Avodah Zarah 13B

ירקבו, מעות וכלי מתכות ⁠— יוליכם לים המלח, ואיזהו עיקור? נועל דלת בפניה, והיא מתה מאיליה!

he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. And what constitutes destroying? He locks the door before it, and the animal dies on its own from hunger. According to the baraita, the disposal of the animal is carried out by starving it, not by cutting its hooves.

אמר אביי: שאני התם, משום בזיון קדשים. ונשחטיה מישחט! אתו בהו לידי תקלה.

Abaye said: There, in the case of a consecrated animal, the method employed is different, because cutting the animal’s hooves would cause the degradation of sacrificial animals. The Talmud asks: But why does the baraita require this complicated method of killing the animal? Why not simply state that he should slaughter it? The Talmud answers: If he were to slaughter it, someone might come to experience a mishap through it, by eating the meat and thereby misusing consecrated property.

ולישויה גיסטרא! אמר אביי: אמר קרא ״ונתצתם את מזבחתם וגו׳ לא תעשון כן לה׳ אלהיכם״.

The Talmud asks: But why not let him render the animal a shard [gistera], by mutilating it so that it is unfit to be eaten? Why is it necessary to kill it in such a drawn-out fashion, by starving it to death? Abaye said that it is because the verse states: “And you should break down their altars…you should not do so to YHWH your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). It is derived from here that one may not actively destroy any sacred item.

רבא אמר: מפני שנראה כמטיל מום בקדשים. נראה? מום מעליא הוא! הני מילי בזמן שבית המקדש קיים, דחזי להקרבה. השתא דלא חזי להקרבה ⁠— לית לן בה.

Rava said there is a different reason a consecrated animal may not be disposed of by cutting its hooves: It is because it appears as though he is inflicting a blemish on a sacrificial animal. The Talmud asks: Why does Rava say that it merely appears as though he is inflicting a blemish, when in actual fact he is inflicting a full-fledged blemish? The Talmud answers: This matter, that one may not inflict a blemish on a sacrificial animal, applies only when the Temple is standing, as the animal is fit for sacrifice and he renders it unfit. By contrast, now, when the animal is not fit for sacrifice, since there is no Temple, we have no problem with it by Torah law. The only problem is that it appears as though one is inflicting a blemish on a sanctified animal.