Temurah

You might argue that we can well understand why at the outset [we require both animals to be unblemished] because we do not know which one will be designated ‘for the Lord’. But here, since the animal designated ‘for the Lord’ is recognised, there is no punishment of lashes.1 The text [‘Unto the Lord’ mentioned above] therefore informs us [that it is not so].2 The Master said: ‘It is reported in the name of R. Jose son of R. Judah: [There is] also [the case of the prohibitory law relating to] the receiving of the blood’. What is the reason of R. Jose son of R. Judah? Scripture says: That which hath its stones bruised or crushed or torn or cut etc. [ye shall not offer unto the Lord];3 this refers to the receiving of the blood mentioned by R. Jose son of R. Judah.4 And according to the first Tanna,5 what need is there for this text: ‘Ye shall not offer’? — It is necessary for the case of the sprinkling of the blood of a blemished animal.6 But do we not deduce this from the text: Upon the altar?7 — This8 is simply Scripture's manner of speaking.9 But may it not also be, according to R. Jose son of R. Judah, Scriptures manner of speaking?10 — Yes, it is so.11 Then whence does he deduce the prohibition in respect of receiving the blood?12 — He derives [this ruling] from the following: ‘Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall ye offer’;13 this refers to the receiving of the blood [mentioned by R. Jose son of R. Judah]. And what does the first Tanna do with this text, ‘Neither shall ye offer’? — He needs it for this: It may occur to you to think that since the Noahides14 were only commanded concerning the loss of limbs,15 it is therefore immaterial whether the sacrifice is for their altar16 or ours.17 [The text]18 therefore informs us [that this is not so]. Another version: R. Jose son of R. Judah says: ‘[There is] also [the prohibition relating to] the receiving of the blood’. What is the reason? — Since Scripture says: ‘That which hath its stones bruised or crushed etc. ye shall not offer unto the Lord’, this refers to the receiving of the blood and the prohibition of sprinkling19 is derived from the text, ‘Upon the altar’. And according to the Rabbis, why not also derive the prohibition of sprinkling from the text, ‘Upon the altar’? — In fact they do. Then what does the text, ‘Ye shall not offer’ stated in connection with the text, ‘Bruised or crushed’ come to teach? — It is required to teach us the case of a private bamah.20 And according to R. Jose son of R. Judah, do we not require the text21 to teach us the case of a private bamah? — Yes, it is so, Then whence does he derive [the prohibition of] offering with reference to the receiving of the blood? — He derives it from the text, ‘Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall ye offer’, this meaning the receiving of the blood. And the Rabbis?22 — There is need for the text. You might think that since the Noahides are only commanded concerning the loss of a limb for their own bamah,23 we too may therefore accept from them [a permanently blemished animal].24 The text, ‘Of any of these’ therefore informs us that we do not accept.25 To this Resh Lakish demurred:26 Perhaps this27 is stated only in connection with the case of an unblemished animal which became blemished,28 in which case there is a transgression, but if it is an originally blemished animal, it is then a mere palm-tree!29 — Thereupon R. Hiyya b. Joseph said to him: [Scripture says:] ‘Too long or too short’30 in the section31 and these are originally blemished animals.32 He [Resh Lakish] said: Perhaps we have learnt this33 only with reference to substitutes,34 for we have learnt: There is a restriction in the law regarding substitutes which does not apply to original sacrifices, in that holiness can attach [as substitute] to an animal permanently blemished!35 — R. Johanan replied to him: Have you not heard what R. Jannai said: At the college a vote was taken and it was decided: He who dedicates a blemished animal for the altar is guilty on five counts.36 Now if [this passage] deals with substitutes, then there are six, for there is also the prohibition of exchanging?37 — What then? Do you maintain that he deals with a case of an animal originally blemished? Then why should there be the punishment of lashes, since it is merely a palm-tree? — He replied, There is nothing irreverential about a palm-tree [as] it is a kind of wood. But in dedicating an originally blemished animal, there is something irreverential [as regards consecrations], since he ignores unblemished animals and dedicates blemished ones, and therefore he is guilty. Another version: He [R. Hiyya] said to him [Resh Lakish]: Even so the act is irreverential.38 For the dedication of a palm-tree, as there is nothing in its class [fit for the altar] there is no punishment of lashes. But the case is otherwise with reference to a blemished animal, since there exists in the class of animals [those fit for the altar], and he is therefore punishable with lashes. 39 Said Raba: Now that you say that the reason why [one who dedicates] a blemished animal incurs the punishment [of lashes] is because the act is irreverential,40 then even if one dedicates it [a blemished animal] for the value of its drink-offerings, one should incur the punishment [of lashes]. [Raba's41 is a point at issue among Tannaim.] blemished dedicated animal. animal on the altar, even without the loss of a limb, so we do not accept for sacrifice a permanently blemished animal from the Gentiles. transgressing five negative commands. should not disqualify it from being offered up on the altar. might think that there would not be any punishment of lashes. dedicating these blemished animals. be no penalty for the dedication, unless he later offered it up.