Temurah 56

Chapter 56

א אמר רב אשי משום דאיכא למימר מעיקרא דדינא פירכא מה לבעל מום שכן מומו ניכר
1 - Said R'Ashi: Because there is an objection to the basis of the analogy [as follows]: The case of a blemished animal is different, since its blemish is visible. Can you however say the same as regards the case of [an animal] which covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man] whose blemish is not visible?
ב תאמר ברובע ונרבע שאין מומו ניכר הואיל ואין מומו ניכר יהא כשר לגבי מזבח ת"ל (ויקרא א, ב) מן הבהמה להוציא רובע ונרבע
2 And since its blemish is not visible, it should be fit for the altar. The text therefore states: 'O cattle', to exclude the cases of [an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man].
ג מן הבקר להוציא את הנעבד והלא דין הוא ומה אתנן ומחיר שציפויין מותרין הן אסורין נעבד שציפויו אסור אינו דין שהוא אסור
3 [The words:] Even of the herd,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2.');"><sup>1</sup></span> exclude ne'ebad.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an animal which has been used for an idolatrous purpose is forbidden for the altar. We infer this from 'of', taken in a partitive sense.');"><sup>2</sup></span> But can we not learn this from an analogy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A conclusion from the minor to the major that ne'ebad is forbidden for the altar. What need then is there for a Scriptural text?');"><sup>3</sup></span> If in the cases of a [harlot's] hire and the price [of a dog], whose overlayings are permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If after he had given the harlot an article he overlayed it with gold or silver etc, the overlay may be brought to the Temple for the covering of the altar.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד או חילוף ומה אתנן ומחיר שהן אסורין ציפוייהן מותרין נעבד שמותר יהא ציפויו מותר
4 they [the animals themselves] are forbidden for the altar, in the case of ne'ebad whose overlayings are forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture saying: Thou shalt not desire the gold and silver etc. (Deut. VII, 25) .');"><sup>5</sup></span> how much more should the animal itself be forbidden for the altar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Granted that the animal cannot be prohibited for private use, since a living thing cannot be forbidden, nevertheless it should be unfit for the altar, seeing that its overlayings are forbidden even for private use. What need therefore is there for a Scriptural text?');"><sup>6</sup></span> Or is it not the reverse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there existed no text, then I might have reversed the analogy.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ה א"כ ביטלת (דברים ז, כה) לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם ולקחת לך
5 [as follows]: If in the cas of a [harlot's] hire, and the price [of a dog], which themselves are forbidden for the altar, yet their overlayings are permitted, in the case of ne'ebad which is permitted for the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is no explicit Scriptural text which prohibits (Rashi) .');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו אני אקיימנו לא תחמוד כסף וזהב בדבר שאין בו רוח חיים אבל בדבר שיש בו רוח חיים הואיל והן מותר יכול יהא ציפוי מותר ת"ל מן הבקר להוציא את הנעבד
6 how much more so should its overlayings be permitted? If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the overlaying of an idol used also as an idol is permitted to be used.');"><sup>9</sup></span> you do away with the Scriptural text: Thou shalt not desire the gold and silver that is on them, nor take it into thee?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VII, 25. One cannot therefore reverse the analogy and say that the overlayings of a ne'ebad may be used for a sacred purpose. We therefore might have inferred from the analogy above that a ne'ebad is forbidden for the altar, and therefore a Scriptural text is not required to exclude a ne'ebad.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ז מתקיף לה רב חנניא טעמא דמעטי' קרא הא לא מעטי' קרא ציפוי מותר והכתיב (דברים יב, ג) ואבדתם את שמם כל העשוי לשמם
7 I will explain the text: 'Thou shalt not desire the gol and the silver that is on them', as referring to a thing without life, but in the case of a living being [i.e., animal], since it is permitted [for the altar], its overlayings should also be permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore I can reverse the analogy and derive that a ne'ebad is fit for the altar and that its overlayings are also permitted to be used.');"><sup>11</sup></span> The text therefore states: 'Even of the herd,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of', implying a restriction and limitation.');"><sup>12</sup></span> in order to exclude the case of ne'ebad.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is forbidden for the altar. And since the animal is forbidden to be offered, the overlayings are also forbidden, even for private use, as we apply here the text: 'Thou shalt not desire the gold and silver that is on them' (Rashi and Tosaf.) .');"><sup>13</sup></span> To this R'Hanania demurred: The reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the overlayings of a ne'ebad are forbidden to be used.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ח ההוא לכנות להם שם הוא דאתא לבית גליא קרינן אותו בית כריא פני המולך פני כלב עין כל עין קוץ
8 then is because the Scriptural text made a limitation, but if th text had not made a limitation, the overlayings would be permitted. But is it not written: And you shall destroy their names,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 3.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ט ואיפוך אנא מן הבהמה להוציא את הנעבד מן הבקר להוציא רובע ונרבע
9 implying everything made for them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in their name'.');"><sup>16</sup></span> - That is for the purpose of substituting a name for the idols.
י התם מעניינא דקרא כתיב גבי בהמה (ויקרא כ, טו) ואיש כי יתן שכבתו בבהמה מות יומת גבי בקר כתיב (תהלים קו, כ) וימירו את כבודם בתבנית שור אוכל עשב
10 When [the idolaters] call a place Beth-Galia,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the high house'. '');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יא (ויקרא ה, ו) מן הצאן להוציא את המוקצה ומן הצאן להוציא את הנוגח אר"ש אם נאמר רובע למה נאמר נוגח ואם נאמר נוגח למה נאמר רובע
11 [Israelites should call] it Beth Karia,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A House of Heaps (ruins) , in derogation. It is a cacophemistic change of name.');"><sup>18</sup></span> Penei Hamolekh [they should call] Penei Keleb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A contemptuous change of name, from 'face of molekh' to 'face of a dog'.');"><sup>19</sup></span> 'Ain Kol<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the eye of all'.');"><sup>20</sup></span> [they should call] 'Ain Koz.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Koz means a thorn, another contemptuous change of name.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יב לפי שישנו ברובע מה שאין כן בנוגח יש ברובע שהרובע עושה אונס כרצון מה שאין כן בנוגח
12 And why not reverse the exclusions [from the texts as follows]: 'Of the cattle' excludes ne'ebad and 'even of the herd' excludes the cases of [an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] that was covered [by a man]? - In the one case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there'.');"><sup>22</sup></span> we exclude something which is associated with the subject of the text, and in the other, we also exclude something which is associated with the subject of a text.
יג יש בנוגח שהנוגח משלם את הכופר מה שאין כן ברובע הוצרך לומר רובע והוצרך לומר נוגח
13 With regard to [the feminine term] 'behemah' [cattle]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We find the word behemah in connection with the case of an animal that covered a woman and an animal which was covered by a man, while in connection with idolatry we find the word bakar (herd) used.');"><sup>23</sup></span> it is written: And if a man lie with a behemah [beast], he shall surely be put to death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 15.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יד והאי תנא מייתי לה מהכא דתניא הרובע והנרבע (וכולם) הם כקדשים שקדם מום עובר להקדשן
14 and with regard to [the masculine term] 'bakar' [herd] it is written: Thus they changed their glory with the similitude of an ox that eateth grass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. CVI, 20. The term used there is the masculine 'shor' (ox) .');"><sup>25</sup></span> 'Of the flock'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
טו וצריכין מום קבוע לפדות עליהן שנאמר כי משחתם בהם מום בם
15 excludes mukzeh;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That which is set aside for idolatrous purposes.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
טז מאי תלמודא חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני מנין שהן אסורין ת"ל (ויקרא כב, כה) כי משחתם בהם מום בם ותנא דבי ר' ישמעאל כל מקום שנאמר השחתה אינו אלא דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים
16 'and of the flock' excludes the goring ox<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which killed a man according to the evidence of one witness, where the animal is not stoned to death.');"><sup>28</sup></span> [from the altar]. Said R'Simeon: If Scripture [excludes the case] of roba',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An animal which covered a woman, from being offered on the altar.');"><sup>29</sup></span> what need is there for [the exclusion of] the goring ox?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both are alike in this, that both animals are stoned to death on the testimony of two witnesses.');"><sup>30</sup></span> And if Scripture [excludes the case of] the goring ox, what need is there for [the exclusion of] the case of roba'? - Because there is a law applying to roba' which does not apply to the gorer [and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
יז דבר ערוה דכתיב (בראשית ו, יב) כי השחית כל בשר וגו' עבודת כוכבים דכתיב (דברים ד, טז) פן תשחיתון ועשיתם לכם פסל תמונת כל סמל כל שהמום פוסל בהן דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים פוסלין בהן
17 there is a law applying to the gorer which does not apply to roba']. There is a law as regards roba' that the unintentional act is on a par with the intentional act, unlike the case of the gorer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only an ox which gores on its own accord is condemned to be stoned to death, but not an ox of the arena which is forced by others to gore.');"><sup>32</sup></span> There is a regulation applying to the gorer that [the owner of the ox] pays indemnity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For killing a man, although the ox is stoned to death.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
יח ותנא דבי ר' ישמעאל מן הבהמה מן הבקר ומן הצאן מאי דריש בהו מיבעי ליה פרט לחולה זקן ומזוהם
18 unlike the case of roba'. There is need therefore [for Scripture] to mention [the exclusion] of roba' and the gorer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they are unfit for the altar.');"><sup>34</sup></span> And the following Tanna derives this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That roba' and nirba' (that which covered or had been covered) are forbidden for the altar.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
יט ות"ק דאפקינהו להני קראי לרובע ונרבע חולה זקן ומזוהם מנא ליה נפקא ליה מן הצאן מן הכבשים ומן העזים ולתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אורחיה דקרא לאישתעויי הכי
19 from here [as follows]: For it has been taught as regards roba' and nirba' [etc.], if one dedicated them they are like dedicated animals in which a transitory blemish occurred before their dedication and which require a permanent blemish in order to redeem them, since it says: Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 25.');"><sup>36</sup></span>
כ איזהו מוקצה לעבודת כוכבים וכו' אמר ר"ל אין אסור אלא מוקצה לשבע שנים
20 But how can you derive that from the text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What bearing has the text just quoted on roba' and nirba'?');"><sup>37</sup></span> - A clause is missing [in the Baraitha] which should read as follows: Whence do we infer that they are forbidden [for the altar]? Because Scripture says: 'Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them'.
