Temurah 29a — the Talmud in English

d.

And service vessels,

that he sacrificed without a service vessel—for where would he have obtained a service vessel?

e.

And the vessels of an Asheira,

that he sacrificed with vessels with which he would sacrifice for the worship of an Asheira.

f.

And the wood of an Asheira,

he burned the burnt-offering with wood of an Asheira, as it is stated there: “And you shall bring up a burnt-offering with the wood of the Asheira that you shall cut down.”

g.

And an animal set aside.

h.

And one worshipped,

as explained.

The Gemara now brings another exposition to prohibit an animal set aside.

Rav Tovi bar Mattena said in the name of Rabbi Yoshiyya: From where is an animal set aside from the Torah?

As it is stated in the section of the daily offering [Numbers 28]:

“You shall guard it to bring it as an offering to Me.”

And we expound:

Everything for which one performs guarding.

And the Gemara thought that this is what he is saying: From where is it derived that a person must set aside his offering for Heaven, and not sacrifice it immediately when he consecrates it? It is stated, “You shall guard it to bring it as an offering to Me”—he performs for it “guarding” and setting aside [fattening]

for the needs of the Most High.

And therefore the Gemara asks:

Abaye strongly objected to him: If so,

if we indeed expound in this way,

bring it,

if a person brought

a lean lamb, and did not perform guarding for it,

a hungry lamb that was neither guarded nor fattened, is it

indeed also not fit for sacrifice?!

He said to him,

Rav Tovi bar Mattena: You did not understand my words!

I, “

You shall guard it to bring it as an offering to Me”

is what I said!

I expounded a different exposition, namely, to prohibit sacrificing an animal set aside for the worship of stars. And I expound it from what is stated

“to Me,”

and not to another master! And who is a master

another, to whom they sacrifice?

You must say: This is the worship of stars.

The Gemara now brings several statements of amoraim that an animal set aside remains so until the priests use it for their own needs; but if the priests have already used it, their setting aside is annulled and they have profaned it. Rava bar Rav Adda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak: An animal set aside is prohibited only until they perform work with it, that some work is performed with it for the needs of the priests; but if they performed work with it, it is not prohibited, and the priests no longer sacrifice it. Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Not only if they performed work with it did they profane it from being an animal set aside, but even until they deliver it to the priests of the worship of stars, for their food—it is not an animal set aside, and the priests no longer sacrifice it to him. Beha —[a sage whose name was “Beha” ]— said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Even if they have not yet actually delivered it for the priests’ eating, but only until they feed it vetch of [a type of vegetable] the worship of stars, and they fatten it for the needs of the priests’ eating—it is likewise not an animal set aside, and the priests no longer sacrifice it to him. Rabbi Abba said to Beha: Do you disagree with Ulla, do you disagree with Ulla? He said to him, Beha to Rabbi Abba: No! Ulla too, when he said it, when Ulla said “until they deliver it,” his intention was to say:

Rava bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzhak said: An animal designated for idolatry is prohibited only until they perform service with it,

that is, until they perform some service with it for the priests’ needs. Once they have performed service with it, it is not prohibited, and the priests no longer sacrifice it.

that they feed

[fatten]

it with vetch of the worship of stars.

And Beha and Ulla said the same thing.

Beha

(a sage named “Beha” )

Rabbi Abba said: Beha knew how to present a teaching

to transmit teachings!

And if he had not gone up there ,

if he had not gone up to the Land of Israel to study Torah—

he would not have known! For the Land of Israel caused him

to become wise.

Rav Yitzhak said to Rabbi Abba:

Beha—

was from here and from there.

He was from Babylonia and from the Land of Israel, and studied Torah in both places.

Rav Hananiah of Trita taught

before Rabbi Yohanan,

he taught a beraita before him:

An animal set aside is prohibited only until they perform a deed with it.

He taught it and he

Thus Beha and Ulla said the same thing.

stated it,

he both taught the beraita and explained it:

What deed

what deed did the beraita state?

Until it is sheared and they perform work with it,

but afterward it is not an animal set aside, and the priests no longer work with it.

Rav Yitzhak said

to Rabbi Abba:

Beha—

he was from both places.

He was from Babylonia and from Eretz Yisrael, and he studied Torah in both places.

Rav Hananya the Tyrian taught

We learned in our Mishna:

And what is one worshipped? Anything that they worship, it and what is upon it are prohibited, but both this and that are permitted for eating.

