Komentarz do Temura 6:6

כל האסורים לגבי מזבח (all [animals] which are prohibited for the altar – that they are invalid for offering as a sacrifice. And you consider them and further.

Introduction Chapter six contains information concerning animals that cannot be put onto the altar for various reasons.

אסורין בכל שהן (prohibit in any number at all [animals among which they are confused]) – and even if they were combined one in one-thousand, all of them are forbidden to the altar, if it was not known. And all of them are found that they are not known, except for the torn animal which is not found and is not known other that, as for example, the lion or the wolf attacked that are mixed with the vital organ perforated by a thorn.

All [animals] forbidden for the altar render [others] unfit however few there are. If an animal is one of the kinds of animals that cannot be put onto the altar, then if it becomes mixed up with other animals, all of the animals are forbidden, even if there were many permitted animals and only one forbidden one. In other words, there is no measure in which the forbidden animals are nullified, as there are in other forbidden mixtures.

הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד – they are ineligible for the altar. As it states in Scripture (Leviticus 22:25): “for they are mutilated, they have a defect,” and it is taught in a Baraitha, every place where it states, “they are mutilated,” is none other than unchastity and idolatry. Unchastity, as it is written (Genesis 6:12): “for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth.” Idolatry, as it is written (Deuteronomy 4:16): “not to act wickedly and make for yourselves a sculptured image [in any likeness whatever: the form of a man or a woman].” The one (i.e., animal) that has sexual relations with a human being and the one (i.e., animal) with whom a human being has sexual relations that is taught in our Mishnah, as for example that he had sex or has sexual relations with an animal with one witness or by the owners, and is not stoned in this, but they are disqualified from being a sacrifice.

[These are the animals forbidden for the altar]: An animal which had sexual relations with [a woman] or [an animal] that had sexual relations [with a man], an animal set aside ( [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped (ne’ [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through a caesarean section,
What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It [the animal itself] is forbidden, but what is upon it, is permitted. This is the list of animals that cannot be put on the altar. We have explained these in Zevahim 8:1 and our mishnah and the following ones will deal below with categories b-c. Kilayim is an animal born from two different species of parents, such as a goat and a sheep. A terefah is an animal with a wound/disease that will cause it to die imminently.

מוקצה – an animal that was set aside for idolatry. And it is not disqualified for being offed up until they should do with it an act for the purposes of idolatry, as for example, that the [non-Jewish] priests served it if it was a bull or sheared it if it was a sheep.

And what is meant by ne'evad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it [the animal itself] and that which is upon it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten. “Muktzeh” means “set aside” and here it refers to an animal that has been set aside to be used in an idolatrous ritual, but that has not yet been used. It itself cannot be offered as a Jewish sacrifice, but anything on it, jewels, a saddle, etc. is not yet forbidden.

ונעבד – it is not prohibited to derive benefit even though he worshipped it, for living creatures are not prohibited to derive benefit when we serve them, but they are disqualified to the altar.

“Ne’evad” means that the animal has already been used in idolatry. Here the prohibition is broader and includes even the things that decorate the animal. However, both animals can be eaten as non-sacrificial meat as long as they were not already slaughtered for the sake of idolatry.

ואתנן ומחיר (and the harlot’s hire and the price of a dog) – Scripture specifically disqualifies them (Deuteronomy 23:19): “You shall not bring the fee of a whore or the pay of a dog [into the house of the LORD your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both are abhorrent to the LORD your God].”

וכלאים – a he-goat that comes upon a ewe.

והטריפה – as it is written regarding tithes (Leviticus 27:32): “[All tithes of the herd or the flock] – of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff,” excluding the torn animal that does not pass [under the shepherd’s staff] and the sacrifice of the altar is derived from the tithe of cattle.

ויוצא דופן – that its mother was torn and they removed the fetus through the caesarian section, and we exclude it from Scripture as it is written (Leviticus 22:27): “[When an ox or a sheep or a goat] is born”, excluding through caesarian section.

הוא אסור – for the altar.

ומה שעליו מותר – for that is not worshipped.

