אמר רב אשי משום דאיכא למימר מעיקרא דדינא פירכא מה לבעל מום שכן מומו ניכר
Rav Ashi said: One cannot derive the halakha of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality by an a fortiori inference from a blemished animal, because one can say that the refutation of the a fortiori inference is found in the basic case itself, i.e., there is a problem with this comparison: What is notable about a blemished animal? It is notable in that its blemish is conspicuous, and it should perhaps be disqualified for this reason.
תאמר ברובע ונרבע שאין מומו ניכר הואיל ואין מומו ניכר יהא כשר לגבי מזבח ת"ל (ויקרא א, ב) מן הבהמה להוציא רובע ונרבע
Shall you say the same with regard to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, whose blemish is not conspicuous? Since its blemish is not conspicuous, one can claim that it should be fit for the altar, despite the fact that a transgression was performed with it. Therefore the verse states: “From the cattle,” to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality from eligibility to be brought as an offering.
מן הבקר להוציא את הנעבד והלא דין הוא ומה אתנן ומחיר שציפויין מותרין הן אסורין נעבד שציפויו אסור אינו דין שהוא אסור
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the baraita that interprets the verse: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The phrase “from the herd” serves to exclude an animal that is worshipped. The Gemara asks: Why is this verse necessary? Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: And if an animal given as payment to a prostitute for services rendered or given as payment for the price of a dog, which is more lenient in that their coating, i.e., the decorative part added to the animal, is permitted to be used on the altar, e.g., for fashioning golden plates for the altar, and yet they themselves are prohibited, then with regard to an animal that is worshipped, which is more stringent in that even its coating is prohibited, is it not logical that it itself should be prohibited to the Temple?
או חילוף ומה אתנן ומחיר שהן אסורין ציפוייהן מותרין נעבד שמותר יהא ציפויו מותר
The Gemara responds: Or perhaps one can reverse this reasoning: And if animals used as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, whose halakhot are stringent, as they themselves are prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, and yet their coating is permitted, with regard to an animal that is worshipped, whose halakha is more lenient, as it is permitted to be sacrificed upon the altar, since the Torah does not explicitly state that it may not be sacrificed, certainly its coating should be permitted for use in the Temple.
א"כ ביטלת (דברים ז, כה) לא תחמוד כסף וזהב עליהם ולקחת לך
The Gemara rejects this a fortiori inference with the claim that if so, you have nullified the requirement of the verse: “The graven images of their gods shall you burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it to you” (Deuteronomy 7:25). This verse is clearly referring to the coatings of items worshipped, in addition to the idols themselves.
אני אקיימנו לא תחמוד כסף וזהב בדבר שאין בו רוח חיים אבל בדבר שיש בו רוח חיים הואיל והן מותר יכול יהא ציפוי מותר ת"ל מן הבקר להוציא את הנעבד
The Gemara refutes this claim: I shall establish the clause: “You shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them,” as referring to a coating of an entity that is not alive. But with regard to the coating of an entity that is alive, since such entities themselves are permitted to be sacrificed on the altar, one might have thought that even its coating should be permitted. Therefore, the verse states: “From the herd,” to exclude an animal that is worshipped. Once it has been derived that a worshipped living creature is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, it follows that its coating is also prohibited.
מתקיף לה רב חנניא טעמא דמעטי' קרא הא לא מעטי' קרא ציפוי מותר והכתיב (דברים יב, ג) ואבדתם את שמם כל העשוי לשמם
Rav Ḥananya objects to this: According to this explanation, the only reason that the coating of an animal that was worshipped is prohibited is that the verse excluded it, from which it may be inferred that if the verse had not excluded it, then the coating would be permitted. But isn’t it written that idolatry must be entirely eradicated: “And you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; and you shall hew down the graven images of their gods; and you shall destroy their name out of that place” (Deuteronomy 12:3). This teaches that not only must the idols themselves be destroyed, but also everything made in their name, including their coating, must be destroyed.
