Talmud - Temurah 7a תמורה ז׳ א׳

Since it might enter your mind to say that granted, if one does this initially, before the lottery, we do not know if this blemished animal will be designated as the one sacrificed to the Lord or sent to the wilderness. Therefore, the one who consecrated the blemished animal is flogged. But here, since it is already clear that the other animal is to be sacrificed to the Lord, and the one he consecrates will be sent to the wilderness, perhaps he is not flogged for consecrating it. The verse therefore teaches us that this is also a violation of the prohibition and he is flogged.

§ The Master said above: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: One who sacrifices a blemished animal violates a prohibition against the collection of the blood as well. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “That which has its testicles bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, you shall not offer unto the Lord” (Leviticus 22:24). The phrase “You shall not offer unto the Lord” is apparently superfluous, as the Torah already stated earlier: “But whatever has a blemish, you shall not offer” (Leviticus 22:20). Rather, this extra phrase is referring to the collection of the blood, for which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that one is liable.

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, who holds that one is not liable for collection of the blood per se, why do I need this phrase: “You shall not offer,” stated with regard to damaged testicles? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that one is liable for sprinkling the blood. The Gemara challenges: But he derives this from the phrase: “Upon the altar” (Leviticus 22:22), which indicates that one may not sacrifice any part of such an animal on the altar, even its blood. The Gemara answers: With regard to that phrase, the first tanna holds that it is simply the normal manner of the verse that it speaks like this. It does not teach any additional halakha.

The Gemara challenges: But also according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, one may claim that this is the normal manner of the verse. Why does he derive a halakha from this phrase? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. He does not derive liability for sprinkling of the blood from the phrase “upon the altar.” Rather, from where does he derive the prohibition against collection of the blood? He derives it from this verse: “Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them; there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you” (Leviticus 22:25). This verse is referring to the collection of the blood when sacrificing a blemished animal, for which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that one is liable.

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, who holds that one is not liable for collection of the blood, why do I need this phrase: Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach this halakha: It may enter your mind to say that since the descendants of Noah are commanded only with regard to the sacrifice of an animal lacking limbs but they are permitted to sacrifice animals with minor blemishes, perhaps there is no difference if this is performed on their altar outside the Temple or if it is done on our altar in the Temple. Accordingly, one might claim that a gentile may sacrifice a blemished animal in the Temple in Jerusalem. The verse therefore teaches us that they may not sacrifice a blemished animal in such a manner.

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the discussion. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One violates a prohibition for the collection of the blood as well. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “That which has its testicles bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, you shall not offer unto the Lord” (Leviticus 22:24). This verse is referring to the collection of the blood. And he derives the prohibition against sprinkling the blood from the phrase: “Upon the altar” (Leviticus 22:22).

The Gemara objects: And according to the Rabbis as well, who hold that one is not liable for collection of the blood, let them derive liability for sprinkling the blood from the phrase “upon the altar.” The Gemara explains that it is indeed so, that they derive it from that phrase. But for what purpose comes the phrase “You shall not offer” with regard to bruised testicles? We learn from this phrase the prohibition of the sacrifice of a blemished animal even on a private altar, where offerings were sacrificed before the construction of the Temple.

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, how can he then derive the prohibition against collection of the blood of a blemished animal from the phrase “You shall not offer”? After all, he requires this phrase to render prohibited sacrifice on a private altar. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, where does he find another instance of the term “shall offer” for prohibiting collection of the blood? From the following verse: “Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them; there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you” (Leviticus 22:25). This verse is referring to the collection of the blood.

And the Rabbis maintain that this verse is necessary for a different halakha, as it may enter your mind to say that since the descendants of Noah are commanded only with regard to sacrificing an animal lacking a limb on their private altar but are permitted to sacrifice animals with minor blemishes, perhaps we should accept blemished offerings from them in the Temple as well. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the use of the phrase “of any of these” that we do not accept them.

§ The baraita cited earlier stated that one who consecrates a blemished animal violates several prohibitions, but it did not differentiate between animals born with blemishes and those that acquired them during their lives. Reish Lakish objects to this: Perhaps we learned the prohibition only with regard to an unblemished animal that became blemished, and only one who consecrates such an animal transgresses the prohibition. As, if he consecrated an animal that was blemished from the outset, it is akin to consecrating a mere date palm, and his presumed intention is to consecrate its value, with the proceeds from its sale being used to purchase an offering. This would be permitted.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said to Reish Lakish: The blemishes mentioned in the phrase in the verse that states: “Either a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short” (Leviticus 22:23), are written in the passage that prohibits the sacrifice of blemished animals, and animals such as these are blemished from the outset.

Reish Lakish said to Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef: Perhaps in the case of animals born with blemishes, we learned the prohibition only with regard to substitution, as we learned in a mishna (16b): There is greater stringency with regard to a substitute than there is with regard to the initial consecration of an offering, as, if one substituted a non-sacred animal with a permanent blemish for a consecrated unblemished animal, the blemished animal is imbued with sanctity. But initial consecration of an animal with such a blemish is effective only with regard to its value, so perhaps one who does so is exempt from punishment.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Didn’t you hear that which Rabbi Yannai says, that when the Sages sat in a group, their opinions were counted and they concluded: One who consecrates blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar violates five separate categories of prohibition. But if the baraita is also referring to a case of substitution, there are six categories, as there is also the prohibition of performing substitution. Reish Lakish responded: Rather, what can you say? Is the baraita speaking of one who consecrated an animal that is blemished from the outset? Why then is he flogged? It is akin to one who consecrates a mere date palm.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: There is a difference between the cases. When one consecrates a date palm, the matter is not disgraceful, as it is a type of wood that one may burn on the altar. Therefore, he is not flogged. By contrast, when one consecrates an animal that is blemished from the outset, the matter is disgraceful. Since he forsook unblemished animals and consecrated blemished animals, he is liable to be flogged.

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous point. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Nevertheless, the matter of consecrating an animal blemished from the outset is disgraceful. For in the case of a date palm, as there is no item of its type that can be sacrificed as an offering, he is not flogged for consecrating it. This is to the exclusion of a blemished animal; since there are items of its type that can be sacrificed as offerings, i.e., unblemished animals, he is flogged for consecrating it.

Rava said: Now that it has been said that the reason that one who consecrates a blemished animal is flogged is due to the fact that the matter is disgraceful, then even one who consecrates it to be sold and its money used for purchasing libations should be flogged as well, as consecrating a blemished animal is in and of itself a disgraceful act.

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Temura 7a examines whether consecrating a blemished animal for the scapegoat lottery incurs flogging, and debates liability for collecting or sprinkling its blood.