Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 18, 2019 | 讬状讝 讘讗讘 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Temurah 30

Various details are discussed related to the prohibition to use an animal that was given as a gift to a prostitute or for the sale of a dog as a sacrifice on the altar. Is this also relevant to their offpspring? On what does that depend?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 驻谞讜讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛驻谞讜讬讛 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 注砖讗讛 讝讜谞讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗诇诪谞讛 谞讬转谞讬 驻谞讜讬讛

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: With regard to an unmarried man who engaged in intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage, he has thereby caused her to become a prostitute. It is for this reason that her payment is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar. By contrast, Abaye holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara asks: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, why mention specifically the prohibition of a widow who is paid for engaging in intercourse with a High Priest? Let it teach that payment is prohibited even in the case of an unmarried man who engaged in intercourse with an unmarried woman.

讗诇诪谞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘谞讬谉 讗讘 讛讜讗 诇讗 谞讬转住专讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers that it was necessary for the tanna to cite the example of a widow who is paid for engaging in intercourse with a High Priest, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the case of an unmarried man who engaged in intercourse with an unmarried woman, which is not a forbidden relationship by Torah law, is the paradigm example of prohibited payment to a prostitute, perhaps in a situation where the relationship is forbidden by Torah law, the payment should not be prohibited. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that payment to a prostitute is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar even when the relationship is forbidden by Torah law, as in the case of a widow who is paid for engaging in intercourse with a High Priest.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛讗 诇讱 讟诇讛 讝讛 讻讜壮 讜讛讗 砖驻讞讛 诇注讘讚 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗爪诇讜 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 注讘讚 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗 拽讗诪专

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: Here is this lamb and in return your maidservant will lie with my slave and engage in intercourse with him, Rabbi Meir, or according to a different version of the text, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: The lamb鈥檚 halakhic status is not that of payment to a prostitute, and the Rabbis say: Its halakhic status is that of payment to a prostitute. The Gemara raises an objection with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis: But a maidservant is permitted to a Canaanite slave. Since this is not an act of prostitution, why should the payment be prohibited? Rav Huna said: He means to say that the lamb is given for the maidservant to lie with him, the master, not the slave. And as for that which it teaches: Lie with my slave, he employs a euphemism.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 注讘讚讬 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘注讘讚 注讘专讬

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that this payment is not prohibited? Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: Actually, the mishna is not employing a euphemism, and the master meant: My slave. And as for the difficulty that a maidservant is permitted to a slave, when the mishna teaches this case it is referring to a Hebrew slave, which is why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules that the payment is permitted.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 砖驻讞讛 诇注讘讚 注讘专讬 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason for the ruling of the Rabbis? After all, a maidservant is permitted to a Hebrew slave. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the Hebrew slave does not have a wife and children, and in that situation the Canaanite maidservant is not permitted to the Hebrew slave. As it is taught in a baraita: If a Hebrew servant does not have a wife and children when he is enslaved, his master may not give him a Canaanite maidservant. If he has a wife and children, his master may give him a Canaanite maidservant. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that the master may give a Canaanite maidservant to his Hebrew slave even if the slave does not have a wife and children, and therefore the relationship is not considered an act of prostitution.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讞讬专 讻诇讘 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛讜诇讬讱 讟诇讛 讝讛 转讞转 讻诇讘

MISHNA: And which is the case where an animal has the halakhic status of the price of a dog, and it is therefore prohibited to sacrifice the animal on the altar? It is the case of one who says to another: Here is this lamb in place of a dog.

讜讻谉 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讗讞讚 谞讟诇 注砖专讛 讜讗讞讚 转砖注讛 讜讻诇讘 砖讻谞讙讚 讛讻诇讘 讗住讜专 讜砖注诐 讛讻诇讘 诪讜转专

And likewise, this prohibition applies in the case of two partners who divided their common property, which included nineteen lambs and one dog, and one took ten lambs and the other one took nine lambs and a dog. Sacrifice of the ten lambs taken by the partner in exchange for the nine lambs and the dog is prohibited, and sacrifice of the nine lambs that were taken by the partner with the dog is permitted.

讗转谞谉 讛讻诇讘 讜诪讞讬专 讝讜谞讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讛谉 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉

With regard to lambs given as payment to another for engaging in intercourse with his dog, or as the price of a prostitute to purchase her as his maidservant, their sacrifice is permitted, as it is stated: 鈥淎s both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19), from which it is inferred: Two are prohibited, payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, and not four, i.e., the additional two cases of payment for intercourse with a dog and the price of a prostitute, which are permitted. Furthermore, with regard to the two prohibited cases of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted, as it is stated 鈥渢hem,鈥 and not their offspring.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讞讬专 讻诇讘 讝讛讜 讞诇讬驻讬 讻诇讘 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 转诪讻专 注诪讱 讘诇讗 讛讜谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬转 讘诪讞讬专讬讛诐

GEMARA: With regard to the definition of the price of a dog, the Sages taught: 鈥淭he price of a dog鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19), this is referring to an animal given in exchange for a dog. In this context the word 鈥減rice鈥 means an item given in exchange for another item, not money. And likewise the verse states: 鈥淵ou sell Your people without wealth, and have not set their prices high鈥 (Psalms 44:13). The phrase 鈥渨ithout wealth鈥 indicates that the term 鈥渢heir prices鈥 means an item given in exchange, rather than money.

讗讬诪讗 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讗 拽专讘 讛讜讜 转诇转讗 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 砖诇砖讛

The Gemara objects: You can say instead that the verse: 鈥淧rice of a dog,鈥 is referring to payment to a prostitute, payment for intercourse with a dog, as well as the price of a dog. The Gemara explains that one cannot explain the verse in this manner, as if so, there are three categories of items that may not be sacrificed to the altar, whereas the verse states: 鈥淏oth of them,鈥 indicating that there are two categories, and not three.

