Bekhorot 40b (מ:) — the Talmud in English

And we cited another incident:

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

And we challenge this:

But

this blemish

with regard to

the blemishes of

a man,

a kohen,

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

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

And the reason is:

with regard to a man,

a kohen,

it is written

in the passage concerning the blemishes of a kohen:

“Any man of the offspring of Aaron,”

and we expound it:

“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 other people, he is disqualified even without a blemish.

But not in an animal.

Yet you said that in an animal as well it is a blemish!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: This is not difficult; here, it is referring to a case where there is a bone.

When the bone of the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper jaw, it is a blemish even in an animal, and this is the case discussed by our Mishna here.

The case

where it is a blemish only in a man

is where there is no bone.

That is, the bone does not protrude; rather, only the lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip. In this case we say that in a man 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,

meaning that it had one ear inside another ear: In this case

the Sages said: When it is a single bone,

meaning that the cartilage [the earlobe] is one piece and is merely joined at the bottom, at the lobe, it is

a blemish.

But if it is not a single 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 a pig’s, and one that does not have

in its tail

three vertebrae, this is a blemish.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Its mouth is constricted,

narrow,

and its feet are constricted,

its soles are narrow. If

it is due to the space, it is not a blemish. If it is due to the bone,

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

this is a blemish.

And likewise with regard to the foot: If the entire sole of the foot is narrow, it is not a blemish; but if only the bone is narrow, while 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 due to the wind,”

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

it is because the bone

is excessively thick, this is a blemish.]

If its ears are doubled in a single cartilage,

meaning that the earlobe is one piece,

this is a blemish. If they are in two cartilages, it is not a blemish.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

Rav Pappa said: Do not say

that it is a blemish because

it is thin,

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

Rather, because it is coiled,

round like a pig’s tail,

even though it is thick,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

“Or one that does not have three vertebrae.”

Rav Huna said: In a kid, two

vertebrae in the tail

are a blemish. Three

vertebrae

are not a blemish,

as this is its normal structure.

In a calf, three

vertebrae in the tail

are a blemish. Four

vertebrae

are not a blemish.

Meytivi

from that which is taught in a beraita:

“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, since here it teaches that in a kid one is a blemish and in a calf two are a blemish, whereas Rav Huna said: In a kid two are a blemish and in a calf three are a blemish.

A refutation of Rav Huna!

And Rav Huna,

what is the reason that he said this?

The Mishna misled him. He thought that, since the first part

of the Mishna, concerning the ear, deals

with a kid, the latter part,

which teaches, with regard to the tail, “and one that does not have three vertebrae,”

also deals with a kid.

And from this he inferred 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, deals

with a kid, whereas the latter part,

concerning the tail, deals

with 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 one whose hand bone or foot bone is notched 31 .

And one whose mouthbone is severed,

the bone above the gums. [And concerning the gums themselves, we learned above, 39a, that even if they are notched or worn away, it is a blemish].

One of its eyes is large and the other is small.

One of its ears is large and the other is small.

Provided that the difference between the ears is apparent to everyone

in appearance. But not

that the difference is apparent

in measurement,

meaning that it is not apparent to the eye, but they noticed the difference only by measuring them.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of its testicles is as large as two of the other one,

it is a blemish.

But the Sages did not agree with

Rabbi Yehuda;

the Sages.

Gemara:

We analyze this:

Is this to say that an excrescence is a blemish?

And we raise a contradiction,

from the Mishna below:

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

They are disqualified for the altar, but this is not a complete blemish permitting the animal to be slaughtered on account of it outside the Temple:

one afflicted with a scab,

a type of lesion,

and one with an excrescence.

And it is evident that an excrescence is not a blemish.

And we challenge this:

But can you understand it that way,

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 answer:

This is not difficult. This

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

on its body. This

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

on its eye.

And we continue to challenge this:

Since the verse is written without qualification, what difference is there whether it is on its body or whether it is on its eye?

And we answer:

Rather, this is not difficult: One case is where it contains a bone, and the other case is where it does not contain a bone.

The excrescence

of the verse

deals with one

that contains a bone.

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

Our Mishna

and the Mishna below deal

with one that does not contain a bone.

Therefore, we distinguish between one on its body and one on its eye:

on its eye it is a blemish,

which is the case discussed by our Mishna, whereas

on its body it is not a complete blemish,

which is the case discussed by the Mishna below.

And we challenge this:

And

if an excrescence that

does not contain a bone

is found

on its body, is it disqualified!?

And

it is merely a piece of flesh,

which is fit even for the altar [pieces of flesh that hang down are called “a piece of flesh”]!?

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar says: Those with pieces of hanging flesh are disqualified in a man,

a kohen, since he is not equal among the offspring of Aaron,

but are fit in an animal.

We retract the previous answer and answer:

Rather,

the Mishna

in both cases

deals with an excrescence

on its eye. And this is not difficult: This

which is a complete blemish is when the excrescence is found

on the black

of the eye;

whereas this

which disqualifies it only for the altar is when the excrescence is

on the white

of the eye.

And we challenge 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 answer:

Rather, in both cases,

both the Mishna below, which teaches that an excrescence disqualifies it for the altar, and the teaching that says there are no blemishes in the white, deal

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

which the Mishna teaches, that one may not slaughter it in the Temple, deals with a case where

there is

in the excrescence

hair,

and it is disqualified because it is repulsive.

Whereas this

which is taught, that there are no blemishes in the white and it is fit to be slaughtered in the Temple, is a case

where there is no hair in it.

And our Mishna, which teaches that it is a complete blemish, deals with the black of the eye, even though it does not contain a bone. And the excrescence of the verse deals with one that contains a bone, even when it is on its body.

It follows that, according to the conclusion, there are four categories:

a. An excrescence on its body: If it contains a bone, it is a complete blemish; and if it does not contain a bone, it is fit even for the altar.

b. On its eye, on the black: It is a complete blemish [even though it does not contain a bone].

c. On its eye, on the white, and it contains hair: It is disqualified for the altar, but it is not a complete blemish permitting the animal to be slaughtered on account of it outside the Temple.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

“One of its eyes is large

and the other is small.”

It was 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 the other is small,” etc. Rabbi Yehuda says: “Its two testicles,” etc., “but the Sages did not agree with him.”

We analyze this:

And as for the Sages,

who did not agree with him with regard to the testicles,

how much

must the other one be smaller for them to declare it fit?

And we answer:

It is taught in a beraita: Others say: Even if the second

testicle

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

Mishna:

A calf’s tail that does not reach

in length

the arkhuv,

the joint at the thigh [as explained below]: In this case

the Sages said: All calves are like this!

This is the normal manner of their development and growth: A calf’s tail reaches the arkhuv. And

as long as they

the calves

continue growing, they stretch

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

Which arkhuv did they say?

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: The arkhuv in the middle of the thigh.

As the Gemara explains.