Bekhorot 39a — the Talmud in English

Or perhaps: at every meal and meal

it is necessary to eat a dried fig.

If you should say

that he eats

at the first meal.

When should he eat it?

Before eating, or after eating 16 .

Before eating, it certainly benefits it like a drug.

As is the way of every medicinal drug, which is more beneficial before eating.

After eating, what is the law?

Does the examination help?

And furthermore, a question was raised for us:

before drinking or after drinking?

Before drinking, it certainly benefits it, like barley,

for it is the way of a pure animal to eat barley before drinking, and it benefits it.

After drinking, what is the law?

Another question was raised for them: How should he eat them, when he is

tied or

when he is

untied.

Because he eats with greater joy when he is untied.

And when he eats

untied, it certainly benefits it,

and this was not their question. He eats

tied—what is the law?

Another question was raised for them: Does he eat

alone or with his companion?

When he eats

with his companion, it certainly benefits it,

for he enjoys it more

. Their question was:

alone, what is the law?

And where should he eat them,

in the city or in the field?

In the field, it certainly benefits it,

for there he has more air.

In the city, what is the law?

Does it help?

Rav Ashi asked: If you should say

that he eats

in the field.

A garden adjoining the city, what is the law?

Is it like a field or not?

And we conclude regarding all these questions:

teyku:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Hanania ben Antigonus says:

They examine it three times within eighty days:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Provided that they are evenly spaced.

For these eighty days are divided into three equal parts, and they examine it every twenty-six and a half days, and the third time on the twenty-seventh day. For at these three times this defect is accustomed to pass, and if he did not examine it then, it is possible that the defect passed and then returned.

Pinḥas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, asked Shmuel:

He ate

these herbs for his healing

but was not healed,

for they did not benefit him. Does

it retroactively become a defect,

from the time it began for him,

or does it become a defect from this point onward?

What practical difference is there?

For misappropriating through its redemption.

The uncertainty is not regarding a firstborn with a defect, since redemption does not apply to it. Rather, it concerns other disqualified consecrated animals that are redeemed, in whose eyes there had been the defect of water, and he transferred their sanctity onto money within the period of examination, and afterward the period passed.

If you say that it retroactively becomes a defect,

then it became clear that his transfer was a valid transfer, and the money became invested with sanctity. Therefore, if he derived benefit from the money,

he misappropriates.

And if it becomes a defect from this point onward,

it follows that at the time when he transferred [the sanctity] onto the money, there was still no defect in the offering, and the money did not become invested with sanctity. Therefore,

he does not misappropriate.

What is the law?

Shmuel recited concerning him

Rav Pinḥas:

“The lame have plundered plunder.”

That is, just as it is unreasonable that cripples should plunder spoils, so too, you, Rav Pinḥas, who are not sharp, asked such a question that I do not know its answer. You asked such a question that I do not know its answer.

Mishna:

Its nose that was perforated and that was chipped. [

And a chip involves a deficiency ]

and that was split.

Its mustache, [

and some versions read:

its lip]

that was perforated, chipped, or split.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: If its nostrils were perforated [

into one another]

on the outside,

that is, the outer partitions of the nostril,

this is a defect.

On the inside,

that is, the partition dividing the nostril,

it is not a defect.

Since it is not visible, it is a hidden defect.

We learned in the Mishna:

Its lip that was perforated, chipped, or split:

Rav Pappa said:

This “its lip” means

the outer ox of its lip,

only at the outer edge of the lip and not across its entire width.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to enumerate defects in the mouth.

The threads

of the gums,

the outer ones

in the middle of the mouth

that were chipped,

that became slightly deficient,

and that were cut,

that were not diminished but were cut with a knife in the manner of a split.

And the inner ones,

the gums of the molar teeth,

that were uprooted.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They do not examine from the molars

and

inward.

For any defect that is there is not a visible defect, and they do not slaughter the firstborn on its account.

Nor the molars,

even the molars themselves they do not examine, for their defect is not a visible defect.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Which is the teiomet?

From the teiomet and inward, and the teiomet itself is like the inward.

And they do not slaughter on its account.

Rabbi Joshua ben Kaposai says: They slaughter only on account of the outer ones.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They pay no attention to the teiomet whatsoever,

and it is not disqualified even for the altar.

What is he saying?

