## Temurah Daf 28b

###### Temurah 28b:1
[Temurah 28b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 28b:2
[Temurah 28b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 28b:3
[Temurah 28b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Temurah 28b:4
[Temurah 28b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 28b:5
[Temurah 28b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:5)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 28b:6
[Temurah 28b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 28b:7
[Temurah 28b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 28b:8
[Temurah 28b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*].**


###### Temurah 28b:9
[Temurah 28b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 28b:10
[Temurah 28b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Temurah 28b:11
[Temurah 28b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:11)

״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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Temurah 28b:12
[Temurah 28b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 28b:13
[Temurah 28b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 28b:14
[Temurah 28b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:14)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Temurah 28b:15
[Temurah 28b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:15)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Temurah 28b:16
[Temurah 28b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:16)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 28b:17
[Temurah 28b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:17)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 28b:18
[Temurah 28b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:18)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 28b:19
[Temurah 28b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:19)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 28b:20
[Temurah 28b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:20)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Temurah 28b:21
[Temurah 28b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:21)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 28b:22
[Temurah 28b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/28b:22)

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,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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;