כָּל הָאֲסוּרִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אוֹסְרִים כָּל שֶׁהֵן. הָרוֹבֵעַ, וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמֻּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְאֶתְנָן, וּמְחִיר, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן. אֵיזֶה הוּא מֻקְצֶה. הַמֻּקְצֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הוּא אָסוּר, וּמַה שֶּׁעָלָיו מֻתָּר. אֵיזֶהוּ נֶעֱבָד. כֹּל שֶׁעוֹבְדִין אוֹתוֹ. הוּא וּמַה שֶּׁעָלָיו אָסוּר. זֶה וָזֶה מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה: With regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, if they are intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is permitted, they prohibit the entire mixture of animals in any amount, regardless of the ratio of permitted to prohibited animals. These are the animals whose sacrifice is prohibited: An animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and the set-aside, and one that was worshipped, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or an animal crossbred from a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or an animal born by caesarean section. Which is the animal that is set-aside? It is an animal that is set aside for idol worship. The animal itself is prohibited, but that which is upon it, e.g., its jewelry and garments, is permitted to be sold in order to purchase an animal to be sacrificed. And which is the animal that was worshipped? It is any animal that a person worships as an object of idol worship. In this case, the sacrifice of both the animal itself and an animal purchased using the money from the sale of that which is upon it is prohibited. And the consumption of both this, the animal designated for idol worship, and that, the animal worshipped, is permitted.
אֵיזֶהוּ אֶתְנָן. הָאוֹמֵר לְזוֹנָה, הֵא לִיךְ טָלֶה זֶה בִשְׂכָרֵךְ, אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ, הֵא לְךָ טָלֶה זֶה וְתָלִין שִׁפְחָתְךָ אֵצֶל עַבְדִּי, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ אֶתְנָן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶתְנָן: 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.
אֵיזֶה הוּא מְחִיר כֶּלֶב. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ, הֵא לְךָ טָלֶה זֶה תַּחַת כֶּלֶב זֶה. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ, אֶחָד נָטַל עֲשָׂרָה, וְאֶחָד נָטַל תִּשְׁעָה וָכֶלֶב, שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַכֶּלֶב, אֲסוּרִים, שֶׁעִם הַכֶּלֶב, מֻתָּרִים. אֶתְנַן כֶּלֶב וּמְחִיר זוֹנָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג), שְׁנַיִם, וְלֹא אַרְבָּעָה. וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מֻתָּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) הֵן, וְלֹא וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן: And which is the case where an animal has the halakhic status of the price of a dog, and it is therefore prohibited to sacrifice the animal on the altar? It is the case of one who says to another: Here is this lamb in place of a dog. And likewise, this prohibition applies in the case of two partners who divided their common property, which included nineteen lambs and one dog, and one took ten lambs and the other 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. With regard to lambs given as payment to another for engaging in intercourse with his dog, or as the price of a prostitute to purchase her as his maidservant, their sacrifice is permitted, as it is stated: “As both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19), from which it is inferred: Two are prohibited, payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog, and not four, i.e., the additional two cases of payment for intercourse with a dog and the price of a prostitute, which are permitted. 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.
נָתַן לָהּ כְּסָפִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים, וּסְלָתוֹת, וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אָסוּר. נָתַן לָהּ מֻקְדָּשִׁין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. עוֹפוֹת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, מָה אִם הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶם, אֵין אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶם, עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן, אֵינוֹ בַדִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם), לְכָל נֶדֶר, לְהָבִיא אֶת הָעוֹף: If one gave money to a prostitute as her payment, it is permitted to purchase an offering with that money, as the money itself is not sacrificed. If he paid her with wine, or oil, or flour, or any other item the like of which is sacrificed on the altar, sacrifice of those items is prohibited. If he gave her consecrated items for her services, their sacrifice is permitted. Since they were already consecrated, they do not belong to him, and one cannot prohibit an item that is not his. If he paid her with non-sacred birds, their sacrifice is prohibited. The mishna elaborates: As, by right, it should be inferred a fortiori: If in the case of consecrated items, which a blemish disqualifies, the prohibition of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog do not take effect with regard to them; with regard to a bird, which a blemish does not disqualify, is it not right that the prohibition of payment to a prostitute and the price of a dog should not take effect with regard to them? Therefore, the verse states: “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” (Deuteronomy 23:19). This serves to include the bird in the prohibition.
כָּל הָאֲסוּרִים עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מֻתָּרִים. וְלַד טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, לֹא יִקְרַב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, יִקְרָב. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁיָּנְקָה מִן הַטְּרֵפָה, פְּסוּלָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ טְרֵפָה, אֵין פּוֹדִים אוֹתָם, שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִים אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים: The mishna adds a principle: With regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, sacrifice of their offspring is permitted. Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] shall not be sacrificed on the altar. But the Rabbis say: It shall be sacrificed. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: A kosher animal that suckled from a tereifa is disqualified from sacrifice on the altar. With regard to all sacrificial animals that became tereifot, one may not redeem them and render them non-sacred, as their consumption is forbidden and one does not redeem sacrificial animals to feed them to dogs, as this is considered a degradation of sacrificial animals.