Bekhorot 40b — the Talmud in English

And having brought it up, we bring this:

There was also an incident involving a lower lip protruding beyond the upper one. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asked the Sages, and they said: This is a blemish.

And we raise a difficulty:

But

this blemish

with regard to

the blemishes of

a person

a priest

is what we learned: If his upper lip protrudes beyond his lower one, or his lower one protrudes beyond his upper one, this is a blemish

and he is disqualified from service. And it follows that in an animal it is not a blemish.

And the reason is:

with regard to a person

a priest

it is that which is written

in the section of the blemishes of a priest:

“Any man of the offspring of Aaron,”

and we expound:

“Man”—who is equal among the offspring of Aaron

is the one who requires a blemish in order to be disqualified; but if he is not equal among the offspring of Aaron, meaning that he is different from the other creatures, he is disqualified even without a blemish.

But not in an animal.

But if you said that in an animal as well it is a blemish, this is difficult!

And we resolve:

Rav Pappa said: This is not difficult; this one is where it has a bone.

For where the bone of the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper one, it is a blemish even in an animal, and this is what our Mishna here is discussing.

This one

which is a blemish only in a person

is where it has no bone.

That is, the bone does not protrude; rather, only the lower lip protrudes beyond the upper one. In this case we say that in a person it is a blemish, since he is not equal among the offspring of Aaron, but in an animal it is not.

Mishna:

The kid’s ear

that

was doubled,

so that it had one ear within another ear—in this case

the Sages said: When it is one bone,

meaning that the cartilage [the earlobe] is one and is joined only below at the lobe, it is

a blemish.

And if it is not one bone,

meaning that the cartilages are not joined,

it is not a blemish 29 .

Rabbi Hanania ben Gamliel says: The kid’s tail that resembles that of a pig, and one in which there are not

in the tail

three vertebrae—this is a blemish.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Its mouth is constricted,

narrow,

and its feet are constricted,

the soles of its feet are narrow. If

it is because of the space, it is not a blemish; if it is because of the bone,

meaning that the lips are nicely open, but the jawbones are tightly joined, so that it cannot widen them, and when it eats it widens the lips,

this is a blemish.

And likewise with the foot: If the entire sole of the foot is narrow, it is not a blemish; but if only the bone is narrow and the flesh widens and spreads far beyond the bone, this is a blemish.

Another version in Rashi:

“Its mouth is constricted”—

swollen.

“If it is because of the wind,”

meaning that it swelled because of wind and became chilled, it is not a blemish, since it will return to its former state. And if

it is because the bone

is exceedingly thick, this is a blemish.

Its ears are doubled in one cartilage,

meaning that the earlobe is one,

this is a blemish. With two cartilages it is not a blemish.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Gamliel says: The kid’s tail that resembles that of a pig.

Rav Pappa said: Do not say

that it is a blemish because

it is thin,

meaning that it is very thin like a pig’s tail.

Rather, because it is curled,

round like a pig’s tail,

even though it is thick,

meaning that it is not as thin as a pig’s tail, nevertheless it is a blemish, since a kid’s tail is not round but broad.

We learned in the Mishna:

Or one in which there are not three vertebrae.

Rav Huna said: In a kid, two

vertebrae in the tail

are a blemish; three

vertebrae

are not a blemish,

for this is its normal way.

In a calf, three

vertebrae in the tail

are a blemish; four

vertebrae

are not a blemish.

He raised an objection

from that which is taught:

In a kid, one is a blemish; two are not a blemish. In a calf, two are a blemish; three are not a blemish.

And this is difficult for Rav Huna, for here it teaches: in a kid, one, and in a calf, two; whereas Rav Huna said: in a kid, two, and in a calf, three?

A refutation of Rav Huna!

And Rav Huna,

what is the reason that he said this?

The Mishna misled him. He thought: Since the first part

of the Mishna, concerning the ear, is discussing

a kid, the latter part,

which teaches concerning the tail, “and one in which there are not three vertebrae,”

is also concerning a kid.

And from this he derived that in a kid two are a blemish, but three are not.

That is not so;

rather,

the first part

of the Mishna, concerning the ear, is discussing

a kid, and the latter part

concerning the tail is discussing

a calf.

But in a kid, only one is a blemish, as the beraita teaches.

Mishna:

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: An excrescence on its eye,

and where the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg is chipped 31 .

And where the very bone of its mouth is severed

the bone above the gums. [And concerning the gums themselves we learned above, 39a, that even if they were chipped or gouged, it is a blemish].

One of its eyes is large and one is small.

One of its ears is large and one is small.