ההוא לכנות להם שם הוא דאתא לבית גליא קרינן אותו בית כריא פני המולך פני כלב עין כל עין קוץ
The Gemara answers: That phrase: “And you shall destroy their name,” does not teach this halakha. Rather, it comes to teach that one should give a derogatory nickname to idol worship, and not call them by their original names. For example, if idolaters refer to a place of worship as: House of Elevation [beit galya], one calls it: House of Annihilation [beit karya]. If the place is called: Face of the Molekh [penei haMolekh], one calls it: Face of a Dog [penei kelev], and if it is called: All-seeing Eye [ein kol], one calls it: Eye of a Thorn [ein kotz].
ואיפוך אנא מן הבהמה להוציא את הנעבד מן הבקר להוציא רובע ונרבע
The baraita teaches that the phrase “from the cattle” (Leviticus 1:2) excludes an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality from eligibility to be brought as an offering, while the phrase “from the herd” excludes an animal worshipped as an object of idolatry. The Gemara asks: But perhaps I can reverse these derivations, as follows: The phrase “from the cattle” serves to exclude an animal that was worshipped, and the phrase “from the herd” serves to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality.
התם מעניינא דקרא כתיב גבי בהמה (ויקרא כ, טו) ואיש כי יתן שכבתו בבהמה מות יומת גבי בקר כתיב (תהלים קו, כ) וימירו את כבודם בתבנית שור אוכל עשב
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the phrase “from the cattle [behema],” the derivation is based on the context of the verse, as the halakha of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality is written with regard to a domesticated animal: “And if a man lie with a beast [behema], he shall surely be put to death, and you shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach any beast [behema] and lie down with it, you shall kill the woman, and the beast” (Leviticus 20:15–16). By contrast, the prohibition of idol worship is written with regard to an animal of the herd: “They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped a molten image. Thus they exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox that eats grass” (Psalms 106:19–20).
(ויקרא ה, ו) מן הצאן להוציא את המוקצה ומן הצאן להוציא את הנוגח אר"ש אם נאמר רובע למה נאמר נוגח ואם נאמר נוגח למה נאמר רובע
§ The baraita further teaches that the phrase “from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2) serves to exclude an animal set aside for idol worship, while the conjunction “or” at the beginning of the phrase “or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2) serves to exclude an animal that gored and killed a person. Rabbi Shimon said: If it is stated that an animal that copulated with a person is disqualified as a sacrifice, why is it stated that an animal that gored is disqualified? And if it is stated that an animal that gored is disqualified, why is it stated that an animal that copulated with a person is disqualified? How do the transgressions differ?
לפי שישנו ברובע מה שאין כן בנוגח יש ברובע שהרובע עושה אונס כרצון מה שאין כן בנוגח
Rabbi Shimon explains: It is because there is a stringency pertaining to an animal that copulated with a person that does not pertain to one that gored, and vice versa. Rabbi Shimon elaborates: There is a stringency pertaining to an animal that copulated with a person, as with regard to an animal that copulated with a person, the Torah renders an animal that is a victim of forced copulation like one that acted willfully, which is not so with regard to an animal that gored, which is exempt if others induced it to gore.
יש בנוגח שהנוגח משלם את הכופר מה שאין כן ברובע הוצרך לומר רובע והוצרך לומר נוגח
By contrast, there is a stringency pertaining to an animal that gored, as with regard to an animal that gored, its owner pays a ransom; which is not so with regard to the owner of an animal that copulated with a person. Therefore, the Torah had to state that an animal that copulated with a person is disqualified, and it also had to state that an animal that gored is disqualified.
והאי תנא מייתי לה מהכא דתניא הרובע והנרבע (וכולם) הם כקדשים שקדם מום עובר להקדשן
§ The baraita teaches that the prohibition of sacrificing an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality on the altar is derived from the phrase “from the cattle.” The Gemara notes: And this tanna cites that halakha from here, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality that were consecrated, they are considered like sacrificial animals whose temporary blemish preceded their consecration.
וצריכין מום קבוע לפדות עליהן שנאמר כי משחתם בהם מום בם
The baraita continues: And animals with a temporary blemish cannot be sacrificed at present, nor can they be redeemed. Rather, they require a permanent blemish for one to redeem them on account of that blemish, as it is stated with regard to the disqualification of blemished animals from the altar: “Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you” (Leviticus 22:25).
מאי תלמודא חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני מנין שהן אסורין ת"ל (ויקרא כב, כה) כי משחתם בהם מום בם ותנא דבי ר' ישמעאל כל מקום שנאמר השחתה אינו אלא דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים
The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation here? How is this verse relevant to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality? The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: From where is it derived that an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality are prohibited to be sacrificed? The verse states: “Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them,” and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a principle with regard to the derivation of verses: Anywhere that the term corruption is stated, it is a reference only to a matter of sexual immorality and idol worship.
דבר ערוה דכתיב (בראשית ו, יב) כי השחית כל בשר וגו' עבודת כוכבים דכתיב (דברים ד, טז) פן תשחיתון ועשיתם לכם פסל תמונת כל סמל כל שהמום פוסל בהן דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים פוסלין בהן
Corruption refers to a matter of sexual immorality, as it is written with regard to the generation of the flood, which was steeped in sexual immorality: “And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12). Corruption also refers to idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image even the form of any figure” (Deuteronomy 4:16). Since the term corruption is also used with regard to blemished animals, the following may be derived: In any case in which a blemish disqualifies an animal from the altar, a matter of sexual immorality, such as an animal that copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or their use as an object of idol worship, also disqualifies them.
ותנא דבי ר' ישמעאל מן הבהמה מן הבקר ומן הצאן מאי דריש בהו מיבעי ליה פרט לחולה זקן ומזוהם
The Gemara asks: And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that the disqualifications of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, the set-aside, and the worshipped animal, are derived from the case of blemished animals, what does he derive from the verse: “From the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2), which is the source of these disqualifications according to the earlier baraita? The Gemara answers that he requires these three terms to exclude sick, old, and filthy animals, which may not be sacrificed.
ות"ק דאפקינהו להני קראי לרובע ונרבע חולה זקן ומזוהם מנא ליה נפקא ליה מן הצאן מן הכבשים ומן העזים ולתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אורחיה דקרא לאישתעויי הכי
The Gemara asks: And the first tanna, who derives from these verses the halakha of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, from where does he derive the ruling that sick, the old, and filthy are disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “And if his offering be of the flock, whether of the sheep or of the goats” (see Leviticus 1:10). The Gemara comments: And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, that these halakhot are not derived from that verse, it is because it is the manner of the verse to say this, i.e., to state the general category of flock before specifying sheep and goats.
איזהו מוקצה לעבודת כוכבים וכו' אמר ר"ל אין אסור אלא מוקצה לשבע שנים
§ The mishna teaches: Which is the animal that is set-aside? It is an animal that is set aside for idol worship. Reish Lakish says: Only an animal that has been set aside for seven years is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar, i.e., one that is set aside to be used for idol worship at the end of seven years.
שנאמר (שופטים ו, כה) ויהי בלילה ההוא ויאמר [לו ה'] קח את פר השור אשר לאביך ופר השני שבע שנים
As it is stated with regard to Gideon: “And it came to pass the same night, that the Lord said to him: Take your father’s bullock, and the second bullock of seven years, and throw down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is by it; and build an altar to the Lord your God…and take the second bullock, and sacrifice a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah that you shall cut down” (Judges 6:25–26). This indicates that it was common practice to prepare a bullock for seven years as an object of idol worship.
והתם מוקצה בלחוד הוה נעבד נמי הוה א"ר אחא בר יעקב מוקצה לעבוד ולא עבדוהו רבא אמר לעולם עבדוהו וחידוש הוא כדר' אבא בר כהנא דאמר רבי אבא בר כהנא שמנה דברים התירו באותו לילה חוץ ולילה וזרות
The Gemara asks: And there, was that bullock prohibited merely as set-aside? It was also actually worshipped. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: This bullock was set aside to be worshipped, but in practice, they did not worship it. Rava says: Actually, they did worship it, and therefore it should have been prohibited as idolatry. But this case is a novelty, in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana. As Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: Eight prohibited matters were permitted to Gideon on that night when he destroyed his father’s idolatry (see Judges, chapter 6): The prohibition against slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Tabernacle; and the prohibition against sacrificing offerings at night; and the prohibition of non-priests performing the service, as Gideon was not a priest;