Mishnah Temurah 6:3-4

Sugya Map

• Issue: The Mishnah delineates various animals and items prohibited from sacrifice on the mizbei'ach (altar), specifying their stringencies and the scope of their prohibition, particularly when mixed with permitted items or regarding their offspring. The core focus is on atnan zona (payment to a prostitute) and mechir kelev (price of a dog).
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Prohibition Scope: Whether the item prohibits b'kol shehu (in any amount) or is subject to bitul b'rov (nullification by majority).
  • Offspring Status: Whether the offspring of prohibited animals are themselves prohibited for sacrifice.
  • Item vs. Value: Distinction between the prohibited item itself and money or other items received in exchange for it.
  • Defining Atnan/Mechir: Precise definitions of atnan zona and mechir kelev, and related concepts like atnan kelev and mechir zona, derived through drashot on Devarim 23:19.
  • Rabbinic vs. Torah Law: The interplay between halakha l'Moshe miSinai and drashat pesukim in establishing these prohibitions.
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Temurah 6:3-4; Devarim 23:19.

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah opens with a sweeping principle and then delves into specifics:

• "כל הנאסרין על גבי המזבח תערובותיהן אוסרין בכש"ה" (Mishnah Temurah 6:3:1)
  • This establishes the stringent rule of kulaso oser b'kol shehu for many issurei mizbei'ach, meaning even a minute quantity of the prohibited item renders the entire mixture unfit for sacrifice. This stands in contrast to most issurei achila which are batel b'rov.
• "איזהו מחיר כלב? האומר לחבירו: הא לך טלה זה תחת כלב זה." (Mishnah Temurah 6:3:1)
  • This provides the archetypal case for mechir kelev. The simple exchange of a lamb for a dog. The nuance here lies in the direct transactional nature.
• "שכנגד הכלב אסורים, ואותן תשעה שעמו מותרין." (Mishnah Temurah 6:3:1)
  • Referring to the case of partners dividing property including a dog and nine lambs, where one partner takes ten lambs and the other takes nine lambs and a dog. The ten lambs received "in exchange for the nine lambs and the dog" are prohibited, while the nine lambs received "with the dog" are permitted. The syntax "שכנגד הכלב" (those corresponding to the dog) is critical here, implying a proportional or collective prohibition.
• "אתנן כלב, ומחיר זונה – הרי אלו מותרין. שנאמר: שנים ולא ארבעה." (Mishnah Temurah 6:3:2)
  • The Mishnah, through a drasha on "תועבת ה' אלהיך גם שניהם" (Devarim 23:19), limits the prohibition to atnan zona and mechir kelev, explicitly excluding atnan kelev (payment for a dog's services) and mechir zona (the price paid for a prostitute, not to her). This demonstrates the precise scope derived from biblical exegesis.
• "ולדותיהן מותרין. שנאמר: אותם ולא ולדותיהם." (Mishnah Temurah 6:3:3)
  • Another drasha from the same verse, interpreting "אותם" (them) to exclude their offspring, allowing the offspring of atnan/mechir animals to be sacrificed.
• "לכל נדר - לרבות את העוף." (Mishnah Temurah 6:3:3)
  • The phrase "לכל נדר" (for any vow) in Devarim 23:19 is expounded to include birds in the prohibition of atnan/mechir, even though birds are not subject to blemishes and thus might have been excluded by kal v'chomer. This highlights how pesukim can override logical inferences.

Readings

Rambam: The Nuance of Mechir Kelev in Exchange

The Rambam, in his commentary on Mishnah Temurah 6:3:1, offers a crucial clarification regarding the case of mechir kelev when partners divide their property. The Mishnah states that when one partner receives ten lambs and the other nine lambs and a dog, "שכנגד הכלב אסורים" (those corresponding to the dog are prohibited). The Rambam interprets this to mean that the prohibition applies based on the relative value of the dog within the exchange.

Chiddush: If the value of the dog is greater than the value of a single lamb among the ten, then all ten lambs received by the first partner are prohibited. This is because, as the Rambam explains, the "extra" value of the dog, which constitutes the mechir kelev, is not concentrated in one specific lamb but rather "מצוי בכל אחד מהעשרה טלאים" (is present in each one of the ten lambs)¹. Therefore, all of them are prohibited. Conversely, if the value of the dog is equal to or less than the value of one lamb, then only one lamb is prohibited, and it can be isolated as the mechir kelev, leaving the other nine permitted. This interpretation provides a practical halachic framework for determining the extent of the prohibition in a mixed exchange, moving beyond a simple numerical count to a value-based analysis.

Tosafot Yom Tov & Rashash: The Enigma of Breirah in Mechir Kelev

The Tosafot Yom Tov (T.Y.T.) on Mishnah Temurah 6:3:1 delves into a fundamental kushya (difficulty) concerning the "ten lambs for nine lambs and a dog" case. The Gemara (implicitly referenced by T.Y.T. and explicitly in Bekhorot 57b) asks: "ליפוק חד להדי כלבא והנך כולהו לישתרו?" (Why not designate one lamb as corresponding to the dog, and permit all the others?) This question hinges on the concept of breirah (retroactive designation). The T.Y.T. notes the general principle of קי"ל דבדאורייתא אין ברירה (we hold that there is no retroactive designation in Torah law)². If ein breirah, how could one lamb be designated? And if bitul b'rov applies, why are any of the lambs prohibited beyond the one that is mechir kelev?

Chiddush (Tosafot Yom Tov citing Rav Meir): The T.Y.T. offers a significant distinction to resolve this. He quotes his teacher, Rav Meir, who posits a "כלל גדול בדין זה" (a great principle in this law): breirah does not apply when an issur was already clear (מבורר) and then became mixed with heter (permitted items). However, breirah does apply when the issur was not clear before the mixture, and the issur itself arose after the mixture³. In the Mishnah's case, the status of mechir kelev is conferred upon the exchange of the ten lambs for the dog, meaning the issur arises within the mixed transaction, not as a pre-existing prohibited lamb. According to this chiddush, breirah could potentially apply, allowing for the designation of one lamb.

Chiddush (Rashash's Critique and Refinement): The Rashash, in his supercommentary on the T.Y.T., challenges the implication that the T.Y.T. (or the Tosafot he cites) meant that breirah applies l'kula alma (according to all opinions) in such a case. The Rashash argues that the Tosafot's distinction must still be understood למ"ד דיש ברירה (according to the opinion that breirah exists)⁴. He further introduces the insight of the Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger (cited as Tosafot Chadashim), who wonders why the prohibition of mechir kelev (one lamb) mixed with nine others isn't batel b'rov mid'oraita (nullified by majority by Torah law), making the prohibition mid'rabanan (rabbinic) due to ba'alei chaim chashuvim (living beings are significant and not nullified) or davar sheb'minyan (a numbered item)⁵. If the prohibition is mid'rabanan, then the kushya about ein breirah b'de'oraita is alleviated, as breirah might apply to derabanan matters. This sophisticated analysis suggests a layered approach to the prohibition's source and stringency.

Friction

The Knotty Question of Breirah and Bitul b'Rov in Mechir Kelev

The strongest kushya arises from the Mishnah's ruling in the case of the two partners: "אחד נוטל עשרה ואחד נטל תשעה וכלב, שכנגד הכלב אסורין." (Mishnah Temurah 6:3:1) The Gemara (Bekhorot 57b, as implied by T.Y.T.) logically challenges this: Why are all ten lambs prohibited, or at least why can't we simply designate one lamb as the mechir kelev and permit the remaining nine? This question hits at two core halachic principles:

1. Bitul b'Rov: Generally, a prohibited item (an issur) mixed with a majority of permitted items (heter) is nullified (batel) b'rov if it is not min b'mino (same kind) or if it lacks ta'am (taste) or chashivut (significance)⁶. Here, one prohibited lamb (as mechir kelev) is mixed with nine permitted lambs. Mid'oraita, it should be batel. Why is it not?
2. Ein Breirah b'De'oraita: The established halacha is that ein breirah b'de'oraita (there is no retroactive designation in Torah law)⁷. If one of the ten lambs is mechir kelev, but it's undetermined which one, we cannot retroactively say, "This one was the mechir kelev all along," to permit the others. However, if this is the case, then all ten should remain prohibited due to the unresolved doubt. The kushya then is: if we cannot apply breirah, why aren't all ten prohibited due to the safek? And if we can apply breirah, then why not simply designate one and permit the rest? The Mishnah's phrasing, "שכנגד הכלב אסורים," suggests a more expansive prohibition than just a single, indeterminate lamb.