הוא ומה שעליו אסור – it is prohibited for the altar, but is permitted even for eating, as it will be mentioned nearby. But what is upon it, the jewelry that is upon it are prohibited from deriving benefit for they were worshipped and they have on them the grasp of a human hand.

האומר לזונה – whether she is a heathen woman or an Israelite woman, and it shall be one of those liable for violating a negative commandment and one doesn’t have to say from one who is liable for extirpation and death by the Jewish court. But the hire of a harlot of a free woman, and she is an Israelite, is not disqualified for the Altar, for this is not the hire of a harlot, for she is not forbidden from marrying into the priesthood with this sexual act. And similarly, the hire [of a harlot] that was given as wife to a man is not disqualified, but a male hire, is disqualified.

Introduction According to Deuteronomy 23:19 one may not bring “a prostitute’s fee or the pay of a dog into the house of the Lord.” The rabbis understand these two things to be an animal used to pay a prostitute or an ox used as payment for a dog. Neither of them can be used as a sacrifice. The next three mishnayot explain what constitutes the “a prostitute’s fee” or “the pay of a dog.”

אפילו מאה כולן אסורים – he made a condition with her to give her one lamb as her hire and sent her even one-hundred, we don’t say that one that I will give with her will be a hire [for harlot] and these others are all a gift, but all of them are considered hire for harlot and prohibited [as an offering].

What is meant by “a prostitute’s fee”?
If one says to a prostitute, “Take this lamb as your fee,” even if there are a hundred lambs, they are all forbidden [for the altar]. According to Albeck, this means that a man gives even 100 lambs to a prostitute as her fee, none of the lambs can be used as a sacrifice. The Talmud adds that even if her stated fee was only one lamb and he gave her another 99 lambs as a bonus, they are all prohibited.

ותלין שפחתך אצל עבדי – we are speaking of my Hebrew slave who does not have a wife and children, for his master does not have permission to provides to him a Canaanite maid servant to beget from her slaves because he didn’t have a wife from the outset. Therefore, her being a hire for harlotry is prohibited according to the words of the Sages. But Rabbi [Judah the Prince] who stated that it is not the hire of a harlot, he doesn’t hold this reasoning, for certainly even if he lacks a wife and children, his master provides for him a Canaanite maid servant. Alternatively, even if he holds this reasoning, he holds that since a Hebrew slave was permitted from its general rule with a Canaanite maid servant, it is not considered a hire of a harlot. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince].

If one says to his fellow: Here is a lamb and have your female slave sleep with my servant, Rabbi Meir says: it [the lamb] is not regarded as a prostitute’s fee. But the sages say: it is regarded as a prostitute’s fee. A slave owner has a right to give his female Canaanite(non-Jewish) slave to his male Hebrew slave. Rabbi Meir says that if someone tries to pay another slave owner for him to have his female slave sleep with his male slave, it is not prostitution and the fee is not a prostitute’s fee. According to Rabbi Meir the reason is that a Hebrew slave cannot marry a female Canaanite slave, therefore the master has a right to designate her to have relations with someone not for the sake of marriage. The other sages hold that he could marry her and therefore when she is paid to have relations with him it is a prostitute’s fee.

אחד נטל עשרה ואחד נטל תשעה טלאים וכלב – corresponding to the ten lambs that his fellow took, the ten lambs that correspond to the nine [lambs] and the dog, all are prohibited [to the Temple] because of the price of a dog. But the nine [lambs] that are with the dog are permitted. But in the Gemara (Tractate Temurah 30a) it raises the question, why that which corresponds with the dog, all of them are prohibited? We should remove one for this dog, and these [lambs] all of them should be permitted. And it answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the value of the dog was greater of any one [of the corresponding lambs] and this additional amount is distributed over all [the corresponding lambs] (where not one of the corresponding lambs is of equal value to the dog, some of the additional value of the dog is extended to each of the lambs), and now the value of the dog belongs to all of them. As for example, those [lambs] that are corresponding are each worth one Denar – which is ten Denarim, and those nine [lambs] that are with him (i.e., the dog) are each worth a Denar minus a M’ah, which are nine Denarim less nine M’ot, but the dog is worth a Denar and nine Meot, it is found that those ten [lambs] corresponding to the nine [lambs] and the they have nine, for in each one of them there is M’ah the price of a dog, and the tenth is entirely the price of a dog.

What is meant by the “price of a dog”?
If one says to his fellow, here is this lamb instead of [this] dog. The price of a dog means an animal used to pay for a dog. Such an animal cannot be used as a sacrifice. Assumedly, the dog was considered a lowly animal in the biblical world and therefore something used to buy a dog itself had a lowly status and could not be used a sacrifice.

שנים ולא ארבעה – both of them (see Deuteronomy 23:19 – “for both/שניהם are abhorrent to the LORD your God”) as it is written in Scripture they divide it as if it is written as “two.” “Two” teaches us specifically the hire for a harlot and the price of a dog, and not four – the price of a dog and the fee for a harlot, and they are, implying them, but not their offspring.

And similarly if two partners divided [an estate] and one took ten lambs and the other nine and a dog, all those taken in place of the dog are forbidden [for the altar], but those taken with a dog are valid [for the altar]. The lamb taken by one partner in exchange for the dog taken by the other partner is considered to be the “price of a dog.”

An animal that is the fee of a dog and the price of a prostitute are permitted [for the altar], since it says: “[For] both [of these]” (Deuteronomy 23:19): both’ but not four. The mishnah here reverses the biblical “prostitute’s fee and price of a dog” and comes up with “the fee of a dog and price of a prostitute.” The “fee of a dog” is when someone gives a lamb to his fellow in return for a dog to be used for sexual relations (I know, a bit sick, but that’s what it says). The “price of a prostitute” refers to a case where one exchanges a prostitute for a lamb. These lambs are not prohibited because the Torah prohibits only two things the prostitute’s fee and the price of a dog. Any other combo, no matter how morally troubling, does not cause the lamb to become prohibited.

Their offspring are permitted [for the altar since it says]: “[Both of these]” implying they but not their offspring. Only the animal itself is prohibited, not their offspring.

נתן לה כפים הרי אלו מותרים – [he gave the whore pieces of silver] – to purchase with them an animal for a sacrifice and fine flour for meal-offerings.

Introduction Today’s mishnah is the last mishnah to deal with the topic of “the price of a dog” and the “fee of a prostitute.”

יינות שמנים וסלתות אסורים – but wheat [as hire] and she made it into flour; olives and she made it into olive oil, grapes and she made it into wine, these are permitted, for we expound “both of them”/שניהם (Deuteronomy 23:19) but not their products and not their offspring (see Talmud Temurah 30b according to the School of Hillel).

If he gave her [a prostitute] money, it is permitted [for use for the altar.] [But if he gave her] wine, oil, flour and anything similar which is offered on the altar, it is forbidden for the altar. If one pays a prostitute with money (I think today that this is preferred over giving her a lamb), the money can later be used to buy a sacrifice. The only thing that becomes prohibited is something can be sacrifice, such as wine, oil and flour.

נתן לה מוקדשים – as for example, he separated a lamb for his Passover offering and after some time, said to the harlot: “Have sexual relations with me and I will transmit my share on my Passover offering with your hiring [of a harlot].” You might think I would say that since a person is permitted to appoint others over his Passover offering, he is appointed, but I would say that to cause upon her [a harlot] for hire, it comes to teach us that this is not the case, since Scripture states (Deuteronomy 23:19): “in fulfillment of any vow,” to exclude that which is already vowed.

If he gave her dedicated [animals] they are permitted [for the altar]. If he gives her an animal already dedicated to the Temple, it does not become prohibited. This is because an animal that is already dedicated is not his money any more, and one cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him.

עופות – of unconsecrated [fowl].

If he gave her birds [of hullin] they are disqualified. The mishnah includes birds as being prohibited if given to a prostitute for her fee.

הרי אלו – disqualified for offering as a sacrifice for the hire [of a whore] and the pay [of a dog] fall upon them.

