Bekhorot 39b — the Talmud in English

But did Rav Zeira not say in the name of Rav: One who makes an incision in the ear of the bull

of the anointed priest after slaughtering it,

and afterward received its blood, it is disqualified,

because also 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 expound from the heh of “the bull” —

the bull that had existed beforehand!

That is, that it be whole at the time of receiving the blood, just as it was whole at the time of slaughtering. Therefore, it cannot be said that one of its kidneys became lacking after slaughtering.

Rather

this is how we resolve it:

Here,

where we disqualify, it is speaking

when it became lacking

after slaughtering,

before receiving [the blood].

Here,

where we declare it fit, it is speaking

when it became lacking after receiving [the blood].

And we refute this:

A

if it became lacking

after receiving [the blood]

and

before

the

throwing [of the blood] —

is it permitted?

But it was taught:

it is written concerning the Paschal offering,

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

And we expound:

that it be flawless and in its first year

[that is, within its first year, so that a year has not yet been completed since its birth],

at the time of

slaughtering.

For it is written beforehand, “You shall register yourselves by the lamb,” that is, slaughtering.

And from where

[do we know] that it must be flawless also

during receiving, conveyance, and sprinkling?

The verse states: “It shall be” —

that all its states of being

when it is

unblemished and in its first year.

And if so, it is impossible to say that it is speaking of its becoming lacking after receiving [the blood].

And we resolve:

Explain

this that it teaches, that all its states of being be

in its first year

alone [since “it shall be” is written adjacent to it]: it must remain within its first year until after the throwing [of the blood]. But with regard to being unblemished, we do not require it to remain whole until after the receiving [of the blood].

Here too, it is logically evident

that if it became deficient after receiving [the blood], it is fit.

For it was taught: Rabbi Joshua says: All the sacrifices in the Torah that

the meat and the fat were lost, and

an olive-sized portion of meat remained from them,

which is the measure of a person’s eating,

or an olive-sized portion of fat,

which is the measure of what the altar consumes,

he throws the blood.

But if an olive-sized portion did not remain, he does not throw the blood.

In any event, it teaches: If an olive-sized portion remained, he throws [the blood]. Yet is there not a greater blemished animal than this, one from which everything became lacking except an olive-sized portion? Nevertheless, it is fit.

Infer from this:

that the exposition, “that all its states of being [be so],” applies to being in its first year.

And we raise an objection concerning this: Why do we need to include the disqualification of being more than a year old in the other services, as with slaughtering? After all, since at the time of slaughtering it was one year old

is there something that at the time of slaughtering it is one year old

[that is, within its first year],

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

[that is, it has already entered its second year]!?

Rava said: This indicates

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

that hours disqualify consecrated property,

for the year is reckoned from the hour when it was born. And if it was born in the previous year, on the eve of Passover at the eighth hour, he must be careful to slaughter it and throw its blood before the ninth hour.

Let us say

that this question of Rav Aḥadvoi, whether there is a deficient limb inside [the animal], is

subject to the dispute between tannaim.

For it was taught: It is written,

“And crushed, and broken, and severed, and cut off,

you shall not offer them to the Lord.”

“Crushed”: that they crushed it with stones until it was pulverized.

“Severed”: that it was severed completely by hand, but the testicles still hang within the scrotum.

“Cut off”: with a knife, and it was not severed completely, but it still hangs and is slightly attached to the scrotum.

And

all of them

are stated

with regard to the testicles; these are the words of Rabbi Judah.

And we are astonished:

With regard to the testicles, but not with regard to the organ?

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

And we explain:

Say: Also with regard to the testicles; these are the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: All of them refer to the organ.

But not to the testicles.

Rabbi Yose says: “Crushed and broken” applies also to the testicles. “Severed and cut off”: in the organ, yes; in the testicles, no.

What, is it not with regard to this that they disagree: One Master holds that a deficiency inside is called a deficiency?

And this is Rabbi Judah, who says that all of them apply also to the testicles.

And one Master holds

that a deficiency inside

is not called a deficiency.

And this is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who says that all of them apply to the organ, but not to the testicles.

And can you understand it this way? What does Rabbi Yose hold?

If he holds that a deficiency inside is called a deficiency, even “severed and cut off”

in the testicles

also.

And why does he say that “severed and cut off” applies only to the organ?

And if he holds

that a deficiency inside

is not called a deficiency, then even “crushed and broken” also does not

constitute a blemish in the testicles?

Rather,

everyone holds that a deficiency inside is not a deficiency. And

here they disagree concerning blemishes that are exposed

[and not concerning the earlier question, but whether here it is an exposed blemish].

Rabbi Judah holds: “Crushed and broken”

in the testicles

is a blemish

because

they contract.

For the scrotum contracts, and through this it becomes visible.

“Severed and cut off”

also

is a blemish, for they hang

the testicles lower than before, and the blemish is visible externally.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds: “Crushed and broken”

in the testicles

is not a blemish, for initially also,

when they are healthy,

they sometimes contract,

for the testicles rise upward into the abdomen and the scrotum contracts.

“Severed and cut off”

in the testicles

is not a blemish, for initially also,

when they are healthy,

they sometimes hang;

therefore it is not an exposed blemish.

And Rabbi Yose holds: “Crushed and broken”

in the testicles

is

a blemish. For they are not present,

since they were pulverized. Therefore it is considered a visible blemish.

“Severed and cut off”

in the testicles

is not a blemish, for they are present.

And it is not considered an exposed blemish, since initially also they sometimes hang. But in the organ it is a blemish.

Mishna:

If the scrotum is damaged,

the scrotum in which the organ of the animal is concealed having become deficient,

or the vaginal opening,

the womb

of a female, among consecrated animals

in the 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 bone of the tail is damaged, it is a blemish. But at the joints between the vertebrae it returns and heals.

Or

if there was

a tail-tip exposing bone,

the lower-hanging end of the tail having its skin and flesh peeled off, leaving the bone exposed. And it does not return and heal.

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

that the vertebrae in the tail are separated from one another by the measure of the width of a thumb.

Gemara:

Rabbi Elazar said: If the scrotum is damaged

it is a blemish.

But not if it is removed

entirely.

For if it is removed, it is not a blemish, since it returns to its original state.

And specifically

the scrotum,

that is, the scrotum, if it is damaged, is a blemish.

But not the organ,

the organ itself. For the organ itself, if damaged, grows back.

It was also taught so: If it is damaged but not removed; the scrotum but not the organ.

Rabbi Yose ben Ha-Meshullam said: An incident occurred at Ein Bol involving one whose entire scrotum a wolf removed

—

and it returned to its original state 22 .

We learned in the Mishna:

If the tail is damaged from the bone.

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

The tannay taught: The finger that they said is one-fourth of a handbreadth of every person.

And this is a thumb, of which there are four in a handbreadth.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

For what halakhic purpose

did we state the measure of a finger?

Rabba said: With regard to

the mitzva of

blue

in tzitzit.

For it was taught: How many threads does he place

on the corner of the garment?

Beit Shammai say: Four.

And Beit Hillel say: Three.

And how long shall it be tripled?

That is, how much shall it hang from the hole above the edge of the corner of the garment [for one does not place it at the edge of the garment].

Beit Shammai say: Four

fingers.

.

And Beit Hillel say: Three.

And Beit Hillel say: Three.

And the three

fingers

that Beit Hillel said,

the measure of each finger being

one-fourth of a handbreadth of every person.

That is, three thumbs. And every width of a thumb is one-fourth of a handbreadth.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Joshua, said:

the practical difference regarding the finger is in relation

to two cubits.