Temurah 60

מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן אין זנות לבהמות

Whence do we derive what the Rabbis taught that the term harlotry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. zenuth.');">¹</span>

א"ל

does not apply to animals?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Mishnah says that 'the hire of a dog' is permitted for the altar.');">²</span>

לא נישמוט קרא לכתוב אתנן זונה וכלב

- He said to him: If that were so, Scripture would not omit to say: 'The hire of a harlot and a dog'.

תניא נמי הכי

We have learnt to the same effect:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'harlotry' does not apply to animals.');">³</span>

מנין לאתנן כלב ומחיר זונה שמותרין

Whence do we infer that the hire of a dog and the price of a harlot are legitimate [for the altar]?

שנאמר ב' ולא ד'

Because it says: 'Both' - but not four.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if we were to include the price of a harlot and the hire of a dog there would be four cases and not two.');">⁴</span>

ולדותיהן מותרין שנאמר גם שניהם הם ולא ולדותיהן

Their issue are legitimate for the altar, sin it says: 'Both of them', implying they, but not their issue.

אמר רבא

Said Raba: The issue of a beast which was used for buggery [while pregnant] is disqualified [for the altar], for mother and young have been abused.

ולד הנרבעת אסורה היא וולדה נרבעו נוגחת אסורה היא וולדה נגחו

The issue of a beast which gored [while pregnant] is disqualified for the altar, for mother and young have gored.

ולד מוקצה ונעבד מותר מ"ט

The issue of a beast which was designated for idolatry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mukzeh, v. supra 28a.');">⁵</span>

לאימיה אקציה לאימיה פלחי לה

or used for idolatry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ne'ebad, v. supra 28a.');">⁶</span>

א"ד

[while pregnant] is legitimate [for the altar].

ולד מוקצה ונעבד אסור מאי טעמא

What is the reason?

דניחא ליה בניפחיה

Its mother was designated for idolatry and its mother was used [as such].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not its issue.');">⁷</span>

אמר רב אחדבוי בר אמי אמר רב

Some there are who say: Even the issue of a beast which was designated or used for idolatry [while pregnant] is also disqualified [for the altar].

המקדש בפרש שור הנסקל מקודשת בפרש עגלי ע"ז אינה מקודשת

What is the reason?

מאי טעמא

Its full appearance is welcome to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the idol worshipper, as it seems to lend more dignity to the act.');">⁸</span>

אי בעית אימא קרא ואי בעית אימא סברא

R'Ahadboi B'Ammi in the name of Rab reported: If one betrothed with the dung of an ox condemned to be stoned, the act is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. , 'she is betrothed'.');">⁹</span>

אי בעית אימא סברא

[If one betrothed however] with the dung of the calves set aside for idolatry, the act is not valid.

ניחא ליה גבי ע"ז בניפחיה גבי שור הנסקל לא ניחא ליה בניפחיה

What is the reason?

אי בעית אימא קרא

I may say it is intimated in Scripture and I may say that reason tells us so.

גבי עבודת כוכבי' כתיב (דברים ז, כו) והיית חרם כמוהו כל שאתה מהיה ממנו הרי הוא כמוהו

I may say that reason tells us so, since for purposes of idol worship its full appearance is welcome to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dung makes the animal look fatter and therefore it is forbidden to be used.');">¹⁰</span>

גבי שור הנסקל כתיב (שמות כא, כח) לא יאכל את בשרו בשרו אסור פרשו מותר

whereas in the case of an ox condemned to be stoned, its full appearance is not welcome to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is condemned to die, and therefore the betrothal is valid.');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נתן לה מעות הרי אלו מותרין

I may say it is intimated in Scripture.

יינות ושמנים וסלתות וכל דבר שכיוצא בו קרב על גבי המזבח אסור

With reference to idolatry it is written: Lest thou be a cursed thing like it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VII, 26.');">¹²</span>

נתן לה מוקדשין הרי אלו מותרין

thus intimating that whatever comes from it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., its dung.');">¹³</span>

עופות הרי אלו אסורין

is like it and forbidden; whereas with reference to an ox condemned to be stoned, it is written: And its flesh shall not be eaten<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 28.');">¹⁴</span>

שהיה בדין מה אם המוקדשין שהמום פוסל בהן אין אתנן ומחיר חל עליהן

- 'its flesh' is forbidden, its dung i permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the betrothal with it is a valid act.');">¹⁵</span>

עוף שאין המום פוסל בו אינו דין שלא יהא אתנן ומחיר חל עליו

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE GAVE HER [A HARLOT] MONEY AS HIRE IT IS LEGITIMATE [FOR THE ALTAR, BUT IF HE GAVE HER] WINE, OIL, FLOUR AND ANYTHING SIMILAR WHICH IS OFFERED ON THE ALTAR, IT IS DISQUALIFIED FOR THE ALTAR'IF HE GAVE HER DEDICATED [ANIMALS] THEY ARE LEGITIMATE [FOR THE ALTAR].

