Writing the Divine Name in Full and Only Cattle and Flock for the Altar

Rabbi Yose says: wherever "offering" is stated, it states the LORD's name with the letters yod and heh, so as not to give the heretics an opening to lord it over [the verse]. "An offering to the LORD from the animal": one might think even a wild beast, which is called an animal, as in the matter stated, "This is the animal which you may eat: ox, sheep, lambs, and goat, deer and gazelle and roebuck" (Deuteronomy 14:4-5); therefore Scripture says "cattle and flock." One might think he should not bring [a wild beast], but if he did bring it, it would be valid, like one whose master said to him, "bring me wheat," and he brought him wheat and barley, having added to his master's words; therefore Scripture says "cattle and flock you shall offer": you have among animals only cattle and flock. To what is this comparable? To one whose master said to him, "bring only wheat," and if he added to the wheat he transgresses his master's words. As for one who offers up the limbs of a wild beast upon the altar, Rabbi Yochanan said he transgresses a positive commandment, for "animal" yes, a wild beast no, and a prohibition that arises from a positive commandment has the force of a positive commandment. Reish Lakish said he does not transgress a positive commandment; that verse is for guidance. Rava raised an objection: had it said only "an offering to the LORD, an animal," I would have said a wild beast is included in animal, and so on. This is a refutation of Reish Lakish, a refutation.