## Temurah Daf 7a

###### Temurah 7a:1
[Temurah 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:1)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא יָדַעְנָא אִי הַאי מִיקְּבַע לַשֵּׁם, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִינְּכַר שֵׁם — לָא לָקֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 7a:2
[Temurah 7a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:2)

אָמַר מָר: מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַף קַבָּלַת הַדָּם. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּמָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת וְגוֹ׳״ — זוֹ קַבָּלַת הַדָּם, שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Temurah 7a:3
[Temurah 7a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:3)

וּלְתַנָּא קַמָּא, הַאי ״לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִזְרִיקַת דָּמִים. וְהָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״? אוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּקְרָא דְּמִשְׁתַּעֵי הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Temurah 7a:4
[Temurah 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:4)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי, אוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּקְרָא הוּא? אִין הָכִי נָמֵי. אֶלָּא קַבָּלַת הַדָּם מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהָא: ״וּמִיַּד בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ״ — זוֹ הִיא קַבָּלַת הַדָּם שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 7a:5
[Temurah 7a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:5)

וּלְתַנָּא קַמָּא, הַאי ״לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהַאי: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ אֶלָּא עַל מְחוּסַּר אֵבָרִים, לָא שְׁנָא בְּמִזְבֵּחַ דִּידְהוּ וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּמִזְבֵּחַ דִּידַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 7a:6
[Temurah 7a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:6)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל קַבָּלַת הַדָּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת... לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ״ — זוֹ קַבָּלַת הַדָּם, וּזְרִיקָה נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Temurah 7a:7
[Temurah 7a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:7)

וּלְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי תִּיפּוֹק לְהוּ זְרִיקָה מִן ״עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״! הָכִי נָמֵי, וְאֶלָּא ״לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ״ דְּמָעוּךְ לְמַאי אֲתָא? מַפְּקִינַן [לֵיהּ] לְבָמַת יָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 7a:8
[Temurah 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:8)

וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְבָמַת יָחִיד? אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא ״תַּקְרִיבוּ״ דְּקַבָּלָה מְנָא לֵיהּ? ״מִיָּד בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ״ — זוֹ קַבָּלַת הַדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 7a:9
[Temurah 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:9)

וְרַבָּנַן אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְנֵי נֹחַ אֵין מְצוִּּוין אֶלָּא עַל מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר בְּבָמָה דִּלְהוֹן, דִּלְמָא אֲנַן נָמֵי נְקַבֵּיל מִינְּהוֹן? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״מִכׇּל אֵלֶּה״ דְּלָא מְקַבְּלִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 7a:10
[Temurah 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:10)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁנִינוּ אֶלָּא בְּתָם שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בַּעַל מוּם, וְעוֹבֵר, דְּאִי בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרָא — דִּיקְלָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Temurah 7a:11
[Temurah 7a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: ״שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט״ כְּתִיב בַּפָּרָשָׁה, וְהָנֵי בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין מֵעִיקָּרָא נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Temurah 7a:12
[Temurah 7a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁנִינוּ אֶלָּא בִּתְמוּרָה, דִּתְנַן: חוֹמֶר בַּתְּמוּרָה מִבַּזֶּבַח, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עָלֶיהָ עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 7a:13
[Temurah 7a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי, בַּחֲבוּרָה נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה שֵׁמוֹת, וְאִי בִּתְמוּרָה נָמֵי — שִׁשָּׁה הָוְויָין, דְּאִיכָּא נָמֵי לָאו דִּתְמוּרָה! אֶלָּא מַאי — בְּבַעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרוֹ? אַמַּאי לָקֵי? דִּיקְלָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Temurah 7a:14
[Temurah 7a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּיקְלָא — לָאו זִילָא מִילְּתָא, מִין עֵצִים הוּא; בַּעַל מוּם מֵעִיקָּרָא — זִילָא מִילְּתָא, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁבֵיק תְּמִימִים וְאַקְדֵּישׁ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין — מִיחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 7a:15
[Temurah 7a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:15)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי בַּזְיָא מִילְּתָא, דְּדֶקֶל לֵיכָּא בְּמִינוֹ — לָא לָקֵי, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעַל מוּם, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא בְּמִינוֹ — לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 7a:16
[Temurah 7a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא דַּאֲמוּר טַעְמָא דְּבַעַל מוּם דְּלָקֵי — מִשּׁוּם דְּבַזְיָא מִילְּתַיְיהוּ, אֲפִילּוּ (למקדיש) [מַקְדֵּישׁ] לֵיהּ לִדְמֵי נְסָכִים — נָמֵי לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 7a:17
[Temurah 7a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/7a:17)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava:**