תלמוד לומר

IF HE GAVE HER BIRDS [OF HULLIN]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like pigeons.');">¹⁶</span>

(דברים כג, יט) לכל נדר להביא את העוף כל האסורין לגבי מזבח ולדותיהן מותרין

THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From being used any more for the altar.');">¹⁷</span>

רבי אליעזר אמר

FOR ONE MIGHT HAVE REASONED [AS FOLLOWS]: IF IN THE CASE OF DEDICATED ANIMALS, WHERE A BLEMISH DISQUALIFIES THEM, [THE LAW] OF [THE HARLOT'S] HIRE AND PRICE [OF A DOG] DOES NOT TAKE EFFECT, IN THE CASE OF BIRDS, WHERE A BLEMISH DOES NOT DISQUALIFY, IS IT NOT ALL THE MORE REASON THAT THE LAW OF [THE HARLOT'S] HIRE AND PRICE [OF A DOG] SHOULD NOT TAKE EFFECT?

ולד טרפה לא יקרב על גבי המזבח

THE TEXT THEREFORE STATES: FOR ANY VOW,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 19 in connection with the law of harlot's hire and price of a dog. The word 'any' amplifies.');">¹⁸</span>

רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר

IN ORDER TO INCLUDE THE CASE OF A BIRD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the law of the harlot's hire and price of a dog has effect on them.');">¹⁹</span>

כשירה שינקה מן הטרפה פסולה מעל גבי המזבח

THE ISSUE OF ALL ANIMALS WHICH ARE DISQUALIFIED FOR THE ALTAR ARE LEGITIMATE FOR THE ALTAR'R'ELEAZAR SAYS: THE ISSUE OF A TREFAH HOWEVER MAY NOT BE OFFERED ON THE ALTAR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But all will agree that it is permitted for private use, since it is not part of the body of its mother (Rashi) . Tosaf., however, maintains that it is forbidden even for private use.');">²⁰</span>

כל הקדשים שנעשו טרפה אין פודין אותן שאין פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים

R'HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAYS: A RITUALLY CLEAN ANIMAL WHICH SUCKLED FROM A TREFAH IS DISQUALIFIED FROM THE ALTAR'ONE MAY NOT REDEEM ANY DEDICATED ANIMAL WHICH BECAME TREFAH, SINCE WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REDEEM DEDICATED [ANIMALS] IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM TO DOGS TO EAT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this would be degrading dedications.');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis have taught: If he gave her [a harlot] wheat [as hire] and she made it into flour, olives and she made them into oil, grapes and she made them into wine, one [Baraitha] taught: They are forbidden [for the altar], and another [Baraitha] taught: They are legitimate [for the altar.]

נתן לה חיטין ועשאתן סולת זיתים ועשאתן שמן ענבים ועשאתן יין

Said R'Joseph: Gurion who came from Asporak<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not identified, but probably in Asia; v. Neubauer p. 386.');">²²</span>

תני חדא

recited: Bath Shammai forbid, whereas Beth Hillel permit.

אסורים ותניא אידך

Beth Hillel hold, [Scripture says]: 'Them', implying but not their issue; 'them' but not their products.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he gave her grapes and she made wine, etc.');">²³</span>

מותרין

Beth Shammai however hold: 'Them' implies but not their issue, and the word 'even' includes their products.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As being subject to the law of harlot's hire and price of a dog.');">²⁴</span>

אמר רב יוסף תני גוריון דמן אספורק

But do not Beth Hillel see that is is written 'even'? - The 'even' is according to the opinion of Beth Hillel indeed a difficulty.

