## Temurah Daf 29a

###### Temurah 29a:1
[Temurah 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:1)

וּכְלִי שָׁרֵת, וּכְלִי אֲשֵׁירָה, וַעֲצֵי אֲשֵׁירָה, וּמוּקְצֶה, וְנֶעֱבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** the prohibition against sacrificing without **service vessels; and** the prohibition against utilizing **vessels** that had been previously used for the service of **a tree worshipped as idolatry [*asheira*]; and** the prohibition against using **the wood of an *asheira*,** as God commanded Gideon to sacrifice the burnt offering with the wood of an *asheira* that he will cut down (Judges 6:26); **and** the prohibition of sacrificing an animal **set aside** for idolatry; **and** the prohibition against using an animal that was **worshipped** as an idol.


###### Temurah 29a:2
[Temurah 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:2)

אָמַר רַב טוֹבִי בַּר מַתְנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה: מִנַּיִן לְמוּקְצֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ — כֹּל שֶׁעוֹשִׂין לוֹ שִׁימּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the *halakha* of an animal set aside for idol worship. **Rav Tovi bar Mattana says** that **Rabbi Yoshiya says: From where** is the *halakha* of **set-aside** derived **in the Torah? As it is stated** with regard to the offerings: “My food that is presented to Me for offerings made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to Me, **you shall safeguard it to sacrifice to Me in its due season”** (Numbers 28:2), which refers to **anything that is safeguarded.** The Gemara initially assumes that Rabbi Yoshiya meant that any sacrifice must be safeguarded, i.e., set aside and not sacrificed immediately after its consecration.


###### Temurah 29a:3
[Temurah 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:3)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, (אייתית) [אַיְיתִי] אִימְּרָא דְּצוֹמָא, וְלָא עָבֵיד לֵיהּ שִׁימּוּר, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְהַקְרָבָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא ״תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ קָאָמֵינָא — ״לִי״ וְלֹא לְאָדוֹן אַחֵר, וְאֵיזֶהוּ אַחֵר שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין לוֹ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye objects to this: If that is so,** then in a case where one **brought a lamb that** was **weak** as an offering, **and** its owner clearly **did not safeguard it, so too** will you say **that it is unfit for sacrifice?** Nowhere is it stated that an animal is disqualified for the altar because it has not been treated well. Rabbi Yoshiya **said to** Abaye: You misunderstood my intention; **I say** that the verse: **“You shall safeguard it to sacrifice to Me in its due season,”** should be interpreted as follows: You shall safeguard it only **for Me, but not to another master. And which is this other** master **to which one** could **sacrifice? You must say** that **this is** an object of **idol worship.**


###### Temurah 29a:4
[Temurah 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב אַדָּא, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק: אֵין מוּקְצֶה אָסוּר אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיַּעַבְדוּ [בּוֹ]. עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד שֶׁיִּמְסְרוּהוּ לְכוּמְרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss the definition of an animal that has been set aside for idolatry. **Rava bar Rav Adda says** that **Rav Yitzḥak says:** An animal that has been **set aside** for idol worship is **prohibited,** i.e., still considered set aside, **only until it has been used for work** by the attendants of that idolatry. But once it has been used it is no longer prohibited, as it will not be sacrificed to the idol afterward. **Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** says: An animal that has been set aside for idol worship is prohibited only **until it has been handed over to the attendants of idol worship** for fattening for it to be eaten, even if it has not been used for any form of work. But after it has been handed over it is not prohibited, as it will not be sacrificed.


###### Temurah 29a:5
[Temurah 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:5)

בָּהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד שֶׁיַּאֲכִילוּהוּ כַּרְשִׁינֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְבָהָא: מִפַּלְגִיתוּ אַתּוּן אַעוּלָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, עוּלָּא נָמֵי כִּי קָאָמַר — הוּא דְּשָׁפֵי לֵיהּ כַּרְשִׁינֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sage **Baha says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** says: A set-aside animal is prohibited only **until** its owner **feeds it vetches of idolatry** after it has been given to the attendants of idolatry. **Rabbi Abba said to Baha: Do you dispute** the statement **of Ulla,** who defined set-aside differently according the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan? Baha **said to** Rabbi Abba: **No,** I do not disagree with Ulla, as **Ulla too, when he stated** his definition, also **was** referring to a case **where they fed it vetches of idolatry.**


###### Temurah 29a:6
[Temurah 29a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: יָדַע בְּהָא לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי שְׁמַעְתָּא, וְאִי לָא דְּסָלֵיק הָתָם — לָא הֲוָה יָדַע, דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל גְּרַמָה לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יִצְחָק: בָּהָא מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said: Baha knows** how **to explain** this ***halakha*, but had he not ascended** from Babylonia to **there,** Eretz Yisrael, **he would not have known** this explanation, **as Eretz Yisrael caused him** to grow wise. **Rav Yitzḥak said to** Rabbi Abba: That is not the case, as **Baha was from here and there,** i.e., he became wise because he studied Torah in both places.


###### Temurah 29a:7
[Temurah 29a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:7)

דְּתָנֵי רַב חֲנַנְיָא טְרִיטָאָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין מוּקְצֶה אָסוּר אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, הוּא תָּנֵי לַהּ (וַהֲדַר) [וְהוּא] אָמַר לַהּ: מַאי ״מַעֲשֶׂה״? — עַד שֶׁיִּגָּזֵז וְיַעַבְדוּ בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss the issue of set-aside. **Rabbi Ḥananya Terita taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan:** An animal that has been **set aside** for idolatry is **prohibited only until an action has been performed upon it. He taught it and then said its** explanation: **What** is the meaning of **an action?** It means **until it is sheared and used for labor** by the attendants of the idol.


###### Temurah 29a:8
[Temurah 29a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:8)

אֵיזֶהוּ נֶעֱבָד כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Which is** the animal that is **worshipped** as idolatry? It is any animal that one worships. The mishna proceeds to state: The consumption of both this, the animal designated for idol worship, and that, the animal worshipped, is permitted. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived?


###### Temurah 29a:9
[Temurah 29a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:9)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״, מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֲסִירִי לְהֶדְיוֹט, לְמָה לִי קְרָא (מעטינהו) [לְמַעֹטִינְהוּ] מִגָּבוֹהַּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said that the verse states,** with regard to offerings: “And one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures of Israel, for a meal offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make atonement for them” (Ezekiel 45:15). The expression: **“From the well-watered pastures of Israel,”** means that one brings offerings only **from that which is permitted to Israel. And if** it **enters your mind** that a set-aside animal and one worshipped as idolatry **are prohibited** in consumption **to an ordinary** person, **why do I** need **a verse to exclude them from** sacrifice to **the Most High,** as that would be obvious. Rather, they must be permitted in consumption to an ordinary person.


###### Temurah 29a:10
[Temurah 29a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:10)

וְכֹל הֵיכָא דַּאֲסִירִי לְהֶדְיוֹט — לָא בָּעֵי קְרָא? וְהָא טְרֵפָה, דַּאֲסִירָא לְהֶדְיוֹט, וּמַעֲטֵיהּ קָרָא מִגָּבוֹהַּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is it true that **anywhere that** an item is **prohibited to an ordinary person, a verse is not necessary** to teach that it may not be used as a sacrifice? **But** there is the case of **an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*], which is prohibited** in consumption **to an ordinary** person, **and** yet **a verse excludes it** from sacrifice **to the Most High.**


###### Temurah 29a:11
[Temurah 29a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:11)

דְּתַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ לְמַטָּה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: It was previously derived from the verse: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2), that certain animals are prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar (see 28a). **When it says below,** in the next verse: “If his offering is a burnt offering **of the herd,” there is** apparently **no need for the verse to state** this, as it was already stated earlier. **Rather,** this serves **to exclude a *tereifa*** from being brought as an offering.


###### Temurah 29a:12
[Temurah 29a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:12)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֲמִינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי — דְּנִטְרְפָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְקַדְּשָׁה, אֲבָל נִתְקַדְּשָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְרְפָה — אֵימָא (דתישרי) [דְּתִישְׁתְּרֵי] לְגָבוֹהַּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In this case the derivation **was necessary,** as it might **enter your mind to say: This statement,** that a *tereifa* may not be sacrificed, applies **where it became a *tereifa* and afterward was consecrated** as an offering. **But** if **it was consecrated and** only **afterward became a *tereifa*, I would say that it should be permitted to the Most High,** despite the fact that it is prohibited in consumption. Consequently, the derivation from the verse is necessary.


###### Temurah 29a:13
[Temurah 29a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:13)

וְהָא מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא, ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבוֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט״, פְּרָט לִטְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** isn’t the *halakha*, that an animal which became a *tereifa* after it was consecrated is prohibited to be sacrificed, **derived from here,** a verse that deals with the animal tithe: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, **whatsoever passes under the rod,** the tenth shall be holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). The phrase: “Whatsoever passes under the rod,” indicates that the *halakha* of animal tithe applies only to an animal that can pass under the rod, **excluding a *tereifa*,** e.g., if its leg was cut above the knee, **which cannot pass** under the rod. From this paradigm case of a *tereifa*, the exception is expanded to apply to all *tereifot*.


###### Temurah 29a:14
[Temurah 29a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:14)

הָהוּא נָמֵי אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלֹא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, דְּנוֹלְדָה טְרֵפָה מִמְּעֵי אִמָּהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, וְיָצָאת לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְרְפָה — אֵימָא תִּשְׁתְּרֵי לְגָבוֹהַּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** derivation from animal tithe **was also necessary,** as it might **enter your mind to say: This statement,** that a *tereifa* may not be sacrificed, applies **where it did not have a period of fitness** to be sacrificed before it became a *tereifa*, e.g., **where it was born a *tereifa* from its mother’s womb. But** in a case **where it had a period of fitness and emerged into the air of the world and** only afterward **became a *tereifa*, I would say** that **it should be permitted to the Most High.** Therefore, the phrase: “Whatsoever passes under the rod,” **teaches us** that even such an animal is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar.


###### Temurah 29a:15
[Temurah 29a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְאֵיזֶהוּ אֶתְנַן? — הָאוֹמֵר לְזוֹנָה ״הֵולִיךְ טָלֶה זֶה בִּשְׂכָרֵךְ״, אֲפִילּוּ הֵן מֵאָה, כּוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״הֵולָיךְ טָלֶה זֶה וְתָלִין שִׁפְחָתְךָ אֵצֶל עַבְדִּי״ — רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ אֶתְנַן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶתְנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And which** is the case of an animal used as **payment** to a prostitute, which is prohibited as a sacrifice? It is the case of **one who says to a prostitute: Here is this lamb as your fee. Even if they were one hundred** lambs that he gave her, **all of them are** considered as payment to a prostitute and are **prohibited. And likewise,** in the case of **one who says to another: Here is this lamb and** in return **your maidservant will lie with my slave** and engage in intercourse with him, **Rabbi Meir says:** Its halakhic status **is not** that of **payment** to a prostitute, **and the Rabbis say:** Its halakhic status is that of **payment** to a prostitute.


###### Temurah 29a:16
[Temurah 29a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:16)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר מָר: וַאֲפִילּוּ הֵן מֵאָה, כּוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּשָׁקְלָה אַגְרַאּ מֵאָה בְּהֵמוֹת — פְּשִׁיטָא דְּכוּלְּהוּ אֲסִירִי, מָה לִי חַד, מָה לִי מְאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Master said** in the mishna: **And even if they were one hundred** lambs, **all of them are** considered as payment to a prostitute, and are **prohibited.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If we say** that this is referring to a prostitute **who takes one hundred animals as payment** for her services, it is **obvious that all** one hundred animals **are prohibited,** as **what** difference is it **to me** if she was paid **one** lamb **or** if she was paid **one hundred** lambs? What, then, is the novelty of the mishna here?


###### Temurah 29a:17
[Temurah 29a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:17)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּשָׁקְלָה אַגְרַאּ חֲדָא, וְיָהֵיב לַהּ מְאָה, דְּכוּלְּהוּ מִכֹּחַ אֶתְנַן קָאָתוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** in a case **where** the prostitute **takes one** lamb as **payment, and he gave her one hundred** lambs. The mishna is teaching that in this case the extra lambs are not considered a gift. Rather, all the lambs are prohibited, **as they all come from the source of a payment** to a prostitute.


###### Temurah 29a:18
[Temurah 29a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:18)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נָתַן לָהּ וְלֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ, בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ — אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר. נָתַן לָהּ וְלֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ, ״אֶתְנַנָּה״ קָרֵית לֵיהּ? וְתוּ, בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ, מַאי יָהֵיב לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss the issue of payment to a prostitute. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If a man **gave her** an animal as payment **but did not engage in intercourse with her,** or **if he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her** payment, **her payment is permitted.** The Gemara asks: In a case where **he gave her** an animal as payment **but did not engage in intercourse with her, do you call this her payment?** It cannot be considered payment unless the act of intercourse was actually performed. **And furthermore,** in the second case, where **he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her** payment, **what did he give her** that it is called a permitted payment?


###### Temurah 29a:19
[Temurah 29a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/29a:19)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָתָנֵי: נָתַן לָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ; בָּא עָלֶיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן לָהּ — אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר. וְלֵיחוּל עֲלֵיהּ אֶתְנַן לְמַפְרֵעַ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this** is what the *baraita* **is teaching:** If **he gave her** payment **and** only **afterward,** when some time had elapsed, **engaged in intercourse with her;** or if **he engaged in intercourse with her and** only **afterward gave her** payment, in these two cases **her payment is permitted.** The Gemara asks: **But** in the case where he gave her the lamb and later engaged in intercourse with her, **let** the status of **payment** to a prostitute **take effect upon it retroactively. Rabbi Elazar says:**