Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 28 for kids: Which Animals May Be Offered?

תמורה כ״ח

🐄 This daf asks which animals may be brought as offerings. It also asks what happens when an animal that may not be offered gets mixed with others.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 28a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 28b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Temurah 28

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 28 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 28a, in English Tab translation (24)
  1. All that are prohibited for the altar prohibit in any amount — Even if one is mixed with a thousand others, all are prohibited for the altar when the prohibited animal cannot be identified. Each listed animal can be unidentifiable in a mixture. A fatally injured animal is an exception, unless, as explained in Zevaḥim, an animal mauled by a wolf is mixed with one punctured by a thorn, or an offspring of a fatally injured animal is mixed with others, according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says it may not be offered.
  2. And we found it difficult — Why does the mishna there say “even”? Its wording sounds as though one permitted offering was mixed with many sin offerings condemned to die. It is obvious that all must die when the prohibited animals are the majority.
  3. And we answered — The mishna there means that one sin offering condemned to die was mixed with many other offerings. Even if one prohibited animal is mixed with ten thousand permitted ones, all must die: the one is not nullified among them. Why, then, teach this again here?
  4. There — In the case of sin offerings condemned to die and an ox sentenced to be stoned.
  5. They are prohibited for benefit — That makes them significant, so they are not nullified.
  6. But — The animals in our mishna, such as one that copulated with a person or was the object of bestiality, may be eaten by ordinary people. The case is based on one witness or the owners’ admission, neither of which subjects the animal to stoning. We might therefore think these animals are nullified in a mixture; our mishna teaches otherwise. Zevaḥim further explains why both rulings are needed: From our mishna alone, we might think that only animals repulsive as offerings are not nullified, while a prohibition that also applies to ordinary consumption might be nullified. The mishna there teaches that such a mixture must die: the prohibition is not nullified even for ordinary consumption.
  7. We learned there in Zevaḥim — If an offering was mixed with a non-sacred animal that copulated with a person or was the object of bestiality, the animals graze until they become unfit for sacrifice, and are then sold. With the proceeds, the owner brings an offering of the same type as the original, costing as much as the most valuable animal in the mixture. If the original was a peace offering, the replacement is a peace offering; if it was a burnt offering, the replacement is a burnt offering. This protects the Temple’s interest and shows that the prohibited animal is not nullified by the majority.
  8. One concerns non-sacred animals — Our mishna concerns animals mixed before they were consecrated; the mishna in Zevaḥim concerns animals mixed after consecration, as its opening words, “All the offerings,” indicate.
  9. But — Here, the animals were non-sacred when mixed, so none was yet repulsive as an offering. We might think the prohibition was nullified before consecration and they may all be offered. Our mishna teaches otherwise. Zevaḥim asks why its ruling is needed as well, and answers that it supplies the remedy: let them graze, then sell them and bring an offering of the same type costing as much as the most valuable. Our mishna states only that they prohibit the mixture.
  10. And we also learned this concerning non-sacred items — Even among ordinary, non-sacred items, living animals and the other items considered significant are not nullified by a majority.
  11. And hides with a heart-shaped opening — As explained in Avodah Zarah, a round opening was cut opposite the heart. Through it, the sacrificial portions were removed and burned for idol worship; an offering to an idol is prohibited for benefit.
  12. And a nazirite’s hair — It is prohibited for benefit because it must be placed under the pot’s fire.
  13. And meat cooked in milk — A piece of meat cooked in milk remains prohibited when mixed with a thousand other pieces. This follows the view in Ḥullin that meat cooked in milk is prohibited for benefit.
  14. Why is it different there? — Why does the mishna about offerings teach together both things prohibited for benefit, such as sin offerings condemned to die and an ox sentenced to be stoned, and things prohibited for eating, such as a fatally injured animal?
  15. A mixture of non-sacred items — In Avodah Zarah, the mishna separates things prohibited for benefit from things prohibited only for eating. It first lists items such as wine used for idolatry that prohibit a mixture in any amount and are prohibited for benefit, then separately lists items such as milk milked by a gentile without a Jew watching. That separation suits Avodah Zarah, which explains prohibitions resembling wine used for idolatry. Likewise, in Zevaḥim the items are grouped together because none may be offered on the altar.
  16. From the animals — This implies that some animals, but not every animal, may be offered.
  17. But this follows by reasoning — A verse should not be needed.
  18. Plowing with an ox and a donkey proves otherwise — An animal used in that prohibited act may still be offered if it is subsequently consecrated.
