to bring [your burnt offerings and other sacrifices],” that implies that on the first Festival that you go there, bring all of the votive offerings that are upon you. However, regarding the negative commandment (Deuteronomy 23:22): “[When you make a vow to the LORD your God,] do not put off fulfilling it, [for the LORD your God will require it of you, and you will have incurrent guilt],” you do not violate until there has passed over you three Festivals."
            ],
            [
                "הרי אלו כתודה – their portions of the sacrifices that are offered on thee altar and the flesh is eaten during the day and at night.",
                "ובלבד שאינן טעונין לחם – as it is written (Leviticus 7:12): “’he shall offer together with the sacrifice if thanksgiving unleavened cakes with oil mixed in,” (the quoted sentence fragment – \"על לחם התודה\" does not exist in Scripture) the thanksgiving offering itself requires bread, but not its offspring nor its substitutes require bread.",
                "תמורת עולה – as, for example, he substituted a male for a burnt-offering (i.e., instead of a female).",
                "וולד תמורתה – as, for example, he substituted a female for a burnt-offering, for a female is dedicated in the substitution of a burnt-offering, and it gave birth to the male substitute."
            ],
            [
                "ויביא בדמיו עולה – the first segment [of the Mishnah] as it is taught: “lo, these are like a burnt-offering regarding the offspring of a substitute,” because of the first dedication that these came all of them were from his own power that he offers them, for it is a male. But here, when he sets aside a female as a burnt-offering, that all of them come from his own power, it is feminine and it is not offered, therefore, it is not like a burnt-offering, but rather, he should sell it and bring a burnt-offering with its monetary value.",
                "המפריש נקבה לאשם – but a guilt-offering does not come from a female [beast].",
                "תרעה עד שיסתאב – until a blemish befalls it. And in the Gemara (Tractate Temurah 19b) it raises the objection: “But let it be sold, for since it is not fit for anything, that in itself constitutes a blemish, and it is not sanctified other than for its value, it should be sold immediately and then one can purchase a guilt-offering with its proceeds. And it answers, for since the holiness of its value rests on it, there also rests on it bodily consecration and it is for this thing that it requires a blemish.",
                "אם קרב אשמו – and furthermore, he does not need a guilt-offering.",
                "יפלו דמיו לנדבה – for the horn-shaped boxes in the Temple to receive the money for sacrifices which are supplied by the Temple authorities that from them they take to bring to the free-will offerings of the community.",
                "תמכר שלא במום – for since it is not appropriate for a guilt-offering, there is no greater blemish from this, for it was not sanctified for the bodily consecration , and it should be immediately sold and he can bring with its proceeds a guilt-offering. But even though that regarding someone who separates a female beast for a burnt-offering, Rabbi Shimon does not dispute that it requires a blemish, there that there is a burnt-offering with a female beast, for we find a female burnt offering with a bird, but a guilt offering with a female beast, we don’t find. Therefore, this this is its blemish and it is not sanctified other than for its monetary value. But the Halakha is not a according to Rabbi Shimon.",
                "תמורת אשם וכ' – all of them are to pasture, for the Halakha is that all that with a sin-offering is left to die, with a guilt-offering it is to pasture [until it develops a blemish and then it is sold], and the substitute for a sin-offering is left to die.",
                "ומותו – for Rabbi Eliezer holds that just as sin-offering, so too with a guilt-offering; just as a sin-offering’s substitute is left to die, also, the substitute of a guilt-offering.",
                "יביא בדמיהן עולות – which are permissible for an individual’s donation, we we follow, but not for the donation of a community.",
                "אשם שמתו בעליו או שכיפורו בעליו באחר – that with a sin-offering, it should die, but with a guilt-offering, it should pasture until it is blemished [and then sold]."
            ],
            [
                "והלא אף הנדבה עולה – [the Mishnah] is explaining what is the difference between them (i.e., the first Tanna/teacher [that the animal should be left out to pasture to develop a blemish, be sold and that its monetary value should be donated to the Temple treasury as a free-will offering] and Rabbi Eleazar [that he should purchase with its proceeds a burnt-offering]).",
                "בזמן שהיא באה חובה – when it is placed upon the individual to over it, he lays his hands upon it, etc. (i.e., he brings drink-offerings/libations on its account, and the libations are from his own funds).",
                "ואם היה כהן – he who set aside the guilt-offering and was expiated through another [animal], and the first, an animal dedicated as a guilt-offering, has been condemned to pasture until natural death.",
                "עבודתה ועורה – of the burnt-offering purchased from the proceeds of that guilt-offering, is his, and he himself offers and takes the hide, and even if it is not from the priestly watch of that week.",
                "אינו סומך עליה – for it is the free-will donation of the community which does not have the laying of the hands.",
                "ואע\"פ שהוא כהן עבודתה ועורה לאנשי משמר – for it is of the community, and a Kohen from a different priestly watch is not permitted to offer it up, as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:8): “[They shall receive equal shares of the dues,] without regard to personal gifts or patrimonies,” what the patrimonies sold to each other, you take on your Shabbat, and I will take on my Shabbat. And the Halakha is according to the Sages."
            ],
            [
                "הרי אלו כבכור וכמעשר – like the sanctity of the firstling and the tithe of the cattle, which are not slaughtered in the booths of a mercantile fair/bazaar.",
                "חוץ מהבכור והמעשר (see Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1) – because there is no benefit for something sanctified in the salle, for the proceeds of a firstling go to a Kohen, and the proceeds of a tithe go to the owners, and because of their benefit, we don’t treat them lightly.",
                "ובאין מחוצה לארץ לארץ חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר (see Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 9, Mishnah 1) – for they don’t come ab initio from outside the land of Israel, as the reason is explained beyond. But if they came as pure animals, they are sacrificed.",
                "",
                "אמר ר' שמעון מה טעם – that the firstling and the tithe do not come from outside the Land of Israel like the other Holy Things.",
                "שבכור ומעשר יש להם פרנסה במקומן – they have repair in their places that [the animals] will go out to pasture until they become unfit for sacrifices and their owners will consume them with their blemishes.",
                "ושאר כל הקדשים – even though a blemish befell them, they are in their sanctity, you need to redeem them and to elevate their monetary value and to offer them up., for since their end is to elevate their monetary value, they should raise them themselves and offer them up. But the legal decision is, that a firstling and a tithe that were pure that came up from outside the Land [of Israel] should not be offered up, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:23): “You shall consume the tithes of your new grain and wine and oil, in the presence of the LORD your God,” from the place that you raise up tithes and grain, you raise up the firstling, and from the place that you don’t raise up the tithe of your new grain, you don’t raise up the firstling. And the tithe of cattle is also made an analogy to the tithe of your new grain."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "ולד חטאת שעברה שנתה – it is not appropriate to sacrifice it as a sin-offering, for it is written (Numbers 15:27): “[In case it is an individual who has sinned unwittingly, he shall offer a she-goat] in its first year as a purification offering (i.e., sin-offering).” However, because of this disqualification alone it does not die, but rather, it should be sent out to pasture until it develops a blemish until there are two causes for suspicion/unfavorable conditions, that one year passed and it was lost, or that it was lost and it was found with a blemish. And this is how the Mishnah is resolved in the Gemara (Tractate Temura 22a), and that which was lost, as it is taught, counts both here, and there. And this is what it means: that its year had passed (i.e., the animal now being older than one-year) and that which was lost and when it was found there was a blemish in it.",
                "אם משכיפרו הבעלים – if after this (i.e., animal) was found, the owners effected atonement with another.",
                "תמות – and even according to the Rabbis who dispute Rabbi [Judah the Prince] further on in our chapter (see the concluding clause of Mishnah 3), who states, that the sin-offering did not die, but rather that it was found after the owners effected atonement, in this they admit, for since there are two causes for unfavorable conditions, that its [first] year had passed and that it was lost, or that it was lost, and it was found to have a blemish. But if it was only lost, since it was found prior to atonement, even though after it was found, the owners had effected atonement with another [animal], it does not die but rather is put out to pasture.",
                "לא נהנים – according to the Rabbis.",
                "ולא מועלין – if they benefitted from them, they are exempt from the sacrifice of misappropriation (or religious sacrilege), for since neither it nor its monetary value is offered [as a sacrifice], its holiness departs [from it].",
                "ואם עד שלא כיפרו הבעלים – and they did not want to be atoned with another [animal].",
                "תרעה עד שתסתאב – this refers to and its year had passed (i.e., it was now older than a year), for that where it was lost and it was found with a blemish, it is sold immediately and he purchases another with its monetary value.",
                "ועושה תמורה – for since its monetary value stands to be offered, for something that stands in order that it should sent out to pasture and develop a blemish makes for an exchange/substitution."
            ],
            [
                "ואח\"כ נמצאת הראשונה תמות – this sin-offering that its owners were expiated through another.",
                "ילכו לים המלח – whenever there would be a sin-offering, there would be a death, money/coins also go to the Dead Sea (literally: the Sea of Salt)."
