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.