Why Scripture Itself Must Bar the Mortally Wounded Beast

Rav Ashi said: Because one can refute the source of this law from the outset. From where do we derive that a mortally wounded animal (a treifah) is barred from the altar? If from the blemished animal — what is distinctive about the blemished animal is that one who offers it is treated as one who offers a valid sacrifice? Rav Acha, son of Rava, said to him: Let the animal delivered by caesarean section prove the point, for one who offers it is not treated as offering a valid sacrifice, and yet it is permitted to a layman but forbidden to the Most High. But what is distinctive about the caesarean-born animal is that it is not sanctified as a firstborn? Then let the blemished animal prove it. And what is distinctive about the blemished animal is that one who offers it is treated as offering a valid sacrifice? Then let the caesarean-born animal prove it. And the reasoning comes full circle: the case of this one is not like the case of that one, yet the common feature of both is that they are permitted to a layman but forbidden to the Most High; all the more so the mortally wounded beast, which is forbidden even to a layman, should be forbidden to the Most High. But what is the common feature of these two? That their defect is visible — whereas you cannot say this of the mortally wounded beast, whose defect is not visible. For this reason a verse is needed. And is the mortally wounded beast derived from here? It is derived from there — "from the watering-place of Israel" (Ezekiel 45:15), meaning from what is permitted to Israel. Both are necessary. For had we only "from the watering-place of Israel," I would have said it excludes only a case that never had a fit moment, like fruit of the first three years and mixed seed of the vineyard; but where it had a fit moment, say it becomes fit. So the Merciful One said "all that passes" (Ezekiel 20:37). And had the Merciful One written only "all that passes," I would have said it excludes only an animal that became mortally wounded and was afterward consecrated; but one consecrated and only afterward wounded — since at the moment of consecration it was fit, say it becomes fit. Therefore both are necessary.