  19. Take back what you brought — That example is not a valid objection for this reason.
  20. Consider an animal involved in an offense attested by two witnesses — If two witnesses testify that it copulated with a person or was the object of bestiality, it is certainly subject to death and prohibited for the altar.
  21. On the testimony of one witness or the owners — In those cases the animal is not subject to death. Without the verse, how would you know it is prohibited for the altar?
  22. I can derive it by reasoning — No verse is needed.
  23. The testimony of one witness disqualifies it from being offered — Once an expert declares that the animal has a permanent blemish, it is unfit to be offered.
  24. Disqualifies it from being eaten — For it is subject to stoning.
Tosafot on Temurah 28a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. All the prohibited animals — The mishna begins here.
  2. But here they are not prohibited for benefit, so one might think they are nullified by a majority — In the chapter “Mixtures” (Zevaḥim 71b), the Gemara says that if only this mishna had taught the ruling, we might have thought these animals remained permitted to ordinary people. The mishna there therefore teaches that the mixtures must die and are prohibited even to ordinary people.
  3. An animal that copulated with a person or was the object of bestiality — In the chapter “Mixtures,” the Gemara answers: That mishna does not say what proportion makes the mixture prohibited, whereas this one says that any amount does. The mishna there is needed to teach what to do with the animals; here, the ruling is stated generally.
  4. Plowing with an ox and a donkey proves the point: a transgression was committed with the animal, yet it is permitted for the altar — As we interpret the verse, “These you shall not offer” excludes only the animals it names; you may offer consecrated animals with which a transgression was committed.
  5. Take back what you have brought — Rashi explains that this is not a refutation: Consider an animal that two witnesses testify copulated with a person or was the object of bestiality. It is certainly liable to death and barred from the altar. But when there is only one witness, or the owner’s testimony, it is not liable to death; without a verse, how would we know it is barred from the altar? One might ask why an inference from the more severe case is needed for an animal condemned on the testimony of two witnesses: the requirement that an offering come from what is permitted to Israelites already excludes it, since deriving benefit from it is prohibited. The answer is that the inference is needed when the animal was slaughtered and offered before its sentence was finalized, while deriving benefit from it was still permitted. Alternatively, “Take back what you have brought” means that an animal implicated by two witnesses needs no such inference at all: we already know it is barred from the altar.
Rashi on Temurah 28b, in English Tab translation (28)
  1. Their coatings — If someone covered either animal with something after giving it to the prostitute, the covering may be brought into the Temple to make plates for the altar. The Torah forbade only the two kinds of payment themselves, not their coatings.
  2. A worshipped animal, whose coatings are forbidden — As it is written, “You shall not covet the silver or gold on them.”
  3. A worshipped animal that they made into an idol: should it not certainly be forbidden for the altar? — Granted, it is not forbidden for ordinary use, since living creatures do not become forbidden that way, as the Gemara explains below. But surely it is forbidden for the altar, since even its coatings are forbidden for ordinary benefit. Why, then, is a verse needed?
  4. Or reverse it — If the verse had not been written, one could have reversed the reasoning.
  5. A worshipped animal, which is permitted — Since we have found no source forbidding it.
  6. This is what it means: If so, you have nullified “You shall not covet,” and so forth — Therefore, one cannot reverse the reasoning. Since the prohibition against bringing a worshipped animal to the altar follows by inference, the verse mentioned here is unnecessary.
  7. I can uphold it, and so forth — Therefore, the reasoning can be reversed: since the worshipped animal is permitted even for the altar, its coatings are permitted.
  8. The verse says, “From the herd,” meaning not all of the herd, to exclude a worshipped animal — It is forbidden for the altar. And since it is forbidden for the altar, its coatings are forbidden even for ordinary use under “You shall not covet,” and so forth.
  9. House of Elevation — The name suggests height. Another reading is House of Destruction, from a word meaning annihilation. Another reading is House of the Pit, meaning a latrine, from “they dug a pit” (Jeremiah 18).
  10. From the subject of the verse — Regarding an animal involved in bestiality, Scripture uses the word “animal”; regarding idolatry, it uses “herd.”
  11. A designated animal — One set aside as an offering for idol worship.
  12. The animal that gored — It killed a person, but there was only one witness, so it is not stoned.
  13. If an animal involved in bestiality is mentioned — As forbidden for sacrifice. But the two cases are alike: with two witnesses, both animals are stoned.
  14. An animal that gored — For stoning, an induced attack is not treated like a voluntary one. The Mishnah teaches that an arena bull is not subject to stoning: the verse says, “If a bull gores,” not if others cause it to gore.
