Study Temurah folio 28B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
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 had sex 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 — תלמוד לומר ״מן הבהמה״, להוציא רובע ונרבע.
should you say the same with regard to an animal that had sex 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 had sex 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 Talmud returns to discuss the baraita that interprets the verse: “You should 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 Talmud 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?