Temurah 57

Chapter 57

א וכלי שרת [וכלי אשירה] ועצי אשירה ומוקצה ונעבד

1 [without] a ministering vessel,1

ב אמר רב טובי בר מתנה א"ר יאשיה מנין למוקצה מן התורה שנאמר (במדבר כח, ב) תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו כל שעושין לו שימור

2 ministering with vessels of asherah,2 the wood of asherah,3 mukzeh and ne'ebad. 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?');">4

ג מתקיף לה אביי אלא מעתה אייתית אימרא דצומא ולא עביד ליה שימור ה"נ דלא חזו להקרבה [א"ל] אנא תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו קאמינא לי ולא לאדון אחר ואיזהו אחר שמקריבין לו הוי אומר זו עבודת כוכבים

3 Since it says: Shall ye observe to offer unto Me,5 intimating that every dedication requires special observation.6 To this Abaye demurred: If this is so, if one brought a lean lamb without having kept it under observation, is it really the case that it is not fit to be offered on the altar? He [R'Tobi] replied to him [Abaye]: I mean [the says]: 'Shall ye observe to offer unto Me', 'unto Me' implying but not to another lord. What is meant by another lord to whom offering is made?

ד אמר רבא בר רב אדא אמר רב יצחק אין מוקצה אסור אלא עד שיעבדו עולא א"ר יוחנן עד שימסרוהו לכומרי עבודת כוכבים

4 It is idolatry.7 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.');">8 'Ulla reported in the name of R'Johanan: Until the animal is handed over to the ministers of the idol [to be eaten].9 Beha10

ה בהא אמר רבי יוחנן עד שיאכילוהו כרשיני עבודת כוכבים אמר ליה רבי אבא לבהא מפלגיתו אתון אעולא א"ל לא עולא נמי כי קאמר הוא דשפי ליה כרשיני עבודת כוכבים

5 reported in the name of R'Johanan: Until they feed the animal with vetches set aside for idolatry.11 Said R'Abba to Beha: Do you12 and 'Ulla differ? - He replied to him: No.' Ulla himself means that it is fed13 with vetches set aside for idolatry. R'Abba said: Beha knew how to explain this teaching.

ו א"ר אבא ידע בהא לשנויי שמעתא ואי לא דסליק התם לא הוה ידע דארץ ישראל גרמה ליה אמר ליה רב יצחק בהא מיכן ומיכן הוה

6 Had he not, however, gone14 there [Palestine], he would not have known how to explain it, for it was the Land of Israel which was the cause.15 Said R'Isaac to him: Beha belonged to both Babylon16 and the Land of Israel.17

ז דתני רב חנניא טריטאה קמיה דר' יוחנן אין מוקצה אסור אלא עד שיעשו בו מעשה הוא תני לה והדר אמר לה מאי מעשה עד שיגזז ויעבדו בו

7 R.18 Hanania of Trita19 recited in the presence of R'Johanan: Mukzeh remains forbidden only until some act has been done with it. He taught this and also explained: What is meant by some act? - Such as shearing its wool or doing some work with it. WHAT IS MEANT BY NE'EBAD etc. Whence is this proved?20

ח איזהו נעבד כו' מנא הני מילי

8 Said R'Papa: Since Scripture says: From the well-watered pastures of Israel;21 this intimates,22

ט אמר רב פפא דאמר קרא (יחזקאל מה, טו) ממשקה ישראל מן המותר לישראל ואי ס"ד אסירי להדיוט למה לי קרא ממעטינהו מגבוה

9 from what is legitimate for Israel.23 Now if you were to assume that they24

י וכל היכא דאסירי להדיוט לא בעי קרא והא טרפה דאסירא להדיוט ומעטיה קרא מגבוה

10 are forbidden for private use, what need is there for a [special] Scriptural text25 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.');">26

יא דתניא כשהוא אומר מן הבקר למטה שאין ת"ל אלא להוציא את הטרפה

11 But is it the case that wherever a thing is forbidden for private use there is n need for a Scriptural text?27 Is there not the case of trefah which is forbidden for private use and yet a Scriptural text excludes it from being offered on the altar?

יב איצטריך סד"א הני מילי דנטרפה ואחר כך נתקדשה אבל נתקדשה ואחר כך נטרפה אימא דתישרי לגבוה

12 For it has been taught: [Even of the herd28 excludes ne'ebad.29

יג והא מהכא נפקא (ויקרא כז, לב) כל אשר יעבור תחת השבט פרט לטרפה שאינה עוברת

13 Perhaps it is not so, and the object of the text is to exclude trefah? ] When Scripture however says further on: Of the herd,30 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) .');">31

יד ההוא נמי איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי היכא דלא היתה לה שעת הכושר דנולדה טרפה ממעי אמה אבל היכא דהיתה לה שעת הכושר ויצאת לאויר העולם ואח"כ נטרפה אימא תשתרי לגבוה קמ"ל

14 - [Both] texts32 are necessary.

טו <big>מתני׳</big> ואיזהו אתנן האומר לזונה הוליך טלה זה בשכרך אפי' הן ק' כולן אסורין וכן האומר לחבירו הוליך טלה זה ותלין שפחתך אצל עבדי רבי (מאיר) אומר אינו אתנן וחכמים אומרים אתנן

15 For you might think that the text33 refers to a case where the animal became trefah and then it was dedicated,34 but where the animal was dedicated and then it became trefah, I might have thought that it is legitimate [for the altar].35 But we do not derive this36 from the following.

טז <big>גמ׳</big> אמר מר ואפילו הן מאה כולן אסורין היכי דמי אילימא דשקלה אגרא מאה בהמות פשיטא דכולהו אסירי מה לי חד מה לי מאה

16 [It says:] Whatsoever passeth under the rod,37 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) .');">38 - That text39 is also necessary.

יז לא צריכא דשקלה אגרא חדא ויהיב לה מאה דכולהו מכח אתנן קאתי

17 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 born40

יח ת"ר נתן לה ולא בא עליה בא עליה ולא נתן לה אתננה מותר נתן לה ולא בא עליה אתננה קרית ליה ותו בא עליה ולא נתן לה מאי יהיב לה

18 and then became trefah, I might have thought that it is legitimate for the altar. [The text]41 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) .');">42 <big>MISHNAH: </big>WHAT IS MEANT BY A [HARLOT'S] HIRE?

יט אלא הכי קתני נתן לה ואח"כ בא עליה בא עליה ואח"כ נתן לה אתננה מותר וליחול עליה אתנן למפרע אמר רבי אלעזר

19 IF ONE SAYS TO A HARLOT: TAKE THIS LAMB FOR YOUR HIRE, EVEN IF THERE ARE A HUNDRED LAMBS, THEY ARE ALL FORBIDDEN [FOR THE ALTAR]. SIMILARLY, IF ONE SAYS TO HIS FELLOW: HERE IS A LAMB AND ASSIGN YOUR [NON-ISRAELITISH] MAIDSERVANT FOR MY SERVANT, R'MEIR43 SAYS: IT [THE LAMB] IS NOT REGARDED AS [HARLOT'S] HIRE, WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY: IT IS REGARDED AS [HARLOT'S] HIRE. <big>GEMARA: </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]?44 - No; it is necessary45 in a case where she took one lamb as her hire46 and he gave her a hundred; all are then forbidden, since they all come by reason of the hire.47 Our Rabbis have taught: If he gave her,48 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) .');">49 - Said R'Eleazar:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter