Study Temurah folio 7A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
סלקא דעתך אמינא: בשלמא מעיקרא לא ידענא אי האי מיקבע לשם, אבל הכא, כיון דאינכר שם — לא לקי, קא משמע לן.
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 YHWH 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 YHWH, 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.
אמר מר: משום רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אף קבלת הדם. מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה? אמר קרא: ״ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות וגו׳״ — זו קבלת הדם, שאמר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה.
§ The Master said above: The rabbis said in the name of R' Yosei, son of R' Yehuda: One who sacrifices a blemished animal violates a prohibition against the collection of the blood as well. The Talmud asks: What is the reasoning of R' Yosei, son of R' Yehuda? The Talmud answers: The verse states: “That which has its testicles bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, you should not offer to YHWH” (Leviticus 22:24). The phrase “You should not offer to YHWH” is apparently superfluous, as the Torah already stated earlier: “But whatever has a blemish, you should not offer” (Leviticus 22:20). Rather, this extra phrase is referring to the collection of the blood, for which R' Yosei, son of R' Yehuda, said that one is liable.
ולתנא קמא, האי ״לא תקריבו״ למה לי? מיבעי ליה לזריקת דמים. והא נפקא ליה מ״על המזבח״? אורחיה דקרא דמשתעי הכי.
The Talmud 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 should not offer,” stated with regard to damaged testicles? The Talmud answers: He requires it to teach that one is liable for sprinkling the blood. The Talmud 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 Talmud 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.