Bechorot Daf 41 (בכורות דף מ״א)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (41a)

Segment 1

TYPE: ברייתא (פירוש המשנה)

The tail that must reach the arkov: the upper joint, not the lower one — visible in a camel, hidden in a calf

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: קֶפֶץ הָעֶלְיוֹן וְלֹא קֶפֶץ הַתַּחְתּוֹן, וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ בְּגָמָל נִיכָּר.

English Translation:

GEMARA: With regard to the case in the mishna of the tail of a calf that does not reach the leg joint, it is taught in a baraita: This leg joint is the upper joint, between the thighbone and the tibia, and not the lower joint, between the middle and lower bones. And with regard to this upper joint, the corresponding bone in the leg of a camel is conspicuous, but in a calf it is not noticeable from the outside.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara turns to the last clause of the 40b mishna, which ruled that a calf whose tail does not reach the arkov (the leg joint) is blemished. A baraita clarifies which joint is meant: the upper joint, between the thighbone and the tibia, and not the lower one further down the leg. The baraita adds a practical identifying sign: in a camel the corresponding joint stands out and is plainly visible, whereas in a calf it is hidden under the flesh, so an examiner must know where it lies. The tail’s length is measured against this upper point; a tail that falls short of it is considered abnormally short and constitutes a permanent blemish.

Key Terms:

• גְּמָ׳ = abbreviation of Gemara, marking the start of the Talmudic discussion of the preceding mishna
• תָּנָא = it was taught (in a baraita)
• קֶפֶץ הָעֶלְיוֹן = the upper joint (of the hind leg), between thighbone and tibia
• קֶפֶץ הַתַּחְתּוֹן = the lower joint, between the middle and lower leg bones
• נִיכָּר = conspicuous, recognizable from the outside
• עַרְקוֹב = the leg joint which a calf’s tail must reach (from the 40b mishna)

Segment 2

TYPE: משנה

Closing formula of the blemish catalogue: for all these blemishes one slaughters a firstborn and redeems disqualified consecrated animals

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, וּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶן.

English Translation:

MISHNA: For these blemishes enumerated in the previous mishnayot, one slaughters the firstborn outside the Temple and disqualified consecrated animals may be redeemed on their account.

קלאוד על הדף:

This short mishna seals the long catalogue of blemishes that occupied perek 6 from 37a onward. It declares that every blemish listed so far permits two things: slaughtering a firstborn outside the Temple (where it is eaten by the priest as non-sacrificial meat), and redeeming consecrated animals that became disqualified for the altar, which then lose their sanctity and may be eaten after redemption. The formula looks like a mere summary, which is exactly what the Gemara will question next.

Key Terms:

• מַתְנִי׳ = abbreviation of mishnatenu, ‘our mishna’
• עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין = for these blemishes — the opening words of perek 6, echoed here
• שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר = one slaughters the firstborn (outside the Temple, since it is unfit for the altar)
• פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין = consecrated animals that became disqualified for sacrifice through a blemish
• נִפְדִּין = are redeemed — their sanctity is transferred to money, and the animal becomes eatable

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא

Why repeat the opening of the perek? And even the redemption clause is obvious once slaughter is permitted

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר! סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא: פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶן. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא — מִישְׁחָט שָׁחֲטִינַן, מִיפְרָק מִיבַּעְיָא?

English Translation:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need this additional statement that for these blemishes one slaughters the firstborn outside the Temple? It was already taught in the first clause, at the beginning of the chapter: For these blemishes, one may slaughter the firstborn animal outside the Temple. The Gemara answers that the latter clause of the mishna was necessary: Disqualified consecrated animals may be redeemed due to these blemishes. The Gemara asks: But this too is obvious; if one may slaughter a firstborn due to these blemishes, is it necessary to state that one may redeem them?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara objects that the first half of the mishna is redundant: the perek already opened with the identical words ‘for these blemishes one slaughters the firstborn’ (37a). A first answer suggests that the new information is the second half, about redeeming disqualified consecrated animals. The Gemara rejects this too with a kal vachomer-style intuition: if a blemish suffices to permit the slaughter of a firstborn, whose sanctity is inherent from birth and cannot be redeemed, it surely suffices for redeeming other consecrated animals, so that clause is equally obvious.

Key Terms:

• הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי = why do I need this again?
• רֵישָׁא = the first clause, here the opening mishna of the perek
• סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא = the latter clause was necessary
• פְּשִׁיטָא = obvious
• מִישְׁחָט שָׁחֲטִינַן, מִיפְרָק מִיבַּעְיָא = if we slaughter for it, is redemption even a question?

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ

The repetition is a stam mishna that canonizes the individual opinions (Ila, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel, Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus) as halacha

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה הוֹסִיף, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, וְקָתָנֵי וְאָתֵי דִּיחִידָאָה, וְקָא סָתֵים לַהּ בְּכוּלְּהוּ: עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶן.

English Translation:

Rather, since a previous mishna taught that Ila added three additional blemishes, and the Sages said to him: We did not hear about those, and then the tanna of the mishna proceeded to teach halakhot in the name of individual opinions, those of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, one might have thought that the halakha is not in accordance with their rulings. Therefore, he states an unattributed ruling in this mishna with regard to all their statements: For all these blemishes enumerated in the previous mishnayot, one slaughters the firstborn, and disqualified consecrated animals may be redeemed due to them. This indicates that the halakha is in accordance with all of these individual opinions.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara gives the real purpose of the repetition. In the course of the catalogue the mishna recorded individual views: Ila’s three additional blemishes, which the Sages said they had not heard of, and rulings of Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus. A reader might conclude that the halacha does not follow these lone voices. By restating the general rule anonymously after them, the tanna signals that all the blemishes listed, including those of the individual Tannaim, are accepted in practice. This uses the well-known principle that an unattributed mishna (stam mishna) expresses the halacha.

Key Terms:

• אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא = since (the mishna) taught
• שְׁלֹשָׁה הוֹסִיף = he added three — Ila’s three extra blemishes
• לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ = we have not heard of these — the Sages’ response to Ila
• יְחִידָאָה = individual (minority) opinions
• סָתֵים לַהּ = states it anonymously, as a stam ruling, thereby establishing it as halacha

Segment 5

TYPE: משנה

Conditions for which one may not slaughter a firstborn anywhere: transient eye spots and tears, damaged gums, garav, warts, chazazit, old, sick, foul-smelling, an animal used for sin or that killed a person on one witness

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן, לֹא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה: חֲוַורְוָר, וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁאֵין קְבוּעִין, וְחוּטִין הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ — אֲבָל לֹא שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ, וּבַעַל גָּרָב, וּבַעַל יַבֶּלֶת, וּבַעַל חֲזָזִית, זָקֵן, וְחוֹלֶה, וּמְזוֹהָם, וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה, וְשֶׁהֵמִית אָדָם — עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים.

English Translation:

MISHNA: And these are the blemishes that one does not slaughter the firstborn due to them, neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country: Pale spots on the eye and tears streaming from the eye that are not constant; and internal gums that were damaged but that were not extracted; and an animal with boils that are moist inside and out [garav]; and an animal with warts; and an animal with boils [ḥazazit]; and an old or sick animal, or one with a foul odor; and one with which a transgression was performed, e.g., it copulated with a person or was the object of bestiality; and one that killed a person. In these latter two cases, the act of bestiality or killing became known on the basis of the testimony of one witness or on the basis of the owner.

קלאוד על הדף:

A new mishna lists conditions that sit in between: they are not true blemishes, so the firstborn may not be slaughtered outside the Temple, yet many of them also disqualify it from the altar, so it may not be sacrificed in the Temple either. The owner must wait until a permanent blemish develops. The list has two groups. The first are temporary or minor defects: eye spots and tearing that are not permanent, internal gums that were chipped but not uprooted, moist boils (garav), warts and chazazit. The second are disqualifications that are not physical blemishes at all: an old, sick or foul-smelling animal, an animal involved in bestiality, and one that killed a person, where the transgression is known only from one witness or from the owner, so the animal is not executed but is unfit for the altar.

Key Terms:

• לֹא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה = neither in the Temple nor in the country — neither sacrificed nor slaughtered as blemished
• חֲוַורְוָר = a white spot on the eye
• מַיִם שֶׁאֵין קְבוּעִין = eye fluid (tearing) that is not permanent
• חוּטִין הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת = the inner gums (or inner teeth)
• גָּרָב / יַבֶּלֶת / חֲזָזִית = types of skin lesions: boils, warts, and scabs or lichen
• מְזוֹהָם = foul-smelling
• שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה = an animal with which a transgression (bestiality) was committed
• עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד = on the testimony of one witness — insufficient for capital punishment

Segment 6

TYPE: משנה (מחלוקת תנאים)

Tumtum and androginos: the first tanna forbids slaughter anywhere; Rabbi Shimon (in this text) calls it the greatest blemish; the Rabbis say it is not a firstborn at all

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, לֹא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר, אֶלָּא נִגְזָז וְנֶעֱבָד.

