Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 30 for kids: The Dog’s Price

תמורה ל׳

🐕 This daf asks which items from certain forbidden exchanges may be brought as offerings. It also asks whether an animal’s offspring, or an item that has changed form, has the same status as the original.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 30a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 30b 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 30

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 30 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 30a, in English Tab translation (19)
  1. Rabbi Elazar’s view, who says an unmarried man who has relations, etc. — He calls intercourse outside marriage prostitution. Therefore the payment is prohibited as payment to a prostitute. My view follows the Rabbis.
  2. It is the paradigm — Had the teaching mentioned only an unmarried woman, one might think only her payment is prohibited, because the relationship itself is not forbidden. Rabbi Elazar understands an ordinary case of prostitution to involve an unmarried man and woman.
  3. And it is the paradigm — One might think it teaches that payment is prohibited only for relations between an unmarried man and woman, not for relations with a widow forbidden to a High Priest. The teaching therefore includes the widow. Another explanation: The ruling about a widow and a High Priest follows Rabbi Akiva, who says that betrothal cannot take effect in a relationship forbidden by a negative commandment; he therefore treats it like a relationship forbidden on pain of excision. Why, then, does Rava mention a widow rather than even an unmarried woman? In an ordinary case, he does not treat a gift as payment unless the man explicitly says, ‘Here is your payment’: unlike Rabbi Elazar, he does not consider her a prostitute after a single encounter. But if she was already a prostitute, Rava treats an unqualified gift as payment, even if she is unmarried.
  4. She is permitted — So why do the Rabbis call it payment to a prostitute? Only Rabbi Elazar prohibits payment for a permitted relationship.
  5. With him — With the Israelite master himself; a maidservant is forbidden to him.
  6. A polite expression — ‘My slave’ euphemistically means his sexual organ. So I heard.
  7. A maidservant is permitted to a Hebrew slave — Scripture says the slave served his master twice as much as a hired worker: by day he works, and by night he fathers children for his master through the maidservant.
  8. His master may not give him, etc. — This is derived from ‘If he came in alone, he shall go out alone.’ Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says the lamb is not prohibited payment, disagrees: in his view, the master may give him a Canaanite maidservant even if he has no wife and children.
  9. If he has a wife and children, his master may give him a Canaanite maidservant — Even against the slave’s will. This is a scriptural decree: ‘If he is married,’ followed by ‘If his master gives him a wife.’
  10. Mishna: Those received in exchange for the dog are prohibited — They may not be offered as sacrifices, because they are the price of a dog.
  11. Payment for intercourse with a dog — ‘Here is this lamb; let your female dog lie with me.’
  12. Price of a prostitute — He exchanged a lamb for a prostitute and acquired her as his maidservant with that lamb.
  13. Their offspring — The offspring of animals received as the price of a dog or as payment to a prostitute.
  14. Are permitted — Scripture says ‘both of them,’ excluding their offspring.
  15. Gemara: ‘And You did not raise their prices’ — This indicates that ‘price’ means monetary value.
  16. Say it means payment — Specifically payment for intercourse with a dog; perhaps ‘price of a dog’ includes that payment.
  17. Two, not three — The proposed three categories are payment to a prostitute, payment for intercourse with a dog, and the price of a dog.
  18. ‘And the price of a dog’ is written — The word ‘and’ adds to the preceding category, suggesting that both what is exchanged for a dog and payment for intercourse with one are prohibited.
  19. From any one of them — None of the ten lambs is worth as much as the dog, so the dog’s value is spread among them all. For example, if each of the ten is worth one dinar, each of the other nine is worth one dinar less one ma’ah, and the dog is worth one dinar and nine ma’ahs. Part of the dog’s value is thus included in nine of the ten lambs, while the tenth corresponds entirely to the dog’s value. Another calculation gives each of the ten lambs a value of four zuz plus one-tenth of a zuz, the other nine a value of four zuz each, and the dog a value of five zuz. One-tenth of a zuz of the dog’s value is included in each of nine lambs; the tenth corresponds to the rest.
Tosafot on Temurah 30a, in English Tab translation (1)
  1. And let the others be permitted — This means through retroactive designation: after one item is removed, we treat it as the prohibited one. This fits Rabbi Yitzchak’s ruling throughout the Talmud that retroactive designation works. But Rabbi Tam rules that it does not. How, then, can the Gemara ask so readily that the others should be permitted? It asks because some sages do accept retroactive designation, yet the mishna would not fit their view. There is a broader difficulty: this passage seems to allow us to remove one item from a mixture of prohibited and permitted items and rely on retroactive designation to identify it as the prohibited item. That is also the basis for the ruling about someone who buys wine from the Samaritans and declares, ‘The two logs I will later separate are tithe,’ then drinks the rest as non-sacred wine. Likewise, when three women bought their bird offerings jointly and one died, the Gemara in Yoma asks, ‘Why not take four zuz, discard them, and permit the rest?’ If so, why not do this with every such mixture? For example, when sacrificial animals become mixed with an ox sentenced to stoning, the ruling is that they must all die. Even if live animals are too significant to be nullified in a mixture, why not remove one and permit the rest? My teacher, Rabbi Meir, gives a general rule: If an item was already identified as prohibited before it became mixed with permitted items, we cannot rely on retroactive designation. In these other cases, however, the items were mixed while permitted; only afterward did the prohibition arise. There we may rely on retroactive designation. See also Tosafot to Bekhorot 56b–57a, ‘To select,’ and Sotah 18a, ‘He retracted.’
Rashi on Temurah 30b, in English Tab translation (17)
  1. There is no prostitution with regard to an animal — as the mishna teaches: Payment for intercourse with a dog is permitted.
  2. This is also taught: From where is it derived, etc. — This is how the text is read. [It is a mishnah, but it is cited here because the baraita asks, “From where is payment, etc., derived?” and explains the matter explicitly. This reading is doubtful, and it seems to me it should not be included.]
  3. The offspring of a set-aside or worshipped animal is permitted — he set aside only the mother, and they worshipped only the mother.
  4. He gave her consecrated items — they do not become prohibited as payment to a prostitute, as the Gemara explains.
  5. He gave her birds — if they were non-sacred, they are thereafter prohibited as offerings.
  6. The offspring of an animal with a fatal wound may not be offered — but everyone agrees that an ordinary person may eat it, since it did not grow from its mother’s own body.
  7. Ispork — the name of a place.
  8. For a cow — a red heifer.
  9. And plating — if he gave her gold, it could be used to plate the altar.
  10. Behind the Holy of Holies — as stated in the first chapter of Yoma, eleven cubits of the Temple courtyard lay behind its wall. Even there, where the sanctity is less stringent, stones given as payment to a prostitute may not be used for construction, if construction is needed.
  11. The prohibitions of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog apply to them — as the mishna derives from “for any vow,” which includes birds.
  12. When registering her for his Passover offering — the verse is needed for a case where he had already designated the offering and later said to a prostitute, “Have intercourse with me, and I will register you for my Passover offering as your payment.” Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says a person may register others if he needs money for any purpose, the offering appears to be his property and might be thought to become prohibited as her payment. Therefore, “for any vow” excludes an offering already designated by a vow.
  13. And if the household is too small — this is interpreted to mean that if he lacks what he needs to purchase for Passover, he may sustain himself from the lamb by registering others for his Passover offering and receiving money from them.
  14. For food — if the household lacks food, he may obtain his sustenance from the lamb. If he lacks wood to roast it, that too is needed for eating; but the verse allows him to sustain himself from the lamb, not to provide for the lamb itself.
  15. But not for a purchase — if he wants to conduct business and lacks the money for a purchase, he may not register others for his Passover offering for that purpose.
  16. A fetus is a limb of its mother — so the fetus itself was the object of bestiality.
  17. Both contribute to its creation — the male that mated with this animal and the mother produced the offspring. Thus, both a permitted source, its father, and a prohibited source, its mother, contributed to it.
Tosafot on Temurah 30b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. From where do the Sages derive that there is no prostitution with an animal? — Rashi explains that the question concerns the Mishnah’s ruling that payment for intercourse with a dog is permitted. But the Mishnah already derives that ruling from the verse’s exclusion of two additional cases, so what was left to ask? My teacher explains that Rav Aha of Parzakya knew that payment given to a female dog is permitted. He asked the reverse question: If a man pays a woman to have intercourse with his dog, does that count as prostitution? The reply is that, if it did, a teaching would have distinguished her payment from payment given to a dog. The baraita supports the broader conclusion that neither a person’s intercourse with an animal nor an animal’s intercourse with a woman counts as prostitution. The Mishnah need not spell out every case, but a baraita would have explained such a prohibition. Yevamot likewise recounts that the Sages declared a girl eligible after a dog had intercourse with her; Rav Aha’s question concerned that case.
  2. Because he likes its increased girth — Here, the offspring of a worshipped animal is forbidden. Yet tractate Avodah Zarah considers whether grain worshipped while standing may be ground into flour for an offering. It cites Rava’s ruling about offspring and answers that an animal remains an animal, with the fetus contained inside it, whereas wheat becomes flour. This seems to treat a change as more effective than birth. For payment to a prostitute, however, Beit Shammai forbid wheat ground into flour but agree that offspring is permitted, as the verse excludes offspring. The distinction is that someone worshipping a pregnant animal intends to worship its entire girth, including the fetus; someone worshipping standing grain intends only what he sees—the wheat, not the flour. A prostitute, by contrast, has the principal value in mind: the animal rather than its offspring, but flour when she receives grain.
  3. Rabbi Eliezer says the offspring of an animal with a fatal injury may not be offered — Rashi says everyone permits it for ordinary use, because the offspring does not grow from the mother’s body itself. But tractate Hullin explicitly says it is forbidden even for ordinary use. The dispute is stated in terms of offerings to show the extent of the Sages’ leniency: they permit it even on the altar.
  4. But if intercourse occurred before conception, everyone permits the offspring — This means that when a permitted and a forbidden cause combine to produce something, the result is permitted. Yet Rabbi Eliezer says in tractate Pesahim that such a result is forbidden. There, however, the original prohibition applies even to ordinary use; here it concerns offerings alone.

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 30.