After presenting the command forbidding offering blemished animals as sacrifices, the Torah adds (Vayikra 22:5), “U’mi’yad Beneh Nechar Lo Takribu Et Lehem Elokechem Mi’kol Eleh” – that we may not offer such animals as sacrifices even if they are brought by non-Jews. We might have thought that although a Jew is not permitted to offer a blemished animal as a sacrifice, the Kohanim are allowed to accept such an animal sacrifice from a gentile. Gentiles are permitted to bring voluntary sacrifices to the Bet Ha’mikdash (“Nedarim” and “Nedabot”), and we might have assumed that the Torah’s strict standards for our sacrifices, disqualifying a blemished animal, do not apply to gentiles. The Torah therefore clarified that even when a gentile offers a sacrifice, it must be unblemished. In order to maintain the people’s sense of awe and reverence toward the Bet Ha’mikdash and the sacrifices, the Torah demands that all animals brought as sacrifices – even those offered by gentiles – must be unblemished. All 73 physical blemishes which disqualify an animal sacrifice when brought by a Jew likewise disqualify an animal sacrifice brought by a gentile. A Kohen who offers a blemished animal sacrifice brought by a gentile is liable to Malkut for transgressing this prohibition. This command brings to mind the famous, tragic story told by the Gemara in Masechet Gittin (55b-56a) of Bar-Kamsa, who became incensed when he was violently driven from a party to which he was mistakenly received an invitation. In order to avenge his humiliation, he schemed to arouse the Roman emperor’s ire at the Jews by falsely reporting to him that the Jews were planning a revolt. To verify his charge, Bar-Kamsa advised the emperor to send an animal to Jerusalem to be offered as a sacrifice in the Bet Ha’mikdash on his behalf. As the animal was being transported to Jerusalem, Bar-Kamsa made a blemish in the animal which disqualified it as a sacrifice according to Torah law, but not according to the Roman pagan tradition. (The Gemara brings two opinions – that Bar-Kamsa either slit the animal’s lip, or slit its eyelid.) The Rabbis debated whether or not they should offer the animal, as some argued that the animal should be sacrificed despite the blemish, in order to avoid tensions with the Roman government. In the end, however, the decision was made to refuse to offer the sacrifice. The emperor viewed this refusal as compelling evidence of the Jews’ disloyalty, and this ultimately led to the destruction of the Bet Ha’mikdash. The Maharal of Prague (Rav Yehuda Loew, 1520-1609) raises the question of why the Jews were not upfront with the emperor, and did not simply explain to him that they could not offer the sacrifice because it was blemished en route to Jerusalem. Seemingly, they could have avoided this problem altogether by explaining the situation, and asking the emperor to send a new animal which they would happily sacrifice. The Maharal answers that there was a more fundamental issue at stake. The Romans insisted that the Bet Ha’mikdash belonged to everyone equally, to Jews and gentiles alike, all of whom have the same level of access to the sacred domain. If the emperor would have heard that the Jews refused to offer his animal because it had a blemish which disqualified it according to Jewish law, even though it did not disqualify the animal according to the rules of Roman paganism, he would have been enraged. In his mind, he had the same rights in the Bet Ha’mikdash as the Jews, and so an animal which he deemed suitable should be offered. In truth, the Maharal explains, the gentiles receive the spiritual benefits of the Bet Ha’mikdash only because of the Jews’ service there, and thus the gentiles’ animal sacrifices must adhere to the same standards as the Jews’ sacrifices. Telling this to the emperor would have aroused his ire, and thus the Jews did not have the option of avoiding tensions by asking the emperor to send a different animal. Developing this point fu