            ],
            [
                "יביא מאלו ומאלו – that he should mix them together. For since he brings from both of them, it is not a case of a sin-offering where its owners were expiated with another. But if he brought [only] from one of them, the other is made inoperative, for they have the monetary value of the sin-offering that its owners were expiated with another.",
                "והשאר יפלו לנדבה – this would be like the rest of those leftovers of sin-offerings that go to free-will donation.",
                "והרי חטאת בעלת מום – but if the sin-offering [that had been originally been lost] was pure, it should be offered and the monies [that would have been used to replace it] should go to the Dead Sea, since the owners were expiated with another. And all of these are according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince] who said, it was lost at the time of it being separated, such as these monies, and they were found prior to atonement, they go to the Dead Sea.",
                "והשניה תמות דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים כו' – everyone agrees that when one is expiated by that which is not lost, that the lost one (i.e., animal that had been set aside) dies. They did not dispute other where he was expiated with a lost [object], for Rabbi [Judah the Prince] holds that a person who set something aside to be lost is like it is lost, meaning to say, one who sets aside [another] in place of the lost sacrifice, its law is like something lost. And just as if it the person was expiated with that which was not lost, the lost [object] that remains, when it is found, its law is that it should die. Similarly, here also , when he was expiated with one of them, and even with those that were lost, those that were not lost should go to the Dead Sea. But the Rabbis state, we did not state that a person sets something aside to become lost is like it is lost. And especially when a person is expiated with something that is not lost and the lost [object] remains, the lost object “dies” and even though it is found prior to atonement. But if he was expiated with a lost object and there remained [an animal] that was not lost, it does not die, but rather it should be put to pasture until it develops a blemish. And the Halakha is according to the Sages."
            ],
            [
                "מוכרה ויביא בדמיה אחרת – for when he sold it (i.e., the sin-offering) to another, it is considered as if it doesn’t exist. But all the while that it is under its owner at the time that he is atoning with another [animal], it should die. But Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon holds, that all the time that it is alive after the owners were expiated with another, whether it is under [the control of its owner] or in the hand of others, it should die. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "כיצד מערימין על הבכור – to cancel the obligation/release it (i.e., the firstling) from the Kohen and to sacrifice it for his own obligation.",
                "ילדה זכר יקרב עולה – for a firstling is not holy other than in the womb, and since ab initio, it takes effect in another holiness, furthermore, the holiness of its being a firstling no long takes effect with it.",
                "ואם נקבה זבחי שלמים – we are not speaking about a female beast, for the female is not holy with the firstling that one needs to make a deception on it. But the sanctified beast, that if it is sin-offering and she became pregnant and one wants to make a deception so that it will not go to die, for the offspring of a sin-offering goes to its death, one can change it it to another sanctity. [And this comes to inform us] that the offspring of Holy Things, while they are born holy and not in the wombs of their mother, for since they had not yet been sanctified with the holiness of their mothers, one is able to engraft upon them another holiness, so that when they are born, they will not be a sin-offering."
            ],
            [
                "ילדה שני זכרים – we are speaking about an unconsecrated animal, if the animal was dedicated, how was something that was sanctified as a burnt-offering let it be a burnt-offering, for the other one refers to the sanctity of its mother. But it is certainly an unconsecrated animal, and therefore, this one whose monetary value was not sanctified is unconsecrated. But however, on both of them, the holiness of a burnt-offering exists. For since he stated that if [he born animal] is a male, it is a burnt-offering, and because he did not vow other than for one, therefore, he should offer the one for his vow, and the second he should sell for the needs of a burnt-offering and its monetary value/worth is unconsecrated.",
                "אין קדושה חלה עליהן – for the offspring become holy because they are holy [at the time of their existence] and not from the belly of their mother, and since that these when they leave [their mother’s womb] are not appropriate for sacrifice, they are not holy. But the Sages dispute Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel as they hold that the offspring are holy and exist through the holiness of their mother [from the womb]. And the Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel (see Talmud Temurah 25a)."
            ],
            [
                "האומר – on the offspring of a pregnant animal.",
                "ולדה של זו עולה והיא שלמים דבריו קיימין – for the holiness of the offspring takes precedence. But if he said in the first clause [of the Mishnah] that it is a peace-offering, she and that which she has in her is sanctified, and it is like one is sanctifying two animals for peace offerings, for if he retracted and stated that her offspring is a burnt-offering, the offspring is a peace-offspring. But here, it does not belong to state that while they are in the belly of their mother, for when we state that they exist and they are not in the belly of their mother, these words apply when it was sanctified [first] and at the end she became pregnant, for he did not deposit to the fetus any holiness, but rather it is sanctified from the holiness of its mother. But when one sanctifies a pregnant woman, it is considered that the fetus receives the holiness. But Rabbi Meir holds (see Tractate Temurah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1) that the first language takes hold.",
                "אם לכך נתכוין מתחלה – when he said that she (i.e., the mother) is a peace-offering, he did not intend [to speak] about her offspring.",
                "הואיל ואי אשפר לקרות שני שמות כאחת – the mouth is unable to say two things at the same time.",
                "דבריו קיימין – that even at the conclusion of his words, the person is made responsible.",
                "נמלך ואמר ולדה עולה – even though he retracted in as much time as is needed for an utterance and he stated that her offspring is a burnt-offering, he didn’t say anything, for since that at the time when he dedicated its mother as a peace-offering, he didn’t intend that the offspring would be a burnt-offering. Because we establish that every time as is needed for an utterance is like something spoken, except from one who dedicates and commands and blasphemes and worships idolatry and betroths and divorces, for these six [things] no retraction has any effect in them, even though he retracted in as much time as is needed for an utterance. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi."
