Temurah 6:3-4
משנה תמורה ו:ג-ד
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Temurah | Chapter: 6
📖 Mishna
Mishna 6:3
משנה ו:ג
Hebrew:
אֵיזֶה הוּא מְחִיר כֶּלֶב. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ, הֵא לְךָ טָלֶה זֶה תַּחַת כֶּלֶב זֶה. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ, אֶחָד נָטַל עֲשָׂרָה, וְאֶחָד נָטַל תִּשְׁעָה וָכֶלֶב, שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַכֶּלֶב, אֲסוּרִים, שֶׁעִם הַכֶּלֶב, מֻתָּרִים. אֶתְנַן כֶּלֶב וּמְחִיר זוֹנָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג), שְׁנַיִם, וְלֹא אַרְבָּעָה. וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מֻתָּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) הֵן, וְלֹא וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן:
English:
And which is the case where an animal has the halakhic status of the price of a dog, and it is therefore prohibited to sacrifice the animal on the altar? It is the case of one who says to another: Here is this lamb in place of a dog. And likewise, this prohibition applies in the case of two partners who divided their common property, which included nineteen lambs and one dog, and one took ten lambs and the other one took nine lambs and a dog. Sacrifice of the ten lambs taken by the partner in exchange for the nine lambs and the dog is prohibited, and sacrifice of the nine lambs that were taken by the partner with the dog is permitted. With regard to lambs given as payment to another for engaging in relations with his dog, or as the price of a prostitute to purchase her as his maidservant, their sacrifice is permitted, as it is stated: “As 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., the additional two cases of payment for relations with a dog and the price of a prostitute, which are permitted. Furthermore, with regard to the two prohibited cases of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted, as it is stated “them,” and not their offspring.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna defines “mechir kelev” (price of a dog) and introduces several nuanced distinctions. The basic case is straightforward: exchanging a lamb directly for a dog makes the lamb forbidden for the altar.
The partnership case is more complex. When two partners divide property that includes animals and a dog, the one who takes ten lambs (compensating for not taking the dog) has ten lambs “bought with” the dog’s value - all are prohibited. The partner who took nine lambs plus the dog has lambs that were never exchanged for the dog - they’re permitted.
The mishna then addresses “reversed” cases through careful biblical exegesis:
- Etnan kelev (payment for relations with a dog) - PERMITTED
- Mechir zonah (price paid to purchase a prostitute as a slave) - PERMITTED
The Torah says “both of THEM” (shenayim) - specifically two categories, not four. The verse prohibits (1) etnan zonah and (2) mechir kelev, but not the reversed combinations.
Finally, the offspring of prohibited animals are permitted because the verse says “them” (הֵן), implying only the original animals, not their offspring. The prohibition is not hereditary.
Key Terms:
- מְחִיר כֶּלֶב (mechir kelev) = “Price of a dog” - animal given in exchange for a dog
- שֻׁתָּפִין (shutafin) = Partners - joint owners dividing property
- שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַכֶּלֶב (shekeneged hakelev) = “In exchange for the dog” - lambs whose value compensates for the dog
- אֶתְנַן כֶּלֶב (etnan kelev) = “Payment involving a dog” - reverse of typical etnan
- מְחִיר זוֹנָה (mechir zonah) = “Price of a prostitute” - buying her as slave, not payment TO her
- וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן (valdoteihen) = “Their offspring” - not prohibited
Mishna 6:4
משנה ו:ד
Hebrew:
נָתַן לָהּ כְּסָפִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים, וּסְלָתוֹת, וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אָסוּר. נָתַן לָהּ מֻקְדָּשִׁין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. עוֹפוֹת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, מָה אִם הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶם, אֵין אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶם, עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן, אֵינוֹ בַדִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם), לְכָל נֶדֶר, לְהָבִיא אֶת הָעוֹף:
English:
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. 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.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna specifies which items are subject to the etnan prohibition based on whether they can be offered on the altar.
Money - PERMITTED for purchasing offerings. The money itself doesn’t go on the altar; only what’s bought with it does, and by that point it’s a separate transaction.
Wine, oil, flour - PROHIBITED. These items are directly offered on the altar (in meal offerings, libations, etc.), so etnan status attaches to them directly.
Already consecrated items - PERMITTED. A powerful principle: you cannot prohibit something that doesn’t belong to you. Once an animal is hekdesh, it belongs to God/the Temple. The prostitute’s “payment” was really stolen property - invalid payment from the start.
Birds - PROHIBITED, but only through explicit biblical inclusion. The mishna presents a logical argument (kal vachomer) that would have exempted birds: if consecrated animals (which can be disqualified by blemishes) aren’t subject to etnan, then birds (which can’t be disqualified by blemishes) certainly shouldn’t be! But the Torah says “for ANY vow” - including bird offerings.
This teaches that logical inference cannot override explicit Torah text, and sometimes the Torah prohibits cases that logic would permit.
Key Terms:
- כְּסָפִים (kesafim) = Money - permitted because not directly offered
- יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים, וּסְלָתוֹת = Wine, oil, flour - items offered on altar
- מֻקְדָּשִׁין (mukdashin) = Consecrated items - already belong to Temple
- עוֹפוֹת (ofot) = Birds - included by explicit verse
- הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל (hamum posel) = “A blemish disqualifies” - true for animals, not birds
- קַל וָחֹמֶר (kal vachomer) = A fortiori argument - logical inference from lenient to strict
- לְכָל נֶדֶר (lechol neder) = “For any vow” - the phrase that includes birds