Temurah 61

ולד טרפה כו'

THE ISSUE OF A TREFAH etc. According to the authority who holds that a trefah can give birth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is a controversy on this matter in Hul. 57b.');">¹</span>

למ"ד טרפה (אינה) ילדה משכחת לה כגון שנטרפה ולבסוף עיברה

we can explain [the Mishnah here] as referring to a case where e.g. , it became trefah and afterwards became pregnant, and the point at issue is that R'Eliezer holds that a product of combined causes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mother alone being forbidden but not the father. We cannot say here that the point at issue will be whether an embryo is to be regarded as the thigh of its mother, for since it became trefah before pregnancy it cannot be regarded as the thigh of its mother, as it possesses an element which is permissible, viz., from its sire (Rashi) .');">²</span>

ובהא פליגי דר' אליעזר סבר

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

זה וזה גורם אסור ורבנן סברי

According to the authority who holds that a trefah cannot give birth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek.; cur. edd., cannot live.');">³</span>

זה וזה גורם מותר

it can be explained as referring to a case where e.g. , it became pregnant and afterwards became trefah, and the point at issue is that R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who forbids the issue for the altar.');">⁴</span>

למ"ד טריפה אינה חיה משכחת לה כגון שעיברה ולבסוף נטרפה

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

ובהא פליגי דר' אליעזר סבר

Said R'Huna: The Sages<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who say in the Mishnah that the issue of a trefah may be offered on the altar.');">⁵</span>

עובר ירך אמו הוא ורבנן סברי

agree with R'Eliezer that the young bird from the egg of a bird that became trefah is forbidden [for the altar].

עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא

What is the reason?

א"ר הונא

[The Sages] differ from R'Eliezer only in the case of issue of a trefah, since it develops from the air,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The embryo of an animal is not attached to the latter's body but develops on its own and hangs, so to speak, in the air; whereas an egg, so long as it is not completed, is attached to the body and is completed inside the bird (Rashi) . Another interpretation given by Rashi: An embryo of an animal grows and develops after it sees the light of day, i.e., after birth, whereas an egg does not develop any more after birth, thus proving that it is part of the body of the bird and can only grow when joined to it.');">⁶</span>

מודים חכמים לר' אליעזר באפרוח ביצת טרפה שאסור מ"ט

whereas in the case of a young bird from the egg of a bird that became trefah, since it develops from the body of the bird, even the Rabbis agree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the bird which comes from the egg is forbidden for the altar.');">⁷</span>

ע"כ לא פליגי עליה דרבי אליעזר אלא בולד בהמה דמאוירא קא רביא

Said Raba to R'Huna: We have the confirmation of your opinion as follows: A tarwad<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A spoon, pointed at the top and round at the end.');">⁸</span>

אבל ביצת טרפה מגופה דתרנגולתא קא רביא אפי' רבנן מודו

-full of worms that come from a living person [who then died], R'Eliezer declares to be ritually unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to impart uncleanness by contact or through overshadowing, because a limb separated from a human being has the same law as a limb from a corpse (Rashi) .');">⁹</span>

א"ל רבא לרב הונא

whereas the Sages declare them clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was separated when the person was alive, it is regarded as mere dust and is not considered as part of the body.');">¹⁰</span>

תניא דמסייע לך מלא תרוד רימה הבאה מאדם חי רבי אליעזר מטמא וחכמים מטהרין

Now the Rabbis differ [with R'Eliezer] only as regards worms [of a human body], since they are considered merely as a discharge, but in the case of an egg, since it is part of the body of the bird, even the Rabbis would agree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the bird from it is forbidden for the altar.');">¹¹</span>

עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה אלא ברימה דפירשא בעלמא הוא

Said Abaye to him: But it is not logically the reverse?

אבל ביצה דמגופה דתרנגולת הוא אפילו רבנן מודו

R'Eliezer only differs from the Rabbis in the case of a worm, since a man even when alive is described as a worm, as it is written: How much less man that is a worm, and son of man that is a maggot;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXV, 6.');">¹²</span>

א"ל אביי

[but in the case of a young bird]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Bah.');">¹³</span>

אדרבה איפכא מסתברא

even R'Eliezer would admit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. (given in curr. edd. in square brackets) : 'But with reference to an egg, the young bird is developed after the deterioration of the egg, and after deterioration the egg is mere dust, and therefore even R. Eliezer agrees.'');">¹⁴</span>

ע"כ לא פליג ר' אליעזר עלייהו דרבנן אלא ברימה דאיקרי אדם מחיים רימה דכתיב

[it is fit for the altar].