English Translation:

And one does not slaughter a tumtum, whose sexual organs are concealed, and a hermaphrodite [ve’anderoginos], which has both male and female sexual organs, neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country. Rabbi Shimon says: You have no blemish greater than that, and it may be slaughtered. And the Rabbis say: The halakhic status of a hermaphrodite is not that of a firstborn; rather, its halakhic status is that of a non-sacred animal that may be shorn and utilized for labor.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna adds the animal of uncertain sex (tumtum, whose genitals are covered) and the hermaphrodite (androginos, with both organs). The first tanna rules that neither may be slaughtered in the Temple or outside it. In the text as given here, Rabbi Shimon holds that there is no greater blemish than this, so a hermaphrodite firstborn may be slaughtered outside the Temple; the Gemara below (segment 22) cites the same statement in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, a variant reflected in different versions of the text. The Rabbis take a third view: a hermaphrodite is not a firstborn at all, since the Torah sanctifies only a male, and so it is ordinary property that may be shorn and worked.

Key Terms:

• טוּמְטוּם = an animal whose sex organs are concealed by skin, so its sex is unknown
• אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס = a hermaphrodite, having both male and female organs
• אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה = you have no blemish greater than this
• נִגְזָז וְנֶעֱבָד = may be shorn and worked — i.e., it is non-sacred
• גְּזִיזָה וַעֲבוֹדָה = shearing and labor, both forbidden with a firstborn (Devarim 15:19)

Segment 7

TYPE: קושיא

How can garav and chazazit not be blemishes? The Torah lists garav and yalefet, and yalefet is the Egyptian chazazit

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ וְגָרָב לָא? וְהָכְתִיב ״גָּרָב״ בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! וַחֲזָזִית לָא? וְהָכְתִיב ״יַלֶּפֶת״ בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! וְתַנְיָא: ״גָּרָב״ — זֶה הַחֶרֶס, ״יַלֶּפֶת״ — זוֹ חֲזָזִית הַמִּצְרִית, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״יַלֶּפֶת״? שֶׁמְּלַפֶּפֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת עַד יוֹם הַמִּיתָה.

English Translation:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the two types of boils: Garav and ḥazazit, are not considered full-fledged blemishes for which one may slaughter a firstborn outside the Temple. The Gemara asks: And is garav not considered a blemish? But isn’t it written “garav” in the Torah, in the list of blemishes (see Leviticus 22:22)? And furthermore, is ḥazazit not considered a blemish? But isn’t it written “yalefet” in the Torah, in the same verse, and it is taught in a baraita: “Garav”; this is referring to boils that are hard as earthenware [ḥeres]; “yalefet”; this is the ḥazazit that affected the Egyptians (see Exodus 9:10). And Reish Lakish says: Why is it called yalefet? The reason is that it grabs [melapefet] continuously onto an invalid until the day of death, i.e., it cannot be healed.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges the mishna’s classification of garav and chazazit as non-blemishes. The Torah explicitly lists ‘garav’ and ‘yalefet’ among the blemishes that disqualify an offering (Vayikra 22:22), and a baraita identifies garav with boils hard as earthenware (cheres) and yalefet with ‘the Egyptian chazazit.’ Reish Lakish explains the name: yalefet clings (melapefet) to its victim until death. So both terms of the mishna appear to be full-fledged Torah blemishes.

Key Terms:

• יַלֶּפֶת = a skin affliction listed in Vayikra 22:22; identified as the Egyptian chazazit
• חֶרֶס = earthenware — a boil hard and dry as pottery
• חֲזָזִית הַמִּצְרִית = the Egyptian chazazit, an incurable variety
• מְלַפֶּפֶת = clings, wraps itself around
• רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ = Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, an Amora of the Land of Israel

Segment 8

TYPE: תירוץ

Chazazit: Egyptian versus ordinary. Garav: the Torah’s is dry and incurable, the mishna’s is moist and heals

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בִּשְׁלָמָא חֲזָזִית אַחֲזָזִית לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּחֲזָזִית הַמִּצְרִית, כָּאן בַּחֲזָזִית דְּעָלְמָא. אֶלָּא גָּרָב אַגָּרָב קַשְׁיָא! גָּרָב אַגָּרָב נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּלַח, הָא בְּיָבֵשׁ. לַח — אִיתַּסִּי, יָבֵשׁ — לָא מִיתַּסֵּי.

English Translation:

Granted, the contradiction between the status of the ḥazazit mentioned in the Torah and that of the ḥazazit in the mishna is not difficult, as here the Torah is referring to an Egyptian ḥazazit, and there the mishna is referring to a regular ḥazazit. But the contradiction between the status of the garav listed in the Torah and the garav of the mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers that the contradiction between the garav in the Torah and the garav in the mishna is also not difficult: This ruling of the mishna is referring to moist boils, whereas that garav of the Torah is referring to dry boils. Moist boils will heal and therefore are considered a temporary blemish for which one may not slaughter a firstborn; dry ones will not heal.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara resolves the chazazit difficulty easily: the Torah refers to the incurable Egyptian chazazit, while the mishna refers to an ordinary chazazit. The garav difficulty is harder because the same word appears in both sources, but it too is answered: the mishna speaks of a moist garav, which heals and is only a temporary blemish, while the Torah’s garav is dry and does not heal. The governing principle throughout the perek reappears: only a permanent defect permits slaughtering a firstborn outside the Temple.

Key Terms:

• בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted, it is understandable
• חֲזָזִית דְּעָלְמָא = an ordinary chazazit
• לַח / יָבֵשׁ = moist / dry
• אִיתַּסִּי = heals, is curable
• מוּם עוֹבֵר = a temporary blemish, which does not permit slaughter of a firstborn

Segment 9

TYPE: קושיא

But the verse in Devarim calls garav and cheres alike incurable

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלַח מִיתַּסֵּי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״יַכְּכָה ה׳ בִּשְׁחִין מִצְרַיִם וְגוֹ׳״, וּמִדִּכְתִיב ״וּבְחֶרֶס״ הֲרֵי גָּרָב לַח אָמוּר, וְקָאָמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא תוּכַל לְהֵרָפֵא״!

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And does a moist boil heal? But isn’t it written: “The Lord will smite you with the boil of Egypt, and with the hemorrhoids, and with garav, and with ḥares, from which you cannot be healed” (Deuteronomy 28:27). And since it is written: “And with ḥares,” which is referring to boils that are as hard as earthenware [ḥeres], moist garav is thereby stated, and with regard to both types that verse states: “From which you cannot be healed.”

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges the claim that moist garav heals. Among the curses of Devarim 28:27 are ‘the boil of Egypt… garav and cheres, from which you cannot be healed.’ Since cheres already denotes the dry, earthenware-hard boil, the separate word garav in that verse must denote the moist kind, and the verse explicitly calls both incurable. So moist garav is apparently also a permanent affliction.

Key Terms:

• שְׁחִין מִצְרַיִם = the boil of Egypt
• וּבְחֶרֶס = and with cheres — the dry, hard boil
• הֲרֵי גָּרָב לַח אָמוּר = thus moist garav is stated (by the separate term garav)
• לֹא תוּכַל לְהֵרָפֵא = from which you cannot be healed

Segment 10

TYPE: תירוץ

Three kinds of garav: dry inside and out (the verse of blemishes), moist inside and out (the mishna), dry inside and moist outside (Egypt)

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא, תְּלָתָא הֲווֹ: דִּקְרָא — יָבֵשׁ בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, דְּמַתְנִיתִין — לַח מִבַּחוּץ וּמִבִּפְנִים, דְּמִצְרַיִם — יָבֵשׁ מִבִּפְנִים וְלַח מִבַּחוּץ, דִּכְתִיב ״וַיְהִי שְׁחִין פּוֹרֵחַ אֲבַעְבּוּעוֹת בָּאָדָם״.

English Translation:

Rather, there are three types of garav: First, the garav of the verse that deals with blemishes, which is dry both on the inside and on the outside. This cannot be healed, and it is called ḥares in Deuteronomy. The second is the garav of the mishna, which can be healed, and is moist on the outside and inside. Third, the garav of Egypt, mentioned in Deuteronomy as one of the types of boils of Egypt. This garav is dry on the inside and therefore cannot be healed, but it is moist on the outside, as it is written with regard to the plague of boils in Egypt: “And it became a boil breaking forth with avabu’ot upon man and upon animal” (Exodus 9:10). Avabu’ot is referring to a substance that pours out [nove’a] and is moist.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara resolves the contradiction by distinguishing three types of garav. The garav of the blemish verse is dry inside and out, incurable, and called cheres in Devarim. The garav of the mishna is moist inside and out, and heals. The garav of Egypt is dry inside, hence incurable, but moist outside, as the verse describing the plague of boils says it broke out in avabuot, weeping blisters (Shemot 9:10). The incurability in Devarim therefore refers to the Egyptian and dry varieties, leaving the mishna’s fully moist garav as a curable, temporary blemish.

Key Terms:

• תְּלָתָא הֲווֹ = there are three (types)
• מִבִּפְנִים / מִבַּחוּץ = from inside / from outside
• שְׁחִין פּוֹרֵחַ = a boil breaking forth
• אֲבַעְבּוּעוֹת = blisters, pustules that ooze moisture

Segment 11

TYPE: ברייתא (מקור מן הפסוק)

Old, sick and foul-smelling animals are excluded from the altar by the three ‘min’ of Vayikra 1:10

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהַזָּקֵן וְהַחוֹלֶה וְהַמְזוֹהָם. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִן הַצֹּאן וּמִן הַכְּשָׂבִים וּמִן הָעִזִּים״ — פְּרָט לַזָּקֵן וְלַחוֹלֶה וְלַמְזוֹהָם.

English Translation:

§ Among the conditions that are not considered full-fledged blemishes, but one may not sacrifice an animal with one such condition as an offering either, the mishna lists: And an old animal, or a sick animal, or one with a foul odor. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught: The verse states: “And if his offering be from [min] the flock, whether from the sheep or from the goats” (Leviticus 1:10). These three instances of the word “from [min]” serve to exclude the old, and the sick, and the animal with a foul odor, which may not be sacrificed.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara looks for the source that an old, sick or foul-smelling animal, though not blemished, may not be offered. A baraita derives it from Vayikra 1:10, ‘from the flock, from the sheep, or from the goats,’ reading each ‘from’ (min) as an exclusion, giving three exclusions for three categories. These are not blemishes in the technical sense, which is why the mishna places them among conditions that neither permit slaughter outside nor allow sacrifice inside.

Key Terms:

• מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי = from where are these matters derived?
• תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן = the Sages taught (in a baraita)
• מִן = from — read as a term of exclusion (miut)
• פְּרָט לְ = to the exclusion of

Segment 12

TYPE: צריכותא

Why all three exclusions are needed: an old animal never recovers but is natural; a sick one may recover but is unnatural

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמַעוֹטֵי זָקֵן, דְּלָא הָדַר בָּרֵיא, אֲבָל חוֹלֶה, דַּהֲדַר בָּרֵיא — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב לְמַעוֹטֵי חוֹלֶה, דְּלָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ, אֲבָל זָקֵן, דְּהַיְינוּ אוֹרְחֵיהּ — אֵימָא לָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara notes: And all three exclusions are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written the word “from” once, one might have said that this serves to exclude an old animal, which will not become healthy again, as it will never get younger. But with regard to a sick animal, which might become healthy again, say that it is not disqualified. And, alternatively, had the Merciful One written only one term of exclusion, one might have said that it serves to exclude a sick animal, as it is not the natural manner of an animal to be sick. But with regard to an old animal, as this is the natural manner of all animals to grow old, say that it should not be disqualified from the altar.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara explains why the Torah needs a separate exclusion for each category (tzerichuta). Had it excluded only an old animal, one could argue that age is permanent, whereas sickness can pass, so a sick animal should be fit. Had it excluded only a sick animal, one could argue that sickness is abnormal, whereas growing old is the natural way of all animals, so an old animal should be fit. Each case has a feature the other lacks, so neither can be learned from the other.

Key Terms:

• וּצְרִיכִי = and (all of them) are necessary — the formula of tzerichuta
• רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One — a standard Talmudic name for God as Author of the Torah
• דְּלָא הָדַר בָּרֵיא = which does not become healthy again
• דְּלָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ = which is not its natural way
• אֵימָא לָא = say that it is not (excluded)

Segment 13

TYPE: צריכותא

The foul-smelling animal: not weak, but repulsive — so it cannot be derived from the other two either

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא תְּרֵי, לְמַעוֹטֵי הָנֵי דִּכְחִישִׁי, אֲבָל מְזוֹהָם דְּלָא כְּחִישׁ — אֵימָא לָא, וְאִי נָמֵי לְמַעוֹטֵי מְזוֹהָם מִשּׁוּם דִּמְאִיס, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּלָא מְאִיסִי — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכִי.

English Translation:

And had the Merciful One written only two terms of exclusion, one might have said that they serve to exclude these weak animals, the sick and the old, as one should sacrifice only a fat, healthy animal. But with regard to an animal with a foul odor, which is not weak, say that it should not be disqualified. And alternatively, had there been only one term of exclusion, one might have said that it serves to exclude an animal with a foul odor, as it is repulsive. But with regard to these other two cases of an old and a sick animal, which are not repulsive, say that they are not excluded. Therefore, all three exclusions are necessary.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara completes the tzerichuta with the third category. Even with two exclusions for the old and the sick, one could not derive the foul-smelling animal, since the reason for excluding the first two is weakness, and a foul-smelling animal may be robust. Conversely, from a foul-smelling animal, excluded because it is repulsive, one could not derive the old and the sick, which are not repulsive. All three exclusions are thus needed, each resting on a different reason: weakness, repulsiveness, and the specific nature of age or sickness.

Key Terms:

• דִּכְחִישִׁי = which are weak, emaciated
• דִּמְאִיס = because it is repulsive
• מְזוֹהָם = foul-smelling
• צְרִיכִי = they are (all) necessary

Segment 14

TYPE: שאלה

Source for disqualifying an animal used for sin or that killed a person

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches: And an animal with which a transgression was performed, and one that killed a person that was known on the basis of the testimony of one witness or the owner, are disqualified from being sacrificed. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara moves to the next clause of the mishna: an animal with which a transgression was committed, or one that killed a person, where this is known on one witness or the owner’s word. It asks for the scriptural source of this disqualification. The answer follows in the next segment.

Key Terms:

• מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי = from where are these matters derived?
• עֲבֵירָה = transgression — here, an act of bestiality
• שֶׁהֵמִית אָדָם = which killed a person

Segment 15

TYPE: ברייתא (מקור מן הפסוק)

Vayikra 1:2 excludes rove’a and nirva, ne’evad, muktzeh and noge’ach

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ — לְהוֹצִיא רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע, ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנֶּעֱבָד, ״מִן הַצֹּאן״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמּוּקְצֶה, ״וּמִן הַצֹּאן״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנּוֹגֵחַ.

English Translation:

They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita that when the verse states: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2), each mention of the word “from” is interpreted as a term of exclusion. The expression “from the cattle” serves to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality. The expression “from the herd” serves to exclude an animal worshipped as a deity, and “from the flock” serves to exclude an animal set aside for idol worship. Finally, the word “or” in the expression “or from the flock” serves to exclude an animal that gored and killed a person.

קלאוד על הדף:

A baraita reads Vayikra 1:2, ‘from the animals, from the cattle and from the flock,’ as a series of exclusions. ‘From the animals’ excludes an animal that lay with a person (rove’a) or was lain with (nirva); ‘from the cattle’ excludes an animal that was itself worshipped (ne’evad); ‘from the flock’ excludes one set aside for idolatrous worship (muktzeh); and the extra ‘and’ excludes an animal that gored and killed a person (noge’ach). These five categories are standard in the laws of disqualified offerings and appear in several places in Kodashim.

Key Terms:

• רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע = an animal that copulated with a person / that was the object of bestiality
• נֶעֱבָד = an animal worshipped as a deity
• מוּקְצֶה = an animal set aside for idolatrous worship
• נוֹגֵחַ = an animal that gored and killed a person
• לְהוֹצִיא = to exclude

Segment 16

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

These animals are stoned anyway — the verse is needed where there was only one witness or the owner’s admission

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הָנֵי בְּנֵי קְטָלָא נִינְהוּ! עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים.

English Translation:

The Gemara challenges: In these cases of an animal that copulated with a person, an animal that was the subject of bestiality, and an animal that gored and killed a person, they are liable to death by stoning. Why, then, is a verse necessary to exclude them? The Gemara answers that this is referring to a case where the incident was known on the basis of the testimony of one witness or on the basis of the owner. Therefore, the animal is not killed, as there are not two witnesses to the event, but the testimony is sufficient to disqualify the animal as a sacrifice.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara objects that animals guilty of bestiality or homicide are executed by stoning, so there is no need for a verse to disqualify them from the altar. It answers with the mishna’s own qualification: the case is where the act is known only through one witness or the owner. Capital punishment requires two witnesses and a court, so the animal is not executed, yet the lesser testimony suffices to bar it from the altar. This explains why the mishna lists these cases among animals that are neither sacrificed nor slaughtered as blemished.

Key Terms:

• בְּנֵי קְטָלָא = liable to death (by stoning)
• עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד = on the testimony of one witness
• עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים = on the testimony (admission) of the owner
• סְקִילָה = stoning, the penalty for an animal involved in bestiality or that killed a person

Segment 17

TYPE: גמרא (ביאור)

A tumtum is understood: in the Temple it may be female, outside it may be an unblemished male

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בִּשְׁלָמָא טוּמְטוּם, בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ לָא — דִּילְמָא נְקֵבָה הִיא, בַּמְּדִינָה לָא — דִּילְמָא זָכָר הוּא וְלֵית בֵּהּ מוּמָא.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches that one does not slaughter a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country. The Gemara asks: Granted, one does not slaughter a tumtum, neither in the Temple, as perhaps it is a female and therefore does not have firstborn status and may not be sacrificed, nor in the rest of the country, as perhaps it is a male and it does not have a blemish, in which case he would be slaughtering a sacrificial animal.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara turns to the tumtum and hermaphrodite clause. The ruling regarding a tumtum is readily explained by the double doubt. It cannot be sacrificed in the Temple because it might be female and therefore not a firstborn at all; it cannot be slaughtered outside the Temple because it might be a male with no blemish, which would mean slaughtering a sacred, unblemished firstborn outside the Temple.

Key Terms:

• בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted, it is understandable
• דִּילְמָא נְקֵבָה הִיא = perhaps it is female
• וְלֵית בֵּהּ מוּמָא = and it has no blemish
• מְדִינָה = outside the Temple, the rest of the country

Segment 18

TYPE: קושיא

A hermaphrodite should be slaughterable outside: even if male, the female organ is a ‘crack’ (charutz) blemish

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ לָא, דִּלְמָא נְקֵבָה הִיא. אֶלָּא בַּמְּדִינָה נָמֵי, נְהִי דְּזָכָר הוּא — תֵּעָשֶׂה נַקְבוּת חָרִיץ, וְיִשְׁחוֹט עָלֶהָ!

English Translation:

But in the case of a hermaphrodite, granted that one does not slaughter it in the Temple, as perhaps it is a female. But with regard to the rest of the country, even let it be considered a male; nevertheless, its female sex organ should be considered as a crack [ḥaritz], which is included in the blemish of “cracked” [ḥarutz] listed in the Torah (Leviticus 22:22), and let one slaughter it due to that blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara presses on the hermaphrodite. Excluding it from the Temple is understood, because it might be female. Outside the Temple, however, even if it is male, its female organ should count as a crack (charitz), and charutz, cracked, is listed among the blemishes of Vayikra 22:22. So the first tanna should allow slaughtering it outside the Temple on account of that blemish.

Key Terms:

• נְהִי דְּזָכָר הוּא = granted that it is male
• נַקְבוּת = its female organ
• חָרִיץ = a crack, a groove
• חָרוּץ = cracked — one of the blemishes listed in Vayikra 22:22

Segment 19

TYPE: תירוץ (אביי)

Abaye: ‘cracked or broken’ — like broken, cracked refers only to a bone

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָמַר קְרָא ״אוֹ חָרוּץ אוֹ שָׁבוּר״, חָרוּץ דּוּמְיָא דְּשָׁבוּר, מָה שָׁבוּר בִּמְקוֹם עֶצֶם, אַף חָרוּץ בִּמְקוֹם עֶצֶם.

English Translation:

Abaye said in response: The verse states: “Or cracked or broken” (Leviticus 22:22), which teaches that the blemish of being cracked is similar to that of being broken: Just as the blemish of being broken is relevant in the location of a bone, as there is no break where there is only flesh, so too, the term cracked is referring to a blemish found in the location of a bone, not in the location of the sex organs.

קלאוד על הדף:

Abaye answers from the juxtaposition in the verse ‘or broken or cracked’ (Vayikra 22:22). Cracked is compared to broken: just as a break can only occur in bone, a crack that counts as a blemish must also be in a place of bone. A groove in the flesh, such as a female organ, is not the charutz of the Torah. The hermaphrodite therefore has no blemish by virtue of its female organ.

Key Terms:

• אָמַר קְרָא = the verse states
• שָׁבוּר = broken
• דּוּמְיָא = similar to, comparable
• בִּמְקוֹם עֶצֶם = in the place of a bone

Segment 20

TYPE: תירוץ (רבא)

Rava: even without the comparison, a crack in flesh is not a blemish — garav, being cheres, is itself a crack in the skin

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא שָׁבוּר נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ חָרוּץ בִּמְקוֹם בָּשָׂר הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הָוֵי מוּמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״גָּרָב״ זֶהוּ חֶרֶס, מִיחְרָץ חֲרִיץ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמַרְאֵהוּ עָמוֹק מִן הָעוֹר״, כְּמַרְאֵה חַמָּה הָעֲמוּקָּה מִן הַצֵּל.

