Bekhorot 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The tanna:

At which place on the leg is this statement speaking?

The upper one jumped,

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

But the lower one did not jump,

near the hooves.

And this place,

its counterpart is recognizable in a camel,

as it has a bone protruding outward at that place.

Mishna:

For these blemishes

that we have listed from the beginning of the chapter until now,

one slaughters the firstborn animal.

And consecrated animals disqualified

—the other offerings in which these blemishes occurred—

are redeemed on account of them.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

Why do I need this further statement,

to say that one slaughters on account of these blemishes?

Did he not already teach it at the beginning,

at the beginning of our chapter:

For these blemishes one slaughters the firstborn animal?

And we answer:

The latter clause was necessary for him,

as he teaches:

And consecrated animals disqualified are redeemed on account of them.

And we challenge this:

That too is obvious!

Since

we do slaughter

the firstborn animal outside the Temple on account of these blemishes,

redeeming

consecrated animals disqualified

is it necessary

to state?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is why the tanna repeated it. Since

he taught three

blemishes,

he added

those of Ila (above, 40a).

And they said to him,

the Sages:

We have heard only these,

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

And he teaches it and thereby includes the individual opinion,

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

he states it anonymously with regard to all of them,

and for this reason the tanna repeated and stated anonymously:

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

This is to say that we rule in accordance with all these tannaim.

Mishna:

And these

blemishes

on account of which one does not slaughter, neither in the Temple,

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

nor in the country,

as they are not considered a complete blemish permitting one to slaughter the animal outside the Temple.

White specks,

a disease of the eye resembling white drops.

And watery eyes,

where his eyes constantly discharge water,

that are not permanent

for eighty days. (As above, 38b.)

And the inner gums,

the

inner gums, that are chipped,

meaning that a small amount is missing,

or that are cut,

meaning that they were cut with a knife and no material is missing, but a crack-like line was formed in them. (But if they were uprooted, it is a blemish, as above, 39a.)

And one afflicted with garav,

a type of boil.

And one afflicted with a wart,

a growth found in the white of the eye containing hair.

And one afflicted with ḥazzazit,

a type of boil.

Old or ill

(anyone who trembles on account of old age or illness).

Or foul-smelling,

meaning that it emits a bad odor.

Or in which a transgression was performed,

meaning that it was used for bestiality.

Or that killed a person,

when there are not two witnesses testifying that it killed or was used for bestiality (for when there are witnesses, it is stoned and forbidden even for benefit),

but on the testimony of one witness or on the testimony of the owner.

They said that the ox killed or was used for bestiality.

And one with an indistinct sexual status,

in which the signs of male and female are not discernible.

And a hermaphrodite,

which has both male and female signs.

The animal with indistinct sexual status and the hermaphrodite are not slaughtered

in the Temple,

as they are unfit for the altar, since the animal with indistinct sexual status may be female, and a female does not become consecrated as a firstborn animal,

nor in the country,

as perhaps it is male and is consecrated as a firstborn animal, but it has no blemish on account of which it may be slaughtered outside the Temple.

Rabbi Yishmael says:

A hermaphrodite

has no greater blemish than this.

For if it is male, the female genitalia are a blemish. Its status is that of a blemished firstborn animal, 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 animal,

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

but it may be shorn and worked,

like ordinary non-sacred animals.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And one afflicted with garav and one afflicted with ḥazzazit are not slaughtered on account of them, neither in the Temple nor in the country.

And we raise an objection:

Is garav not

a complete blemish on account of which one may slaughter in the country?

But garav is written in the Torah,

“A blind animal, or one with a broken limb, or a חרוץ, or a wart, or garav, or yallefet, you shall not offer these to the Lord.”

And we raise another objection:

And is ḥazzazit not

a blemish?

But yallefet is written in the Torah.

As it was taught in a beraita: “Garav”—this is the earthenware-like disease,

a boil that has dried like earthenware.

“Yallefet”—this is Egyptian ḥazzazit,

a boil that was brought upon the Egyptians.

And Reish Lakish said: Why is it called yallefet?

Because

it clings and continues to cling,

stuck to the animal

until the day of death.

It has no cure.

Granted, the contradiction between ḥazzazit and ḥazzazit is not difficult:

Here

the verse in the Torah is speaking

of Egyptian ḥazzazit,

which is severe and is a blemish.

Here

the Mishna is speaking

of ordinary ḥazzazit.

But the contradiction between garav and garav is difficult!

And we answer:

The contradiction between garav and garav is also not difficult.

One refers to a moist one, and the other to a dry one.

And the difference between them is:

A moist one can be cured;

it has a remedy.

A dry one cannot be cured.

It has no remedy and is a blemish.

And we challenge this:

Can a moist one be cured? But it is written

in the passage of rebuke:

“The Lord will strike you with the boil of Egypt, with hemorrhoids, with garav, and with the earthenware-like disease.” And from the fact that “the earthenware-like disease” is written

—which is garav that is dry and hard like earthenware—

it follows that a moist garav is mentioned,

for since the earthenware-like disease is dry, garav is moist.

And it is written

afterward:

“Which you will not be able to cure,”

teaching us that even the moist one has no cure.

