We continue with Maseches Temurah, chapter 6, mishnah 4 - another mishnah dealing with the payment given to a harlot and the price of a dog.
"Nasan lah kesafim - harei eilu mutarim"
If the harlot received her payment not in the form of a lamb but in actual money, and likewise if a dog was purchased with actual money, the money is permitted: one may use it to buy a lamb and bring it as a korban. The prohibition takes effect on the body of the animal that was given, and not on the money with which the transaction was carried out.
"Yeinos, shemanim usolasos"
By contrast, if the payment given for the harlot or for the dog was wine, oil or fine flour - items fit for libations and meal offerings - they are forbidden. The same law applies to anything that is offered on the mizbeach:
Wine and oil for libations.
Fine flour for meal offerings.
Frankincense.
Wood for the arrangement on the mizbeach.
Salt.
Incense.
All of these items, if they were given to the woman or if a dog was purchased with them, may not be brought on the mizbeach. The source of this law is in the wording of the verse: "l'chol neder" - the verse comes to include everything that a person donates, and these items are included as well.
"Nasan lah mukdashin - harei eilu mutarim"
If the item that was given had already been consecrated beforehand, it remains permitted. In other words, a person who consecrated an animal as an olah, and afterward used that consecrated animal to pay the harlot or to purchase a dog - the animal is still valid as a korban. The attempt to disqualify it came too late, and he no longer has the power to disqualify it.
At first glance this law seems self-evident, and it does not appear to be specific to consecrated animals: someone who pays for the purchase of a dog with a lamb stolen from his friend does not disqualify the lamb, since it was never his to begin with, so he could not disqualify it. The same should be true of consecrated animals - they have left the owner's possession and belong to Hashem, and a person has no ability to use them as payment and thereby disqualify them.
However, the mishnah is teaching a novel point here, one that relates to the korban Pesach. Even though a person sets aside an animal and declares, "This lamb shall be my korban Pesach," he still retains a monetary right in it, since it is in his hands to determine who the members registered to eat from it will be. This right is comparable to a financial asset: a person can say to his friend, "Give me your dog, and I will include you among those registered for my korban Pesach." Since there is real economic value here, one might have thought that when those monetary rights are sold, the Pesach becomes disqualified. Regarding this the derashah of "l'chol neder" teaches that this is not so: "neder" refers to things that a person donates from now on, and not to something that has already been vowed and consecrated in advance as a korban Pesach.
"Ofos - harei eilu asurin"
Birds too are included in the prohibition: if a person exchanges birds for a dog, they may not be used for an olas ha'of (a bird burnt offering) or a chatas ha'of (a bird sin offering). At first glance, why did the Mishnah need to teach us this? In what way is a bird different from a meal offering or an animal sacrifice?
The answer is that there is a kal vachomer here that looks correct but is in fact flawed, and the Mishnah comes to reject it: "Shehayah badin: umah im mukdashin shehamum posel bahen - ein etnan umechir chalin aleihen, ofos she'ein hamum posel bahen - eino din shelo yehei etnan umechir chalin aleihen?" - for it would have followed logically: if consecrated animals, which a blemish does disqualify, are nevertheless not subject to etnan and mechir, then birds, which a blemish does not disqualify, should certainly not be subject to etnan and mechir. And this is how the argument is to be understood:
With consecrated animals: a consecrated animal becomes disqualified once it develops a blemish, and even so etnan and mechir do not take effect upon it - if a person used an animal that had already been consecrated in order to acquire a dog, the animal is not disqualified. Its resistance to this particular disqualification is therefore stronger.
With birds: a bird that was consecrated and then developed a blemish is not disqualified, since the rules of blemishes for birds are far more lenient - a blemish that is not noticeable from a distance is not considered a blemish at all. Birds are therefore even more resistant to disqualification than consecrated animals.
If so, does it not follow logically that etnan and mechir should not take effect upon them, and that they should not be disqualified through being used as the fee of a harlot or as the price of a dog?
To this the Mishnah responds: "Talmud lomar 'lechol neder' - lehavi etnan" - the verse teaches "for any vow", to include an etnan. The word "any" comes to include everything that a person donates, and birds are included as well. From here we learn that unconsecrated birds that were used to purchase dogs, or that were given as the fee of a harlot, are likewise forbidden to be brought as an offering.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned that money given as an etnan or as a mechir is permitted, while wines, oils and fine flours, as well as anything offered upon the altar - frankincense, the wood of the arrangement, salt and incense - are forbidden, as derived from "for any vow". We also learned that consecrated animals given as an etnan or as a mechir are permitted, since they have already left the owner's possession, and the Pesach offering is included in this despite the monetary interest attached to it. Finally, we examined the kal vachomer that sought to exclude birds from the prohibition, and its rejection from the verse "for any vow", which includes birds in the prohibition as well.