Commentary for Temurah 55:44

(לא אתיא)

was because the forbidden animals are rejected as unseemly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Animals covered or that have been covered are rejected as unseemly for the altar.');">³⁴</span> whereas in the case of hullin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since these animals of hullin are not rejected as unseemly for the altar when they became mixed up, as there was no share for the altar among them, and therefore when subsequently they were dedicated for the altar, it is quite in order, as they have already been neutralised (Rashi) . In Zeb. the Talmud asks why then not state only the Mishnah in Temurah referring to hullin and then there would be no need for the Mishnah in Zebahim? And it answers that the reason is because the Mishnah in Zeb. informs us of something fresh, viz., that there is a remedy as regards dedications, i.e., that he sells etc., unlike the case in the Mishnah of Temurah where there is no remedy (v. Rashi) .');">³⁵</span> we might have thought that [the forbidden animals] are neutralised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is neutralisation in the greater number.');">³⁶</span> But have we not also learnt this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is no neutralisation in any larger number, even with actual hullin in the case of living things and important prohibitions (Rashi) .');">³⁷</span> with reference to hullin? The following are forbidden and render forbidden other hullin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When mixed up.');">³⁸</span> however minute in quantity: Forbidden wine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wine used for idolatrous libation.');">³⁹</span> idols, birds [brought] by a leper,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which were let loose into the open field and from which it was prohibited to benefit.');">⁴⁰</span> hides pierced at the heart,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These were forbidden, because the heart had been cut out for idolatrous purposes.');">⁴¹</span> the hair of a Nazirite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was burnt under the pot boiling the peace-offering.');">⁴²</span> the firstborn of an ass, meat and milk [boiled together],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the meat then became mixed up with even a thousand other pieces, they are all forbidden to be used in any way.');">⁴³</span> an ox condemned to be stoned, the heifer whose neck was broken, hullin which was killed in the Temple court, and the goat sent away [to Azazel]these are forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be profitably used.');">⁴⁴</span> and render other hullin forbidden, however small in quantity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibited thing may be; v. 'A.Z. 74a.');">⁴⁵</span> - It was necessary [to teach both Mishnahs], for if we had been informed only [of the Mishnah] there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Zeb.');">⁴⁶</span> we might have thought that the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why there is no neutralisation.');">⁴⁷</span> was because [the cases mentioned] are prohibited for general use, but here we might have thought they are neutralised in greater numbers; and if we had been informed only here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah of Temurah.');">⁴⁸</span> [we might have said that the reason was] because it is loathsome to use [the animals] for the altar, but for private use, we might have thought that even things which are forbidden to be profitably used are neutralised in the greater numbers. [Our Mishnah] therefore informs us [that it is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they are not neutralised.');">⁴⁹</span> And whence do we derive that the case of [an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man] are forbidden for the altar? - Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says:] Of the cattle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2.');">⁵⁰</span> this excludes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'of' implying but not all cattle may be brought as a sacrifice.');">⁵¹</span> the cases of [an animal] which covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man]. But can we not derive this from an analogy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A conclusion from minor to major, so that there is no need for a Scriptural text.');">⁵²</span> If a blemished animal with which no sinful act has been done is forbidden for the altar, how much more should [an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man] be forbidden for the altar? Let the law concerning one who ploughs with an ox and an ass [together] decide, since a sinful act has been done with it and yet it is allowed for the altar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same will therefore apply to the case of an animal that covered or was covered. There is thus need for a special text to render them unfit for the altar.');">⁵³</span> The case of ploughing with an ass and an ox together is, however, different since there is no punishment of death incurred, whereas in the cases of [an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man] the punishment of death is incurred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore one can employ the above a minori argument and dispense with the special text.');">⁵⁴</span> Then take away [the argument]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the ploughing with an ox and an ass together.');">⁵⁵</span> you have brought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is no question, for the reason just mentioned.');">⁵⁶</span> and say that [you can rely upon the above analogy]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The conclusion from the minor to the major, quoted above.');">⁵⁷</span> for the case of an animal with which a sinful act has been done according to the testimony of two witnesses;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the animal is forbidden for the altar, since it is condemned to die.');">⁵⁸</span> but whence do we learn the case where a sinful act had been done according to the testimony of only one witness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the animal is not condemned to die but is forbidden for the altar.');">⁵⁹</span> or where the owners confessed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the animal is exempted from death. In these cases surely a text is necessary.');">⁶⁰</span> Said R'Simeon: I will bring forward an analogy [as follows]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is no need for a Scriptural text.');">⁶¹</span> If in the case of a blemished animal, where [the testimony] of two witnesses does not disqualify the animal from being eaten, the testimony of one witness disqualifies it from being offered [on the altar],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expert says it is a permanent blemish, it is disqualified from being offered on the altar.');">⁶²</span> then in the cases [of an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man], where the testimony of two witnesses disqualifies the animal from being eaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is stoned to death.');">⁶³</span> how much more should the testimony of one witness disqualify the animal from being offered on the altar? The text therefore states 'of the cattle', to exclude the cases of an animal th covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man]. But have you not just inferred this from an analogy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then why bring the Scriptural text?');">⁶⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Temurah 55:44. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.