Provided that the difference between the ears is noticeable to everyone

in appearance. But not

that the difference is noticeable

in measurement,

such that it is not noticeable by looking with the eye, but only by measuring them was it discerned that there is a difference.

Rabbi Judah says: One of its testicles being as large as two of its fellow’s

is a blemish.

But the Sages did not agree with

Rabbi Judah;

the Sages.

Gemara:

And we consider it:

Does this mean that an excrescence is a blemish?

And we juxtapose this

from the Mishna below:

And these are those for which one may not slaughter either in the Temple or in the country.

For they are disqualified for the altar, but it is not a complete blemish permitting slaughter on account of it outside [the Temple]:

one afflicted with a dry scab,

a type of boil,

and one with an excrescence.

And it is proven that an excrescence is not a blemish?

And we refute this:

And can you understand it so,

that an excrescence is not a complete blemish?

But an excrescence is written in the Torah.

As it is written: “Blind, or broken, or split, or an excrescence.”

And we resolve:

This is not difficult. This one,

which teaches that it is not a complete blemish, is when the excrescence is

on its body. This one

which teaches that it is a blemish, is when the excrescence is

on its eye.

And we still raise a difficulty:

Since the verse is written without specification, what difference is there to me whether it is on its body, and what difference is there to me whether it is on its eye?

And we resolve:

Rather, this is not difficult: This one is where it has a bone; this one is where it has no bone.

The excrescence

of the verse

is discussing one

where it has a bone.

Therefore, whether it is on its body or on its eye, it is a blemish.

Our Mishna

and the Mishna below are discussing one

where it has no bone.

Therefore, we distinguish between its body and its eye:

on its eye it is a blemish,

and this is what our Mishna is discussing; but

on its body it is not a complete blemish,

and this is what the Mishna below is discussing.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

if an excrescence that

has no bone

is found

on its body, is it disqualified?

And

it is merely a piece of flesh hanging down,

and it is fit even for the altar [hanging pieces of flesh are called “a hanging piece”]?!

As it is taught: Rabbi Elazar says: Those with hanging pieces are disqualified in a person

a priest, who is not equal among the offspring of Aaron,

and fit in an animal.

And we retract what was said above, and resolve:

Rather,

the Mishna

in both cases

is discussing an excrescence

on its eye. And this is not difficult: This one

which is a complete blemish, is when the excrescence is found

on the black

of the eye;

this one

which is disqualified only for the altar, is when the excrescence is

on the white

of the eye.

And we refute this:

But

it was taught above [38b]:

There are no blemishes in the white,

and it is fit even for the altar [and the reason is that the white is not the eye but the fat of the eye].

And we resolve:

Rather, in both cases,

both the Mishna below, which teaches that an excrescence disqualifies for the altar, and that which was taught, “There are no blemishes in the white,” are discussing

the white. And Reish Lakish said: This is not difficult. This one

which the Mishna teaches, “One may not slaughter in the Temple,” is discussing one

where there is

in the excrescence

hair,

and it is disqualified since it is repulsive.

This one

which was taught, “There are no blemishes in the white,” and it is fit for slaughter in the Temple, is one

where there is no hair.

And our Mishna, which teaches that it is a complete blemish, is discussing the black of the eye, even though it has no bone. And the excrescence of the verse is discussing one that has a bone, even when it is on its body.

It follows that according to the conclusion there are four categories in this matter:

A. An excrescence on its body: If it has a bone, it is a complete blemish; and if it has no bone, it is fit even for the altar.

B. On its eye, on the black: It is a complete blemish [even though it has no bone].

C. On its eye, on the white, and it has hair: It is disqualified for the altar, but it is not a complete blemish permitting slaughter on account of it outside.

D. On its eye, on the white, and it has no hair: It is fit for the altar.

We learned in the Mishna:

One of its eyes is large

and one is small.

A tanna taught: Large—

like that of a calf; small—

like that of a goose.

We learned in the Mishna:

One of its ears is large

and so on; Rabbi Judah says: Its two testicles and so on, but the Sages did not agree with him.

And we consider it:

And the Rabbis,

who did not agree with him concerning the testicles,

to what extent

must the other one be small for them to deem it fit?

And we answer:

It was taught: Others say: Even if the

second

testicle is only the size of a bean, it is fit.

Mishna:

The calf’s tail that does not reach

in its length

the hock,

the joint at the thigh [as it is explained below], concerning this

the Sages said: This is so for all calf breeds!

This is the way of the development and growth of calves, that their tail reaches to the hock. And

whenever they

the calves

grow, they are stretched

downward. Therefore, if the tail does not reach the hock, it is a blemish.

With regard to which hock did they say this?

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: The hock that is in the middle of the thigh.

And as it is explained in the Gemara.