(איוב כה, ו) ותקות אנוש רמה ובן אדם תולעה

And, moreover, it has been explicitly taught: R'Eliezer agrees with the Sages in the case of [a young bird from] an egg from a bird that became trefah, that it is legitimate for the altar! - He [Raba] replied to [Abaye]: If it has been taught,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is permissible for the altar.');">¹⁶</span>

אבל גבי ביצה [אימת גדלה לכי מסרחא וכי אסרחא עפרא בעלמא הוא] אפי' ר"א מודה

it has been taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is nothing more to be said.');">¹⁷</span>

ועוד תניא בהדיא

R'HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAYS: A RITUALLY CLEAN ANIMAL etc. What is the reason?

מודה ר"א לחכמים באפרוח ביצת טרפה שמותר

Shall we say because it becomes fat from it?

א"ל

If this is so, if he feeds it with vetches set aside for idolatry, is it really forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it says (supra 29a) that only mukzeh is forbidden in such circumstances.');">¹⁸</span>

אי תניא תניא

- [Rather it is as] R'Hanina of Trita recited in the presence of R'Johanan: You suppose for instance that it sucked hot milk [from a trefah] every morning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All its days.');">¹⁹</span>

רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר כשרה כו'

since it can live for twenty-four hours.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this milk alone without any other food. This proves that the growth and development of the animal was due to its sucking from a trefah, and therefore it is forbidden for the altar; whereas an animal which was given to eat vetches set aside for idolatry, since it cannot exist without other food in the twenty-four hours, is permitted for the altar. If, however, an animal ate vetches set aside for idolatry, all its life, it would also be forbidden (Tosaf) .');">²⁰</span>

מ"ט

ONE MAY NOT REDEEM ANY DEDICATED ANIMAL WHICH BECAME TREFAH etc. Whence is this derived? - Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says: Thou mayest kill and eat flesh:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 15.');">²¹</span>

אילימא דמפטמא מינה אלא מעתה האכילה כרשיני ע"ז ה"נ דאסירא

] 'thou mayest kill' [implies] but no shearing; 'and eat', but not for thy dogs; 'flesh', but not milk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Milking would be work, which is forbidden.');">²²</span>

אלא תני ר' חנינא טריטאה קמיה דרבי יוחנן

Hence we infer that one must not redeem dedications in order to give them to dogs to eat.

כגון שהניקה חלב רותח משחרית לשחרית הואיל ויכולה לעמוד עליה מעת לעת

Another version: The text, 'Thou mayest kill and eat flesh' [implies] that the permission to eat commences only from the time of killing and onwards,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus excluding milk or the shearing as forbidden, these being benefits derived while the animal is alive. Now since we do not interpret the text 'and eat' as excluding the food for dogs, we can therefore infer that it is allowed to feed dogs with redeemed dedications. From this Baraitha we see that there is a difference of opinion among Tannaim as to whether we may give dogs to eat from redeemed dedications.');">²³</span>

כל הקדשים שנעשו טרפה אין פודין כו'

because he [the Tanna] here holds that it is permitted to redeem dedications in order to give them to dogs to eat.

מנא ה"מ

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THERE ARE [REGULATIONS] WHICH APPLY TO DEDICATIONS FOR THE ALTAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike dedications for the repairs of the Temple, because these, in the first place, are not called 'a sacrifice', and secondly, because they are only holy for their value.');">²⁴</span>

דת"ר

WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO DEDICATIONS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., their value.');">²⁵</span>

(דברים יב, טו) תזבח ולא גיזה ואכלת ולא לכלביך בשר ולא חלב מכאן שאין פודים את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים

FOR REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE, AND THERE ARE [REGULATIONS] WHICH APPLY TO DEDICATIONS FOR THE REPAIRS OF THE TEMPLE WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO DEDICATIONS FOR THE ALTAR'FOR DEDICATIONS FOR THE ALTAR EFFECT EXCHANGE, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF PIGGUL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sacrifice rejected in consequence of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest.');">²⁶</span>

איכא דאמרי

NOTHAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sacrifice which was left over after the appointed time set aside for its eating.');">²⁷</span>

תזבח ואכלת אין לך בהן היתר אלא משעת זביחה ואילך קסבר

AND RITUAL UNCLEANNESS;

פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כל האסורין</strong></big><br><br>

מתני׳ <big><strong>יש</strong></big> בקדשי מזבח שאין בקדשי בדק הבית ויש בקדשי בדק הבית שאין בקדשי מזבח

שקדשי מזבח עושין תמורה וקדשי בדק הבית אין עושין תמורה

קדשי מזבח חייבין עליו משום פיגול נותר וטמא