Mishnah Temurah 6:3-4

Hook

Ever wonder why a seemingly innocent lamb, perfectly fit for the altar, could be totally disqualified? This Mishnah dives deep into the surprising origins that render offerings unfit, revealing a complex interplay of moral repugnance and halakhic precision.

Context

The prohibitions discussed here, particularly regarding "payment to a prostitute" (אתנן זונה) and "price of a dog" (מחיר כלב), stem directly from Deuteronomy 23:19: "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." The Mishnah unpacks the full scope and intricate limitations of this biblical command.

Text Snapshot

"With regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited... These are the animals whose sacrifice is prohibited: An animal that copulated with a person... and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog..." (Mishnah Temurah 6:3)

"And likewise, in the case of two partners who divided... one took ten [lambs] and one took nine [lambs] and a dog. Sacrifice of the ten lambs taken by the partner in exchange for the nine lambs and the dog is prohibited, and sacrifice of the nine lambs that were taken by the partner with the dog is permitted." (Mishnah Temurah 6:3)

"Furthermore, with regard to the two prohibited cases of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted, as it is stated “them,” and not their offspring." (Mishnah Temurah 6:3)

Close Reading

Insight 1: Defining the "Price of a Dog"

The Mishnah’s example of partners dividing property highlights the nuanced definition of "price of a dog." When one partner receives ten lambs for nine lambs plus a dog, all ten lambs become prohibited. This isn't about physical contamination but about the value exchange.

Insight 2: The Scope of Prohibition

While the initial animals are prohibited, the Mishnah explicitly states that "sacrifice of their offspring is permitted." This limits the prohibition's reach, suggesting it targets the direct instrument of the illicit transaction, not its biological consequences.

Insight 3: Moral vs. Material

The Mishnah distinguishes between the animal itself and other items. If money is given as atnan, it's permitted to buy an offering, but "wine, or oil, or flour, or any other item the like of which is sacrificed on the altar, sacrifice of those items is prohibited" (Mishnah Temurah 6:4). This reveals a tension: the prohibition applies to items that could directly become an offering, even if they aren't animals.

Two Angles

The discussion around the partners dividing property (Temurah 6:3) sparks debate among commentators. The Rambam (Commentary on the Mishnah, Temurah 6:3:1) explains that if the dog's value is more than any single lamb, the "price of the dog" is effectively spread across all ten lambs received, thus prohibiting all of them. This implies a careful valuation of the exchange. In contrast, Tosafot Yom Tov (Temurah 6:3:1), citing the Gemara and Tosafot, raises the question of briyah (designation). Why can't one lamb simply be designated as the "price of the dog" and the other nine permitted? This reflects a focus on the legal mechanism of how the prohibition takes effect, especially in mixtures, and whether an item's status can be retroactively "chosen."

Practice Implication

This Mishnah underscores that the source of an offering is as critical as its physical perfection. It teaches us to scrutinize the origins of what we dedicate to sacred purposes, ensuring its purity extends beyond physical attributes to its ethical and transactional history.

Chevruta Mini

1. The Mishnah permits the offspring of prohibited animals but prohibits certain items (wine, oil, flour) given as atnan. What principle might explain this distinction?
2. The Mishnah distinguishes between an animal "set aside for idol worship" (itself prohibited, accessories permitted) and one "worshipped" (itself and accessories prohibited). What does this tell us about the weight of intent versus direct worship in defining a forbidden object?

Takeaway

The purity of an offering is not merely physical; its halakhic acceptability hinges on its untainted origins and ethical history.

[Sefaria URL: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Temurah_6%3A3-4]