And we answer:

Rather, there are three types of

garav

.

Garav

of the verse,

which is stated in the passage of blemishes,

is dry, both inside and outside,

and it is a complete blemish.

Garav

of the Mishna

is

moist outside and inside,

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

Garav

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 animal it is a complete blemish.)

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

As it is written: “And there was a boil

breaking out in blisters

upon man.” “Breaking out” means that it appeared above the surface and protruded. “Blisters” derives from an expression of flowing, meaning that it was moist on the outside.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we consider the matter:

From where are these words derived,

that one does not slaughter them in the Temple?

And we answer:

As the Sages taught:

It is written in the passage of the burnt offering:

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

And we expound the three instances of “from,” which indicate “from the flock,” but not the entire flock:

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

And all

these exclusions are necessary.

For had the Merciful One written one

exclusion, we would have expounded it

to exclude the old

specifically,

as he will not become healthy again. But with regard to the ill person, who will become healthy again, I might say that it is not excluded.

Alternatively,

we would have expounded it

to exclude the ill

specifically,

as his condition is not normal. But with regard to the old person, whose condition is normal,

I might say that he is not excluded.

And had the Merciful One written two

exclusions, we would have expounded them

to exclude these,

the old and the ill,

because they are weakened. But with regard to the foul-smelling animal, which is not weakened, I might say that it is not excluded

and is fit as an offering.

Alternatively,

we would have expounded them

to exclude the foul-smelling animal because it is repulsive. But with regard to these,

the old and the ill,

I might say that they are not excluded, (that is, we would have expounded only one of them, as in the preceding analysis); therefore

all

of them are necessary.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one in which a transgression was performed.

And we consider the matter:

From where are these words derived

that it may not be offered on the altar?

And we answer: As the Sages 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 an animal used for bestiality.

“From cattle”—to exclude an animal worshipped,

which one made into an object of idolatrous worship and worshipped.

“From the flock”—to exclude an animal set aside,

which was designated and separated for idolatrous worship but had not yet been worshipped.

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

to exclude an ox that gored,

which gored a person and caused his death.

And we challenge this:

But these

animals used for bestiality, worshipped animals, and goring animals

are subject to execution.

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

And we answer: Here, with what case are we dealing? For example, an animal that gored

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

An animal is not stoned on the testimony of one witness or of its owner. And the verse teaches us that nevertheless they are disqualified for sacrifice.

And an animal with indistinct sexual status and a hermaphrodite,

with regard to which we learned in the Mishna that one does not slaughter them either in the Temple or in the country, we consider the matter:

Granted, an animal with indistinct sexual status may not be offered in the Temple,

as a sacrifice,

because perhaps it is female,

which does not become consecrated as a firstborn animal; and since he offers it as a firstborn animal, he brings non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard.

And likewise, granted that

in the country it may not

be slaughtered,

because perhaps it is male

and is consecrated as a firstborn animal,

and it has no blemish.

But with regard to a hermaphrodite, granted that it may not be offered in the Temple,

as a sacrifice,

because perhaps it is female,

and he is offering it under the status of a firstborn animal.

But in the country,

why is it not slaughtered?

Even if it is male,

meaning, even assuming that it is a firstborn animal, nevertheless it has a blemish, since

its female genitalia should be made

like a

crack

in the body of a firstborn animal,

and he should slaughter it on account of that,

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

And we answer:

Abaye said: The verse states: “Or a broken limb or a crack.”

And we expound:

“A crack” is similar to “a broken limb”: Just as “a broken limb”

in the verse refers to a break

in a place containing bone (since the term “broken” is not applicable to flesh),

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

so too, “a crack” refers to a place containing bone.

And therefore the female genitalia are not a blemish on account of which one may slaughter in the country.

Rava said: Without

the analogy to

“a broken limb” as well, you cannot say

that

a crack in a place of flesh is a blemish.

For if it enters your mind that a crack in a place of flesh is a blemish,

it would be difficult:

Since, after all, once the Master said: “Garav”—this is the earthenware-like disease,

and therefore it is a lesion, surely it

makes a groove,

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 appears deeper than the flesh. And if we say that a crack in a place of flesh is a blemish,

let the Merciful One write “a crack” and not require

the writing of

“garav”;

and I would

say:

Just as

“a crack,” which is not repulsive, is a blemish, all the more so garav, which is repulsive!

Rather, certainly this is why

the Merciful One wrote “garav,” to teach that a crack in a place of flesh is not a blemish!

And therefore garav is not included under “crack,” and it was necessary to write it separately.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we explain the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael: The female genitalia are a blemish in a hermaphrodite despite the fact that the crack is not in a place containing bone:

He did not state this according to Abaye,

because

we do not say that “a crack” is analogous to “a broken limb” (and we do not require “a crack” to be in a place containing bone).

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

Nor did he state it according to Rava, for perhaps this applies only

when a crack in a place of flesh is not a blemish

where it is not conspicuous,

such as the crack of garav.

But where it is conspicuous,

as the crack formed by the female genitalia of an animal,

we call it a severe blemish,

even though it is in a place of flesh.