Bechorot Daf 39 (בכורות דף ל״ט)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (39a)

Segment 1

TYPE: בעיא (המשך)

The Western dilemma continued: is the fig-bulk given at the first meal or every meal, before or after eating and drinking?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּכׇל סְעוּדָה וּסְעוּדָה? אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר בִּסְעוּדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה — קוֹדֶם אֲכִילָה אוֹ לְאַחַר אֲכִילָה? קוֹדֶם אֲכִילָה וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ כְּסַמָּא, לְאַחַר אֲכִילָה מַאי? קוֹדֶם שְׁתִיָּה אוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁתִיָּה? וְקוֹדֶם שְׁתִיָּה וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ כִּשְׂעָרֵי, לְאַחַר שְׁתִיָּה מַאי?

English Translation:

or perhaps does it mean it is fed the amount of a fig-bulk at each and every meal? If you say that it is fed a fig-bulk only at the first meal, is it fed this fodder before its regularly scheduled eating or after eating? The Gemara elaborates: Before eating, it is certainly effective for it like a medicine, which people imbibe before their meals. With regard to after eating, what is the halakha? Is this an effective manner of examining the animal? The Gemara further inquires: Is the animal fed this fodder as a medicine before drinking or after drinking? Before drinking it is certainly effective for it, like barley, which is fed to an animal before it drinks. With regard to after drinking, what is the halakha?

קלאוד על הדף:

This completes the question that Rava reported from the West at the end of 38b. The mishna (38b) prescribed a three-month regimen of moist and then dry fodder to test whether an animal’s constant tears are a permanent blemish, and Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Pinchas ben Arova fixed the dose at a fig-bulk (kigrogeret). The scholars of Eretz Yisrael now ask how that dose is administered. The logic of each sub-question is the same: the test is only valid if the fodder is given under the conditions in which it actually works as a remedy, so the Gemara identifies the ‘certain’ case in each pair — before eating, like a medicine (sama) taken on an empty stomach; before drinking, like barley given before watering — and asks only about the doubtful alternative.

Key Terms:

• כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת = the size of a dried fig, a standard halakhic measure of volume
• סְעוּדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה = the first meal (of the day)
• כְּסַמָּא = like a medicine, which is taken before a meal
• כִּשְׂעָרֵי = like barley, which is fed to an animal before it drinks
• מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ = it is beneficial/effective for it

Segment 2

TYPE: בעיא (המשך)

More conditions: tied or untied, alone or with a companion animal?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

קָשׁוּר אוֹ מוּתָּר? מוּתָּר — וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ, קָשׁוּר מַאי? לְבַדּוֹ אוֹ עִם חֲבֵירוֹ? עִם חֲבֵירוֹ — וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ, לְבַדּוֹ מַאי?

English Translation:

The Gemara continues to inquire: Is the animal given the fodder when it is tied or untied? The Gemara explains: When it is untied, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal. When it is tied, what is the halakha? Furthermore, is it fed the fodder when it is by itself, or with another animal? When it is with another animal, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is comfortable. When it is by itself, what is the halakha?

קלאוד על הדף:

The series of sub-dilemmas continues with the animal’s state of mind and freedom of movement. An untied animal, and one feeding alongside another animal, eats calmly and comfortably, so the remedy certainly works under those conditions. The question is whether a tied or solitary animal, which may be agitated, can still be considered to have undergone a valid test — if the cure fails in such conditions, perhaps it failed only because of the stress, and the tearing has not really been shown to be permanent.

Key Terms:

• קָשׁוּר = tied, tethered
• מוּתָּר = untied, free to move
• לְבַדּוֹ = by itself, alone
• עִם חֲבֵירוֹ = with its companion, another animal

Segment 3

TYPE: בעיא ותיקו

City or field, and Rav Ashi’s garden next to the city — all left unresolved

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בָּעִיר (וּבַשָּׂדֶה) [אוֹ בַּשָּׂדֶה]? בַּשָּׂדֶה — וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ, בָּעִיר — מַאי? בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר בַּשָּׂדֶה — גִּינָּה הַסְּמוּכָה לָעִיר מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

English Translation:

Likewise, is the animal fed it in the city or in the field? When it is in the field, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is calm. When it is in the city, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a further dilemma: If you say that this treatment is effective only when it is in the field, not when it is the city, what is the halakha with regard to a garden adjacent to the city? No resolution is found for any of these inquiries, and with regard to each of them the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

קלאוד על הדף:

The last pair contrasts the calm of the open field with the bustle of the city. Rav Ashi adds a characteristic refinement: if the field is required, what of a garden adjacent to the city, which is partly like each? None of these questions is answered, and the whole chain ends in teiku. Practically, this means one must perform the examination under all the ‘certain’ conditions — every meal, before eating and drinking, untied, with a companion, in the field — to be sure the test was valid.

Key Terms:

• בָּעִיר = in the city
• בַּשָּׂדֶה = in the field
• גִּינָּה הַסְּמוּכָה לָעִיר = a garden adjacent to the city
• תֵּיקוּ = the question stands unresolved

Segment 4

TYPE: גמרא

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus’s three examinations must be evenly spaced

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מְשׁוּלָּשִׁים.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches with regard to constant pale spots that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus says: One examines the animal three times within eighty days. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And this is the halakha provided that they are divided into equal thirds, i.e., there must be an even gap between each of these examinations.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna on 38b discussed constant white spots (chilazon/dakim) in the eye, and Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus required the animal to be examined three times within eighty days to establish that the spots are permanent. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak adds that the examinations must be meshulashim — spread out evenly over the eighty days — so that each checks a distinct period. Three examinations bunched together at the start or the end would not demonstrate permanence over the full span.

Key Terms:

• מְשׁוּלָּשִׁים = divided into equal thirds, evenly spaced
• שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם = eighty days — the examination period in Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus’s view
• רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס = a Tanna of priestly descent who frequently rules on blemishes

Segment 5

TYPE: בעיא

Pinchas asks Shmuel: if the cure fails, is the blemish retroactive or only from now on?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ פִּנְחָס, אֲחוּהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, מִשְּׁמוּאֵל: אֲכַל וְלָא אִיתַּסִּי — לְמַפְרֵעַ הָוֵי מוּמָא, אוֹ מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא הָוֵי מוּמָא?

English Translation:

With regard to the statement of the mishna that constant tears are examined by feeding the animal moist and then dry fodder for a period of three months, Pineḥas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, raises a dilemma before Shmuel: If the animal ate the fodder in the required manner and was not healed, which means that it is blemished, is it a retroactive blemish from the day it was discovered, or is it a blemish from that point forward?

קלאוד על הדף:

Pinchas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, poses a conceptual question about the three-month test for constant tears. When the remedy fails, have we discovered that the animal was blemished all along (lemafrei’a), or does the blemish only begin to count now, at the end of the test (mikan ulehaba)? This is the classic question of whether a later clarification reveals a pre-existing state or creates a new one.

Key Terms:

• לְמַפְרֵעַ = retroactively, from the beginning
• מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא = from now on, prospectively
• אִיתַּסִּי = was healed
• מוּמָא = a blemish

Segment 6

TYPE: גמרא

The practical difference: me’ila on redemption money paid during the test period

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִימְעַל בְּפִדְיוֹנוֹ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְמַפְרֵעַ הָוֵי מוּמָא — מָעֵיל,

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to whether one has violated the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property concerning its redemption money in a case where a consecrated animal was redeemed before the end of the three months of examination and someone derived benefit from the money paid for its redemption. If you say that it is a retroactive blemish, he thereby misuses consecrated property, as the redemption was effective and the money belongs to the Temple treasury.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara identifies a concrete consequence. If a consecrated animal (not a firstborn, which cannot be redeemed) was redeemed during the three months and someone then used the redemption money, the answer determines whether he committed me’ila. If the blemish is retroactive, the animal was blemished at the time of redemption, the redemption was valid, the money became Temple property, and using it is misuse of consecrated property.

Key Terms:

• נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ = the practical difference
• לְמִימְעַל = to commit me’ila, misuse of consecrated property
• פִּדְיוֹנוֹ = its redemption (money)
• מְעִילָה = the prohibition of deriving benefit from Temple property

Segment 7

TYPE: בעיא (ללא תשובה)

If the blemish is only prospective there is no me’ila; Shmuel cannot answer and quotes ‘the lame take the prey’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִי מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא הָוֵי מוּמָא — לָא מָעֵיל, מַאי? קָרֵי שְׁמוּאֵל עֲלֵיהּ: ״פִּסְחִים בָּזְזוּ בַז״.

English Translation:

But if it is a blemish from that point forward, then one who derived benefit from money paid before that point has not misused consecrated property, as an unblemished animal cannot be redeemed, and the money remains non-sacred. What, then, is the halakha? Shmuel read this verse with regard to his brother: “The lame take the prey” (Isaiah 33:23), i.e., one who is not learned in Torah has managed to ask a question for which I have no answer.

קלאוד על הדף:

If the blemish only counts from the end of the test, the animal was unblemished when redeemed, and an unblemished consecrated animal cannot be redeemed at all; the money never became sacred and no me’ila was committed. Shmuel has no answer, and he applies to his brother the verse from Yeshayahu 33:23, ‘The lame take the prey’ — as the translation explains, the one he did not regard as a great scholar had found a question that stumped him. The question is left open, and the Gemara records Shmuel’s admiring quip rather than a ruling.

Key Terms:

• פִּסְחִים בָּזְזוּ בַז = ‘the lame take the prey’ (Yeshayahu 33:23) — an unlikely person succeeds
• לָא מָעֵיל = he has not committed me’ila
• תָּם = unblemished (an animal that cannot be redeemed)

Segment 8

TYPE: משנה

Mishna: a nose or lip that was pierced, chipped or split

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ חוֹטְמוֹ שֶׁנִּיקַּב, וְשֶׁנִּפְגַּם, וְשֶׁנִּסְדַּק. שְׂפָמוֹ שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, שֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה, שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה.

English Translation:

MISHNA: For these additional blemishes, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple: Its nose that was pierced, or that was damaged and is lacking, or that was split. Likewise, its lip that was pierced, or that was damaged, or that was split is considered a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

The catalogue of firstborn blemishes in perek 6 continues, moving down the face from the eyes (38a-b) to the nose and lip. Each organ has the same three injuries: nikav (pierced through), nifgam (chipped, with a piece missing) and nisdak (split, without loss of tissue). All are visible blemishes, which is the key criterion for permitting the slaughter of a firstborn outside the Temple.

Key Terms:

• חוֹטְמוֹ = its nose
• שְׂפָמוֹ / שְׂפָתוֹ = its lip
• נִיקַּב = pierced through
• נִפְגַּם = damaged, with a piece missing
• נִסְדַּק = split, cracked without loss

Segment 9

TYPE: ברייתא ומימרא

Nostrils pierced into each other: from the outside, a blemish; from the inside, not. Rav Pappa: the lip means its outer part

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִיקְּבוּ חֳוטָמִין זֶה לְתוֹךְ זֶה — מִבַּחוּץ הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, מִבִּפְנִים אֵינוֹ מוּם. שְׂפָתוֹ שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה וְשֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה וְשֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תּוֹרָא בָּרָא דְּשִׂיפְתֵּיהּ.

English Translation:

GEMARA: With regard to the case of the nose that was pierced, the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where its nostrils were pierced one into the other, if the perforation is visible on the outside of the nostril, this is a blemish; if it is visible only on the inside of the nostril, it is not a blemish. With regard to the case of: Its lip that was pierced or that was damaged or that was split, Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the outer row, i.e., the front, protruding part of its lip.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita refines the mishna’s ‘pierced nose.’ If the wall between the nostrils is perforated, it matters where the hole can be seen: if it is visible on the outside it is a blemish, but a hole visible only inside the nose is a hidden defect and does not count. Rav Pappa similarly limits the lip injuries to the outer, protruding row of the lip (tora bara), the part that is seen, again applying the principle that only exposed blemishes permit the firstborn.

Key Terms:

• חֳוטָמִין = nostrils
• מִבַּחוּץ = from the outside, visible
• מִבִּפְנִים = from the inside, hidden
• תּוֹרָא בָּרָא = the outer row (of the lip)

Segment 10

TYPE: משנה

Mishna: outer gums damaged or scratched, inner gums extracted; Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus excludes the double teeth

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ חוּטִין הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ, וְשֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ, הַפְּנִימִיִּם שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין בּוֹדְקִין מִן הַתְּיוֹמֶת וְלִפְנִים, וְאַף לֹא אֶת הַתְּיוֹמֶת.

English Translation:

MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn: The external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched, and likewise, the internal gums that were extracted. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the double teeth, i.e., the large molars that appear like two teeth, and inward, and one does not examine even the place of the double teeth themselves. This is because even if they were extracted, it is a concealed blemish, and it does not permit the slaughter of the firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

The catalogue now enters the mouth. The outer gums count as a blemish even when merely chipped or scratched, while the inner gums count only when extracted, a more drastic injury. Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus adds that the area of the te’omet, the large molars that look like two teeth, and everything behind them, is not examined at all, since a defect there is a hidden blemish (mum shebeseter) that does not permit slaughtering a firstborn.

Key Terms:

• חוּטִין = the gums (literally, ‘strings’)
• נִגְמְמוּ = scratched, scraped
• נֶעֶקְרוּ = extracted, uprooted
• תְּיוֹמֶת = the double teeth, large molars that look like a pair
• מוּם שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר = a hidden blemish

Segment 11

TYPE: ברייתא

A baraita on the double teeth, with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַתְּיוֹמֶת, אֵיזֶהוּ תְּיוֹמֶת? מִן הַתְּיוֹמֶת וְלִפְנִים, וּתְיוֹמֶת עַצְמָהּ כְּלִפְנִים. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹצַאי אוֹמֵר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶלָּא עַל הַחִיצוֹנוֹת בִּלְבַד. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הַתְּיוֹמֶת כׇּל עִיקָּר.