诪讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗谞谉 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讗转谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讞讬专 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara rephrases its objection: Did we say that payment to a prostitute, payment for intercourse with a dog, and the price of a dog should all be prohibited? We said that perhaps the phrase: The price of a dog, means the payment for intercourse with a dog, and not the price, i.e., the animal given in exchange for a dog. According to this suggestion, the verse indeed mentions only two categories: Payment given to a prostitute for services rendered, and payment for intercourse with a dog.

讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讗 转讘讬讗 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讜讻诇讘 诪讚讻转讬讘 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讜诪讞讬专 讻诇讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara responds: If that is so, let the verse state: You shall not bring the payment to a prostitute or a dog, as in this formulation the word 鈥減ayment鈥 refers both to the prostitute and the dog. From the fact that it is written: 鈥淭he payment of a harlot or the price of a dog,鈥 one can learn from here that the verse is referring to two different matters: Payment to a prostitute, and an animal exchanged for a dog.

讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讗讞讚 谞讟诇 讻讜壮 谞讬驻讜拽 讞讚讗 诇讛讚讬 讻诇讘讗 讜讛谞讱 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讬砖转专讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讟驻讬 讚诪讬 讻诇讘 诪讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讟讬驻讜谞讗 讚讻诇讘 砖讚讬 讘讻讜诇讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to two partners who divided their common property, and one took ten lambs and the other one took nine lambs and a dog, sacrifice of the ten lambs taken by the partner in exchange for nine lambs and a dog is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Why should all ten lambs be prohibited? Let us remove one of the lambs corresponding to the dog, and all the rest of these lambs will be permitted. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the value of the dog is worth more than each one of the ten lambs seperately. Therefore, one cannot set aside one of the lambs in exchange for the dog. And consequently, one casts this addition of the value of the dog between all of the lambs. As a result, all ten lambs are prohibited, since the price of the dog is included in each of them.

讗转谞谉 讻诇讘 讜诪讞讬专 讝讜谞讛 诪讜转专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬

搂 The mishna further teaches with regard to animals given as payment to another for engaging in intercourse with a dog, or as the price of a prostitute to purchase her as his maidservant, that their sacrifice is permitted. Rava from Parzakya said to Rav Ashi:

诪谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讝谞讜转 诇讘讛诪讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬砖诪讜讟 拽专讗 诇讻转讜讘 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讜讻诇讘

From where is this matter that the Sages stated, that there is no prostitution with regard to an animal derived? I.e., from where is it derived that a woman who copulates with an animal is not considered a prostitute, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna that payment for intercourse with an animal is permitted? Rav Ashi said to Rava from Parzakya: There was nothing preventing the verse from writing: You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute or a dog into the House of the Lord your God. Since the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the payment of a prostitute or the price of a dog,鈥 this indicates that these are two different cases, and there is no prostitution with regard to an animal.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪谞讬谉 诇讗转谞谉 讻诇讘 讜诪讞讬专 讝讜谞讛 砖诪讜转专讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讛诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉

The Gemara adds that this is also taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to the payment of a lamb to another for engaging in intercourse with a dog, or as the price of a prostitute to purchase her as his maidservant, that their sacrifice is permitted? As it is stated: 鈥淔or even both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19), from which it is inferred: Two are prohibited, payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, and not four, i.e., payment for intercourse with a dog and the price of a prostitute, which are permitted. Furthermore, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted, as it is stated: 鈥淓ven both of them,鈥 which indicates that it is 鈥渢hem鈥 that are forbidden, and not their offspring.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诇讚 讛谞专讘注转 讗住讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞专讘注讜 谞讜讙讞转 讗住讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞讙讞讜

The Gemara discusses other cases of offspring of animals with regard to sacrifice on the altar. Rava says: The offspring of a female animal that was the object of bestiality when it was pregnant is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, like its mother. The reason is that it is considered as though it, the mother, and its offspring both were the object of bestiality. Likewise, if a pregnant cow gores and kills a Jew, its offspring is prohibited to be sacrificed, like its mother, as it is as though it, the mother, and its offspring both gored.

讜诇讚 诪讜拽爪讛 讜谞注讘讚 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讬诪讬讛 讗拽爪讬讛 诇讗讬诪讬讛 驻诇讞讬 诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讜诇讚 诪讜拽爪讛 讜谞注讘讚 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘谞讬驻讞讬讛

But the offspring of a set-aside animal and an animal worshipped as an idol are permitted to be sacrificed on the altar. What is the reason? It is that only the mother was set aside, and not the offspring. Likewise, they worshipped only its mother, not the offspring. There are those who say a different version of Rava鈥檚 statement: The offspring of a set-aside animal and the offspring of an animal worshipped as an idol are prohibited. What is the reason? It is that it is beneficial to the owner if its girth is large, as a pregnant animal is more impressive than an ordinary one. Consequently, its offspring is also considered set-aside and worshipped, and it is therefore prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 讘驻专砖 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘驻专砖 注讙诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗

Rav A岣devoi bar Ami says that Rav says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with the excrement of an ox that is sentenced to be stoned, if the excrement is worth at least one peruta, the woman is betrothed. Although it is not permitted to derive benefit from the ox itself, one may derive benefit from its excrement. But if one betroths her with the excrement of calves that were used for idol worship, she is not betrothed, as even their excrement is prohibited. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the difference between the excrement of an ox that is stoned and the excrement of calves used for idolatry? If you wish, say that this is learned from a verse; if you wish, say instead that it is derived by means of a logical argument.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讙讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘谞讬驻讞讬讛 讙讘讬 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘谞讬驻讞讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say it is derived by means of a logical argument: With regard to calves used for idol worship, a calf鈥檚 additional girth due to the excrement stored in its body is beneficial to the owner, as fatter animals are more impressive. Therefore, the excrement is considered part of the offering and is prohibited. By contrast, with regard to an ox that is stoned, its additional girth is not beneficial to him, as he gains nothing from it, and consequently it is not considered part of the animal.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讙讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讬转 讞专诐 讻诪讜讛讜 讻诇 砖讗转讛 诪讛讬讛 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讜讛讜 讙讘讬 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗转 讘砖专讜 讘砖专讜 讗住讜专 驻专砖讜 诪讜转专

If you wish, say that this is learned from a verse: It is written with regard to an animal used for idol worship: 鈥淎nd you shall not bring an abomination into your house, and be [vehayita] accursed like it鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26). This teaches that anything that you create [mehayye] from the idol is prohibited like the idol itself. But with regard to an ox that is stoned, it is written: 鈥淭he ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten鈥 (Exodus 21:28). This teaches that only its flesh is forbidden, but its excrement is permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 谞转谉 诇讛 诪注讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讬讬谞讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 拽专讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讗住讜专 谞转谉 诇讛 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉

MISHNA: If one gave money to a prostitute as her payment, it is permitted to purchase an offering with that money, as the money itself is not sacrificed. If he paid her with wine, or oil, or flour, or any other item the like of which is sacrificed on the altar, sacrifice of those items is prohibited. If he gave her consecrated items for her services, their sacrifice is permitted. Since they were already consecrated, they do not belong to him, and one cannot prohibit an item that is not his.

注讜驻讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讛讬讛 讘讚讬谉 诪讛 讗诐 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 砖讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 讗讬谉 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讞诇 注诇讬讛谉 注讜祝 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讞诇 注诇讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诇 谞讚专 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛注讜祝

If he paid her with non-sacred birds, their sacrifice is prohibited. The mishna elaborates: As, by right, it should be inferred a fortiori: If in the case of consecrated items, which a blemish disqualifies, the prohibition of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog do not take effect with regard to them; with regard to a bird, which a blemish does not disqualify, is it not right that the prohibition of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog should not take effect with regard to them? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). This serves to include the bird in the prohibition.

讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 讜诇讚 讟专驻讛 诇讗 讬拽专讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讻砖讬专讛 砖讬谞拽讛 诪谉 讛讟专驻讛 驻住讜诇讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖谞注砖讜 讟专驻讛 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诇讛讗讻讬诇谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐

The mishna adds a principle: With regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted. Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa]shall not be sacrificed on the altar. Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: A kosher animal that suckled from a tereifa is disqualified from sacrifice on the altar. With regard to all sacrificial animals that became tereifot, one may not redeem them and render them non-sacred, as their consumption is forbidden and one does not redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to dogs, as this is considered a degradation of sacrificial animals.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞转谉 诇讛 讞讬讟讬谉 讜注砖讗转谉 住讜诇转 讝讬转讬诐 讜注砖讗转谉 砖诪谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜注砖讗转谉 讬讬谉 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讗住讜专讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪讜转专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬 讙讜专讬讜谉 讚诪谉 讗住驻讜专拽 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught: If one gave wheat to a prostitute and she made the wheat into flour, or if he gave her olives and she made them into oil, or if he gave her grapes and she made them into wine, it is taught in one baraita that these products are prohibited to be used as an offering in the Temple, and it is taught in another baraita that they are permitted, as the physical change transforms them into new objects. Rav Yosef said that Guryon of Aspork teaches in a baraita: Beit Shammai prohibit these products and Beit Hillel permit them. If so, the two baraitot cited above reflect a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讛诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛谉

The Gemara explains that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both derive their ruling from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). Beit Hillel, who permit these items after they have undergone a physical change, maintain that the word 鈥渢hem鈥 teaches that this prohibition applies only to the original items, but not to their offspring. Likewise, it applies only to them, i.e., the items in their original form, but not to their changed status.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讛诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 讙诐 诇专讘讜转 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛谉 讜诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讻转讬讘 讙诐 讙诐 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 拽砖讛

Beit Shammai maintain that one indeed derives: 鈥淭hem,鈥 but not their offspring. But they maintain that the word 鈥渆ven鈥 serves to include in the prohibition items in their changed status. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, isn鈥檛 it written 鈥渆ven鈥? How do they interpret that word? The Gemara responds: The word 鈥渆ven鈥 is in fact difficult according to Beit Hillel.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 驻专讟 诇驻专讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讛 诇讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛专讬拽讜注讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God,鈥 that this excludes a red heifer, which is not brought to the House of the Lord, i.e., the Temple, but is slaughtered outside Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say: This verse serves to include in the prohibition beaten plates of gold in the Temple, if the gold was used as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog.

诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞转谉 诇讛 讝讛讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 专讬拽讜注讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻驻专转

The Gemara asks: Who are the Rabbis cited here? Rav 岣sda says: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: If one gave a prostitute gold as her payment, Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may not fashion hanging beaten plates of gold for the Temple from it, even for the area behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, i.e., the eleven cubits of space behind the Holy of Holies up to the wall of the Temple courtyard, which was at the western end of the Sanctuary. Athough this area is of lesser sanctity than the rest of the Temple, one may not place there any gold given as payment to a prostitute.

谞转谉 诇讛 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches: If he gave her consecrated items for her services, their sacrifice is permitted, whereas if he paid her with non-sacred birds, their sacrifice is prohibited. The prohibited status of birds is derived from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow,鈥 despite an a fortiori inference from consecrated animals that indicates they should be permitted.

讜讬讛讬讜 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讞诇 注诇讬讛谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 注讜驻讜转 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讞诇 注诇讬讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讞诇 注诇讬讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诇 谞讚专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞讚讜专

The Gemara objects: But if these birds are disqualified as sacrifices, let the prohibitions of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog apply to consecrated animals, by the following a fortiori inference: If in the case of birds, which a blemish does not disqualify, the status of a prostitute鈥檚 payment and a dog鈥檚 price applies to them, then with regard to consecrated items, which a blemish does disqualify, is it not logical that the status of a prostitute鈥檚 payment and a dog鈥檚 price should apply to them? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or any vow.鈥 This serves to exclude those animals that have already been vowed to be sacrificed.

