Temurah 1:5 - 1:6

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.