Mishnah Temurah 6:1-2

Sugya Map

• Issue: The Mishnah enumerates various animals and items disqualified from being offered on the Mizbei'ach (altar), specifying their dinim regarding bitul b'rov, issur hana'ah, and the status of their offspring.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Bitul B'rov: Whether these pesulim are batel b'rov (nullified in a majority) or osrin kol shehen (prohibit any amount, however small), impacting mixtures of permitted and prohibited animals/items.
  • Issur Hana'ah vs. Issur Hakravah: Distinguishing between items merely prohibited for sacrifice and those also prohibited for any mundane benefit (hana'ah).
  • Offspring Status: Whether the offspring of a disqualified animal inherit its pesul for the Mizbei'ach.
  • Scope of "Payment": Defining atnan (prostitute's payment) and machir (dog's price) beyond their literal interpretation, and which types of payment are included/excluded.
  • Kodesh Status: The principle that kodshim cannot be rendered pasul by subsequent issurim if they already hold a higher kedusha.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Temurah 6:1-2
  • Devarim 23:19 ("לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב בית ה' אלהיך לכל נדר")

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah opens with a sweeping principle:

כָּל הָאֲסוּרִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אוֹסְרִין כָּל שֶׁהֵן. All animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, if they are intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is permitted, they prohibit the entire mixture of animals in any amount. This establishes the stringency of issurei mizbei'ach – they are osrin kol shehen. The Mishnah then lists nine categories of pesulim: אֵלּוּ הֵן: הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמֻּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהָאֶתְנַן, וְהַמְּחִיר, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן. These are the animals whose sacrifice is prohibited: An animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and the set-aside, and one that was worshipped, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or an animal crossbred from a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or an animal born by caesarean section.

The Mishnah proceeds to elaborate on specific categories:

• מוקצה לעבודה זרה: Itself is prohibited (for sacrifice), but that which is upon it is permitted.
• נעבד: Itself and that which is upon it is prohibited.
• זה וזה מותרין באכילה: Both muktzah and ne'evad are permitted for consumption (i.e., hana'ah).

Regarding atnan and machir, the Mishnah delineates their scope:

• אתנן: One who says to a prostitute: Here is this lamb as your fee. Even if they were one hundred lambs... all of them are prohibited. R' Meir and Rabbanan dispute a case of proxy payment.
• מחיר: One who says to another: Here is this lamb in place of a dog. Also a case of partners dividing property including a dog.
• לימודים מ"שנים ולא ארבעה" ו"אותם ולא את ולדותיהם": Payments for intercourse with a dog or the price of a prostitute (buying her) are permitted. Offspring of atnan/machir are permitted.

Finally, the Mishnah discusses other items and principles:

• Money given as atnan is permitted to buy offerings; wine, oil, flour, or any other item the like of which is sacrificed are prohibited.
• Consecrated items given as atnan are permitted, as they are not his to prohibit.
• Birds given as atnan are prohibited, derived from "לכל נדר" (Devarim 23:19) – a ribbui to include birds.
• כלל: All animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted. R' Eliezer disputes this for tereifa offspring. R' Chanina ben Antigonus disqualifies a kosher animal suckled by a tereifa.
• טרפות קדשים: One may not redeem them, as one does not redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to dogs.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

• "כָּל הָאֲסוּרִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אוֹסְרִין כָּל שֶׁהֵן" – The plural "האסורין" refers to the prohibited animals themselves, while "אוסרין" is an active verb indicating their capacity to prohibit. The phrase "כל שהן" is crucial, establishing the severe din of bitul b'rov for kodshim.
• "מֻקְצֶה" vs. "נֶעֱבָד" – The Mishnah distinguishes between an animal designated for idol worship (muktzah) and one actually worshipped (ne'evad). This distinction is key for issur hana'ah, as further elucidated by Rishonim.
• "שנים ולא ארבעה, אותם ולא את ולדותיהם" – This is a classic drasha structure, indicating precise limits on the scope of the pasuk's prohibition.

Readings

Rambam on Mishnah Temurah 6:1:1

The Rambam, in his commentary to Mishnah Temurah 6:1:1, provides a foundational categorization of the pesulim listed. He explains that "אוסרין בכל שהוא" means that if even one of these disqualified animals is mixed with a thousand kodshim, all become pasul for the Mizbei'ach and cannot be offered. He then dissects the source of these issurim:

יש מהם מצד פסוק מלא ויש מהם מצד אסמכתא אל המקרא Some of them are based on an explicit verse, and some are based on an asmachta (a scriptural support, but not a direct derivation). He specifically notes atnan and machir as being explicitly mentioned in the Torah (Devarim 23:19). Yotzei dofen is excluded from kedushat bechor by "כי יולד" (Vayikra 27:26, applied to ma'aser and bechorot). Tereifa is included in "משחתם בהם מום בם" (Vayikra 22:25), where Chazal connect hashchatah to ervah (sexual transgression) and avodah zarah.

A significant chiddush from the Rambam emerges in his distinction between muktzah and ne'evad regarding hana'ah. He clarifies:

וכבר נתבאר בשלישי מס' ע"ז שהדברים הנעבדים אינם אסורים בהנאה אלא [א"כ] יש בהם תפיסת יד אדם ולפיכך מי שעבד הר או ים או בעלי חיים אין אותו דבר אסור בהנאה ולפיכך אמרו זה וזה מותרין באכילה רוצה לומר המוקצה והנעבד אבל הדבר שהוא על הנעבד כגון חלי זהב וכסף ה"ז אסור בהנאה לפי שאותו דבר כבר נעבד ויש בו תפיסת ידי אדם כמו שנתבאר בשלישי ממסכת ע"ז And it has already been explained in the third chapter of tractate Avodah Zarah that worshipped items are not prohibited for benefit unless they have "t'fisat yad adam" (a human handhold, i.e., made by human hands or actively used for worship). Therefore, if one worshipped a mountain or a sea or animals, that item is not prohibited for benefit. This is why they said "this and this are permitted for consumption," meaning muktzah and ne'evad. However, an item that is on the worshipped object, such as gold or silver jewelry, is prohibited for benefit, because that item has already been worshipped and has "t'fisat yad adam," as explained in the third chapter of tractate Avodah Zarah.

Rambam's chiddush here is to link the din of ne'evad in Temurah to the broader principles of avodah zarah issur hana'ah found in Avodah Zarah 3:7-8. A natural ne'evad (like an animal) is mutar b'hana'ah because it lacks t'fisat yad adam, similar to a worshipped mountain or sea. However, its accessories, if they were also worshipped, are assur b'hana'ah. Conversely, for muktzah l'avodah zarah, the Rambam states:

וכשאמר זה לעבודת כוכבים לא נאסר לפי שעיקר בידינו אין הקדש לעבודת כוכבים When one designated this for idol worship, it is not prohibited [for hana'ah] because we hold the principle that there is no 'hekdesh' (consecration) for idol worship. This profound principle, "אין הקדש לעבודה זרה" (Avodah Zarah 2:3), means that merely designating something for avodah zarah does not confer upon it any inherent sanctity or prohibition. It only becomes assur if actual ma'aseh avodah zarah (an act of worship) is performed with it or to it, or if it has t'fisat yad adam. Therefore, muktzah l'avodah zarah is only pasul for the Mizbei'ach (likely an asmachta to kodshim concepts, or a gezeirat hakasuv in certain contexts), but mutar b'hana'ah for the animal itself, and even its accessories are mutar because no act of worship was performed with them.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Temurah 6:1:1-2

The Tosafot Yom Tov (TYT) offers several sharp insights and cross-references.

1. "אוסרין כל שהן": He notes this din is also taught in Zevachim 8:1 and that both sources are necessary ("וצריכי כמ"ש שם"). This implies that while the din is common, its reiteration in different contexts serves to broaden its application or provide additional details. (Tosafot Yom Tov Temurah 6:1:1 s.v. osrin kol shehen).
2. "הרובע והנרבע": TYT clarifies the context for the prohibition of rove'a v'nirba (an animal involved in bestiality) for the Mizbei'ach. He explains that this refers to a situation where the act was witnessed by only one witness, or by the owners themselves, but not by two full eidei re'iyah. Why?

   דאלו בשני עדים היה נאסר אפי' להדיוט For if it were [witnessed] by two witnesses, it would be prohibited even for a commoner (i.e., subject to stoning and forbidden for consumption). This is a crucial chiddush. If the animal was subject to stoning (Shemot 22:18), its consumption would be prohibited mid'Oraita. The Mishnah here, listing animals forbidden only for the Mizbei'ach but otherwise permitted for hana'ah (as stated later for muktzah/ne'evad and implied for others), must refer to a scenario where the issur is specifically for the Mizbei'ach and not general issur hana'ah. This occurs when the act is known but not with the full evidentiary standards for beit din. He also notes that the pasuk in Shemot 21:28 ("ולא יאכל את בשרו") concerning a noge'ach (goring ox) doesn't directly apply, suggesting a distinct derivation for rove'a v'nirba. (Tosafot Yom Tov Temurah 6:1:2 s.v. harove'a v'hanirba).

3. "והטרפה": TYT clarifies how a tereifa could be pasul for the Mizbei'ach in a way that necessitates bitul b'rov. He suggests it applies when a tereifa is mixed with other animals (e.g., a lion-mauled animal), or in the case of a tereifa's offspring according to R' Eliezer's view at the end of the Mishnah, who prohibits them. (Tosafot Yom Tov Temurah 6:1:3 s.v. v'hatereifa).

Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Mishnah Temurah 6:1:1

R' Akiva Eiger (RAE) raises a perceptive kushya regarding the Mishnah's list of pesulim:

וקשה לי אמאי לא חשיב הנדמה דג"כ פסול להקרבה והוי יותר רבותא מכלאים And it is difficult for me, why does it not list "hanidmeh" (an animal that appears to be a human), which is also disqualified from being offered and is a greater stringency than kilayim? The nidmeh (or adam) is a hybrid creature, born from an animal but resembling a human. It's discussed in Bava Kamma 77a and Bechorot 12a, being pasul for kodshim and having complex dinim. RAE questions its omission, noting its severity, perhaps even greater than kilayim (crossbred animals) which is listed. He points to Tosafot Bechorot 57a and Tosafot Bava Kamma 77a which address this very question on similar Mishnayot. (Tosafot R' Akiva Eiger Temurah 6:1:1 s.v. v'hakilayim).

Friction

Kushya: The Case of the Omitted Nidmeh

The most striking kushya arising from this Mishnah is the one posed by Tosafot R' Akiva Eiger: Why does the Mishnah omit Hanidmeh (an animal born resembling a human) from its comprehensive list of animals disqualified from the Mizbei'ach? The Mishnah lists kilayim (crossbred animals), tereifa, and yotzei dofen – categories that deal with biological anomalies or deviations from natural birth. Nidmeh fits this mold, being an animal born with an abnormal, human-like appearance. Furthermore, Tosafot in Bava Kamma 77a (s.v. hu) and Bechorot 57a (s.v. chutz) explicitly state that nidmeh is pasul for kodshim. Indeed, one could argue, as RAE does, that its pesul is even more rabba (stringent) or unique than kilayim, given its ambiguous status between human and animal, raising fundamental questions about its chayut and tzura. Its omission from such a detailed and foundational list of pesulei Mizbei'ach seems incongruous.

Terutz: Categorization and the Nature of the Pesul

The Tosafot in Bechorot 57a (s.v. chutz l'adam) and Bava Kamma 77a (s.v. hu) indeed grapple with this omission in similar lists. While they do not provide a definitive terutz in every context, a synthesis of their approaches and general lomdus can offer a compelling explanation.

1. Nature of the Pesul: The Mishnah here is primarily concerned with animals that are born as animals but then become disqualified due to an action performed upon them (e.g., rove'a, nirba, atnan, machir, ne'evad), an intention concerning them (muktzah), an inherent biological flaw that develops (tereifa), or their specific mode of birth (yotzei dofen), or parentage (kilayim). Nidmeh, however, presents a different halachic problem. It is not merely a pasul animal; its very existence challenges the definition of "animal" or "human." Some poskim view it as a briah chadasha (a new, anomalous creation) or as a creature that, due to its human-like tzura, cannot be considered a regular animal for kodshim purposes. Its pesul is rooted in its fundamental identity rather than a specific din of kedusha or tum'ah that applies to a regular animal.
2. Scope of the Mishnah's List: The Mishnah's list in Temurah 6:1 appears to focus on pesulim that are primarily issur hakravah and mutar b'hana'ah (with the muktzah/ne'evad nuances). Nidmeh has a more complex din regarding hana'ah; the Tosafot in Bechorot 57a discuss whether it is assur b'hana'ah like a human corpse or mutar like an animal. If its issur extended to hana'ah due to its human tzura, it might not fit neatly into this list, which primarily deals with issurim specific to the Mizbei'ach.
3. Rarity: While kilayim and tereifa are relatively common occurrences, nidmeh is an extremely rare, almost mythical, phenomenon. The Mishnah might be listing pesulim that were more practically relevant and commonly encountered in the Temple service. In essence, the Mishnah here provides a practical guide to common pesulim that affect animals otherwise fit for offering. Nidmeh's challenge is to the very definition of what constitutes an "animal" for kodshim, placing it in a separate, more fundamental category that perhaps transcends the scope of this specific enumeration.

Intertext

Devarim 23:19: The Foundation of Atnan and Machir

The primary source for the prohibition of atnan (prostitute's payment) and machir (dog's price) is Devarim 23:19:

לֹא תָבִיא אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וּמְחִיר כֶּלֶב בֵּית ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְכָל נֶדֶר כִּי תוֹעֲבַת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם. 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, for both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God. This pasuk is pivotal. The Mishnah (Temurah 6:2) meticulously derives several halachot from its phrasing:

• "גם שניהם": This ribbui (inclusion) teaches "שנים ולא ארבעה" – that only these two specific cases are prohibited, thus excluding payment for intercourse with a dog (אתנן כלב) or the price paid to a prostitute (מחיר זונה) when purchasing her. This demonstrates the precise nature of gezeirat hakasuv (Torah enactment) in defining issurim.
• "אותם" (implied): The Mishnah infers "אותם ולא את ולדותיהם" – that the prohibition applies to them (the atnan or machir animal itself), but not to their offspring. This is a crucial limmud for pru u'rvu (procreation) in the context of issurim.
• "לכל נדר": This phrase is used as a ribbui to include birds in the prohibition of atnan/machir, even though birds are not typically susceptible to the same pesulim as animals (e.g., mum - blemish). This shows the Torah's expansive reach.

Avodah Zarah 5:8-9: Interplay of Issur Hana'ah and Kol Shehu

The Mishnah's discussion of muktzah and ne'evad and the principle of osrin kol shehen finds deep resonance in Masechet Avodah Zarah, particularly in chapters 3 and 5.

