Sifrei Devarim 71

רק בכל אות נפשך. במה הכתוב מדבר, אם בבשר תאוה - כבר אמור. ואם (באכילה) [באכילת קדשים] כבר אמור. הא אינו מדבר [אלא] בפסולי המוקדשים שיפדו. (יכול יפדו מכל מום עובר, ת"ל רק).

(Devarim 12:15) "Only with all the desire of your soul shall you slaughter": Of what is Scripture speaking here? If of "lust-flesh" (i.e., slaughtering a non-consecrated animal for food), this is spoken of elsewhere (20); and if of the eating of consecrated flesh, this has already been spoken of (as being permitted only in Jerusalem, whereas here it is written "in all of your gates"). It must be speaking, then, of consecrated animals (which had sustained a blemish) and were redeemed (and were to be eaten in "all of your gates").

תזבח ואכלת, ולא גיזה.

"shall you slaughter and you shall eat": and not shear.

בשר, ולא חלב.

"flesh": and not fats.

יכול יהיו אסורים לאחר זביחה, ת"ל כברכת ה' אלהיך.

I might think that it is forbidden (to shear them even) after slaughtering; it is, therefore, written "according to the blessing of the L-rd your G-d" (i.e., derive as much benefit from them as is consistent with their status.)

יכול אם קדם מום קבוע להקדשן ונפדו, יהיו אסורים, ת"ל רק.

I might think that (even) if a permanent blemish preceded their dedication, and they were redeemed, they would be forbidden (to shear); it is, therefore, written "Only (with all the desire, etc.", to exclude this).

(מלמד) [מנין] שאין נשחטים אלא על מום קבוע - אמרת קל וחומר הוא, ומה בכור שאינו נוהג בכל הוולדות ויוצא לחולין שלא בפדיון - אינו נשחט אלא על מום קבוע; קדשים שהם נוהגים בכל הוולדות, ואינם יוצאים לחולין אלא בפידיון, אינו דין שלא יהיו נשחטים אלא על מום קבוע! לא, אם אמרת בבכור שכן קדושתו מרחם [ו]קדושתו חלה עליו על בעל מום קבוע, תאמר בקדשים שאין קדושתם מרחם ואין קדושה חלה עליהם על בע"מ קבוע. ת"ל - אשר נתן לך בכל שעריך, [ונאמר להלן (דברים ט״ו:כ״ב) בשעריך תאכלנו], שעריך [שעריך] לגזירה שוה. מה שעריך האמור להלן, אין נשחטים אלא על מום קבוע; אף שעריך האמור כאן, אין נשחטים אלא על מום קבוע.

Whence is it derived that it is permitted to slaughter them only if they sustained a permanent blemish (and not a passing one). Would you say that (i.e., that a derivation is needed)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a bechor (a first-born) — which (i.e., whose sanctity) does not obtain with all births, and which (if it were blemished) it becomes chullin (mundane, non-sacred) without redemption — (If a bechor) is slaughtered only if it sustained a permanent blemish — then consecrated animals, which obtain (i.e., whose sanctity obtains) with all births (and not only with first-born), and which become chullin only with redemption — how much more so should they be slaughtered only if they sustained a permanent blemish! — No, (i.e., this does not follow.) It may be true of a bechor, whose sanctity is from the womb and obtains even with one that is permanently blemished (i.e., it may be slaughtered only if it sustained a permanent blemish), but would you say the same (i.e., that they may not be slaughtered only if they sustained a permanent blemish) for consecrated animals, whose sanctity is not from the womb and does not obtain with those that are permanently blemished? It is, therefore, written (here) "that He has given you in all of your gates," and, elsewhere (in connection with a bechor that sustained a blemish, [Ibid. 15:22]) "In your gates may you eat it" — "gates" - "gates" for an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: Just as there, (re bechor), it is not slaughtered unless it sustained a permanent blemish, (viz. [Ibid. 21] "lame or blind,") so, here (re offerings in general), they are not slaughtered unless the blemish were permanent.

