Mishnah Temurah 6:5-7:1

Sugya Map

• Issue: The halachic status of valdot (offspring) of animals disqualified for sacrifice on the Mizbeach (altar), specifically focusing on vald tereifa (offspring of a mortally wounded animal) and kesheirah sheninkah min ha'tereifa (a kosher animal that suckled from a tereifa).
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Whether these animals are permitted for korban (altar sacrifice) or prohibited l'dorot (for all generations) or l'sha'as (temporarily).
  • The scope of the issur: does it apply l'gavoha (to sacred uses, i.e., the Mizbeach) only, or also l'hedyot (for ordinary, profane consumption)?
  • The underlying sevara (reasoning) for disqualification: issur gufa (prohibition on the animal's essence), cheser b'chiyut (lack in vitality), or gezeira (rabbinic decree) for kedusha (sanctity).
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Temurah 6:5-7:1
  • Devarim 23:19 ("לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב בית ה' אלהיך לכל נדר")
  • Sifrei Devarim 23:19 (implied drasha)
  • Mishnah Chullin 8:5
  • Mishnah Avoda Zarah 2:5
  • Talmud Bavli, Temurah 30b (implied)
  • Talmud Bavli, Chullin 116b
  • Talmud Yerushalmi, Avoda Zarah 2:7 (41c)

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah introduces a general principle regarding valdot of pesulei Mizbeach:

כל האסורין על גבי המזבח, ולדותיהן מותרין. רבי אליעזר אומר: ולד טרפה לא יקרב על גבי המזבח. וחכמים אומרים: יקרב. רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר: כשרה שינקה מן הטרפה פסולה מעל גבי המזבח. (Mishnah Temurah 6:5)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

• "כל האסורין על גבי המזבח" (all that are prohibited on the altar): This general statement sets the stage, implying the issur primarily concerns sacred use.
• "ולדותיהן מותרין" (their offspring are permitted): This is the klal (general rule), which R' Eliezer and R' Chanina ben Antigonus then challenge with specific chumrot (stringencies).
• "לא יקרב על גבי המזבח" (shall not be sacrificed on the altar): R' Eliezer's wording explicitly limits the prohibition to the Mizbeach, leaving open the possibility of hetter (permission) for hedyot. The Chachamim's counter "יקרב" (shall be sacrificed) directly opposes this.
• "פסולה מעל גבי המזבח" (disqualified from the altar): R' Chanina ben Antigonus's lashon echoes R' Eliezer's, reinforcing the restriction to sacred use. The Mishnah's construction – a general hetter followed by specific issurim – highlights the exceptional nature of these chumrot.

Readings

Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Temurah 6:5:1

The Rambam elucidates the general principle and the specific machloktot. For vald nirba'ah (offspring of an animal that copulated with a person), he distinguishes: if the mother was chullin (non-sacred) and then became pregnant and gave birth, the vald is permitted. However, if she was pregnant when she was nirba'ah, the vald is prohibited, as "היא וולדה נרבעו" (she and her offspring copulated). This implies ubar yerech imo (the fetus is like its mother's thigh) applies to issurei gufa.

Regarding vald tereifa, Rambam explains R' Eliezer's position: "סבת תולדת הולד הזה היא האם שהיא טרפה" (the cause of this offspring's birth is the mother, who is a tereifa). He views the vald as an extension of the tereifa mother. Conversely, Chachamim reject ubar yerech imo in this context, holding that once the vald is born and separated, it is considered independent.

For R' Chanina ben Antigonus's chiddush concerning "כשרה שינקה מן הטרפה" (a kosher animal that suckled from a tereifa), Rambam limits the issur to "באותו היום בלבד שינקה" (only on the day it suckled), because the consumed milk "מתעכל" (digests). If it has digested, even if the animal fattened on krishnin shel avodah zarah (vetch from idol worship), it is permitted. The Rambam concludes with a definitive psak: "ואין הלכה כר"א וכרבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס" (the halacha is not according to R' Eliezer and R' Chanina ben Antigonus), aligning with the Chachamim's more lenient view. This psak underlines a preference for the klal of valdot mutarim and a rejection of the specific chumrot.

Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 6:5:3

The Tosafot Yom Tov delves into the sevara behind the dispute concerning vald tereifa. He quotes Rashi's peirush that the vald is not "אדוק בגופה" (attached to her body) but "תלוי באויר" (suspended in the air) and created independently, hence its primary growth isn't from the mother. However, the Tosafot Yom Tov immediately rejects Rashi's implication that vald tereifa is permitted l'hedyot, citing a clear halacha in Perek Eilu Treifot that it is assur even l'hedyot. He asserts that the machloket in our Mishnah is specifically l'gavoha (for the altar), intended "להודיעך כחן דרבנן דאפי' לגבוה נמי שרי" (to inform you of the strength of the Rabbis' position that it is permitted even for the altar).

The Tosafot Yom Tov then provides a crucial distinction from vald nirba'ah. For nirba'ah or noggachat (an animal that gored), the issur is an "issur gufa" which extends to the vald via ubar yerech imo. However, tereifot is a matter of "חיות ובריאות" (vitality and health). Since "אנו רואין הולד חי ובריא" (we see the offspring is alive and healthy), we cannot say it became tereifa with its mother. The vald's independent chiyut overrides the mother's pesul tereifa. This chiddush clarifies why the klal of valdot mutarim applies to tereifa but not necessarily to all issurei gufa.

Rashash, Temurah 6:5:1

The Rashash critically examines the sevara for valdot mutarim. He points out a potential inconsistency in Rambam's approach to vald nirba'ah between his Mishnah Commentary and Mishneh Torah. While the Mishnah Commentary suggests vald nirba'ah is assur if the mother was pregnant when nirba'ah, Mishneh Torah (Hil. Issurei Mizbeach 3:13) might imply a broader hetter. The Rashash then proposes an alternative sevara for valdot mutarim that could reconcile such issues: the principle of "אישתנו" (they have changed). This sevara, mentioned in the Gemara (Temurah 30b) in the name of Rava b. R. Nachman, argues that the vald is a new entity, distinct from its prohibited mother. This "אישתנו" principle would apply even if the male parent was also prohibited, as the vald is a transformation. The Rashash supports this by citing Rambam's ruling (Hil. Issurei Mizbeach 3:14) that chittim (wheat) from a kumah (stalk) worshipped as avoda zarah are permitted for Minchot because "הרי נשתנו" (they have changed), analogous to valdot. This sevara of ishtanu provides a robust, unifying chiddush for the general hetter of valdot.

Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Temurah 6:5:1-4 & 6:5:5-21

Mishnat Eretz Yisrael offers a textual analysis, noting nusach variations and the structure of the Mishnah. It highlights that the machloket is initially presented as specific to vald tereifa but notes a Tosefta that implies R' Elazar (another version of R' Eliezer) disputes the klal for all pesulei Mizbeach. However, it argues that the Mishnah's nusach likely stands, with the machloket indeed focused on vald tereifa.

The commentary then provides a deep dive into R' Chanina ben Antigonus's din of kesheirah sheninkah min ha'tereifa. It links this halacha to a broader discussion in Mishnah Chullin (8:5) and Avoda Zarah (2:5) concerning kivas neveilah (stomach of a carcass) and gevina shel goyim (gentile cheese). The Mishnah in Avoda Zarah presents a dialogue where R' Yishmael questions R' Yehoshua about the gezeira on gentile cheese, which R' Yehoshua struggles to explain fully, eventually deflecting the question. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael posits that R' Yehoshua's reluctance stemmed from the gezeira's lack of a purely technical-halachic ta'am, being instead a chumra rooted in "טהרה וקדושה" (purity and sanctity) for Korbanot and a desire to distance from non-Jews.

Crucially, Mishnat Eretz Yisrael notes the evolution of this halacha: "הירושלמי אומר במפורש שזו משנה ראשונה בלבד" (the Yerushalmi explicitly states this is only the Mishnah Rishonah). The Mishnah Acharonah (later ruling) permits using kivas neveilah for cheese and allows a kosher animal that suckled from a tereifa even l'hedyot, as the milk in its stomach is considered "פירשא בעלמא" (mere waste). This shift, from a chumra for kedusha to a more lenient technical view, reflects a "ניצחון הדרך המשפטית מחד גיסא, ועמעום הלכת המקדש שכבר נשכחה מהחשיבה ההלכתית היום-יומית מאידך גיסא" (a victory of the legalistic approach on the one hand, and a fading of Temple law from daily halachic thought on the other). It frames R' Chanina ben Antigonus's position as an initial, stringent stance within a broader move towards hidur in the Temple, which was later re-evaluated.

