Temurah 60

Chapter 60

א מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן אין זנות לבהמות א"ל לא נישמוט קרא לכתוב אתנן זונה וכלב

1 Whence do we derive what the Rabbis taught that the term harlotry1 does not apply to animals?2 - He said to him: If that were so, Scripture would not omit to say: 'The hire of a harlot and a dog'.

ב תניא נמי הכי מנין לאתנן כלב ומחיר זונה שמותרין שנאמר ב' ולא ד' ולדותיהן מותרין שנאמר גם שניהם הם ולא ולדותיהן

2 We have learnt to the same effect:3 Whence do we infer that the hire of a dog and the price of a harlot are legitimate [for the altar]? Because it says: 'Both' - but not four.4 Their issue are legitimate for the altar, sin it says: 'Both of them', implying they, but not their issue.

ג אמר רבא ולד הנרבעת אסורה היא וולדה נרבעו נוגחת אסורה היא וולדה נגחו

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

ד ולד מוקצה ונעבד מותר מ"ט לאימיה אקציה לאימיה פלחי לה א"ד ולד מוקצה ונעבד אסור מאי טעמא דניחא ליה בניפחיה

4 The issue of a beast which was designated for idolatry5 or used for idolatry6 [while pregnant] is legitimate [for the altar]. What is the reason? Its mother was designated for idolatry and its mother was used [as such].7

ה אמר רב אחדבוי בר אמי אמר רב המקדש בפרש שור הנסקל מקודשת בפרש עגלי ע"ז אינה מקודשת מאי טעמא אי בעית אימא קרא ואי בעית אימא סברא

5 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]. What is the reason? Its full appearance is welcome to him.8 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.9

ו אי בעית אימא סברא ניחא ליה גבי ע"ז בניפחיה גבי שור הנסקל לא ניחא ליה בניפחיה

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

ז אי בעית אימא קרא גבי עבודת כוכבי' כתיב (דברים ז, כו) והיית חרם כמוהו כל שאתה מהיה ממנו הרי הוא כמוהו גבי שור הנסקל כתיב (שמות כא, כח) לא יאכל את בשרו בשרו אסור פרשו מותר

7 I may say it is intimated in Scripture and I may say that reason tells us so. I may say that reason tells us so, since for purposes of idol worship its full appearance is welcome to him,10 whereas in the case of an ox condemned to be stoned, its full appearance is not welcome to him.11

ח <big>מתני׳</big> נתן לה מעות הרי אלו מותרין יינות ושמנים וסלתות וכל דבר שכיוצא בו קרב על גבי המזבח אסור נתן לה מוקדשין הרי אלו מותרין

8 I may say it is intimated in Scripture. With reference to idolatry it is written: Lest thou be a cursed thing like it,12 thus intimating that whatever comes from it13

ט עופות הרי אלו אסורין שהיה בדין מה אם המוקדשין שהמום פוסל בהן אין אתנן ומחיר חל עליהן עוף שאין המום פוסל בו אינו דין שלא יהא אתנן ומחיר חל עליו תלמוד לומר (דברים כג, יט) לכל נדר להביא את העוף

9 is like it and forbidden; whereas with reference to an ox condemned to be stoned, it is written: And its flesh shall not be eaten14 - 'its flesh' is forbidden, its dung i permitted.15 <big>MISHNAH: </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]. IF HE GAVE HER BIRDS [OF HULLIN]16 THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED,17

י כל האסורין לגבי מזבח ולדותיהן מותרין רבי אליעזר אמר ולד טרפה לא יקרב על גבי המזבח רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר כשירה שינקה מן הטרפה פסולה מעל גבי המזבח כל הקדשים שנעשו טרפה אין פודין אותן שאין פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים

10 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? THE TEXT THEREFORE STATES: FOR ANY VOW,18 IN ORDER TO INCLUDE THE CASE OF A BIRD.19 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 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.21

יא <big>גמ׳</big> ת"ר נתן לה חיטין ועשאתן סולת זיתים ועשאתן שמן ענבים ועשאתן יין תני חדא אסורים ותניא אידך מותרין אמר רב יוסף תני גוריון דמן אספורק ב"ש אוסרין וב"ה מתירין