Terutz 1: The "After the Mixture" Breirah (Tosafot Yom Tov citing Rav Meir)

The Tosafot Yom Tov, citing his teacher Rav Meir, offers a crucial distinction regarding breirah. Breirah is generally inapplicable when a specific, already-prohibited item is mixed with heter. However, in the mechir kelev case of the partners, the issur does not exist on a pre-designated lamb before the exchange. Rather, the issur of mechir kelev arises upon the exchange itself, where a group of ten lambs is exchanged for a group of nine lambs and a dog⁸. The issur is not on a particular lamb that was already mechir kelev and then got mixed. Instead, the very act of exchange creates the mechir kelev status within the distributed property. In such a scenario, where the issur becomes definite after the initial "mixture" (i.e., the exchange), breirah can apply. This allows for the designation of one lamb as the mechir kelev and the permission of the others, provided the value allows for such a clear designation (as per Rambam's explanation).

Terutz 2: Rabbinic Prohibition and Bitul b'Rov (Rashash and Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger)

The Rashash, building on the Tosafot Chadashim (R' Akiva Eiger), suggests a different approach. They argue that mid'oraita, the one mechir kelev lamb should be batel b'rov among the ten lambs. Therefore, the prohibition on the remaining nine, or the entire mixture, is not d'oraita but mid'rabanan⁹. The Chachamim then prohibited the entire group because ba'alei chaim chashuvim (living beings are significant) and thus are not nullified, or due to davar sheb'minyan (a numbered item cannot be nullified)¹⁰. If the prohibition on the majority is mid'rabanan, then the kushya regarding ein breirah b'de'oraita is circumvented. Breirah can apply to derabanan prohibitions, or the Rabbis, in their enactment, might have allowed for a designation. This terutz shifts the weight of the prohibition from d'oraita to mid'rabanan in the mixed scenario, allowing for a more flexible application of breirah or a different justification for the expanded prohibition.

Intertext

Devarim 23:19-20: The Foundational Verse

The primary textual anchor for this Mishnah is Devarim 23:19-20 (in some numbering systems, 23:18-19): "לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב בית ה' אלהיך לכל נדר כי תועבת ה' אלהיך גם שניהם"¹¹. This verse explicitly prohibits bringing atnan zona and mechir kelev as offerings to the Beit HaMikdash. The Mishnah directly engages with this verse, employing precise drashot to derive its intricate halachot.

The phrase "גם שניהם" (both of them) is interpreted by the Mishnah to mean "שנים ולא ארבעה" (two, not four)¹². This limits the prohibition to atnan zona and mechir kelev, excluding atnan kelev and mechir zona, which might otherwise have been included through broader interpretations. Similarly, the Mishnah derives "אותם ולא ולדותיהם" (them, but not their offspring) from the word "שניהם," indicating that the prohibition applies only to the direct atnan or mechir animal, not its progeny¹³. The Mishnah further expounds "לכל נדר" (for any vow) to "לרבות את העוף" (to include birds)¹⁴, demonstrating how Chazal use textual nuances to expand the scope of halakha beyond simple inference. This intricate drasha highlights the rigorous hermeneutic process by which biblical texts are transmuted into detailed legal principles, making the verse the very bedrock upon which the entire sugya is constructed.

Avodah Zarah 16b-17a: The Ethical Dimension of Atnan

A fascinating intertextual parallel, which sheds light on the ethical and symbolic weight of atnan zona, appears in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Biqurim 1:6, 64b) and Bavli (Avodah Zarah 16b-17a). This sugya recounts the famous story of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus being arrested for minut (heresy) and his subsequent recollection of a teaching by Yaakov Ish Kefar Sakhnia, a Jewish-Christian, regarding atnan zona. Yaakov Ish Kefar Sakhnia poses the question: "מהו לעשות הימנו בית הכסא לכג (לרבים)?" (What is the halakha concerning using atnan zona to build a public latrine?). He then provides an answer in the name of Yeshu HaNotzri: "כי מאתנן זונה קבצה ועד אתנן זונה ישובו – ממקום הטנופת באו, למקום הטנופת ילכו" (For from the hire of a harlot they gathered it, and to the hire of a harlot they shall return [Micah 1:7] – from a place of filth they came, to a place of filth they will go)¹⁵.

This narrative, while seemingly tangential, profoundly illuminates the moral underpinnings of the atnan zona prohibition. Beyond its unsuitability for the altar, the atnan is associated with tinofet (filth) and moral degradation. The idea that such earnings should return to a place of impurity (a latrine) underscores the complete rejection of its source. This echoes the sentiment "תועבת ה' אלהיך" (an abomination to the Lord your God) from the biblical verse, indicating that the prohibition on the altar is not merely technical, but deeply rooted in a theological and ethical aversion to items obtained through illicit means. It also highlights the intellectual engagement with such prohibitions even in potentially heretical contexts.

Psak/Practice

The halachot derived from Mishnah Temurah 6:3-4 are codified in the Shulchan Aruch and later poskim, predominantly in Yoreh De'ah which deals with issurei hana'ah (prohibitions of benefit) and issurei mizbei'ach where they overlap.

Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 117: This section addresses atnan and mechir kelev directly.

• Prohibition Scope: The Shulchan Aruch reiterates the Mishnah's ruling that atnan zona and mechir kelev are prohibited for sacrifice¹⁶. The principle of "שנים ולא ארבעה" is upheld, confirming that atnan kelev and mechir zona are permitted for sacrifice.
• Offspring: "אותם ולא ולדותיהם" is also codified, meaning the offspring of atnan or mechir kelev animals are permitted for sacrifice¹⁷.
• Non-Animal Items: The Mishnah's ruling that if money is given as atnan, one may purchase an offering with it (as money itself is not sacrificed), but items like which are sacrificed (e.g., wine, oil, flour) are prohibited, is also reflected in halakha¹⁸. The chiddush of "לרבות את העוף" is also affirmed, prohibiting birds given as atnan or mechir¹⁹.
• Rabbinic vs. Majority: The machloket between R' Meir and Rabanan regarding "Here is this lamb and your maidservant will lie with my slave" (i.e., payment for a slave's intercourse) is typically decided halacha k'Rabanan, meaning it is considered atnan and prohibited²⁰.

Meta-Psak Heuristics: This sugya exemplifies a crucial meta-halachic heuristic: the existence of specific issurim that prohibit b'kol shehu (in any amount) for sacrificial purposes. Unlike most issurei achila, which can be batel b'rov, certain items, especially those involving gilui arayot, avodah zarah, or extreme moral turpitude (like atnan and mechir kelev), maintain their prohibitive status regardless of ratio when offered on the altar. This underscores the altar's elevated sanctity and its rejection of any offering tainted by severe moral or ritual impurity, even to a minute degree. The detailed drashot and machlokot demonstrate the poskim' commitment to understanding the precise boundaries and nuances of these prohibitions, ensuring that the mizbei'ach remains untainted.

Takeaway

The Mishnah meticulously crafts a framework for sacrificial prohibitions rooted in moral and ritual impurity, revealing the profound depth of Chazal's exegetical method in deriving intricate halachot from terse biblical verses, particularly concerning the stringencies of breirah and bitul b'rov in sacred contexts.

---

¹ Rambam, Mishnah Commentary, Temurah 6:3:1 s.v. "איזהו מחיר כלב האומר לחבירו." ² Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 6:3:1 s.v. "שכנגד הכלב אסורים." ³ Ibid. ⁴ Rashash, Temurah 6:3:1 s.v. "בתוי"ט ד"ה שכנגד הכלב כו'." ⁵ Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Temurah 6:3:1 s.v. "[אות יב] תוס' חדשים ד"ה לכאורה י"ל." ⁶ See e.g., Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 98-100. ⁷ See e.g., Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 207:1. ⁸ Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 6:3:1 s.v. "שכנגד הכלב אסורים." ⁹ Rashash, Temurah 6:3:1 s.v. "בתוי"ט ד"ה שכנגד הכלב כו'." ¹⁰ Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Temurah 6:3:1 s.v. "[אות יב] תוס' חדשים ד"ה לכאורה י"ל." ¹¹ Devarim 23:19. ¹² Mishnah Temurah 6:3:2. ¹³ Mishnah Temurah 6:3:3. ¹⁴ Mishnah Temurah 6:3:3. ¹⁵ Bavli Avodah Zarah 16b-17a. ¹⁶ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 117:1. ¹⁷ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 117:2. ¹⁸ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 117:3. ¹⁹ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 117:4. ²⁰ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 117:1 (Rema's note on the case).