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.”