Temurah 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

And what is the novelty of this matter? And why is a special derivation necessary to include that it is forbidden to consecrate it? Because

one might have thought

it might have entered one's mind to say:

Granted, initially,

at the beginning of the consecration, while it still requires a lottery, it is forbidden to bring a blemished animal, because

we do not know whether this one will be designated for that purpose,

as we do not know whether, through the lottery, the blemished one will be designated as the goat that is sent inside for the sake of the Lord;

but here,

when he no longer conducts a lottery,

since its designation is recognizable,

since the lot for the Lord has already come up on the other one, while this one, being blemished, will be sent to Azazel, one might have thought that

he would not be liable for lashes; it teaches us,

the beraita teaches us that nevertheless it is forbidden to disqualify it and consecrate it, since it is blemished.

The Master said:

the Gemara continues to explain the beraita.

We learned in the beraita:

They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda:

also

he violates a sixth prohibition, because of

receiving the blood.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?

The verse says

there, verse 24]:

“And one crushed, or beaten, or torn, or cut, you shall not bring near to the Lord,”

and what does this teach? Was it not already stated twice, “You shall not bring near”? Rather,

this refers to receiving the blood, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said.

And the Gemara asks:

But according to the first tanna,

who did not derive a prohibition for receiving the blood,

what does he need this “You shall not bring near” for?

And we answer:

He needs it

this third verse is expounded as a prohibition against

sprinkling the blood.

And we raise an objection:

But he derives it,

behold, sprinkling the blood was already derived in the beraita

from “upon the altar”

[verse 22]?

? And we answer: Sprinkling the blood is not derived from “upon the altar,” and that phrase is not superfluous for a derivation, because

it is the manner of the verse to speak in this way,

that is, it is the manner of the biblical verses to phrase matters thus.

And the Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, too,

how does he derive from “You shall not bring near” [verse 24] the prohibition against receiving the blood? It is needed for sprinkling the blood, and sprinkling cannot be derived from “upon the altar,” because

it is the manner of the verse.

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so!

But from where does he derive the prohibition against receiving the blood

where does he derive a prohibition concerning receiving the blood?

He derives it from this

from another verse, which is stated [verse 25] concerning the offerings of gentiles:

“And from the hand of a foreigner you shall not bring near,”

and from the fact that “you shall not bring near” is stated a fourth time, we derive:

this refers to receiving the blood, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said,

for violating it one incurs a prohibition.

And the Gemara asks:

But according to the first tanna,

who does not derive this for receiving the blood,

what does he need this “You shall not bring near” for?

And we answer: This verse is not superfluous for a derivation, because

he needs it for this,

for the prohibition itself against offering a blemished offering belonging to a foreigner. And why was it necessary to teach this? Why might it have entered one's mind that a gentile may offer a blemished offering, although this is forbidden to a Jew? Because

one might have thought

it might have entered one's mind to say:

Since the descendants of Noah were not commanded,

when offering offerings to Heaven upon an altar they built for themselves, they are not forbidden to offer a blemished animal,

but

they were commanded

concerning an animal lacking limbs,

when an entire limb is missing from the sacrifice. Therefore, one might have thought:

it makes no difference whether on their altar or on our altar,

just as they are permitted to offer a blemished animal upon an altar they built for themselves, so they are permitted to offer a blemished animal upon our altar, in the Temple;

it teaches us

the verse, “And from the hand of a foreigner you shall not bring near ... any of these,” that it is forbidden to accept a blemished offering from a foreigner.

Alternatively:

We learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He also violates a prohibition for receiving the blood.

He violates a prohibition.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

As it is written

[there, verse 24]:

“One crushed, or beaten, or torn, or cut, you shall not bring near,”

and we expound:

this refers to receiving the blood.

.

And

if

sprinkling is derived from “upon the altar,”

to violate a prohibition for sprinkling.

And we challenge this:

And according to the Rabbis

[the first tanna],

they too should derive it,

for it is possible to include

sprinkling from “upon the altar,”

leaving “You shall not bring near” for receiving the blood?

And we answer:

Indeed,

the Rabbis derive the prohibition against sprinkling from “upon the altar.”

But then

there is a difficulty:

the “You shall not bring near” that

is written concerning

the crushed one—what does it come for,

for what derivation did the Torah write it?

And we answer:

He needs “

You shall not bring near”

to

teach us a prohibition against offering a blemished animal upon a

private altar,

during the period when private altars were permitted.

And we challenge this:

And according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

how does he derive this verse for receiving the blood? Is it not that

he needs it for a private altar?

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so,

from this verse he indeed derives the prohibition concerning a private altar—

But

there is a difficulty: “

not

bring near,” concerning receiving,

the prohibition against receiving the blood—

from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

From

another verse, which states [verse 25]:

“And from the hand of a foreigner you shall not bring near”—this refers to receiving the blood.

And the Rabbis,

who hold that this verse is not superfluous for a derivation, say:

It was necessary

for the prohibition itself against offering a blemished offering belonging to a foreigner. Because

one might have thought

it might have entered one's mind to say,

since the descendants of Noah are not commanded

concerning the prohibition against offering a blemished animal

but

only concerning an offering that is

lacking an entire limb,

when they offer it

upon their private altar

[their altar], therefore

say,

it might have entered one's mind to say:

we too may accept from them,

we may accept blemished offerings from them upon the altar in the Temple. Therefore

it teaches us

the verse, “And from the hand of a foreigner you shall not bring near the bread of your God,

any of these,”

meaning all the blemishes enumerated there in the passage,

we do not accept,

just as we do not accept such animals from Jews.

And now the Gemara returns to the beraita in which we learned that one of the five designations for which one violates a prohibition concerning a blemished animal is consecrating it.

