Temurah 57
אמר רב טובי בר מתנה א"ר יאשיה
ministering with vessels of asherah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the same vessel that he ministered to Asherah (a tree or grove worshipped as a god) , he ministered to the Name.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
(במדבר כח, ב) תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו כל שעושין לו שימור
R'Tobi B'Mattenah reported in the name of R'Josiah: Where in the Torah is mukzeh intimated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Misunderstood by Abaye as meaning: Where is it intimated that an animal must be kept in an enclosed space for some time to be looked after before it can be offered on the altar?');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אלא מעתה אייתית אימרא דצומא ולא עביד ליה שימור ה"נ דלא חזו להקרבה
intimating that every dedication requires special observation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be designated and looked after before being offered.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אין מוקצה אסור אלא עד שיעבדו
Raba son of R'Adda reported in the name of R'Isaac: Mukzeh remains forbidden only until it has been used for some work.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby its designation for the idolatrous altar is annulled. This is Rashi's second interpretation which he prefers. The first interpretation is: Mukzeh is forbidden only when some work has been done with it, but previous to this there is no prohibition for the altar.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
עולא א"ר יוחנן
'Ulla reported in the name of R'Johanan: Until the animal is handed over to the ministers of the idol [to be eaten].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After which it will no longer be offered on the altar.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ידע בהא לשנויי שמעתא ואי לא דסליק התם לא הוה ידע דארץ ישראל גרמה ליה
there [Palestine], he would not have known how to explain it, for it was the Land of Israel which was the cause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the air of the Land of Israel made people wise.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
וכל היכא דאסירי להדיוט לא בעי קרא
are forbidden for private use, what need is there for a [special] Scriptural text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of the herd, of the flock', the former text including ne'ebad and the latter excluding mukzeh.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
והא טרפה דאסירא להדיוט ומעטיה קרא מגבוה
to exclude them from the altar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.,'the Most High'. Since we can exclude mukzeh and ne'ebad as regards offering them on the altar from the text: 'From the well-watered pastures' inasmuch as they are forbidden to Israel! The fact therefore that the special Scripture texts are required proves that mukzeh and ne'ebad are permitted to be eaten privately.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
(ויקרא כז, לב) כל אשר יעבור תחת השבט פרט לטרפה שאינה עוברת
which there is no need to repeat, it must be in order to exclude the case of trefah from the altar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the second text certainly excludes the case of trefah, therefore the first text must exclude ne'ebad. We see therefore that although trefah is forbidden to be eaten there is a special Scripture text to exclude it from the altar (Rashi) .');"><sup>31</sup></span>
וכן האומר לחבירו הוליך טלה זה ותלין שפחתך אצל עבדי
refers to a case where the animal became trefah and then it was dedicated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case, since it was trefah and forbidden to be eaten before the dedication, it is unfit for the altar.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
רבי (מאיר) אומר
but where the animal was dedicated and then it became trefah, I might have thought that it is legitimate [for the altar].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text therefore 'of the herd etc.' excludes trefah from being offered on the altar, even where the trefah occurred subsequently to the dedication (Rashi) .');"><sup>35</sup></span>
ואפילו הן מאה כולן אסורין
thus excluding the case of trefah which cannot pass?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it implies that although the animal entered the shed to be tithed it was not trefah, if it became trefah, i.e., if its legs were broken from the ankle upwards after entering the shed, so that it cannot pass under the rod, it is excluded from being offered on the altar (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>38</sup></span>
לא צריכא דשקלה אגרא חדא ויהיב לה מאה דכולהו מכח אתנן קאתי
You might have thought that [the former text] refers only to an animal which was at no time fit for the altar, having been born a trefa in the inside of its mother; but in a case where it was fit at one time [for the altar], and it was born<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'came into the air space of universe'.');"><sup>40</sup></span>
נתן לה ולא בא עליה אתננה קרית ליה
therefore teaches us [that it is not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And where the animal became trefah after its birth and was dedicated, it was also forbidden for the altar. And the text, 'of the herd' excludes the case of the animal which became trefah after dedication (Rashi) .');"><sup>42</sup></span>
נתן לה ואח"כ בא עליה בא עליה ואח"כ נתן לה אתננה מותר
SIMILARLY, IF ONE SAYS TO HIS FELLOW: HERE IS A LAMB AND ASSIGN YOUR [NON-ISRAELITISH] MAIDSERVANT FOR MY SERVANT, R'MEIR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Rabbi'.');"><sup>43</sup></span>
אמר רבי אלעזר
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>The Master says: EVEN IF THERE ARE A HUNDRED LAMBS THEY ARE ALL FORBIDDEN. How is this meant? Shall I say that she took a hundred animals for her hire? Surely it is obvious that they are all forbidden [for the altar]! What is the difference whether there be one or a hundred [lambs]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they are all a harlot's hire and forbidden for the altar.');"><sup>44</sup></span> - No; it is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Mishnah to say that even a hundred animals are forbidden.');"><sup>45</sup></span> in a case where she took one lamb as her hire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man only promised her one lamb.');"><sup>46</sup></span> and he gave her a hundred; all are then forbidden, since they all come by reason of the hire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we do not say that they were given to her as a present.');"><sup>47</sup></span> Our Rabbis have taught: If he gave her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A lamb as hire.');"><sup>48</sup></span> but he had no intercourse with her, if he had intercourse with her, but did not give her, her hire is legitimate [for the altar]. In the case where he gave her but did not hav intercourse with her, do you call this her hire? And, moreover, the case where he had intercourse with her but did not give her, [you say that her hire is legitimate]. But what did he give her? - What is meant is this: If he gave her and then had intercourse with her, or if he had intercourse with her and then gave her [a lamb for] her hire, it is legitimate [for the altar]. But should not the law of [harlot's] hire take effect retrospectively?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where he gave her a lamb before he had intercourse with her, why should not the lamb be considered her hire? For, since at the time of the intercourse the lamb is alive, and he had intercourse with her on the strength of promising it, then wherever the lamb is to be found, it should be regarded as the hire of a harlot. Now there is no difficulty in the case where he had intercourse with her and then gave her a lamb, for one might say that since the animal was not assigned to her at the time of the intercourse, it was not forbidden for the altar and should he regarded as a present (Rashi) .');"><sup>49</sup></span> - Said R'Eleazar: