Temurah

MISHNAH. ALL [ANIMALS] FORBIDDEN FOR THE ALTAR RENDER [OTHERS]1 UNFIT, HOWEVER FEW [THE FORMER MAY BE].2 [SUCH CASES ARE] AN ANIMAL WHICH COVERED [A WOMAN] AND [AN ANIMAL] THAT WAS COVERED [BY A MAN], MUKZEH,3 NE'EBAD,4 A [HARLOT'S] HIRE, THE PRICE [OF A DOG], KIL'AYIM,5 TREFAH AND THE FOETUS EXTRACTED BY THE MEANS OF A CAESAREAN SECTION. WHAT IS MEANT BY MUKZEH? THAT WHICH HAS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR IDOLATROUS USE; IT [THE ANIMAL ITSELF] IS FORBIDDEN,6 BUT WHAT IS UPON IT,7 IS PERMITTED.8 AND WHAT IS MEANT BY NE'EBAD? THAT WHICH HAS BEEN USED FOR IDOLATRY; BOTH IT [THE ANIMAL ITSELF] AND THAT WHICH IS UPON IT, ARE FORBIDDEN.9 IN BOTH CASES, HOWEVER,10 [THE ANIMAL] MAY BE EATEN.11 GEMARA. It has been said: ALL [ANIMALS] FORBIDDEN FOR THE ALTAR RENDER [OTHERS] UNFIT HOWEVER FEW [THE FORMER MAY BE]. [Now what does the Mishnah inform us?]12 That [the animals forbidden for the altar] are not neutralised in any larger number [of animals]. But have we not learnt this in a Mishnah? If any dedicated animals became mixed up with the sin-offerings which are condemned to die,13 or with an ox condemned to be stoned, even one in ten thousand [which are forbidden], all are condemned to die?14 And we raised the question: What does the Mishnah mean by the word ‘even’?15 [And it was answered:] It means this: If any of the sin-offerings which are condemned to die became mixed up with dedicated animals, or an ox condemned to be stoned [became mixed up], even one in ten thousand,16 all are condemned to die.17 — It is necessary.18 You might think that there,19 since the animals are prohibited from being used profitably, there is no neutralisation,20 whereas here,21 since the animals are permitted to be profitably used,22 I might have thought that they are neutralised in any larger number. [Our Mishnah therefore] informs us [that it is not so].23 But have we not also learnt the cases [of an animal] which covered [a woman] and [an animal] that was covered [by a man]:24 [If dedications] became mixed up with [an animal] of hullin which covered [a woman] and [an animal of hullin] which was covered [by a man]. they all pasture until blemished. They are then sold and with the money of the best among them25 he brings an offering from the same kind?26 — Said R. Kahana: I recited this tradition27 in the presence of R. Shimi b. Ashi. He said to me: One [Mishnah]28 deals with hullin29 and the other30 [Mishnah] deals with dedicated animals.31 And it was necessary [to teach both cases]; for if we had been taught only the case of dedicated [animals].32 [we might have thought] that the reason33 was because the forbidden animals are rejected as unseemly,34 whereas in the case of hullin,35 we might have thought that [the forbidden animals] are neutralised.36 But have we not also learnt this37 with reference to hullin? The following are forbidden and render forbidden other hullin,38 however minute in quantity: Forbidden wine,39 idols, birds [brought] by a leper,40 hides pierced at the heart,41 the hair of a Nazirite,42 the firstborn of an ass, meat and milk [boiled together],43 an ox condemned to be stoned, the heifer whose neck was broken, hullin which was killed in the Temple court, and the goat sent away [to Azazel]these are forbidden44 and render other hullin forbidden, however small in quantity.45 — It was necessary [to teach both Mishnahs], for if we had been informed only [of the Mishnah] there,46 we might have thought that the reason47 was because [the cases mentioned] are prohibited for general use, but here we might have thought they are neutralised in greater numbers; and if we had been informed only here,48 [we might have said that the reason was] because it is loathsome to use [the animals] for the altar, but for private use, we might have thought that even things which are forbidden to be profitably used are neutralised in the greater numbers. [Our Mishnah] therefore informs us [that it is not so].49 And whence do we derive that the case of [an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man] are forbidden for the altar? — Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says:] Of the cattle,50 this excludes51 the cases of [an animal] which covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man]. But can we not derive this from an analogy?52 If a blemished animal with which no sinful act has been done is forbidden for the altar, how much more should [an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man] be forbidden for the altar? Let the law concerning one who ploughs with an ox and an ass [together] decide, since a sinful act has been done with it and yet it is allowed for the altar!53 The case of ploughing with an ass and an ox together is, however, different since there is no punishment of death incurred, whereas in the cases of [an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man] the punishment of death is incurred.54 Then take away [the argument]55 you have brought56 and say that [you can rely upon the above analogy]57 for the case of an animal with which a sinful act has been done according to the testimony of two witnesses;58 but whence do we learn the case where a sinful act had been done according to the testimony of only one witness,59 or where the owners confessed?60 Said R. Simeon: I will bring forward an analogy [as follows]:61 If in the case of a blemished animal, where [the testimony] of two witnesses does not disqualify the animal from being eaten, the testimony of one witness disqualifies it from being offered [on the altar],62 then in the cases [of an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man], where the testimony of two witnesses disqualifies the animal from being eaten,63 how much more should the testimony of one witness disqualify the animal from being offered on the altar? The text therefore states ‘of the cattle’, to exclude the cases of an animal that covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man]. But have you not just inferred this from an analogy?64 the cases mentioned later in the Mishnah, it may always be that it will not be possible to recognise the forbidden one, except in the case of trefah which is always recognisable. Yet here too the case may arise where the gullet of the animal was pierced, the skin healed up and then it became mixed up with other animals (R. Gershom). Also the trefah here mentioned may refer to the offspring of a trefah (Rashi). for the altar, since we cannot identify the forbidden one. sin-offerings condemned to die, then surely the dedicated animals are all the more condemned to die if the number was one fit animal as against ten thousand unfit ones? there for our Mishnah to teach us the same? stoned, of which no use whatever may be made. dealt with here is where the evidence of covering is given by one witness, there being no punishment of stoning in such circumstances. thought that here, since these animals are rejected for the altar, there is no neutralisation in any larger number and the animals pasture until blemished and are then eaten. But in the case of something which is forbidden even for a private person, as in the cases mentioned in the cited Mishnah, I might have thought that there would be neutralisation. We are therefore informed there that all the dedications which became mixed up are condemned to die, and that even in the case of a private person there is no neutralisation, since the Mishnah does not say there that a dedication shall pasture until blemished and be eaten by private people after redemption (v. Rashi and Zeb. 71b). burnt-offering, then a burnt-offering is brought, since the rights of hekdesh are superior, v. Zeb. 71a. Consequently we see from here that there is no neutralisation in the larger number. dedicate them after the mixing. share for the altar among them, and therefore when subsequently they were dedicated for the altar, it is quite in order, as they have already been neutralised (Rashi). In Zeb. the Talmud asks why then not state only the Mishnah in Temurah referring to hullin and then there would be no need for the Mishnah in Zebahim? And it answers that the reason is because the Mishnah in Zeb. informs us of something fresh, viz., that there is a remedy as regards dedications, i.e., that he sells etc., unlike the case in the Mishnah of Temurah where there is no remedy (v. Rashi). important prohibitions (Rashi). text to render them unfit for the altar.