007a הכל ממירין פרק ראשון תמורה ז ע"א - HAKOL MEMIRIN CHAPTER ONE TEMURAH

It might enter one's mind to say: granted, at the outset I did not know whether this one becomes fixed for that [purpose]; but here, since its name has been recognized, he is not liable. This teaches us otherwise.^[1]

סד"א בשלמא מעיקרא. - We need perfect animals, because I did not know whether this one becomes fixed for the altar. Objection: but the lot does not fix the animal… Rav Yosef said: this is the opinion of Chanan the Egyptian, who does not require a lot, as taught: Chanan the Egyptian says that even if the blood of the goat slaughtered inside has been put into the cup and it died, the goat that is sent away brings another goat from the market, stands it beside the blood to show that it is its fellow, and then sends it away; so he does not require a lot. And the objection we raised does not apply; therefore the verse was needed. The Gemara's conclusion: the one who does not require a lot is Rabbi Shimon, and nothing further is challenged.

רבא אמר כגון שהומם כו' - Rava says: e.g., he became blemished (by a mishap), as I explained above (and as we learn here that the first case is his). The answer that he gives — e.g., he had a sick person in his house, etc. — is not in the text, and the mistake here is that it does not deal with untimely (mechusar zman) at all; but in Yoma (63b) we learn the whole sugya, and it is an untimely case. Since it cannot be said that if it is not relevant to a blemished animal then it is relevant to an untimely one, for an untimely status is derived from the second goat in the verse, from "and from the eighth day onward" (Vayikra 22:27), as is derived in Yoma. Noahides were commanded not to offer limb-lacking animals, as stated in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (5b); but about another blemish they were not commanded at their own altar. And if the verse "do not offer, from the hand of a foreigner, all these" did not say so — which implies that a blemished animal they may not offer — I would have said they may offer; so it teaches that they may not offer limb-lacking animals.

The Master said in the name of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda: also receiving the blood. What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda?^[2]

As the verse says (Vayikra 22): crushed, bruised, torn, cut, etc. This is receiving the blood, as Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said.^[3]

And for the first Tanna, this do not offer — what is it needed for? It is needed for the sprinkling of the blood. But that is already derived from "from upon the altar."^[4]

It is the way of the verse to speak like this; and according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda it is also the way of the verse.^[5]

Yes, that is so. But receiving the blood — from where does he derive it?

He derives it from this verse: (Vayikra 22) and from the hand of a foreigner you shall not offer. This is receiving the blood, as Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said.^[6]

And for the first Tanna, this do not offer — what is it needed for? It is needed for the following (question).

It might enter one's mind to say: since the ^[7]children of Noah were commanded only about ^[8]one lacking a limb, there should be no difference between their altar and ours. This teaches us otherwise.

A second version: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: also ^[9]on receiving the blood. What is the reason? As it is written, crushed, bruised, etc., do not offer: this is receiving the blood.

He derives the sprinkling from "from upon the altar"; and for the Rabbanan too, let the sprinkling be derived from "from upon the altar" as well.

But then, do not offer (the "crushed" verse) — what is it coming to teach? We derive from it a private altar.^[10]

But according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, this one is needed for a private altar. Yes, that is so.

But you shall offer: from where does he derive receiving?

From the hand of a foreigner you shall not offer — this is receiving the blood. And for the Rabbanan, it is needed for the next point (the children of Noah).

It might enter one's mind to say: since the children of Noah are commanded only about a blemished-limb animal at their own high place, perhaps we too would accept from them. This teaches us: from all these we do not accept.

(לא שנא) בבמה דלהון - (No difference) at their own high place: the private high place that an idolater made for the sky. And this teaches us: from all these we do not accept; i.e., for this reason we do not accept, for in that verse it is written from all these, implying that one may not accept a blemished animal; so, for them too, in the single altar.

Resh Lakish objects to it: perhaps it was taught only about a perfect one that became blemished and transgresses^[11][12], since a blemished one from its origin is only a palm tree.

מתקיף לה ר"ש בן לקיש - Above he answers that one is liable for "do not sanctify" only for a perfect animal that became blemished, because one may say: since originally it was perfect, he intended to sanctify it and offer it; but for a blemished animal from its origin, it is a mere palm: one may say he did not intend to offer it, but only to sanctify it for its value, and he is not liable.

Rabbi Chiya son of Yosef said to him: (Vayikra 22) shorua and kalut is written in the section, and these blemished ones are blemished from birth.^[13]

שרוע - Broken: one of its limbs was broken.

קלוט - Whose hooves are twisted.

כתובין בפרשה - Written about them: do not offer; and we interpret it as: do not sanctify.

And these blemished ones are blemished from birth.

He said to him: perhaps it was taught only regarding Temurah.

שמא לא שנינו - That he is liable for sanctifying only in the case of Temurah, because Temurah takes on a permanent holiness that does not go out to chullin, to be shorn or worked, even by redemption; it is like the other sacrifices whose consecrator sanctified their blemish first. And the Mishnah later in the second chapter (16b), as it is written: "good for bad, or bad for good; and if he will exchange…" Since it is full holiness he is punished for it, if he exchanged and brought a blemished animal to be consecrated and it was seized for the exchange of a perfect sacrificial animal. But for one who sanctified a blemished animal from the start, I would not say he is punished, since it is a mere palm, unless he offered it.

As we learned: Temurah is more severe than the altar, since sanctity takes effect on it even in a permanently blemished animal.^[14]

Rabbi Yochanan said to him: did you not hear this which Rabbi Yannai said:

In a group they counted and concluded: one who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar transgresses five names.^[15]

נמנו וגמרו - This implies that they examined it carefully and found no more; and if it were speaking of exchange…

And if (it refers) to Temurah too, there would be six, for there is also a prohibition of Temurah.^[16]

שית הויין - For there is also the prohibition of "do not exchange."

But then, regarding one blemished from its origin, why is he punished? It is only a palm tree.

He said to him: a palm — is it not a disgrace? It is a kind of wood.^[17]

A blemished one from the start is a disgrace; since he left aside a perfect one and consecrated blemished ones, he is liable.

Another version: he said to him: even so, it is a disgrace of a palm that there is none of its kind; he is not punished. ^[18]This excludes a blemished one: since there is one of its kind, he is punished.

ליכא במינו - Fit for the altar.

To exclude a blemished one: since there is one of its kind, he is punished.

בעל מום איכא במינו - Fit for the altar; and since there is one of its kind that is fit, there is disgrace, since he left aside what is fit and sanctified what is not fit.

Rava said: now that they have said the reason for the blemished one — that he is punished because their thing is disgraced —

even one who consecrates it for the value of libations is punished too.^[19]

אפי' אקדשיה לדמי נסכים - Now there is not so great a disgrace, since there is none of its kind fit for libations; and moreover, since he sanctified it for its value, he is still punished.

A baraita is taught in accordance with Rava.

Tosafot

ומיד בן נכר לא תקריבו את אלה - Why do we need "a man, a man" (Vayikra 17) to include Noahides who make vows and freewill offerings like Israel (Chullin 13b)? Let it be derived from this verse: since it says "do not offer these", it implies these you may not offer, but you may offer perfect ones. The reverse is not needed: "from a foreigner" — why is it needed? "Man, a man" should derive it. Rabbeinu Shimshon son of Avraham answered: it is needed for the dispute between R' Yosei HaGelili and R' Akiva in the chapter "Ve'elu Minchos" (Menachos 73b): "What does the verse teach regarding an olah? Exclude a nazirite's offering." R' Akiva says: I have only olah, and not other offerings.

אלא בתם ונעשה בעל מום - Since originally it was perfect, he intended to sanctify it and offer it even after the blemish, and since it is able to be offered he is liable. But for one blemished from its origin, it is a mere palm, and one may say he did not intend to offer it. Rashi's language. But how can we say he did not intend to offer it, since he was warned, "do not bring a blemished animal to the altar", and he accepted on himself the warning and said: on condition that I do so? Otherwise he would not be liable. Rabbi Mar: to explain, Resh Lakish does not refer to "do not sanctify" but to "do not burn" and "do not sprinkle." In other words, the Mishnah teaches: he is liable only when he sanctified a perfect animal that became blemished, because once holiness of the altar took effect on it before the blemish, he intended it to be offered; but for one blemished from its origin, before holiness, it is a mere palm, and he did not intend it for offering and is not liable.

אפילו אקדיש לדמי נסכים לקי - So too one who sanctified it for the value of an olah. But the statement later in Temurah (18b) — "one who sanctifies a female for an olah: let it be sold and its proceeds go to an olah" — must be taken to mean he is liable. And so the Mishnah: "one who says of a beast impure or blemished, these are olah, has said nothing; these shall be sold and the proceeds brought as olah" (Temurah 27b) — we must say he is liable.

Notes

1. 1. Sa'd (sugya): "it might enter one's mind" introduces an initial objection, which the Gemara then rejects.
2. 2. Kabbalat hadam: the Kohen catches the blood of an offering in a vessel in the Temple court; it is one of the altar services.
3. 3. Vayikra 22:24 lists animals with crushed, bruised, torn or cut organs, which may not be offered.
4. 4. The first Tanna: the anonymous opinion, here set against that of R' Yosei son of R' Yehuda.
5. 5. "The way of the verse": the verse's ordinary manner of speaking, which states the rule in general terms.
6. 6. Vayikra 22:25: offerings may not be accepted from a non-Jew, and certainly not blemished ones.
7. 7. Children of Noah: non-Jews, who are bound by the seven Noahide commandments.
8. 8. Limb-lacking animal (mechusar avarim): an animal missing a limb; the children of Noah are forbidden only to offer such an animal.
9. 9. Second version (quoted back): R' Yosei son of R' Yehuda adds that receiving the blood is also derived from the "crushed" verse.
10. 10. Bamat yachid: a private altar set up by an individual outside the Temple.
11. 11. Baal mum (blemished animal): an animal with a defect that disqualifies it from the altar.
12. 12. Quoted-back Mishnah: the Gemara suggests the rule on consecration applies only to a perfect animal that became blemished and then transgressed.
13. 13. Vayikra 22:23: shorua (a broken limb) and kalut (twisted hooves) are blemishes; such an animal may be brought as a freewill offering but not as a vow.
14. 14. Mishnah in Temurah (16b): Temurah is more severe than the altar, since sanctity takes effect on a permanently blemished animal.
15. 15. "Five names": five negative commandments (general knowledge; the count the Gemara gives for consecrating a blemished animal).
16. 16. Six: the additional prohibition "do not exchange" (lo yamir) in the case of Temurah.
17. 17. A date palm (dekel): a tree, not an animal, so the sanctity of the altar does not take effect on it.
18. 18. Alternate version (lishna acharina): another account of the same discussion, giving a different answer.
19. 19. Nesachim: the wine and oil that accompany offerings on the altar.