Bekhorot 39b (לט:) — the Talmud in English

But didn’t Rav Zeira say that Rav said: If one cuts into the ear of the bull

belonging to the anointed priest after slaughtering it,

and afterward received its blood, it is disqualified

because even at the time of receiving the blood the offering must be whole?

As it is stated: “And he shall take of the blood of the bull.”

And we derive from the definite article in “the bull”

the bull that it had already been!

That is, it must be whole at the time of receiving the blood, just as it was whole at the time of slaughter. Therefore, one cannot say that its kidney became missing after slaughter.

Rather,

this is how we resolve the contradiction:

Here,

where we disqualify the offering, it is referring to a case where it became deficient

after slaughter

but

before receiving the blood.

Here,

where we deem it fit, it is referring to a case where

it became deficient after receiving the blood.

And we challenge this:

And

if it became deficient

after receiving the blood

and

before

the

sprinkling—

is it permitted?

But it was taught

with regard to the Paschal offering:

“A flawless male, in its first year, shall it be for you.”

And we derive:

that it must be flawless and in its first year

that is, during its first year, before a full year has elapsed since its birth

, at the time of

slaughter.

For it is written immediately beforehand, “You shall take your share of the sheep,” which refers to slaughter.

And from where

do we know that it must be flawless also

at reception, conveyance, and sprinkling?

The verse states: “It shall be”—

that all its stages

must be performed while it is

flawless and in its first year.

If so, it is impossible to say that the baraita is speaking of a case where it became deficient after reception.

And we answer:

Interpret

the statement that all its stages must be performed

in its first year

as referring only to its age, since “it shall be” is written adjacent to that requirement: it must remain within its first year until after the sprinkling. But with regard to being flawless, it need remain whole only until after reception.

This too is evidently so,

that if it became deficient after reception, it is fit.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah, if

the meat and the fats were lost, but

an olive-bulk of meat remained,

which is the measure of a person’s eating,

or an olive-bulk of fat,

which is the measure required for the altar,

one sprinkles the blood.

But if an olive-bulk did not remain, he does not sprinkle the blood.

In any event, it is taught that if an olive-bulk remains, he sprinkles the blood. Yet is there any greater case of a blemished animal than this—one in which everything is missing except an olive-bulk—and nevertheless it is fit?

Conclude from this

that the exposition, “that all its stages shall be,” refers to being in its first year.

We raise a difficulty: Why do we need to derive that being more than a year old disqualifies the animal during the other services, just as at slaughter? Since at the time of slaughter it was in its first year—

is there a case in which at the time of slaughter it is in its first year

that is, still within its first year,

and at the time of reception and conveyance it is two years old

that is, it has already entered its second year?

Rava said: This indicates

that since we derive from the verse that it must be in its first year until sprinkling,

hours can disqualify consecrated offerings.

The year is calculated from the hour of its birth. Thus, if it was born the previous year, on the eve of Passover, at the eighth hour, one must take care to slaughter it and sprinkle its blood before the ninth hour.

Shall we say

that this question of Rav Aḥadvoi—whether there is a disqualification due to a missing limb in the interior—is

subject to a dispute between tannaim?

As it was taught: It is written:

“And crushed, and mutilated, and severed, and cut,

you shall not offer them to the Lord.”

“Crushed” means that the testicles were crushed with stones until they were pulverized.

“Severed” means that they were completely severed by hand, but the testicles still remain suspended in the scrotum.

“Cut” means that they were cut with a knife, but not completely severed; rather, they still remain suspended and partially attached to the scrotum.

And

all

these terms refer

to the testicles, according to Rabbi Yehuda.

We are surprised:

To the testicles, but not to the organ?

Yet a blemish in the organ is more apparent, since it is exposed.

We explain:

Say: Also to the testicles, according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: All of them refer to the organ.

But not to the testicles.

Rabbi Yosei says: “Crushed and mutilated” applies also to the testicles. “Severed and cut” applies to the organ, but not to the testicles.

What, is it not that they disagree about this: One Sage holds that a deficiency within is considered a deficiency?

This is Rabbi Yehuda, who says that all of them apply also to the testicles.

And one Sage holds

that a deficiency within

is not considered a deficiency.

This is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who says that all of them apply to the organ and not to the testicles.

Can you understand it that way? What does Rabbi Yosei hold?

If he holds that a deficiency within is considered a deficiency, then even “severed and cut”

should apply to the testicles

as well.

Why, then, does he say that “severed and cut” applies only to the organ?

And if he holds

that a deficiency within

is not considered a deficiency, then even “crushed and mutilated” should not

constitute a blemish in the testicles.

Rather,

everyone agrees that a deficiency within is not a deficiency.

Here, they disagree about visible blemishes

and not about the earlier question, but rather about whether in this case the blemish is visible.

Rabbi Yehuda holds: “Crushed and mutilated”

in the testicles

constitutes a blemish

because

they shrivel.

The scrotum contracts, and the condition thereby becomes apparent.

“Severed and cut”

also

constitutes a blemish, since they hang

lower than they did previously, and the blemish is visible externally.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds: “Crushed and mutilated”

in the testicles

does not constitute a blemish, since even originally

when they are healthy,

they sometimes shrivel,

as the testicles rise into the abdomen and the scrotum contracts.

“Severed and cut”

in the testicles

also does not constitute a blemish, since even originally

when they are healthy,

they sometimes hang,

and therefore this is not a visible blemish.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: “Crushed and mutilated”

in the testicles

does

constitute a blemish, since they are absent.

They have been pulverized and no longer exist; therefore the blemish is considered apparent.

“Severed and cut”

in the testicles

does not constitute a blemish, since they are present.

Nor is it considered a visible blemish, because even originally they sometimes hang. But in the organ it is a blemish.

Mishna:

If the zoven is damaged,

that is, if the scrotum in which the animal’s organ is concealed is deficient,

or the aryeh,

the womb

of a female, among consecrated animals

that is, among other consecrated offerings that come from a female—but not in a firstborn, which is male—

if the tail is damaged, from the bone but not from the joint.

If the tailbone is damaged, this is a blemish; but the joints between the vertebrae heal again.

Or

if there was

a tail-tip exposing bone,

that is, the hanging end of the tail had its skin and flesh peeled away, leaving the bone exposed. This condition does not heal again.

Or if there is flesh between one vertebra and another the width of a finger,

that is, the vertebrae of the tail are separated from one another by the width of a thumb.

Gemara:

Rabbi Elazar said: If the zoven is damaged

it is a blemish.

But not if it is removed

completely

, because removal is not a blemish, since it returns to its original state.

Specifically, it is the

scrotum

that is meant—that is, if the zoven is damaged, it is a blemish.

But not the organ,

the organ itself, since a wound in the organ heals.

It was taught likewise: Damaged but not removed; the scrotum but not the organ.

Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam said: There was an incident in Ein Bol involving an animal whose entire zoven was taken by a wolf

and

it returned to its original state 22.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If the tail is damaged, from the bone.”

Or if there is flesh between one vertebra and another the width of a finger.

The tanna taught: The finger they mentioned is one of four in the handbreadth of every person.

That is, it is a thumb, of which there are four in a handbreadth.

We raise a question:

For what halakhic purpose

did we state the measure of a finger?

Rabba said: It is relevant to

the mitzva of

tekhelet

in tzitzit.

As it was taught: How many threads does one place

in the corner of the garment?

Beit Shammai say: Four.

And Beit Hillel say: Three.

And how long must it be “triple”?

That is, how much of it must hang from the hole above the edge of the corner of the garment, since it is not placed at the very edge of the garment?

Beit Shammai say: Four

fingerbreadths

.

.

And Beit Hillel say: Three.

And the three

fingerbreadths

that Beit Hillel said

must be measured with each finger being

one of four in the handbreadth of every person.

That is, three thumbs, with the width of each thumb being one-fourth of a handbreadth.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

The practical difference concerns the finger’s proportion

to two cubits.