Friction

The Stubborn Stance of Tereifa

The primary friction point lies in R' Eliezer's chiddush that "ולד טרפה לא יקרב על גבי המזבח" (the offspring of a tereifa shall not be sacrificed on the altar), contradicting the general klal that "כל האסורין על גבי המזבח, ולדותיהן מותרין" (all animals prohibited from the altar, their offspring are permitted). What makes vald tereifa so different from, say, vald nirba'ah (offspring of an animal that copulated with a person), whose hetter seems to be more explicitly debated? Moreover, R' Chanina ben Antigonus's chumra on a kosher animal merely suckling from a tereifa further heightens the tension with the foundational klal. Why are these two cases singled out for such stringency, especially when the Rambam and the Chachamim ultimately reject them?

The Terutz: Issur Gufa vs. Cheser B'Chiyut and the Evolving Gezeira

The Tosafot Yom Tov (Temurah 6:5:3) offers a potent terutz for the distinction between vald tereifa and other valdot, particularly those of issurei gufa like nirba'ah. He explains that issurei gufa – where the issur is inherent to the animal's physical being (e.g., nirba'ah due to an act, ne'evad due to idol worship) – can extend to the fetus via the principle of ubar yerech imo. If the mother was already pregnant when the issur took hold, then "היא וולדה נרבעו" (she and her offspring copulated) or "היא וולדה נעבדו" (she and her offspring were worshipped). In such cases, the vald inherits the mother's issur because its very formation and existence are intertwined with the prohibited state of the mother.

However, tereifa is fundamentally different. It represents a "חסרון בחיות ובבריאות" (deficiency in vitality and health), a physiological pesul. The Tosafot Yom Tov argues that if the vald is born "חי ובריא" (alive and healthy), then its chiyut (vitality) stands independently of the mother's tereifut. The vald does not inherit the mother's physiological defect in the same way it might inherit an issur gufa. R' Eliezer, in his chumra, might extend the ubar yerech imo concept even to tereifa, viewing the vald's life as inextricably linked to the mother's impaired state. Yet, the Chachamim's sevara prevails: the vald's independent health severs the connection to the mother's pesul.

As for R' Chanina ben Antigonus's chumra on kesheirah sheninkah min ha'tereifa, Mishnat Eretz Yisrael (Temurah 6:5:5-21) provides a crucial contextual terutz. This din is not based on a permanent issur gufa or cheser b'chiyut, but rather on a gezeira or heightened standard of kedusha. In the era of the Beit HaMikdash, there was a drive for hidur (beautification/stringency) in Korbanot. R' Chanina, known for his stringency in Mumei Bekhorot, likely advocated for an elevated level of purity for anything offered on the Mizbeach. The milk of a tereifa was seen as introducing a "שמץ של טרפה" (a trace of tereifa) into the kosher animal, making it unsuitable for the altar. However, as Mishnat Eretz Yisrael demonstrates, this gezeira was eventually relaxed. The Mishnah Acharonah (later ruling) considered the milk "פירשא בעלמא" (mere waste) once digested, thus eliminating the issur. This evolution reflects a nuanced understanding of gezeirot: while important for safeguarding kedusha, they can be re-evaluated if their underlying ta'am is deemed weak or if conditions change (e.g., the absence of the Beit HaMikdash diminishing the immediate need for such extreme hidur). The Rambam's psak of ein halacha k'R' Eliezer v'k'R' Chanina thus represents the triumph of the Chachamim's more technically-driven, less gezeira-prone reasoning.

Intertext

Sifrei Devarim 23:19 – "אותם ולא ולדותיהם"

The Mishnah's general principle "כל האסורין על גבי המזבח, ולדותיהן מותרין" finds explicit support in a drasha from Devarim 23:19: "לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב בית ה' אלהיך לכל נדר כי תועבת ה' אלהיך גם שניהם." The Mishnah (Temurah 6:6) itself explicates that from the word "אותם" (them), we derive "אותם ולא ולדותיהם" (them, but not their offspring). This exegetical gymnastics provides a Scriptural bedrock for the general permission of valdot. The passuk refers to "אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב" (payment of a harlot and price of a dog), explicitly prohibiting these specific animals, but not their progeny. This drasha thus serves as a powerful hermeneutic tool, establishing a klal that issurim of korbanot are generally limited to the item itself, not extending to its natural biological extensions unless explicitly stated. This highlights the default assumption in Halacha that valdot are distinct entities.

