and the prohibition against sacrificing without service vessels; and the prohibition against utilizing vessels that had been previously used for the service of a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira]; and the prohibition against using the wood of an asheira, as God commanded Gideon to sacrifice the burnt offering with the wood of an asheira that he will cut down (Judges 6:26); and the prohibition of sacrificing an animal set aside for idolatry; and the prohibition against using an animal that was worshipped as an idol.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of an animal set aside for idol worship. Rav Tovi bar Mattana says that Rabbi Yoshiya says: From where is the halakha of set-aside derived in the Torah? As it is stated with regard to the offerings: “My food that is presented to Me for offerings made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to Me, you shall safeguard it to sacrifice to Me in its due season” (Numbers 28:2), which refers to anything that is safeguarded. The Gemara initially assumes that Rabbi Yoshiya meant that any sacrifice must be safeguarded, i.e., set aside and not sacrificed immediately after its consecration.

Abaye objects to this: If that is so, then in a case where one brought a lamb that was weak as an offering, and its owner clearly did not safeguard it, so too will you say that it is unfit for sacrifice? Nowhere is it stated that an animal is disqualified for the altar because it has not been treated well. Rabbi Yoshiya said to Abaye: You misunderstood my intention; I say that the verse: “You shall safeguard it to sacrifice to Me in its due season,” should be interpreted as follows: You shall safeguard it only for Me, but not to another master. And which is this other master to which one could sacrifice? You must say that this is an object of idol worship.

The Gemara continues to discuss the definition of an animal that has been set aside for idolatry. Rava bar Rav Adda says that Rav Yitzḥak says: An animal that has been set aside for idol worship is prohibited, i.e., still considered set aside, only until it has been used for work by the attendants of that idolatry. But once it has been used it is no longer prohibited, as it will not be sacrificed to the idol afterward. Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: An animal that has been set aside for idol worship is prohibited only until it has been handed over to the attendants of idol worship for fattening for it to be eaten, even if it has not been used for any form of work. But after it has been handed over it is not prohibited, as it will not be sacrificed.

The Sage Baha says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A set-aside animal is prohibited only until its owner feeds it vetches of idolatry after it has been given to the attendants of idolatry. Rabbi Abba said to Baha: Do you dispute the statement of Ulla, who defined set-aside differently according the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan? Baha said to Rabbi Abba: No, I do not disagree with Ulla, as Ulla too, when he stated his definition, also was referring to a case where they fed it vetches of idolatry.

Rabbi Abba said: Baha knows how to explain this halakha, but had he not ascended from Babylonia to there, Eretz Yisrael, he would not have known this explanation, as Eretz Yisrael caused him to grow wise. Rav Yitzḥak said to Rabbi Abba: That is not the case, as Baha was from here and there, i.e., he became wise because he studied Torah in both places.

The Gemara continues to discuss the issue of set-aside. Rabbi Ḥananya Terita taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan: An animal that has been set aside for idolatry is prohibited only until an action has been performed upon it. He taught it and then said its explanation: What is the meaning of an action? It means until it is sheared and used for labor by the attendants of the idol.

§ The mishna teaches: Which is the animal that is worshipped as idolatry? It is any animal that one worships. The mishna proceeds to state: The consumption of both this, the animal designated for idol worship, and that, the animal worshipped, is permitted. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

Rav Pappa said that the verse states, with regard to offerings: “And one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures of Israel, for a meal offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make atonement for them” (Ezekiel 45:15). The expression: “From the well-watered pastures of Israel,” means that one brings offerings only from that which is permitted to Israel. And if it enters your mind that a set-aside animal and one worshipped as idolatry are prohibited in consumption to an ordinary person, why do I need a verse to exclude them from sacrifice to the Most High, as that would be obvious. Rather, they must be permitted in consumption to an ordinary person.

The Gemara asks: And is it true that anywhere that an item is prohibited to an ordinary person, a verse is not necessary to teach that it may not be used as a sacrifice? But there is the case of an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which is prohibited in consumption to an ordinary person, and yet a verse excludes it from sacrifice to the Most High.

As it is taught in a baraita: It was previously derived from the verse: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2), that certain animals are prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar (see 28a). When it says below, in the next verse: “If his offering is a burnt offering of the herd,” there is apparently no need for the verse to state this, as it was already stated earlier. Rather, this serves to exclude a tereifa from being brought as an offering.

The Gemara answers: In this case the derivation was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: This statement, that a tereifa may not be sacrificed, applies where it became a tereifa and afterward was consecrated as an offering. But if it was consecrated and only afterward became a tereifa, I would say that it should be permitted to the Most High, despite the fact that it is prohibited in consumption. Consequently, the derivation from the verse is necessary.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t the halakha, that an animal which became a tereifa after it was consecrated is prohibited to be sacrificed, derived from here, a verse that deals with the animal tithe: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatsoever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). The phrase: “Whatsoever passes under the rod,” indicates that the halakha of animal tithe applies only to an animal that can pass under the rod, excluding a tereifa, e.g., if its leg was cut above the knee, which cannot pass under the rod. From this paradigm case of a tereifa, the exception is expanded to apply to all tereifot.

The Gemara answers: That derivation from animal tithe was also necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: This statement, that a tereifa may not be sacrificed, applies where it did not have a period of fitness to be sacrificed before it became a tereifa, e.g., where it was born a tereifa from its mother’s womb. But in a case where it had a period of fitness and emerged into the air of the world and only afterward became a tereifa, I would say that it should be permitted to the Most High. Therefore, the phrase: “Whatsoever passes under the rod,” teaches us that even such an animal is prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar.

MISHNA: And which is the case of an animal used as payment to a prostitute, which is prohibited as a sacrifice? It is the case of one who says to a prostitute: Here is this lamb as your fee. Even if they were one hundred lambs that he gave her, all of them are considered as payment to a prostitute and are prohibited. And likewise, in the case of one who says to another: Here is this lamb and in return your maidservant will lie with my slave and engage in intercourse with him, Rabbi Meir says: Its halakhic status is not that of payment to a prostitute, and the Rabbis say: Its halakhic status is that of payment to a prostitute.

GEMARA: The Master said in the mishna: And even if they were one hundred lambs, all of them are considered as payment to a prostitute, and are prohibited. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that this is referring to a prostitute who takes one hundred animals as payment for her services, it is obvious that all one hundred animals are prohibited, as what difference is it to me if she was paid one lamb or if she was paid one hundred lambs? What, then, is the novelty of the mishna here?

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where the prostitute takes one lamb as payment, and he gave her one hundred lambs. The mishna is teaching that in this case the extra lambs are not considered a gift. Rather, all the lambs are prohibited, as they all come from the source of a payment to a prostitute.

The Gemara continues to discuss the issue of payment to a prostitute. The Sages taught in a baraita: If a man gave her an animal as payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, her payment is permitted. The Gemara asks: In a case where he gave her an animal as payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, do you call this her payment? It cannot be considered payment unless the act of intercourse was actually performed. And furthermore, in the second case, where he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, what did he give her that it is called a permitted payment?

Rather, this is what the baraita is teaching: If he gave her payment and only afterward, when some time had elapsed, engaged in intercourse with her; or if he engaged in intercourse with her and only afterward gave her payment, in these two cases her payment is permitted. The Gemara asks: But in the case where he gave her the lamb and later engaged in intercourse with her, let the status of payment to a prostitute take effect upon it retroactively. Rabbi Elazar says: