Bekhorot 39a (לט.) — the Talmud in English

Or perhaps: at every meal

he must eat a dried fig.

If you say

that he eats

at the first meal,

when should he eat it?

Before eating, or after eating 16 .

Before eating, it certainly benefits him like a drug.

As is the case with every medicinal drug, which is more effective before eating.

After eating, what is the ruling?

Does the examination prove effective?

And further, we ask:

Before drinking or after drinking?

Before drinking, it certainly benefits him, like barley,

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

After drinking, what is the ruling?

They further raised a question: How should he eat them, when he is

tied or

when he is

untied?

As he eats more joyfully when he is untied.

And when he eats

untied, it certainly benefits him,

and this was not their question. If he eats

tied, what is the ruling?

They further raised a question: Does he eat

alone or with his fellow?

When he eats

with his fellow, it certainly benefits him,

as he derives greater enjoyment.

Their question was:

If he eats alone, what is the ruling?

And where should he eat them,

in the city or in the field?

In the field, it certainly benefits him,

as there is more air there.

In the city, what is the ruling?

Does it help?

Rav Ashi raised a question: If you say

that he eats

in the field,

what is the ruling concerning a garden adjacent to the city?

Is it considered like a field or not?

And we conclude concerning all these questions:

Teyku:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus says:

One examines it three times within eighty days:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Provided that the examinations are equally spaced.

These eighty days should be divided into three equal periods, and it should be examined every twenty-six and a half days, and the third examination should be on the twenty-seventh day. For this defect tends to disappear at these three times, and if it was not examined then, it is possible that the defect disappeared and subsequently returned.

Pinḥas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, asked Shmuel:

If it ate

these grasses for its cure

and was not cured,

as they did not benefit it, is

it retroactively a blemish,

from the time when it first afflicted it,

or is it a blemish only from that point onward?

What practical difference is there?

With regard to deriving benefit unlawfully from the redemption money.

The uncertainty does not concern a firstborn animal with a blemish, since redemption does not apply to it. Rather, it concerns other consecrated animals disqualified from sacrifice, which are redeemed, that had this blemish of water in their eyes, and whose sanctity he transferred to money during the examination period, after which the period elapsed.

If you say that it is retroactively a blemish,

then it becomes clear that its sanctity was validly transferred, and the money assumed sanctity. Therefore, if he derived benefit from the money,

he misuses consecrated property.

But if it is a blemish only from that point onward,

it follows that at the time he transferred its sanctity to the money, the animal did not yet have a blemish, and the money did not assume sanctity. Therefore,

he does not misuse consecrated property.

What is the ruling?

Shmuel recited this verse concerning him,

Rav

Pinḥas: “The lame have plundered the plunder.”

That is to say: Just as it is inconceivable that lame people should plunder spoils, so too, you, Rav Pinḥas, who are not sharp, asked a question to which I do not know the answer. You asked such a question to which I do not know the answer.

Mishna:

Its nose that was perforated or notched [

and a notch entails a deficiency ]

or split.

Its mustache, [

and some versions read:

its lip ]

that was perforated, notched, or split.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: If its nostrils were perforated [

one into the other ]

from the outside,

meaning the outer walls of the nostril,

this is a blemish.

From the inside,

meaning the partition dividing the nostril,

it is not a blemish.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Its lip that was perforated, notched, or split:

Rav Pappa said:

This “lip” means

the outermost edge of its lip,

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

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to enumerate blemishes of the mouth.

The gums

of the teeth,

the outer ones

in the middle of the mouth

that were notched,

meaning slightly deficient,

or cut,

meaning that they are not deficient but were cut with a knife in the form of a split.

And the inner ones,

the gums of the molars,

that were uprooted.

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the molars

and inward,

and beyond.

For any blemish located there is not a visible blemish, and one may not slaughter the firstborn on its account.

And not even the molars,

even the molars themselves are not examined, as their blemishes are not visible blemishes.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Which are the central teeth?

From the central teeth and inward, and the central teeth themselves are considered inward.

And one may not slaughter the animal on account of a defect in them.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kafosai says: One slaughters only on account of the outer teeth.

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus says: One pays no attention to the central teeth whatsoever,

and the animal is not disqualified even for the altar.