            ],
            [
                "תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים – we have the reading, but we don’t have the reading, “and the substitute of peace offerings.”",
                "הרי זה תמורת עולה – for the first language takes hold.",
                "דבריו קיימין – and half of it is the substitute for a burnt-offering and half of it is the substitute of a peace-offering. And that which he didn’t state, the substitute for a burnt-offering and peace offering, ut he stated a substitute for both of them, because he (i.e., Rabbi Yossi) holds that if I stated the substitute of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, it will be holy and not offered, according to the law that a person who states that half of it will be a burnt-offering and half of it a piece offering, that it is holy and not offered. And he erred in this and held that a lamb can be a substitute on each one of them just as it should be completely sanctified to be offered up, therefore, even though he stated it in this language, he intended it for both, but it should sent out to pasture until it develops a blemish and it should be sold and then he can bring with its monetary value half for a burnt-offering and with the monetary value of the [other] half a peace-offering, and in this we are dealing, as for example, that there were before him a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, when he substituted this for them. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi."
            ],
            [
                "תחת זו חליפי זו תמורת זו – all of them are the language of substitution/exchange.",
                "מחוללת – it is the language of desecration/defamation. And he didn’t say anything, for a sacred pure animal goes out to unconsecrated purposes.",
                "ואם היה הקדש בעל מום יצא לחולין – even though it is not worth like that of a consecrated animal with a blemish, according to the Torah, even something sanctified that is worth one-hundred Maneh that was redeemed for the equivalent of a penny, it is redeemed. And even though it went out to an unconsecrated purpose from the Torah, one must, according to the Rabbis make money, meaning to say, to pay the money so that the sanctified thing will not become overcharged, but from the Torah, there is no overreaching for that which is sanctified, as it is written (Leviticus 25:14): “you shall not wrong one another,” your brother/another person, but not that which is sanctified."
            ],
            [
                "תחת חטאת או תחת עולה – he stated anonymously but did not state in place of this sin-offering or this burnt-offering.",
                "לא אמר כלום – as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “One may not exchange or substitute another for it,” until the sanctified thing is known and special when one substitutes for it.",
                "תחת חטאת זו – and that sin-offering was standing before him.",
                "הרי אלו לעולה – which implies for the monetary value of the burnt-offering, for if they themselves want to offer it, he would say, “lo, these are a burnt-offering.”"
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "כל האסורים לגבי מזבח (all [animals] which are prohibited for the altar – that they are invalid for offering as a sacrifice. And you consider them and further.",
                "אסורין בכל שהן (prohibit in any number at all [animals among which they are confused]) – and even if they were combined one in one-thousand, all of them are forbidden to the altar, if it was not known. And all of them are found that they are not known, except for the torn animal which is not found and is not known other that, as for example, the lion or the wolf attacked that are mixed with the vital organ perforated by a thorn.",
                "הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד – they are ineligible for the altar. As it states in Scripture (Leviticus 22:25): “for they are mutilated, they have a defect,” and it is taught in a Baraitha, every place where it states, “they are mutilated,” is none other than unchastity and idolatry. Unchastity, as it is written (Genesis 6:12): “for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth.” Idolatry, as it is written (Deuteronomy 4:16): “not to act wickedly and make for yourselves a sculptured image [in any likeness whatever: the form of a man or a woman].” The one (i.e., animal) that has sexual relations with a human being and the one (i.e., animal) with whom a human being has sexual relations that is taught in our Mishnah, as for example that he had sex or has sexual relations with an animal with one witness or by the owners, and is not stoned in this, but they are disqualified from being a sacrifice.",
                "מוקצה – an animal that was set aside for idolatry. And it is not disqualified for being offed up until they should do with it an act for the purposes of idolatry, as for example, that the [non-Jewish] priests served it if it was a bull or sheared it if it was a sheep.",
                "ונעבד – it is not prohibited to derive benefit even though he worshipped it, for living creatures are not prohibited to derive benefit when we serve them, but they are disqualified to the altar.",
                "ואתנן ומחיר (and the harlot’s hire and the price of a dog) – Scripture specifically disqualifies them (Deuteronomy 23:19): “You shall not bring the fee of a whore or the pay of a dog [into the house of the LORD your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both are abhorrent to the LORD your God].”",
                "וכלאים – a he-goat that comes upon a ewe.",
                "והטריפה – as it is written regarding tithes (Leviticus 27:32): “[All tithes of the herd or the flock] – of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff,” excluding the torn animal that does not pass [under the shepherd’s staff] and the sacrifice of the altar is derived from the tithe of cattle.",
                "ויוצא דופן – that its mother was torn and they removed the fetus through the caesarian section, and we exclude it from Scripture as it is written (Leviticus 22:27): “[When an ox or a sheep or a goat] is born”, excluding through caesarian section.",
                "הוא אסור – for the altar.",
                "ומה שעליו מותר – for that is not worshipped.",
                "הוא ומה שעליו אסור – it is prohibited for the altar, but is permitted even for eating, as it will be mentioned nearby. But what is upon it, the jewelry that is upon it are prohibited from deriving benefit for they were worshipped and they have on them the grasp of a human hand."