[ד]טמא יאכלנו. אין לי אלא טמא, טהור מנין - ת"ל (יאכלנו) הטמא והטהור (יחדיו) [יאכלנו], מגיד הכתוב ששניהם אוכלים בקערה אחת.

(Ibid. 12:15) "the unclean one may eat of it": This tells me only that the unclean one may eat of it (of disqualified offerings that have been redeemed). Whence do I derive that the clean one (may eat of it)? From "the unclean one and the clean one may eat of it": Scripture hereby apprises us that they both may eat of it from the same dish.

יכול אף תרומה נאכלת בקערה אחת, ת"ל יחדיו יאכלנו, זה נאכל מתוך קערה אחת, ולא תרומה נאכלת מתוך קערה אחת.

I might think that terumah (that has become tamei) may also be eaten from the same dish; it is, therefore, written shall eat it" — This (disqualified offerings that have been redeemed) from the same dish, but not terumah.

יכול יהיו חייבים במתנות - ת"ל כצבי וכאיל.

I might think that they (disqualified offerings that have been redeemed) are subject to the priestly gifts (shoulder, cheeks, and maw); it is, therefore, written "as the deer," (which is not subject to priestly gifts).

אוציאנו מכלל מתנות, ולא אוציאנו מכלל חזה ושוק - ת"ל (אך) [כצבי וכאיל].

I would then exclude them from the priestly gifts, but not from breast and thigh. It is, therefore, written "and as the hart" (for additional exclusion).

אי מה הצבי כולו מותר אף זה כולו מותר, ת"ל (רק) [אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי ואת האיל].

(But then I would say:) Just as deer and hart are entirely permitted (including their fats), these, too, should be entirely permitted! It is, therefore, written "Only the blood" (i.e., the fats are forbidden as is the blood).

רבי שמעון אומר: יכול כשם שנתנה תורה מחיצה בין קדשי קדשים לקדשים קלים בזמן שהם (בעלי מומים) [תמימים], כך נתנה תורה מחיצה בין קדשי קדשים לקדשים קלים בזמן שהם בעלי מומים - ת"ל כצבי וכאיל, מגיד, שכשם שלא נתנה תורה מחיצה בין צבי ואיל, כך לא נתנה תורה מחיצה בין קדשי קדשים לקדשים קלים, בזמן שהם בעלי מומים.

R. Shimon says: I might think that just as the Torah prescribed separate precincts for (the eating of) holy of holies and lower-order offerings when they are unblemished, so, did it prescribe separate precincts for holy of holies and lower-order offerings when they were blemished. It is, therefore, written "as the deer and as the hart" — Just as the Torah did not prescribe a distinct precinct between deer and hart, so it did not describe a distinct precinct between holy and holies and lower-order offerings when they were blemished.

רק הדם לא תאכלו, לאו אחד יש בו ולא שני לאוים. [יכול] כדם המוקדשים, ת"ל רק הדם לא תאכלו, לאו אחד יש בו ואין בו שני לאוין.

"Only the blood you shall not eat": There is (transgression of only) one negative commandment (in eating the blood of disqualified offerings) and not two. Since in offerings blood is compared to fats — viz.: Just as in (eating their) fats there is transgression of two negative commandments, so in (eating their blood) there is transgression of two negative commandments — I would think that the same applied to (eating the blood of) disqualified offerings; it is, therefore, written "Only the blood you shall not eat" — there is transgression in it of only one negative commandment and not of two.

(על הארץ תשפכנו, ולא לתוך ימים ולא לתוך נהרות ולא לתוך כלים. כמים ולא לתוך מים עצמם.) כמים, (פסחים כ וש"נ) מה מים מותרים בהנאה, אף דם מותר בהנאה. מה מים מכשיר[ים] את הזרעים, אף דם מכשיר את הזרעים. (חולין לה) מה מים פטורים מלכסות, אף דם פטור מלכסות.

"On the earth shall you spill it as water": Just as it is permitted to derive benefit from water, it is permitted to derive benefit from blood — Just as water renders seed susceptible (of incurring tumah), so, blood. Just as water need not be covered, so blood (that of a disqualified offering which has been slaughtered) need not be covered.