Comentário sobre Levítico 22:25

ומיד בן נכר AND FROM ANY STRANGER’S HAND who has brought a sacrifice through the agency of a priest to offer it to the Lord, לא תקריבו YOU SHALL NOT OFFER a blemished animal on his behalf. And though blemished animals are not forbidden as sacrifices of the “Sons of Noah” (the non-Israelite world) except such as lack one of their limbs (as derived from the text: Genesis 6:19; cf. Avodah Zarah 5b) — this rule applies only to animals offered to God by the “Sons of Noah” themselves on a Bamah (an altar, lit., an elevated place) in the open field, but on the altar in the Tabernacle shall you not offer blemished animals on their behalf (cf. Temurah 7a). An animal, however, that has no blemish you may accept from them as an offering on your altar. It is for this reason that Scripture says above (v. 18): איש “Any man… who offers”, in order to include in this law the heathens also — that they, too, are permitted to undertake to bring vowed animals (נדרים) and free-will offerings (נדבות) just the same as the Israelites (Chullin 13b).

Even though gifts for the Temple treasury are accepted from pagans, no blemished animals are to be accepted from them as such. Even if the animal became blemished through a deliberate surgical procedure, such as castrating it, something which generally improves the value of the animal so castrated, it disqualifies it from use by the Temple treasury, not to mention as a sacrifice on the altar. Seeing that the gentiles consider such animals as superior, we could not apply to such gifts the criticism voiced by Maleach 1,8 which we referred to twice already. We might therefore have thought that seeing that in the donor’s eyes he presents a superior gift to G’d this would be acceptable; the Torah takes a dim view of castrating animals which were created to proliferate. The Torah describes such castrated animals as

A blemished [animal]. Explanation: Specifically concerning the offering of an individual, if [a gentile] brings it to a kohein to sacrifice we only refuse to accept blemished [animals]. But if they are nonblemished we accept them as Rashi explains, “’Any man’ — to include non-Jews.” [But concerning public communal sacrifices, a gentile may not contribute to them at all even if the animal has no blemish]. But if they [the offerings of an individual brought by a gentile] are non-blemished we accept them as Rashi explains, “’Any man’ — to include non-Jews.” In the first chapter of Chullin (13) Tosfos asks: Why do we need “any man” to include non-Jews? Derive it from the verse, “And from a stranger’s [non-Jew’s] hand you shall not bring (offer) the bread of your God from any of these,” i.e., blemished animals, which indicates that we may accept non-blemished animals from them? Tosfos answers: One may have thought [that sacrificing their] blemished animal incurs a negative and positive commandment, and [that sacrificing] a non-blemished animal nevertheless incurs a prohibition. Therefore “any man” informs us [otherwise]. (Nachalas Yaakov)