            ],
            [
                "האומר לזונה – whether she is a heathen woman or an Israelite woman, and it shall be one of those liable for violating a negative commandment and one doesn’t have to say from one who is liable for extirpation and death by the Jewish court. But the hire of a harlot of a free woman, and she is an Israelite, is not disqualified for the Altar, for this is not the hire of a harlot, for she is not forbidden from marrying into the priesthood with this sexual act. And similarly, the hire [of a harlot] that was given as wife to a man is not disqualified, but a male hire, is disqualified.",
                "אפילו מאה כולן אסורים – he made a condition with her to give her one lamb as her hire and sent her even one-hundred, we don’t say that one that I will give with her will be a hire [for harlot] and these others are all a gift, but all of them are considered hire for harlot and prohibited [as an offering].",
                "ותלין שפחתך אצל עבדי – we are speaking of my Hebrew slave who does not have a wife and children, for his master does not have permission to provides to him a Canaanite maid servant to beget from her slaves because he didn’t have a wife from the outset. Therefore, her being a hire for harlotry is prohibited according to the words of the Sages. But Rabbi [Judah the Prince] who stated that it is not the hire of a harlot, he doesn’t hold this reasoning, for certainly even if he lacks a wife and children, his master provides for him a Canaanite maid servant. Alternatively, even if he holds this reasoning, he holds that since a Hebrew slave was permitted from its general rule with a Canaanite maid servant, it is not considered a hire of a harlot. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince]."
            ],
            [
                "אחד נטל עשרה ואחד נטל תשעה טלאים וכלב – corresponding to the ten lambs that his fellow took, the ten lambs that correspond to the nine [lambs] and the dog, all are prohibited [to the Temple] because of the price of a dog. But the nine [lambs] that are with the dog are permitted. But in the Gemara (Tractate Temurah 30a) it raises the question, why that which corresponds with the dog, all of them are prohibited? We should remove one for this dog, and these [lambs] all of them should be permitted. And it answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the value of the dog was greater of any one [of the corresponding lambs] and this additional amount is distributed over all [the corresponding lambs] (where not one of the corresponding lambs is of equal value to the dog, some of the additional value of the dog is extended to each of the lambs), and now the value of the dog belongs to all of them. As for example, those [lambs] that are corresponding are each worth one Denar – which is ten Denarim, and those nine [lambs] that are with him (i.e., the dog) are each worth a Denar minus a M’ah, which are nine Denarim less nine M’ot, but the dog is worth a Denar and nine Meot, it is found that those ten [lambs] corresponding to the nine [lambs] and the they have nine, for in each one of them there is M’ah the price of a dog, and the tenth is entirely the price of a dog.",
                "שנים ולא ארבעה – both of them (see Deuteronomy 23:19 – “for both/שניהם are abhorrent to the LORD your God”) as it is written in Scripture they divide it as if it is written as “two.” “Two” teaches us specifically the hire for a harlot and the price of a dog, and not four – the price of a dog and the fee for a harlot, and they are, implying them, but not their offspring."
            ],
            [
                "נתן לה כפים הרי אלו מותרים – [he gave the whore pieces of silver] – to purchase with them an animal for a sacrifice and fine flour for meal-offerings.",
                "יינות שמנים וסלתות אסורים – but wheat [as hire] and she made it into flour; olives and she made it into olive oil, grapes and she made it into wine, these are permitted, for we expound “both of them”/שניהם (Deuteronomy 23:19) but not their products and not their offspring (see Talmud Temurah 30b according to the School of Hillel).",
                "נתן לה מוקדשים – as for example, he separated a lamb for his Passover offering and after some time, said to the harlot: “Have sexual relations with me and I will transmit my share on my Passover offering with your hiring [of a harlot].” You might think I would say that since a person is permitted to appoint others over his Passover offering, he is appointed, but I would say that to cause upon her [a harlot] for hire, it comes to teach us that this is not the case, since Scripture states (Deuteronomy 23:19): “in fulfillment of any vow,” to exclude that which is already vowed.",
                "עופות – of unconsecrated [fowl].",
                "הרי אלו – disqualified for offering as a sacrifice for the hire [of a whore] and the pay [of a dog] fall upon them.",
                "עופות שאין הום פוסל בהן – as Scripture states (Leviticus 22:19): “[it must, to be acceptable in your favor,] be a male without blemish [from cattle] or sheep [or goats],” but there are not pure or male with fowl.",
                "לכל נדר – all, to include the fowl, for it too comes with a vow, for the fee [of a whore] or the pay [of a dog] occur upon it."
            ],
            [
                "כל האסורים לגבי המזבח – such as an female animal that copulated [with a human male] unnaturally when it is unconsecrated and afterwards became pregnant, the offspring are permitted as a sacrifice, for the permitted male [animal] that comes upon this animal, and this female animal is forbidden, both of them caused the offspring that would come and both of them caused it, it is permitted. But if she engaged in unnatural copulation when she was pregnant, the offspring is disqualified for a sacrifice, for she and her offspring engaged in unnatural copulation.",
                "ולד טריפה – should not be offered. But for the lay person, everyone says that it is permitted, for it is not from her body that it comes. And there is a dispute in the chapter “Which are the torn animals?” (Tractate Hullin 58a). There is according to one who states that the torn animal gives birth, and there is according to the one who states that a torn animal does not give birth. According to the one who states that a torn animal gives birth, it is found regarding her as for example, that it became torn, and at the end became pregnant, and in this they dispute, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that both the “parents” caused this prohibition, but the Rabbis hold that both the “parents” caused it to be permitted. But according to the one who states that the torn animal does not give birth, we find concerning it, as for example, that she became pregnant, and then at the end became torn, and in this they disagree, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that the fetus is the descendant of the mother, but the Rabbis hold that the fetus is not the descendant of the mother. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.",
                "כשרה שינקה מן הטריפה פסולה – all that day that she suckled during the time of twenty-four astronomical hours, she is disqualified for being offered as a sacrifice, for since she was able to exist on that milk without other consumption, and does not eat from her belly until he completes the twenty-four astronomical hours. But after that he ate from her belly, Rabbi Hananiah admits that she is fit/kosher, and even an animal that became fattened with idolatrous vetches/horse-bean everyone admits that he is fit for the Altar. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Haninah ben Antigonus (see Talmud Temurah 31a).",
                "שאין פודים את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים – that consecrated animals that had been disqualified that were redeemed, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:15): “you may slaughter and eat meat [in any of your settlements],” and we expound, “you may slaughter” but not shearing; “and eat” but not to your dogs; “meat” but not milk."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "יש בקדשי מזבח. שקדשי מזבח עושים תמורה – and specifically animals of the Holy Things of the Altar. But fowl and meal-offerings we don’t make substitutions/exchanges. And the Holy Things consecrated for Temple maintenance, we don’t make substitutions, above at the end of the first chapter [of Tractate Temurah, Mishnah 6], we exclude from Holy Things consecrated for Temple maintenance from Biblical verses and we don’t make/produce substitutions.",
                "משום פגול ונותר וטמא – all of them are written with regard to peace-offerings, and peace-offerings were included within all of the Holy Things, and why were they excluded, to make an analogy with them, to tell you, just as peace-offerings are special Holy Things of the Altar, so too are all Holy Things of the Altar.",
                "ולדן וחלבן אסור לאחר פדיונן (see Tractate Hullin, Chapter 10, Mishnah 2) – their milk, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:15): “[you may slaughter and eat] meat/בשר [in any of your settlements,]” but not milk. And their offspring, such as if she became pregnant before their redemption but gave birth after their redemption, for they don’t have a remedy to offer them as a sacrifice, for out of the power of holiness that is superseded/suspended, it comes, to remove them, the matter is not strong enough to have their redemption occur. But if they became pregnant after their redemption, they are like the offspring of a deer and a ram and are permitted. But regarding the Holy Things for Temple maintenance, even if it (i.e., the animal) became pregnant before their redemption, they are permitted, for they were not sanctified other than for their monetary value and their sanctification is not so much.",
                "אין נותנים מהם – from the Holy Things of the Altar.",
                "לאומנים (see Tractate Shekalim, Chapter 4, Mishnayot 5-6) – that build at the Temple.",
                "בשכרן – that they take salary from the Holy Things for Temple maintenance, for the All-Merciful stated (Exodus 25:8): “And let them make Me a sanctuary [that I may dwell among them],” \"לי\"/for Me, from what is Mine, which is from the Holy Things for Temple Maintenance."