• Avodah Zarah 3:7-8: This Mishnah discusses the issur hana'ah of avodah zarah and its accessories. The Rambam's commentary on Temurah 6:1 directly references these sugyot to explain why muktzah l'avodah zarah is mutar b'hana'ah for the animal itself (due to "אין הקדש לעבודה זרה" and lack of t'fisat yad adam), while ne'evad is mutar b'hana'ah only if it's a natural object, but its accessories become assur if they have t'fisat yad adam. This showcases a broader halachic principle about what constitutes a prohibited object of idolatry.
• Avodah Zarah 5:8-9: These Mishnayot assert that avodah zarah items prohibit kol shehu in a mixture:

  עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְטַמְּאָה טֻמְאַת נֵבְלָה לְהוֹצִיא מִידֵי טֻמְאָתָהּ... וְהָעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה, וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן An idol conveys the ritual impurity of a carcass, to remove it from its impurity... And the idol and one who uses it are prohibited for benefit, and prohibit in any amount. (Avodah Zarah 5:8) The principle "אוסרין בכל שהן" for avodah zarah is a highly stringent din, rooted in its severe nature. The Mishnah in Temurah applies this same stringency to all issurei Mizbei'ach, drawing an implicit parallel in terms of the gravity of contaminating the sacred. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael (Temurah 6:1:1 s.v. osrin kol shehen) explicitly draws this comparison: "בדרך כלל מה שאוסר ב"כל שהוא" נחשב לחמור יותר, כגון עבודה זרה... אך טבעי הוא שתערובת במקדש אסורה בכל שהיא." This suggests that the sanctity of the Mizbei'ach demands a similar level of protection from disqualifying elements as the issur of avodah zarah demands from contamination.

Psak/Practice

The Mishnah in Temurah 6:1-2 lays down several foundational principles that permeate halacha concerning kodshim and issurim:

1. Stringency of Issurei Mizbei'ach: The klal that "כל האסורין על גבי המזבח אוסרין כל שהן" (Mishnah Temurah 6:1:1) is a bedrock principle. Unlike many issurei achila (dietary prohibitions) which are batel b'shishim (nullified in 60 parts) or batel b'rov, issurei Mizbei'ach are never nullified. This reflects the exalted sanctity of the Mikdash and its offerings, where even a minute trace of pasul renders the entire mixture unfit. This principle is a cornerstone in dinim related to hechsher kodshim (suitability of offerings).

2. Distinction Between Issur Hakravah and Issur Hana'ah: The Mishnah meticulously differentiates between objects prohibited for the Mizbei'ach and those also prohibited for mundane benefit. For muktzah l'avodah zarah and ne'evad (animals), the Mishnah explicitly states "זה וזה מותרין באכילה" (Mishnah Temurah 6:1:4), meaning hana'ah is permitted. This meta-psak heuristic teaches that an item's pesul for a specific sacred purpose does not automatically confer a general issur hana'ah, unless explicitly stated by the Torah or Chazal (e.g., avodah zarah with t'fisat yad adam). This allows for nuanced rulings in cases where an item becomes pasul from its intended sacred use.

3. Scope of Gezeirat Hakasuv: The detailed drashot from Devarim 23:19 for atnan and machir ("שנים ולא ארבעה," "אותם ולא את ולדותיהם") provide a crucial lens for interpreting Torah prohibitions. It establishes that issurim are often highly specific in their scope, applying only to the stated cases and not to similar ones, nor necessarily to their derivatives (like offspring), unless explicitly included. This limits the application of kal vachomer or binyan av in certain contexts of issurei kodesh, emphasizing the primacy of gezeirat hakasuv.

4. Kedusha Prevents Pesul: The ruling that "נתן לה קדשים, הרי אלו מותרין" (Mishnah Temurah 6:2:3) – if one pays a prostitute with kodshim, they remain permitted – is a powerful yisod. It demonstrates that an item already imbued with kedusha cannot be subsequently disqualified by a personal act of issur (like using it as atnan) because it is no longer truly the person's to prohibit. This reflects the enduring nature of kedusha and its resilience against external pesulim that arise from human actions.

Takeaway

This Mishnah meticulously delineates the boundaries and nuances of pesulei Mizbei'ach, emphasizing the rigorous standards of kedusha through the principle of kol shehu, and demonstrating how Torah exegesis precisely defines the scope of issurim and their interplay with hana'ah and existing kedusha. It teaches us the importance of subtle distinctions in halacha, where seemingly similar cases can lead to vastly different dinim.