Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 26, 2019 | ื›ืดื ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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)?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื›ืœ ืกืขื•ื“ื” ื•ืกืขื•ื“ื” ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืกืขื•ื“ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื•ื“ื ืื›ื™ืœื” ืื• ืœืื—ืจ ืื›ื™ืœื” ืงื•ื“ื ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ืกืžื ืœืื—ืจ ืื›ื™ืœื” ืžืื™ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืชื™ื” ืื• ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืชื™ื” ื•ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืชื™ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ืฉืขืจื™ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืชื™ื” ืžืื™

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?

ืงืฉื•ืจ ืื• ืžื•ืชืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืฉื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœื‘ื“ื• ืื• ืขื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ื“ื• ืžืื™

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?

ื‘ืขื™ืจ ื•ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื’ื™ื ื” ื”ืกืžื•ื›ื” ืœืขื™ืจ ืžืื™ ืชื™ืงื•

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืžืฉื•ืœืฉื™ื

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™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืคื ื—ืก ืื—ื•ื” ื“ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื›ืœ ื•ืœื ืื™ืชืกื™ ืœืžืคืจืข ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ืื• ืžื™ื›ืŸ ื•ืœื”ื‘ื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื

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?

ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœืžื™ืžืขืœ ื‘ืคื“ื™ื•ื ื• ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœืžืคืจืข ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ืžืขื™ืœ

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.

ื•ืื™ ืžื™ื›ืŸ ื•ืœื”ื‘ื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ืœื ืžืขื™ืœ ืžืื™ ืงืจื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืขืœื™ื” ืคืกื—ื™ื ื‘ื–ื–ื• ื‘(ื•)ื–

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: โ€œThe 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ ื•ืฉื ืคื’ื ื•ืฉื ืกื“ืง ืฉืคืžื• ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื” ืฉื ืคื’ืžื” ืฉื ืกื“ืงื”

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ื™ืงื‘ื• ื—ื•ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœืชื•ืš ื–ื” ืžื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ื ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ื ืฉืคืชื• ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื” ื•ืฉื ืคื’ืžื” ื•ืฉื ืกื“ืงื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืชื•ืจื ื‘ืจื ื“ืฉื™ืคืชื™ื”

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื—ื•ื˜ื™ืŸ ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื•ืช ืฉื ืคื’ืžื• ื•ืฉื ื’ืžืžื• ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ื ืฉื ืขืงืจื• ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื•ืœืคื ื™ื ื•ืืฃ ืœื ืืช ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื•ืœืคื ื™ื ื•ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืขืฆืžื” ื›ืœืคื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืคื•ืฆืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื•ืช ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื’ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ

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.

ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ื•ืชื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืคื•ืฆืื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืชื ื ืงืžื

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.

ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื•ืœืคื ื™ื ื•ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืขืฆืžื” ื›ืœืคื ื™ื ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื ืคื’ืžื• ื•ืฉื ื’ืžืžื• ืื‘ืœ ื ืขืงืจื• ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืคื•ืฆืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืคื ื™ืžื™ื•ืช ืฉื ืขืงืจื• ืžื™ืฉื—ื˜ ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ืœื ืฉื—ื˜ื™ื ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืืคืกื•ืœื™ ืžื™ืคืกืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื’ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืื™ืคืกื•ืœื™ ืœื ืื™ืคืกื™ืœ

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 ืืžื™ ื™ืฉ ืžื—ื•ืกืจ ืื‘ืจ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ื•ืกืจ ืื‘ืจ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืคืกื— ืื• ืขื•ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘

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: โ€œLameness or blindnessโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:21), which indicates that the blemish must be exposed.

ืื™ ืœืงื“ืฉื™ื ืขื•ืจืช ืื• ืฉื‘ื•ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืื™ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื™ ื•ืœืื™ืคืจื•ืงื™ ืœื ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืŸ ื›ื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืŸ ืœืื™ืคืกื•ืœื™ ืžืื™

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: โ€œBlind 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?

