Temurah 2:3 - 3:1

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.