ב"ש אוסרין וב"ה מתירין

Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says:] In the house of the Lord thy God,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the law of hire (Deut. XXIII, 19) .');">²⁵</span>

ב"ה סברי

this excludes the case of the red heifer which does not come to the House.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since every rite in this connection is performed on the Mount of Olives. It may therefore be brought from hire.');">²⁶</span>

הם ולא ולדותיהן הם ולא שינוייהן

This is the teaching of R'Eleazar.

ב"ש סברי

The Sages, however say: This includes beaten gold plates [as forbidden for overlaying].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To cover the altar.');">²⁷</span>

הם ולא ולדותיהן גם לרבות שינוייהן

Whose opinion is that of the Sages?

ולב"ה הכתיב גם

Said R'Hisda: It is that of R'Jose B'Judah.

גם לב"ה קשה

For it has been taught: If he gave her gold as hire, R'Jose B'Judah sai One must not use it to make beaten gold plates even for the space behind the Holy of Holies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was an area of eleven cubits at the back of the Temple, of less stringent holiness. Rashi says that e.g., he gave her stones as hire to build a wall in that part of the Temple court.');">²⁸</span>

ת"ר

IF HE GAVE HER DEDICATED [ANIMALS] THEY ARE LEGITIMATE etc. And why should not [the law of] a [harlot's] hire and price of a dog take effect with dedicated animals a minori?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A conclusion from the minor to the major.');">²⁹</span>

(דברים כג, יט) בית ה' אלהיך פרט לפרה שאין באה לבית דברי רבי אלעזר

If in the case of birds where a blemish does not disqualify them [from being offered, the law of] 'hire' and 'price' have effect,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As we include this from the text, 'For any vow'.');">³⁰</span>

וחכמים אומרים

in the case of dedicated animals where a blemish disqualifies them, is there not all the more reason that [the law of] 'hire' and 'price' should have effect?

לרבות את הריקועין

The text therefore states: For any vow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">³¹</span>

מאן חכמים

thus excluding what has already been vowed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., dedicated objects, and the man cannot forbid something which does not belong to him.');">³²</span>

אמר רב חסדא

Now the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the law of 'hire' and 'price' do not apply to dedications.');">³³</span>

רבי יוסי בר' יהודה היא

is because a Scriptural text excludes them [the dedications], but if a Scriptural text had not excluded them, I might have thought that if he gave a harlot dedicated animals the law of 'hire' and 'price'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Price' is irrelevant here but mentioned as a current phrase.');">³⁴</span>

דתניא

would apply to them, but can a man forbid what does not belong to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. Mek.; cur. edd 'but it is not (his) money'.');">³⁵</span>

נתן לה זהב רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר

- Said R'Oshaiah: We are dealing with a case where he assigns her as hire a share in his Passover lamb and it is the opinion of Rabbi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We are concerned with the kind of dedication which is in his possession.');">³⁶</span>

אין עושין ריקועין אפי' אחורי בית הכפרת

For it has been taught: [Scripture Says:] And if the household be too little for the lamb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 4.');">³⁷</span>

נתן לה מוקדשין הרי אלו מותרין כו'

give him to live from the lamb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Interpreting the text in the following manner: And if the household is diminished in resources, there being no means for the necessary things van ,uhvn required for the Paschal lamb. , 'Let him have the means from the lamb', i.e., to buy wood with which to roast the lamb, by taking money from others and sharing the animal with them.');">³⁸</span>

ויהיו מוקדשין אתנן ומחיר חל עליהן מקל וחומר

sufficient for food but not for a purchase.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, for example, to buy a garment with the money obtained by inviting others to share in the Paschal lamb, since such an article has no connection with the Paschal offering.');">³⁹</span>

ומה עופות שאין המום פוסל בהן אתנן ומחיר חל עליהן

Rabbi, however, says: Even sufficient for a purchase; if he had not the wherewithal, he can assign a share for others together with himself in his Passover lamb and his festival offerings, the money being hullin; for it was on such a condition that Israel dedicated their Passover lambs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the understanding that if he required something even unconnected with the Passover lamb, he should be permitted to invite others to share the offering.');">⁴⁰</span>

מוקדשים שהמום פוסל בהן אינו דין שאתנן ומחיר חל עליהן

THE ISSUE OF ALL ANIMALS WHICH ARE DISQUALIFIED FOR THE ALTAR etc. Said Rab: The issue of all animals which are disqualified for the altar are legitimate [for the altar].

