Temurah

— Said R. Ashi: Because there is an objection to the basis of the analogy [as follows]: The case of a blemished animal is different, since its blemish is visible. Can you however say the same as regards the case of [an animal] which covered [a woman] and [an animal] which was covered [by a man] whose blemish is not visible? And since its blemish is not visible, it should be fit for 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]. [The words:] Even of the herd,1 exclude ne'ebad.2 But can we not learn this from an analogy?3 If in the cases of a [harlot's] hire and the price [of a dog], whose overlayings are permitted,4 they [the animals themselves] are forbidden for the altar, in the case of ne'ebad whose overlayings are forbidden,5 how much more should the animal itself be forbidden for the altar?6 Or is it not the reverse7 [as follows]: If in the case of a [harlot's] hire, and the price [of a dog], which themselves are forbidden for the altar, yet their overlayings are permitted, in the case of ne'ebad which is permitted for the altar,8 how much more so should its overlayings be permitted? If so,9 you do away with the Scriptural text: Thou shalt not desire the gold and silver that is on them, nor take it into thee?10 I will explain the text: ‘Thou shalt not desire the gold and the silver that is on them’, as referring to a thing without life, but in the case of a living being [i.e., an animal], since it is permitted [for the altar], its overlayings should also be permitted.11 The text therefore states: ‘Even of the herd,’12 in order to exclude the case of ne'ebad.13 To this R. Hanania demurred: The reason14 then is because the Scriptural text made a limitation, but if the text had not made a limitation, the overlayings would be permitted. But is it not written: And you shall destroy their names,15 implying everything made for them?16 — That is for the purpose of substituting a name for the idols. When [the idolaters] call a place Beth-Galia,17 [Israelites should call] it Beth Karia,18 Penei Hamolekh [they should call] Penei Keleb,19 ‘Ain Kol20 [they should call] ‘Ain Koz.21 And why not reverse the exclusions [from the texts as follows]: ‘Of the cattle’ excludes ne'ebad and ‘even of the herd’ excludes the cases of [an animal] that covered [a woman] and [an animal] that was covered [by a man]? — In the one case22 we exclude something which is associated with the subject of the text, and in the other, we also exclude something which is associated with the subject of a text. With regard to [the feminine term] ‘behemah’ [cattle]23 it is written: And if a man lie with a behemah [beast], he shall surely be put to death,24 and with regard to [the masculine term] ‘bakar’ [herd] it is written: Thus they changed their glory with the similitude of an ox that eateth grass.25 ‘Of the flock’26 excludes mukzeh;27 ‘and of the flock’ excludes the goring ox28 [from the altar]. Said R. Simeon: If Scripture [excludes the case] of roba’,29 what need is there for [the exclusion of] the goring ox?30 And if Scripture [excludes the case of] the goring ox, what need is there for [the exclusion of] the case of roba’? — Because there is a law applying to roba’ which does not apply to the gorer [and31 there is a law applying to the gorer which does not apply to roba’]. There is a law as regards roba’ that the unintentional act is on a par with the intentional act, unlike the case of the gorer.32 There is a regulation applying to the gorer that [the owner of the ox] pays indemnity,33 unlike the case of roba’. There is need therefore [for Scripture] to mention [the exclusion] of roba’ and the gorer.34 And the following Tanna derives this35 from here [as follows]: For it has been taught as regards roba’ and nirba’ [etc.], if one dedicated them they are like dedicated animals in which a transitory blemish occurred before their dedication and which require a permanent blemish in order to redeem them, since it says: Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them.36 But how can you derive that from the text?37 — A clause is missing [in the Baraitha] which should read as follows: Whence do we infer that they are forbidden [for the altar]? Because Scripture says: ‘Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them’. And a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Whenever the term hashhatha [corruption] is used [in the Scriptures] it refers to lewdness38 and idolatry.39 ‘Lewdness’, as it Says: For all flesh had corrupted its way, etc.,40 and ‘idolatry’, as it says: Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image the similitude of any figure.41 [We thus argue:]42 Wherever a blemish disqualifies [an animal for the altar], ‘lewdness’ and ‘idolatry’ also disqualify them.43 And how does the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael expound the texts, Of the cattle, of the herd and of the flock?44 — These [texts] are required by him in order to exclude the following cases: A sick, old or evil-smelling animal.45 Now the former Tanna [quoted above] who derives the cases of roba’ and nirba’ as unfit for the altar from those texts,46 whence does he derive the cases of a sick, old and evil-smelling animal [as being forbidden for the altar]? — He derives these from [the texts]: ‘And if of the flock, of the sheep, or of the goats.47 And what will the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael do with these texts?48 — It is the way of Scripture to speak in such a manner.49 WHAT IS MEANT BY MUKZEH? THAT WHICH HAS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR IDOLATROUS USE ETC. Said Resh Lakish: Mukzeh is forbidden only if it had been set aside for seven years,50 since it says: And it came to pass that the Lord said unto him: Take thy father's young bullock even a second bullock of seven years old.51 But there [in the text], was it only a case of mukzeh? Was it not also a case of ne'ebad?52 Said R. Aha son of R. Jacob: It was designated for idolatry but they did not actually use it [as an idol]. Raba says: One can still maintain that they actually used it [the bull, as an idol],53 but there it54 was an innovation, as R. Aba b. Kahana explained. For R. Aba b. Kahana said: Eight things were permitted that night [as follows]: [The killing of an animal] outside [the tabernacle, the killing] at night, 55 [the officiating by] a non-priest, in a partitive sense. Scriptural text? Temple for the covering of the altar. should be unfit for the altar, seeing that its overlayings are forbidden even for private use. What need therefore is there for a Scriptural text? sacred purpose. We therefore might have inferred from the analogy above that a ne'ebad is forbidden for the altar, and therefore a Scriptural text is not required to exclude a ne'ebad. permitted to be used. even for private use, as we apply here the text: ‘Thou shalt not desire the gold and silver that is on them’ (Rashi and Tosaf.). was covered by a man, while in connection with idolatry we find the word bakar (herd) used. forced by others to gore. them’. is used for idolatrous purposes. bullock which was Baal (R. Gershom).