ืชืžื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœืจืฆื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืชืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืœื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืชืžื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœืจืฆื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ืžื•ื ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื• ืžื” ืžื•ื ืžืื‘ืจืื™ ืืฃ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžืื‘ืจืื™

The Gemara clarifies the dilemma. The Merciful One states: โ€œIt 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: โ€œIt shall be complete to be accepted,โ€ in light of what is stated immediately afterward: โ€œThere shall be no blemish therein.โ€ Just as a blemish is on the outside, as taught by the next verse, which says: โ€œBlind or broken,โ€ so too, the status of lacking a limb applies only if it is lacking on the outside.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ืืช ืฉืชื™ ื”ื›ืœื™ื•ืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœื™ื ืื—ืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืขืœ ืฉืœืฉ ื›ื•ืœื™ื•ืช ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ื™ืกื™ืจื ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœื™ื ืื—ื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: โ€œAnd 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: โ€œAnd the two kidneysโ€ฆhe shall take it away,โ€ the singular form serves to include an animal that has one kidney, which may be sacrificed. Evidently, these tannaโ€™im disagree as to whether an animal lacking a kidney is fit to be sacrificed.

ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืช ื“ื”ื ืžื™ื—ืกืจ ื—ืกืจ ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืœื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืช ื•ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื›ืฉื ื‘ืจืื” ื‘ืฉืชื™ื ื•ื—ืกืจื• ื›ืืŸ ื›ืฉื ื‘ืจืื” ื‘ืื—ืช ืžืขื™ืงืจื

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.

ื•ื”ื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืฉืœืฉ ืงืชื ื™ ืžื” ืฉืœืฉ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืืฃ ืื—ืช ืžืขื™ืงืจื

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.

ืืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืช ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืช

Rather, everyone agrees that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and here the tannaโ€™im 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืช ื•ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืฉื—ืกืจื” ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื›ืืŸ ืฉื—ืกืจื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงื•ื“ื ืงื‘ืœื” ืžื™ ื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?

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืฆื•ืจื ืื–ืŸ ื”ืคืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืงื™ื‘ืœ ื“ืžื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœืงื— ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื”ืคืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื›ื‘ืจ ืืœื ื›ืืŸ ืฉื—ืกืจื” ืงื•ื“ื ืงื‘ืœื” ื›ืืŸ ืฉื—ืกืจื” ืœืื—ืจ ืงื‘ืœื”

But doesnโ€™t 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: โ€œAnd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bullโ€ (Leviticus 4:5). By using the term โ€œthe 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.

ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืงื‘ืœื” ืงื•ื“ื ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืฉื” ืชืžื™ื ื–ื›ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœื›ื ืฉื™ื”ื ืชืžื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื‘ืฉืขืช ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

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 isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: โ€œYour 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?

ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงื‘ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ื™ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื™ื”ื™ื” ืฉื™ื”ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื•ื™ื•ืชื™ื• ืชื ื•ื‘ืŸ ื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: โ€œShall 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.

ืชืจื’ืžื ืื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจ ืžื”ืŸ ื›ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ืื• ื›ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

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.

ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื‘ืฉืขืช ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืขืช ืงื‘ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืฉืขื•ืช ืคื•ืกืœื•ืช ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื

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.

ืœื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ื•ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ื•ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

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 tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita discussing the verse that provides a list of animals disqualified from the altar: โ€œAnd 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 animalโ€™s testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื’ื™ื“ ืื™ืžื ืืฃ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ื’ื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ืืฃ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ื‘ื’ื™ื“ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืœื

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 Yaโ€™akov says: All of them are considered blemishes only when found on the penis. Rabbi Yosei says: The blemishes of โ€œbruised, or crushedโ€ apply also to the testicles, while with regard to the blemishes of โ€œtorn or cut,โ€ on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles they are not considered a blemish.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ

The Gemara explains the relevance of the dispute to the matter at hand: What, is it not that these tannaโ€™im 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 Yaโ€™akov, holds that the lack of an internal limb is not called a lack.

ื•ืชืกื‘ืจื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืื™ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืื™ ืงืกื‘ืจ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ื ืžื™ ื•ืื™ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืœื

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 โ€œtorn 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 โ€œbruised, or crushed,โ€ should not be considered a lack, as they are not exposed.

ืืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ื ืฉื‘ื’ืœื•ื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื•ืฆืŸ ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ื”ื ืชืœื™ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื ืžื™ ื–ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื•ืฆืŸ ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื ืžื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืชืœื™ื™ืŸ

Rather, here they disagree with regard to exposed blemishes. Rabbi Yehuda holds that โ€œbruised or crushedโ€ testicles are considered blemished, as the testicles noticeably shrink due to the crushing. Likewise, testicles that are โ€œtorn 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 Yaโ€™akov holds that testicles that are โ€œbruised 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 โ€œtorn or cutโ€ are not considered blemished either, as initially, prior to being torn or cut, there are times that the testicles also hang.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ื”ื ืœื™ืชื ื”ื• ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ื”ื ืื™ืชื ื”ื•

And Rabbi Yosei holds that โ€œbruised or crushedโ€ testicles are considered blemished, as they are no longer present in their normal state, but are entirely broken. But he maintains that โ€œtorn or cutโ€ testicles are not considered blemished, as they are still present in the pouch, despite the fact that they no longer function.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืคื’ื ื”ื–ื•ื‘ืŸ ื”ืขืจื™ื” ืฉืœ ื ืงื‘ื” ื‘ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ื ืคื’ื ื”ื–ื ื‘ ืžืŸ ื”ืขืฆื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืคืจืง ืื• ืฉืจืืฉ ื–ื ื‘ ืžืคืฆืœ ื ืงืœืคื” ื”ืขื•ืจ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ืขืฆื ื ืฉืืจ ืื• ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ื ืžืœื ืืฆื‘ืข

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื ืคื’ื ื•ืœื ื ื™ื˜ืœ ื›ื™ืก ื•ืœื ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืคื’ื ื•ืœื ื ื™ื˜ืœ ื›ื™ืก ื•ืœื ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืŸ ื”ืžืฉื•ืœื ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื‘ืœ ืื—ื“ ืฉื ื˜ืœื• ื–ืื‘ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ืœืื™ื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.

ื ืคื’ืžื” ื”ื–ื ื‘ ืžืŸ ื”ืขืฆื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื ืืฆื‘ืข ืฉืืžืจื• ืื—ื“ ืžืืจื‘ืขื” ื‘ื˜ืคื— ืฉืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืื“ื ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืชื›ืœืช ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ืžื” ื—ื•ื˜ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉืœืฉื”

ยง The mishna stated: If the tail was damaged from the tailboneโ€ฆor 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.

ื•ื›ืžื” ืชื”ื ืžืฉื•ืœืฉืช ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉืœืฉื” ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืฉื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื—ื“ ืžืืจื‘ืข ื‘ื˜ืคื— ืฉืœ ื›ืœ ืื“ื

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‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืœืฉืชื™ ืืžื•ืช ื“ืชื ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืืžื•ื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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

Bekhorot 39

ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื›ืœ ืกืขื•ื“ื” ื•ืกืขื•ื“ื” ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืกืขื•ื“ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื•ื“ื ืื›ื™ืœื” ืื• ืœืื—ืจ ืื›ื™ืœื” ืงื•ื“ื ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ืกืžื ืœืื—ืจ ืื›ื™ืœื” ืžืื™ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืชื™ื” ืื• ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืชื™ื” ื•ืงื•ื“ื ืฉืชื™ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ืฉืขืจื™ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืชื™ื” ืžืื™

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?

ืงืฉื•ืจ ืื• ืžื•ืชืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืฉื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœื‘ื“ื• ืื• ืขื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ื“ื• ืžืื™

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?

ื‘ืขื™ืจ ื•ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื’ื™ื ื” ื”ืกืžื•ื›ื” ืœืขื™ืจ ืžืื™ ืชื™ืงื•

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืžืฉื•ืœืฉื™ื

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™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืคื ื—ืก ืื—ื•ื” ื“ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื›ืœ ื•ืœื ืื™ืชืกื™ ืœืžืคืจืข ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ืื• ืžื™ื›ืŸ ื•ืœื”ื‘ื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื

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?

ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœืžื™ืžืขืœ ื‘ืคื“ื™ื•ื ื• ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœืžืคืจืข ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ืžืขื™ืœ

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.

ื•ืื™ ืžื™ื›ืŸ ื•ืœื”ื‘ื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ืœื ืžืขื™ืœ ืžืื™ ืงืจื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืขืœื™ื” ืคืกื—ื™ื ื‘ื–ื–ื• ื‘(ื•)ื–

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: โ€œThe 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ ื•ืฉื ืคื’ื ื•ืฉื ืกื“ืง ืฉืคืžื• ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื” ืฉื ืคื’ืžื” ืฉื ืกื“ืงื”

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ื™ืงื‘ื• ื—ื•ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœืชื•ืš ื–ื” ืžื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ื ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ื ืฉืคืชื• ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื” ื•ืฉื ืคื’ืžื” ื•ืฉื ืกื“ืงื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืชื•ืจื ื‘ืจื ื“ืฉื™ืคืชื™ื”

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื—ื•ื˜ื™ืŸ ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื•ืช ืฉื ืคื’ืžื• ื•ืฉื ื’ืžืžื• ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ื ืฉื ืขืงืจื• ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื•ืœืคื ื™ื ื•ืืฃ ืœื ืืช ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื•ืœืคื ื™ื ื•ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืขืฆืžื” ื›ืœืคื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืคื•ืฆืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื•ืช ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื’ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ

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.

ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ื•ืชื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืคื•ืฆืื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืชื ื ืงืžื

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.

ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื™ื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื•ืœืคื ื™ื ื•ืชื™ื•ืžืช ืขืฆืžื” ื›ืœืคื ื™ื ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื ืคื’ืžื• ื•ืฉื ื’ืžืžื• ืื‘ืœ ื ืขืงืจื• ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืคื•ืฆืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ื ื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืคื ื™ืžื™ื•ืช ืฉื ืขืงืจื• ืžื™ืฉื—ื˜ ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ืœื ืฉื—ื˜ื™ื ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืืคืกื•ืœื™ ืžื™ืคืกืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื’ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ืชื™ื•ืžืช ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืื™ืคืกื•ืœื™ ืœื ืื™ืคืกื™ืœ

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 ืืžื™ ื™ืฉ ืžื—ื•ืกืจ ืื‘ืจ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ื•ืกืจ ืื‘ืจ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืœืžืื™ ืื™ ืœื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืคืกื— ืื• ืขื•ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘

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: โ€œLameness or blindnessโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:21), which indicates that the blemish must be exposed.

ืื™ ืœืงื“ืฉื™ื ืขื•ืจืช ืื• ืฉื‘ื•ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืื™ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื™ ื•ืœืื™ืคืจื•ืงื™ ืœื ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืŸ ื›ื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืŸ ืœืื™ืคืกื•ืœื™ ืžืื™

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: โ€œBlind 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?

ืชืžื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœืจืฆื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืชืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืœื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืชืžื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœืจืฆื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ืžื•ื ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื• ืžื” ืžื•ื ืžืื‘ืจืื™ ืืฃ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžืื‘ืจืื™

The Gemara clarifies the dilemma. The Merciful One states: โ€œIt 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: โ€œIt shall be complete to be accepted,โ€ in light of what is stated immediately afterward: โ€œThere shall be no blemish therein.โ€ Just as a blemish is on the outside, as taught by the next verse, which says: โ€œBlind or broken,โ€ so too, the status of lacking a limb applies only if it is lacking on the outside.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ืืช ืฉืชื™ ื”ื›ืœื™ื•ืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœื™ื ืื—ืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืขืœ ืฉืœืฉ ื›ื•ืœื™ื•ืช ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ื™ืกื™ืจื ื” ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœื™ื ืื—ื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: โ€œAnd 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: โ€œAnd the two kidneysโ€ฆhe shall take it away,โ€ the singular form serves to include an animal that has one kidney, which may be sacrificed. Evidently, these tannaโ€™im disagree as to whether an animal lacking a kidney is fit to be sacrificed.

ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืช ื“ื”ื ืžื™ื—ืกืจ ื—ืกืจ ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืœื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืช ื•ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื›ืฉื ื‘ืจืื” ื‘ืฉืชื™ื ื•ื—ืกืจื• ื›ืืŸ ื›ืฉื ื‘ืจืื” ื‘ืื—ืช ืžืขื™ืงืจื

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.

ื•ื”ื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืฉืœืฉ ืงืชื ื™ ืžื” ืฉืœืฉ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืืฃ ืื—ืช ืžืขื™ืงืจื

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.

ืืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืช ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืช

Rather, everyone agrees that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and here the tannaโ€™im 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืื—ืช ื•ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืฉื—ืกืจื” ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื›ืืŸ ืฉื—ืกืจื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงื•ื“ื ืงื‘ืœื” ืžื™ ื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?

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืฆื•ืจื ืื–ืŸ ื”ืคืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืงื™ื‘ืœ ื“ืžื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœืงื— ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื”ืคืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื›ื‘ืจ ืืœื ื›ืืŸ ืฉื—ืกืจื” ืงื•ื“ื ืงื‘ืœื” ื›ืืŸ ืฉื—ืกืจื” ืœืื—ืจ ืงื‘ืœื”

But doesnโ€™t 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: โ€œAnd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bullโ€ (Leviticus 4:5). By using the term โ€œthe 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.

ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืงื‘ืœื” ืงื•ื“ื ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืฉื” ืชืžื™ื ื–ื›ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœื›ื ืฉื™ื”ื ืชืžื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื‘ืฉืขืช ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

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 isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: โ€œYour 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?

ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงื‘ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ื™ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื™ื”ื™ื” ืฉื™ื”ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื•ื™ื•ืชื™ื• ืชื ื•ื‘ืŸ ื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: โ€œShall 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.

ืชืจื’ืžื ืื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจ ืžื”ืŸ ื›ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ืื• ื›ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

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.

ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื‘ืฉืขืช ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืขืช ืงื‘ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืฉืขื•ืช ืคื•ืกืœื•ืช ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื

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.

ืœื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ื•ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ื•ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

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 tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita discussing the verse that provides a list of animals disqualified from the altar: โ€œAnd 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 animalโ€™s testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื’ื™ื“ ืื™ืžื ืืฃ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ื’ื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ืืฃ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ื‘ื’ื™ื“ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืœื

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 Yaโ€™akov says: All of them are considered blemishes only when found on the penis. Rabbi Yosei says: The blemishes of โ€œbruised, or crushedโ€ apply also to the testicles, while with regard to the blemishes of โ€œtorn or cut,โ€ on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles they are not considered a blemish.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ

The Gemara explains the relevance of the dispute to the matter at hand: What, is it not that these tannaโ€™im 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 Yaโ€™akov, holds that the lack of an internal limb is not called a lack.

ื•ืชืกื‘ืจื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืื™ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืื™ ืงืกื‘ืจ ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ื ืžื™ ื•ืื™ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืฉืžื™ื” ื—ืกืจื•ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืœื

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 โ€œtorn 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 โ€œbruised, or crushed,โ€ should not be considered a lack, as they are not exposed.

ืืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ื ืฉื‘ื’ืœื•ื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื•ืฆืŸ ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ื”ื ืชืœื™ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื ืžื™ ื–ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื•ืฆืŸ ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื ืžื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืชืœื™ื™ืŸ

Rather, here they disagree with regard to exposed blemishes. Rabbi Yehuda holds that โ€œbruised or crushedโ€ testicles are considered blemished, as the testicles noticeably shrink due to the crushing. Likewise, testicles that are โ€œtorn 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 Yaโ€™akov holds that testicles that are โ€œbruised 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 โ€œtorn or cutโ€ are not considered blemished either, as initially, prior to being torn or cut, there are times that the testicles also hang.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืขื•ืš ื•ื›ืชื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ื”ื ืœื™ืชื ื”ื• ื ืชื•ืง ื•ื›ืจื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืžื ื“ื”ื ืื™ืชื ื”ื•

And Rabbi Yosei holds that โ€œbruised or crushedโ€ testicles are considered blemished, as they are no longer present in their normal state, but are entirely broken. But he maintains that โ€œtorn or cutโ€ testicles are not considered blemished, as they are still present in the pouch, despite the fact that they no longer function.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืคื’ื ื”ื–ื•ื‘ืŸ ื”ืขืจื™ื” ืฉืœ ื ืงื‘ื” ื‘ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ื ืคื’ื ื”ื–ื ื‘ ืžืŸ ื”ืขืฆื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืคืจืง ืื• ืฉืจืืฉ ื–ื ื‘ ืžืคืฆืœ ื ืงืœืคื” ื”ืขื•ืจ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ืขืฆื ื ืฉืืจ ืื• ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ื ืžืœื ืืฆื‘ืข

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื ืคื’ื ื•ืœื ื ื™ื˜ืœ ื›ื™ืก ื•ืœื ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืคื’ื ื•ืœื ื ื™ื˜ืœ ื›ื™ืก ื•ืœื ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืŸ ื”ืžืฉื•ืœื ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื‘ืœ ืื—ื“ ืฉื ื˜ืœื• ื–ืื‘ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ืœืื™ื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.

ื ืคื’ืžื” ื”ื–ื ื‘ ืžืŸ ื”ืขืฆื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื ืืฆื‘ืข ืฉืืžืจื• ืื—ื“ ืžืืจื‘ืขื” ื‘ื˜ืคื— ืฉืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืื“ื ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืชื›ืœืช ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ืžื” ื—ื•ื˜ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉืœืฉื”

ยง The mishna stated: If the tail was damaged from the tailboneโ€ฆor 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.

ื•ื›ืžื” ืชื”ื ืžืฉื•ืœืฉืช ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉืœืฉื” ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืฉื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื—ื“ ืžืืจื‘ืข ื‘ื˜ืคื— ืฉืœ ื›ืœ ืื“ื

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‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืœืฉืชื™ ืืžื•ืช ื“ืชื ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืืžื•ื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

Scroll To Top