Temurah 28b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Said

Rav Ashi:

The tanna of the beraita disagrees with Rabbi Shimon and holds that it is not a valid inference,

because one may say: the refutation lies at the very beginning of the inference:

The kal va-chomer from an animal with a blemish is refuted from its outset. For

what is there about an animal with a blemish

that therefore it is unfit for the altar?

For its blemish is recognizable.

Can you say [the same] concerning an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality, whose blemish is not recognizable

that it too should be disqualified for the altar?!

And now,

since its blemish is not recognizable,

I might have said,

it shall be fit for the altar.

Therefore the beraita concludes:

The verse says “

from the animal,”

to exclude an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality.

And the Gemara brings the continuation of the beraita:

It is further stated there: “

from the cattle,”

and we expound: not all cattle,

to exclude an animal worshipped as an idol,

which is not fit for the altar.

And the beraita raises the difficulty: Why is it necessary for the verse to be read to teach that it is disqualified,

when it is an inference?

It is possible to learn by a kal va-chomer that it is disqualified:

And what of the fee of a prostitute

of a prostitute

and the price of a dog,

of a dog,

whose coverings are permitted:

For if the prostitute covered it with an ornament or an animal utensil after it had been given to her as her fee, or after it had been exchanged for a dog, that covering is permitted to enter the House of the Lord, to make it into plating for the altar, because the Torah says in the passage concerning the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog [Deuteronomy 23], “For both of them are an abomination of the Lord your God,” and we expound: the fee and the price of a dog, both of them, are an abomination, but not their coverings. And nevertheless

they

themselves

are forbidden

for the Most High.

An animal worshipped as an idol, whose covering is forbidden,

as it is said [Deuteronomy 7], “You shall not covet silver and gold that are upon them,” concerning idols, and it is forbidden even to an ordinary person; and

is it not an inference that it is forbidden

for the Most High?! And although an animal worshipped as an idol is not forbidden to an ordinary person, as explained, for living animals do not become forbidden, nevertheless, since an animal worshipped as an idol is more stringent in that its covering is forbidden even to an ordinary person, all the more so is it itself forbidden to the Most High! And if so, why do I need to learn it from the exposition of the verse? For it is possible to learn it by a kal va-chomer?

And the beraita discusses rejecting the kal va-chomer and saying the opposite! That is, if we had not expounded “from the cattle” to forbid an animal worshipped as an idol to the Most High, and we had said that it is permitted to the Most High, we could have expounded a kal va-chomer to permit the coverings of an animal worshipped as an idol.

Or reverse it!

It is possible to expound the opposite, that the coverings of an animal worshipped as an idol should be permitted by a kal va-chomer!

And what of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog,

which are more stringent in that

they are forbidden

to the Most High; nevertheless,

their coverings are permitted. An animal worshipped as an idol, which is permitted

to the Most High [that is, if we do not expound its prohibition from “from the cattle”], and

is it not an inference

that its covering should be permitted

to an ordinary person?!

The beraita rejects this, saying that it is in no way possible to expound the coverings of an animal worshipped as an idol as permitted, for

if so, you have nullified

what the Torah said [Deuteronomy 7]: “

You shall not covet silver and gold that are upon them, and take them for yourself”!

It is clear that the covering of an animal worshipped as an idol is forbidden. And the kal va-chomer returns to forbidding an animal worshipped as an idol for the altar, so why was it necessary to teach it from “from the cattle”?

The beraita rejects the claim “if so, you have nullified ‘You shall not covet silver and gold that are upon them,’” and says:

I shall uphold it!

It is possible to say that the covering of an animal worshipped as an idol is permitted, and nevertheless to uphold what the Torah said: “You shall not covet silver and gold that are upon them”!

For when the Torah said

“You shall not covet silver and gold”,

it was speaking

of

silver and gold found upon idols that are

a thing that has no living spirit,

and since the idols themselves are forbidden, the Torah also forbade their coverings.

But of

their coverings found upon

a thing that has a living spirit,

it may still be said:

since it is

permitted,

as explained, that living animals do not become forbidden even to the Most High as long as we have not expounded their prohibition from “from the cattle,”

could its covering be permitted?