What is he saying?

He is saying: Which are the central teeth? Those from the central teeth and inward.

And further, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kafosai—isn’t this the first tanna?

And we explain:

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

Which are the inner teeth?

Those concerning which we said in the Mishna: If they were uprooted, this is a blemish; if they were notched or cut, this is not a blemish.

From the central teeth and inward, and the central teeth themselves are considered inward.

In what case is this statement said,

that they are not a blemish?

When they were notched,

meaning deficient,

or cut,

meaning cut with a knife in the form of a split.

But if they were uprooted, one slaughters

as it is considered a blemish even when it is in the inner teeth.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kafosai says: One slaughters only on account of the outer teeth. But with regard to inner teeth that were uprooted, we do not slaughter on their account,

as it is not considered a full-fledged blemish; rather, he should wait until another blemish occurs in it.

But

nevertheless,

it is disqualified

for the altar.

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus says: One pays no attention to the central teeth whatsoever, and it is not even disqualified

for the altar.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raised a question:

Is there

a

blemish of

“lacking a limb”

internally,

for example, if one of its internal limbs is missing,

or is there no lack of a limb internally?

We inquire:

For what

practical difference?

If the question concerns a firstborn: “A lame animal or one that is blind” is written.

And this indicates that a visible blemish is included, but not a hidden one.

If the question concerns sacrificial animals: “Blind or broken” is written.

And this likewise indicates that a visible blemish is included, but not a hidden one.

And we answer:

With regard to slaughtering

the firstborn on account of a hidden blemish,

and with regard to redeeming

other consecrated animals on account of such a blemish—

I have no question.

It is certainly not considered a full-fledged blemish, since it is hidden.

My question concerns disqualifying it

for the altar.

What is the ruling?

And the sides of the uncertainty are as follows:

The Torah said: “It shall be whole, to find favor.”

This indicates:

“Whole”—yes; lacking—not.

And

even

if the deficiency is that of a limb

internally,

it is disqualified for the altar, as this verse, in which “to find favor” is written, is speaking of offering upon the altar.

Or perhaps:

this

“It shall be whole, to find favor”

refers to what is written afterward,

“There shall be no blemish in it” —

Just as a blemish is external,

as is written afterward, “blind or broken,”

so too, a deficiency is external.

Come and hear:

As it is taught: It is written concerning sacrificial animals,

“And the two kidneys,”

which indicates:

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

And another baraita teaches:

It is written at the end of that verse: “And the lobe above the liver, above the kidneys,

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

as fit for sacrifice. For “he shall remove it” indicates: He shall remove the single kidney and burn it.

They assumed: Everyone agrees that there is no creature with

a single

kidney,

as it is not the way of an animal to be formed with a single kidney.

And this one,

which has only a single kidney,

is deficient.

Shall we say that they disagree about this: The one

who disqualifies

holds: An internal deficiency is called a deficiency.

And the other

who permits

holds: An internal deficiency 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

internal is called a deficiency.

And it is not difficult

to reconcile the contradiction between the baraitot, one of which teaches that it is fit and the other that it is disqualified.

Here,

where we disqualify it,

it is when it was formed with two and one became missing.

Here,

where we deem it fit,

it is when it was formed with one from the outset.

And we challenge this: Can you say that the baraita that disqualifies it is speaking of a case where there were two and one became missing?

But it teaches it in parallel to the case of three. Just as three

were present

from the outset, so too, one

was present

from the outset.

It is not speaking of a case where there were two and one became missing. Therefore, this cannot be the resolution.

Rather, here they disagree about

whether

there is a creature with

a single kidney:

that is what they disagree about.

The one

who permits

holds: There is a creature

that is formed

with one.

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

And the other

who disqualifies

holds:

No creature is formed

with one.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees that no creature

is formed

with one. And an internal deficiency is called a deficiency.

And it is not difficult

to reconcile the two baraitot with one another.

Here, it is when it became deficient before slaughter.

Therefore, the baraita disqualifies it.

Here, it is when it became deficient after slaughter.

Therefore, it is permitted.

And we challenge this:

And after slaughter,

if it became deficient

before the receiving

of the blood after the slaughter of the offering—

is it permitted?