11 <big>GEMARA: </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.] Said R'Joseph: Gurion who came from Asporak22 recited: Bath Shammai forbid, whereas Beth Hillel permit. Beth Hillel hold, [Scripture says]: 'Them', implying but not their issue; 'them' but not their products.23 Beth Shammai however hold: 'Them' implies but not their issue, and the word 'even' includes their products.24 But do not Beth Hillel see that is is written 'even'? - The 'even' is according to the opinion of Beth Hillel indeed a difficulty. Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says:] In the house of the Lord thy God,25

יב ב"ה סברי הם ולא ולדותיהן הם ולא שינוייהן

12 this excludes the case of the red heifer which does not come to the House.26 This is the teaching of R'Eleazar.

יג ב"ש סברי הם ולא ולדותיהן גם לרבות שינוייהן ולב"ה הכתיב גם גם לב"ה קשה

13 The Sages, however say: This includes beaten gold plates [as forbidden for overlaying].27 Whose opinion is that of the Sages? Said R'Hisda: It is that of R'Jose B'Judah. 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

יד ת"ר (דברים כג, יט) בית ה' אלהיך פרט לפרה שאין באה לבית דברי רבי אלעזר וחכמים אומרים לרבות את הריקועין

14 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?29 If in the case of birds where a blemish does not disqualify them [from being offered, the law of] 'hire' and 'price' have effect,30 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? The text therefore states: For any vow,31

טו מאן חכמים אמר רב חסדא רבי יוסי בר' יהודה היא דתניא נתן לה זהב רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר אין עושין ריקועין אפי' אחורי בית הכפרת

15 thus excluding what has already been vowed.32 Now the reason33 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'34 would apply to them, but can a man forbid what does not belong to him?35 - 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.36 For it has been taught: [Scripture Says:] And if the household be too little for the lamb,37

טז נתן לה מוקדשין הרי אלו מותרין כו'

16 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

יז ויהיו מוקדשין אתנן ומחיר חל עליהן מקל וחומר ומה עופות שאין המום פוסל בהן אתנן ומחיר חל עליהן מוקדשים שהמום פוסל בהן אינו דין שאתנן ומחיר חל עליהן תלמוד לומר לכל נדר להוציא את הנדור

17 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 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.40 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]. And with reference to this i was taught that R'Eliezer forbids.

יח טעמא דמעטינהו קרא הא לא מעטינהו קרא הוה אמינא כי יהיב לה מוקדשין חל עליהן אתנן ומחיר והא לאו ממונא הוא

18 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,41 whereas the Rabbis hold that an embryo is not considered as the thigh of its mother.

יט אמר רב הושעיא בממנה על פסחו ורבי היא דתניא (שמות יב, ד) ואם ימעט הבית מהיות משה

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

כ החייהו משה מכדי אכילה ולא מכדי מקח

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

21 Raba follows the opinion expressed by him elsewhere. 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.

כב כל האסורים לגבי מזבח וכו' אמר רב כל האסורים לגבי מזבח ולדותיהן מותרים ותני עלה ורבי אליעזר אוסר

22 The issue of a beast which gored while pregnant is disqualified [for the altar], for both mother and young have gored. 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'Eliezer43 holding that this is a degrading thing,44 whereas the Rabbis hold that it is not so. But where they were used for buggery as hullin, since there is a change in status,45

כג אמר רב הונא בר חיננא אמר רב נחמן מחלוקת שעיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דרבי אליעזר סבר עובר ירך אמו הוא ורבנן סברי לאו ירך אמו הוא אבל נרבעו ולבסוף עיברו דברי הכל מותרין

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

כד רבא אמר מחלוקת כשנרבעו ולבסוף עיברו דרבי אליעזר סבר זה וזה גורם אסור ורבנן סברי זה וזה גורם מותר

כה אבל עיברו ולבסוף נרבעו דברי הכל אסורין ורבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא ולד נרבעת אסורה היא וולדה נרבעו ולד נוגחת אסור היא וולדה נגחו

כו 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

כז 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

Previous Chapter Next Chapter