For he says: Which is the teiomet? From the teiomet and inward.

Furthermore, Rabbi Joshua ben Kaposai—is that not the first tanna?

And we explain:

The text is deficient, and this is what it teaches:

Which is the inner one?

That concerning which we said in the Mishna: If they were uprooted, it is a defect. If they were chipped or cut, it is not a defect.

From the teiomet and inward, and the teiomet itself is like the inward.

In what circumstance are these words said,

that they are not a defect?—

If they were chipped,

that they became deficient,

or cut,

cut with a knife in the manner of a split.

But if they were uprooted, they slaughter.

For it is considered a defect even in the inner ones.

Rabbi Joshua ben Kaposai says: They slaughter only on account of the outer ones. But as for inner ones that were uprooted, we do not slaughter on their account,

for it is not considered a complete defect; rather, he should wait until another defect occurs in it.

But

nevertheless,

it is disqualified

for the altar.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They pay no attention to the teiomet whatsoever, and it is not even disqualified

for the altar.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami asked:

Is there

a

defect of

“lacking a limb”

on the inside,

such as when one of its internal limbs is missing,

or is there no “lacking a limb” on the inside?

And we raise the question:

For what

practical difference is there?

If it is concerning a firstborn, “lame and blind is written.”

And this implies: a visible defect, yes; a hidden one, no.

If it is concerning consecrated animals, “blind or broken is written.”

And this also implies: [a defect] in the visible, but not in the hidden.

And we answer:

For slaughtering

a firstborn on account of a hidden defect,

and for redeeming,

redeeming other consecrated animals on account of such a defect—

I have no question.

For certainly it is not considered a complete defect, since it is hidden.

For what I have a question is for disqualifying it

for the altar.

What is the law?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

“It shall be whole for acceptance,” the Merciful One said.

Which implies:

“Whole,” yes; a deficiency, no,

and

even

with a deficiency of a limb

on the inside,

it is disqualified before the altar, for this verse in which “for acceptance” is written speaks of offering upon the altar.

Or perhaps:

this

“it shall be whole for acceptance”

refers to what is written after it,

“no defect shall be in it”— -

Just as a defect is from the outside,

as it is written after it, “blind or broken,”

so too, a deficiency is from the outside.

Come and hear:

For it was taught: It is written concerning offerings:

“And the two kidneys,”

which implies:

and not one possessing a single kidney, nor one possessing three kidneys.

And another [teaching] was taught:

It is written at the end of that verse: “And the appendage upon the liver, together with the kidneys,

he shall remove it,” to include one possessing a single kidney

for offering. For “he shall remove it” implies: he has one kidney; he shall remove it and burn it.

They assumed: Everyone agrees that there is no creature with

a kidney

one,

for it is not the way of an animal to be created with a single kidney.

And this one,

which has only a single kidney,

is deficient.

Let us say that they disagree about this: One master

who disqualifies

holds: A deficiency on the inside is called a deficiency.

And the other,

who permits,

holds: A deficiency on the inside is not called a deficiency.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said: Everyone agrees that there is a creature with one,

and it is possible that it was born with a single kidney.

And a deficiency

that is

on the inside is called a deficiency.

And it is not difficult

the contradiction between the beraitot, one of which teaches that it is fit and one of which teaches that it is disqualified.

Here,

where we disqualify it,

it was created with two and one became missing.

Here,

where we declare it fit,

it was created with one from the outset.

And we challenge: Can you say that the beraita that disqualifies it is dealing with a case where there were two and one became missing?

But it teaches it analogously to three. Just as three

were

from the outset, so too one

was

from the outset.

And not that there were two and one became missing. Therefore, it cannot be resolved in this way.

Rather, here, they disagree about

whether

there is a creature with

a kidney

one.

One master,

who declares it fit,

holds: There is a creature

that is created

with one.

And we establish that from the outset it had only one.

And the other master,

who disqualifies,

holds:

There is no creature created

with one.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees that there is no creature

created

with one. And a deficiency on the inside is called a deficiency.

And it is not difficult

the two beraitot in relation to one another.

Here, it became missing before slaughter.

Therefore, it disqualifies it.

Here, it became missing after slaughter.

Therefore, it is permitted.

And we challenge:

And after slaughter,

if it became missing

before receiving

the blood after the slaughter of the offering—

is it permitted?