And the Gemara discusses it:

From where are these matters, from where do we know that an animal set aside and one worshipped are permitted to an ordinary person? Rav Pappa said: For the verse says, the prophet Ezekiel said [45], in his prophecy concerning the Third Temple, may it be built speedily in our days, and the service of the offerings and libations: “And one sheep from the flock, from two hundred, from the watered places of Israel, for a meal-offering and for a burnt-offering and for peace-offerings, to atone for them”; and we expound

“from the watered places of Israel”—

from that which is permitted to Israel

bring an offering, and not from that which is prohibited for eating—

And

now,

if it enters your mind

that an animal set aside and one worshipped

are prohibited to an ordinary person— why do I need a verse, the above expositions, “from the cattle” to exclude one worshipped, “from the flock” to exclude an animal set aside [or from “their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them”] to exclude them from the Most High, are they not in any event prohibited for the Most High, since they are not “from the watered places of Israel”? And necessarily they are permitted to an ordinary person. And we object: And

if

everywhere that they are prohibited to an ordinary person, does one not require a verse

to prohibit them for the Most High?!

But

a torn animal,

which is prohibited to an ordinary person, and

nevertheless

the verse excluded it from the Most High?

For it was taught in a beraita, as we learned: The Torah said in the section of offerings [there, verse 2]

“from

the cattle.”

And we expound:

To exclude one worshipped.

And the beraita asks:

Or perhaps it is expounded only to exclude a torn animal?

And the beraita answers:

When it says

“from the cattle”

below, in the continuation of the section [verse 3], which need not be written, for it was unnecessary to write it, since “from the cattle” was already stated, but rather, what is stated “below” comes to teach us to exclude a torn animal.

And

Thus, the verse was necessary to exclude a torn animal, even though a torn animal is prohibited to an ordinary person, and we do not expound to prohibit it for the Most High on the grounds that it is not “from the watered places of Israel”?

And we answer:

It was necessary!

Regarding a torn animal, the Torah had to write “from the cattle” to exclude it from permission for the Most High, for if it were prohibited for the Most High only because it was not “from the watered places of Israel,”

it might enter your mind to say,

it might enter your mind to say:

These words,

these matters apply only in the case

that it became torn and afterward was consecrated,

and at the time he consecrated it, it was torn,

but if it was consecrated and afterward became torn—

say

that it may be said:

let it be permitted

for the Most High,

since it had already been consecrated—

When it says “

from the cattle”

Therefore the Torah excluded it from “from the cattle,” to teach us that even when it was consecrated and afterward became torn, it is prohibited for the Most High.

later in the passage [verse 3],

which need not have been written,

since there was no need to write it, as “from the cattle” had already been stated,

rather, the phrase “below” teaches us

that the second mention comes

to exclude a tereifa.”

It follows that a verse was necessary to exclude a tereifa, even though a tereifa is prohibited for ordinary use, and we do not expound that it is prohibited for offerings because it is not “from the watered places of Israel.”

And we object: How can you say that from “from the watered places of Israel” we would learn to prohibit for the Most High an animal that became torn and afterward was consecrated,

when it goes out from here,

for an animal that became torn and afterward was consecrated

is learned from the following exposition, to prohibit it for the Most High? The Torah said in the section of animal tithe [Leviticus 27]

“Everything that passes under the rod,”

and we expound:

Except a torn animal, which does not pass,

such as one whose legs were cut at a place where it is a torn animal—it does not enter the pen to be tithed, since it is unfit for sacrifice [even though animal tithe also takes effect upon one with a permanent blemish!]. And from animal tithe we learn the disqualification of a torn animal in all offerings [Bekhorot 57a] by means of a

gzera shava.

If so, it is difficult: Why were two expositions necessary to exclude an animal that became torn and afterward was consecrated? And we conclude: That teaching that from “everything that passes” — was also necessary! For it might enter your mind to say, it might enter your mind to say: These words, when did we say that we learn from “from the watered places of Israel” to disqualify it for the Most High? Only where it never had a time of fitness, where it was never fit, such as where it was born a torn animal from its mother’s womb. Since in that same verse it says “from the two hundred,” and we expound [Pesahim 48a] a specific law regarding orla from this verse ,

say,

one might say:

It should be permitted

for offerings,

since it had already been consecrated—

Therefore, the Torah excludes it through “from the cattle,” teaching us that even when it was consecrated and then became a tereifa, it is prohibited for offerings.

just as orla never had a time of fitness, so too a torn animal—

but where it had a time of fitness, came out into the air of the world, and afterward became torn, say,

it may be said that it should be permitted for the Most High

and was not excluded by “from the watered places of Israel”—

It teaches us, a different exposition from “everything that passes” regarding one that had a time of fitness and became torn after its birth. And we further learn from “from the cattle” regarding one that was consecrated and afterward became torn. And if the phrase “everything that passes” had not been written, but only “from the cattle,” we would exclude from “from the cattle” only one that became torn and afterward was consecrated. Therefore all the expositions were necessary. Mishna: Our Mishna explains the law of a payment to a prostitute. And what is a payment to a prostitute? A person

To exclude a tereifa, which does not pass—

for example, if its legs were cut at a place that makes it a tereifa, it does not enter the pen to be tithed, since it is not fit for sacrifice [even though animal tithe also applies to animals with a physical defect]. From animal tithe we learn the disqualification of a tereifa for all offerings [Bekhorot 57a] by a conclusion based on an identical expression.

who says to a prostitute:

Here, [it shall be yours] is this lamb as your payment [as payment for intercourse]. This is the payment to a prostitute stated in the Torah. Even if they are one hundred lambs— all of them are prohibited.

