שלש שדות ושתי מענות וכמה מלא מענה מאה אמה כדתניא החורש את הקבר עושה בית הפרס מלא מענה מאה אמה A beit haperas extends over three fields, the field that was plowed and the two adjacent fields in the direction it was plowed. For example, if one plowed the field from north to south, each of the fields adjacent to it on the north and south is also considered a beit haperas. But whereas the plowed field is a beit haperas in its entirety, the two adjacent fields are a beit haperas only to the extent of two furrows, one furrow on each side. And how much is the full length of a furrow [ma’ana]? It is one hundred cubits, as it is taught in a mishna (Oholot 17:1): One who plows a field containing a grave, and who may have strewn the bones throughout the field, renders the field a beit haperas up to the full length of a furrow, which is one hundred cubits.
ואין תרומה אחר תרומה כו' מתניתין מני ר"ע היא דתנן השותפין שתרמו זה אחר זה רבי אליעזר אומר תרומת שניהם תרומה § The mishna teaches: And there is no teruma after teruma. Once one designates produce from his crop as teruma, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as teruma, it is not teruma. The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 3:3): In the case of joint owners of produce who separated teruma one after the other, Rabbi Eliezer says: The teruma of both of them is teruma, as each is considered to have separated from his share of the produce.
ר"ע אומר אין תרומת שניהם תרומה וחכמים אומרים אם תרם הראשון כשיעור אין תרומת השני תרומה ואם לא תרם כשיעור תרומת השני תרומה Rabbi Akiva says: The teruma of neither of them is teruma. Since each separated teruma independently, it is clear that neither accepts the separation of the other, and therefore neither is valid. And the Rabbis say: If the first one separated teruma of the correct measure, i.e., one-fiftieth of the produce, the produce is thereby tithed, and therefore the teruma of the second is not teruma; but if the first did not separate teruma of the correct measure, and he separated too little, the teruma of the second is teruma.
ואין תמורה עושה תמורה כו' מאי טעמא אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, י) ותמורתו ולא תמורת תמורתו § The mishna teaches: And a substitute animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute; rather, it remains non-sacred. The Gemara explains: What is the reason, i.e., the source for this halakha in the Torah? The verse states: “And if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10). The verse teaches that the halakha of substitution applies only to a consecrated animal and its substitute, but not the substitute of its substitute.
ואין הולד עושה תמורה דאמר קרא הוא הוא ולא ולד § The mishna teaches: And the offspring born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that the verse states: “Then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10), which teaches that only it, a consecrated animal, but not its offspring, renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.
ר' יהודה אומר הולד עושה תמורה דאמר קרא יהיה לרבות את הולד ורבנן לרבות שוגג כמזיד § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda reasons that when the verse states: “Shall be sacred,” this serves to include the offspring. The Gemara adds: And as for the Rabbis, who hold that one cannot substitute for the offspring of a consecrated animal, they maintain that this phrase serves to include one who substitutes unwittingly, so that the substitution is valid as if he had done so intentionally.
מתני׳ העופות והמנחות אין עושין תמורה שלא נאמר אלא בהמה הציבור והשותפין אין עושין תמורה שנאמר (ויקרא כז, י) לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר יחיד עושה תמורה ואין הצבור והשותפין עושין תמורה קדשי בדק הבית אין עושין תמורה MISHNA: The birds sacrificed as offerings, i.e., doves and pigeons, and the meal offerings do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes, as only the term “an animal” is stated with regard to substitution, in the verse: “And if he substitutes an animal for an animal” (Leviticus 27:10). A consecrated animal belonging to the community or to partners does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, as it is stated in the same verse: “He shall neither exchange it nor substitute it.” One derives from the singular pronoun in the verse that an individual renders a non-sacred animal a substitute, but the community and partners do not render a non-sacred animal a substitute. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes.
אמר ר"ש והרי מעשר בכלל היה ולמה יצא Rabbi Shimon said: The fact that animals belonging to the community or partners do not render animals exchanged for them substitutes is derived as follows: The animal tithe was included in the category of all offerings, and why was it singled out in the verse: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred unto the Lord. He shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he substitute for it; and if he substitutes it, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:32–33)?
לומר לך מה מעשר קרבן יחיד יצאו קרבנות צבור ומה מעשר קרבן מזבח יצאו קרבנות בדק הבית Rabbi Shimon explains: It was singled out to juxtapose substitution to the animal tithe, to tell you: Just as the animal tithe is brought exclusively as an individual offering, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are individual offerings, excluding communal offerings and the offerings of partners from the halakha of substitution. And just as the animal tithe is an offering sacrificed on the altar, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred are offerings sacrificed on the altar, excluding items consecrated for Temple maintenance from the halakha of substitution.
