Temurah 7a — the Talmud in English

And what is the novelty in this matter? And why is a special derivation needed to include that it is forbidden to dedicate it? Because

it might have entered your mind

it might have entered the mind to say:

Granted, at the outset

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

we do not know whether this one will be designated for it

for we did not know whether, through the lot, the blemished one would be designated as the goat that is sent inside for the sake of the Lord;

but here

when he is no longer drawing lots,

since the designation has been recognized

since the lot has already fallen upon the second one for the sake of the Lord, while this one is blemished and will be sent to Azazel, it might have entered your mind that

he does not receive lashes; this teaches us

the beraita teaches us that nevertheless—it is forbidden to profane it and to dedicate 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:

even

he transgresses a sixth prohibition, because of

the receiving of 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 broken, or torn, or cut, you shall not offer to the Lord,”

and what does this teach? Is it not already stated twice, “You shall not offer”? Rather,

this is the receiving of the blood that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said.

And the Gemara asks:

But according to the first tanna,

who did not expound a prohibition for the receiving of the blood,

what do I need this “you shall not offer” for?

And we answer:

He needs it

this third verse is expounded as a prohibition concerning

the sprinkling of the blood.

And we raise an objection:

But he derives it

the sprinkling of the blood has already been expounded in the beraita

from “upon the altar”

there, verse 22?

And we answer: The sprinkling of the blood is not derived from “upon the altar,” and it is not superfluous for a derivation, because

it is the way of the verse that it speaks in this manner

that is, it is the manner of the Scriptures to speak thus.

And the Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, also

how does he expound “you shall not offer” [verse 24] for the receiving of the blood? It is needed for the sprinkling of the blood, and the sprinkling cannot be expounded from “upon the altar,” because

it is the way of the verse.

And we answer:

Indeed so!

But from where does he derive the receiving of the blood

from where does he derive a prohibition concerning the receiving of 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 offer,”

and from the fact that “you shall not offer” is stated a fourth time, we expound:

this is the receiving of the blood that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said

for which one transgresses a prohibition.

And the Gemara asks:

But according to the first tanna,

who does not expound it for the receiving of the blood,

what do I need this “you shall not offer” 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 of a foreigner. And why was it necessary to teach this to us? And why might it have entered the mind that a gentile could offer a blemished offering, something forbidden to an Israelite? Because

it might have entered your mind

it might have entered the mind to say:

since the descendants of Noah were not commanded

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

but

they were commanded

concerning one lacking limbs

when a complete limb is missing from the offering. Therefore, it might have entered the mind that

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

just as it is permitted for him to offer a blemished animal upon an altar that he built for himself, so it is permitted for him to offer a blemished animal upon our altar, in the Temple;

this teaches us

the verse, “And from the hand of a foreigner you shall not offer ... any of these,” to forbid accepting a blemished offering from the hand of a foreigner.

Another version:

We learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: Even for the receiving of the blood

he transgresses a prohibition.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

As it is written

there, verse 24:

“And one crushed, or broken, or torn, or cut, you shall not offer,”

and we expound:

this is the receiving of the blood.

.

And

if

the sprinkling, he derives it from “upon the altar,”

to transgress a prohibition concerning the sprinkling.

And we object:

And according to the Rabbis

the first tanna,

they too should derive it

for it is possible to include

the sprinkling from “upon the altar,”

and “you shall not offer” would remain for the receiving of the blood?

And we answer:

Indeed so

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

But rather

there is a difficulty:

“You shall not offer,” which

is written concerning

the crushed one—for what does it come

for what derivation did the Torah write it?

And we answer:

He needs it “you shall not offer”

“you shall not offer”

to

we learned a prohibition against offering a blemished animal at

a private altar

during the time when private altars were permitted.

And we object:

And according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda

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

he needs this for a private altar?

And we answer:

Indeed so,

from this verse we indeed expound the matter of a private altar—

But

there is a difficulty:

“You

shall not offer,” concerning the receiving

the prohibition of receiving the blood,

from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

From

another verse, which is stated [verse 25]:

“And from the hand of a foreigner you shall not offer”—this is the receiving of the blood.

And the Rabbis,

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

It was necessary

for the prohibition itself against offering a blemished offering of a foreigner. Because

it might have entered your mind

it might have entered the mind to say:

since the descendants of Noah are not commanded

concerning the prohibition against offering a blemished animal,

but concerning

an offering that is

lacking a limb

a complete limb, when they offer

on their private altar

their own, therefore

let us say

it might have entered the mind to say:

We too shall accept from them

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

this teaches us

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

any of these,”

which are all the blemishes enumerated there in the passage,

that we do not accept

just as we do not accept such animals from Israelites.

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

Reish Lakish challenges him,

he asked about the words of the beraita: From where is it known that concerning all blemished animals one transgresses “You shall not dedicate,” including an animal born with its blemish?

Perhaps we learned

that one receives lashes for the dedication

only in the case of an originally unblemished animal

from birth

that became blemished

and he dedicated it while it was blemished; for then it is possible to say: since it was originally unblemished, the one who dedicated it thought that although it now has a blemish, nevertheless, “I shall dedicate it and offer it.” And since he thought so and intended to offer it and bring it upon the altar, he therefore receives lashes.

For if

it was originally blemished

then

it is merely a palm tree

it is simply a palm tree [by way of illustration], and one can say that he never intended to dedicate it to the altar, and knew that it was unfit for the altar, and dedicated it so that it would be sold, and with its money they would purchase an offering. And Reish Lakish asked: Why should he receive lashes for dedicating an animal that was originally blemished?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said to him: “One that is overgrown and one that has closed hooves” is written in this passage

one of whose limbs has become elongated [larger than the other], or whose hooves are closed [joined together],

and these are animals blemished from the outset.

These blemishes exist from the time of their birth, and concerning them the Torah spoke when it prohibited dedicating them.

He said to him

Reish Lakish to Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef:

Perhaps we learned only concerning substitution

it is possible that the prohibition against dedicating animals originally blemished applies only when one substitutes for them, and substitution differs from other dedication because

we learned

below, 16b:

There is a stringency in substitution over consecrated things,

, «поскольку замена приобретает святость даже при постоянном увечье»

for substitution takes effect upon a permanently blemished animal.

That is, an animal with a permanent blemish for which one substituted another becomes sacred with complete sanctity, and does not leave the sphere of non-sacred things to become permitted for shearing and work even if he redeems it, unlike other consecrated animals that were dedicated while unblemished and afterward became blemished. In this respect substitution differs from other consecrated animals that were dedicated while blemished from the outset, whose law is that they leave the sphere of sacred things through redemption and are permitted for shearing and work—

Therefore, Reish Lakish asks, it is possible to say that the prohibition concerning dedicating an animal originally blemished, derived from “one that is overgrown and one that has closed hooves,” applies specifically when he “substituted” a sacrificial animal for an animal originally blemished, since substitution takes hold with complete sanctity upon an animal with a blemish. But when he established initial sanctity upon an animal originally blemished, one can always say that he does not transgress the prohibition and does not receive lashes, since it is merely a palm tree, as explained?

Rabbi Yohanan said to him

to Reish Lakish: Is it possible that

you have not heard this which Rabbi Yannai said: They were counted in an assembly

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

and they concluded,

and reached the conclusion that

one who dedicates a blemished animal for the altar

and performs all its services

transgresses on account of five designations

explained above.

And

now,

if

as you ask, that the prohibition of dedication applies specifically to substitution, there is a difficulty:

in substitution too there would be six

for there are six prohibitions,

since there is also the prohibition of substitution,

so why did they conclude that there are only five? It is compelled to say that the matter does not concern one who substitutes, nor one who establishes initial sanctity. Reish Lakish said to him: But rather, what what is your conclusion from the words of the Sages who counted and concluded, that the matter concerns

an animal blemished from the outset

and he dedicated it with initial sanctity? If so, you still have not answered my question:

why does he receive lashes

for the dedication? Is it not

merely a palm tree

and he never dedicated it except for its value, and no sanctity of an offering took effect upon it at all?

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish: It is not comparable to one who dedicates a palm tree, because

a palm tree—

it is not a matter of disgrace

there is no disgrace in this, since

it is a species of tree,

and even if he explicitly dedicated it, there is nothing in this. But in the case of one who dedicates

an animal originally blemished, it is a matter of disgrace

there is disgrace in this,

since he abandons [

that is, leaves]

an unblemished animal and dedicates blemished animals,

therefore

he is liable

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

Another version:

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish:

Even so,

although it has no sanctity at all—

it is a disgraceful matter

he did something that contains disgrace.

For if he dedicated

a palm tree,

which

has no counterpart among its species,

there being no tree fit for the altar [that is, for an offering], there is no disgrace in this, and what he dedicated is merely empty words; therefore—

he does not receive lashes. In contrast,

in the case of one who dedicates

an animal with a blemish, since there is a counterpart among its species

other unblemished animals fit for an offering, and he dedicated a blemished animal and performed a disgraceful act, therefore—

he receives lashes.

Rava said: Now that they have stated the reason

after the reason was stated, that

a blemished animal, for which he receives lashes

is

because it is a disgraceful matter,

if so,

even if he dedicated it for the value of libations

that is, one who dedicates a blemished animal so that it will be sold and with its value they will purchase libations—

he also receives lashes.

,

even if he consecrated it for the value of libations,

That is,

if the transgression in dedicating a blemished animal were because of the animal itself while it was blemished, it would be possible to say that if he dedicated it initially for the purpose of purchasing another offering with its value, 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 dedicating an unblemished animal and dedicated a blemished one, there is no difference between whether he dedicated it for the purpose of offering it or for the purpose of selling it.

And even if he dedicated it for the purpose of purchasing libations with its value, although in the case of libations there is not so much disgrace—for with regard to libations it is certainly merely a palm tree, since there is no species of animal fit for libations—nevertheless, he transgressed the prohibition and receives lashes. For the transgression is only the very abandonment of unblemished animals and the dedication of a blemished animal. And the Gemara explains: And this statement of Rava is not agreed upon by all the tannaim, but

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.

it is a dispute among the tannaim

it depends upon a dispute among the tannaim.

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.