Menachot

It may even be slaughtered by reason of that blemish.1 R. Judah says, It may not be bled2 even though it would otherwise die.3 R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, All agree4 that whosoever leavens [the meal-offering] after it was already leavened5 is liable, for it is written, It shall not be made leavened,6 and it is also written, It shall not be baked leavened.7 And that whosoever castrates a beast after it was already castrated8 is liable, for it is written, That which hath its stones bruised or crushed or torn off or cut, [. . . neither shall ye do thus in your land].9 Now if one is liable for cutting how much more so for tearing off! [Wherefore is the latter mentioned?] To teach that one is also liable if one tears them away after they were already cut. They4 only differ as to whether one may blemish a blemished animal. R. Meir says, It is written, There shall be no blemish at all therein;10 but the Rabbis say, It is written, It shall be perfect to be accepted.11 Against R. Meir [it will be objected], is there not written, ‘It shall be perfect to be accepted’? — That would only exclude what was born blemished.12 But what was born blemished is no better than a tree! — It excludes rather consecrated animals that have been rendered unfit [by reason of a blemish] and have been redeemed; for I might have argued that since these may not be sheared of their wool nor put to any labour it is also forbidden to inflict any further blemish upon them, we are therefore taught [that it is not so]. And against the Rabbis [it will be objected], is it not written, ‘There shall be no blemish at all therein’? — That verse is necessary for the following teaching: It is written, ‘There shall be no blemish at all therein’: I gather from this that one may not inflict any blemish upon it, but whence do I know that one may not cause it to suffer a blemish indirectly,13 [e.g.] that one may not place a lump of dough or a pressed fig upon its ear so as to tempt a dog to take it?14 The text therefore says, ‘No blemish at all’; not only does it say ‘no blemish’ but also ‘no blemish at all’. 15 R. Ammi said, If a man placed leaven upon the dough [of a meal-offering] and went and sat him down, and the dough became leavened of its own, he is liable for it, just as it is an act of work on the Sabbath.16 But would one be liable for doing such an act of work as this on the Sabbath? Has not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said results is regarded as accidental and the beast may be slaughtered on account of it; this being in accordance with R. Simeon's view that a result not intended is ignored; v. Shab. 133a. the owner would not be careful as to the place where he bleeds it and might do so even in a place from which a blemish would certainly result. blemished, for here the firstling is indeed blemished by reason of its congestion which would prove fatal if it were not bled. them away entirely. done of its own accord.