גמ׳ ת"ר יכול יהו קדשי בדק הבית עושין תמורה ת"ל (ויקרא כז, ט) קרבן מי שנקראו קרבן יצאו קדשי בדק הבית שלא נקראו קרבן GEMARA: According to the mishna, items consecrated for Temple maintenance do not render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes. The Sages taught in a baraita: One might have thought that items consecrated for Temple maintenance render non-sacred items exchanged for them substitutes. Therefore, the verse states: “And if it is an animal of which men bring an offering to the Lord…he shall not alter it, nor substitute it, good for bad” (Leviticus 27:9–10). This teaches that the halakha of substitution applies to that which is called an offering, excluding items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not called an offering.
ולא והתניא אי (ויקרא יז, ד) קרבן שומע אני אפילו קדשי בדק הבית שנקראו קרבן כענין שנאמר (במדבר לא, נ) ונקרב את קרבן ה' וגו' The Gemara asks: And are items consecrated for Temple maintenance not called offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to sacrificial animals: “Or who slaughters it outside the camp, and has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:3–4). If the verse had mentioned just the word “offering,” I would derive that the prohibition against slaughtering outside the Temple applies even to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as they too are called offerings, as is stated in the matter of the spoils of the war against Midian: “And we have brought the Lord’s offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and girdles, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord” (Numbers 31:50). These were certainly not items consecrated for the altar.
ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ד) ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו כל הבא אל פתח אהל מועד חייבין עליו משום שחוטי חוץ וכל שאינו בא לפתח אהל מועד אין חייבין עליו משום שחוטי חוץ אלמא איקרו קרבן The baraita continues: Therefore the verse states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” (Leviticus 17:4), to teach that for any item that is fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, i.e., that is fit to be sacrificed, one is liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard. And by contrast, for any animal that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard. Evidently, as a verse is necessary to exclude items consecrated for Temple maintenance, such items are generally called an offering, contrary to the first baraita cited.
אמר רבי חנינא לא קשיא הא ר"ש הא רבנן לר"ש איקרי קרבן לרבנן לא איקרי קרבן Rabbi Ḥanina said: This is not difficult. This second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whereas that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, items consecrated for Temple maintenance are in fact called an offering, and therefore in the mishna he derives that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are excluded from the halakhot of substitution from the juxtaposition with the animal tithe, not from word “offering.” According to the opinion of the Rabbis, items consecrated for Temple maintenance are not called an offering, and they therefore derive the halakha from the word “offering.”
ולא והכתיב (במדבר לא, נ) ונקרב את קרבן ה' קרבן ה' איקרי קרבן לה' לא איקרי The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, are items consecrated for Temple maintenance not called an offering? But isn’t it written: “And we have brought the Lord’s offering” (Numbers 31:50)? The Gemara answers: These items are called: “The Lord’s offering,” but they are not called: “An offering to the Lord,” which is used only with regard to offerings sacrificed upon the altar.
ת"ר (ויקרא כז, לג) לא יבקר בין טוב לרע ולא ימירנו למה נאמר והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא כז, י) לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו טוב ברע וגו' § The mishna teaches that consecrated animals belonging to the community or to partners are not included in the halakha of substitution. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the animal tithe: “He shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he substitute it; and if he substitute it at all, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred; it shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33). Why is the issue of substitution stated here in connection to the animal tithe? Isn’t it already stated earlier: “He shall not alter it, nor substitute it, good for bad, or bad for good, and if he substitutes an animal for an animal, then both it and that for which it is substituted shall be sacred” (Leviticus 27:10)?
לפי שנאמר לא יחליפנו ולא ימיר אותו משמע קרבן יחיד קרבן צבור וקרבן מזבח וקרבן בדק הבית ת"ל לא יבקר Since it is stated: “He shall not alter it, nor substitute it,” the verse apparently indicates that all types of offering are included, whether an individual offering or a communal offering, and whether it is an offering sacrificed on the altar or an offering consecrated for Temple maintenance. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the animal tithe: “He shall not inquire.”
אמר ר"ש והרי מעשר בכלל היה ולמה יצא לומר לך מה מעשר קרבן יחיד וקרבן מזבח ודבר שבא בחובה ודבר שאינו בשותפות אף כל קרבן יחיד וקרבן מזבח ודבר שבא בחובה Rabbi Shimon said in explanation: The animal tithe was included in the category of all offerings, and why was it singled out? It is to tell you: Just as the animal tithe is an individual offering, and an offering sacrificed on the altar, and it is an item that comes only as an obligation, not as a gift offering, and it is an item that is not brought in partnership, but only by an individual, so too, all offerings that render their substitutes sacred must be an individual offering, and an offering sacrificed on the altar, and it must be an item that comes only as an obligation,