כא שנאמר (שופטים ו, כה) ויהי בלילה ההוא ויאמר [לו ה'] קח את פר השור אשר לאביך ופר השני שבע שנים
21 And a Tanna of the School of R'Ishmael taught: Whenever the term hashhatha [corruption] is used [in the Scriptures] it refers to lewdness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Illicit sexual relations.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
כב והתם מוקצה בלחוד הוה נעבד נמי הוה א"ר אחא בר יעקב מוקצה לעבוד ולא עבדוהו רבא אמר לעולם עבדוהו וחידוש הוא כדר' אבא בר כהנא דאמר רבי אבא בר כהנא שמנה דברים התירו באותו לילה חוץ ולילה וזרות
22 and idolatry.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And roba' and nirba' are cases of 'lewdness' and mukzeh, and ne'ebad are cases relating to idolatry.');"><sup>39</sup></span> 'Lewdness', as it Says: For all flesh had corrupted its way, etc. ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. VI, 12.');"><sup>40</sup></span> and 'idolatry', as it says: Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image the similitude of any figure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. IV, 16.');"><sup>41</sup></span> [We thus argue:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Comparing the earlier part of the text: 'Because their corruption etc.' with the latter part: 'There is a blemish in them'.');"><sup>42</sup></span> Wherever a blemish disqualifies [an animal for the altar], 'lewdness' and 'idolatry' also disqualify them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From being offered on the altar.');"><sup>43</sup></span> And how does the Tanna of the School of R'Ishmael expound the texts, Of the cattle, of the herd and of the flock?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he derives the exclusion of roba' etc. from the text: 'Because their corruption, etc.'.');"><sup>44</sup></span> - These [texts] are required by him in order to exclude the following cases: A sick, old or evil-smelling animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As being unfit for the altar.');"><sup>45</sup></span> Now the former Tanna [quoted above] who derives the cases of roba' and nirba' as unfit for the altar from those texts,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of the cattle etc.'.');"><sup>46</sup></span> whence does he derive the cases of a sick, old and evil-smelling animal [as being forbidden for the altar]? - He derives these from [the texts]: 'And if of the flock, of the sheep, or the goats.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An entirely different verse, Lev. I, 20.');"><sup>47</sup></span> And what will the Tanna of the School of R'Ishmael do with these texts?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And 1f of the flock, etc.' just quoted.');"><sup>48</sup></span> - It is the way of Scripture to speak in such a manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no special interpretation is meant in the way of excluding any cases from being offered.');"><sup>49</sup></span> WHAT IS MEANT BY MUKZEH? THAT WHICH HAS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR IDOLATROUS USE ETC. Said Resh Lakish: Mukzeh is forbidden only if it had been set aside for seven years,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And after the conclusion of seven years the animal is to be offered to the idols.');"><sup>50</sup></span> since it says: And it came to pass that the Lord said unto him: Take thy father's young bullock even a second bullock of seven years old.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judg. VI, 25. Having fattened it for seven years. We therefore see that this is the usual period for fattening before it is used for idolatrous purposes.');"><sup>51</sup></span> But there [in the text], was it only a case of mukzeh? Was it not also a case of ne'ebad?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture says: And throw down the altar of Baal (Judg. VI, 25) which means the altar which was built for the bullock which was Baal');"><sup>52</sup></span> Said R'Aha son of R'Jacob: It was designated for idolatry but they did not actually use it [as an idol]. Raba says: One can still maintain that they actually used it [the bull, as an idol],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And yet you cannot derive any law from this particular incident.');"><sup>53</sup></span> but there it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The whole incident of Gideon here.');"><sup>54</sup></span> was an innovation, as R'Aba B'Kahana explained. For R'Aba B'Kahana said: Eight things were permitted that night [as follows]: [The killing of an animal] outside [the tabernacle, the killing] at night,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture saying: He did it by night (Ibid. 27) .');"><sup>55</sup></span> [the officiating by] a non-priest,
Previous ChapterNext Chapter