PESULIM THAT ARE NEVER BATEL
(Mishnah): Any animal that is Pasul for a Korban (e.g. the following) forbids any mixture:
Nirva or Rove'a (it had the female or male role in bestiality);
It was Muktzeh or Ne'evad (these will be explained);
An Esnan (wages of a harlot), Mechir Kelev (an animal traded for a dog), Kil'ayim (a crossbreed), a Tereifah or a Yotzei Dofen (an animal born through Caesarian section);
Muktzeh is an animal designated for idolatry. It is forbidden, but adornments on it are permitted;
Ne'evad is anything worshipped. It and adornments on it are forbidden.
Both of them may be eaten.
(Gemara): Any of these forbids any mixture, and it is not Batel in the majority.
Question: We already learn this from another Mishnah!
(Mishnah): If any Zevach became mixed with Chata'os ha'Mesos (Chata'os that cannot be offered, they must be left to die) or with Shor ha'Niskal (an ox sentenced to be stoned), even if one was mixed with 10,000, all must die.
Question: Why does it say "even if one (Korban) was mixed with 10,000 (animals that must die)"? This is a smaller Chidush. We merely follow the majority!
Answer: It means that even if one animal that must die was mixed with 10,000 Korbanos (all must die. When we cite this Mishnah again, we explain it in this way.)
Answer: We need both Mishnayos:
If we had only that Mishnah, we might have thought that only Isurei Hana'ah forbid a mixture, but Pesulim from which one may benefit are Batel in the majority.
Question: That Mishnah also teaches about Nirva and Rove'a!
(Mishnah): If Nirva or Rove'a became mixed with Zevachim, all graze until they become blemished. We sell them, and buy new from all the money received for them, except for the least received for one animal. (We are stringent to assume that that was the Pasul.)
Answer (Rav Kahana): Our Mishnah teaches about (a mixture of) Chulin. That Mishnah teaches about Kodshim. We need both Mishnayos;
Had we learned only about Kodshim, we might have thought that these Pesulim are not Batel because it is disgraceful, but Pesulim in a mixture of Chulin are Batel.
Question: Another Mishnah teaches aboutChulin!
(Mishnah): The following are forbidden, and any amount forbids a mixture - Yayin Nesech (wine that was offered to idolatry), idolatry, hides with a hole (there is a idolatrous ritual to make a hole and remove the heart), Shor ha'Niskal, Eglah Arufah (a calf beheaded when a murdered body is found), birds used to be Metaher a Metzora, a Nazir's hair, a firstborn donkey (that was not redeemed), meat cooked with milk, the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kipur, Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah.
Answer: Had we learned only that Mishnah, one might have thought that they forbid a mixture because they are Isurei Hana'ah (alternatively - they disqualify only to people, but we would not forbid all of them to the Mizbe'ach), but the Pesulim in our Mishnah are Batel;
Had we learned only our Mishnah, we might have thought that Pesulim are not Batel to permit to the Mizbe'ach, but they are Batel for people to benefit from them.
ANIMALS PASUL FOR HAKRAVAH
(Beraisa): "Min ha'Behemah" excludes Rove'a and Nirva.
Question: A Kal va'Chomer should exclude them!
A Ba'al Mum is Pasul for a Korban, even though no transgression was done with it. A transgression was done with Rove'a and Nirva, all the more so they should be Pasul for Korbanos!
Answer: We disprove this from Kil'ayim;
One may not work with an ox and donkey together, but if one did so, the ox is still valid for a Korban.
Question: You cannot learn from Kil'ayim, since the animals are not killed for it. Rove'a and Nirva are killed!
Answer: They are killed only when two witnesses testify to the bestiality. We need the verse for a case in which only one witness or the owner testifies to the bestiality!
(Continuation of Beraisa - R. Shimon): Two witnesses (about the Mum) do not forbid eating a Ba'al Mum, yet one witness forbids offering it. Two witnesses (about bestiality) forbid eating Rove'a and Nirva. All the more so one witness forbids offering it!
"Min ha'Behemah" excludes Rove'a and Nirva.
Question: Why does he need a verse? His Kal va'Chomer should exclude them!
Answer (Rav Ashi): There is a flaw in the Kal va'Chomer. A Ba'al Mum is recognizable (without testimony). We cannot learn to Rove'a and Nirva, which are not recognizable;
Because they are not recognizable, one might have thought that they are valid for Korbanos. The verse teaches that this is not so.
(Continuation of Beraisa): "Min ha'Bakar" excludes Ne'evad.
Question: A Kal va'Chomer should exclude it!
Esnan and Mechir Kelev are Pasul for Korbanos, but if they were covered (e.g. with silver), the covering may be used for (a plating on) the Mizbe'ach. A covering on a Ne'evad is forbidden to the Mizbe'ach, all the more so a Ne'evad is Pasul for a Korban!
