Temurah 5:3 - 5:4

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.