Temurah

Whence do we derive what the Rabbis taught that the term harlotry1 does not apply to animals?2 — He said to him: If that were so, Scripture would not omit to say: ‘The hire of a harlot and a dog’. We have learnt to the same effect:3 Whence do we infer that the hire of a dog and the price of a harlot are legitimate [for the altar]? Because it says: ‘Both’ — but not four.4 Their issue are legitimate for the altar, since it says: ‘Both of them’, implying they, but not their issue. Said Raba: The issue of a beast which was used for buggery [while pregnant] is disqualified [for the altar], for mother and young have been abused. The issue of a beast which gored [while pregnant] is disqualified for the altar, for mother and young have gored. The issue of a beast which was designated for idolatry5 or used for idolatry6 [while pregnant] is legitimate [for the altar]. What is the reason? Its mother was designated for idolatry and its mother was used [as such].7 Some there are who say: Even the issue of a beast which was designated or used for idolatry [while pregnant] is also disqualified [for the altar]. What is the reason? Its full appearance is welcome to him. 8 R. Ahadboi b. Ammi in the name of Rab reported: If one betrothed with the dung of an ox condemned to be stoned, the act is valid.9 [If one betrothed however] with the dung of the calves set aside for idolatry, the act is not valid. What is the reason? I may say it is intimated in Scripture and I may say that reason tells us so. I may say that reason tells us so, since for purposes of idol worship its full appearance is welcome to him,10 whereas in the case of an ox condemned to be stoned, its full appearance is not welcome to him.11 I may say it is intimated in Scripture. With reference to idolatry it is written: Lest thou be a cursed thing like it,12 thus intimating that whatever comes from it13 is like it and forbidden; whereas with reference to an ox condemned to be stoned, it is written: And its flesh shall not be eaten14 — ‘its flesh’ is forbidden, its dung is permitted.15 MISHNAH. IF HE GAVE HER [A HARLOT] MONEY AS HIRE IT IS LEGITIMATE [FOR THE ALTAR, BUT IF HE GAVE HER] WINE, OIL, FLOUR AND ANYTHING SIMILAR WHICH IS OFFERED ON THE ALTAR, IT IS DISQUALIFIED FOR THE ALTAR. IF HE GAVE HER DEDICATED [ANIMALS] THEY ARE LEGITIMATE [FOR THE ALTAR]. IF HE GAVE HER BIRDS [OF HULLIN]16 THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED,17 FOR ONE MIGHT HAVE REASONED [AS FOLLOWS]: IF IN THE CASE OF DEDICATED ANIMALS, WHERE A BLEMISH DISQUALIFIES THEM, [THE LAW] OF [THE HARLOT'S] HIRE AND PRICE [OF A DOG] DOES NOT TAKE EFFECT, IN THE CASE OF BIRDS, WHERE A BLEMISH DOES NOT DISQUALIFY, IS IT NOT ALL THE MORE REASON THAT THE LAW OF [THE HARLOT'S] HIRE AND PRICE [OF A DOG] SHOULD NOT TAKE EFFECT? THE TEXT THEREFORE STATES: FOR ANY VOW,18 IN ORDER TO INCLUDE THE CASE OF A BIRD.19 THE ISSUE OF ALL ANIMALS WHICH ARE DISQUALIFIED FOR THE ALTAR ARE LEGITIMATE FOR THE ALTAR. R. ELEAZAR SAYS: THE ISSUE OF A TREFAH HOWEVER MAY NOT BE OFFERED ON THE ALTAR.20 R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAYS: A RITUALLY CLEAN ANIMAL WHICH SUCKLED FROM A TREFAH IS DISQUALIFIED FROM THE ALTAR. ONE MAY NOT REDEEM ANY DEDICATED ANIMAL WHICH BECAME TREFAH, SINCE WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REDEEM DEDICATED [ANIMALS] IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM TO DOGS TO EAT.21 GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught: If he gave her [a harlot] wheat [as hire] and she made it into flour, olives and she made them into oil, grapes and she made them into wine, one [Baraitha] taught: They are forbidden [for the altar], and another [Baraitha] taught: They are legitimate [for the altar.] Said R. Joseph: Gurion who came from Asporak22 recited: Bath Shammai forbid, whereas Beth Hillel permit. Beth Hillel hold, [Scripture says]: ‘Them’, implying but not their issue; ‘them’ but not their products.23 Beth Shammai however hold: ‘Them’ implies but not their issue, and the word ‘even’ includes their products.24 But do not Beth Hillel see that is is written ‘even’? — The ‘even’ is according to the opinion of Beth Hillel indeed a difficulty. Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says:] In the house of the Lord thy God,25 this excludes the case of the red heifer which does not come to the House.26 This is the teaching of R. Eleazar. The Sages, however say: This includes beaten gold plates [as forbidden for overlaying].27 Whose opinion is that of the Sages? Said R. Hisda: It is that of R. Jose b. Judah. For it has been taught: If he gave her gold as hire, R. Jose b. Judah said: One must not use it to make beaten gold plates even for the space behind the Holy of Holies.28 IF HE GAVE HER DEDICATED [ANIMALS] THEY ARE LEGITIMATE etc. And why should not [the law of] a [harlot's] hire and price of a dog take effect with dedicated animals a minori?29 If in the case of birds, where a blemish does not disqualify them [from being offered, the law of] ‘hire’ and ‘price’ have effect,30 in the case of dedicated animals where a blemish disqualifies them, is there not all the more reason that [the law of] ‘hire’ and ‘price’ should have effect? The text therefore states: For any vow,31 thus excluding what has already been vowed.32 Now the reason33 is because a Scriptural text excludes them [the dedications], but if a Scriptural text had not excluded them, I might have thought that if he gave a harlot dedicated animals the law of ‘hire’ and ‘price’34 would apply to them, but can a man forbid what does not belong to him?35 — Said R. Oshaiah: We are dealing with a case where he assigns her as hire a share in his Passover lamb and it is the opinion of Rabbi.36 For it has been taught: [Scripture Says:] And if the household be too little for the lamb,37 give him to live from the lamb38 sufficient for food but not for a purchase.39 Rabbi, however, says: Even sufficient for a purchase; if he had not the wherewithal, he can assign a share for others together with himself in his Passover lamb and his festival offerings, the money being hullin; for it was on such a condition that Israel dedicated their Passover lambs. 40 THE ISSUE OF ALL ANIMALS WHICH ARE DISQUALIFIED FOR THE ALTAR etc. Said Rab: The issue of all animals which are disqualified for the altar are legitimate [for the altar]. And with reference to this it was taught that R. Eliezer forbids. R. Huna b. Hinena reported in the name of R. Nahman: The difference of opinion refers only in the case where they were pregnant and in the end were used for buggery, R. Eliezer holding that an Embryo is considered as the thigh of its mother,41 whereas the Rabbis hold that an embryo is not considered as the thigh of its mother. But where they were used for buggery and afterwards they became pregnant, it is the unanimous opinion of all the authorities that they [the issue] are legitimate [for the altar]. Raba says: The difference of opinion only refers to the case where they were used for buggery and afterwards became pregnant, R. Eliezer holding that a produce of combined causes42 is forbidden, whereas the Rabbis hold that a product of combined causes is permitted. But where they were pregnant and then were used for buggery, it is the opinion of all the authorities concerned that they are forbidden [for the altar]. Raba follows the opinion expressed by him elsewhere. For Raba says: The issue of a beast which was used for buggery while pregnant is disqualified [for the altar], for both mother and young have been abused. The issue of a beast which gored while pregnant is disqualified [for the altar], for both mother and young have gored. Another version: R. Huna b. Hinena reported in the name of R. Nahman: The difference of opinion refers only where they were used for buggery while they were consecrated, R. Eliezer43 holding that this is a degrading thing,44 whereas the Rabbis hold that it is not so. But where they were used for buggery as hullin, since there is a change in status,45 it is the opinion of all the authorities concerned that they [the issue] are legitimate [for the altar]. Raba reported in the name of R. Nahman: The difference of opinion is the same even if they were used for buggery as hullin, R. Eliezer holding that it is a degrading thing, whereas the Rabbis hold that since there was a change [in status] they are legitimate [for the altar]. But where they were used for buggery while consecrated, it is the opinion of all the authorities concerned that they are forbidden for the altar. however, maintains that it is forbidden even for private use. her stones as hire to build a wall in that part of the Temple court. for the necessary things required for the Paschal lamb. van ,uhvn , ‘Let him have the means from the lamb’, i.e., to buy wood with which to roast the lamb, by taking money from others and sharing the animal with them. such an article has no connection with the Paschal offering. permitted to invite others to share the offering. no prohibition attaching to the father of the offspring — since the mother which is also a cause of the offspring is prohibited, therefore the offspring is forbidden (Rashi).