And it will be explained in the Gemara.

For it might enter your mind to say,

For

And likewise

one who says to his fellow: Here is this lamb, and let your maidservant spend the night with my slave!—

These words—

when did we say that “the watered places of Israel” teaches that it is disqualified for offerings? Only

where it never had a period when it was fit,

Rabbi

says: It is not a payment to a prostitute. And the Sages say:

It is a payment to a prostitute. And it will be explained in the Gemara in what they disagree.

but where it had a period when it was fit, was born and came into the world, and afterward became a tereifa, say,

one might say that

it should be permitted for offerings

and is not excluded by “the watered places of Israel”—

This teaches us

that there is another exposition from “everything that passes” for an animal that had a period when it was fit and became a tereifa after its birth. We also learn from “from the cattle” concerning an animal that was consecrated and then became a tereifa. And if “everything that passes” had not been written, but only “from the cattle,” we would have excluded through “from the cattle” only an animal that became a tereifa and was then consecrated. Therefore, all the expositions were necessary.

Mishna:

Our Mishna explains the law of the payment to a prostitute.

And what is the payment to a prostitute?

A man

who says to a prostitute:

Take

you shall have

this lamb as your payment

[as payment for intercourse]. This is the payment to a prostitute mentioned in the Torah.

Even if they are one hundred lambs—

all of them are prohibited. The Gemara will explain this.

The Gemara will explain this.

And likewise

one who says to another: Take this lamb, and let your maidservant spend the night with my slave!—

Rabbi

says: It is not a payment to a prostitute. And the Sages say:

This is

a payment to a prostitute. The Gemara will explain the basis of their dispute.

The Gemara will explain the basis of their dispute.

Gemara:

The Master said: We learned in our Mishna:

and even if they are one hundred, all of them are forbidden.

And the Gemara discusses:

what are the circumstances?

In what manner is this speaking?

If you say,

if it is speaking of a prostitute

who takes payment,

who takes as her payment

one hundred animals,

then

is it obvious that all of them are forbidden?

For

what difference is there to me between one and two,

what difference is there to me between one hundred,

since whatever she takes as her payment is a prostitute’s payment?

And we answer: Indeed, when she takes one hundred,

it is not necessary

to teach us that everything is forbidden. Rather,

it is where she takes two,

her regular payment is two lambs, which she takes as her payment from all those who have relations with her,

and he,

this man,

did not stipulate for her

as her payment

but

one lamb

only

alone, and in the end he gave her two, or even one hundred. And the novelty is that it would have been possible to say: Since he initially stipulated with her that her payment would be only one lamb, therefore only one lamb would be a prostitute’s payment, and the rest merely a gift. Therefore

it teaches us

that all of them are forbidden on account of a prostitute’s payment,

for he increased her prostitute’s payment,

since all the lambs that he added and gave her were for the sexual relations, and not as a gift, and all of it is one prostitute’s payment. And the Gemara brings a beraita concerning a prostitute’s payment.

The Sages taught: If he gave her [the payment] but did not have relations with her,

or

he had relations with her but did not give her [the payment]—

her payment is permitted.

And the Gemara discusses the beraita: But if

he gave her but did not have relations with her, "

do you call it “her payment”?!

For since he did not have relations with her, he gave her an ordinary gift?

And furthermore,

the continuation of the beraita is likewise difficult:

he had relations with her but did not give her,

what prostitute’s payment is this? For

what did he give her,

since he gave her nothing, and concerning what prostitute’s payment did the beraita say, “her payment is permitted”"?

And the Gemara explains:

Rather, this is what it teaches,

this is how the beraita was taught:

he gave her,

but did not have relations with her now,

and afterward had relations with her.

Or

he had relations with her,

but did not give her [anything] now,

and afterward gave her [the payment], her payment is permitted,

as will be explained.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Granted, the latter clause, where he had relations with her and only afterward gave her a lamb—properly, her payment is permitted, since at the time of the relations he had not designated the lamb for her as a prostitute’s payment, and the designation of a prostitute’s payment did not take effect upon it; and what he sent her afterward has the status of a gift.

But when he gave her a lamb and afterward had relations with her, since this lamb exists and is present at the time of the relations, and it was given to her beforehand as payment for the relations, if so,

let the designation take effect upon it

the designation of

a prostitute’s payment retroactively!

For he had relations with her in exchange for that lamb, and if so, wherever the lamb is present at the time of the relations, the designation of a prostitute’s payment should take effect upon it, and it should become forbidden for sacrifice?

And we answer,

Rabbi Elazar said: