## Temurah Daf 30b

###### Temurah 30b:1
[Temurah 30b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:1)

מְנַָא הָא מִילְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן אֵין זְנוּת לִבְהֵמוֹת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא (נִישְׁמוֹט) [לִישְׁתְּמִיט] קְרָא לִכְתּוֹב ״אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וָכֶלֶב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where is this matter that the Sages stated,** that **there is no prostitution with regard to an animal** derived? I.e., from where is it derived that a woman who copulates with an animal is not considered a prostitute, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna that payment for intercourse with an animal is permitted? Rav Ashi **said to** Rava from Parzakya: There was **nothing preventing the verse from writing:** You shall not bring **the payment of a prostitute or a dog** into the House of the Lord your God. Since the verse states: “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute or the price of a dog,” this indicates that these are two different cases, and there is no prostitution with regard to an animal.


###### Temurah 30b:2
[Temurah 30b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:2)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מִנַּיִן לְאֶתְנַן כֶּלֶב וּמְחִיר זוֹנָה שֶׁמּוּתָּרִין? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״שְׁנַיִם״ וְלֹא אַרְבָּעָה. וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם״ — ״הֵם״ וְלֹא וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds that **this is also taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **with regard to the payment** of a lamb to another for engaging in intercourse with **a dog, or** as **the price of a prostitute** to purchase her as his maidservant, **that** their sacrifice **is permitted? As it is stated:** “For even both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19), from which it is inferred: **Two** are prohibited, payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, **and not four,** i.e., payment for intercourse with a dog and the price of a prostitute, which are permitted. Furthermore, sacrifice of **their offspring is permitted, as it is stated: “Even both of them,”** which indicates that it is **“them”** that are forbidden, **and not their offspring.**


###### Temurah 30b:3
[Temurah 30b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:3)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְלַד הַנִּרְבַּעַת אֲסוּרָה, הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ נִרְבְּעוּ. נוֹגַחַת אֲסוּרָה, הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ נָגְחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses other cases of offspring of animals with regard to sacrifice on the altar. **Rava says: The offspring** of a female **animal that was the object of bestiality** when it was pregnant is **prohibited** to be sacrificed on the altar, like its mother. The reason is that it is considered as though **it,** the mother, **and its offspring** both **were the object of bestiality.** Likewise, if a pregnant cow **gores** and kills a Jew, its offspring is **prohibited** to be sacrificed, like its mother, as it is as though **it,** the mother, **and its offspring** both **gored.**


###### Temurah 30b:4
[Temurah 30b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:4)

וְלַד מוּקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד — מוּתָּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? לְאִימֵּיהּ אַקְצְיַהּ, לְאִימֵּיהּ פָּלְחִי לַהּ. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: וְלַד מוּקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד — אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ בְּנִיפְחֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **the offspring of a set-aside** animal **and** an animal **worshipped** as an idol are **permitted** to be sacrificed on the altar. **What is the reason?** It is that only **the mother** was **set aside,** and not the offspring. Likewise, **they worshipped** only **its mother,** not the offspring. **There are** those **who say** a different version of Rava’s statement: **The offspring** of **a set-aside** animal **and** the offspring of an animal **worshipped** as an idol are **prohibited. What is the reason?** It is **that** it is **beneficial to** the owner if **its girth** is large, as a pregnant animal is more impressive than an ordinary one. Consequently, its offspring is also considered set-aside and worshipped, and it is therefore prohibited.


###### Temurah 30b:5
[Temurah 30b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:5)

אָמַר רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי, אָמַר רַב: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּפֶרֶשׁ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. בְּפֶרֶשׁ עֶגְלֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami says** that **Rav says:** With regard to **one who betroths** a woman **with the excrement of an ox that is** sentenced to be **stoned,** if the excrement is worth at least one *peruta*, the woman **is betrothed.** Although it is not permitted to derive benefit from the ox itself, one may derive benefit from its excrement. But if one betroths her **with the excrement of calves** that were used for **idol worship, she is not betrothed,** as even their excrement is prohibited. The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** for the difference between the excrement of an ox that is stoned and the excrement of calves used for idolatry? **If you wish, say** that this is learned from **a verse; if you wish, say** instead that it is derived by means of **a logical argument.**


###### Temurah 30b:6
[Temurah 30b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:6)

אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא: נִיחָא לֵיהּ גַּבֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּנִיפְחֵיהּ, גַּבֵּי שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל — לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ בְּנִיפְחֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, say** it is derived by means of **a logical argument: With regard to** calves used for **idol worship,** a calf’s additional **girth** due to the excrement stored in its body **is beneficial to** the owner, as fatter animals are more impressive. Therefore, the excrement is considered part of the offering and is prohibited. By contrast, **with regard to an ox that is stoned, its** additional **girth is not beneficial to him,** as he gains nothing from it, and consequently it is not considered part of the animal.


###### Temurah 30b:7
[Temurah 30b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:7)

אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, גַּבֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כְּתִיב: ״וְהָיִיתָ חֵרֶם כָּמוֹהוּ״, כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מְהַיֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ. גַּבֵּי שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל כְּתִיב: ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — בְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר, פִּרְשׁוֹ מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** that this is learned from **a verse: It is written with regard to** an animal used for **idol worship:** “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house, **and be [*vehayita*] accursed like it”** (Deuteronomy 7:26). This teaches that **anything that you create [*mehayye*] from** the idol **is** prohibited **like** the idol **itself.** But **with regard to an ox that is stoned, it is written:** “The ox shall surely be stoned, and **its flesh shall not be eaten”** (Exodus 21:28). This teaches that only **its flesh is forbidden,** but **its excrement is permitted.**


###### Temurah 30b:8
[Temurah 30b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** נָתַן לָהּ מָעוֹת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין. יֵינוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ — אָסוּר. נָתַן לָהּ מוּקְדָּשִׁין — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one **gave money** to a prostitute as her payment, it is **permitted** to purchase an offering with **that** money, as the money itself is not sacrificed. If he paid her with **wine, or oil, or flour, or any** other **item the like of which is sacrificed on the altar,** sacrifice of those items **is prohibited.** If **he gave her consecrated** items for her services, **their** sacrifice **is permitted.** Since they were already consecrated, they do not belong to him, and one cannot prohibit an item that is not his.


###### Temurah 30b:9
[Temurah 30b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:9)

עוֹפוֹת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין, שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין: מָה אִם הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֵין אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן; עוֹף, שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עָלָיו? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְכׇל נֶדֶר״ — לְהָבִיא אֶת הָעוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he paid her with non-sacred **birds, their** sacrifice **is prohibited.** The mishna elaborates: **As, by right, it should be** inferred *a fortiori*: **If** in the case of **consecrated** items, **which a blemish disqualifies,** the prohibition of **payment** to a prostitute **and** the **price** of a dog **do not take effect with regard to them;** with regard to **a bird, which a blemish does not disqualify, is it not right that** the prohibition of **payment** to a prostitute **and** the **price** of a dog **should not take effect with regard to them?** Therefore, **the verse states:** “You shall not bring the payment of a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God **for any vow”** (Deuteronomy 23:19). This serves **to include the bird** in the prohibition.


###### Temurah 30b:10
[Temurah 30b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:10)

כׇּל הָאֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ — וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: וְלַד טְרֵפָה לֹא יִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁירָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִן הַטְּרֵפָה — פְּסוּלָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ טְרֵפָה — אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן, שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna adds a principle: With regard to **all** animals **whose** sacrifice **on the altar is prohibited,** sacrifice of **their offspring is permitted. Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*]shall not be sacrificed on the altar. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: A kosher** animal **that suckled from a *tereifa* is disqualified from** sacrifice **on the altar.** With regard to **all sacrificial** animals **that became *tereifot*, one may not redeem them** and render them non-sacred, **as** their consumption is forbidden and **one does not redeem sacrificial** animals **to feed them to dogs,** as this is considered a degradation of sacrificial animals.


###### Temurah 30b:11
[Temurah 30b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:11)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נָתַן לָהּ חִיטִּין וַעֲשָׂאָתַן סוֹלֶת, זֵיתִים וַעֲשָׂאָתַן שֶׁמֶן, עֲנָבִים וַעֲשָׂאָתַן יַיִן. תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אֲסוּרִים, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: מוּתָּרִין. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תָּנֵי גּוּרְיוֹן דְּמִן אַסְפּוֹרַק — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹסְרִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught: If one gave wheat to** a prostitute **and** she **made** the wheat into **flour,** or if he gave her **olives and she made them** into **oil,** or if he gave her **grapes and she made them** into **wine,** it **is taught** in **one** *baraita* that these products **are prohibited** to be used as an offering in the Temple, **and** it **is taught** in **another** *baraita* that they **are permitted,** as the physical change transforms them into new objects. **Rav Yosef said** that **Guryon of Aspork teaches** in a *baraita*: **Beit Shammai prohibit** these products **and Beit Hillel permit** them. If so, the two *baraitot* cited above reflect a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.


###### Temurah 30b:12
[Temurah 30b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:12)

בֵּית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: ״הֵם״ — וְלֹא וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן, ״הֵם״ — וְלֹא שִׁינּוּיֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both derive their ruling from the verse: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow; for even both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). **Beit Hillel,** who permit these items after they have undergone a physical change, **maintain** that the word **“them”** teaches that this prohibition applies only to the original items, **but not** to **their offspring.** Likewise, it applies only to **them,** i.e., the items in their original form, **but not** to **their changed** status.


###### Temurah 30b:13
[Temurah 30b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:13)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: ״הֵם״ — וְלֹא וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן, ״גַּם״ — לְרַבּוֹת שִׁינּוּיֵיהֶן, וּלְבֵית הִלֵּל, הָכְתִיב ״גַּם״! ״גַּם״ לְבֵית הִלֵּל קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Beit Shammai maintain** that one indeed derives: **“Them,” but not their offspring.** But they maintain that the word **“even”** serves **to include** in the prohibition items in **their changed** status. The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Beit Hillel, isn’t it written “even”?** How do they interpret that word? The Gemara responds: The word **“even”** is in fact **difficult according to Beit Hillel.**


###### Temurah 30b:14
[Temurah 30b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:14)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בֵּית ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ — פְּרָט לְפָרָה, שֶׁאֵין בָּאָה לַבַּיִת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָרִיקּוּעִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*, with regard to the verse: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into **the House of the Lord your God,”** that this **excludes a** red **heifer, which is not brought to the House** of the Lord, i.e., the Temple, but is slaughtered outside Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives. This is **the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say:** This verse serves **to include** in the prohibition beaten **plates** of gold in the Temple, if the gold was used as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog.


###### Temurah 30b:15
[Temurah 30b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:15)

מַאן חֲכָמִים? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: נָתַן לָהּ זָהָב, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין עוֹשִׂין רִיקּוּעִין, אֲפִילּוּ אֲחוֹרֵי בֵּית הַכַּפּוֹרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who are the Rabbis** cited here? **Rav Ḥisda says: It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one gave** a prostitute **gold** as her payment, **Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may not fashion** hanging beaten **plates** of gold for the Temple from it, **even** for the area **behind the Hall of the Ark Cover,** i.e., the eleven cubits of space behind the Holy of Holies up to the wall of the Temple courtyard, which was at the western end of the Sanctuary. Athough this area is of lesser sanctity than the rest of the Temple, one may not place there any gold given as payment to a prostitute.


###### Temurah 30b:16
[Temurah 30b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:16)

נָתַן לָהּ מוּקְדָּשִׁין — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **he gave her consecrated** items for her services, **their** sacrifice **is permitted,** whereas if he paid her with non-sacred birds, their sacrifice is prohibited. The prohibited status of birds is derived from the verse: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the House of the Lord your God for any vow,” despite an *a fortiori* inference from consecrated animals that indicates they should be permitted.


###### Temurah 30b:17
[Temurah 30b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:17)

וְיִהְיוּ מוּקְדָּשִׁין אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עוֹפוֹת שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן, מוּקְדָּשִׁים שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְכׇל נֶדֶר״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנָּדוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** if these birds are disqualified as sacrifices, **let** the prohibitions of **payment** to a prostitute **and** the **price** of a dog **apply to consecrated** animals, **by** the following ***a fortiori*** inference: **If** in the case of **birds, which a blemish does not disqualify,** the status of a prostitute’s **payment and** a dog’s **price applies to them,** then with regard to **consecrated** items, **which a blemish does disqualify, is it not logical that** the status of a prostitute’s **payment and** a dog’s **price should apply to them?** Therefore, **the verse states: “For any vow.”** This serves **to exclude** those animals that have **already been vowed** to be sacrificed.


###### Temurah 30b:18
[Temurah 30b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:18)

טַעְמָא דְּמַעֲטִינְהוּ קְרָא, הָא לָא מַעֲטִינְהוּ קְרָא הֲוָה אֲמִינָא: כִּי יָהֵיב לַהּ מוּקְדָּשִׁין — חָל עֲלֵיהֶן אֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר? וְהָא לָאו מָמוֹנָא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: The only **reason** consecrated animals are disqualified **is that the verse excludes them,** through the word “vow.” **But had the verse not excluded them, I would say** that **if one gives** a prostitute **sacrificial** animals, or gives these animals in exchange for a dog, the prohibition of **payment** to a prostitute **or** a dog’s **price applies to them. But** this conclusion is problematic, as a consecrated animal **is not his property,** and there is an established principle that one cannot render an item prohibited if it does not belong to him. How then could one render it prohibited by giving it to a prostitute?


###### Temurah 30b:19
[Temurah 30b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:19)

אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: בְּמַמְנֶה עַל פִּסְחוֹ, וְרַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאִם יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיוֹת מִשֶּׂה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hoshaya says:** This is referring **to one who registers** the prostitute **for his Paschal offering** (see *Pesaḥim* 61a), giving her a portion in it as payment for her services, **and it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that a Paschal offering is considered one’s personal property for the purposes of allowing additional people to register for it. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states, with regard to the Paschal offering: **“And if the household be too little for a lamb,** then he and his neighbor next to his house shall take one” (Exodus 12:4). The phrase “if the household be too little” is interpreted to mean that the household cannot afford the basic necessities of the Festival.


###### Temurah 30b:20
[Temurah 30b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:20)

הַחֲיֵיהוּ מִשֶּׂה, מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילָה וְלֹא מִכְּדֵי מִקָּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Based on this interpretation, the phrase “for a lamb [*mihyot miseh*]” is interpreted to mean: **Sustain him from the lamb [*haḥyeihu miseh*],** i.e., he may use the Paschal offering as a means of supporting himself. He takes money from his neighbor in return for registering that neighbor for a portion of his Paschal offering and uses the money to purchase his needs. This *halakha* applies only if one lacks **sufficient means** to purchase food to **eat, but not** if he lacks merely **sufficient means** to **purchase** other items.


###### Temurah 30b:21
[Temurah 30b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:21)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אַף מִכְּדֵי מִקָּח, שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ מַמְנֶה אֲחֵרִים עִמּוֹ עַל פִּסְחוֹ וְעַל חֲגִיגָתוֹ, וּמְעוֹתָיו חוּלִּין, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן הִקְדִּישׁוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל פִּסְחֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** This lenient *halakha* applies **even** if one lacks **sufficient means** to **purchase** other necessary items, **as, if he does not have** sufficient funds **he may register others with him for his Paschal offering and for his Festival peace offering. And his money** that he receives for registering that person **is non-sacred, as it is on this condition** of registering others in exchange for the money which he receives from them that **the Jewish people consecrate their Paschal offerings.**


###### Temurah 30b:22
[Temurah 30b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:22)

כָּל הָאֲסוּרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: כָּל הָאֲסוּרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִים, וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to **all** animals **whose** sacrifice **on the altar is prohibited,** sacrifice of their offspring is permitted. **Rav says:** This ruling that with regard to **all** animals **whose** sacrifice **on the altar is prohibited,** sacrifice of **their offspring is permitted,** is not unanimous but is the opinion of the Rabbis. **And** indeed **it is taught with regard to** this case: **And Rabbi Eliezer prohibits** their offspring to be sacrificed on the altar.


