Today's Daf Yomi
May 26, 2019 | ืืดื ืืืืืจ ืชืฉืขืดื
Bekhorot 39
What are considered blemishes in the eyes, nose, lips, testicles, penis,ย female genitalia? If there is an organ missing on the inside, is that a blemish? Are there situations where we distinguish and say this blemish forbids the animal to be sacrificed, but doesn’t permit it to be redeemed (if a sacrifice) or slaughtered (if a firstborn)?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (ืืฃ ืืืื ืื ืฉืื - ืขืืจืืช): Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
ืื ืืืื ืืื ืกืขืืื ืืกืขืืื ืื ืชืืืฆื ืืืืจ ืืกืขืืื ืจืืฉืื ื ืงืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืงืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืืกืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืื ืงืืื ืฉืชืื ืื ืืืืจ ืฉืชืื ืืงืืื ืฉืชืื ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืืฉืขืจื ืืืืจ ืฉืชืื ืืื
or perhaps does it mean it is fed the amount of a fig-bulk at each and every meal? If you say that it is fed a fig-bulk only at the first meal, is it fed this fodder before its regularly scheduled eating or after eating? The Gemara elaborates: Before eating, it is certainly effective for it like a medicine, which people imbibe before their meals. With regard to after eating, what is the halakha? Is this an effective manner of examining the animal? The Gemara further inquires: Is the animal fed this fodder as a medicine before drinking or after drinking? Before drinking it is certainly effective for it, like barley, which is fed to an animal before it drinks. With regard to after drinking, what is the halakha?
ืงืฉืืจ ืื ืืืชืจ ืืืชืจ ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืงืฉืืจ ืืื ืืืื ืื ืขื ืืืืจื ืขื ืืืืจื ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื
The Gemara continues to inquire: Is the animal given the fodder when it is tied or untied? The Gemara explains: When it is untied, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal. When it is tied, what is the halakha? Furthermore, is it fed the fodder when it is by itself, or with another animal? When it is with another animal, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is comfortable. When it is by itself, what is the halakha?
ืืขืืจ ืืืฉืื ืืฉืื ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืืขืืจ ืืื ืืขื ืจื ืืฉื ืื ืชืืืฆื ืืืืจ ืืฉืื ืืื ื ืืกืืืื ืืขืืจ ืืื ืชืืงื
Likewise, is the animal fed it in the city or in the field? When it is in the field, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is calm. When it is in the city, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a further dilemma: If you say that this treatment is effective only when it is in the field, not when it is the city, what is the halakha with regard to a garden adjacent to the city? No resolution is found for any of these inquiries, and with regard to each of them the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
ืจืื ืื ื ืื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืก ืืืืจ ืืืจ ืจื ื ืืื ืืจ ืืฆืืง ืืืืื ืฉืืื ืืฉืืืฉืื
ยง The mishna teaches with regard to constant pale spots that Rabbi แธคananya ben Antigonus says: One examines the animal three times within eighty days. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak says: And this is the halakha provided that they are divided into equal thirds, i.e., there must be an even gap between each of these examinations.
ืืขื ืืื ืื ืคื ืืก ืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืชืกื ืืืคืจืข ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืื
With regard to the statement of the mishna that constant tears are examined by feeding the animal moist and then dry fodder for a period of three months, Pineแธฅas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, raises a dilemma before Shmuel: If the animal ate the fodder in the required manner and was not healed, which means that it is blemished, is it a retroactive blemish from the day it was discovered, or is it a blemish from that point forward?
ืืืื ื ืคืงื ืืื ื ืืืืืขื ืืคืืืื ื ืื ืืืจืช ืืืคืจืข ืืื ืืืื ืืขืื
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to whether one has violated the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property concerning its redemption money in a case where a consecrated animal was redeemed before the end of the three months of examination and someone derived benefit from the money paid for its redemption. If you say that it is a retroactive blemish, he thereby misuses consecrated property, as the redemption was effective and the money belongs to the Temple treasury.
ืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืขืื ืืื ืงืจื ืฉืืืื ืขืืื ืคืกืืื ืืืื ื(ื)ื
But if it is a blemish from that point forward, then one who derived benefit from money paid before that point has not misused consecrated property, as an unblemished animal cannot be redeemed, and the money remains non-sacred. What, then, is the halakha? Shmuel read this verse with regard to his brother: โThe lame take the preyโ (Isaiah 33:23), i.e., one who is not learned in Torah has managed to ask a question for which I have no answer.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืืืื ืฉื ืืงื ืืฉื ืคืื ืืฉื ืกืืง ืฉืคืื ืฉื ืืงืื ืฉื ืคืืื ืฉื ืกืืงื
MISHNA: For these additional blemishes, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple: Its nose that was pierced, or that was damaged and is lacking, or that was split. Likewise, its lip that was pierced, or that was damaged, or that was split is considered a blemish.
ืืืณ ืชื ื ืจืื ื ื ืืงืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืชืื ืื ืืืืืฅ ืืจื ืื ืืื ืืืคื ืื ืืื ื ืืื ืฉืคืชื ืฉื ืืงืื ืืฉื ืคืืื ืืฉื ืกืืงื ืืืจ ืจื ืคืคื ืชืืจื ืืจื ืืฉืืคืชืื
GEMARA: With regard to the case of the nose that was pierced, the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where its nostrils were pierced one into the other, if the perforation is visible on the outside of the nostril, this is a blemish; if it is visible only on the inside of the nostril, it is not a blemish. With regard to the case of: Its lip that was pierced or that was damaged or that was split, Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the outer row, i.e., the front, protruding part of its lip.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืืืื ืืืืฆืื ืืช ืฉื ืคืืื ืืฉื ืืืื ืืคื ืืืื ืฉื ืขืงืจื ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืก ืืืืจ ืืื ืืืืงืื ืื ืืชืืืืช ืืืคื ืื ืืืฃ ืื ืืช ืืชืืืืช
MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn: The external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched, and likewise, the internal gums that were extracted. Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the double teeth, i.e., the large molars that appear like two teeth, and inward, and one does not examine even the place of the double teeth themselves. This is because even if they were extracted, it is a concealed blemish, and it does not permit the slaughter of the firstborn.
ืืืณ ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืืชืืืืช ืืืืื ืชืืืืช ืื ืืชืืืืช ืืืคื ืื ืืชืืืืช ืขืฆืื ืืืคื ืื ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืื ืงืคืืฆืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืฉืืืืื ืืื ืขื ืืืืฆืื ืืช ืืืื ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืก ืืืืจ ืืื ืืฉืืืืื ืขื ืืชืืืืช ืื ืขืืงืจ
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the mishna is referring to the double teeth, what are the double teeth? The area from the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves, are considered like the inward part, i.e., the location of a concealed blemish, for which one may not slaughter the animal. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth alone. Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus says: One does not consider the double teeth at all.
ืืื ืงืืืจ ืืชื ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืื ืงืคืืฆืื ืืืื ื ืชื ื ืงืื
The Gemara notes that the baraita asks about the double teeth but does not answer the question: What is the tanna saying? And furthermore, the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai is the same as that of the first tanna, as they both maintain that a blemish to the double teeth is considered a concealed blemish.
ืืกืืจื ืืืืกืจื ืืืื ืงืชื ื ืืืืื ืืคื ืืืืช ืื ืืชืืืืช ืืืคื ืื ืืชืืืืช ืขืฆืื ืืืคื ืื ืืื ืืืจืื ืืืืจืื ืฉื ืคืืื ืืฉื ืืืื ืืื ื ืขืงืจื ืฉืืืืื
The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: What are the inner gums, for which a firstborn is not slaughtered if a blemish was found there? The inner gums are located from the place of the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves are considered like the inward part. In what case is this statement, that one does not slaughter the animal, said? It is said in a case where the inner gums were damaged or were scratched. But if they were extracted, one does slaughter the firstborn for this blemish.
ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืื ืงืคืืฆืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืฉืืืืื ืืื ืขื ืืืืฆืื ืืช ืืื ืคื ืืืืืช ืฉื ืขืงืจื ืืืฉืื ืขืืืืื ืื ืฉืืืื ื ืืื ืืคืกืืื ืืืคืกื ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืก ืืืืจ ืืื ืืฉืืืืื ืขื ืืชืืืืช ืื ืขืืงืจ ืืืคืืื ืืืคืกืืื ืื ืืืคืกืื
The Gemara continues its interpretation of the baraita. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth. But with regard to the inner gums that were extracted, one does not slaughter the animal for them, but it is disqualified as an offering. Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus says: One does not pay attention to the double teeth at all, and a blemish there does not even disqualify the firstborn from sacrifice.
ืืขื ืจื ืืืืืื ืืจ ืืื ืืฉ ืืืืกืจ ืืืจ ืืืคื ืื ืื ืืื ืืืืกืจ ืืืจ ืืืคื ืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืคืกื ืื ืขืืจ ืืชืื
ยง Rav Aแธฅadvoi bar Ami raises a dilemma: Is there halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal, or is there no halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal? The Gemara inquires: With regard to what issue did he raise this dilemma? If it was with regard to whether such a blemish renders permitted the slaughter of a firstborn outside the Temple, it is written: โLameness or blindnessโ (Deuteronomy 15:21), which indicates that the blemish must be exposed.
ืื ืืงืืฉืื ืขืืจืช ืื ืฉืืืจ ืืชืื ืืืืฉืืืื ืืืืืคืจืืงื ืื ืืืืขืื ืื ืื ืืืืขืื ืื ืืืืคืกืืื ืืื
If the dilemma was raised with regard to whether other sacrificial animals with such a blemish are thereby disqualified from being sacrificed and may be redeemed, it is written: โBlind or brokenโ (Leviticus 22:22), which are also types of exposed blemishes. The Gemara explains that we do not raise this dilemma with regard to slaughtering the firstborn or redeeming other sacrificial animals, as it is clearly not considered a blemish to that extent. Rather, we raise the dilemma with regard to disqualifying the animal from sacrifice. What is the halakha?
ืชืืื ืืืื ืืจืฆืื ืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืชืืื ืืื ืืกืจืื ืื ืื ืืืื ืชืืื ืืืื ืืจืฆืื ืื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืื ืืืืจืื ืืฃ ืืกืจืื ืืืืจืื
The Gemara clarifies the dilemma. The Merciful One states: โIt shall be complete to be acceptedโ (Leviticus 22:21), which indicates that a complete animal, yes, is fit as a sacrifice, but if it is lacking in any manner, even on the inside, it is not fit. Or perhaps one should interpret this phrase: โIt shall be complete to be accepted,โ in light of what is stated immediately afterward: โThere shall be no blemish therein.โ Just as a blemish is on the outside, as taught by the next verse, which says: โBlind or broken,โ so too, the status of lacking a limb applies only if it is lacking on the outside.
ืชื ืฉืืข ืืืช ืฉืชื ืืืืืืช ืืื ืืขื ืืืืื ืืืช ืืื ืืขื ืฉืืฉ ืืืืืืช ืืชื ืื ืืืื ืืกืืจื ื ืืจืืืช ืืขื ืืืืื ืืืช
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that this matter is subject to a dispute. It is taught in one baraita: When it states with regard to the burning of the sacrificial portions of a peace offering: โAnd the two kidneysโ (Leviticus 3:4), this teaches that one sacrifices only an animal that has two kidneys, but not an animal that has one kidney, nor one that has three kidneys. And it is taught in another baraita that when that verse states: โAnd the two kidneysโฆhe shall take it away,โ the singular form serves to include an animal that has one kidney, which may be sacrificed. Evidently, these tannaโim disagree as to whether an animal lacking a kidney is fit to be sacrificed.
ืกืืจืื ืืืืื ืขืืื ืืื ืืจืื ืืืืช ืืื ืืืืกืจ ืืกืจ ืืืื ืืื ืงืืืคืืื ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื
The Sages initially assumed that everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and only one kidney is found because this offering became lacking a kidney only after birth. If so, let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is not considered a lack.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืืจ ืืืกืฃ ืืืืื ืขืืื ืืฉ ืืจืื ืืืืช ืืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืื ืงืฉืื ืืื ืืฉื ืืจืื ืืฉืชืื ืืืกืจื ืืื ืืฉื ืืจืื ืืืืช ืืขืืงืจื
Rav แธคiyya bar Yosef says: There is no dispute here, as everyone agrees that there is such an entity born with one kidney, and everyone also agrees that the lack of an internal limb is considered a lack that disqualifies the animal. And the contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult: Here, in the first baraita, where it was created with two kidneys and one is lacking, the animal is disqualified. Whereas there, where it was created with one kidney from the outset, it is not lacking and therefore it is fit.
ืืื ืืืืื ืืฉืืฉ ืงืชื ื ืื ืฉืืฉ ืืขืืงืจื ืืฃ ืืืช ืืขืืงืจื
The Gemara asks: But the first baraita teaches the case of an animal that has one kidney as similar to that of an animal that has three kidneys. One can therefore infer: Just as these three kidneys were present from the outset, as an animal does not grow new limbs, so too, the animal with one kidney alone was like that from the outset.
ืืื ืืื ืืืฉ ืืจืื ืืขืืงืจื ืงืืืคืืื ืืจ ืกืืจ ืืฉ ืืจืื ืืืืช ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืืื ืืจืื ืืืืช
Rather, everyone agrees that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and here the tannaโim disagree with regard to the matter of whether there is an entity created with one kidney from the outset. One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that there is an entity created with one kidney, and it may be assumed that this is such an animal, and it is not lacking a limb. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that there is no entity created with one kidney, and this animal is lacking a limb and is disqualified for sacrifice.
ืืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืืื ืขืืื ืืื ืืจืื ืืืืช ืืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืื ืงืฉืื ืืื ืฉืืกืจื ืงืืื ืฉืืืื ืืื ืฉืืกืจื ืืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืงืืื ืงืืื ืื ืฉืจื
And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and yet it is not difficult. Here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before its slaughter. Whereas there, the second baraita is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after its slaughter, and therefore it is fit. The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after its slaughter but before the collection of the blood in a vessel for sprinkling, is it permitted to sacrifice it?
ืืืืืจ ืจืื ืืืจื ืืืจ ืจื ืืฆืืจื ืืื ืืคืจ ืืืืจ ืื ืงืืื ืืื ืคืกืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืืืงื ืืื ืืคืจ ืืคืจ ืฉืืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืฉืืกืจื ืงืืื ืงืืื ืืื ืฉืืกืจื ืืืืจ ืงืืื
But doesnโt Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: In the case of one who slits the ear of the bull with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collects its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: โAnd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bullโ (Leviticus 4:5). By using the term โthe bull,โ the verse indicates that the bull must be at the time of collection of the blood as it already was before slaughter, without a blemish. Rather, here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before the collection of the blood, whereas there, in the second baraita, it is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after the collection of the blood.
ืืืืืจ ืงืืื ืงืืื ืืจืืงื ืื ืฉืจื ืืืชื ืื ืฉื ืชืืื ืืืจ ืื ืฉื ื ืืืื ืืื ืฉืืื ืชืืื ืื ืฉื ื ืืฉืขืช ืฉืืืื
The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after the collection of the blood but before the sprinkling of the blood, is it permitted to be sacrificed upon the altar? But isnโt it taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: โYour lamb shall be without blemish, a male in its yearโ (Exodus 12:5), indicating that it shall be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter?
ืืื ืื ืืงืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืืื ืชืืืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืฉืืื ืื ืืืืืชืื ืชื ืืื ืฉื ื
The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that it must also be unblemished at the time of the collection of the blood, and at the time of conveying its blood to the altar, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood? The verse states: โShall be,โ emphasizing that all actions that are performed upon it shall be performed only when it is unblemished and in its first year. This teaches that the offering must be unblemished even at the time of the sprinkling of its blood.
ืชืจืืื ืืื ืฉื ื ืืื ื ืื ืืกืชืืจื ืืชื ืื ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืืืืจ ืื ืืืืืื ืฉืืชืืจื ืฉื ืฉืชืืืจ ืืื ืืืืช ืืฉืจ ืื ืืืืช ืืื ืืืจืง ืืช ืืื ืฉืืข ืืื ื
The Gemara answers: Interpret this baraita as teaching that only the requirement that the animal must be in its first year is necessary at the time of sprinkling. Nevertheless, it need not be unblemished at this stage. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah that were slaughtered and their blood was collected, from which there remains either an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat, the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering. Learn from this baraita that even if most of the offering is lacking, it is not disqualified after the collection of the blood.
ืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืฉืขืช ืฉืืืื ืืื ืื ืฉื ื ืืืฉืขืช ืงืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืื ืฉืชื ืฉื ืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืช ืืืืจืช ืฉืขืืช ืคืืกืืืช ืืงืืฉืื
The Gemara asks with regard to the interpretation of the baraita: But is there anything where at the time of its slaughter the animal is in its first year but at the time of the collection of the blood and conveying it to the altar it is in its second year? Rava says: That is to say that hours disqualify in the case of sacrificial animals, i.e., one measures the age of the offering from the exact time of its birth. Therefore, if the animal reaches its second year between the time when it is slaughtered and the collection of its blood it is disqualified.
ืืืื ืืชื ืื ืืืขืื ืืืชืืช ืื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ืืืื ืืืืฆืื ืืืจื ืจืื ืืืืื
ยง The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether the lack of an internal organ disqualifies an offering from being sacrificed. Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tannaโim, as it is taught in a baraita discussing the verse that provides a list of animals disqualified from the altar: โAnd that whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut you shall not sacrifice to the Lordโ (Leviticus 22:24). All of these blemishes are found in the animalโs testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
ืืืืฆืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืฃ ืืืืฆืื ืืืจื ืจืื ืืืืื ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืื ืืขืงื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืขืื ืืืชืืช ืืฃ ืืืืฆืื ื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ืืืื ืืื ืืืืฆืื ืื
The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that these blemishes are only in the testicles and not in the penis? There too these should be considered blemishes, as the penis is more exposed and visible than the testicles. Rather, say that all of them also apply to the testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโakov says: All of them are considered blemishes only when found on the penis. Rabbi Yosei says: The blemishes of โbruised, or crushedโ apply also to the testicles, while with regard to the blemishes of โtorn or cut,โ on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles they are not considered a blemish.
ืืื ืืื ืืื ืงืืืคืืื ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื
The Gemara explains the relevance of the dispute to the matter at hand: What, is it not that these tannaโim disagree about this: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack. Therefore, in cases where the testicles are damaged they are considered lacking, disqualifying the animal, despite the fact that the blemish is not exposed. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโakov, holds that the lack of an internal limb is not called a lack.
ืืชืกืืจื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืื ืงืกืืจ ืื ืงืกืืจ ืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืคืืื ื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ื ืื ืืื ืงืกืืจ ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืคืืื ืืขืื ืืืชืืช ื ืื ืื
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? If so, what does Rabbi Yosei hold? If he holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack, then even โtorn or cutโ should be considered a lack, despite the fact that these blemishes are not visible. And if he holds that a lack of an internal limb is not called a lack, then even โbruised, or crushed,โ should not be considered a lack, as they are not exposed.
ืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืฉืืืืื ืงืืืคืืื ืจืื ืืืืื ืกืืจ ืืขืื ืืืชืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืืืืืืฆื ื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืชืืืื ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืื ืืขืงื ืกืืจ ืืขืื ืืืชืืช ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืขืืงืจื ื ืื ืืื ืื ืืืืืืืฆื ื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืขืืงืจื ื ืื ืืืื ืื ืืชืืืื
Rather, here they disagree with regard to exposed blemishes. Rabbi Yehuda holds that โbruised or crushedโ testicles are considered blemished, as the testicles noticeably shrink due to the crushing. Likewise, testicles that are โtorn or cutโ are considered blemished, as the testicles appear to be hanging, i.e., dangling, to such an extent that they do not appear to be attached in the usual manner. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโakov holds that testicles that are โbruised or crushedโ are not considered noticeable blemishes, as initially, before they become damaged, there are times that the testicles also shrink. Furthermore, testicles that are โtorn or cutโ are not considered blemished either, as initially, prior to being torn or cut, there are times that the testicles also hang.
ืืจืื ืืืกื ืกืืจ ืืขืื ืืืชืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืชื ืื ื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืชื ืื
And Rabbi Yosei holds that โbruised or crushedโ testicles are considered blemished, as they are no longer present in their normal state, but are entirely broken. But he maintains that โtorn or cutโ testicles are not considered blemished, as they are still present in the pouch, despite the fact that they no longer function.
ืืชื ืืณ ื ืคืื ืืืืื ืืขืจืื ืฉื ื ืงืื ืืืืงืืฉืื ื ืคืื ืืื ื ืื ืืขืฆื ืืื ืื ืื ืืคืจืง ืื ืฉืจืืฉ ืื ื ืืคืฆื ื ืงืืคื ืืขืืจ ืืืืฉืจ ืืืขืฆื ื ืฉืืจ ืื ืฉืืฉ ืืฉืจ ืืืืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืฆืืข
MISHNA: The mishna details additional blemishes that enable the slaughter of firstborn animals: If the pouch [hazoven] in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed, or if the genitalia of a female sacrificial animal, were damaged and lacking; if the tail was damaged from the tailbone, but not if it was damaged from the joint, i.e., one of the joints between the vertebrae, because it heals; or in a case where the end of the tail is split, i.e., the skin and the flesh were removed and the bone remained exposed; or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint; these are all blemishes.
ืืืณ ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืขืืจ ื ืคืื ืืื ื ืืื ืืืก ืืื ืืืจืืช ืชื ืื ื ืื ืืื ื ืคืื ืืื ื ืืื ืืืก ืืื ืืืจืืช ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืกื ืื ืืืฉืืื ืืขืฉื ืืขืื ืื ืืื ืฉื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืชื ื
GEMARA: With regard to the case where the pouch in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed was damaged, Rabbi Elazar says: This applies only if the pouch was damaged, but not in a case where it was removed. Furthermore, it is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if the male sex organ was damaged. The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: It is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if it was removed, and only if the pouch was damaged, but not the male sex organ. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: An incident occurred involving one animal in Inbal, where a wolf removed its pouch and it later returned to its strength, i.e., it grew again.
ื ืคืืื ืืื ื ืื ืืขืฆื ืืืืณ ืชื ื ืืฆืืข ืฉืืืจื ืืื ืืืจืืขื ืืืคื ืฉื ืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืชื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืขื ืื ืชืืืช ืืชื ืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ื ืืชื ืืืช ืฉืืื ืืืืจืื ืืจืืขื ืืืืช ืืื ืืืืจืื ืฉืืฉื
ยง The mishna stated: If the tail was damaged from the tailboneโฆor in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. A tanna taught: The fingerbreadth of which the Sages spoke is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rabba says: It is stated with regard to tekhelet, i.e., ritual fringes. As it is taught in a baraita: How many strings does one place on a garment?Beit Shammai say: Four strings are inserted into the hole in the garment so that there are eight strings hanging down altogether, and Beit Hillel say: Three strings are inserted into the hole so that six are hanging down.
ืืืื ืชืื ืืฉืืืฉืช ืืืช ืฉืืื ืืืืจืื ืืจืืขื ืืืืช ืืื ืืืืจืื ืฉืืฉื ืืฉืืืฉ ืฉืืืช ืืื ืืืืจืื ืืื ืืืจืืข ืืืคื ืฉื ืื ืืื
The baraita continues: And how much should be hanging beyond the knots and windings? Beit Shammai say: Four fingerbreadths, and Beit Hillel say: Three fingerbreadths. And the three fingerbreadths that Beit Hillel say should be hanging are each one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.
ืจื ืืื ื ืืจืื ืืจื ืืืืฉืข ืืืจ ืืฉืชื ืืืืช ืืชื ื ืฉืชื ืืืืช ืืื
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says that this baraita discussing the fingerbreadth is referring to the two cubits mentioned in a different context, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:9): There were two rods for measuring cubits
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Bekhorot 39
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
ืื ืืืื ืืื ืกืขืืื ืืกืขืืื ืื ืชืืืฆื ืืืืจ ืืกืขืืื ืจืืฉืื ื ืงืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืงืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืืกืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืื ืงืืื ืฉืชืื ืื ืืืืจ ืฉืชืื ืืงืืื ืฉืชืื ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืืฉืขืจื ืืืืจ ืฉืชืื ืืื
or perhaps does it mean it is fed the amount of a fig-bulk at each and every meal? If you say that it is fed a fig-bulk only at the first meal, is it fed this fodder before its regularly scheduled eating or after eating? The Gemara elaborates: Before eating, it is certainly effective for it like a medicine, which people imbibe before their meals. With regard to after eating, what is the halakha? Is this an effective manner of examining the animal? The Gemara further inquires: Is the animal fed this fodder as a medicine before drinking or after drinking? Before drinking it is certainly effective for it, like barley, which is fed to an animal before it drinks. With regard to after drinking, what is the halakha?
ืงืฉืืจ ืื ืืืชืจ ืืืชืจ ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืงืฉืืจ ืืื ืืืื ืื ืขื ืืืืจื ืขื ืืืืจื ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื
The Gemara continues to inquire: Is the animal given the fodder when it is tied or untied? The Gemara explains: When it is untied, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal. When it is tied, what is the halakha? Furthermore, is it fed the fodder when it is by itself, or with another animal? When it is with another animal, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is comfortable. When it is by itself, what is the halakha?
ืืขืืจ ืืืฉืื ืืฉืื ืืืื ืืขืื ืืื ืืขืืจ ืืื ืืขื ืจื ืืฉื ืื ืชืืืฆื ืืืืจ ืืฉืื ืืื ื ืืกืืืื ืืขืืจ ืืื ืชืืงื
Likewise, is the animal fed it in the city or in the field? When it is in the field, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is calm. When it is in the city, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a further dilemma: If you say that this treatment is effective only when it is in the field, not when it is the city, what is the halakha with regard to a garden adjacent to the city? No resolution is found for any of these inquiries, and with regard to each of them the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
ืจืื ืื ื ืื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืก ืืืืจ ืืืจ ืจื ื ืืื ืืจ ืืฆืืง ืืืืื ืฉืืื ืืฉืืืฉืื
ยง The mishna teaches with regard to constant pale spots that Rabbi แธคananya ben Antigonus says: One examines the animal three times within eighty days. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak says: And this is the halakha provided that they are divided into equal thirds, i.e., there must be an even gap between each of these examinations.
ืืขื ืืื ืื ืคื ืืก ืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืชืกื ืืืคืจืข ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืื
With regard to the statement of the mishna that constant tears are examined by feeding the animal moist and then dry fodder for a period of three months, Pineแธฅas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, raises a dilemma before Shmuel: If the animal ate the fodder in the required manner and was not healed, which means that it is blemished, is it a retroactive blemish from the day it was discovered, or is it a blemish from that point forward?
ืืืื ื ืคืงื ืืื ื ืืืืืขื ืืคืืืื ื ืื ืืืจืช ืืืคืจืข ืืื ืืืื ืืขืื
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to whether one has violated the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property concerning its redemption money in a case where a consecrated animal was redeemed before the end of the three months of examination and someone derived benefit from the money paid for its redemption. If you say that it is a retroactive blemish, he thereby misuses consecrated property, as the redemption was effective and the money belongs to the Temple treasury.
ืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืขืื ืืื ืงืจื ืฉืืืื ืขืืื ืคืกืืื ืืืื ื(ื)ื
But if it is a blemish from that point forward, then one who derived benefit from money paid before that point has not misused consecrated property, as an unblemished animal cannot be redeemed, and the money remains non-sacred. What, then, is the halakha? Shmuel read this verse with regard to his brother: โThe lame take the preyโ (Isaiah 33:23), i.e., one who is not learned in Torah has managed to ask a question for which I have no answer.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืืืื ืฉื ืืงื ืืฉื ืคืื ืืฉื ืกืืง ืฉืคืื ืฉื ืืงืื ืฉื ืคืืื ืฉื ืกืืงื
MISHNA: For these additional blemishes, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple: Its nose that was pierced, or that was damaged and is lacking, or that was split. Likewise, its lip that was pierced, or that was damaged, or that was split is considered a blemish.
ืืืณ ืชื ื ืจืื ื ื ืืงืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืชืื ืื ืืืืืฅ ืืจื ืื ืืื ืืืคื ืื ืืื ื ืืื ืฉืคืชื ืฉื ืืงืื ืืฉื ืคืืื ืืฉื ืกืืงื ืืืจ ืจื ืคืคื ืชืืจื ืืจื ืืฉืืคืชืื
GEMARA: With regard to the case of the nose that was pierced, the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where its nostrils were pierced one into the other, if the perforation is visible on the outside of the nostril, this is a blemish; if it is visible only on the inside of the nostril, it is not a blemish. With regard to the case of: Its lip that was pierced or that was damaged or that was split, Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the outer row, i.e., the front, protruding part of its lip.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืืืื ืืืืฆืื ืืช ืฉื ืคืืื ืืฉื ืืืื ืืคื ืืืื ืฉื ืขืงืจื ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืก ืืืืจ ืืื ืืืืงืื ืื ืืชืืืืช ืืืคื ืื ืืืฃ ืื ืืช ืืชืืืืช
MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn: The external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched, and likewise, the internal gums that were extracted. Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the double teeth, i.e., the large molars that appear like two teeth, and inward, and one does not examine even the place of the double teeth themselves. This is because even if they were extracted, it is a concealed blemish, and it does not permit the slaughter of the firstborn.
ืืืณ ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืืชืืืืช ืืืืื ืชืืืืช ืื ืืชืืืืช ืืืคื ืื ืืชืืืืช ืขืฆืื ืืืคื ืื ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืื ืงืคืืฆืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืฉืืืืื ืืื ืขื ืืืืฆืื ืืช ืืืื ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืก ืืืืจ ืืื ืืฉืืืืื ืขื ืืชืืืืช ืื ืขืืงืจ
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the mishna is referring to the double teeth, what are the double teeth? The area from the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves, are considered like the inward part, i.e., the location of a concealed blemish, for which one may not slaughter the animal. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth alone. Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus says: One does not consider the double teeth at all.
ืืื ืงืืืจ ืืชื ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืื ืงืคืืฆืื ืืืื ื ืชื ื ืงืื
The Gemara notes that the baraita asks about the double teeth but does not answer the question: What is the tanna saying? And furthermore, the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai is the same as that of the first tanna, as they both maintain that a blemish to the double teeth is considered a concealed blemish.
ืืกืืจื ืืืืกืจื ืืืื ืงืชื ื ืืืืื ืืคื ืืืืช ืื ืืชืืืืช ืืืคื ืื ืืชืืืืช ืขืฆืื ืืืคื ืื ืืื ืืืจืื ืืืืจืื ืฉื ืคืืื ืืฉื ืืืื ืืื ื ืขืงืจื ืฉืืืืื
The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: What are the inner gums, for which a firstborn is not slaughtered if a blemish was found there? The inner gums are located from the place of the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves are considered like the inward part. In what case is this statement, that one does not slaughter the animal, said? It is said in a case where the inner gums were damaged or were scratched. But if they were extracted, one does slaughter the firstborn for this blemish.
ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืื ืงืคืืฆืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืฉืืืืื ืืื ืขื ืืืืฆืื ืืช ืืื ืคื ืืืืืช ืฉื ืขืงืจื ืืืฉืื ืขืืืืื ืื ืฉืืืื ื ืืื ืืคืกืืื ืืืคืกื ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืก ืืืืจ ืืื ืืฉืืืืื ืขื ืืชืืืืช ืื ืขืืงืจ ืืืคืืื ืืืคืกืืื ืื ืืืคืกืื
The Gemara continues its interpretation of the baraita. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth. But with regard to the inner gums that were extracted, one does not slaughter the animal for them, but it is disqualified as an offering. Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus says: One does not pay attention to the double teeth at all, and a blemish there does not even disqualify the firstborn from sacrifice.
ืืขื ืจื ืืืืืื ืืจ ืืื ืืฉ ืืืืกืจ ืืืจ ืืืคื ืื ืื ืืื ืืืืกืจ ืืืจ ืืืคื ืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืคืกื ืื ืขืืจ ืืชืื
ยง Rav Aแธฅadvoi bar Ami raises a dilemma: Is there halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal, or is there no halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal? The Gemara inquires: With regard to what issue did he raise this dilemma? If it was with regard to whether such a blemish renders permitted the slaughter of a firstborn outside the Temple, it is written: โLameness or blindnessโ (Deuteronomy 15:21), which indicates that the blemish must be exposed.
ืื ืืงืืฉืื ืขืืจืช ืื ืฉืืืจ ืืชืื ืืืืฉืืืื ืืืืืคืจืืงื ืื ืืืืขืื ืื ืื ืืืืขืื ืื ืืืืคืกืืื ืืื
If the dilemma was raised with regard to whether other sacrificial animals with such a blemish are thereby disqualified from being sacrificed and may be redeemed, it is written: โBlind or brokenโ (Leviticus 22:22), which are also types of exposed blemishes. The Gemara explains that we do not raise this dilemma with regard to slaughtering the firstborn or redeeming other sacrificial animals, as it is clearly not considered a blemish to that extent. Rather, we raise the dilemma with regard to disqualifying the animal from sacrifice. What is the halakha?
ืชืืื ืืืื ืืจืฆืื ืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืชืืื ืืื ืืกืจืื ืื ืื ืืืื ืชืืื ืืืื ืืจืฆืื ืื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืื ืืืืจืื ืืฃ ืืกืจืื ืืืืจืื
The Gemara clarifies the dilemma. The Merciful One states: โIt shall be complete to be acceptedโ (Leviticus 22:21), which indicates that a complete animal, yes, is fit as a sacrifice, but if it is lacking in any manner, even on the inside, it is not fit. Or perhaps one should interpret this phrase: โIt shall be complete to be accepted,โ in light of what is stated immediately afterward: โThere shall be no blemish therein.โ Just as a blemish is on the outside, as taught by the next verse, which says: โBlind or broken,โ so too, the status of lacking a limb applies only if it is lacking on the outside.
ืชื ืฉืืข ืืืช ืฉืชื ืืืืืืช ืืื ืืขื ืืืืื ืืืช ืืื ืืขื ืฉืืฉ ืืืืืืช ืืชื ืื ืืืื ืืกืืจื ื ืืจืืืช ืืขื ืืืืื ืืืช
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that this matter is subject to a dispute. It is taught in one baraita: When it states with regard to the burning of the sacrificial portions of a peace offering: โAnd the two kidneysโ (Leviticus 3:4), this teaches that one sacrifices only an animal that has two kidneys, but not an animal that has one kidney, nor one that has three kidneys. And it is taught in another baraita that when that verse states: โAnd the two kidneysโฆhe shall take it away,โ the singular form serves to include an animal that has one kidney, which may be sacrificed. Evidently, these tannaโim disagree as to whether an animal lacking a kidney is fit to be sacrificed.
ืกืืจืื ืืืืื ืขืืื ืืื ืืจืื ืืืืช ืืื ืืืืกืจ ืืกืจ ืืืื ืืื ืงืืืคืืื ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื
The Sages initially assumed that everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and only one kidney is found because this offering became lacking a kidney only after birth. If so, let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is not considered a lack.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืืจ ืืืกืฃ ืืืืื ืขืืื ืืฉ ืืจืื ืืืืช ืืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืื ืงืฉืื ืืื ืืฉื ืืจืื ืืฉืชืื ืืืกืจื ืืื ืืฉื ืืจืื ืืืืช ืืขืืงืจื
Rav แธคiyya bar Yosef says: There is no dispute here, as everyone agrees that there is such an entity born with one kidney, and everyone also agrees that the lack of an internal limb is considered a lack that disqualifies the animal. And the contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult: Here, in the first baraita, where it was created with two kidneys and one is lacking, the animal is disqualified. Whereas there, where it was created with one kidney from the outset, it is not lacking and therefore it is fit.
ืืื ืืืืื ืืฉืืฉ ืงืชื ื ืื ืฉืืฉ ืืขืืงืจื ืืฃ ืืืช ืืขืืงืจื
The Gemara asks: But the first baraita teaches the case of an animal that has one kidney as similar to that of an animal that has three kidneys. One can therefore infer: Just as these three kidneys were present from the outset, as an animal does not grow new limbs, so too, the animal with one kidney alone was like that from the outset.
ืืื ืืื ืืืฉ ืืจืื ืืขืืงืจื ืงืืืคืืื ืืจ ืกืืจ ืืฉ ืืจืื ืืืืช ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืืื ืืจืื ืืืืช
Rather, everyone agrees that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and here the tannaโim disagree with regard to the matter of whether there is an entity created with one kidney from the outset. One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that there is an entity created with one kidney, and it may be assumed that this is such an animal, and it is not lacking a limb. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that there is no entity created with one kidney, and this animal is lacking a limb and is disqualified for sacrifice.
ืืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืืื ืขืืื ืืื ืืจืื ืืืืช ืืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืื ืงืฉืื ืืื ืฉืืกืจื ืงืืื ืฉืืืื ืืื ืฉืืกืจื ืืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืงืืื ืงืืื ืื ืฉืจื
And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and yet it is not difficult. Here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before its slaughter. Whereas there, the second baraita is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after its slaughter, and therefore it is fit. The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after its slaughter but before the collection of the blood in a vessel for sprinkling, is it permitted to sacrifice it?
ืืืืืจ ืจืื ืืืจื ืืืจ ืจื ืืฆืืจื ืืื ืืคืจ ืืืืจ ืื ืงืืื ืืื ืคืกืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืืืงื ืืื ืืคืจ ืืคืจ ืฉืืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืฉืืกืจื ืงืืื ืงืืื ืืื ืฉืืกืจื ืืืืจ ืงืืื
But doesnโt Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: In the case of one who slits the ear of the bull with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collects its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: โAnd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bullโ (Leviticus 4:5). By using the term โthe bull,โ the verse indicates that the bull must be at the time of collection of the blood as it already was before slaughter, without a blemish. Rather, here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before the collection of the blood, whereas there, in the second baraita, it is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after the collection of the blood.
ืืืืืจ ืงืืื ืงืืื ืืจืืงื ืื ืฉืจื ืืืชื ืื ืฉื ืชืืื ืืืจ ืื ืฉื ื ืืืื ืืื ืฉืืื ืชืืื ืื ืฉื ื ืืฉืขืช ืฉืืืื
The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after the collection of the blood but before the sprinkling of the blood, is it permitted to be sacrificed upon the altar? But isnโt it taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: โYour lamb shall be without blemish, a male in its yearโ (Exodus 12:5), indicating that it shall be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter?
ืืื ืื ืืงืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืืื ืชืืืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืฉืืื ืื ืืืืืชืื ืชื ืืื ืฉื ื
The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that it must also be unblemished at the time of the collection of the blood, and at the time of conveying its blood to the altar, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood? The verse states: โShall be,โ emphasizing that all actions that are performed upon it shall be performed only when it is unblemished and in its first year. This teaches that the offering must be unblemished even at the time of the sprinkling of its blood.
ืชืจืืื ืืื ืฉื ื ืืื ื ืื ืืกืชืืจื ืืชื ืื ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืืืืจ ืื ืืืืืื ืฉืืชืืจื ืฉื ืฉืชืืืจ ืืื ืืืืช ืืฉืจ ืื ืืืืช ืืื ืืืจืง ืืช ืืื ืฉืืข ืืื ื
The Gemara answers: Interpret this baraita as teaching that only the requirement that the animal must be in its first year is necessary at the time of sprinkling. Nevertheless, it need not be unblemished at this stage. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah that were slaughtered and their blood was collected, from which there remains either an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat, the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering. Learn from this baraita that even if most of the offering is lacking, it is not disqualified after the collection of the blood.
ืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืฉืขืช ืฉืืืื ืืื ืื ืฉื ื ืืืฉืขืช ืงืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืื ืฉืชื ืฉื ืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืช ืืืืจืช ืฉืขืืช ืคืืกืืืช ืืงืืฉืื
The Gemara asks with regard to the interpretation of the baraita: But is there anything where at the time of its slaughter the animal is in its first year but at the time of the collection of the blood and conveying it to the altar it is in its second year? Rava says: That is to say that hours disqualify in the case of sacrificial animals, i.e., one measures the age of the offering from the exact time of its birth. Therefore, if the animal reaches its second year between the time when it is slaughtered and the collection of its blood it is disqualified.
ืืืื ืืชื ืื ืืืขืื ืืืชืืช ืื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ืืืื ืืืืฆืื ืืืจื ืจืื ืืืืื
ยง The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether the lack of an internal organ disqualifies an offering from being sacrificed. Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tannaโim, as it is taught in a baraita discussing the verse that provides a list of animals disqualified from the altar: โAnd that whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut you shall not sacrifice to the Lordโ (Leviticus 22:24). All of these blemishes are found in the animalโs testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
ืืืืฆืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืฃ ืืืืฆืื ืืืจื ืจืื ืืืืื ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืื ืืขืงื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืขืื ืืืชืืช ืืฃ ืืืืฆืื ื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ืืืื ืืื ืืืืฆืื ืื
The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that these blemishes are only in the testicles and not in the penis? There too these should be considered blemishes, as the penis is more exposed and visible than the testicles. Rather, say that all of them also apply to the testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโakov says: All of them are considered blemishes only when found on the penis. Rabbi Yosei says: The blemishes of โbruised, or crushedโ apply also to the testicles, while with regard to the blemishes of โtorn or cut,โ on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles they are not considered a blemish.
ืืื ืืื ืืื ืงืืืคืืื ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื
The Gemara explains the relevance of the dispute to the matter at hand: What, is it not that these tannaโim disagree about this: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack. Therefore, in cases where the testicles are damaged they are considered lacking, disqualifying the animal, despite the fact that the blemish is not exposed. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโakov, holds that the lack of an internal limb is not called a lack.
ืืชืกืืจื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืื ืงืกืืจ ืื ืงืกืืจ ืืกืจืื ืืืคื ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืคืืื ื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ื ืื ืืื ืงืกืืจ ืื ืฉืืื ืืกืจืื ืืคืืื ืืขืื ืืืชืืช ื ืื ืื
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? If so, what does Rabbi Yosei hold? If he holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack, then even โtorn or cutโ should be considered a lack, despite the fact that these blemishes are not visible. And if he holds that a lack of an internal limb is not called a lack, then even โbruised, or crushed,โ should not be considered a lack, as they are not exposed.
ืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืฉืืืืื ืงืืืคืืื ืจืื ืืืืื ืกืืจ ืืขืื ืืืชืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืืืืืืฆื ื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืชืืืื ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืื ืืขืงื ืกืืจ ืืขืื ืืืชืืช ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืขืืงืจื ื ืื ืืื ืื ืืืืืืืฆื ื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืขืืงืจื ื ืื ืืืื ืื ืืชืืืื
Rather, here they disagree with regard to exposed blemishes. Rabbi Yehuda holds that โbruised or crushedโ testicles are considered blemished, as the testicles noticeably shrink due to the crushing. Likewise, testicles that are โtorn or cutโ are considered blemished, as the testicles appear to be hanging, i.e., dangling, to such an extent that they do not appear to be attached in the usual manner. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโakov holds that testicles that are โbruised or crushedโ are not considered noticeable blemishes, as initially, before they become damaged, there are times that the testicles also shrink. Furthermore, testicles that are โtorn or cutโ are not considered blemished either, as initially, prior to being torn or cut, there are times that the testicles also hang.
ืืจืื ืืืกื ืกืืจ ืืขืื ืืืชืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืชื ืื ื ืชืืง ืืืจืืช ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืชื ืื
And Rabbi Yosei holds that โbruised or crushedโ testicles are considered blemished, as they are no longer present in their normal state, but are entirely broken. But he maintains that โtorn or cutโ testicles are not considered blemished, as they are still present in the pouch, despite the fact that they no longer function.
ืืชื ืืณ ื ืคืื ืืืืื ืืขืจืื ืฉื ื ืงืื ืืืืงืืฉืื ื ืคืื ืืื ื ืื ืืขืฆื ืืื ืื ืื ืืคืจืง ืื ืฉืจืืฉ ืื ื ืืคืฆื ื ืงืืคื ืืขืืจ ืืืืฉืจ ืืืขืฆื ื ืฉืืจ ืื ืฉืืฉ ืืฉืจ ืืืืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืฆืืข
MISHNA: The mishna details additional blemishes that enable the slaughter of firstborn animals: If the pouch [hazoven] in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed, or if the genitalia of a female sacrificial animal, were damaged and lacking; if the tail was damaged from the tailbone, but not if it was damaged from the joint, i.e., one of the joints between the vertebrae, because it heals; or in a case where the end of the tail is split, i.e., the skin and the flesh were removed and the bone remained exposed; or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint; these are all blemishes.
ืืืณ ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืขืืจ ื ืคืื ืืื ื ืืื ืืืก ืืื ืืืจืืช ืชื ืื ื ืื ืืื ื ืคืื ืืื ื ืืื ืืืก ืืื ืืืจืืช ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืกื ืื ืืืฉืืื ืืขืฉื ืืขืื ืื ืืื ืฉื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืชื ื
GEMARA: With regard to the case where the pouch in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed was damaged, Rabbi Elazar says: This applies only if the pouch was damaged, but not in a case where it was removed. Furthermore, it is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if the male sex organ was damaged. The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: It is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if it was removed, and only if the pouch was damaged, but not the male sex organ. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: An incident occurred involving one animal in Inbal, where a wolf removed its pouch and it later returned to its strength, i.e., it grew again.
ื ืคืืื ืืื ื ืื ืืขืฆื ืืืืณ ืชื ื ืืฆืืข ืฉืืืจื ืืื ืืืจืืขื ืืืคื ืฉื ืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืชื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืขื ืื ืชืืืช ืืชื ืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ื ืืชื ืืืช ืฉืืื ืืืืจืื ืืจืืขื ืืืืช ืืื ืืืืจืื ืฉืืฉื
ยง The mishna stated: If the tail was damaged from the tailboneโฆor in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. A tanna taught: The fingerbreadth of which the Sages spoke is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rabba says: It is stated with regard to tekhelet, i.e., ritual fringes. As it is taught in a baraita: How many strings does one place on a garment?Beit Shammai say: Four strings are inserted into the hole in the garment so that there are eight strings hanging down altogether, and Beit Hillel say: Three strings are inserted into the hole so that six are hanging down.
ืืืื ืชืื ืืฉืืืฉืช ืืืช ืฉืืื ืืืืจืื ืืจืืขื ืืืืช ืืื ืืืืจืื ืฉืืฉื ืืฉืืืฉ ืฉืืืช ืืื ืืืืจืื ืืื ืืืจืืข ืืืคื ืฉื ืื ืืื
The baraita continues: And how much should be hanging beyond the knots and windings? Beit Shammai say: Four fingerbreadths, and Beit Hillel say: Three fingerbreadths. And the three fingerbreadths that Beit Hillel say should be hanging are each one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.
ืจื ืืื ื ืืจืื ืืจื ืืืืฉืข ืืืจ ืืฉืชื ืืืืช ืืชื ื ืฉืชื ืืืืช ืืื
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says that this baraita discussing the fingerbreadth is referring to the two cubits mentioned in a different context, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:9): There were two rods for measuring cubits