English Translation:

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the mishna is referring to the double teeth, what are the double teeth? The area from the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves, are considered like the inward part, i.e., the location of a concealed blemish, for which one may not slaughter the animal. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth alone. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not consider the double teeth at all.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita asks ‘what is the te’omet?’ and seems to give a ruling instead of a definition: from the double teeth inward, and the double teeth themselves, count as ‘inner.’ It then quotes two further opinions: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai permits slaughter only for blemishes of the outer gums, and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus says the double teeth are disregarded entirely. As it stands the text is hard to parse, which the Gemara now points out.

Key Terms:

• אֵיזֶהוּ תְּיוֹמֶת = what is the te’omet
• כְּלִפְנִים = like the inner area
• הַחִיצוֹנוֹת = the outer (gums/teeth)
• אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין = one pays no attention

Segment 12

TYPE: קושיא

The baraita’s question is unanswered, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai seems to repeat the first tanna

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַאי קָאָמַר? וְתוּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹצַאי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!

English Translation:

The Gemara notes that the baraita asks about the double teeth but does not answer the question: What is the tanna saying? And furthermore, the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai is the same as that of the first tanna, as they both maintain that a blemish to the double teeth is considered a concealed blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara raises two problems with the baraita. First, it asks what the te’omet is but does not define it. Second, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai’s ruling — only outer blemishes permit slaughter — appears identical to the first tanna, who already said the double teeth and inward are ‘inner.’ A named dissent that says nothing new suggests the text is missing something.

Key Terms:

• מַאי קָאָמַר = what is it saying?
• וְתוּ = and furthermore
• הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא = this is the same as the first tanna

Segment 13

TYPE: תירוץ

The baraita is missing words: the first tanna permits slaughter when the inner gums are extracted

Hebrew/Aramaic:

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵיזֶהוּ הַפְּנִימִית? מִן הַתְּיוֹמֶת וְלִפְנִים, וּתְיוֹמֶת עַצְמָהּ כְּלִפְנִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ וְשֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ, אֲבָל נֶעְקְרוּ — שׁוֹחֲטִין.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: What are the inner gums, for which a firstborn is not slaughtered if a blemish was found there? The inner gums are located from the place of the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves are considered like the inward part. In what case is this statement, that one does not slaughter the animal, said? It is said in a case where the inner gums were damaged or were scratched. But if they were extracted, one does slaughter the firstborn for this blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara solves the difficulty with the familiar tool of chasurei michasra, reading words into the baraita. The question was really ‘what is the inner gum?’, defined as the area from the double teeth inward, including the double teeth themselves. The first tanna then distinguishes: chips and scratches on the inner gums do not permit slaughter, but if the inner gums were extracted one may slaughter, exactly as in the mishna.

Key Terms:

• חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא = the text is incomplete (words must be supplied)
• הַפְּנִימִית = the inner (gum)
• בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים = in what case is this said?
• שׁוֹחֲטִין = one slaughters (the firstborn)

Segment 14

TYPE: תירוץ (המשך)

Three levels: slaughter, disqualification only, or no effect at all

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹצַאי אוֹמֵר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶלָּא עַל הַחִיצוֹנוֹת, אֲבָל פְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ — מִישְׁחָט עֲלַיְיהוּ לָא שָׁחֲטִינַן, אֲבָל אִפְּסוֹלֵי מִיפְּסֵל. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הַתְּיוֹמֶת כׇּל עִיקָּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ אִיפְּסוֹלֵי לָא אִיפְּסִיל.

English Translation:

The Gemara continues its interpretation of the baraita. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth. But with regard to the inner gums that were extracted, one does not slaughter the animal for them, but it is disqualified as an offering. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not pay attention to the double teeth at all, and a blemish there does not even disqualify the firstborn from sacrifice.

קלאוד על הדף:

With the reconstruction, three clear positions emerge for extracted inner gums. The first tanna treats it as a full blemish permitting slaughter; Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says it does not permit slaughter, yet it does disqualify the animal from the altar; and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus ignores the double teeth altogether, so a defect there does not even disqualify. The middle position introduces the category of a defect that is ‘enough to disqualify but not enough to permit,’ which sets up the next dilemma about internal lacks.

Key Terms:

• מִישְׁחָט = to slaughter (outside the Temple, as a blemished firstborn)
• אִפְּסוֹלֵי מִיפְּסֵל = it is disqualified (from the altar)
• פְּנִימִיּוֹת = the inner (gums)

Segment 15

TYPE: בעיא

Rav Achadvoi bar Ami: does an internal missing limb count? Not for a firstborn — the verse requires visible blemishes

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בָּעֵי רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי: יֵשׁ מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר מִבִּפְנִים, אוֹ אֵין מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר מִבִּפְנִים? לְמַאי? אִי לִבְכוֹר — ״פִּסֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר״ כְּתִיב,

English Translation:

§ Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raises a dilemma: Is there halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal, or is there no halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal? The Gemara inquires: With regard to what issue did he raise this dilemma? If it was with regard to whether such a blemish renders permitted the slaughter of a firstborn outside the Temple, it is written: “Lameness or blindness” (Deuteronomy 15:21), which indicates that the blemish must be exposed.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Achadvoi bar Ami asks whether an animal missing an internal organ is considered mechusar ever, lacking a limb. The Gemara first narrows the question. It cannot concern permitting a firstborn’s slaughter, since the Torah’s examples ‘lameness or blindness’ (Devarim 15:21) are visible defects, and an internal lack is plainly insufficient for that.

Key Terms:

• מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר = lacking a limb or organ
• מִבִּפְנִים = internal
• פִּסֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר = ‘lameness or blindness’ (Devarim 15:21)
• לְמַאי = for what purpose (is the question asked)?

Segment 16

TYPE: בעיא (חידוד)

Nor for redeeming kodashim; the question is only whether it disqualifies from the altar

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִי לְקָדָשִׁים, ״עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר״ כְּתִיב! לְאִישְּׁחוֹטֵי וּלְאִיפְּרוֹקֵי לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי מִיבַּעְיָא לַן לְאִיפְּסוֹלֵי — מַאי?

English Translation:

If the dilemma was raised with regard to whether other sacrificial animals with such a blemish are thereby disqualified from being sacrificed and may be redeemed, it is written: “Blind or broken” (Leviticus 22:22), which are also types of exposed blemishes. The Gemara explains that we do not raise this dilemma with regard to slaughtering the firstborn or redeeming other sacrificial animals, as it is clearly not considered a blemish to that extent. Rather, we raise the dilemma with regard to disqualifying the animal from sacrifice. What is the halakha?

קלאוד על הדף:

Similarly, redeeming other consecrated animals requires a blemish like ‘blind or broken’ (Vayikra 22:22), again visible defects. So the dilemma must be about the intermediate level identified in the previous segment: does an internal lack at least disqualify the animal from being sacrificed, even though it does not permit slaughter or redemption?

Key Terms:

• עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר = ‘blind or broken’ (Vayikra 22:22)
• לְאִיפְּרוֹקֵי = to be redeemed
• לְאִיפְּסוֹלֵי = to be disqualified (from the altar)

Segment 17

TYPE: צדדי הבעיא

Two readings of ‘complete to be accepted’: any lack disqualifies, or only lacks like external blemishes

Hebrew/Aramaic:

״תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, תָּמִים — אִין, חֶסְרוֹן — לֹא. אוֹ דִלְמָא ״תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן״, ״כׇּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ״ — מָה מוּם מֵאַבָּרַאי, אַף חֶסְרוֹן מֵאַבָּרַאי.

English Translation:

The Gemara clarifies the dilemma. The Merciful One states: “It shall be complete to be accepted” (Leviticus 22:21), which indicates that a complete animal, yes, is fit as a sacrifice, but if it is lacking in any manner, even on the inside, it is not fit. Or perhaps one should interpret this phrase: “It shall be complete to be accepted,” in light of what is stated immediately afterward: “There shall be no blemish therein.” Just as a blemish is on the outside, as taught by the next verse, which says: “Blind or broken,” so too, the status of lacking a limb applies only if it is lacking on the outside.

קלאוד על הדף:

The two sides are framed exegetically. ‘It shall be complete to be accepted’ (Vayikra 22:21) could demand wholeness in every sense, so any missing part, even inside, disqualifies. Alternatively, the phrase is read together with its continuation, ‘there shall be no blemish therein,’ and the next verse’s list of external defects, so that a disqualifying ‘lack’ must be of the same visible kind.

Key Terms:

• תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן = ‘it shall be complete to be accepted’ (Vayikra 22:21)
• חֶסְרוֹן = a lack, something missing
• מֵאַבָּרַאי = on the outside
• כׇּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ = ‘there shall be no blemish therein’

Segment 18

TYPE: תא שמע

Two baraitot on ‘the two kidneys’: one excludes an animal with one kidney, the other includes it

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְאֶת שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת״ — וְלֹא בַּעַל כּוּלְיָא אַחַת, וְלֹא בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ כּוּלְיוֹת. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״יְסִירֶנָּה״ — לְרַבּוֹת בַּעַל כּוּלְיָא אַחַת.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that this matter is subject to a dispute. It is taught in one baraita: When it states with regard to the burning of the sacrificial portions of a peace offering: “And the two kidneys” (Leviticus 3:4), this teaches that one sacrifices only an animal that has two kidneys, but not an animal that has one kidney, nor one that has three kidneys. And it is taught in another baraita that when that verse states: “And the two kidneys…he shall take it away,” the singular form serves to include an animal that has one kidney, which may be sacrificed. Evidently, these tanna’im disagree as to whether an animal lacking a kidney is fit to be sacrificed.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara brings two conflicting baraitot about the sacrificial portions of a shelamim. One reads ‘the two kidneys’ (Vayikra 3:4) strictly: an animal with one kidney or with three is unfit. The other reads the singular ‘yesirenna’ (‘he shall remove it’) as including an animal with only one kidney. Since kidneys are internal organs, this looks like a tannaitic dispute directly relevant to Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s question.

Key Terms:

• שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת = the two kidneys (Vayikra 3:4)
• כּוּלְיָא = kidney
• יְסִירֶנָּה = ‘he shall remove it’ — singular, used to include a one-kidney animal
• תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ = it was taught in another (baraita)

Segment 19

TYPE: הו”א

Initial assumption: no animal is born with one kidney, so the tanna’im disagree about internal lacks

Hebrew/Aramaic:

סַבְרוּהָ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, דְּהָא מִיחְסָר חָסַר. לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר, חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר, חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן.

English Translation:

The Sages initially assumed that everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and only one kidney is found because this offering became lacking a kidney only after birth. If so, let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is not considered a lack.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara assumes that nature never produces an animal with a single kidney (ein beriyah be’achat), so an animal found with one kidney must have lost the other. On that assumption both baraitot speak of a genuine internal lack, and their dispute must be exactly the question at hand: one tanna holds an internal lack disqualifies, and the other holds it does not.

Key Terms:

• סַבְרוּהָ = they (the Sages of the academy) assumed
• אֵין בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת = no creature is created with one (kidney)
• קָמִיפַּלְגִי = they disagree

Segment 20

TYPE: תירוץ

Rav Chiyya bar Yosef: an animal can be born with one kidney; lost kidney disqualifies, natural single kidney does not

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, וְחֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — כְּשֶׁנִּבְרְאָה בִּשְׁתַּיִם וְחָסְרוּ, כָּאן — כְּשֶׁנִּבְרְאָה בְּאַחַת מֵעִיקָּרָא.

English Translation:

Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: There is no dispute here, as everyone agrees that there is such an entity born with one kidney, and everyone also agrees that the lack of an internal limb is considered a lack that disqualifies the animal. And the contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult: Here, in the first baraita, where it was created with two kidneys and one is lacking, the animal is disqualified. Whereas there, where it was created with one kidney from the outset, it is not lacking and therefore it is fit.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Chiyya bar Yosef dissolves the dispute. Everyone agrees that an internal lack disqualifies and that a single kidney can occur naturally. The first baraita speaks of an animal born with two that lost one, a true lack; the second speaks of an animal created with one, which is simply its natural form and is not ‘lacking’ anything.

Key Terms:

• יֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת = there is a creature created with one (kidney)
• נִבְרְאָה = was created
• מֵעִיקָּרָא = from the outset
• וְלָא קַשְׁיָא = and it is not difficult

Segment 21

TYPE: קושיא

But the first baraita pairs one kidney with three kidneys, which can only be congenital

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דְּשָׁלֹשׁ קָתָנֵי, מָה שָׁלֹשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא, אַף אַחַת מֵעִיקָּרָא!

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: But the first baraita teaches the case of an animal that has one kidney as similar to that of an animal that has three kidneys. One can therefore infer: Just as these three kidneys were present from the outset, as an animal does not grow new limbs, so too, the animal with one kidney alone was like that from the outset.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara refutes Rav Chiyya bar Yosef from the structure of the first baraita. It lists ‘one kidney’ alongside ‘three kidneys,’ and an extra kidney can only be congenital since organs do not grow later. The parallel implies that the one-kidney case is also congenital, yet the first baraita disqualifies it, contradicting his distinction.

Key Terms:

• דּוּמְיָא = similar to, parallel with
• שָׁלֹשׁ = three (kidneys)
• מָה … אַף = just as … so too (an inference from parallelism)

Segment 22

TYPE: תירוץ

The tanna’im disagree whether an animal can be born with one kidney; all agree an internal lack disqualifies

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּיֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה מֵעִיקָּרָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: יֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת.

English Translation:

Rather, everyone agrees that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to the matter of whether there is an entity created with one kidney from the outset. One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that there is an entity created with one kidney, and it may be assumed that this is such an animal, and it is not lacking a limb. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that there is no entity created with one kidney, and this animal is lacking a limb and is disqualified for sacrifice.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara reframes the dispute. Both tanna’im agree that an internal lack disqualifies; they differ about the biology. The second baraita holds a single kidney can be natural, so such an animal is not lacking; the first holds it cannot, so a single kidney always indicates a loss. On this reading the baraitot do support the view that an internal lack disqualifies from the altar.

Key Terms:

• בְּיֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה = about whether such a creature exists
• מָר סָבַר = one master holds
• חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן = an internal lack is considered a lack

Segment 23

TYPE: תירוץ אחר וקושיא

Rabbi Yochanan: the difference is before or after slaughter — but can a loss after slaughter, before kabbala, be acceptable?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, וְחֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן. וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה, כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. וּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה קוֹדֶם קַבָּלָה מִי שְׁרֵי?

English Translation:

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and yet it is not difficult. Here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before its slaughter. Whereas there, the second baraita is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after its slaughter, and therefore it is fit. The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after its slaughter but before the collection of the blood in a vessel for sprinkling, is it permitted to sacrifice it?

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yochanan offers a different reconciliation that keeps both assumptions: no animal is born with one kidney, and an internal lack disqualifies. The baraitot differ on timing: a kidney lost before slaughter disqualifies, while a loss after slaughter does not. The Gemara immediately probes this: the sacrificial process continues after slaughter with the collection of blood (kabbala), so is a loss between slaughter and kabbala really harmless?

Key Terms:

• קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה = before slaughter
• לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה = after slaughter
• קַבָּלָה = collecting the blood in a service vessel
• מִי שְׁרֵי = is it permitted?

Amud Bet (39b)

Segment 1

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Rav: slitting the bull’s ear after slaughter and before kabbala disqualifies; so the line is before or after kabbala

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: הַצּוֹרֵם אֹזֶן הַפָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ קִיבֵּל דָּמוֹ — פָּסוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר״ — הַפָּר שֶׁהָיָה כְּבָר! אֶלָּא: כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם קַבָּלָה, כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה לְאַחַר קַבָּלָה.

English Translation:

But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: In the case of one who slits the ear of the bull with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collects its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: “And the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull” (Leviticus 4:5). By using the term “the bull,” the verse indicates that the bull must be at the time of collection of the blood as it already was before slaughter, without a blemish. Rather, here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before the collection of the blood, whereas there, in the second baraita, it is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after the collection of the blood.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Zeira quotes Rav: if one slits the ear of a bull after slaughter and then collects its blood, the offering is disqualified, because ‘from the blood of the bull’ (Vayikra 4:5) implies the bull must still be as it was. A blemish between slaughter and kabbala therefore counts, so Rabbi Yochanan’s distinction is revised: the first baraita speaks of a kidney lost before kabbala, the second of one lost after kabbala.

Key Terms:

• הַצּוֹרֵם = one who slits (an ear), creating a blemish
• אֹזֶן = ear
• הַפָּר שֶׁהָיָה כְּבָר = the bull as it already was
• לְאַחַר קַבָּלָה = after the collection of the blood

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא

But the Pesach baraita requires the animal to be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter…

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּלְאַחַר קַבָּלָה קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה, מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״שֶׂה תָּמִים זָכָר בֶּן שָׁנָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״, שֶׁיְּהֵא תָּמִים בֶּן שָׁנָה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after the collection of the blood but before the sprinkling of the blood, is it permitted to be sacrificed upon the altar? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male in its year” (Exodus 12:5), indicating that it shall be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara pushes further: even after kabbala the service is not complete until the blood is sprinkled (zerika). It cites a baraita on the Paschal lamb, ‘Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male in its year’ (Shemot 12:5), which first establishes that it must be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter.

Key Terms:

• זְרִיקָה = sprinkling the blood on the altar
• שֶׂה תָּמִים זָכָר בֶּן שָׁנָה = ‘a lamb without blemish, a male in its year’ (Shemot 12:5)
• בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה = at the time of slaughter

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא (המשך)

…and ‘shall be’ extends this to kabbala, conveying and sprinkling

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּמִנַּיִן בְּקַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה וְהַזָּיָיה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִהְיֶה״, שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל הֲוָיוֹתָיו תָּם וּבֶן שָׁנָה.

English Translation:

The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that it must also be unblemished at the time of the collection of the blood, and at the time of conveying its blood to the altar, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood? The verse states: “Shall be,” emphasizing that all actions that are performed upon it shall be performed only when it is unblemished and in its first year. This teaches that the offering must be unblemished even at the time of the sprinkling of its blood.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita then derives from the word ‘yihyeh’ (‘shall be’) that all stages of the service (kol havayotav) — collection, conveying the blood to the altar, and sprinkling — must be performed while the animal is still unblemished and in its first year. If so, a kidney lost after kabbala but before sprinkling should also disqualify, undermining the revised answer.

Key Terms:

• הוֹלָכָה = conveying the blood to the altar
• הַזָּיָיה = sprinkling
• יִהְיֶה = ‘shall be’ — an extra word teaching continuity through every stage
• כׇּל הֲוָיוֹתָיו = all its stages of service

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ וסיוע

The extension refers only to age, not to blemishes; Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling supports this

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַבֶּן שָׁנָה, הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר אוֹ כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב — זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: Interpret this baraita as teaching that only the requirement that the animal must be in its first year is necessary at the time of sprinkling. Nevertheless, it need not be unblemished at this stage. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah that were slaughtered and their blood was collected, from which there remains either an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat, the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering. Learn from this baraita that even if most of the offering is lacking, it is not disqualified after the collection of the blood.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara answers that ‘yihyeh’ extends only the requirement of being in the first year to the later stages, not the requirement of being unblemished. It brings support from Rabbi Yehoshua: as long as an olive-bulk of flesh or fat remains, the blood may be sprinkled. If most of the animal can be lost after kabbala without disqualifying the sprinkling, then losing a kidney at that stage is certainly no problem.

Key Terms:

• תַּרְגְּמַהּ = interpret it
• אַבֶּן שָׁנָה = as referring to being ‘in its first year’
• כְּזַיִת = an olive-bulk
• זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם = he sprinkles the blood

Segment 5

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Can an animal turn two years old between slaughter and kabbala? Rava: hours disqualify in kodashim

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּבִשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה הָוֵי בֶּן שָׁנָה, וּבִשְׁעַת קַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה הָוֵי בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים? אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שָׁעוֹת פּוֹסְלוֹת בְּקָדָשִׁים.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks with regard to the interpretation of the baraita: But is there anything where at the time of its slaughter the animal is in its first year but at the time of the collection of the blood and conveying it to the altar it is in its second year? Rava says: That is to say that hours disqualify in the case of sacrificial animals, i.e., one measures the age of the offering from the exact time of its birth. Therefore, if the animal reaches its second year between the time when it is slaughtered and the collection of its blood it is disqualified.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara wonders how the first-year requirement could practically matter after slaughter, since the time between slaughter and kabbala is minutes. Rava answers that this teaches ‘sha’ot poslot bekodashim’: the age of an offering is measured to the exact hour of its birth, so an animal can pass its first birthday in that brief interval and become disqualified. This is a significant principle about the precision of time in Temple law.

Key Terms:

• שָׁעוֹת פּוֹסְלוֹת בְּקָדָשִׁים = hours disqualify in sacrificial matters — age counted from the exact hour of birth
• בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים = in its second year
• זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת = this means, this teaches

Segment 6

TYPE: לימא כתנאי

Perhaps internal lacks are a tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Yehuda on ‘bruised, crushed, torn or cut’ testicles

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וּמָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ — כּוּלָּן בַּבֵּיצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

English Translation:

§ The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether the lack of an internal organ disqualifies an offering from being sacrificed. Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita discussing the verse that provides a list of animals disqualified from the altar: “And that whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut you shall not sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:24). All of these blemishes are found in the animal’s testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

קלאוד על הדף:

Returning to Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s question, the Gemara suggests it may be a tannaitic dispute. The verse in Vayikra 22:24 lists four injuries — ma’ukh, katut, natuk, karut — and Rabbi Yehuda applies all of them to the testicles, which are partly concealed in the scrotum.

Key Terms:

• מָעוּךְ = bruised, squeezed
• כָּתוּת = crushed
• נָתוּק = torn (detached)
• כָּרוּת = cut
• בֵּיצִים = testicles

Segment 7

TYPE: ברייתא

Rabbi Yehuda: also the testicles; Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: only the organ; Rabbi Yosei: a split view

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בַּבֵּיצִים וְלֹא בַּגִּיד? אֵימָא: אַף בַּבֵּיצִים — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּן בַּגִּיד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ — אַף בַּבֵּיצִים, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ — בַּגִּיד אִין, בַּבֵּיצִים לָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that these blemishes are only in the testicles and not in the penis? There too these should be considered blemishes, as the penis is more exposed and visible than the testicles. Rather, say that all of them also apply to the testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: All of them are considered blemishes only when found on the penis. Rabbi Yosei says: The blemishes of “bruised, or crushed” apply also to the testicles, while with regard to the blemishes of “torn or cut,” on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles they are not considered a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara corrects Rabbi Yehuda’s statement: he cannot exclude the male organ, which is more visible, so he means the injuries apply also to the testicles. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov restricts all four to the male organ. Rabbi Yosei divides them: bruised and crushed apply to the testicles as well, while torn and cut count only on the organ.

Key Terms:

• גִּיד = the male organ
• אַף = also
• אִין … לָא = yes … no

Segment 8

TYPE: לימא

Is the dispute whether an internal lack counts as a lack?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן?

English Translation:

The Gemara explains the relevance of the dispute to the matter at hand: What, is it not that these tanna’im disagree about this: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack. Therefore, in cases where the testicles are damaged they are considered lacking, disqualifying the animal, despite the fact that the blemish is not exposed. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, holds that the lack of an internal limb is not called a lack.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara proposes that Rabbi Yehuda, who counts injuries to the partly concealed testicles, holds that an internal lack is a lack, while Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who limits them to the exposed organ, holds it is not. If so, Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s question would be the subject of this tannaitic disagreement.

Key Terms:

• מַאי לָאו = is it not that …?
• חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים = an internal lack
• שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן = is called a lack

Segment 9

TYPE: דחייה

Rejection: Rabbi Yosei’s split view fits neither position

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְתִסְבְּרָא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן — אֲפִילּוּ ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ נָמֵי! וְאִי קָסָבַר לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן — אֲפִילּוּ ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ נָמֵי לָא!

English Translation:

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? If so, what does Rabbi Yosei hold? If he holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack, then even “torn or cut” should be considered a lack, despite the fact that these blemishes are not visible. And if he holds that a lack of an internal limb is not called a lack, then even “bruised, or crushed,” should not be considered a lack, as they are not exposed.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara refutes the proposal from Rabbi Yosei’s position. If internal lacks count, he should count torn and cut testicles too; if they do not count, he should not count bruised and crushed testicles either. Since he divides the four injuries, the dispute cannot hinge on the principle of internal lacks.

Key Terms:

• וְתִסְבְּרָא = and can you understand it this way?
• מַאי קָסָבַר = what does he hold?
• נָמֵי = also

Segment 10

TYPE: תירוץ

The real dispute is about visibility: Rabbi Yehuda sees shrinking or hanging; Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says healthy testicles also look that way

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמוּמִים שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי קָמִיפַּלְגִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּמִיכַּוְוצָן, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּהָא תַּלְיָין. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי זִמְנִין דְּמִיכַּוְוצָן, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי זִימְנִין דְּתַלְיָין.

English Translation:

Rather, here they disagree with regard to exposed blemishes. Rabbi Yehuda holds that “bruised or crushed” testicles are considered blemished, as the testicles noticeably shrink due to the crushing. Likewise, testicles that are “torn or cut” are considered blemished, as the testicles appear to be hanging, i.e., dangling, to such an extent that they do not appear to be attached in the usual manner. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that testicles that are “bruised or crushed” are not considered noticeable blemishes, as initially, before they become damaged, there are times that the testicles also shrink. Furthermore, testicles that are “torn or cut” are not considered blemished either, as initially, prior to being torn or cut, there are times that the testicles also hang.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara relocates the dispute to the question of what is visibly a blemish. Rabbi Yehuda holds that bruised or crushed testicles visibly shrink, and torn or cut ones visibly dangle, so all four are exposed blemishes. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that healthy testicles sometimes contract and sometimes hang, so none of these appearances reliably indicates injury.

Key Terms:

• מוּמִים שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי = exposed, visible blemishes
• מִיכַּוְוצָן = they shrink, contract
• תַּלְיָין = they hang, dangle
• זִמְנִין = sometimes

Segment 11

TYPE: תירוץ (המשך)

Rabbi Yosei: bruised or crushed testicles are effectively gone; torn or cut ones are still present

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ הָוֵי מוּמָא — דְּהָא לֵיתַנְהוּ, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא — דְּהָא אִיתַנְהוּ.

English Translation:

And Rabbi Yosei holds that “bruised or crushed” testicles are considered blemished, as they are no longer present in their normal state, but are entirely broken. But he maintains that “torn or cut” testicles are not considered blemished, as they are still present in the pouch, despite the fact that they no longer function.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yosei’s middle view now makes sense. Bruised and crushed testicles are destroyed, so they are as if absent, which is a blemish. Torn or cut testicles remain in place even though they no longer function, so there is no visible change and no blemish. The discussion therefore leaves Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s question unresolved by this baraita.

Key Terms:

• לֵיתַנְהוּ = they are not there (effectively absent)
• אִיתַנְהוּ = they are present

Segment 12

TYPE: משנה

Mishna: damaged scrotum or female genitals, tail blemishes, and a fingerbreadth of flesh between vertebrae

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ נִפְגַּם הַזּוֹבָן, הָעֶרְיָה שֶׁל נְקֵבָה בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, נִפְגַּם הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם, אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַפֶּרֶק, אוֹ שֶׁרֹאשׁ זָנָב מְפַצֵּל, נִקְלְפָה הָעוֹר וְהַבָּשָׂר וְהָעֶצֶם נִשְׁאַר, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּשָׂר מֵחוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע.