            ],
            [
                "חל על הכל (apply to anything) – and even to an impure animal and to stones.",
                "ומועלין בגידוליהן (laws of sacrilege apply to that produced by them/what has grown from them)– see Tractate Meilah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 5) – an individual who sanctifies an animal for Temple maintenance commits sacrilege through its milk, and if he dedicated a chicken, he commits sacrilege through use of its eggs, which is not the case regarding that which is sanctified to the Temple, for the milk of sanctified things and the eggs of turtle-doves one does not not derive benefit nor does not commit sacrilege.",
                "ואין בהם הנאה לכהנים – but the Holy Things of the Altar they (i.e., the priests) have of them, as the meat is eaten by the Kohanim and there are those of them who benefit from the hide [of the animal, except for the tithe of cattle and the Passover offering]."
            ],
            [
                "אין משנין אותן מקדושה לקדושה – the Holy Things of the Altar one should not make peace-offerings into burnt-offerings nor burnt-offerings into peace-offerings, and similarly, something sanctified for the maintenance of the hall containing the golden altar should not change them to the maintenance of the altar, and everything in a similar manner.",
                "ומקדישין אותן – it refers to things dedicated to the altar.",
                "הקדש עילוי (consecration of value to be applied to the repair/maintenance of the Temple) (see Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 8, Mishnah - they sanctify – in the case of of animals sanctified for the altar – their estimate value as a sanctified thing – see Talmud Temurah 32a) – as for example, if he said regarding a burnt-offering, lo, this is for the maintenance of the Temple, they offer it up on the altar in funds, according to what he has in it and gives it to the Treasurer as it is taught in [Tractate] Arakhin [Chapter 8, Mishnah 7]: “A person declares HEREM/renounces things he has declared holy [whether they are in the status of the Most Holy Things or Lesser Holy Things], if it is a vow, he gives its value; if it is a freewill offering, he gives what it is wroth to him,” meaning to say, if this animal was a vow, as, for example, that he said: “This will be a burnt-offering upon me,” and he separated this for his vow, since if it died or was stolen, he is liable for its surety (i.e., property which may be resorted to in the event of non-payment), if its found, all of it is his, and he gives all of its monetary value to proerty set apart for the Temple or the priest to the Kohen. And the same law applies also if he designated it to the upkeep of the Temple. If he made a freewill donation, that he said, “this will be a burnt-offering,” that if it died, he is not liable for its surety, it is found that he had no portion in it other than the benefit of discretion that he is permitted to take a small thing in order that he would give this burnt-offering to the Kohen who is the son of his daughter, and that benefit of discretion he gives to the maintenance of the Temple.hHHh",
                "ומחרימין אותן – if he renounced (i.e., put into HEREM) the Holy Things of the Altar, he gives to the Kohen the , he gives to the Kohen the valuation as has been explained (see Tractate Temurah 32a). But the Holy Things for the maintenance of the Temple that he designated whether for the Holy Things of the Altar or those renounced things of the priests, he didn’t do anything, for they are not his, for a person does not sanctify/dedicate something that is not his. This is what Maimonides wrote.",
                "ואם מתו – the animals that are the Holy Things of the Altar, even after they suffered a blemish, but still had not been redeemed.",
                "יקברו – and he is not able to redeem them and/or to feed them to the dogs. And een the one wo holds that we redeem the Holy Things to feed them to dogs, these words apply when it was torn, for it is possible for it (i.e., the animal) to be placed (before the priest) and evaluated (see Leviticus 27:11-12), but when it died where it is impossible to fulfill with them placing them (before the priest) and his evaluating them, we don’t redeem them.",
                "ר' שמעון אומר קדשי בדק הבית אם מתו יפדו – for Rabbi Shimon holds that it doesn’t say “he placed before the priest and evaluated” (see Leviticus 27:11-12 –“the animal shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall assess it”) other than Holy Things of the Altar, but not Holy Things for the maintenance of the Temple. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "ואלו הן הנקברין – these are because of the prohibition of deriving benefit.",
                "הפילה שליא תקבר – for there is no after-birth/placenta without the offspring.",
                "ושער נזיר – for if the hair of the Nazirite was pure when he shaves on the day of his fulfillment of the days of his Nazirite [vow], it is through burning and not through burial.",
                "חולין שנשחטו בעזרה ישרפו – because they exchange Holy Things that occurred to them disqualifying defilement or the disqualification of a remnant, and they errored to state regarding them also that they should be buried, but we derive from what is written regarding a sin-offering/purification offering (Leviticus 6:23): “[But no purification offering may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary;] any such shall be consumed in fire,” that teaches on all the disqualified things that are in holiness that they are burned, therefore, non-consecrated animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are also through burning.",
                "וכן חיה שנשחטה בעזרה – and even though that wildlife one does not make a decree about for perhaps they erred to bury disqualified Holy Things, for the entire world knows that there is no wildlife among the Holy Things, and they don’t come to be exchanged, even such should be burned. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon."
