Bekhorot 41a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The tanna:

In which place on the leg is it speaking?

The upper one jumped,

that is, the upper joint, namely, the place where the lower leg and the thigh are joined.

But the lower one did not jump,

near the hooves.

And this place,

opposite it in a camel is recognizable,

for it has a bone protruding outward at that place.

Mishna:

For these blemishes

which we learned from the beginning of the chapter until now,

one slaughters the firstborn.

And consecrated animals disqualified

when these blemishes have befallen them,

are redeemed on account of them.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

Why do I need this further statement

to say that for these blemishes one slaughters? And

did he not already teach it at the beginning,

at the beginning of our chapter:

For these blemishes one slaughters the firstborn.

And we answer:

The latter part was needed for him,

for he taught:

Consecrated animals disqualified are redeemed on account of them.

And we challenge this:

This too is obvious!

Since

we slaughter the firstborn

outside [the Temple] for these blemishes—

redeeming

consecrated animals disqualified

is it necessary

to say?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is why the tanna repeated it. Since

he taught three

blemishes,

he added

Ila. [See above, 40a.]

And they said to him,

the Sages:

We have heard only these,

that is, the other blemishes that he added; but concerning these three they disagree with him.

And he teaches it and proceeds to [the opinion] of an individual,

and afterward the tanna listed blemishes stated in the singular, such as [those of] Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus. And I might have said that the Rabbis also disagreed with them; therefore

he states it anonymously concerning all of them,

for this reason the tanna returned and stated anonymously:

For these blemishes one slaughters the firstborn, and consecrated animals disqualified are redeemed on account of them.

To say that we rule in accordance with all these tannaim.

Mishna:

And these

blemishes

for which one does not slaughter them, neither in the Temple,

for they are unfit for the altar because of the blemish,

nor in the country,

for they are not considered a complete blemish permitting one to slaughter it outside [the Temple].

A white spot,

a disease in the eye resembling white drops.

And watery eyes,

whose eyes continually discharge water,

that are not permanent

for eighty days. [As above, 38b.]

And the inner cords,

the gums,

that are damaged,

that are slightly deficient,

and that are cut,

that were cut with a knife and are not deficient, but a kind of crack was formed in them. [But if they were uprooted, it is a blemish. As above, 39a.]

And one with a scab,

a type of boil.

And one with a wart,

which is found in the white of the eye and has hair in it.

And one with a skin eruption,

a type of boil.

Old and ill

—anyone who trembles because of old age or illness—

and foul-smelling,

emitting a bad odor,

and one concerning which a transgression was performed,

that was used for intercourse,

and one that killed a person,

when there are not two witnesses testifying that it killed or was used for intercourse [for when there are witnesses, it is stoned and is forbidden even for benefit],

but only on the testimony of one witness or on the testimony of the owners.

For they said that the ox killed or was used for intercourse.

And one whose sex is indeterminate,

in whom the signs of male and female are not recognizable,

and a hermaphrodite,

in whom there are signs of a male as well as signs of a female.

The one whose sex is indeterminate and the hermaphrodite are not slaughtered

neither in the Temple,

for they are disqualified for the altar, since the one whose sex is indeterminate may be a female, which does not become consecrated as a firstborn,

nor in the country,

for perhaps it is a male and becomes consecrated as a firstborn, and it has no blemish for which it may be slaughtered outside [the Temple].

Rabbi Ishmael says:

A hermaphrodite—

you have no greater blemish than this.

For insofar as it is male, the place of the female organs is a blemish. Its law is that of a blemished firstborn, which is slaughtered in the country, but it is forbidden to shear or work it.

And the Sages say:

A hermaphrodite

is not a firstborn,

for it is neither male nor female, but is a creature in its own right, and does not become consecrated as a firstborn;

rather, it may be shorn and worked,

like ordinary non-sacred animals.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And one with a scab and one with a skin eruption are not slaughtered on account of them, neither in the Temple nor in the country.

And we raise an objection:

But a scab is not

a complete blemish for slaughtering on account of it in the country?

But “scab” is written in the Torah: “A blind animal, or one with a broken limb, or one with a split, or one with a wart, or one with a scab, or one with a skin eruption—you shall not offer these to the Lord.”

“An animal that is blind, or broken, or gashed, or has a wart, or scabs, or a skin disease—you shall not offer these to the Lord.”

And we further raise an objection:

But a skin eruption is not

a blemish?

But “skin eruption” is written in the Torah.

As it was taught: “Scab”—this is the dry scab,

a boil that has dried like earthenware.

“Skin eruption”—this is the Egyptian skin eruption,

a boil that was brought upon the Egyptians.

And Reish Lakish said: Why was it called a skin eruption?

Because

it wraps itself and proceeds,

clinging to him

until the day of death,

for it has no cure.

Granted, [the contradiction between] skin eruption and skin eruption is not difficult:

Here

the matter written in the Torah is speaking

of the Egyptian skin eruption,

which is severe and is a blemish.

Here

the Mishna [is speaking]

of an ordinary skin eruption.

But [the contradiction between] scab and scab—is it not difficult?

And we answer:

[The contradiction between] scab and scab is also not difficult.

This one is moist, and this one is dry.

And the difference between them is:

A moist one can be healed;

it has a cure.

A dry one cannot be healed.

It has no cure and is a blemish.

And we challenge this:

But can a moist one be healed? And it is written

in the passage of rebuke:

“The Lord will strike you with the Egyptian boil, with hemorrhoids, with a scab, and with the dry scab.” And since “the dry scab” is written,

which is a scab dry and hard like earthenware,

it follows that a moist scab is mentioned,

for since the dry scab is dry, the scab is moist.

And it is written

after it:

“which you cannot be healed from,”

and we learn from this that the moist one also has no cure.

And we answer:

Rather, there are three

types of scab

which exist.

The scab

of the verse,

which is stated in the passage of blemishes, is

dry both inside and outside,

and it is a complete blemish.

The scab

of the Mishna

is

moist outside and inside,

and is disqualified for the altar, but it is not slaughtered outside, since it has a cure.

The scab

of Egypt,

which is stated in the passage of rebuke, is

dry inside and moist outside,

and since it is dry inside, it has no cure. [And in a firstborn it is a complete blemish.]

And from where do we know that the Egyptian boil was dry inside and moist outside?

For it is written: “And the boil

breaking out in blisters

upon man.” “Breaking out” means that it appeared protruding from above. “Blisters” is an expression of flowing, that is, outside it was moist.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the old, the ill, and the foul-smelling.

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these matters

that they are not slaughtered in the Temple?

And we answer:

As the Rabbis taught:

It is written in the passage of the burnt offering:

“From the flock and from the sheep or from the goats.”

And we expound the three occurrences of “from,” which imply “from the flock,” but not all the flock:

excluding the old, the ill, and the foul-smelling.

And [all three exclusions] are necessary

for all the exclusions.

For if the Merciful One had written one

exclusion, we would have expounded it

to exclude the old

specifically,

because he does not become healthy again. But as for the ill one, who becomes healthy again, I might say not.

Alternatively,

we would have expounded it

to exclude the ill

specifically,

because this is not his normal condition. But as for the old one, for whom this is his normal condition,

I might say not.

And if the Merciful One had written two

exclusions, we would have expounded them

to exclude these,

the old and the ill,

because they are emaciated. But as for the foul-smelling one, which is not emaciated, I might say not,

and it would be fit for an offering.

Alternatively,

we would have expounded them

to exclude the foul-smelling one because it is repulsive. But as for these,

the old and the ill,

I might say not, [that is, we would have expounded only one of them, as in the necessity stated above;] therefore

they are necessary

all of them.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one concerning which a transgression was performed.

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these matters

that it may not be offered upon the altar?

And we answer: As the Rabbis taught: It is written in the passage of the burnt offering: “From the animal, from cattle, and from the flock.” And we expound:

“From the animal”—to exclude one that was used for intercourse and one that was the object of intercourse.

“From cattle”—to exclude one that was worshipped,

which he made into an object of idolatry and worshipped.

“From the flock”—to exclude one set aside,

which was set aside and designated for idolatry but had not yet been worshipped.

And because “and from the flock” is written with an extra conjunction, we expound it

to exclude the goring animal,

which gored a person and killed him.

And we challenge this:

But these

—the one used for intercourse, the one that was the object of intercourse, and the goring one—

are liable to execution.

Why is a verse needed to exclude them from being offered?

And we answer: Here, with what are we dealing? With a case such as one in which it gored

on the testimony of one witness or on the testimony of the owners.

An animal is not stoned on the testimony of one witness or of the owners. And the verse informs us that nevertheless they are disqualified for offering.

And one whose sex is indeterminate and a hermaphrodite,

concerning whom we learned in the Mishna that one does not slaughter on account of them, neither in the Temple nor in the country, we inquire:

Granted, as for one whose sex is indeterminate, in the Temple it may not be offered,

for it may not be offered,

as perhaps it is female,

which is not consecrated as a firstborn, and since he offers it as a firstborn, he is bringing non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard.

And likewise, granted,

in the country it may not

be slaughtered,

as perhaps it is male

and is consecrated as a firstborn,

and it has no blemish.

But as for a hermaphrodite, granted, in the Temple it may not

be offered,

as perhaps it is female,

and he is offering it as a firstborn.

But in the country,

what is the reason that it may not be slaughtered?

Even if it is indeed male,

that is, even assuming that it is a firstborn, nevertheless it is blemished, for

you can make its female organs

like a

split

in the body of a firstborn,

and slaughter on account of it,

for it is written: “A blind animal, or one with a broken limb, or one with a split.”

And we answer:

Abaye said: The verse states: “Or one with a broken limb, or one with a split.”

And we expound:

“Split” is analogous to “broken”: just as “broken,”

in the verse, is

at the place of a bone [for “broken” does not apply to flesh],

[for the term “broken” does not apply to flesh],

so too “split” is at the place of a bone.

And for this reason the place of the female organs is not a blemish for slaughtering in the country.

Rava said: Without

the analogy from

“broken” as well you cannot say

that

“split” at the place of flesh is a blemish.

For if it enters your mind that a split at the place of flesh is a blemish,

a difficulty arises:

Since, after all, the Master said: “Scab”—this is the dry scab,

and if so, it is a lesion, and certainly

it is deeply split,

as

it is written

in the passage of lesions:

“And its appearance is deeper than the skin,”

that is,

like the appearance of

the sun

which appears

deeper than the shade,

so the lesion is deeper than the flesh. And if we say that a split at the place of flesh is a blemish,

let the Merciful One write “split,” and not need

to write

“scab,”

and I

would say:

And if

“split,” which is not repulsive, is a blemish, then a scab, which is repulsive, is surely so!

Rather, certainly for this reason

the Merciful One wrote “scab,” to say that a split at the place of flesh is not a blemish!

Therefore the scab is not included in “split,” and it was necessary to write it.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Ishmael says: You have no greater blemish than this 35.

And we explain Rabbi Ishmael’s reason: the place of the female organs is a blemish in a hermaphrodite, even though the split is not at the place of a bone:

He did not state it in accordance with Abaye,

because

we do not say that “split” is analogous to “broken” [and we do not require “split” to be at the place of a bone].

[and we do not require “gashed” to refer to a place where there is bone].

Nor did he state it in accordance with Rava, for perhaps this applies

when a split at the place of flesh is not a blemish,

where it is not recognizable

to such an extent, such as the split of a scab.

But where it is recognizable

to a greater degree, as is the split of the female organs of an animal,

we call it a severe blemish,

even though it is at the place of flesh.