And now there are before us two possibilities of a kal va-chomer: one, to forbid an animal worshipped as an idol to the Most High by a kal va-chomer from the coverings of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog; and the other, to permit the coverings of an animal worshipped as an idol by a kal va-chomer from the covering of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog, and all the more so that the animal worshipped as an idol itself is permitted to the Most High.

Therefore the beraita concludes:

The verse says “

from the cattle,”

to exclude an animal worshipped as an idol,

and to disqualify it for the Most High. And after we expound that it is disqualified for the Most High, the kal va-chomer to permit its coverings to an ordinary person is also nullified, for living animals too are forbidden to the Most High, and concerning the coverings of living animals as well the Torah said, “You shall not covet silver and gold that are upon them” .

And before the Gemara brings the continuation of the beraita, it raises a difficulty:

Rav Hanania strongly objected to it: The reason

The entire reason that the covering is forbidden is because

the verse excluded it; if the verse had not excluded it,

if the Torah had not excluded it, I would say that

the covering is permitted,

and how is it possible to say this,

but

is it not

written [Deuteronomy 12], “

And you shall destroy their name,”

and its meaning is:

everything made for their name!

И разъясняют: этот стих

And we answer: That verse

there

came in order

to give them a name

of disgrace;

that is what it came for. And it is interpreted as follows: Destroy the “name” of the idols, and give them a name of disgrace. For example, an idol whose name is “

Его следует понимать так: уничтожь «имя» идолов и дай им позорное имя. Например, идола по имени «

House of Elevation,”

a high house,

we call it “

House of Destruction,”

a house of destruction [another version: We call it “

House of a Pit,”

a house of a pit, namely, a privy]. An idol whose name is “

Face of Molekh,”

we call it “

Face of a Dog.”

For an idol whose name is “

Eye of All,”

we call it “

Eye of a Thorn.”

We have learned that from “from the animal” we expound to exclude an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality, whereas from “from the cattle” we expound to exclude an animal worshipped as an idol.

And we raise the difficulty:

But let me reverse it!?

Why do we not expound in the opposite manner, “

from the animal” —

to exclude an animal worshipped as an idol. “

From the cattle” —

И разъясняют: там — в соответствии с содержанием стиха, а здесь в соответствии с содержанием стиха.

to exclude an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality?

And we answer:

There, according to the subject of the verse, and here

according to the subject of the verse.

What is stated as “animal” implies exclusion of an animal that engaged in bestiality, because the Torah calls this prohibition so elsewhere, whereas “cattle” implies idolatry, for this is how the Torah calls it.

Concerning an animal, it is written [Leviticus 20], “

[Leviticus 20]:

And a man who gives his lying with an animal shall surely be put to death.”

Whereas

concerning cattle, it is written [Psalms 106], concerning the sin of the calf, “

[Psalms 106], concerning the sin of the Golden Calf:

And they exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox eating grass.”

And the beraita continues: It is further stated there [Leviticus 1], “And from the flock.” And we expound: “

from the flock,”

and not all the flock,

to exclude an animal set aside for idolatry.

And from the fact that the Torah added the letter vav and wrote “

and from the flock,”

we expound

to exclude an ox that gored,

an ox that gored a person and killed him, for it is liable to stoning if witnesses testified against it. And if two witnesses did not testify against it, but only one witness [testified], or the owners confessed, it is not stoned, but it is disqualified for the Most High.

Rabbi Shimon said: If “an animal that engaged in bestiality” is stated, why is “an ox that gored” stated? And if “an ox that gored” is stated, why is “an animal that engaged in bestiality” stated?

Are they not both forbidden for offering, and both equal in that if two witnesses testified concerning them, they are stoned?

The reason is:

Since there is

a stringency

in an animal that engaged in bestiality that is not present in an ox that gored, and there is in an ox that gored that which is not present in an animal that engaged in bestiality,

and if the Torah had excluded one of them from offering, we would not have excluded the other.

There is

a stringency

in an animal that engaged in bestiality, for

so

the animal that engaged in bestiality caused in it [the law of] compulsion as [the law of] will,

for the animal is liable to stoning when it was the object of bestiality even though it was compelled.

Which is not so with an ox that gored,

for if the ox did not gore willingly but was compelled to gore, for example, they trained it to gore, it is not liable to stoning, as we learned [Bava Kamma 39a]: An arena ox is not liable to stoning, as it is stated [Exodus 21], “When an ox shall gore a person,” when it gores on its own and not when others made it gore. Therefore, if the Torah had excluded an animal that engaged in bestiality, we would not have learned an ox that gored from it.

And

there is

a stringency

in an ox that gored, for the ox that gored,

its owner

pays the ransom,

even though the ox is stoned.

Which is not so with an animal that engaged in bestiality,

and we do not learn it from an ox that gored.

And because there is in an animal that engaged in bestiality that which is not present in an ox that gored, and in an ox that gored that which is not present in an animal that engaged in bestiality —

it was necessary to state “an animal that engaged in bestiality,” and it was necessary to state “an ox that gored.”

After the beraita excluding an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality, an animal worshipped as an idol, and an animal set aside for idolatry, from what is stated, “When a person brings an offering from you to the Lord, from the animal, from the cattle, and from the flock,” to forbid them for offering, has been brought, the Gemara brings another beraita, excluding them from offering through another exposition, from a verse written in the passage of blemishes. And the beraita defines these disqualified animals as animals with blemishes.

And this tanna,

of the following beraita,

brings it from here,

deriving them from another verse —

For it was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

An animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality,

and an animal worshipped as an idol, and an animal set aside for idolatry, are like consecrated animals that had a passing blemish precede their consecration, and they require a permanent blemish in order to redeem them,

that is, they are unfit for offering as though they were animals with a blemish, but nevertheless they may not be redeemed without another blemish.

As it is stated

in the passage of blemishes [Leviticus 22], “

For their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them,

they shall not be accepted for you.”

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the teaching,

how do we expound this? Is this verse not stated concerning blemishes, and a crushed and a bruised animal?

And we answer:

The text is deficient,

the beraita is deficient,

and this is what it teaches,

and this is what it should read:

From where [do we know] that they are forbidden for offering

like an animal with a blemish?

The verse says “

For their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them.”

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Everywhere that it is stated

in the Torah

“corruption,”

it refers only to a matter of sexual transgression and idolatry!

A matter of sexual transgression, for it is written

in the passage of Noah [Genesis 6], “

For all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,”

and there they sinned through sexual transgression, as it is stated there, “And the sons of the divine beings saw the daughters of man,” and so on.

Idolatry, for it is written [Deuteronomy 4], “

(Deuteronomy 4):

Lest you corrupt yourselves, and make for yourselves a graven image, the likeness of any figure.”

And it comes to teach us:

everything

Гемара обсуждает: а таннай из дома рабби Ишмаэля — слова « из скота», « из крупного скота», « и из мелкого скота» — для какого толкования он использует их, то есть для какого толкования Тора написала эти слова? И разъясняют: они нужны ему, то есть необходимы для исключения жертвенного животного, больного, старого и зловонного, от которого исходит неприятный запах; Тора исключает такие животные из жертвоприношения, сказав: «из скота» — не всякого скота, «из крупного скота» и «из мелкого скота».

that the blemish disqualifies —

a matter of sexual transgression,

such as an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality

, and idolatry,

such as an animal set aside for idolatry and an animal worshipped as an idol

, disqualifies it.

And from this exposition the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael learned to exclude an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality, and an animal set aside for idolatry and an animal worshipped as an idol.

And the Gemara discusses:

And the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael — “

from the animal,” “

from the cattle,” “

and from the flock,”

what does he expound from them,

for what exposition did the Torah write them?

And we answer:

He needs it,

there is a need in it to exclude

except for

an offering that is

ill, old,

and foul-smelling,

which emits an odor and stinks; the Torah excludes these from offering by saying “from the animal,” and not every animal, “from the cattle,” and “from the flock.”

And the Gemara discusses:

And the first tanna,

of the preceding beraita,

who took out these verses,

who expounded “from the animal, from the cattle, and from the flock”

for an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality,

an animal set aside for idolatry, and an animal worshipped as an idol —

from where does he derive an ill, old, and foul-smelling animal,

and from where does he derive their exclusion from offering?

And we answer:

He derives it

from another verse. It is stated there [verse 10]: “

And if his offering is from the flock, from the sheep or from the goats, for an elevation-offering,”

and from the fact that the Torah said “from” and “from,” we expound it to exclude an old, ill, and foul-smelling animal.

And the Gemara discusses:

And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael,

who excludes an old, ill, and foul-smelling animal from what is stated [verse 2], “from the animal, from the cattle, and from the flock,” why did the Torah write [verse 10], “from the flock, from the sheep, and from the goats”?

And we answer:

It is the way of the verse to speak in this manner,

they are not available for an exposition, because it is the way of Scripture to speak so. In contrast, this which is stated [verse 2], “from the animal, from the cattle, and from the flock,” is available for an exposition, because that entire verse is superfluous for an exposition.

We learned in our Mishna:

What is mukzeh? That which is designated for idolatry.

Reish Lakish said: mukzeh is not

forbidden except for that which was designated for seven years.

For only if they designated it and set it aside for seven years, at the end of which they sacrifice it to idolatry, is it forbidden on account of mukzeh.

Another wording:

Reish Lakish said: mukzeh is not forbidden except until seven years.

And after seven years, when they did not sacrifice it, it is no longer mukzeh, because they again do not sacrifice it.

As it is stated

in connection with Gideon [Judges 6]: “

And it came to pass on that night, and the Lord said to him: Take the bull of the ox that belongs to your father, and the second bull, seven years old. And you shall demolish the altar of the Baal that belongs to your father, and the Asherah that is upon it you shall cut down.

And you shall build an altar to the Lord your God on the top of this stronghold, in an orderly arrangement. And you shall take the second bull, and you shall offer it as a burnt-offering with the wood of the Asherah that you shall cut down.”

And we expound, “the second” in the sense of fattening, as [I Samuel 15]: “and the cattle and the second-quality animals.” And it is proven that they would fatten an ox for seven years for the purpose of idolatry.

And since we find that Gideon sacrificed this fattened bull, it is proven that it was not mukzeh: either because seven years had not yet passed—for the first wording [and what is stated, “and the second bull, seven years old,” does not mean that it had already been fattened for seven years, but it is an attributive designation, namely, “the bull that it is customary to designate and fatten, and ultimately sacrifice”]—or because seven years had already passed and they had not worshiped it—for the second wording; therefore it was permitted for sacrifice .

And we challenge:

But

when

there, “

designation”

alone

was?

For it was not

worshiped

also!?

And we answer:

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: It was designated for worship

but

they did not worship it!

Rava said: In fact, they worshiped it,

and it was forbidden also on account of “worshiped,”

and it is an innovation,

a matter of which we have not found the like: that it should be permitted to sacrifice something that is forbidden to sacrifice; and since it is an innovation, we do not derive from it.

That is to say, Rava completely disagrees with Reish Lakish, and holds that every mukzeh is forbidden, and not specifically mukzeh for seven years. And what Reish Lakish proved—that within seven years it is not forbidden [according to the first wording], or that after seven years it is not forbidden [according to the second wording]—from the fact that God commanded him to sacrifice it as a burnt-offering, is not a proof, for it is possible that he sacrificed it while it was “mukzeh,” and it was explicitly permitted from the mouth of God,

as Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said.

For Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Eight things

of prohibition

the Holy One, blessed be He, permitted

to Gideon

on that night:

a.

Outside,

for they slaughtered outside the Tabernacle, since that event took place in Ophrah.

b.

And at night,

as it is stated there, “and he did it at night,” and they do not offer sacrifices at night.

c.

And non-priesthood,

for Gideon was from the tribe of Manasseh and was not a koen.