Quoting%20commentary for Temurah 13:51

תניא כוותיה דרבא

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one dedicates an animal which became blemished. There is therefore a degradation of holy things.');">³⁸</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For dedicating something which is not fit.');">³⁹</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To dedicate an animal which has become blemished.');">⁴⁰</span> then even if one dedicates it [a blemished animal] for the value of its drink-offerings, one should incur the punishment [of lashes]. [Raba's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. It has been taught like Raba.');">⁴¹</span> is a point at issue among Tannaim.]

Explore quoting%20commentary for Temurah 13:51. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.