Reish Lakish challenged it,

he asked about the statement of the beraita: From where do we know that for every blemished animal one violates “You shall not consecrate,” including an animal born with its blemish?

Perhaps we learned

that one receives lashes for consecrating it

only in the case of an originally unblemished animal

from birth

that became blemished,

and he consecrated it while it was blemished; in that case it is possible to say that since it had originally been unblemished, the one consecrating it thought: Although it now has a blemish, nevertheless I will consecrate it and offer it. And since he thought so and intended to offer it and place it upon the altar, he therefore receives lashes.

For if

it was originally blemished,

is it not

merely a date palm,

an ordinary date palm [by way of example]? One may say that he never intended to consecrate it for the altar, knowing that it was unfit for the altar, but consecrated it so that it would be sold and an offering purchased with its proceeds. And Reish Lakish asked: Why should he receive lashes for consecrating an animal that was originally blemished?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said to him: “A stretched limb and cloven hooves” are written in this passage,

referring either to one of its limbs being elongated [larger than the other], or to its hooves being cloven [joined together],

and these are animals that were originally blemished.

These blemishes are present from the time of their birth, and the Torah spoke about them when it prohibited consecrating them.

He said to him,

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef:

Perhaps we learned only concerning substitution,

perhaps the prohibition against consecrating an animal originally blemished applies only when one substitutes it, and substitution differs from other consecration, because

we learned

[below, 16b]:

There is a stringency with substitution over consecrated animals,

for substitution takes effect upon an animal with a permanent blemish.

That is, an animal with a permanent blemish for which one performed substitution becomes sacred with complete sanctity, and does not leave the realm of sanctity to become permitted for shearing and labor even if one redeems it, unlike other consecrated animals that were consecrated while unblemished and subsequently developed a blemish. In this respect substitution differs from other consecrated animals that were consecrated while already blemished, whose status is that they leave the realm of sanctity through redemption and become permitted for shearing and labor—

Therefore, Reish Lakish asks, one may say that the prohibition against consecrating an animal that was originally blemished, derived from “a stretched limb and cloven hooves,” applies specifically when one “substituted” a sacrificial animal for an animal originally blemished, since substitution takes hold with complete sanctity upon an originally blemished animal. But when one initiates consecration by consecrating an animal that was originally blemished, one may maintain that he never violates the prohibition and does not receive lashes, since it is merely a date palm, as explained?

Rabbi Yohanan said

to Reish Lakish: Is it possible that

you have not heard what Rabbi Yannai said: A group counted,

a group of Sages counted all the derivations and all the prohibitions relevant to the matter of a blemished animal in relation to an offering,

and concluded,

and reached the conclusion that

one who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar,

and performs all its sacrificial procedures,

violates five prohibitions

explained above.

And

now,

if,

if, as you asked, the prohibition of consecration applies specifically to substitution, there is a difficulty:

in substitution there would also be six,

for there are six prohibitions,

as there is also the prohibition of substitution,

so why did they conclude that there are only five? It is therefore necessary to say that the case does not involve one who performs substitution, nor one who initiates consecration.

Reish Lakish said to him:

But then what,

what is your conclusion from the words of the Sages who counted and concluded that the case involves

an animal blemished from the outset

and he consecrated it through an initial consecration? You still have not answered my question:

why does he receive lashes

for consecrating it? Is it not

merely a date palm,

and did he not consecrate it solely for its monetary value, so that no sanctity of an offering took effect upon it at all?

He said to him:

Rabbi Yohanan said to Reish Lakish: This is not comparable to consecrating a date palm, because

a date palm—

it is not a disgraceful matter,

there is no disgrace in it, since

it is a species of tree,

and even if he explicitly consecrated it, there is nothing wrong with that. By contrast, one who consecrates

an animal originally blemished—it is a disgraceful matter,

there is disgrace in it,

since he abandons

[leaves]

an unblemished animal and consecrates blemished animals; therefore

he is liable

for the very disgrace to consecrated property, even though it is clear to him that no sanctity of an offering has taken effect upon it.

Alternatively:

He said to him:

Rabbi Yohanan said to Reish Lakish:

Even so,

even though no sanctity takes effect at all,

it is a disgraceful matter,

he has done something disgraceful.

For if

he consecrated

a date palm,

since

there is nothing of its kind,

as there is no tree fit for the altar [that is, for an offering], there is no disgrace in it; what he consecrated consists merely of empty words. Therefore—

he does not receive lashes. In contrast,

when one consecrates

an animal, since there are animals of its kind,

other unblemished animals fit for offerings, and he consecrated a blemished animal, thereby doing something contemptible, therefore—

he receives lashes.

Rava said: Now that they have stated the reason,

after the reason has been stated, that

a blemished animal entails lashes,

that it is

because it is a disgraceful matter,

if so,

even if he consecrated it for the value of libations,

that is, if one consecrates a blemished animal so that it will be sold and libations purchased with its proceeds—

he also receives lashes.

That is,

if the transgression in consecrating a blemished animal were due to the animal itself being blemished, it would be possible to say that if he consecrated it initially in order to purchase another offering with its proceeds, there would be no transgression and he would not receive lashes. But now that we have concluded that the essence of the transgression is that he abandoned consecrating an unblemished animal and consecrated a blemished one, there is no difference whether he consecrated it for offering or for sale.

And even if he consecrated it in order to purchase libations with its proceeds, although there is not as much disgrace in libations—for with regard to libations it is certainly merely like a date palm, since there is no animal of a species suitable for libations—nevertheless, he has violated the prohibition and receives lashes.

Because the transgression consists solely in abandoning unblemished animals and consecrating a blemished one.

And the Gemara explains:

And this statement of Rava

is not agreed upon by all the tannaim; rather,

it is a dispute between tannaim,

it depends upon a dispute between tannaim.