For one might have reasoned [as follows]: if in the case of dedicated animals, where a blemish disqualifies them, [the law] of [the prostitute’s] fee and price [of a dog] does not apply to them, in the case of birds, where a blemish does not disqualify, is it not all the more reason that the law of [the prostitute’s] fee and the price [of a dog] should not apply? Scripture says, “For any vow,” (Deuteronomy 23:19) this includes a bird. The mishnah now explains why one might have even thought that these laws don’t apply to a bird. We have already learned in section two that the laws of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog don’t apply to dedicated animals. The laws concerning blemishes (that a blemished animal cannot be sacrificed) do, however, apply to dedicated animals. This makes the laws governing dedicated animals more stringent than the laws governing birds, which are not disqualified by defects. Therefore, if the laws of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog don’t apply to the more stringent case of dedicated animals, all the more so they should not apply to the more lenient case of the bird. Therefore, the Torah teaches “for any vow” to let us know that birds are included in the prohibition.

עופות שאין הום פוסל בהן – as Scripture states (Leviticus 22:19): “[it must, to be acceptable in your favor,] be a male without blemish [from cattle] or sheep [or goats],” but there are not pure or male with fowl.

לכל נדר – all, to include the fowl, for it too comes with a vow, for the fee [of a whore] or the pay [of a dog] occur upon it.

כל האסורים לגבי המזבח – such as an female animal that copulated [with a human male] unnaturally when it is unconsecrated and afterwards became pregnant, the offspring are permitted as a sacrifice, for the permitted male [animal] that comes upon this animal, and this female animal is forbidden, both of them caused the offspring that would come and both of them caused it, it is permitted. But if she engaged in unnatural copulation when she was pregnant, the offspring is disqualified for a sacrifice, for she and her offspring engaged in unnatural copulation.

With regard to any animals that are disqualified for the altar, their offspring are permitted for the altar. If an animal cannot be offered for the altar, for instance an animal given as prostitute’s fee or the price of a dog (see mishnah three), its offspring can still be offered.

ולד טריפה – should not be offered. But for the lay person, everyone says that it is permitted, for it is not from her body that it comes. And there is a dispute in the chapter “Which are the torn animals?” (Tractate Hullin 58a). There is according to one who states that the torn animal gives birth, and there is according to the one who states that a torn animal does not give birth. According to the one who states that a torn animal gives birth, it is found regarding her as for example, that it became torn, and at the end became pregnant, and in this they dispute, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that both the “parents” caused this prohibition, but the Rabbis hold that both the “parents” caused it to be permitted. But according to the one who states that the torn animal does not give birth, we find concerning it, as for example, that she became pregnant, and then at the end became torn, and in this they disagree, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that the fetus is the descendant of the mother, but the Rabbis hold that the fetus is not the descendant of the mother. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

The offspring of a terefah: Rabbi Elazar says it may not be offered on the altar. Rabbi Elazar says that when it comes to a terefah, an animal with a physical defect that will eventually cause it to die, the offspring cannot be offered. Evidently, according to Rabbi Elazar, such a defect is inherited.

כשרה שינקה מן הטריפה פסולה – all that day that she suckled during the time of twenty-four astronomical hours, she is disqualified for being offered as a sacrifice, for since she was able to exist on that milk without other consumption, and does not eat from her belly until he completes the twenty-four astronomical hours. But after that he ate from her belly, Rabbi Hananiah admits that she is fit/kosher, and even an animal that became fattened with idolatrous vetches/horse-bean everyone admits that he is fit for the Altar. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Haninah ben Antigonus (see Talmud Temurah 31a).

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: a ritually clean animal which nursed from a terefah is disqualified from the altar. The milk in this animal’s stomach is prohibited because it comes from a terefah. Therefore, according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, it is prohibited from the altar.

שאין פודים את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים – that consecrated animals that had been disqualified that were redeemed, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:15): “you may slaughter and eat meat [in any of your settlements],” and we expound, “you may slaughter” but not shearing; “and eat” but not to your dogs; “meat” but not milk.

Any dedicated animal which became terefah one may not dedicate them, since we may not redeem dedicated [animals] in order to give them to dogs to eat. One cannot dedicate a living terefah to be a sacrifice because there would be nothing to do with that animal. It cannot be offered on the altar because it is a terefah. It cannot be redeemed, because the only thing one could do with it after it is redeemed is feed it to the dogs, and this is considered disgraceful to a formerly holy thing. Therefore, one should not dedicate it in the first place.