Answer: If not for the verse, we could learn the Kal va'Chomer oppositely!
Esnan and Mechir are Pasul (for the Mizbe'ach), but their covering is valid. A Ne'evad is valid, all the more its covering is valid!
Question: A verse explicitly forbids the covering on a Ne'evad - "Lo Sachmod Kesef v'Zahav Aleihem v'Lakachta Lach"!
Answer: Perhaps this forbids only coverings on inanimate idolatry, but coverings on a Ne'evad (animal) would be valid, just like the animal!
Therefore, the verse is needed to forbid a Ne'evad.
Question (Rav Chananya): Another verse forbids coverings on idolatry! "V'Ibadtem Es Shemam" includes anything made for them! (The extra verse forbids even a Ne'evad animal!)
Answer: No, that teaches to give disgraceful names for idolatry;
We call Beis Galya (which connotes "exposed"), "Beis Kalya" ("confined"; some texts - "Beis Karya," alluding to a bathroom). We call Pnei ha'Molech "Pnei ha'Kelev." We call Ein Kol "Ein Kotz" (a thorn).
Question: Why do we expound the verses this way, and not oppositely, i.e. "Min ha'Behemah" excludes Ne'evad, and "Min ha'Bakar" excludes Rove'a and Nirva!
Answer: In the Parshah of bestiality it says "v'Ish Asher Yiten Shechavto bi'Vehemah". (This associates Rove'a and Nirva with "Behemah".) Regarding idolatry it says "va'Yamiru Es Kevodam b'Savnis Shor." (This associates Ne'evad with cattle.)
(Continuation of Beraisa): "Min ha'Tzon" excludes Muktzeh;
"U'Min ha'Tzon" excludes Noge'ach (an animal that killed a person).
R. Shimon says, we need separate verses to exclude Rove'a and Noge'ach, for each has different laws;
Rove'a is disqualified whether it was forced or not. This does not apply to Noge'ach;
Noge'ach obligates (its owner to pay) Kofer. Rove'a does not.
Question: The following Tana learns from a different verse!
(Beraisa): Rove'a and Nirva are like Ba'alei Mumim that were Hukdeshu when they had a temporary Mum. They require a permanent Mum to be redeemed - "Ki Mashchasam Bahem Mum Bam."
Question: How do we learn this from the verse?
Answer: The Beraisa is abbreviated. It means as follows.
Question: What is the source that they are forbidden?
Answer: It says "Ki Mashchasam Bahem Mum Bam";
(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "Hashchasah" always refers to sexual immorality and idolatry (and these are equated to Mumim);
Regarding sexual immorality it says "Hishchis Kol Basar Es Darko";
Regarding idolatry it says "Pen Tashchisun va'Asisem Lachem Pesel."
Question: What does Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael exclude from "Min ha'Behemah," "Min ha'Bakar" and "Min ha'Tzon"?
Answer: He excludes old, sick, and putrid animals.
Question: Our Tana used these exclusions for Rove'a and Nirva (and Muktzeh and Ne'evad). What is his source to disqualify old, sick, and putrid animals?
Answer: He learns from "Min ha'Tzon... Min ha'Kesavim Oh Min ha'Izim."
Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael does not expound these, for it is normal for verses to speak this way.
(Mishnah): Muktzeh is an animal designated for idolatry.
Version #1 (Reish Lakish): Muktzeh is not forbidden until it was designated for seven years - "Kach... u'Far Sheni Sheva Shanim." (Hash-m wanted Gid'on to provoke the worshippers of Ba'al by offering to Hash-m an animal they had been waiting so long to offer. If we assume that it was Muktzeh almost seven years, this explains why the Gemara did not immediately ask that it was one may not offer Muktzeh.)
Version #2 - (Reish Lakish): Muktzeh is forbidden only until seven years. (Afterwards, it would not be offered for idolatry ) - "Kach... u'Far Sheni Sheva Shanim" (since it was seven years old, it was now permitted to offer it to Hash-m). (end of Version #2)
Question: It was not merely Muktzeh. (R. Gershom - the verse calls it "Ba'al". This shows that) it was also Ne'evad! (How could Gid'on offer it?! Since it was forbidden in any case, Reish Lakish has no source for his teaching)!
Answer #1 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): It was Muktzeh to be Ne'evad, but it was never Ne'evad.
Answer #2 (and refutation of Reish Lakish's support - Rava): We can say that it was Ne'evad, like R. Aba:
(R. Aba bar Kahana): This was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a special temporary ruling). Hash-m commanded Gid'on to do eight transgressions that night:
He offered outside the Mikdash (in Shilo), at night, he was a Zar, he offered without Klei Shares, he used Kelim used to worship an Asheirah and wood of an Asheirah, and he offered a Muktzeh and Ne'evad animal.