Study Yoma folio 63B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
If it would have mentioned just the word offering, I would derive that one is liable even for slaughtering animals consecrated for Temple maintenance outside the Temple, which are also called offering, as it is stated: “And we have brought YHWH’s offering, what every man has found: Articles of gold
Furthermore: I might exclude these animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are not fit to be sacrificed within the entrance to the Tent of Meeting because they are blemished, and I will not exclude the heifer of a purification offering and the scapegoat, which are fit to come to the entran
The Talmud asks about this halakhic midrash: Does the expression “to YHWH” come to exclude? The Talmud raises a contradiction based upon the verse: “When a bull, or a lamb, or a goat, is born it shall be 7 days under its mother; but from the 8th day on it may be accepted as an offering by fire to Y
From where do we derive that he may not consecrate an animal when it is lacking time, i.e., before the 8th day? The verse states: An offering, which indicates that it should not be designated as an offering before the 8th day. The expression: To YHWH comes to include the scapegoat, which is also
Rava said that this can be resolved as follows: There the expression is understood in the context of the verse and here it is understood in the context of the verse. There, with regard to consecrated animals slaughtered outside the Temple, where the phrase: To the entrance, in that same verse come