            ],
            [
                "חמץ בפסח – Our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Yehuda who stated [Tractate Pesahim 28b/see Tractate Pesahim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1 where the Sages argue that the Hametz should be thrown to the wind or cast to the sea, and the Halakha is according to the Sages, though interestingly, we burn the Hametz ceremonially on the eve of Passover], remnant [from the Passover sacrifice] is forbidden (see Exodus 12:10: “You shall not leave any of it over until morning; if any of it is left until morning, you shall burn it.”) and Hametz/leaven is prohibited through leaving it over (see Exodus 12:15: “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day to the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel” and Exodus 12:19: “No leaven shall be found in your houses for seven days. For whoever eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off rom the community of Israel.”), just as remnant [is destroyed] by burning, so even leaven [is destroyed] by burning. But it is not the Halakha.",
                "ותרומה טמאה – as it is written (Numbers 18:8): “[The LORD spoke further to Aaron:] I hereby give you charge of My gifts,” the Biblical verse speaks of two gifts/תרומתי , one a pure tithe and another an impure tithe, and it is written לך/ “to you,” yours that would be for kindling underneath your meal.",
                "ערלה – it is derived from food crops in a vineyard (Deuteronomy 22:9): “[You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed] else the crop – from the seed you have sown – [and the yield of the vineyard may not be used],” is burned with fire.",
                "את שדרכו לישרף – it is referring to Orlah (i.e., fruit that grows during the first three years after a tree was planted) and fruit crops in a vineyard (see Deuteronomy 22:9 above), foodstuffs of Orlah and fruit crops in a vineyard that are usually burned should be burned; liquids that are not usually burned are buried.",
                "ומדליקין בפת ובשמן של תרומה – because it includes impure heave-offering with leaven on Passover and fruit that grows during the first three years after a tree was planted/Orlah with fruit crops in a vineyard beause they are prohibitions of deriving benefit, for just as one should not error to say that impure heave-offering is prohibited to derive benefit from it, the Tanna/teacher retracted and they kindle [a flame] to benefit from [unclean] bread and oil of unclean heave-offering."
            ],
            [
                "חוץ לזמנן – on condition of eating them outside their [appropriate] time or outside of their [appropriate] place.",
                "ישרפו – as it is written (Leviticus 6:23): “[But no purification offering (i.e., sin-offering) may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary;] any such shall be consumed by fire,” which teaches about all those disqualified things that are in a holy state, that they are burned.",
                "אשם תלוי – if he slaughtered it but prior to the sprinkling of its blood, it became known to hm that he didn’t sin, for now it is an unconsecrated [animal] in the Temple courtyard.",
                "חטאת העוף הבאה על הספק – as, for a example, a woman who had an abortion, it is doubtfully an offspring, and doubtfully a spirit/soul, since the sin-offering for a woman giving birth is from the birds, as it is written (Leviticus 12:6): “[On the completion of her period of purification, for either a son or a daughter, she shall bring at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a lamb in its first year for a burnt-offering,] and a pigeon or a turtledove for a purification (i.e., sin-offering) offering,” she brings it on the doubt, for it does not rise up in smoke (i.e., through offering incense), it does not matter to us if he sprinkled the blood on this doubtful [sacrifice, and it is not eaten, for lest it was not an offspring and it was an unconsecrated animal or something that died of itself, for unconsecrated animals are not eaten through the pinching of the neck, and it should burn, for it is like all other disqualified Holy Things.",
                "יטילנה לאמה – a canal was passing in the Temple and it goes out to the Kidron valley stream, and we are speaking of a young bird that gradually decays/softens in the continuous flow of water.",
                "כל הנשרפין לא יקברו – for perhaps a person would die and find them and eat them.",
                "וכל הנקברין לא ישרפו – because everything that is buried, its ashes are forbidden. But all of things that are burned such as leaven/Hametz, and tithe and mixed seats, its ashes are permitted for the washing of clothing. And similarly, all of the dedicated things that are burned, also their ashes are permitted, except for the removal of the ashes from the altar, as the All-Merciful wrote (Leviticus 6:3): “[and he shall take up the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt offering on the altar] and place them beside the altar.” And it is taught in a Baraitha: “and he shall place them”/ושמו – gently, “and he shall place them” – all of it, “and he shall place them” – so that it doesn’t scatter.",
                "רבי יהודה אומר כו' – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda in each of the three segments of our Mishnah."
            ]
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah",
        "Comment"
    ]
}