Mishnah Chullin 8:5 / Avoda Zarah 2:5 – The Enigmatic Gezeira

R' Chanina ben Antigonus's chumra concerning "כשרה שינקה מן הטרפה פסולה מעל גבי המזבח" (a kosher animal that suckled from a tereifa is disqualified from the altar) resonates deeply with the broader discussions in Mishnah Chullin 8:5 and Avoda Zarah 2:5. These Mishnayot tackle the prohibition of gevina shel goyim (gentile cheese), with R' Yehoshua offering various ta'amim (reasons) to R' Yishmael, such as the use of kivas neveilah (stomach of a carcass) or kivas egalei avodah zarah (stomach of calves used for idol worship) as a coagulant. R' Yehoshua's struggle to provide a fully satisfying halachic rationale, eventually resorting to deflecting the question ("השיאו לדבר אחר", Avoda Zarah 2:5), suggests a gezeira whose underlying ta'am might not be purely technical but rather rooted in a desire for hidur or separation.

Mishnat Eretz Yisrael connects these sugyot by noting that R' Chanina's chumra in Temurah, like the initial gezeira on gentile cheese, likely stemmed from a desire to maintain an elevated standard of kedusha for korbanot. The fear was that even a trace of tereifa milk would compromise the kedusha of the animal offered on the Mizbeach. However, just as the gezeira on gevina shel goyim evolved (the Mishnah Acharonah in Chullin 116b eventually permitted cheese made with kivas neveilah after digestion), R' Chanina's chumra on kesheirah sheninkah was ultimately rejected. The parallel suggests a recurring pattern in Halacha: gezeirot rooted in abstract notions of kedusha or hidur, while initially stringent, are subject to re-evaluation and often yield to more technical-halachic reasoning over time, especially when the immediate context for extreme stringency (e.g., the active Beit Hamikdash) changes.

Psak/Practice

The psak halacha decisively follows the Chachamim against the stringent views of R' Eliezer and R' Chanina ben Antigonus. The Rambam, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Temurah 6:5:1), explicitly states: "ואין הלכה כר"א וכרבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס" (the halacha is not according to R' Eliezer and R' Chanina ben Antigonus). This means that:

1. Offspring of a Tereifa: A vald tereifa is permitted for sacrifice on the Mizbeach (and certainly for hedyot consumption, assuming it is healthy), as its independent vitality overrides the mother's pesul.
2. Kosher Animal Suckled by a Tereifa: A kesheirah sheninkah min ha'tereifa is permitted for sacrifice on the Mizbeach. The milk, once ingested and digested, is not considered to impart a lasting issur or pesul.

The meta-psak heuristic gleaned from this sugya is the tension between the general principle (klal) and specific stringencies (chumrot or gezeirot) driven by a desire for hidur in kedusha. While hidur is often laudable, Chachamim generally prefer to adhere to established klalim and robust, technically sound sevarot unless a gezeira is clearly necessary and its ta'am sustainable. The rejection of these particular chumrot demonstrates a preference for the vald's independent halachic status and a pragmatic view of ingested substances.

Takeaway

The sugya illuminates the nuanced application of issurim to offspring, establishing a default hetter for valdot unless a specific issur gufa (like a pregnant nirba'ah) or a lasting pesul applies. The rejection of R' Eliezer's and R' Chanina's chumrot underscores Chachamim's preference for halachic clarity and independent vitality over broader, less defined notions of kedusha-based stringency.

---

Footnotes

1. Mishnah Temurah 6:5.
2. Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Temurah 6:5:1.
3. Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 6:5:3 s.v. "ולד טרפה ר"א אומר לא יקרב."
4. Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Temurah 6:5:1.
5. Ibid.
6. Tosafot Yom Tov, Temurah 6:5:3 s.v. "ולד טרפה ר"א אומר לא יקרב."
7. Ibid.
8. Rashash, Temurah 6:5:1 s.v. "במשנה כל האסורים כו'."
9. Talmud Bavli, Temurah 30b.
10. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 3:14.
11. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Temurah 6:5:1-4.
12. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Temurah 6:5:5-21.
13. Mishnah Avoda Zarah 2:5.
14. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Temurah 6:5:5-21.
15. Talmud Yerushalmi, Avoda Zarah 2:7 (41c).
16. Talmud Bavli, Chullin 116b.
17. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Temurah 6:5:5-21.
18. Mishnah Temurah 6:5.
19. Devarim 23:19.
20. Mishnah Temurah 6:6.
21. Mishnah Temurah 6:5.
22. Mishnah Chullin 8:5; Mishnah Avoda Zarah 2:5.
23. Mishnah Avoda Zarah 2:5.
24. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Temurah 6:5:5-21.
25. Talmud Bavli, Chullin 116b.
26. Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Temurah 6:5:1.