English Translation:

MISHNA: The mishna details additional blemishes that enable the slaughter of firstborn animals: If the pouch [hazoven] in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed, or if the genitalia of a female sacrificial animal, were damaged and lacking; if the tail was damaged from the tailbone, but not if it was damaged from the joint, i.e., one of the joints between the vertebrae, because it heals; or in a case where the end of the tail is split, i.e., the skin and the flesh were removed and the bone remained exposed; or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint; these are all blemishes.

קלאוד על הדף:

The catalogue moves to the rear of the animal. A damaged zoven (the pouch of the male genitals) or damaged female genitalia in kodashim is a blemish. A tail damaged at the bone (but not at a joint, which heals), a split tail tip where skin and flesh are stripped from the bone, and a gap of a full fingerbreadth of flesh between two vertebrae of the tail are all blemishes.

Key Terms:

• זוֹבָן = the pouch/sheath of the male genitals
• עֶרְיָה = the genitalia
• זָנָב = tail
• פֶּרֶק = joint
• חוּלְיָא = vertebra, segment of the tail
• מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע = a full fingerbreadth

Segment 13

TYPE: גמרא וברייתא

Rabbi Elazar: damaged but not removed, the pouch but not the organ; Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam’s incident in Inbal

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נִפְגַּם וְלֹא נִיטַּל, כִּיס וְלֹא זַכְרוּת. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: נִפְגַּם וְלֹא נִיטַּל, כִּיס וְלֹא זַכְרוּת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעִינְבָּל אֶחָד שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ זְאֵב וְחָזַר לְאֵיתָנוֹ.

English Translation:

GEMARA: With regard to the case where the pouch in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed was damaged, Rabbi Elazar says: This applies only if the pouch was damaged, but not in a case where it was removed. Furthermore, it is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if the male sex organ was damaged. The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: It is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if it was removed, and only if the pouch was damaged, but not the male sex organ. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: An incident occurred involving one animal in Inbal, where a wolf removed its pouch and it later returned to its strength, i.e., it grew again.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Elazar limits the zoven blemish: it applies when the pouch is damaged, not removed, and to the pouch, not the male organ itself, and a baraita confirms this. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam explains why removal is not a blemish: a wolf once removed an animal’s pouch in Inbal and it grew back to full strength. A removed pouch can regenerate, while a damage that remains is a lasting blemish.

Key Terms:

• נִיטַּל = removed entirely
• כִּיס = pouch, sac
• זַכְרוּת = the male organ
• חָזַר לְאֵיתָנוֹ = returned to its strength, regrew
• מַעֲשֶׂה = an incident (cited as precedent)

Segment 14

TYPE: גמרא וברייתא

A fingerbreadth is a quarter of an average handbreadth; Rabba: this is said for tekhelet (tzitzit)

Hebrew/Aramaic:

נִפְגְּמָה הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: אֶצְבַּע שֶׁאָמְרוּ — אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעָה בְּטֶפַח שֶׁל כׇּל הָאָדָם. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַבָּה: לְעִנְיַן תְּכֵלֶת, דְּתַנְיָא: כַּמָּה חוּטִין הוּא נוֹתֵן? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַרְבָּעָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשָׁה.

English Translation:

§ The mishna stated: If the tail was damaged from the tailbone…or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. A tanna taught: The fingerbreadth of which the Sages spoke is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rabba says: It is stated with regard to tekhelet, i.e., ritual fringes. As it is taught in a baraita: How many strings does one place on a garment?Beit Shammai say: Four strings are inserted into the hole in the garment so that there are eight strings hanging down altogether, and Beit Hillel say: Three strings are inserted into the hole so that six are hanging down.

קלאוד על הדף:

A tanna defines the ‘fingerbreadth’ of the mishna as a quarter of an average person’s handbreadth (tefach). The Gemara asks why this definition is stated, since it seems to belong elsewhere. Rabba connects it to tzitzit, citing the baraita in which Beit Shammai say four strings are inserted into the garment and Beit Hillel say three.

Key Terms:

• אֶצְבַּע = fingerbreadth
• טֶפַח = handbreadth (four fingerbreadths)
• תְּכֵלֶת = the blue thread, here referring to tzitzit generally
• חוּטִין = strings

Segment 15

TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)

How long must the strings hang? Beit Shammai four fingerbreadths, Beit Hillel three, each a quarter-handbreadth

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְכַמָּה תְּהֵא מְשׁוּלֶּשֶׁת? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַרְבָּעָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשָׁה. וּשְׁלִישׁ שֶׁבֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים — אֶחָד מֵאַרְבַּע בְּטֶפַח שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם.

English Translation:

The baraita continues: And how much should be hanging beyond the knots and windings? Beit Shammai say: Four fingerbreadths, and Beit Hillel say: Three fingerbreadths. And the three fingerbreadths that Beit Hillel say should be hanging are each one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita continues: the hanging part of the strings must be four fingerbreadths according to Beit Shammai and three according to Beit Hillel. The baraita itself defines Beit Hillel’s fingerbreadths as quarters of an average handbreadth, which is the source of the definition quoted on our daf.

Key Terms:

• מְשׁוּלֶּשֶׁת = hanging (the dangling portion)
• שְׁלִישׁ = the ‘three’ (fingerbreadths)
• בֵּית שַׁמַּאי / בֵּית הִלֵּל = the two great Tannaitic schools

Segment 16

TYPE: גמרא (נמשך לדף מ.)

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua: the definition refers to the two cubits kept in Shushan HaBira

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: לִשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת, דִּתְנַן: שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת הָיוּ

English Translation:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says that this baraita discussing the fingerbreadth is referring to the two cubits mentioned in a different context, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:9): There were two rods for measuring cubits

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, offers a different source for the definition. He links it to the mishna in Kelim 17:9 that describes two measuring rods for cubits, kept in the Temple in the chamber of Shushan HaBira. The sentence breaks off here and continues on 40a.

Key Terms:

• שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת = two cubit-measures
• אַמָּה = a cubit (six handbreadths)
• דִּתְנַן = as we learned in a mishna
• כֵּלִים = tractate Kelim

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 39 continues Perek 6, על אלו מומין, the catalogue of blemishes that permit a firstborn to be slaughtered outside the Temple. It moves in two directions. The first is the precise testing of doubtful eye blemishes, carried over from 38b. The daf opens with the end of the dilemma sent from the West about the fig-bulk of fodder used to test constant tears: which meal, before or after eating and drinking, tied or untied, alone or with a companion, in the city or in the field. Rav Ashi adds a garden next to the city, and every question ends in teiku. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak requires Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus’s three examinations to be evenly spaced, and Pinchas, Shmuel’s brother, asks whether a failed cure reveals a blemish retroactively, a question that leaves Shmuel quoting “the lame take the prey”. The second direction is the mishna’s catalogue, which now moves down the face and body: nose and lip, outer and inner gums, the double teeth, the genital pouch, the tail, and the fingerbreadth of flesh between vertebrae. Along the way the Gemara opens a long sugya on Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s question whether a missing internal organ disqualifies an offering. That sugya runs through the one-kidney baraitot, the timing of slaughter, kabbala and sprinkling, Rava’s rule that “hours disqualify in kodashim”, and the dispute over injured testicles in Vayikra 22:24. The daf ends with the definition of a fingerbreadth, which Rabba ties to tzitzit, and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua’s alternative, the two cubits of the Temple, in a sentence that continues on 40a.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• The Western dilemma completed: having fixed the test dose at a fig-bulk (38b), the scholars of Eretz Yisrael ask how it is given. Is it at the first meal only or at every meal? Before eating, it certainly works, like a medicine (כסמא); after eating is the doubt. Before drinking, it certainly works, like barley (כשערי); after drinking is the doubt.
• Calm conditions: untied, with a companion animal, and in the field the remedy certainly works. Tied, alone, or in the city is in doubt. Rav Ashi adds a garden adjacent to the city. All the questions stand as תיקו, so in practice the test must meet every “certain” condition.
• Evenly spaced examinations: on Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus’s three examinations within eighty days for constant white spots, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rules that they must be משולשים, divided into equal thirds.
• Retroactive or prospective? Pinchas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, asks whether a failed three-month cure shows that the blemish existed all along (למפרע) or only from now on (מיכן ולהבא). The practical difference is me’ila on redemption money of a consecrated animal redeemed during the test. If retroactive, the redemption worked and the money is sacred. If prospective, an unblemished animal cannot be redeemed and there is no me’ila. Shmuel has no answer and applies to his brother “the lame take the prey” (פסחים בזזו בז, Yeshayahu 33:23).
• Mishna, nose and lip: a nose or lip that was pierced, chipped or split is a blemish. A baraita adds that nostrils perforated into each other count only if the hole is visible from outside. Rav Pappa limits the lip to its outer, protruding row (תורא ברא). Both rulings apply the rule that only exposed blemishes permit a firstborn.
• Mishna, gums: outer gums count when chipped or scratched, and inner gums only when extracted. Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus excludes the double teeth (תיומת) and everything behind them.
• The baraita on the double teeth: it asks “what is the te’omet?” and seems not to answer, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai seems only to repeat the first tanna. The Gemara reads words into it (חסורי מיחסרא). The question is “what are the inner gums?”, namely from the double teeth inward, including the double teeth. The positions then come out as three levels. For the first tanna, extracted inner gums permit slaughter. For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai they do not permit slaughter but do disqualify from the altar. For Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus the double teeth are ignored entirely, so a defect there does not even disqualify.
• Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s dilemma: does an internal missing organ (מחוסר אבר מבפנים) count? Not for slaughtering a firstborn (“lameness or blindness”, Devarim 15:21), nor for redeeming kodashim (“blind or broken”, Vayikra 22:22), since both require visible blemishes. The question is only whether it disqualifies from the altar. “Complete to be accepted” (Vayikra 22:21) could demand wholeness inside as well, or it could be read with “there shall be no blemish therein” to mean external lacks only.
• The two kidneys: one baraita excludes an animal with one kidney or three (“the two kidneys”, Vayikra 3:4). Another includes one kidney from the singular יסירנה. The Gemara first assumes that no animal is born with one kidney, which would make this a dispute about internal lacks.
• Three reconciliations: Rav Chiyya bar Yosef says an animal can be born with one kidney: a lost kidney disqualifies, a congenital single kidney does not. This is refuted, because the first baraita pairs one kidney with three, which must be congenital. The Gemara then explains that both tanna’im agree an internal lack disqualifies and disagree only about whether a one-kidney animal can exist. Rabbi Yochanan keeps both assumptions and distinguishes by timing: before slaughter or after. The Gemara asks whether a loss between slaughter and kabbala can really be harmless.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Rav’s slit ear: Rabbi Zeira quotes Rav: one who slits a bull’s ear after slaughter and then collects its blood disqualifies it, since “from the blood of the bull” (Vayikra 4:5) means the bull as it was. Rabbi Yochanan’s line is therefore moved to before or after kabbala.
• The Pesach challenge: a baraita on “a lamb without blemish, a male in its year… shall be” (Shemot 12:5) requires the animal to be unblemished and in its first year at slaughter, and from יהיה, through kabbala, conveying and sprinkling as well. A kidney lost before sprinkling should then disqualify.
• Only the age requirement extends: the Gemara answers that יהיה extends only “in its first year” to the later stages, not “without blemish”. Support comes from Rabbi Yehoshua: as long as an olive-bulk of flesh or fat remains, the blood is sprinkled. So losses after kabbala do not disqualify.
• Hours disqualify: how can a lamb turn two between slaughter and kabbala? Rava answers: “this teaches that hours disqualify in kodashim” (שעות פוסלות בקדשים). An offering’s age is counted to the hour of its birth.
• The testicles of Vayikra 22:24: the Gemara suggests the internal-lack question is a tannaitic dispute. Rabbi Yehuda applies bruised, crushed, torn and cut also to the testicles (the Gemara emends “only” to “also”). Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov applies them only to the male organ. Rabbi Yosei applies bruised and crushed to the testicles, but torn and cut only to the organ.
• Not internal lack but visibility: Rabbi Yosei’s split view fits neither side of the internal-lack principle, so the proposal is rejected. Rather, the dispute is about what is visibly a blemish. For Rabbi Yehuda, crushed testicles visibly shrink and torn ones visibly dangle. For Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, healthy testicles also sometimes shrink or hang. For Rabbi Yosei, crushed testicles are effectively gone, while torn ones are still in place. Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s question is left without proof from this baraita.
• Mishna, the rear of the animal: a damaged genital pouch (זובן) or damaged female genitalia in kodashim is a blemish. So are a tail damaged at the bone but not at the joint, which heals; a split tail tip with the bone stripped bare; and a full fingerbreadth of flesh between two vertebrae.
• Damaged, not removed: Rabbi Elazar, supported by a baraita, limits the blemish to a pouch that was damaged, not removed, and to the pouch, not the organ. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam tells of an animal in Inbal whose pouch was taken by a wolf and which regrew to full strength.
• What is a fingerbreadth? A tanna defines it as a quarter of an average person’s handbreadth. Rabba says the definition is stated for tzitzit. Beit Shammai require four strings and Beit Hillel three, with the hanging part four or three fingerbreadths respectively, and Beit Hillel’s fingerbreadths are quarters of a handbreadth.
• The two cubits: Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua links the definition to the two measuring cubits of Kelim 17:9 instead. The sentence breaks off and continues on 40a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

All the conditions of the Western dilemma about the fig-bulk test remain תיקו, as does Rav Ashi’s garden, so the test is valid only under every “certain” condition. Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus’s three examinations must be evenly spaced. Pinchas’s question, whether a failed cure establishes the blemish retroactively, receives no answer from Shmuel. In the mishna’s catalogue, only visible blemishes permit a firstborn: a nose perforation must show outside, and lip injuries count on the outer row. Extracted inner gums permit slaughter for the first tanna, and the area of the double teeth is defined as “inner”. On Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s question, the kidney baraitot are explained so that all agree an internal lack disqualifies, either because the tanna’im disagree only about whether a one-kidney animal can exist, or, per Rabbi Yochanan as revised, because a loss after kabbala no longer matters. Along the way Rava derives that hours disqualify in kodashim. The testicle dispute turns out to be about visible blemishes, not internal lacks, so it neither proves nor disproves the point. A genital pouch is a blemish only when damaged, not removed, since it can regrow. The fingerbreadth is a quarter of an average handbreadth, and the Gemara is still discussing where that definition belongs when the daf ends mid-sentence.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Chananya (Chanina) ben Antigonus, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, Beit Shammai, Beit Hillel

Amoraim: Rav Ashi, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Pinchas the brother of Mar Shmuel, Shmuel, Rav Pappa, Rav Achadvoi bar Ami, Rav Chiyya bar Yosef, Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Zeira, Rav, Rava, Rabbi Elazar, Rabba, Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua

One-Line Takeaway

Holiness is measured with precision: a test counts only under exactly the right conditions, an offering’s age is counted to the hour, and a firstborn’s blemish must be one the eye can see, while a hidden lack may still keep an animal off the altar without ever freeing it for ordinary use.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf is like a careful animal doctor’s checkup, moving from the eyes to the nose, the lips, the teeth, the insides and finally the tail. Along the way we meet a question so hard that the great Shmuel couldn’t answer it, a missing kidney that sends the Sages on a big detective hunt, a wolf in a town called Inbal, and a surprise trip to the strings of our tzitzit!