תלמוד לומר לכל נדר להוציא את הנדור

And with reference to this i was taught that R'Eliezer forbids.

טעמא דמעטינהו קרא הא לא מעטינהו קרא הוה אמינא

R'Huna B'Hinena reported in the name of R'Nahman: The difference of opinion refers only in the case where they were pregnant and in the end were used for buggery, R'Eliezer holding that an Embryo is considered as the thigh of its mother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the offspring itself was abused.');">⁴¹</span>

כי יהיב לה מוקדשין חל עליהן אתנן ומחיר והא לאו ממונא הוא

whereas the Rabbis hold that an embryo is not considered as the thigh of its mother.

אמר רב הושעיא

But where they were used for buggery and afterwards they became pregnant, it is the unanimous opinion of all the authorities that they [the issue] are legitimate [for the altar

בממנה על פסחו ורבי היא

Raba says: The difference of opinion only refers to the case where they were used for buggery and afterwards became pregnant, R'Eliezer holding that a produce of combined causes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of which was forbidden. Now here, although the issue is brought about by the male, a permissible element - no prohibition attaching to the father of the offspring - since the mother which is also a cause of the offspring is prohibited, therefore the offspring is forbidden (Rashi) .');">⁴²</span>

דתניא

is forbidden, whereas the Rabbis hold that a product of combined causes is permitted.

(שמות יב, ד) ואם ימעט הבית מהיות משה החייהו משה מכדי אכילה ולא מכדי מקח

But where they were pregnant and then were used for buggery, it is the opinion of all the authorities concerned that they are forbidden [for the altar].

רבי אומר

Raba follows the opinion expressed by him elsewhere.

אף מכדי מקח שאם אין לו ממנה אחרים עמו על פסחו ועל חגיגתו ומעותיו חולין שע"מ כן הקדישו ישראל פסחיהן

For Raba says: The issue of a beast which was used for buggery while pregnant is disqualified [for the altar], for both mother and young have been abused.

כל האסורים לגבי מזבח וכו'

The issue of a beast which gored while pregnant is disqualified [for the altar], for both mother and young have gored.

אמר רב

Another version: R'Huna B'Hinena reported in the name of R'Nahman: The difference of opinion refers only where they were used for buggery while they were consecrated, R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that the issue is forbidden.');">⁴³</span>

כל האסורים לגבי מזבח ולדותיהן מותרים

holding that this is a degrading thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since they are dedications, it is unseemly to use them later for the altar after being abused.');">⁴⁴</span>

ותני עלה

whereas the Rabbis hold that it is not so.

ורבי אליעזר אוסר

But where they were used for buggery as hullin, since there is a change in status,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., from hullin to dedications.');">⁴⁵</span>

אמר רב הונא בר חיננא אמר רב נחמן

it is the opinion of all the authorities concerned that they [the issue] ar legitimate [for the altar].

מחלוקת שעיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דרבי אליעזר סבר

Raba reported in the name of R'Nahman: The difference of opinion is the same even if they were used for buggery as hullin, R'Eliezer holding that it is a degrading thing, whereas the Rabbis hold that since there was a change [in status] they are legitimate [for the altar].

עובר ירך אמו הוא ורבנן סברי

But where they were used for buggery while consecrated, it is the opinion of all the authorities concerned that they are forbidden for the altar.

לאו ירך אמו הוא

אבל נרבעו ולבסוף עיברו דברי הכל מותרין

רבא אמר

מחלוקת כשנרבעו ולבסוף עיברו דרבי אליעזר סבר

זה וזה גורם אסור

ורבנן סברי

זה וזה גורם מותר

אבל עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דברי הכל אסורין

ורבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא

ולד נרבעת אסורה היא וולדה נרבעו ולד נוגחת אסור היא וולדה נגחו

לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה

אמר רב הונא בר חיננא אמר רב נחמן

מחלוקת שנרבעו כשהן מוקדשין דר"א סבר

ביזוי מילתא ורבנן סברי

לא

אבל נרבעו כשהן חולין הואיל ואשתנו דברי הכל מותרין

רבא אמר רב נחמן

מחלוקת כשנרבעו כשהן חולין דרבי אליעזר סבר

ביזוי מילתא ורבנן סברי

הואיל ואשתנו מותרין אבל נרבעו כשהן מוקדשין דברי הכל אסורין