פירוש על תמורה 1:5

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.

Hatat water does not become hatat water except with the putting of ashes [in the water]. “Hatat water” is the water mixed in the ashes of the red heifer that is used in the purification ritual. The water does not become hatat water until the ashes are put into them. This also can mean that if there is some water that already has the ashes mixed in, and then more water falls in, they must again put more ashes in so that the new water can become “hatat water.”

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.

A doubtful graveyard cannot make another doubtful graveyard. A field in which there was a grave and then was plowed becomes a “doubtful graveyard.” This status extends for 100 cubits from where the grave was. However, if the “doubtful graveyard” is then plowed again, it does not make another doubtful graveyard.

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.

Nor can terumah be made after terumah. If one separates terumah from his produce, and then separates terumah a second time, the second batch of terumah is not 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.

A substitute cannot make another substitute. If one has an animal that is holy because he attempted to substitute it for another animal, and then he tries to substitute another animal for the substitute, the second substitute is not holy. That is what the mishnah means when it says, “A substitute [that has already been made holy] does not make another substitute.

ולא הולד עושה תמורה – as Scripture stated (Leviticus 27:33): “then it,” it and not the offspring.

The offspring of a dedicated animal cannot make a substitute. Rabbi Judah says: the offspring of a dedicated animal can make a substitute. They said to him: a dedicated animal can make a substitute, but neither the offspring of a dedicated animal nor a substitute can make a substitute. The sages debate whether when one substitutes an animal for the offspring of a dedicated animal, the substitute is holy. The sages say that it is not, for they hold that only the originally dedicated animal can make another animal into a substitute. Rabbi Judah expands the laws of substitutes and holds that even the offspring can make a substitute.

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.