Quick Reminder: Why Do We Care About Blemishes? 🐑🔍

The first boy a cow, sheep or goat gives birth to is a בכור (bechor, “firstborn”). It belongs to the kohen (the priest). Today, with no Temple, the kohen may only slaughter and eat it if it has a מום (mum, a “blemish”), a real, lasting injury that an expert can see.

We’re in the middle of Perek 6 of Masechet Bechorot, which is a big list of blemishes. Yesterday’s daf was all about the eyes. Today we finish the eyes and keep moving down the body.

Two important rules to keep in mind:

• ✅ The blemish has to be permanent, not something that heals.
• 👀 For a firstborn, the blemish has to be visible, on the outside, where you can see it.

Think of it like… a “SALE: slightly damaged” sticker in a toy shop. The toy only gets the sticker if the damage is real, won’t fix itself, and you can actually see it.

The Simple Idea 💡: A firstborn animal can be eaten by the kohen only if it has a lasting blemish that you can see.

The Teary-Eyed Animal Test 💧🌿

On yesterday’s daf, the mishna talked about an animal whose eyes keep tearing all the time. Is that a permanent blemish, or just a cold that will pass? To find out, you give the animal a special diet for three months: first moist food, then dry food. If the tears still don’t stop, it’s a real, permanent blemish.

Rabbi Yochanan said each dose should be the size of a גרוגרת (grogeret, a “dried fig”). Then the Sages in Eretz Yisrael (Rava calls them “the West”) asked a whole pile of follow-up questions about how to give the medicine:

And Rav Ashi added one more: “What about a garden right next to the city? Is that like the field or like the city?”

Why does all this matter? Because the test only works if the animal is calm and comfortable, eating the way that actually helps it heal. An animal that’s tied up, lonely, or nervous in the noisy city might not get better just because it’s stressed, and then we’d wrongly think its eyes are permanently damaged!

None of these questions gets answered. The Gemara says תיקו (teiku, “it stays unsolved”). So to be safe, you do the test the “sure” way: every meal, before eating and drinking, untied, with a buddy, out in the field.

Think of it like… a doctor testing whether you’re allergic to something. If you took the test while you were sick, scared and hungry, the results wouldn’t be fair! The test has to be done under the right conditions.

The Simple Idea 💡: A test only proves something if you do it the right way, so when we’re not sure, we do it the safest way.

Three Checkups, Evenly Spaced 📅📅📅

Another blemish from yesterday: white spots in the eye. Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus said you have to check the animal three times during eighty days to be sure the spots are permanent.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak adds: the three checkups must be spread out evenly. Not all three in the first week, and not all three at the end!

Think of it like… checking whether a plant is really growing. If you measure it three times on Monday, you learn nothing! You need to measure at the beginning, the middle and the end.

The Simple Idea 💡: To prove something lasts, you have to check it all the way through, not just once at the start.

The Question That Stumped Shmuel 🤔🦯

Pinchas, the brother of the great Sage Shmuel, asked him a clever question about the teary-eye test.

Suppose the three months are over and the medicine didn’t work. Now we know the animal has a real blemish. But since when?

• ⏪ From the very beginning (lemafrei’a)? Maybe the test just showed us what was true all along.
• ⏩ Only from now on (mikan ulehaba)? Maybe the blemish only “counts” once the test is done.

Does this make a difference? Yes! Imagine a different holy animal (not a firstborn) that was redeemed during the three months. Redeeming means paying money to the Temple so the animal becomes regular, and the money becomes holy instead. (An animal can only be redeemed if it has a blemish.)

Now someone spent that money on himself. Did he commit מעילה (me’ila, “misusing holy things,” a sin)?

• If the blemish was there from the beginning, the redemption worked, the money was holy, and he did commit me’ila.
• If the blemish only counts from now on, the animal had no blemish when it was redeemed, so the redemption didn’t work, the money was never holy, and there’s no me’ila.

Shmuel couldn’t answer! And he quoted a verse from Yeshayahu: “The lame take the prey” (Yeshayahu 33:23). He meant, with a smile: “My brother, whom I didn’t think of as such a big scholar, has caught me with a question I can’t solve!”

Think of it like… a younger brother asking his big brother, the math whiz, a tricky riddle, and the big brother says, “Wow, you got me!” It’s a compliment wrapped in a joke.

The Simple Idea 💡: Even great Sages can be stumped, and a good question deserves respect, no matter who asks it.

Noses and Lips 👃👄

Now a new mishna, moving down the face. A blemish happens if the nose or the lip is:

• ניקב (nikav) = pierced, with a hole right through
• נפגם (nifgam) = chipped, with a piece missing
• נסדק (nisdak) = split, cut without any piece missing

Then a baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishna) adds a detail about the nose. If the wall between the two nostrils has a hole in it:

• If you can see the hole from the outside, it’s a blemish ✅
• If you can only see it from the inside, it isn’t ❌

And Rav Pappa says the same for lips: only the outer part of the lip, the part everyone sees, counts.

Think of it like… a scratch on a phone. A scratch on the screen is a real problem everyone notices. A scratch inside the case where nobody looks doesn’t make it a “damaged phone.”

The Simple Idea 💡: For a firstborn, a blemish counts only if you can see it from the outside.

Gums, Teeth, and the “Twin Teeth” 🦷🦷

The next mishna goes into the mouth:

• The outer gums: even if they’re just chipped or scratched, that’s a blemish.
• The inner gums: only if they were pulled out completely.
• Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus says: we don’t check the תאומת (te’omet, the “twin teeth,” the big back teeth that look like two teeth stuck together) or anything behind them at all. That’s too far back to see!

Then the Gemara brings a baraita about these twin teeth that is a bit confusing. It asks “What is the te’omet?” but never really answers! And one Sage in it, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai, seems to say exactly the same thing as the first opinion. Why would someone argue just to agree?

The Gemara’s answer: some words are missing from the baraita (חסורי מחסרא, chasurei michasra, “it’s missing something”). Once we fill them in, we get three clear opinions about inner gums that were pulled out:

That middle opinion is important. It shows there’s a “halfway” level: a problem that’s not big enough to make the animal regular, but is big enough to stop it from being brought as a sacrifice.

Think of it like… a puzzle with a piece missing from the box. Once you find the missing piece, the picture suddenly makes sense!

The Simple Idea 💡: Sometimes a teaching seems confusing because a few words are missing, and filling them in reveals three clear opinions.

The Missing-on-the-Inside Question 🫘❓

Now Rav Achadvoi bar Ami asks a big question: what if an animal is missing something on the inside, like an inner organ? Is that called “missing a limb”?

First, the Gemara narrows it down:

• ❌ It can’t be about letting a firstborn be slaughtered. The Torah’s examples, “lame or blind” (Devarim 15:21), are things you can see. An inside problem obviously isn’t enough.
• ❌ It can’t be about redeeming other holy animals either. The Torah’s examples there, “blind or broken” (Vayikra 22:22), are also things you can see.
• ✅ So the question must be about that middle level: does a missing inside part at least stop the animal from going on the altar?

There are two ways to read the verse “It shall be whole, to be accepted” (Vayikra 22:21):

• 🅰️ “Whole” means completely whole, inside and out. Anything missing is a problem.
• 🅱️ “Whole” means whole in the same way as the outside blemishes the Torah lists right afterwards.

Think of it like… a toy that says “Complete set!” on the box. Does that mean every piece inside the machine is there, or just that nothing is broken on the outside?

The Simple Idea 💡: The question is whether “whole” means whole on the inside too, or only whole where you can see.

The Case of the Missing Kidney 🕵️‍♂️🫘

To solve it, the Gemara goes looking for clues. It finds two baraitot about a sacrifice’s kidneys, which are part of what goes on the altar. The Torah says “the two kidneys” (Vayikra 3:4).

• 📜 Baraita 1: An animal with one kidney or three kidneys can’t be brought.
• 📜 Baraita 2: An animal with one kidney can be brought!

Kidneys are inside the animal. So the Gemara thinks: “Aha! These two teachers are arguing about our exact question!” That’s because the Gemara first assumes no animal is born with just one kidney. If it has one, it must have lost the other.

But then the detectives try other ideas:

🔎 Rav Chiyya bar Yosef: Animals can be born with one kidney! Baraita 1 is about an animal that lost a kidney (that’s really missing something). Baraita 2 is about one born that way (that’s just how it was made, so nothing is missing).

🚫 But wait! Baraita 1 puts “one kidney” right next to “three kidneys.” An extra kidney can only be from birth. So it sounds like Baraita 1 is talking about a one-kidney animal from birth too, and it still says no!

🔎 New idea: Everybody agrees that missing something inside is a problem. They just disagree about nature: can an animal be born with one kidney or not?

🔎 Rabbi Yochanan has another idea: Baraita 1 is about a kidney lost before the animal was slaughtered, and Baraita 2 is about one lost after.

🚫 But wait! After the slaughter, the kohen still has to collect the blood (kabbala). Rav taught that if someone cuts a bull’s ear after slaughter but before the blood is collected, the sacrifice is ruined! So the line must be: before collecting the blood, or after.

Think of it like… a detective show where every time someone says “I’ve solved it!”, somebody else points out a clue that doesn’t fit, and they have to try again.

The Simple Idea 💡: The Sages test every answer against every clue, and they keep adjusting until everything fits.

Even After the Blood Is Collected? 🩸⏰

The detectives aren’t done! After collecting the blood, the kohen still has to carry it to the altar and sprinkle it (zerika). Maybe the animal has to stay perfect until then?

A baraita about the Korban Pesach (the Passover lamb) says: “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male in its first year” (Shemot 12:5). And from the word “shall be” we learn that all the steps (collecting, carrying and sprinkling) must happen while the lamb is still… perfect and young?

The Gemara answers: that extra word is only about age, not about blemishes. And there’s proof! Rabbi Yehoshua taught that as long as even an olive-sized piece of meat or fat is left, you can still sprinkle the blood. If almost the whole animal can be gone, then a missing kidney is no problem at that stage!

But then a funny question: how could a lamb get older in the few minutes between slaughter and collecting the blood? Its birthday would have to be right then!

Rava answers: exactly! In holy things, hours count (שעות פוסלות בקדשים, sha’ot poslot bekodashim). A lamb’s age is measured to the very hour it was born. If its first birthday arrives in those few minutes, it’s too old!

Think of it like… a kids’ ticket that’s only good until your 12th birthday. If your birthday starts at 3:00, then at 3:01 you need a grown-up ticket, even if it’s the same day!

The Simple Idea 💡: In Temple law, time is measured very precisely, right down to the hour.

Hidden or Seen? The Male Animal’s Private Parts 🐏🔍

The Gemara tries one more way to answer Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s question. The Torah lists four injuries that make an animal unfit: bruised, crushed, torn or cut (Vayikra 22:24). These are about the male animal’s private parts: the organ itself, and the testicles (the two small glands that hang in a pouch underneath).

Three Sages argue about which parts these injuries apply to:

The testicles are partly tucked away in their pouch. So the Gemara suggests: maybe Rabbi Yehuda holds that a hidden, inside problem counts, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds it doesn’t?

But Rabbi Yosei spoils that idea. He splits the four injuries in half! If he thought hidden problems counted, he’d count all four. If he thought they didn’t, he’d count none. So the argument must be about something else.

The real argument is about what you can see:

• 👀 Rabbi Yehuda: You can tell! Bruised or crushed testicles shrink, and torn or cut ones hang down. So all four are visible blemishes.
• 🤷 Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: Healthy testicles also sometimes pull up and sometimes hang down. So you can’t tell anything just by looking.
• ⚖️ Rabbi Yosei: Bruised and crushed means they’re basically gone, and that’s a blemish. Torn or cut ones are still there and look normal, so that’s no visible blemish.

So this argument doesn’t answer Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s question after all.

Think of it like… a light bulb that’s burned out. Sometimes you can tell just by looking at it (it’s black inside), and sometimes it looks perfectly normal until you flip the switch. The Sages are arguing about which injuries you can really see.

The Simple Idea 💡: The Sages’ argument here isn’t about hidden problems; it’s about which injuries really show on the outside.

The Pouch That Grew Back 🐺🌱

Another mishna, now at the back of the animal:

• If the pouch that holds the testicles is damaged, or a female animal’s private parts are damaged, that’s a blemish.
• If the tail is damaged at the bone (but not at a joint, because that heals), that’s a blemish.
• If the tip of the tail is split so the bone shows, that’s a blemish.
• If there’s a gap of a whole finger-width of flesh between two bones of the tail, that’s a blemish.

Rabbi Elazar says: the pouch blemish is only when it’s damaged, not when it’s removed completely. Wait, isn’t removing it worse?

Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam explains with a true story. In a town called Inbal, a wolf once bit off an animal’s pouch, and it grew back and the animal became strong and healthy again! So removing it isn’t a permanent blemish, because it can grow back. But a damaged one stays damaged.

Think of it like… a lizard that loses its tail and grows a new one. Losing the tail isn’t permanent! But a tail that’s just bent and scarred stays that way.

The Simple Idea 💡: A blemish only counts if it’s permanent, so something that grows back doesn’t count.

From Tails to Tzitzit! 🧵📏

The mishna said “a finger-width.” How wide is that? A tanna teaches: it’s one quarter of an average person’s טפח (tefach, “handbreadth,” the width of four fingers).

But the Gemara asks: why would someone bother defining this here? It sounds like it comes from somewhere else!

Rabba says: it comes from the laws of tzitzit (the strings on the corners of a tallit). Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argued:

And that baraita says Beit Hillel’s finger-widths are each a quarter of an average handbreadth. That’s where our definition comes from!

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, has a different idea. He says it comes from the two measuring rods for cubits that were kept in the Temple, in a special room called Shushan HaBira. And right in the middle of his explanation, the daf stops! We’ll hear the rest on the next daf.

Think of it like… finding a ruler in your pencil case and wondering, “Whose is this? Did it come from math class or from art class?” The Sages want to know where this measurement came from originally.

The Simple Idea 💡: The same measurement, a quarter of a handbreadth, shows up in animal blemishes and in tzitzit, and the Sages trace where it came from.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• To test whether tearing eyes are a permanent blemish, the animal gets a special diet, but the Sages asked many questions about how (which meal, tied or loose, alone or with a friend, city or field), and they all stayed teiku, so we do it the safest way.
• The three checkups for white spots in the eye must be evenly spread out over eighty days.
• Pinchas asked his brother Shmuel whether a blemish found by the test counts from the beginning or from now on, and Shmuel was stumped: “The lame take the prey!”
• A pierced, chipped or split nose or lip is a blemish, but only if you can see it from the outside.
• Outer gums count even when scratched; inner gums only when pulled out; and some Sages don’t check the back twin teeth at all. Filling in missing words in a baraita reveals three opinions.
• Rav Achadvoi bar Ami asked whether missing something inside stops an animal from being a sacrifice. The kidney clues led to a long detective hunt, and we learned that in Temple law hours count.
• The argument about the male animal’s private parts turned out to be about what you can see, not about hidden problems.
• A removed pouch can grow back (like the one bitten by the wolf in Inbal), so only a damaged one is a blemish.
• A finger-width is a quarter of a handbreadth, a measurement also used for tzitzit, and the daf ends in the middle of Rav Huna’s explanation about the measuring rods in Shushan HaBira.

⚖️ Halacha

Testing Constant Tears: The Fig-Bulk Regimen

Source in Daf: 39a, Segments 1-3 (the dilemma from the West on how the fig-bulk of fodder is given: first meal or every meal, before or after eating, before or after drinking, tied or untied, alone or with a companion, city or field, and Rav Ashi’s garden adjacent to the city; all left as teiku)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:14

Hebrew:

וְכַמָּה תֹּאכַל מֵעֲשָׂבִים אֵלּוּ הַלַּחִים בַּזְּמַן הַלַּח וְהַיְבֵשִׁים בַּזְּמַן הַיָּבֵשׁ. כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת אוֹ יוֹתֵר קֹדֶם סְעֻדָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל כָּל יָמִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים אֵלּוּ. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁתֹּאכַל אוֹתָן בְּכָל יוֹם אַחַר שְׁתִיָּה. וְתִהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּשָּׂדֶה בְּעֵת אֲכִילָה. וְלֹא תִּהְיֶה לְבַדָּהּ אֶלָּא הִיא וּבְהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת לְצַוֵּות עִמָּהּ. אִם נַעֲשָׂה לָהּ כָּל אֵלּוּ וְלֹא נִתְרַפֵּאת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ קְבוּעִין וַדַּאי. וְאִם חָסֵר אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה וְלֹא נִפְדֵּית:

English:

How much of the fresh grass must be eaten in the season for fresh grass and the dried grass in the season for dried grass? At least an amount the size of a fig before its first meal in these three months. They must be eaten each day after drinking and it must be free [to roam] in the field while eating. It should not be alone, but with another animal for company. If all of this was done for it and it still was not healed, the water is definitely permanent. If one of these factors was lacking, there is a doubt concerning the matter and [the animal] should be neither offered, nor redeemed.

Connection: The Rambam turns the Gemara’s string of unresolved dilemmas into a single practical protocol. Wherever the Gemara called one side of a question “certainly effective” (וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ), he requires it: the fodder is given before the first meal, the animal is untied in the field, and it has a companion. Since none of the doubtful sides was resolved, the only way to establish a permanent blemish beyond doubt is to satisfy every condition at once, and “if one of these factors was lacking, there is a doubt.” Note that he also requires the fig-bulk “each day” (בכל יום), which answers the opening question of Segment 1 (first meal of the period, or every meal) in the stringent direction, as one must when the dilemma is left open. On the drinking question the Rambam’s wording (אחר שתיה, “after drinking”) differs from our printed text, which calls “before drinking” the certain case; his formulation appears to reflect a different reading of the dilemma, but the method is the same: perform the test the way that is beyond doubt.

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:15

Hebrew:

כֵּיצַד. אָכְלָה הַלַּח כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ בַּאֲדָר כֻּלּוֹ וַחֲצִי נִיסָן וְאָכְלָה אַחֲרָיו הַיָּבֵשׁ כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ בַּחֲצִי נִיסָן וְאִיָּר שֶׁנִּמְצָא שֶׁאָכְלָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים עַל הַסֵּדֶר. אוֹ שֶׁאָכְלָה כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת אַחַר אֲכִילָה אוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁתִיָּה אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לְבַדָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה בַּגִּנָּה הַסְּמוּכָה לָעִיר וְלֹא נִתְרַפֵּאת מִכָּל אֵלּוּ סָפֵק קְבוּעִין אוֹ עוֹבְרִים. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הֵטִיל בָּהּ מוּם אַחֵר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אֲכָלָהּ כְּמִשְׁפָּטָהּ בִּזְמַנֵּי הָאֲכִילָה וְלֹא נִתְרַפְּאָה הֲרֵי הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ:

English:

What is implied? It ate fresh grass as prescribed throughout Adar and during the first half of Nisan. Then it ate dried grass as prescribed during the second half of Nisan and the month of Iyar thus it ate the grasses for three months in the proper order. Or it ate a fig-sized amount of grass after eating or before drinking, or it was tied, alone, or located in a garden near a city. If it was not healed after all these treatments, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the blemish is considered] as permanent or temporary. Hence, if one blemished it in another manner, he is not liable for lashes. If it partook [of the grasses] in the prescribed manner during the prescribed times for eating and it was not healed, it is considered as permanently blemished.

Connection: Here the Rambam lists the doubtful alternatives one by one, and they are precisely the “what is the halakha?” sides of the Gemara’s dilemmas: after eating, the other side of the drinking question, tied, alone, and Rav Ashi’s “garden adjacent to the city” (גינה הסמוכה לעיר), quoted almost verbatim. An animal tested under any of these conditions remains a safek: it is neither offered (it may truly be blemished) nor redeemed (the blemish may be only temporary). The consequence he draws is characteristic of a teiku in a matter of lashes: one who now inflicts another blemish on it is not flogged, since perhaps it was already permanently blemished and he destroyed nothing that was fit for the altar.

Spacing the Three Examinations

Source in Daf: 39a, Segment 4 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak on Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus: the three examinations within eighty days must be meshulashim, evenly spaced)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:12

Hebrew:

אֵי זוֹ הִיא סַנְוִירִין קְבוּעִים כָּל שֶׁשָּׁהָה שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם וְלֹא רָאָה. וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בְּיוֹם שִׁבְעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים מֵעֵת שֶׁהִרְגִּישׁוּ בּוֹ וּבְיוֹם אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים וּבְיוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים. אִם רָאָה מוֹנִים לוֹ שְׁמוֹנִים מֵעֵת שֶׁפָּסְקָה הָרְאִיָּה:

English:

What is meant by a permanent degeneration of nerves in the eye? An animal which [was observed] for eighty days and it did not see. We inspect it three times: on the twenty-seventh day from the time when its difficulty was sensed, on the fifty-fourth day, and on the eightieth day. If its sight [returned and then was lost again], we count from the time it stopped seeing.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus as interpreted by Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, and he does the arithmetic for us: eighty days divided into thirds gives examinations on day 27, day 54 and day 80. The word meshulashim is thus translated into a fixed calendar. His closing clause adds a corollary implicit in the logic of the test: if the animal regains its sight at any point, the eighty days start again from when the sight was lost, because the whole point is to demonstrate an unbroken condition over the full span.

Retroactive or Prospective? Me’ila on the Redemption Money

Source in Daf: 39a, Segments 5-7 (Pinchas, Shmuel’s brother: when the cure fails, is the animal blemished from the outset or only from now on; the practical difference is me’ila on redemption money used during the test period; Shmuel cannot answer and cites “the lame take the prey”)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:16

Hebrew:

יֵשׁ בַּדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם לְמַפְרֵעַ הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ מֵעֵת שֶׁבָּאוּ לָהּ הַמּוּמִים אוֹ מֵעֵת שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵרְפוּאָתָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ הַפּוֹדֶה אוֹתָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵרְפוּאָתָהּ וְנֶהֱנֶה בְּאוֹתוֹ הַפִּדְיוֹן אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵרְפוּאָתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק מוֹעֵל וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן מְעִילָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:

English:

There is an unresolved doubt whether it is considered as permanently blemished from the time it contracted the condition or from the time they despaired of its recovery. Therefore if someone redeems it before they despaired of its recovery and then derived benefit from the object used to redeem the animal after they despaired of its recovery, there is an unresolved doubt whether he derived unauthorized benefit from consecrated animals. Therefore he does not bring a sacrifice to atone for this transgression, as will be explained in the appropriate place.

Connection: The Rambam codifies Pinchas’s question exactly as the Gemara framed it, and because Shmuel had no answer, he records it as an open doubt: is the animal permanently blemished “from the time it contracted the condition” (lemafrei’a) or “from the time they despaired of its recovery” (mikan ulehaba)? The practical case is the one the Gemara identified in Segment 6: the animal was redeemed during the test period and the redemption money was used after the cure failed. Since it is uncertain whether the redemption ever took effect, it is uncertain whether the money ever became sacred, so the user is a safek mo’el. He does not bring a korban me’ila, which is brought only for certain trespass. The question that made Shmuel quote “the lame take the prey” thus stands in the Mishneh Torah as a permanent safek.

Blemishes of the Nose and Lip

Source in Daf: 39a, Segments 8-9 (the mishna: a nose or lip that was pierced, chipped or split; the baraita: nostrils pierced into each other are a blemish only if visible from the outside; Rav Pappa: the lip means its outer rim)

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:6

Hebrew:

שְׁלֹשָׁה בַּחֹטֶם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁנִּקַּב חָטְמוֹ אֲפִלּוּ מִצַּד אֶחָד. מִי שֶׁנִּסְדַּק חָטְמוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּפְגַּם חָטְמוֹ:

English:

There are three involving the nose: a) One whose nose is perforated, even from only one side; b) one whose nose is split; c) one whose nose is blemished.

Connection: The Rambam lists the blemishes common to people and animals (the “fifty” introduced in Bi’at HaMikdash 7:1, and referenced again in Issurei Mizbeach 2:1) in the laws of priests, since they disqualify a kohen as well as an offering. The three nose blemishes are our mishna’s triad: nikav, nisdak, nifgam. His addition “even from only one side” (אפילו מצד אחד) clarifies that a perforation need not pass all the way through to count.

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:7

Hebrew:

שִׁשָּׁה בַּפֶּה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁנִּקַּב שְׂפָתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת מֵהֶן. מִי שֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה שְׂפָתוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה שְׂפָתוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁנִּסְדַּק מִזֵּר שֶׁלָּהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּחָלֵק לִשְׁנֵי רָאשִׁים. מִי שֶׁעֶצֶם לֶחְיוֹ הַתַּחְתּוֹן עוֹדֵף עַל הָעֶלְיוֹן כָּל שֶׁהוּא. מִי שֶׁפִּיו נִבְלַם מֵחֲמַת גּוּפוֹ וּבְרִיָּתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם נִבְלַם מֵחֲמַת הָרוּחַ אֵינוֹ מוּם. מִי שֶׁנִּטַּל רֹב הַמְדַבֵּר שֶׁל לְשׁוֹנוֹ:

English:

There are six involving the mouth: a) One whose lip is perforated; this applies even if only one is perforated; b) one whose lip is blemished; c) one whose lip is cracked, provided the surface of the lip is split into two sides; d) one whose lower jawbone extends even the slightest measure further than his upper jawbone; e) one whose mouth is swollen congenitally, as part of the structure of his body. If, however, it is swollen because of the wind, it is not considered a blemish; f) one from whom the majority of the free portion of the tongue was removed.

Connection: The first three blemishes “of the mouth” are the mishna’s lip that was pierced, damaged or split. For the split lip the Rambam specifies that the split runs from its rim (מזר שלה) until the lip divides into two ends. This reflects Rav Pappa’s comment in Segment 9 that the mishna refers to the outer row of the lip (תורא ברא דשיפתיה), the visible edge, rather than an inner tear that does not show.

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:2

Hebrew:

וְיֵשׁ מוּמִין אֲחֵרִים מְיֻחָדִין בַּבְּהֵמָה וְאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִהְיוֹת בְּאָדָם. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים הֵם וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אִם הָיָה גַּלְגַּל עֵינָהּ עָגל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם. עֵינָהּ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּז. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה אֹזֶן גְּדוֹלָה וְאֹזֶן קְטַנָּה אֲפִלּוּ קְטַנָּה עַד כְּפוֹל כָּשֵׁר. אִם יֵשׁ בְּלֹבֶן עֵינָהּ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שֵׂעָר. אִם נִקַּב הָעוֹר שֶׁבֵּין שְׁנֵי חֳטָמֶיהָ בַּמָּקוֹם הַנִּרְאֶה. פִּיהָ דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר פָּרוּס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻדָּד כְּשִׁפּוּד:

English:

There are other blemishes that are unique to animals and are not appropriate to be found in humans at all. There are 23 of these; they are: a) the animal’s eyeball’s are round like humans; b) one eye is large like a calf’s and the other is small like a duck’s; if, however, one ear is large and one ear is small, even if it is small as a bean, it is acceptable; c) if there is an eruption in the white of the eye that has a hair growing from it; d) if the cartilage between its two nostrils was perforated in a place which can be seen; e) its mouth resembles that of a swine; i.e., its upper jaw overlapped its lower jaw, even though it is not pointed like a spit.

Connection: Among the twenty-three blemishes unique to animals, the Rambam includes the baraita’s case of the nostrils pierced into each other: “if the skin between its two nostrils was perforated in a place which can be seen” (במקום הנראה). This is the baraita’s distinction between a perforation visible from the outside (a blemish) and one visible only from the inside (not a blemish), stated as a single rule of visibility, the criterion that governs this entire perek.

The Gums: Three Levels of Severity

Source in Daf: 39a, Segments 10-14 (the mishna: outer gums damaged or scratched, inner gums extracted; Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus excludes the double teeth; the baraita and its emendation; three categories: slaughter of a firstborn, disqualification only, no effect)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:3

Hebrew:

חִטֶּיהָ הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּקְּבוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִקְצָתָן אוֹ שֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ אִם נֶעֶקְרוּ חִטֶּיהָ הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּעֵת שֶׁפּוֹתַחַת פִּיהָ וְצוֹוַחַת הֵן נִרְאִין חֲסֵרִין:

English:

f) If its outer tonsils were perforated; g) their substance was reduced, even though a portion of them remained; h) they shriveled; i) its inner tonsils were removed; [this is considered a blemish], because when it opens its mouths and shriek, it will be seen that they are missing.

Connection: The Rambam rules like the mishna: the outer gums (חטיה החיצונות, which the translator renders “tonsils”) are a blemish if damaged or scratched, while the inner gums are a blemish only if extracted entirely. He supplies the reason that resolves the tension between the inner gums and the requirement of a visible blemish: “when it opens its mouth and shrieks, they are seen to be missing.” Extraction of an inner part that becomes visible whenever the animal cries out counts as a blemish “in the open.” Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus’s exclusion of the double teeth is not stated, consistent with treating the mishna’s anonymous list as the rule.

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:8

Hebrew:

יֵשׁ שָׁם אַרְבָּעָה חֳלָיִים אֲחֵרִים אִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶם בִּבְהֵמָה אֵין מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָהּ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִן הַמֻּבְחָר וְהַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (דברים יב-יא) “מִבְחַר נְדָרֶיךָ”. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁבְּלֹבֶן עֵינוֹ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׂעָר. אִם נִגְמְמוּ קַרְנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִזִּכְרוּתָן מְעַט סָמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר. אִם נִפְגְּמוּ חִטָּיו הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת. אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ בְּקָדָשִׁים לֹא קְרֵבִין וְלֹא נִפְדִּין. אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם. וְאִם הִקְרִיבָן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהֻרְצוּ:

English:

The are four other ailments that if found in an animal [prevent] it from being sacrificed. [The rationale is that such an animal] is not from the “choice,” and Scripture [Deuteronomy 12:11] states [that sacrifices must come] “from the chosen of your vows.” They are: a) an animal with an eruption in the white of its eye, but it does not have hair growing from it; b) the substance of the horns of an animal was reduced, but their inner fibrous tissue remained; c) the substance of its inner tonsils were reduced; or d) its inner tonsils shriveled. If a consecrated animal had one of these blemishes, it is neither sacrificed not redeemed. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a [disqualifying] blemish. If it was sacrificed, it appears to me that it is acceptable.

Connection: This halacha is the middle level of the three-tiered scheme the Gemara reached in Segments 13-14. Inner gums that were merely damaged (נפגמו חטיו הפנימיות), not extracted, do not permit slaughter or redemption, since they are not a true blemish; but the animal is not offered either, because it is not “from the choice” (מבחר נדריך). The Rambam therefore leaves it to graze until it develops a real blemish, which is the reading of the emended baraita: one level for slaughter, a lesser level that only disqualifies, and a third with no effect. His closing ruling, “if it was sacrificed, it appears to me that it is acceptable,” shows that this disqualification is a preference for the choicest animal, not a blemish in the technical sense.

An Internal Lack: One Kidney, Three Kidneys

Source in Daf: 39a, Segments 15-23 (Rav Achadvoi bar Ami: does an internal lack count? Not for slaughtering a firstborn or redeeming kodashim, only for disqualifying from the altar; the two baraitot on “the two kidneys”; Rav Chiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yochanan on why they differ)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:11

Hebrew:

נִשְׁחֲטָה וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵפָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ הַפְּנִימִיִּין חָסֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְרֵפָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּכֻלְיָא אַחַת אוֹ שֶׁנִּטַּל הַטְּחוֹל הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְתִשָּׂרֵף. לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם שֶׁאֵין חִסָּרוֹן שֶׁבִּפְנִים מוּם אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין חָסֵר כְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כח-יט) (במדבר כ״ח:ל״א) (במדבר כט-ח) “תְּמִימִם יִהְיוּ לָכֶם”. וְכָל הַיָּתֵר כְּחָסֵר לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצָא שָׁם שָׁלֹשׁ כֻּלְיוֹת אוֹ שְׁנֵי טְחוֹלִים פְּסוּלָה:

English:

If it was slaughtered and discovered to be tereifah, it should be taken out to the place of burning. [This law also applies] if it is discovered that one of its internal organs is lacking even if this does not cause it to be deemed a tereifah, for example, it has [only] one kidney or its spleen has been removed. Such [an animal] is forbidden [to be offered] on the altar and must be burnt. [The rationale is] not because it is blemished, because an internal flaw is not considered as a disqualifying blemish. Instead, the rationale is that an animal that is lacking [an organ] should never be offered [as a sacrifice], as [Numbers 28:31] states: “They shall be perfect for you.” [An animal] with an extra [organ] is considered as if it was lacking one. Therefore if three kidneys or two spleens are found in [an animal], it is unacceptable.

Connection: The Rambam answers Rav Achadvoi bar Ami’s question in exactly the two parts the Gemara gave it. First, an internal lack is not a “blemish” (שאין חסרון שבפנים מום): it does not permit slaughtering a firstborn or redeeming kodashim, as the Gemara stated plainly in Segments 15-16. Second, it does disqualify from the altar, not as a mum but because “an animal that is lacking should never be offered,” derived from “they shall be perfect for you” (תמימים יהיו לכם), the verse the Gemara’s second reading in Segment 17 built on. His example, an animal “found with one kidney,” is the baraita’s case, and his ruling that “three kidneys” also disqualify, because “an extra organ is considered as if it was lacking,” follows the first baraita, which pairs one kidney with three (Segment 21). He thus rules in line with the Gemara’s conclusion in Segment 22 that all agree an internal lack disqualifies from the altar.

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 6:7

Hebrew:

אֵין פּוֹסֵל בָּאָדָם אֶלָּא מוּמִין שֶׁבְּגָלוּי. אֲבָל מוּמִין שֶׁבַּחֲלַל הַגּוּף כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטַּל כֻּלְיָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם אוֹ טְחוֹל שֶׁלּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְּבוּ מֵעָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה טְרֵפָה עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא יט) “שֶׁבֶר רָגֶל אוֹ שֶׁבֶר יָד” מָה אֵלּוּ בְּגָלוּי אַף כּל בְּגָלוּי:

English:

Only blemishes that are apparent disqualify a person. Blemishes that are within the cavity of the body, e.g., a person’s kidney or his spleen was removed or his intestines were perforated, even though he becomes a treifah, his service is acceptable. [This is derived from the mention, Leviticus 21:19, of] “a broken leg or a broken arm.” Just as these are apparent, all [disqualifying blemishes] must be apparent.

Connection: The contrast with priests sharpens the point. For a kohen only visible blemishes count, derived from “a broken leg or a broken arm,” and a priest missing a kidney may serve. The source of the visibility rule is the same for kohen and firstborn: the Gemara in Segment 15 required visible blemishes for a firstborn from the verse “lame or blind.” But an offering has an additional requirement, wholeness (tamim), which a priest does not have. That is why the internal lack disqualifies the animal from the altar but not the kohen from the service.

A Lack After Slaughter: Before and After Kabbala

Source in Daf: 39b, Segments 1-4 (Rav: slitting the bull’s ear after slaughter and before kabbala disqualifies, from “from the blood of the bull”; the Pesach baraita on “yihyeh”; the answer that “yihyeh” extends only the age requirement; Rabbi Yehoshua: as long as an olive-bulk of flesh or fat remains, the blood is sprinkled)

Rambam — Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 1:29

Hebrew:

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁחָסַר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ כָּל שֶׁהוּא אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה קֹדֶם קַבָּלַת הַדָּם נִפְסְלָה. אֲפִלּוּ צָרַם בְּאָזְנָהּ קֹדֶם קַבָּלָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְקַבֵּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טז יד) (ויקרא טז יח) “וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר” שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שָׁלֵם כֻּלּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַקַּבָּלָה. וְאִם קִבֵּל מִן הַחֲסֵרָה וְזָרַק הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל:

English:

When even the slightest substance is taken from one of the [sacrificial] animal’s limbs after it was slaughtered, but before its blood was cast upon the altar, it is disqualified. Even if one [merely] mutilated the ear of an animal before [its blood] was received, it is as if [its blood] was not received. [This is derived from Leviticus 16:14 which] states: “And he shall take from the blood of the bull.” [Implied is that] it must be entirely whole at the time [the blood] is received. If one received [the blood] of an imperfect [animal] and cast it upon the altar, [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.

Connection: The Rambam codifies Rav’s teaching from Segment 1 with its example and its verse: “even if one slit the ear (צרם באזנה) before the receiving,” the bull must be “entirely whole at the time of the receiving,” derived from “and he shall take from the blood of the bull” (ולקח מדם הפר). The dividing line, as the Gemara concluded, is kabbala, not slaughter: a lack that occurs after the shechita but before the blood is collected still disqualifies.

Rambam — Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 1:30

Hebrew:

אֲבָל אִם חָסְרָה אַחַר קַבָּלָה קֹדֶם זְרִיקָה. אֲפִלּוּ אָבַד הַבָּשָׂר קֹדֶם זְרִיקַת הַדָּם אוֹ נִשְׂרַף. אִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר כְּזַיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִן הָאֵימוּרִין זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק. וּבְעוֹלָה אֲפִלּוּ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הָאֵימוּרִין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ לָאִשִּׁים:

English:

If, however, its substance was reduced after [its blood] was received, before it was cast [on the altar], even if the meat was lost before the blood was cast [on the altar] or it was consumed by fire, he should cast the blood [on the altar] as long as an olive-sized portion of the meat or the organs and fats to be offered on the altar’s pyre remain. If not even that remains, he should not cast the blood. With regard to a burnt-offering, even if half an olive-sized portion from the meat and half an olive-sized portion of the organs and fats [remain, he should cast the blood], because the entire [animal] is [offered on the altar’s] pyre.

Connection: After kabbala, the Rambam rules like Rabbi Yehoshua, the support the Gemara brought in Segment 4: even if the meat was lost or burned, the blood is sprinkled as long as an olive-bulk of meat or of the sacrificial parts remains, and for an olah even half an olive-bulk of each. This confirms the Gemara’s answer to the challenge from the Pesach baraita: the word “yihyeh” does not extend the requirement of being unblemished beyond kabbala. If nearly the whole animal may be lost after kabbala, a missing kidney at that stage is no obstacle.

”Hours Disqualify in Sacrificial Matters”

Source in Daf: 39b, Segment 5 (how can an animal pass its first year between slaughter and the later stages of the service? Rava: this teaches that hours disqualify in kodashim)

Rambam — Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:13

Hebrew:

שָׁעוֹת מוֹנִין לְקָדָשִׁים. וְאִם הוֹסִיפוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת אוֹ פָּחֲתוּ שָׁעָה פְּסוּלִין. כֵּיצַד. קָרְבָּן שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ לִהְיוֹת בֶּן שָׁנָה אִם הוֹסִיף עַל הַשָּׁנָה שָׁעָה אַחַת נִפְסַל. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בֶּן שָׁנָה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְהוֹסִיף עַל הַשָּׁנָה בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה נִפְסַל עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֶּן שָׁנָה עַד שְׁעַת זְרִיקָה. וְכֵן בְּכָל הַזְּבָחִים:

English:

Hours are counted with regard to consecrated animals, i.e., if their [lives] were an hour longer or an hour was subtracted from their [lives], they are unacceptable. What is implied? When it is required that a sacrifice be less than a year old, if an hour was added to its year, it is invalidated. Even if it was merely a year old when it was slaughtered and additional time was added before its blood was sprinkled [on the altar], it is invalidated. It must be less than a year until the time the blood is sprinkled [on the altar]. Similar [laws] apply with regard to all the sacrifices.

Connection: The Rambam opens with Rava’s principle in its own words, “hours are counted for kodashim” (שעות מונין לקדשים), and applies it to precisely the case that prompted it on our daf: an offering that was within its first year at the time of shechita but completed the year before the blood was sprinkled is disqualified, so it must remain “a year old until the time of the sprinkling.” This is the Pesach baraita’s derivation from “yihyeh,” which the Gemara in Segment 4 restricted to the age requirement. The Rambam generalizes it, “similar laws apply with regard to all the sacrifices.”

Injuries to the Reproductive Organs

Source in Daf: 39b, Segments 6-11 (ma’ukh, katut, natuk, karut of Vayikra 22:24; Rabbi Yehuda: these apply also to the testicles; Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: only to the organ; Rabbi Yosei: bruised and crushed apply to the testicles, torn and cut only to the organ; the dispute concerns what is visibly a blemish)

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:8

Hebrew:

שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר בְּאֵיבְרֵי הַזֶּרַע וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁנִּמְעַךְ הַגִּיד שֶׁלּוֹ. אוֹ נִכְתַּת. אוֹ נִתַּק. אוֹ נִכְרַת. מִי שֶׁנִּמְעֲכוּ הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁלּוֹ אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. אוֹ נִכְתְּתוּ אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. אוֹ נִתְּקוּ אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. אוֹ נִכְרְתוּ אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּיצָה אַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי כִּיסִין. מִי שֶׁשְּׁתֵּי בֵּיצָיו בְּכִיס אֶחָד. הַטֻּמְטוּם. הָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס:

English:

There are twelve involving the reproductive organs: a-d) one whose member is crushed, mashed, severed, or cut off; e-h) one whose testicles - or testicle - is crushed, mashed, severed, or cut off; i) one who has only one testicle even though he has two sacs; j) one whose two testicles are in one sac; k) a person whose sexual organ is covered by flesh and his gender cannot be determined; j) a hermaphrodite.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabbi Yehuda as the Gemara explained him in Segment 10: all four injuries count both on the organ and on the testicles, “or one of them,” since bruised or crushed testicles visibly shrink and torn or cut ones visibly hang. These twelve are among the fifty blemishes common to humans and animals (7:1). He does not follow Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who counts only the organ, or Rabbi Yosei’s split view.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 2:1

Hebrew:

כָּל הַמּוּמִים הַקְּבוּעִים הַפּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַקֳדָשִׁים וְנִפְדִּים עֲלֵיהֶן. אִם נָפַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בִּבְכוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁחָט עָלָיו בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ אוֹתָן הַמּוּמִין בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהָרָאוּי מֵהֶן לִהְיוֹת בְּזָכָר שִׁשִּׁים וְשִׁבְעָה:

English:

If any of the permanent blemishes which disqualify consecrated animals and require them to be redeemed is contracted by a firstborn animal, it may be slaughtered for this reason in any place. We have already explained those blemishes in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach. Those that are appropriate to apply to a male animal number 67.

Connection: This halacha links the catalogue of blemishes to the topic of our perek. Every permanent blemish that disqualifies kodashim and allows their redemption also allows a firstborn to be slaughtered “in any place,” which is the mishna’s recurring formula. The Rambam says the list has already been given in Issurei Mizbeach, and those that can occur in a male number sixty-seven. That is why our perek’s blemishes of the nose, lip, gums, organ, testicles and tail are found in Bi’at HaMikdash 7 and Issurei Mizbeach 2, not in Hilchot Bechorot itself.

The Genitals and the Tail

Source in Daf: 39b, Segments 12-13 (the mishna: a damaged zoven or female genitals; a tail damaged at the bone but not at the joint; a split tail tip; a fingerbreadth of flesh between vertebrae; Rabbi Elazar: damaged but not removed, the pouch and not the organ; the wolf in Inbal)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:4

Hebrew:

אִם נִטְּלוּ קַרְנֶיהָ וְזִכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר מֵהֶן כְּלוּם. אֲבָל נְקֵבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קַרְנַיִם כְּשֵׁרָה. אִם נִפְגַּם הָעוֹר שֶׁחוֹפֶה אֶת גִּיד הַבְּהֵמָה. אִם נִפְגְּמָה הָעֶרְוָה שֶׁל נְקֵבָה. אִם נִפְגַּם הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַפֶּרֶק. אִם הָיְתָה רֹאשׁ הַזָּנָב מְפֻצָּל לִשְׁנַיִם בִּשְׁנֵי עֲצָמִים. אִם הָיָה בֵּין חֻלְיָא לְחֻלְיָא מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע בָּשָׂר. אִם הָיָה הַזָּנָב קָצָר. וְעַד כַּמָּה. בִּגְדִי חֻלְיָא אַחַת מוּם שְׁתַּיִם כָּשֵׁר. וּבְטָלֶה אֹרֶךְ שְׁתֵּי חֻלְיוֹת מוּם. הָיְתָה שָׁלֹשׁ כָּשֵׁר. זְנַב הַגְּדִי שֶׁהָיָה רַךְ וּמְדֻלְדָּל דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר. אִם נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם מִן הַזָּנָב. אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם מִצַּלְעוֹתָיו כָּשֵׁר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּגָלוּי:

English:

j) If its horns and their inner fibrous tissue was removed and nothing of it remained; a female animal that has horns is acceptable; k) if the substance of the skin which covers the male organ of an animal was blemished; l) if the substance of the female organ of an animal was blemished; m) if the substance of the tail is blemished from its bone; [if its substance is blemished] from its joint, it is not [a blemish]; n) if the tip of the tail was split into two with two separate bones; o) if there was a finger’s breadth of flesh between every joint on the tail; p) if the tail was [overly] short. To what extent? For a kid, one vertebra is a blemish, but two are not. For a lamb, a length of two vertebrae is a blemish, but three is acceptable. q) if the tail of a kid was soft and hanging loosely like that of a pig; r) if one of the tail bones was broken. If, however, one of the ribs are broken, it is acceptable, because [the blemish] is not visible.

Connection: Most of the second half of this halacha is our mishna in order. “If the skin which covers the male organ was damaged” is the zoven, and the Rambam’s wording follows Rabbi Elazar: it is the covering skin, the pouch rather than the organ itself, that was damaged (נפגם), not removed. That is the lesson of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam’s incident in Inbal, where the removed pouch grew back. Then come the damaged female genitals; the tail damaged “from its bone but not from its joint”; the split tail tip; and “a finger’s breadth of flesh between vertebra and vertebra.” He adds further tail blemishes (a short tail, a kid’s soft pig-like tail, a broken tail bone), and closes with the principle behind them all: a broken rib is not a blemish “because it is not visible.”

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 309:1

Hebrew:

דיני בכור בזמן הזה. ובו ב’ סעיפים: בכור בזמן הזה אין בו היתר אלא על ידי מום ואפילו אם ירצו הבעלים או הכהן לכנסו לכיפה עד שימות מעצמו אינם רשאים אלא צריך הכהן לגדלו עד שיפול בו מום:

English (our translation; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

Laws of the firstborn in the present time; it contains 2 se’ifim. A firstborn in the present time has no permission except through a blemish; and even if the owners or the kohen wish to put it into a vault until it dies by itself, they are not permitted, but the kohen must raise it until a blemish befalls it.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch (like the Rambam, Hilchot Bechorot 1:10) rules that a firstborn of a kosher animal remains holy today and can be eaten only after it develops a blemish. The catalogue on our daf is therefore not only Temple-era law: whether a firstborn may be eaten today depends on recognizing which blemishes count.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 309:2

Hebrew:

אפילו כשיפול בו מום בגלוי וניכר לכל כגון שנקטעה ידו או רגלו וכיוצא בו אינו רשאי לשחטו אלא על פי מומחה שיורה לו שהוא מום הראוי לישחט עליו ואם אין חכם מומחה ניתר על פי ג’ בני הכנסת דהיינו חכמים קצת ואינם בקיאים כל כך והאידנא דליכא מומחין אינו נשחט ע”פ ג’ בני הכנסת אלא במומין מובהקים כגון נסמית עינו ונקטעה ידו וכיוצא בהן וצרימת האזן הוא מום מובהק היכא דמינכר שפיר ונראה לעינים שהוא יותר מחגירת הצפורן וכיצד צרימת האזן שנפגמה בחסרון מן התנוך ולא העור שבשפת האזן בין שנפגמה בידי אדם בין שנפגמה בידי שמים: הגה נחתך הזנב למעלה מן החוליא הוי מום (פסקי מהרא”י סי’ רמ”ו) ועוד מנה בעל הטור כמה מומין ששוחטין עליהם בזמן הזה והרב שחבר ספר הזה נמשך אחר דברי הרמב”ם ולי נראה דהסומך על דברי הטור הבנויין על דעת הרא”ש לא הפסיד:

English (our translation; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

Even when a blemish befalls it that is exposed and recognizable to all, for example, its foreleg or hind leg was cut off and the like, he may not slaughter it except by the word of an expert who rules for him that it is a blemish fit for slaughtering it on its account. And if there is no expert sage, it is permitted by the word of three members of the synagogue, that is, men of some learning who are not so expert. And nowadays, when there are no experts, it is not slaughtered by the word of three members of the synagogue except for unmistakable blemishes, for example, its eye was blinded or its foreleg was cut off and the like. And slitting of the ear is an unmistakable blemish where it is clearly recognizable and visible to the eye that it is more than enough for a fingernail to catch. And what is slitting of the ear? That it was damaged with a lack from the cartilage, not the skin at the edge of the ear, whether it was damaged by human hands or by Heaven. Rema: If the tail was cut above the vertebra, it is a blemish (Piskei Maharai 246). And the author of the Tur listed several more blemishes on which one slaughters in the present time, and the Rav who composed this book followed the words of the Rambam; and it seems to me that one who relies on the words of the Tur, which are built on the opinion of the Rosh, has not lost.

Connection: In practice, only “unmistakable” blemishes are relied upon today, since there is no recognized expert. The Rema adds a tail blemish, a tail cut “above the vertebra,” which brings the tail blemishes of our mishna into contemporary practice. The tail is a fitting example because its blemishes are, as the mishna and the Rambam stress, plainly visible.

The Fingerbreadth and the Length of Tzitzit

Source in Daf: 39b, Segments 14-15 (a fingerbreadth is a quarter of an average handbreadth; Rabba: this is said for tekhelet, the baraita in which Beit Shammai require four strings and four fingerbreadths of hanging length and Beit Hillel three)

Rambam — Hilchot Tzitzit 1:6

Hebrew:

כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין אֶת הַצִּיצִית. מַתְחִיל מִזָּוִית שֶׁל טַלִּית שֶׁהִיא סוֹף הָאָרוּג וּמַרְחִיק מִמֶּנָּה לֹא יוֹתֵר עַל שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת לְמַעְלָה וְלֹא פָּחוֹת מִקֶּשֶׁר גּוּדָל וּמַכְנִיס שָׁם אַרְבָּעָה חוּטִין וְכוֹפְלָן בָּאֶמְצַע. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁמוֹנָה חוּטִים מְשֻׁלָּשִׁין תְּלוּיִין מִן הַקֶּרֶן. וְאֹרֶךְ הַחוּטִים הַשְּׁמוֹנָה אֵין פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אֶצְבָּעוֹת. וְאִם הָיוּ יוֹתֵר עַל כֵּן אֲפִלּוּ אַמָּה אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם כְּשֵׁרִין. וְכָל הָאֶצְבָּעוֹת בְּגוּדָל. וְיִהְיֶה אֶחָד מִשְּׁמוֹנָה הַחוּטִים חוּט תְּכֵלֶת וְהַשִּׁבְעָה לְבָנִים:

English:

How are the tzitzit made? One begins from the corner of a garment - i.e., the end of its woven portion. One ascends upward no more than three fingerbreadths from the edge, but no less than the distance from the knuckle of the thumb to its end. [A hole is made] and four strands inserted, [causing them] to be folded in half. Thus, there will be eight strands hanging down from the corner. These eight strands must be at least four fingerbreadths long. If they are longer - even if they are a cubit or two long - it is acceptable. The term “fingerbreadth” refers to a thumbbreadth. One of the eight strands should be techelet; the other seven should be white.

Connection: The Rambam rules that four strings are inserted and folded into eight, and that the hanging strings must be at least four fingerbreadths, the numbers given by Beit Shammai in the baraita Rabba cites. His closing definition, “all the fingerbreadths are thumbbreadths” (וכל האצבעות בגודל), is the codified form of the measure our daf introduced: the fingerbreadth for tzitzit is a standard unit, not whatever finger one happens to use. This agrees with the tanna’s “a quarter of a handbreadth,” since, as Rav Pappa states in the parallel sugya (Menachot 41b), the Torah’s handbreadth is four fingerbreadths when measured by the thumb.

Shulchan Aruch — Orach Chayim 11:4

Hebrew:

אורך החטים השמנה אין פחות מארבע גודלים וי”א י”ב גודלים וכן נוהגין ולמעלה אין להם שיעור: [הגה ואם עשאו ארוך יותר מדאי יכול לקצרו ואין בזה משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי] [מרדכי בה”ק] א’ מהחוטים יהיה יותר ארוך כדי שיכרך בו הגדיל היינו החלק מהציצית שאינו ארוג: הגה ושיעור הנזכר יהיה בציצית לאחר שנקשר מלבד מה שמונח על קרן הבגד: (סבר’ ב”י):

English (our translation; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

The length of the eight strings is no less than four thumbbreadths, and some say twelve thumbbreadths, and so is the practice; and above that they have no limit. Rema: And if he made them too long, he may shorten them, and this does not involve “make it, and not from what is already made” (Mordechai). One of the strings should be longer so that the gedil may be wound with it, that is, the part of the tzitzit that is not woven. Rema: And the measure mentioned is for the tzitzit after it is tied, apart from what lies on the corner of the garment (reasoning of the Beit Yosef).

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch measures the strings in “thumbbreadths” (גודלים), the unit our daf defined as a quarter of a handbreadth. The first opinion, four, is the minimum of the baraita in Segment 15 and the Rambam; the prevailing custom of twelve treats the minimum stringently. The Rema’s note that the measure is taken after tying and does not include the part resting on the garment parallels the baraita’s concern with the hanging (משולשת) portion of the strings. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua’s alternative source for the definition, the two cubits of Shushan HaBira, continues on 40a.

Summary of Rulings

The laws of offerings, kabbala and the altar on this daf are Temple-era laws, preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt. The blemish catalogue, however, still applies today to the firstborn of kosher animals, and the measure of the fingerbreadth is practical law in every pair of tzitzit.