Temurah 29a (כט.) — the Talmud in English

d.

And service vessels,

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

e.

And the vessels of an Ashera,

meaning that he sacrificed using vessels with which he would sacrifice for the worship of an Ashera.

f.

And the wood of an Ashera,

he burned the burnt offering with Ashera wood, as it is stated there: “And you shall bring up a burnt offering with the wood of the Ashera 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 Matana said that Rabbi Yoshiya said: From where is an animal set aside prohibited by Torah law?

As it is stated in the passage concerning the daily offering [Numbers 28]:

“You shall safeguard them to sacrifice to Me.”

And we derive:

Anything for which one performs safeguarding.

The Gemara understood that this is what he said: From where is it derived that a person must set aside his offering for Heaven, and may not sacrifice it immediately upon consecrating it? It is stated: “You shall safeguard them to sacrifice to Me”—he must provide it with “safeguarding” and setting aside [fattening]

for the needs of the Most High.

And therefore the Gemara asks:

Abaye raised an objection to this: But from now on,

if we indeed expound the verse in this manner,

bring it,

if a person brought

a lean lamb and did not provide it with safeguarding,

like a hungry sheep that was neither guarded nor fattened, would

it likewise not be fit for sacrifice?!

He said to him,

Rav Tovi bar Matana: You did not understand my statement!

I

“You shall safeguard them to sacrifice to Me”

was what I said!

I expounded a different exposition, namely, that it is prohibited to sacrifice an animal set aside for the worship of idolatry. And I derive this from what is stated,

“to Me,”

and not to another master! And who is the other master

to whom they sacrifice?

You must say that this is idolatry.

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 designation is nullified and they have profaned it.

Rava bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzhak said: An animal set aside is prohibited only until they perform a service with it,

meaning that they perform some service with it for the priests’ needs; but once they have performed a service with it, it is no longer prohibited, and the priests will no longer sacrifice it.

Ulla said that Rabbi Yohanan:

It is not only if they performed a service with it that they profaned it and removed its status as an animal set aside; rather, even

until they hand it over to the priests of idolatry

for their food—it is no longer an animal set aside, and the priests will no longer sacrifice it.

Beha [a sage named “Beha” ]

(a sage named “Beha” )

said that Rabbi Yohanan:

Even if they have not yet actually handed it over for the priests’ consumption, but only

until they feed it vetches of

a type of vegetable

for idolatry,

and they fatten it for the priests’ consumption—it is likewise no longer an animal set aside, and the priests will no longer sacrifice it.

Rabbi Abba said to Beha: Are you disputing Ulla,

do you disagree with Ulla?

He said to him,

Beha said to Rabbi Abba:

No! Ulla too, when he said what he said,

when Ulla said “until they hand it over,” he meant

that they feed [

fatten]

it vetches for idolatry.

Beha and Ulla stated the same principle.

Rabbi Abba said: Beha knew how to resolve a teaching,

to transmit traditions!

And had he not gone up there ,

if he had not gone up to Eretz Yisrael to study Torah—

he would not have known! For Eretz Yisrael caused him

to become wise.

Rav Yitzhak said

to Rabbi Abba:

Beha—

was from here and from there.

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

Rav Hananya the Trita taught

before Rabbi Yohanan,

he taught a beraita before him:

An animal set aside is prohibited only until they perform an act with 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

He taught it and he

stated it,

he both taught the beraita and explained it:

What is the act?

What act did the beraita mention?

Until it is sheared and they perform a service with it,

but afterward it is no longer an animal set aside, and the priests will no longer use it.

We learned in our Mishna:

And what is an animal worshipped? Any animal that people worship; it and whatever is upon it are prohibited, but both this and that are permitted for consumption.

And the Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters derived,

from where do we know that an animal set aside and an animal worshipped are permitted for an ordinary person?

Rav Pappa said: For the verse states,

the prophet Ezekiel said [chapter 45], in his prophecy concerning the Third Temple, which will be rebuilt speedily in our days, and concerning 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 make atonement for them.” And we derive from

“from the watered places of Israel”—

from that which is permitted to Israel

shall one bring an offering, and not from that which is prohibited for consumption—

And

now,

if it enters your mind

that an animal set aside and an animal worshipped

are prohibited to an ordinary person—

why do I need a verse

for the aforementioned expositions, “from the cattle” to exclude an animal worshipped, “from the flock” to exclude an animal set aside [or from “their corruption is in them, they have a blemish”]

to exclude them from the altar,

since in any event they are prohibited for the Most High, as they are not “from the watered places of Israel”? Necessarily, then, they are permitted to an ordinary person.

And we object:

And

is it true that

wherever something is prohibited to an ordinary person, no verse is needed

to prohibit it for the Most High?!

But

a tereifa

is prohibited to an ordinary person, and

nevertheless

the verse excluded it from the altar?

As it was taught in a beraita: The Torah states in the passage concerning offerings [there, verse 2]:

“From”

“the cattle.”

And we derive:

to exclude an animal worshipped.

The beraita asks:

Or perhaps it is expounded only to exclude a tereifa?

The beraita answers:

When it says

“from the cattle”

below,

later in the passage [verse 3],

which need not have been written,

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

rather, what is stated “below” comes to teach 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 to an ordinary person, and we do not derive that it is prohibited for the Most High because it is not “from the watered places of Israel.”

And we answer:

It was necessary!

With regard to a tereifa, the Torah had to write “from the cattle” to exclude it from the category of what is permitted for the Most High, because if it were prohibited for the Most High only because it is not “from the watered places of Israel,”

it might enter your mind to say,

it might occur to one to say:

These matters,

this applies only in a case

where it became a tereifa and was then consecrated,

so that at the time it was consecrated it was already a tereifa;

but where it was consecrated and then became a tereifa—

I might say,

one could say:

it should be permitted

for the Most High,

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 the Most High.

And we object: How can you say that from “the watered places of Israel” we would derive that an animal that became a tereifa and was then consecrated is prohibited for the Most High,

when it follows from here,

an animal that became a tereifa and was then consecrated can be learned from the following exposition as prohibited for the Most High? The Torah states in the passage concerning animal tithe [Leviticus 27]:

“Whatever passes under the rod,”

and we derive:

to exclude a tereifa, which does not pass.

For example, if its legs were severed in a place that renders it a tereifa, it does not enter the pen to be tithed, since it is not fit for sacrifice [even though animal tithe also takes effect upon an animal with a blemish]. From the laws of animal tithe we derive the disqualification of a tereifa with regard to all offerings [Bekhorot 57a], through a gzera shava.

If so, it is difficult: Why were two expositions necessary to exclude an animal that became a tereifa and was then consecrated?

And we conclude: That teaching

there, from “whatever passes”— -

was also necessary!

For

it might enter your mind to say,

it might occur to one to say:

These matters,

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

where it never had a time when it was fit,

where it was never fit, such as

where it was born a tereifa from its mother’s womb.

Since in that same verse it says “from two hundred,” and from this verse we derive [Pesahim 48a] a specific law concerning orla , and just as orla never had a time when it was fit, so too a tereifa—

but where it did have a time when it was fit, emerged into the air of the world, and afterward became a tereifa, I might say,

one could say that

it should be permitted for the Most High

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

This teaches us

that there is another exposition from “whatever passes,” concerning an animal that had a time when it was fit and became a tereifa after its birth. In addition, we derive from “from the cattle” the law of an animal that was consecrated and then became a tereifa. And if “whatever 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 these expositions are necessary.

Mishna:

Our Mishna explains the law of an etnan, a payment to a prostitute.

And what is an etnan?

A person

who says to a prostitute:

Here, [

it shall be yours]

is this lamb for your payment [

as payment for intercourse]. This is the etnan mentioned in the Torah.

Even if they are one hundred lambs—

all of them are prohibited.

The Gemara will explain this.

And likewise

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

Rabbi

says: It is not an etnan. And the Sages say:

This is

an etnan.

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, they are all forbidden.”

The Gemara discusses this:

What are the circumstances?

In what case is this stated?

If you say

that it is referring to a prostitute

who took payment

—who accepted as her fee

one hundred animals,

then

is it not obvious that they are all forbidden?

For

what difference is there whether it is one, and what difference is there whether it is two,

and what difference is there whether it is one hundred?

Whatever she accepts as her fee is etnan.

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

it is not necessary

to teach us that everything is forbidden. Rather,

she accepted two,

as her usual fee is two lambs, which she accepts as her fee from everyone who has intercourse with her,

and he,

this man,

did not stipulate with her

as her fee

anything but

one

single

lamb, and in the end he gave her two, or even one hundred. The novelty is that one might have said: Since he initially stipulated with her that her fee would be only one lamb, only one lamb is etnan, and the rest are merely a gift. Therefore,

it teaches us

that they are all forbidden as etnan,

as he increased her etnan,

for all the lambs that he added and gave her were for the intercourse, and not as a gift; it is all one etnan. And the Gemara cites a beraita concerning etnan.

The Sages taught: If he gave it to her but did not have intercourse with her,

or

he had intercourse with her but did not give it to her—

her etnan is permitted.

The Gemara discusses the beraita: If

he gave it to her but did not have intercourse with her,

do you call it “her etnan”?!

Since he did not have intercourse with her, he simply gave her a gift.

Furthermore,

the continuation of the beraita is also difficult:

he had intercourse with her but did not give it to her—

what etnan is this?

What did he give her?

He gave her nothing, so with regard to which etnan did the beraita say, “Her etnan is permitted”?

The Gemara explains:

Rather, this is what it teaches,

this is how the beraita was taught:

He gave it to her

but did not have intercourse with her at that time,

and afterward he had intercourse with her.

Or

he had intercourse with her

but did not give it to her at that time,

and afterward he gave it to her; her etnan is permitted,

as will be explained.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, the latter clause, in which he had intercourse with her and only afterward gave her a lamb, makes sense: Her etnan is permitted, since at the time of the intercourse he had not designated the lamb for her as etnan, and the status of etnan had not taken effect upon it. What he sent her afterward is therefore categorized as a gift.

But when he gave her a lamb and afterward had intercourse with her, since this lamb exists at the time of the intercourse, and he gave it to her beforehand as payment for the intercourse, then

should the status of

etnan

take effect upon it retroactively!

For he had intercourse with her in exchange for that lamb. If so, wherever the lamb is present at the time of the intercourse, the status of etnan should take effect upon it, and it should be prohibited for sacrifice?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said: