Temurà 28

מַתְנִי׳ כָּל הָאֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ אוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן — הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהָאֶתְנַן וְהַמְּחִיר, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן.

MISHNA: With regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, if they are intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is permitted, they prohibit the entire mixture of animals in any amount, regardless of the ratio of permitted to prohibited animals. These are the animals whose sacrifice is prohibited: An animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and the set-aside, and one that was worshipped, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or an animal crossbred from a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or an animal born by caesarean section.

אֵיזֶהוּ מוּקְצֶה? הַמּוּקְצֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הוּא אָסוּר וּמַה שֶּׁעָלָיו מוּתָּר. וְאֵיזֶהוּ הַנֶּעֱבָד? כֹּל שֶׁעוֹבְדִין אוֹתוֹ, הוּא וּמַה שֶּׁעָלָיו אָסוּר. וְזֶה וָזֶה מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה.

Which is the animal that is set-aside? It is an animal that is set aside for idol worship. The animal itself is prohibited, but that which is upon it, e.g., its jewelry and garments, is permitted to be sold in order to purchase an animal to be sacrificed. And which is the animal that was worshipped? It is any animal that a person worships as an object of idol worship. In this case, the sacrifice of both the animal itself and an animal purchased using the money from the sale of that which is upon it is prohibited. And the consumption of both this, the animal designated for idol worship, and that, the animal worshipped, is permitted.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר מָר: אוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן, דְּלָא בָּטְלִי בְּרוּבָּא. תְּנֵינָא: כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּחַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת אוֹ בְּשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד בְּרִבּוֹא — יָמוּתוּ.

GEMARA: The Master said in the mishna, with regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, that if they are intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is permitted, they prohibit the entire mixture in any amount. This teaches that they are not nullified by a majority. This is difficult, as we already learn this in a mishna (Zevaḥim 70b): All the sacrificial animals that were intermingled with an animal from which deriving benefit is prohibited, e.g., sin offerings that were disqualified and left to die, or if they were intermingled with an ox that is sentenced to be stoned, even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, deriving benefit from them all is prohibited and they must all die.

וְקַשְׁיָא לַן, מַאי קָאָמַר?

And the use of the word “even” in the phrase: Even one in ten thousand, was difficult for us: What is it saying? This word indicates that the novelty of the mishna’s ruling is that even if one permitted animal was intermingled with ten thousand prohibited animals they are all prohibited. Yet, this is less of a novelty than in the reverse case, since if in a situation where a minority of prohibited items became intermingled with a majority of permitted animals they are all prohibited, all the more so when the prohibited items are the majority.

הָכִי קָתָנֵי: נִתְעָרְבוּ בָּהֶן מֵחַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת, אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל — אֲפִילּוּ בְּרִבּוֹא יָמוּתוּ.

And we explained that this is what the tanna is teaching: With regard to animals that are fit for the altar, if there was intermingled with them an animal from which deriving benefit is prohibited, e.g., one of the five sin offerings that are left to die if they are rendered disqualified, or if they were intermingled with an ox that is sentenced to be stoned, even if one prohibited animal was intermingled in ten thousand permitted animals, deriving benefit from them is prohibited and they must all die. If so, the halakha of the mishna here was already taught in tractate Zevaḥim. Why, then, is its repetition necessary here?

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלָאו אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה — אֵימָא: לִיבְטֵל בְּרוּבָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers that it was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this halakha applies only there, with regard to the specific examples mentioned in the mishna in Zevaḥim, as the five sin offerings that are condemned to die and an ox that is sentenced to be stoned are items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. But here, where the animals are not items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, but are merely prohibited to be sacrificed, you might say: Let them be nullified by a majority of permitted animals. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even animals that are merely prohibited to be sacrificed prohibit other animals in any amount.

וְרוֹבַע וְנִרְבָּע נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: נִתְעָרְבוּ רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע — יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי יָפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין!

The Gemara asks: But we already learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 71a) the halakha of an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and the other examples listed in the mishna here as well: If sacrificial animals were intermingled with an animal that copulated with a person, or with an animal that was the object of bestiality, or with the set-aside, with the animal worshipped, or with one of the other animals mentioned here, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and then sold, and from the money received the owner shall bring another offering with the monetary value of the higher-quality animal among them from the same species as the offering with which they were intermingled. This indicates that even in the case of an animal that may not be sacrificed, but from which one may derive benefit, it nevertheless renders other animals prohibited when intermingled.

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, אָמַר לִי: חֲדָא בְּחוּלִּין, וַחֲדָא בְּקָדָשִׁים.

Rav Kahana said: I said this halakha before Rav Shimi bar Ashi, and he said to me that it was necessary for the mishna here to repeat this ruling. The reason is that one mishna is referring to a case where the previously fit animals became intermingled while they were still non-sacred, and their owners subsequently consecrated them. And the other mishna in Zevaḥim is referring to a situation where they became intermingled when they were already consecrated, as can be inferred from the opening phrase of that mishna: All the offerings (Zevaḥim 70b), which indicates that they are already offerings.

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְאִיסִי, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי חוּלִּין — אֵימָא לִיבְטְלוּ.

The Gemara adds: And both mishnayot are necessary, as had the tanna taught us this halakha only with regard to sacrificial animals, one might say that the reason is because they are repulsive, i.e., when the sacrificial animals became intermingled with the other animals they were immediately disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar. But with regard to animals that became intermingled when they were still non-sacred, at which stage they are not considered repulsive to the altar, as the altar does not yet have a claim to them, one might say: Let them be nullified in the mixture, after which all the animals could be dedicated to the altar. Therefore, the mishna here teaches that even if the animals became intermingled when they were non-sacred, nevertheless the entire mixture is prohibited.

וּבְחוּלִּין נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: וְאֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן — יֵין נֶסֶךְ, וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְצִיפֳּרֵי מְצוֹרָע, וְעוֹרוֹת לְבוּבִין.

The Gemara asks: But we also learn this halakha, that the entire mixture is prohibited with regard to non-sacred items, in another mishna (Avoda Zara 74a): And these are items that are prohibited in themselves and that deem other items prohibited if they became intermingled with them in any amount: Wine used for a libation in idol worship, and an object of idol worship, and birds for the purification of a leper (see Leviticus 14:1–6), and hides with a tear opposite the heart, a sign of the practice of sacrificing hearts of live animals for idol worship.

וְשֵׂיעַר נָזִיר, וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב, וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, וְחוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה, וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן!

And in addition, the shaved-off hair of a nazirite (Numbers 6:18); and a firstborn donkey (Exodus 13:13); and meat that was cooked in milk (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), and an ox that is to be stoned; and a heifer whose neck is broken as part of the ritual performed when a murder victim’s body is found outside a town, and it is not known who caused his death (Deuteronomy 21:1–9); and non-sacred meat from an animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and the scapegoat of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:7–10), all of these are prohibited in themselves and they deem mixtures prohibited in any amount.

צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָתָם — דְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה דְּלָא בָּטְלִי, אֲבָל הָכָא — לִיבְטְלִי.

Once again the Gemara answers that both mishnayot are necessary, as had the tanna taught us this halakha only there, in tractate Avoda Zara, one would have said that it is only in that case, where they are items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, that they are not nullified; but here, let them be nullified.

וְאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן הָכָא, דִּלְגָבוֹהַּ דִּמְאִיס, אֲבָל לְהֶדְיוֹט — אֵימָא: אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה לִיבְטְלוּ בְּרוּבָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

And had the tanna taught us this halakha only here, I would have said that the mixture is prohibited in this case, as this mishna is dealing with offerings that have been rendered repulsive to the Most High. But with regard to use by an ordinary person [hedyot], say: Let these other items from which deriving benefit is prohibited be nullified by a majority. Therefore, the mishna in Avoda Zara teaches us that even items not designated for use upon the altar render other items prohibited, and are not nullified by a majority.

וְרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע, מְנָלַן דַּאֲסִירִי לְגָבוֹהַּ? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ — לְהוֹצִיא רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע.

§ The mishna’s list of disqualified animals includes an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that these animals are prohibited as offerings to the Most High? The Gemara answers that this is as the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The limitation indicated by the phrase “from the cattle” serves to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality from eligibility as an offering.

וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא, וּמָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה פָּסוּל לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבֵירָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ?!

The Gemara objects: That claim requires elucidation, as couldn’t this be derived through an a fortiori inference: And if a blemished animal, with which no transgression was committed, is disqualified from the altar, with regard to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, with which a transgression was committed, is it not logical that they should be prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar?

חוֹרֵשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה, וּמוּתָּר לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.

The Gemara explains: The case of one who violates the prohibition of plowing with an ox and a donkey together (Deuteronomy 22:10) shall prove that the above claim is invalid. This is a case where a transgression was committed with the ox, and yet it is permitted to sacrifice it upon the altar.

מָה לְחוֹרֵשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין מִיתָה, תֹּאמַר בְּרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע, שֶׁחַיָּיבִין מִיתָה.

The Gemara rejects this response: What is notable about the prohibition of one who plows with an ox and a donkey? It is notable in that one is not liable to die for this violation, and therefore it is logical that this ox is not prohibited to be sacrificed. Will you say the same with regard to the prohibitions of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, where the person involved is liable to die? Therefore, the animals should be prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar.

טוֹל לָךְ מָה שֶׁהֵבֵאתָה, הֲרֵי שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבֵירָה בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים.

The Gemara explains that this claim is indeed valid, and therefore you should retract from that which you cited as a refutation of the a fortiori inference. In other words, one can learn by a fortiori inference that an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality cannot be used as offerings. Nevertheless, this is applicable only to those animals with which a transgression was committed that was seen by two witnesses, and the transgressor was therefore liable to death by the court, as in this case the proof from one who plows with an ox and a donkey is invalid, as explained in the previous paragraph.

נֶעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבֵירָה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים, מִנַּיִן?

From where is it derived that the same applies if a transgression was committed with them on the basis of the testimony of one witness or on the basis of the admission of the owners? For this purpose, the interpretation of the phrase “from the cattle” is necessary.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֲנִי דָּן, וּמָה בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁאֵין הַתְרָאַת שְׁנֵי עֵדִים פּוֹסַלְתּוֹ מֵאֲכִילָה — הוֹדָאַת עֵד אֶחָד פּוֹסַלְתּוֹ מֵהַקְרָבָה, בְּרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע שֶׁהוֹדָאַת שְׁנֵי עֵדִים פּוֹסַלְתּוֹ מֵאֲכִילָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוֹדָאַת עֵד אֶחָד פּוֹסַלְתּוֹ מֵהַקְרָבָה!

Rabbi Shimon says: I infer an a fortiori inference in the following manner: And if a blemished animal, concerning which the testimony of two witnesses does not disqualify it from being eaten by an ordinary person, and nevertheless the admission of one witness, i.e., the Sage who rules that its blemish disqualifies it for the altar, disqualifies it from sacrifice, with regard to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, concerning which the admission of two witnesses disqualifies it from being eaten by an ordinary person, is it not logical that the admission of one witness should disqualify it from sacrifice?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ לְהוֹצִיא רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע, וְהָא אָתְיָא מִדִּינָא (לָא אָתְיָא)!

Therefore, the verse states: “From the cattle,” to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality from eligibility as offerings. The Gemara asks: But why is this derivation necessary? This halakha was just inferred through an a fortiori inference, by Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara explains that in fact the halakha of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality cannot be inferred by a fortiori inference according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּדִינָא פִּירְכָא — מָה לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁכֵּן מוּמוֹ נִיכָּר.

Rav Ashi said: One cannot derive the halakha of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality by an a fortiori inference from a blemished animal, because one can say that the refutation of the a fortiori inference is found in the basic case itself, i.e., there is a problem with this comparison: What is notable about a blemished animal? It is notable in that its blemish is conspicuous, and it should perhaps be disqualified for this reason.

תֹּאמַר בְּרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע, שֶׁאֵין מוּמוֹ נִיכָּר, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין מוּמוֹ נִיכָּר יְהֵא כָּשֵׁר לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״, לְהוֹצִיא רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע.

Shall you say the same with regard to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, whose blemish is not conspicuous? Since its blemish is not conspicuous, one can claim that it should be fit for the altar, despite the fact that a transgression was performed with it. Therefore the verse states: “From the cattle,” to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality from eligibility to be brought as an offering.

מִן הַבָּקָר — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנֶּעֱבָד, וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא: וּמָה אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר שֶׁצִּיפּוּיָין מוּתָּרִין — הֵן אֲסוּרִין, נֶעֱבָד שֶׁצִּיפּוּיוֹ אָסוּר — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר?

§ The Gemara returns to discuss the baraita that interprets the verse: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The phrase “from the herd” serves to exclude an animal that is worshipped. The Gemara asks: Why is this verse necessary? Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: And if an animal given as payment to a prostitute for services rendered or given as payment for the price of a dog, which is more lenient in that their coating, i.e., the decorative part added to the animal, is permitted to be used on the altar, e.g., for fashioning golden plates for the altar, and yet they themselves are prohibited, then with regard to an animal that is worshipped, which is more stringent in that even its coating is prohibited, is it not logical that it itself should be prohibited to the Temple?

אוֹ חִילּוּף, וּמָה אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין — צִיפּוּיֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין, נֶעֱבָד שֶׁמּוּתָּר — יְהֵא צִיפּוּיוֹ מוּתָּר?

The Gemara responds: Or perhaps one can reverse this reasoning: And if animals used as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, whose halakhot are stringent, as they themselves are prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, and yet their coating is permitted, with regard to an animal that is worshipped, whose halakha is more lenient, as it is permitted to be sacrificed upon the altar, since the Torah does not explicitly state that it may not be sacrificed, certainly its coating should be permitted for use in the Temple.

אִם כֵּן בִּיטַּלְתָּ ״לֹא תַחְמוֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב עֲלֵיהֶם וְלָקַחְתָּ לָךְ״!

The Gemara rejects this a fortiori inference with the claim that if so, you have nullified the requirement of the verse: “The graven images of their gods shall you burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it to you” (Deuteronomy 7:25). This verse is clearly referring to the coatings of items worshipped, in addition to the idols themselves.

אֲנִי אֲקַיְּימֶנּוּ: ״לֹא תַּחֲמוֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב״ — בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, אֲבָל בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, הוֹאִיל (וְהֵן) [וְהוּא] מוּתָּר — יָכוֹל יְהֵא צִיפּוּי מוּתָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנֶּעֱבָד.

The Gemara refutes this claim: I shall establish the clause: “You shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them,” as referring to a coating of an entity that is not alive. But with regard to the coating of an entity that is alive, since such entities themselves are permitted to be sacrificed on the altar, one might have thought that even its coating should be permitted. Therefore, the verse states: “From the herd,” to exclude an animal that is worshipped. Once it has been derived that a worshipped living creature is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, it follows that its coating is also prohibited.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חֲנַנְיָא: טַעְמָא דְּמַעֲטֵיהּ קְרָא, הָא לָא מַעֲטֵיהּ קְרָא — צִיפּוּי מוּתָּר? וְהָכְתִיב ״וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת שְׁמָם״ — כֹּל הֶעָשׂוּי לִשְׁמָם!

Rav Ḥananya objects to this: According to this explanation, the only reason that the coating of an animal that was worshipped is prohibited is that the verse excluded it, from which it may be inferred that if the verse had not excluded it, then the coating would be permitted. But isn’t it written that idolatry must be entirely eradicated: “And you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; and you shall hew down the graven images of their gods; and you shall destroy their name out of that place” (Deuteronomy 12:3). This teaches that not only must the idols themselves be destroyed, but also everything made in their name, including their coating, must be destroyed.

הָהוּא לְכַנּוֹת לָהֶם שֵׁם הוּא דַּאֲתָא: לְ״בֵית גַּלְיָא״ קוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ ״בֵּית כַּרְיָא״, ״פְּנֵי מֶלֶךְ״ — ״פְּנֵי כֶלֶב״, ״עֵין כֹּל״ — ״עֵין קוֹץ״.

The Gemara answers: That phrase: “And you shall destroy their name,” does not teach this halakha. Rather, it comes to teach that one should give a derogatory nickname to idol worship, and not call them by their original names. For example, if idolaters refer to a place of worship as: House of Elevation [beit galya], one calls it: House of Annihilation [beit karya]. If the place is called: Face of the Molekh [penei haMolekh], one calls it: Face of a Dog [penei kelev], and if it is called: All-seeing Eye [ein kol], one calls it: Eye of a Thorn [ein kotz].

וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא: ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנֶּעֱבָד, ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְהוֹצִיא רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע!

The baraita teaches that the phrase “from the cattle” (Leviticus 1:2) excludes an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality from eligibility to be brought as an offering, while the phrase “from the herd” excludes an animal worshipped as an object of idolatry. The Gemara asks: But perhaps I can reverse these derivations, as follows: The phrase “from the cattle” serves to exclude an animal that was worshipped, and the phrase “from the herd” serves to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality.

הָתָם מֵעִנְיָינָא דִּקְרָא, כְּתִיב גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יִתֵּן שְׁכׇבְתּוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת״, גַּבֵּי בָּקָר כְּתִיב ״וַיָּמִירוּ אֶת כְּבוֹדָם בְּתַבְנִית שׁוֹר אוֹכֵל עֵשֶׂב״.

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the phrase “from the cattle [behema],” the derivation is based on the context of the verse, as the halakha of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality is written with regard to a domesticated animal: “And if a man lie with a beast [behema], he shall surely be put to death, and you shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach any beast [behema] and lie down with it, you shall kill the woman, and the beast” (Leviticus 20:15–16). By contrast, the prohibition of idol worship is written with regard to an animal of the herd: “They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped a molten image. Thus they exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox that eats grass” (Psalms 106:19–20).

״מִן הַצֹּאן״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמּוּקְצֶה, ״וּמִן הַצֹּאן״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנּוֹגֵחַ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם נֶאֱמַר רוֹבֵעַ — לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר נוֹגֵחַ? וְאִם נֶאֱמַר נוֹגֵחַ — לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר רוֹבֵעַ?

§ The baraita further teaches that the phrase “from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2) serves to exclude an animal set aside for idol worship, while the conjunction “or” at the beginning of the phrase “or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2) serves to exclude an animal that gored and killed a person. Rabbi Shimon said: If it is stated that an animal that copulated with a person is disqualified as a sacrifice, why is it stated that an animal that gored is disqualified? And if it is stated that an animal that gored is disqualified, why is it stated that an animal that copulated with a person is disqualified? How do the transgressions differ?

לְפִי שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בָּרוֹבֵעַ, מָה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בַּנּוֹגֵחַ. יֵשׁ בָּרוֹבֵעַ, שֶׁהָרוֹבֵעַ עוֹשֶׂה אוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן, מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בַּנּוֹגֵחַ.

Rabbi Shimon explains: It is because there is a stringency pertaining to an animal that copulated with a person that does not pertain to one that gored, and vice versa. Rabbi Shimon elaborates: There is a stringency pertaining to an animal that copulated with a person, as with regard to an animal that copulated with a person, the Torah renders an animal that is a victim of forced copulation like one that acted willfully, which is not so with regard to an animal that gored, which is exempt if others induced it to gore.

יֵשׁ בַּנּוֹגֵחַ, שֶׁהַנּוֹגֵחַ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכּוֹפֶר, מָה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בָּרוֹבֵעַ. הוּצְרַךְ לוֹמַר רוֹבֵעַ, וְהוּצְרַךְ לוֹמַר נוֹגֵחַ.

By contrast, there is a stringency pertaining to an animal that gored, as with regard to an animal that gored, its owner pays a ransom; which is not so with regard to the owner of an animal that copulated with a person. Therefore, the Torah had to state that an animal that copulated with a person is disqualified, and it also had to state that an animal that gored is disqualified.

וְהַאי תַּנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא, דְּתַנְיָא: הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע (וְכוּלָּם) [וְכוּ׳]. הֵם כְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם מוּם עוֹבֵר לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן.

§ The baraita teaches that the prohibition of sacrificing an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality on the altar is derived from the phrase “from the cattle.” The Gemara notes: And this tanna cites that halakha from here, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality that were consecrated, they are considered like sacrificial animals whose temporary blemish preceded their consecration.

וּצְרִיכִין מוּם קָבוּעַ לִפְדּוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם״.

The baraita continues: And animals with a temporary blemish cannot be sacrificed at present, nor can they be redeemed. Rather, they require a permanent blemish for one to redeem them on account of that blemish, as it is stated with regard to the disqualification of blemished animals from the altar: “Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you” (Leviticus 22:25).

מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ׳הַשְׁחָתָה׳ — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation here? How is this verse relevant to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality? The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: From where is it derived that an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality are prohibited to be sacrificed? The verse states: “Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them,” and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a principle with regard to the derivation of verses: Anywhere that the term corruption is stated, it is a reference only to a matter of sexual immorality and idol worship.

דְּבַר עֶרְוָה — דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂרוְגוֹ׳״, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — דִּכְתִיב ״פֶּן תַּשְׁחִיתוּן וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָכֶם פֶּסֶל תְּמוּנַת כׇּל סָמֶל״, כָּל שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בָּהֶן.

Corruption refers to a matter of sexual immorality, as it is written with regard to the generation of the flood, which was steeped in sexual immorality: “And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12). Corruption also refers to idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image even the form of any figure” (Deuteronomy 4:16). Since the term corruption is also used with regard to blemished animals, the following may be derived: In any case in which a blemish disqualifies an animal from the altar, a matter of sexual immorality, such as an animal that copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or their use as an object of idol worship, also disqualifies them.

וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה מִן הַבָּקָר וּמִן הַצֹּאן״ מַאי דָרֵישׁ בְּהוּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ פְּרָט לְחוֹלֶה, זָקֵן, וּמְזוֹהָם.

The Gemara asks: And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the disqualifications of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, the set-aside, and the worshipped animal, are derived from the case of blemished animals, what does he derive from the verse: “From the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2), which is the source of these disqualifications according to the earlier baraita? The Gemara answers that he requires these three terms to exclude sick, old, and filthy animals, which may not be sacrificed.

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, דְּאַפְּקִינְהוּ לְהָנֵי קְרָאֵי לְרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע, חוֹלֶה, זָקֵן, וּמְזוֹהָם מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ ״מִן הַצֹּאן, מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן הָעִזִּים״. וּלְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּקְרָא לְאִישְׁתַּעוֹיֵי הָכִי.

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna, who derives from these verses the halakha of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, from where does he derive the ruling that sick, the old, and filthy are disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “And if his offering be of the flock, whether of the sheep or of the goats” (see Leviticus 1:10). The Gemara comments: And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, that these halakhot are not derived from that verse, it is because it is the manner of the verse to say this, i.e., to state the general category of flock before specifying sheep and goats.

אֵיזֶהוּ מוּקְצֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אֵין אָסוּר אֶלָּא מוּקְצֶה לְשֶׁבַע שְׁנַיִם.

§ The mishna teaches: Which is the animal that is set-aside? It is an animal that is set aside for idol worship. Reish Lakish says: Only an animal that has been set aside for seven years is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, i.e., one that is set aside to be used for idol worship at the end of seven years.

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא וַיֹּאמֶר [לוֹ ה׳] קַח אֶת פַּר הַשּׁוֹר אֲשֶׁר לְאָבִיךָ וּפַר הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים״.

As it is stated with regard to Gideon: “And it came to pass the same night, that the Lord said to him: Take your father’s bullock, and the second bullock of seven years, and throw down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is by it; and build an altar to the Lord your God…and take the second bullock, and sacrifice a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah that you shall cut down” (Judges 6:25–26). This indicates that it was common practice to prepare a bullock for seven years as an object of idol worship.

וְהָתָם מוּקְצֶה בִּלְחוּד הֲוָה? נֶעֱבָד נָמֵי הֲוָה! אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: מוּקְצֶה לַעֲבוֹד, וְלֹא עֲבָדוּהוּ. רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם עֲבָדוּהוּ, וְחִידּוּשׁ הוּא, כִּדְרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא: שְׁמֹנָה דְּבָרִים הִתִּירוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ לַיְלָה — חוּץ, וְלַיְלָה, וְזָרוּת,

The Gemara asks: And there, was that bullock prohibited merely as set-aside? It was also actually worshipped. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: This bullock was set aside to be worshipped, but in practice, they did not worship it. Rava says: Actually, they did worship it, and therefore it should have been prohibited as idolatry. But this case is a novelty, in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana. As Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: Eight prohibited matters were permitted to Gideon on that night when he destroyed his father’s idolatry (see Judges, chapter 6): The prohibition against slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Tabernacle; and the prohibition against sacrificing offerings at night; and the prohibition of non-priests performing the service, as Gideon was not a priest;