Temurah — Daf 31a

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

ובהא פליגי דר' אליעזר סבר זה וזה גורם אסור ורבנן סברי זה וזה גורם מותר

למ"ד טריפה אינה חיה משכחת לה כגון שעיברה ולבסוף נטרפה ובהא פליגי דר' אליעזר סבר עובר ירך אמו הוא ורבנן סברי עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא

א"ר הונא מודים חכמים לר' אליעזר באפרוח ביצת טרפה שאסור מ"ט ע"כ לא פליגי עליה דרבי אליעזר אלא בולד בהמה דמאוירא קא רביא אבל ביצת טרפה מגופה דתרנגולתא קא רביא אפי' רבנן מודו

א"ל רבא לרב הונא תניא דמסייע לך מלא תרוד רימה הבאה מאדם חי רבי אליעזר מטמא וחכמים מטהרין עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה אלא ברימה דפירשא בעלמא הוא אבל ביצה דמגופה דתרנגולת הוא אפילו רבנן מודו

א"ל אביי אדרבה איפכא מסתברא ע"כ לא פליג ר' אליעזר עלייהו דרבנן אלא ברימה דאיקרי אדם מחיים רימה דכתיב (איוב כה, ו) ותקות אנוש רמה ובן אדם תולעה

אבל גבי ביצה [אימת גדלה לכי מסרחא וכי אסרחא עפרא בעלמא הוא] אפי' ר"א מודה ועוד תניא בהדיא מודה ר"א לחכמים באפרוח ביצת טרפה שמותר א"ל אי תניא תניא

רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר כשרה כו' מ"ט אילימא דמפטמא מינה אלא מעתה האכילה כרשיני ע"ז ה"נ דאסירא

אלא תני ר' חנינא טריטאה קמיה דרבי יוחנן כגון שהניקה חלב רותח משחרית לשחרית הואיל ויכולה לעמוד עליה מעת לעת

כל הקדשים שנעשו טרפה אין פודין כו' מנא ה"מ דת"ר (דברים יב, טו) תזבח ולא גיזה ואכלת ולא לכלביך בשר ולא חלב מכאן שאין פודים את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים

איכא דאמרי תזבח ואכלת אין לך בהן היתר אלא משעת זביחה ואילך קסבר פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים

הדרן עלך כל האסורין

מתני׳ יש 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

THE ISSUE OF A TREFAH etc. According to the authority who holds that a trefah can give birth,1 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 causes2 is forbidden, whereas the Rabbis hold that the product of combined causes is permitted. According to the authority who holds that a trefah cannot give birth,3 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. Eliezer4 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. Said R. Huna: The Sages5 agree with R. Eliezer that the young bird from the egg of a bird that became trefah is forbidden [for the altar]. What is the reason? [The Sages] differ from R. Eliezer only in the case of the issue of a trefah, since it develops from the air,6 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.7 Said Raba to R. Huna: We have the confirmation of your opinion as follows: A tarwad8 -full of worms that come from a living person [who then died], R. Eliezer declares to be ritually unclean9 whereas the Sages declare them clean.10 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.11 Said Abaye to him: But it is not logically the reverse? 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;12 [but in the case of a young bird]13 even R. Eliezer would admit14 [it is fit for the altar].15 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,16 it has been taught.17 R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAYS: A RITUALLY CLEAN ANIMAL etc. What is the reason? Shall we say because it becomes fat from it? If this is so, if he feeds it with vetches set aside for idolatry, is it really forbidden?18 — [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,19 since it can live for twenty-four hours.20 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:21 ] ‘thou mayest kill’ [implies] but no shearing; ‘and eat’, but not for thy dogs; ‘flesh’, but not milk.22 Hence we infer that one must not redeem dedications in order to give them to dogs to eat. 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,23 because he [the Tanna] here holds that it is permitted to redeem dedications in order to give them to dogs to eat. MISHNAH. THERE ARE [REGULATIONS] WHICH APPLY TO DEDICATIONS FOR THE ALTAR24 WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO DEDICATIONS25 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,26 NOTHAR27 AND RITUAL UNCLEANNESS; 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). 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. the same law as a limb from a corpse (Rashi). body. deterioration of the egg, and after deterioration the egg is mere dust, and therefore even R. Eliezer agrees.’ 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). 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. secondly, because they are only holy for their value.