讟注诪讗 讚诪注讟讬谞讛讜 拽专讗 讛讗 诇讗 诪注讟讬谞讛讜 拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讞诇 注诇讬讛谉 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara objects: The only reason consecrated animals are disqualified is that the verse excludes them, through the word 鈥渧ow.鈥 But had the verse not excluded them, I would say that if one gives a prostitute sacrificial animals, or gives these animals in exchange for a dog, the prohibition of payment to a prostitute or a dog鈥檚 price applies to them. But this conclusion is problematic, as a consecrated animal is not his property, and there is an established principle that one cannot render an item prohibited if it does not belong to him. How then could one render it prohibited by giving it to a prostitute?

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讘诪诪谞讛 注诇 驻住讞讜 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗诐 讬诪注讟 讛讘讬转 诪讛讬讜转 诪砖讛

Rav Hoshaya says: This is referring to one who registers the prostitute for his Paschal offering (see Pesa岣m 61a), giving her a portion in it as payment for her services, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that a Paschal offering is considered one鈥檚 personal property for the purposes of allowing additional people to register for it. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states, with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd if the household be too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbor next to his house shall take one鈥 (Exodus 12:4). The phrase 鈥渋f the household be too little鈥 is interpreted to mean that the household cannot afford the basic necessities of the Festival.

讛讞讬讬讛讜 诪砖讛 诪讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 诪讻讚讬 诪拽讞

Based on this interpretation, the phrase 鈥渇or a lamb [mihyot miseh]鈥 is interpreted to mean: Sustain him from the lamb [ha岣eihu miseh], i.e., he may use the Paschal offering as a means of supporting himself. He takes money from his neighbor in return for registering that neighbor for a portion of his Paschal offering and uses the money to purchase his needs. This halakha applies only if one lacks sufficient means to purchase food to eat, but not if he lacks merely sufficient means to purchase other items.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讻讚讬 诪拽讞 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪诪谞讛 讗讞专讬诐 注诪讜 注诇 驻住讞讜 讜注诇 讞讙讬讙转讜 讜诪注讜转讬讜 讞讜诇讬谉 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 讛拽讚讬砖讜 讬砖专讗诇 驻住讞讬讛谉

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This lenient halakha applies even if one lacks sufficient means to purchase other necessary items, as, if he does not have sufficient funds he may register others with him for his Paschal offering and for his Festival peace offering. And his money that he receives for registering that person is non-sacred, as it is on this condition of registering others in exchange for the money which he receives from them that the Jewish people consecrate their Paschal offerings.

讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬诐 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬诐 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬诐 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住专

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted. Rav says: This ruling that with regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted, is not unanimous but is the opinion of the Rabbis. And indeed it is taught with regard to this case: And Rabbi Eliezer prohibits their offspring to be sacrificed on the altar.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖注讬讘专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞专讘注讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 注讜讘专 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗讜 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 谞专讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 注讬讘专讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉

Rav Huna bar 岣nnana says that Rav Na岣an says: This dispute applies in a case where the animals became pregnant and then were the objects of bestiality, thereby becoming prohibited to sacrifice on the altar. As Rabbi Eliezer holds that a fetus is considered the thigh of its mother and regarded as part of the animal, and is consequently prohibited like its mother. And the Rabbis hold that a fetus is not considered the thigh of its mother. But if the animals were the objects of bestiality and then became pregnant, everyone agrees that they are permitted.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖谞专讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 注讬讘专讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专

Rava says: This dispute applies in a case where the animals were the objects of bestiality and then became pregnant, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both this permitted factor and that prohibited factor cause a certain situation, the resulting item is prohibited. Since the mother of this offspring is prohibited, the offspring is likewise prohibited, despite the fact that its father is permitted. And the Rabbis hold that when this permitted factor and that prohibited factor cause a result, it, i.e., the offspring, is permitted like its father.

讗讘诇 注讬讘专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞专讘注讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬谉 讜专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诇讚 谞专讘注转 讗住讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞专讘注讜 讜诇讚 谞讜讙讞转 讗住讜专 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞讙讞讜

But in a case where the animals became pregnant and then were the object of bestiality, everyone agrees that they are prohibited. And the Gemara adds that Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as Rava said: The offspring of a female animal that was the object of bestiality when it was pregnant is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, as it is considered as though it, the mother, and its offspring were both the object of bestiality. Likewise, the offspring of a pregnant cow that gores and kills a person is prohibited, because it is as though it, the mother, and its offspring both gored.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讘讬讝讜讬 诪讬诇转讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗讘诇 谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗砖转谞讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉

Some state another version of the previous discussion: Rav Huna bar 岣nnana says that Rav Na岣an says: This dispute applies in a case where the animals were the object of bestiality when they already had the status of sacrificial animals. As Rabbi Eliezer holds that the offspring are also prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, as their sacrifice is considered a degradation of consecrated items, and degradation of consecrated items is significant. And the Rabbis hold that the offspring may be sacrificed, as they maintain that this is not considered a degradation of consecrated items. But in a case where the animals were the object of bestiality when they were non-sacred, and were subsequently consecrated, since their status was changed by their consecration, everyone agrees that they are permitted.

专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讘讬讝讜讬 诪讬诇转讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗砖转谞讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讗讘诇 谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬谉

In contrast, Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: This dispute applies in a case where the animals were the object of bestiality when they were non-sacred, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that even the sacrifice of this offspring is considered degrading to sacrificial animals, and degradation of sacrificial animals is significant, and therefore they are prohibited. And the Rabbis hold that since their status was changed by their consecration, they are permitted. But in a case where the animals were the object of bestiality when they already had the status of sacrificial animals, everyone agrees that they are prohibited.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Temurah 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 30

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 驻谞讜讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛驻谞讜讬讛 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 注砖讗讛 讝讜谞讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗诇诪谞讛 谞讬转谞讬 驻谞讜讬讛

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: With regard to an unmarried man who engaged in intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage, he has thereby caused her to become a prostitute. It is for this reason that her payment is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar. By contrast, Abaye holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara asks: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, why mention specifically the prohibition of a widow who is paid for engaging in intercourse with a High Priest? Let it teach that payment is prohibited even in the case of an unmarried man who engaged in intercourse with an unmarried woman.

讗诇诪谞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘谞讬谉 讗讘 讛讜讗 诇讗 谞讬转住专讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers that it was necessary for the tanna to cite the example of a widow who is paid for engaging in intercourse with a High Priest, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the case of an unmarried man who engaged in intercourse with an unmarried woman, which is not a forbidden relationship by Torah law, is the paradigm example of prohibited payment to a prostitute, perhaps in a situation where the relationship is forbidden by Torah law, the payment should not be prohibited. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that payment to a prostitute is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar even when the relationship is forbidden by Torah law, as in the case of a widow who is paid for engaging in intercourse with a High Priest.

讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛讗 诇讱 讟诇讛 讝讛 讻讜壮 讜讛讗 砖驻讞讛 诇注讘讚 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗爪诇讜 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 注讘讚 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗 拽讗诪专

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: Here is this lamb and in return your maidservant will lie with my slave and engage in intercourse with him, Rabbi Meir, or according to a different version of the text, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: The lamb鈥檚 halakhic status is not that of payment to a prostitute, and the Rabbis say: Its halakhic status is that of payment to a prostitute. The Gemara raises an objection with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis: But a maidservant is permitted to a Canaanite slave. Since this is not an act of prostitution, why should the payment be prohibited? Rav Huna said: He means to say that the lamb is given for the maidservant to lie with him, the master, not the slave. And as for that which it teaches: Lie with my slave, he employs a euphemism.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 注讘讚讬 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘注讘讚 注讘专讬

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that this payment is not prohibited? Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: Actually, the mishna is not employing a euphemism, and the master meant: My slave. And as for the difficulty that a maidservant is permitted to a slave, when the mishna teaches this case it is referring to a Hebrew slave, which is why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules that the payment is permitted.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 砖驻讞讛 诇注讘讚 注讘专讬 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason for the ruling of the Rabbis? After all, a maidservant is permitted to a Hebrew slave. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the Hebrew slave does not have a wife and children, and in that situation the Canaanite maidservant is not permitted to the Hebrew slave. As it is taught in a baraita: If a Hebrew servant does not have a wife and children when he is enslaved, his master may not give him a Canaanite maidservant. If he has a wife and children, his master may give him a Canaanite maidservant. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that the master may give a Canaanite maidservant to his Hebrew slave even if the slave does not have a wife and children, and therefore the relationship is not considered an act of prostitution.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讞讬专 讻诇讘 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛讜诇讬讱 讟诇讛 讝讛 转讞转 讻诇讘

MISHNA: And which is the case where an animal has the halakhic status of the price of a dog, and it is therefore prohibited to sacrifice the animal on the altar? It is the case of one who says to another: Here is this lamb in place of a dog.

讜讻谉 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讗讞讚 谞讟诇 注砖专讛 讜讗讞讚 转砖注讛 讜讻诇讘 砖讻谞讙讚 讛讻诇讘 讗住讜专 讜砖注诐 讛讻诇讘 诪讜转专

And likewise, this prohibition applies in the case of two partners who divided their common property, which included nineteen lambs and one dog, and one took ten lambs and the other one took nine lambs and a dog. Sacrifice of the ten lambs taken by the partner in exchange for the nine lambs and the dog is prohibited, and sacrifice of the nine lambs that were taken by the partner with the dog is permitted.

讗转谞谉 讛讻诇讘 讜诪讞讬专 讝讜谞讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讛谉 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉

With regard to lambs given as payment to another for engaging in intercourse with his dog, or as the price of a prostitute to purchase her as his maidservant, their sacrifice is permitted, as it is stated: 鈥淎s both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19), from which it is inferred: Two are prohibited, payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, and not four, i.e., the additional two cases of payment for intercourse with a dog and the price of a prostitute, which are permitted. Furthermore, with regard to the two prohibited cases of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted, as it is stated 鈥渢hem,鈥 and not their offspring.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讞讬专 讻诇讘 讝讛讜 讞诇讬驻讬 讻诇讘 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 转诪讻专 注诪讱 讘诇讗 讛讜谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬转 讘诪讞讬专讬讛诐

GEMARA: With regard to the definition of the price of a dog, the Sages taught: 鈥淭he price of a dog鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19), this is referring to an animal given in exchange for a dog. In this context the word 鈥減rice鈥 means an item given in exchange for another item, not money. And likewise the verse states: 鈥淵ou sell Your people without wealth, and have not set their prices high鈥 (Psalms 44:13). The phrase 鈥渨ithout wealth鈥 indicates that the term 鈥渢heir prices鈥 means an item given in exchange, rather than money.

讗讬诪讗 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讗 拽专讘 讛讜讜 转诇转讗 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 砖诇砖讛

The Gemara objects: You can say instead that the verse: 鈥淧rice of a dog,鈥 is referring to payment to a prostitute, payment for intercourse with a dog, as well as the price of a dog. The Gemara explains that one cannot explain the verse in this manner, as if so, there are three categories of items that may not be sacrificed to the altar, whereas the verse states: 鈥淏oth of them,鈥 indicating that there are two categories, and not three.

诪讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗谞谉 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讗转谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讞讬专 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara rephrases its objection: Did we say that payment to a prostitute, payment for intercourse with a dog, and the price of a dog should all be prohibited? We said that perhaps the phrase: The price of a dog, means the payment for intercourse with a dog, and not the price, i.e., the animal given in exchange for a dog. According to this suggestion, the verse indeed mentions only two categories: Payment given to a prostitute for services rendered, and payment for intercourse with a dog.

讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 诇讗 转讘讬讗 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讜讻诇讘 诪讚讻转讬讘 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讜诪讞讬专 讻诇讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara responds: If that is so, let the verse state: You shall not bring the payment to a prostitute or a dog, as in this formulation the word 鈥減ayment鈥 refers both to the prostitute and the dog. From the fact that it is written: 鈥淭he payment of a harlot or the price of a dog,鈥 one can learn from here that the verse is referring to two different matters: Payment to a prostitute, and an animal exchanged for a dog.

讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讗讞讚 谞讟诇 讻讜壮 谞讬驻讜拽 讞讚讗 诇讛讚讬 讻诇讘讗 讜讛谞讱 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讬砖转专讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讟驻讬 讚诪讬 讻诇讘 诪讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讟讬驻讜谞讗 讚讻诇讘 砖讚讬 讘讻讜诇讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to two partners who divided their common property, and one took ten lambs and the other one took nine lambs and a dog, sacrifice of the ten lambs taken by the partner in exchange for nine lambs and a dog is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Why should all ten lambs be prohibited? Let us remove one of the lambs corresponding to the dog, and all the rest of these lambs will be permitted. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the value of the dog is worth more than each one of the ten lambs seperately. Therefore, one cannot set aside one of the lambs in exchange for the dog. And consequently, one casts this addition of the value of the dog between all of the lambs. As a result, all ten lambs are prohibited, since the price of the dog is included in each of them.

讗转谞谉 讻诇讘 讜诪讞讬专 讝讜谞讛 诪讜转专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬

搂 The mishna further teaches with regard to animals given as payment to another for engaging in intercourse with a dog, or as the price of a prostitute to purchase her as his maidservant, that their sacrifice is permitted. Rava from Parzakya said to Rav Ashi:

诪谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讝谞讜转 诇讘讛诪讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬砖诪讜讟 拽专讗 诇讻转讜讘 讗转谞谉 讝讜谞讛 讜讻诇讘

From where is this matter that the Sages stated, that there is no prostitution with regard to an animal derived? I.e., from where is it derived that a woman who copulates with an animal is not considered a prostitute, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna that payment for intercourse with an animal is permitted? Rav Ashi said to Rava from Parzakya: There was nothing preventing the verse from writing: You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute or a dog into the House of the Lord your God. Since the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the payment of a prostitute or the price of a dog,鈥 this indicates that these are two different cases, and there is no prostitution with regard to an animal.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪谞讬谉 诇讗转谞谉 讻诇讘 讜诪讞讬专 讝讜谞讛 砖诪讜转专讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讛诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉

The Gemara adds that this is also taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to the payment of a lamb to another for engaging in intercourse with a dog, or as the price of a prostitute to purchase her as his maidservant, that their sacrifice is permitted? As it is stated: 鈥淔or even both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19), from which it is inferred: Two are prohibited, payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, and not four, i.e., payment for intercourse with a dog and the price of a prostitute, which are permitted. Furthermore, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted, as it is stated: 鈥淓ven both of them,鈥 which indicates that it is 鈥渢hem鈥 that are forbidden, and not their offspring.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诇讚 讛谞专讘注转 讗住讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞专讘注讜 谞讜讙讞转 讗住讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞讙讞讜

The Gemara discusses other cases of offspring of animals with regard to sacrifice on the altar. Rava says: The offspring of a female animal that was the object of bestiality when it was pregnant is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, like its mother. The reason is that it is considered as though it, the mother, and its offspring both were the object of bestiality. Likewise, if a pregnant cow gores and kills a Jew, its offspring is prohibited to be sacrificed, like its mother, as it is as though it, the mother, and its offspring both gored.

讜诇讚 诪讜拽爪讛 讜谞注讘讚 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讬诪讬讛 讗拽爪讬讛 诇讗讬诪讬讛 驻诇讞讬 诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讜诇讚 诪讜拽爪讛 讜谞注讘讚 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘谞讬驻讞讬讛

But the offspring of a set-aside animal and an animal worshipped as an idol are permitted to be sacrificed on the altar. What is the reason? It is that only the mother was set aside, and not the offspring. Likewise, they worshipped only its mother, not the offspring. There are those who say a different version of Rava鈥檚 statement: The offspring of a set-aside animal and the offspring of an animal worshipped as an idol are prohibited. What is the reason? It is that it is beneficial to the owner if its girth is large, as a pregnant animal is more impressive than an ordinary one. Consequently, its offspring is also considered set-aside and worshipped, and it is therefore prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 讘驻专砖 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘驻专砖 注讙诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗

Rav A岣devoi bar Ami says that Rav says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with the excrement of an ox that is sentenced to be stoned, if the excrement is worth at least one peruta, the woman is betrothed. Although it is not permitted to derive benefit from the ox itself, one may derive benefit from its excrement. But if one betroths her with the excrement of calves that were used for idol worship, she is not betrothed, as even their excrement is prohibited. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the difference between the excrement of an ox that is stoned and the excrement of calves used for idolatry? If you wish, say that this is learned from a verse; if you wish, say instead that it is derived by means of a logical argument.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讙讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘谞讬驻讞讬讛 讙讘讬 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘谞讬驻讞讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say it is derived by means of a logical argument: With regard to calves used for idol worship, a calf鈥檚 additional girth due to the excrement stored in its body is beneficial to the owner, as fatter animals are more impressive. Therefore, the excrement is considered part of the offering and is prohibited. By contrast, with regard to an ox that is stoned, its additional girth is not beneficial to him, as he gains nothing from it, and consequently it is not considered part of the animal.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讙讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讬转 讞专诐 讻诪讜讛讜 讻诇 砖讗转讛 诪讛讬讛 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讜讛讜 讙讘讬 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗转 讘砖专讜 讘砖专讜 讗住讜专 驻专砖讜 诪讜转专

If you wish, say that this is learned from a verse: It is written with regard to an animal used for idol worship: 鈥淎nd you shall not bring an abomination into your house, and be [vehayita] accursed like it鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26). This teaches that anything that you create [mehayye] from the idol is prohibited like the idol itself. But with regard to an ox that is stoned, it is written: 鈥淭he ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten鈥 (Exodus 21:28). This teaches that only its flesh is forbidden, but its excrement is permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 谞转谉 诇讛 诪注讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讬讬谞讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 拽专讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讗住讜专 谞转谉 诇讛 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉

MISHNA: If one gave money to a prostitute as her payment, it is permitted to purchase an offering with that money, as the money itself is not sacrificed. If he paid her with wine, or oil, or flour, or any other item the like of which is sacrificed on the altar, sacrifice of those items is prohibited. If he gave her consecrated items for her services, their sacrifice is permitted. Since they were already consecrated, they do not belong to him, and one cannot prohibit an item that is not his.

注讜驻讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 砖讛讬讛 讘讚讬谉 诪讛 讗诐 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 砖讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 讗讬谉 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讞诇 注诇讬讛谉 注讜祝 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讞诇 注诇讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诇 谞讚专 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛注讜祝

If he paid her with non-sacred birds, their sacrifice is prohibited. The mishna elaborates: As, by right, it should be inferred a fortiori: If in the case of consecrated items, which a blemish disqualifies, the prohibition of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog do not take effect with regard to them; with regard to a bird, which a blemish does not disqualify, is it not right that the prohibition of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog should not take effect with regard to them? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). This serves to include the bird in the prohibition.

讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 讜诇讚 讟专驻讛 诇讗 讬拽专讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讻砖讬专讛 砖讬谞拽讛 诪谉 讛讟专驻讛 驻住讜诇讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖谞注砖讜 讟专驻讛 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 砖讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诇讛讗讻讬诇谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐

The mishna adds a principle: With regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted. Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa]shall not be sacrificed on the altar. Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: A kosher animal that suckled from a tereifa is disqualified from sacrifice on the altar. With regard to all sacrificial animals that became tereifot, one may not redeem them and render them non-sacred, as their consumption is forbidden and one does not redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to dogs, as this is considered a degradation of sacrificial animals.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞转谉 诇讛 讞讬讟讬谉 讜注砖讗转谉 住讜诇转 讝讬转讬诐 讜注砖讗转谉 砖诪谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜注砖讗转谉 讬讬谉 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讗住讜专讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪讜转专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬 讙讜专讬讜谉 讚诪谉 讗住驻讜专拽 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜住专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught: If one gave wheat to a prostitute and she made the wheat into flour, or if he gave her olives and she made them into oil, or if he gave her grapes and she made them into wine, it is taught in one baraita that these products are prohibited to be used as an offering in the Temple, and it is taught in another baraita that they are permitted, as the physical change transforms them into new objects. Rav Yosef said that Guryon of Aspork teaches in a baraita: Beit Shammai prohibit these products and Beit Hillel permit them. If so, the two baraitot cited above reflect a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讛诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 讛诐 讜诇讗 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛谉

The Gemara explains that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both derive their ruling from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:19). Beit Hillel, who permit these items after they have undergone a physical change, maintain that the word 鈥渢hem鈥 teaches that this prohibition applies only to the original items, but not to their offspring. Likewise, it applies only to them, i.e., the items in their original form, but not to their changed status.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 讛诐 讜诇讗 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 讙诐 诇专讘讜转 砖讬谞讜讬讬讛谉 讜诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讻转讬讘 讙诐 讙诐 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 拽砖讛

Beit Shammai maintain that one indeed derives: 鈥淭hem,鈥 but not their offspring. But they maintain that the word 鈥渆ven鈥 serves to include in the prohibition items in their changed status. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, isn鈥檛 it written 鈥渆ven鈥? How do they interpret that word? The Gemara responds: The word 鈥渆ven鈥 is in fact difficult according to Beit Hillel.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 驻专讟 诇驻专讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讛 诇讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛专讬拽讜注讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God,鈥 that this excludes a red heifer, which is not brought to the House of the Lord, i.e., the Temple, but is slaughtered outside Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say: This verse serves to include in the prohibition beaten plates of gold in the Temple, if the gold was used as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog.

诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞转谉 诇讛 讝讛讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 专讬拽讜注讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻驻专转

The Gemara asks: Who are the Rabbis cited here? Rav 岣sda says: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: If one gave a prostitute gold as her payment, Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may not fashion hanging beaten plates of gold for the Temple from it, even for the area behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, i.e., the eleven cubits of space behind the Holy of Holies up to the wall of the Temple courtyard, which was at the western end of the Sanctuary. Athough this area is of lesser sanctity than the rest of the Temple, one may not place there any gold given as payment to a prostitute.

谞转谉 诇讛 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches: If he gave her consecrated items for her services, their sacrifice is permitted, whereas if he paid her with non-sacred birds, their sacrifice is prohibited. The prohibited status of birds is derived from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow,鈥 despite an a fortiori inference from consecrated animals that indicates they should be permitted.

讜讬讛讬讜 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讞诇 注诇讬讛谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 注讜驻讜转 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讞诇 注诇讬讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讞诇 注诇讬讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诇 谞讚专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞讚讜专

The Gemara objects: But if these birds are disqualified as sacrifices, let the prohibitions of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog apply to consecrated animals, by the following a fortiori inference: If in the case of birds, which a blemish does not disqualify, the status of a prostitute鈥檚 payment and a dog鈥檚 price applies to them, then with regard to consecrated items, which a blemish does disqualify, is it not logical that the status of a prostitute鈥檚 payment and a dog鈥檚 price should apply to them? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or any vow.鈥 This serves to exclude those animals that have already been vowed to be sacrificed.

讟注诪讗 讚诪注讟讬谞讛讜 拽专讗 讛讗 诇讗 诪注讟讬谞讛讜 拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讛 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讞诇 注诇讬讛谉 讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara objects: The only reason consecrated animals are disqualified is that the verse excludes them, through the word 鈥渧ow.鈥 But had the verse not excluded them, I would say that if one gives a prostitute sacrificial animals, or gives these animals in exchange for a dog, the prohibition of payment to a prostitute or a dog鈥檚 price applies to them. But this conclusion is problematic, as a consecrated animal is not his property, and there is an established principle that one cannot render an item prohibited if it does not belong to him. How then could one render it prohibited by giving it to a prostitute?

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讘诪诪谞讛 注诇 驻住讞讜 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗诐 讬诪注讟 讛讘讬转 诪讛讬讜转 诪砖讛

Rav Hoshaya says: This is referring to one who registers the prostitute for his Paschal offering (see Pesa岣m 61a), giving her a portion in it as payment for her services, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that a Paschal offering is considered one鈥檚 personal property for the purposes of allowing additional people to register for it. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states, with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd if the household be too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbor next to his house shall take one鈥 (Exodus 12:4). The phrase 鈥渋f the household be too little鈥 is interpreted to mean that the household cannot afford the basic necessities of the Festival.

讛讞讬讬讛讜 诪砖讛 诪讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 诪讻讚讬 诪拽讞

Based on this interpretation, the phrase 鈥渇or a lamb [mihyot miseh]鈥 is interpreted to mean: Sustain him from the lamb [ha岣eihu miseh], i.e., he may use the Paschal offering as a means of supporting himself. He takes money from his neighbor in return for registering that neighbor for a portion of his Paschal offering and uses the money to purchase his needs. This halakha applies only if one lacks sufficient means to purchase food to eat, but not if he lacks merely sufficient means to purchase other items.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讻讚讬 诪拽讞 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪诪谞讛 讗讞专讬诐 注诪讜 注诇 驻住讞讜 讜注诇 讞讙讬讙转讜 讜诪注讜转讬讜 讞讜诇讬谉 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 讛拽讚讬砖讜 讬砖专讗诇 驻住讞讬讛谉

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This lenient halakha applies even if one lacks sufficient means to purchase other necessary items, as, if he does not have sufficient funds he may register others with him for his Paschal offering and for his Festival peace offering. And his money that he receives for registering that person is non-sacred, as it is on this condition of registering others in exchange for the money which he receives from them that the Jewish people consecrate their Paschal offerings.

讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬诐 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛讗住讜专讬诐 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜诇讚讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬诐 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住专

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted. Rav says: This ruling that with regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted, is not unanimous but is the opinion of the Rabbis. And indeed it is taught with regard to this case: And Rabbi Eliezer prohibits their offspring to be sacrificed on the altar.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖注讬讘专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞专讘注讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 注讜讘专 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗讜 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 谞专讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 注讬讘专讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉

Rav Huna bar 岣nnana says that Rav Na岣an says: This dispute applies in a case where the animals became pregnant and then were the objects of bestiality, thereby becoming prohibited to sacrifice on the altar. As Rabbi Eliezer holds that a fetus is considered the thigh of its mother and regarded as part of the animal, and is consequently prohibited like its mother. And the Rabbis hold that a fetus is not considered the thigh of its mother. But if the animals were the objects of bestiality and then became pregnant, everyone agrees that they are permitted.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖谞专讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 注讬讘专讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专

Rava says: This dispute applies in a case where the animals were the objects of bestiality and then became pregnant, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that when both this permitted factor and that prohibited factor cause a certain situation, the resulting item is prohibited. Since the mother of this offspring is prohibited, the offspring is likewise prohibited, despite the fact that its father is permitted. And the Rabbis hold that when this permitted factor and that prohibited factor cause a result, it, i.e., the offspring, is permitted like its father.

讗讘诇 注讬讘专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞专讘注讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬谉 讜专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诇讚 谞专讘注转 讗住讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞专讘注讜 讜诇讚 谞讜讙讞转 讗住讜专 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞讙讞讜

But in a case where the animals became pregnant and then were the object of bestiality, everyone agrees that they are prohibited. And the Gemara adds that Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as Rava said: The offspring of a female animal that was the object of bestiality when it was pregnant is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, as it is considered as though it, the mother, and its offspring were both the object of bestiality. Likewise, the offspring of a pregnant cow that gores and kills a person is prohibited, because it is as though it, the mother, and its offspring both gored.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讘讬讝讜讬 诪讬诇转讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗讘诇 谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗砖转谞讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉

Some state another version of the previous discussion: Rav Huna bar 岣nnana says that Rav Na岣an says: This dispute applies in a case where the animals were the object of bestiality when they already had the status of sacrificial animals. As Rabbi Eliezer holds that the offspring are also prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, as their sacrifice is considered a degradation of consecrated items, and degradation of consecrated items is significant. And the Rabbis hold that the offspring may be sacrificed, as they maintain that this is not considered a degradation of consecrated items. But in a case where the animals were the object of bestiality when they were non-sacred, and were subsequently consecrated, since their status was changed by their consecration, everyone agrees that they are permitted.

专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讘讬讝讜讬 诪讬诇转讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗砖转谞讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讗讘诇 谞专讘注讜 讻砖讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讬谉

In contrast, Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: This dispute applies in a case where the animals were the object of bestiality when they were non-sacred, as Rabbi Eliezer holds that even the sacrifice of this offspring is considered degrading to sacrificial animals, and degradation of sacrificial animals is significant, and therefore they are prohibited. And the Rabbis hold that since their status was changed by their consecration, they are permitted. But in a case where the animals were the object of bestiality when they already had the status of sacrificial animals, everyone agrees that they are prohibited.

Scroll To Top