###### Temurah 30b:23
[Temurah 30b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:23)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁעִיבְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִרְבְּעוּ, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר ״עוּבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא״, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי ״לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא״, אֲבָל נִרְבְּעוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף עִיבְּרוּ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana says** that **Rav Naḥman says:** This **dispute** applies in a case **where** the animals **became pregnant and then were the objects of bestiality,** thereby becoming prohibited to sacrifice on the altar. **As Rabbi Eliezer holds** that **a fetus is** considered **the thigh of its mother** and regarded as part of the animal, and is consequently prohibited like its mother. **And the Rabbis hold** that a fetus **is not** considered **the thigh of its mother. But** if the animals **were the objects of bestiality and then became pregnant, everyone agrees** that **they are permitted.**


###### Temurah 30b:24
[Temurah 30b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:24)

רָבָא אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁנִּרְבְּעוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף עִיבְּרוּ, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם אָסוּר, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** This **dispute** applies in a case **where** the animals **were the objects of bestiality and then became pregnant, as Rabbi Eliezer holds** that when both **this** permitted factor **and that** prohibited factor **cause** a certain situation, the resulting item **is prohibited.** Since the mother of this offspring is prohibited, the offspring is likewise prohibited, despite the fact that its father is permitted. **And the Rabbis hold** that when **this** permitted factor **and that** prohibited factor **cause** a result, it, i.e., the offspring, is **permitted** like its father.


###### Temurah 30b:25
[Temurah 30b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:25)

אֲבָל עִיבְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִרְבְּעוּ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֲסוּרִין. וְרָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: וְלַד נִרְבַּעַת אָסוּר, הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ נִרְבְּעוּ, וְלַד נוֹגַחַת אָסוּר, הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ נָגְחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in a case where the animals **became pregnant and then were the object of bestiality, everyone agrees** that **they are prohibited. And** the Gemara adds that **Rava** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning** in this regard, **as Rava said: The offspring** of a female animal that **was the object of bestiality** when it was pregnant is **prohibited** to be sacrificed on the altar, as it is considered as though **it,** the mother, **and its offspring were** both **the object of bestiality.** Likewise, **the offspring** of a pregnant cow that **gores** and kills a person **is prohibited,** because it is as though **it,** the mother, **and its offspring** both **gored.**


###### Temurah 30b:26
[Temurah 30b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:26)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁנִּרְבְּעוּ כְּשֶׁהֵן מוּקְדָּשִׁין, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר בִּיזּוּי מִילְּתָא, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי לָא. אֲבָל נִרְבְּעוּ כְּשֶׁהֵן חוּלִּין, הוֹאִיל וְהִשְׁתַּנּוּ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some state another version** of the previous discussion: **Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana says** that **Rav Naḥman says:** This **dispute** applies in a case **where** the animals **were the object of bestiality when they** already had the status of **sacrificial** animals. **As Rabbi Eliezer holds** that the offspring are also prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, as their sacrifice is considered a degradation of consecrated items, and **degradation** of consecrated items is **significant. And the Rabbis hold** that the offspring may be sacrificed, as they maintain that this is **not** considered a degradation of consecrated items. **But** in a case where the animals **were the object of bestiality when they were non-sacred,** and were subsequently consecrated, **since** their status **was changed** by their consecration, **everyone agrees** that **they are permitted.**


###### Temurah 30b:27
[Temurah 30b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/30b:27)

רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁנִּרְבְּעוּ כְּשֶׁהֵן חוּלִּין, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: בִּיזּוּי מִילְּתָא, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: הוֹאִיל וְהִשְׁתַּנּוּ — מוּתָּרִין, אֲבָל נִרְבְּעוּ כְּשֶׁהֵן מוּקְדָּשִׁין — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In contrast, **Rava says** that **Rav Naḥman** says: This **dispute** applies in a case **where** the animals **were the object of bestiality when they were non-sacred, as Rabbi Eliezer holds** that even the sacrifice of this offspring is considered degrading to sacrificial animals, and **degradation** of sacrificial animals **is significant,** and therefore they are prohibited. **And the Rabbis hold** that **since** their status **was changed** by their consecration, **they are permitted. But** in a case where the animals **were the object of bestiality when they** already had the status of **sacrificial** animals, **everyone agrees** that **they are prohibited.**