  15. One pays the atonement payment for it — Even though the bull is stoned.
  16. And this tanna derives it from here — That animals involved in bestiality are forbidden for the altar.
  17. “Deformed or maimed” should not be included in the text — Those words are not read here.
  18. Which are forbidden — They are forbidden for sacrifice.
  19. Animals involved in bestiality concern sexual transgression; animals designated for idolatry or worshipped as idols concern idol worship.
  20. Foul-smelling — It sweats and gives off a bad smell.
  21. “From the sheep,” and so forth — Another verse says, “If his offering for a burnt offering is from the flock, from the sheep or from the goats.”
  22. For seven years — It was designated for up to seven years, at the end of which they would sacrifice it to an idol. That is what “designated” means here.
  23. “And a bull seven years old” — They fattened it for seven years, showing that this was their practice.
  24. It was also worshipped — I do not know how this is derived.
  25. Another reading: An animal is designated for no more than seven years — After seven years it is no longer considered designated, because they will not sacrifice it. Scripture says, “And the second bull, seven years old,” indicating that once seven years have passed, it becomes permitted.
  26. They did worship it — but nothing can be learned from that case, because it was exceptional.
  27. Outside — slaughtering an offering outside the sanctuary.
  28. And he offered it at night — as it is written, “And he did it at night.”
Tosafot on Temurah 28b, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. Rav Ashi said: The inference can be challenged at its outset — In the Sifra, Rabbi Akiva raises this objection: A blemished animal is different because its blemish is visible. That is what the Gemara means here by saying its blemish is conspicuous. But why not answer that an animal given as a prostitute’s fee or as the price of a dog has no visible blemish, yet is barred from the altar?
  2. If a prostitute’s fee or the price of a dog may have a coating used for the altar — The Gemara could also have argued, as it does in Avodah Zarah: If these animals may be used by ordinary people when detached from their source, yet may not be offered alive on the altar, then surely a worshipped animal, which is forbidden to ordinary people even when detached, may not be offered alive. That argument would not allow the reversal proposed here. Yet in Avodah Zarah, the Gemara does not use this argument to prohibit stones taken from a worshipped mountain for the altar. Instead, it offers an argument about what is attached to the ground and then reverses it. It could likewise have used the argument here about the permitted coatings of a prostitute’s fee and the price of a dog to permit even a mountain’s coating on the altar.
  3. Or perhaps reverse the reasoning — Why not simply follow the stricter conclusion whenever the reasoning can lead either to leniency or to stringency, as the Gemara says in Avodah Zarah? With living creatures, however, there is greater reason to take the lenient approach: If an inference permits them, we have no basis to prohibit them.
  4. A worshipped animal is permitted; surely its coating is permitted — In Hullin, the Gemara says that an offering to a worshipped living creature is forbidden. It distinguishes between slaughtering for a mountain and slaughtering for the mountain’s deity, for which the offering is forbidden. This seems to treat offerings more strictly than coatings. Yet for a mountain the reverse is true: its coating is forbidden, while an animal slaughtered for the mountain is permitted. One answer is that the forbidden coating was on the mountain when it was worshipped; a coating already on a living creature when it was worshipped is likewise forbidden. The coating called permitted here was added afterward. Alternatively, the difficulty disappears under this passage’s conclusion that a worshipped animal’s coating is forbidden.
  5. The verse says, ‘From the herd,’ excluding a worshipped animal — Rashi explains that the animal is forbidden for the altar. Consequently, its coating is forbidden even for ordinary use under the prohibition on taking ‘the silver or gold on them.’ This reading is necessary: We cannot say that the animal is excluded from the altar but its coating remains permitted, with that prohibition applying only to lifeless idols. The Gemara’s next question assumes that, once the verse excludes the animal, every coating of a worshipped animal is forbidden.
  6. This tanna derives it from here, as a baraita teaches — It seems from this passage that Rabbi Shimon does not derive the disqualification of an animal involved in a sexual act from ‘for their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them.’ Earlier, his question, ‘If a goring animal is stated, why state an animal involved in a sexual act?’ suggests that he derives it from ‘from the herd.’ Yet in Avodah Zarah, Rabbi Shimon cites ‘for their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them’ to disqualify such an animal. The answer is that Rabbi Shimon’s earlier question follows the first tanna’s reasoning, which derives the rule from ‘from the herd’; Rabbi Shimon himself derives it from ‘for their corruption is in them.’
  7. Anything disqualified by a blemish is also disqualified by a sexual act or idolatry — This needs explanation: An animal involved in a sexual act can already be disqualified from ‘for their corruption is in them.’

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Temura 28.