English Translation:

Rava said: Even without the comparison to “broken,” you cannot say that a crack in the location of flesh, where there is no bone, is a blemish. As, if it would enter your mind that it is a blemish, since the tanna of the baraita cited above said with regard to “garav” that this is referring to boils that are hard as earthenware [ḥeres], evidently this blemish is a crack in the skin, as it is written with regard to the skin disease of leprosy: “And its appearance is deeper than the skin” (Leviticus 13:30), and the Sages explained: It is similar to the appearance of an area lit by the sun that seems deeper than the shade, which appears to cover it.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava reaches the same conclusion by another route. A crack in flesh cannot be a Torah blemish, because the baraita identified garav with cheres, hard boils that form a crack in the skin, which looks sunken as in the verse ‘and its appearance is deeper than the skin’ (Vayikra 13:30), like sunlight that appears deeper than the shade. Rava will argue in the next segment that the Torah’s separate mention of garav proves the point.

Key Terms:

• בְּלָא שָׁבוּר נָמֵי = even without (the comparison to) broken
• בִּמְקוֹם בָּשָׂר = in the place of flesh
• מִיחְרָץ חֲרִיץ = it is indeed a crack
• עָמוֹק מִן הָעוֹר = deeper than the skin — language from the laws of tzara’at
• כְּמַרְאֵה חַמָּה הָעֲמוּקָּה מִן הַצֵּל = like the appearance of sunlight, which seems deeper than shade

Segment 21

TYPE: המשך דברי רבא

If a flesh crack were a blemish, garav would be redundant (kal vachomer from charutz); its mention proves a flesh crack is not a blemish

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלִיכְתֹּב רַחֲמָנָא ״חָרוּץ״ וְלָא בָּעֵי ״גָּרָב״, וְאָמֵינָא: ״חָרוּץ״ דְּלָא מְאִיס — הָוֵי מוּמָא, ״גָּרָב״ דִּמְאִיס — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״גָּרָב״ לְמֵימַר דְּחָרוּץ בִּמְקוֹם בָּשָׂר — לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא.

English Translation:

And if so, let the Merciful One write: Crack, and it would not need to state garav, and I would say: If being cracked, which is not repulsive, is a blemish, then with regard to garav, which is repulsive, should it not all the more so be considered a blemish? Therefore, the Merciful One writes garav, to say that a crack found in the location of flesh is not a blemish. Consequently, one cannot say that the female sex organ of a hermaphrodite should be considered a blemish for which one may slaughter a firstborn outside the Temple.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava completes his argument. If charutz included cracks in flesh, the Torah would not need to list garav at all: one would reason that if a crack that is not repulsive is a blemish, then garav, which is both a crack in the skin and repulsive, must surely be one. The very fact that the Torah lists garav separately shows that charutz does not cover cracks in flesh. Consequently the female organ of a hermaphrodite cannot count as a blemish for which a firstborn may be slaughtered outside the Temple.

Key Terms:

• וְלִיכְתֹּב רַחֲמָנָא = let the Merciful One write
• לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן = all the more so — an a fortiori argument (kal vachomer)
• מְאִיס = repulsive
• לְמֵימַר = to say, to teach

Segment 22

TYPE: גמרא (ביאור דעת התנא)

Rabbi Yishmael’s ‘no greater blemish’: he rejects Abaye’s comparison of cracked to broken

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. כְּאַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר, חָרוּץ דּוּמְיָא דְּשָׁבוּר לָא אָמְרִינַן.

English Translation:

In this connection, the Gemara cites the statement of the mishna with regard to a hermaphrodite: Rabbi Yishmael says: You have no blemish greater than that, and it may be slaughtered. Evidently, Rabbi Yishmael maintains that the female sex organ of a hermaphrodite is considered a blemish. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yishmael does not state a ruling like that of Abaye, as he maintains that we do not say that the blemish of being cracked is similar to that of being broken. Rather, they are entirely different blemishes, and a crack found on flesh is considered a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara now explains the dissenting tanna, cited here in the name of Rabbi Yishmael (the mishna as printed in this text says Rabbi Shimon). He holds that a hermaphrodite’s female organ is the greatest of blemishes. He evidently does not accept Abaye’s derivation, since he does not compare charutz to shavur; for him the two are independent blemishes, and a crack in flesh qualifies.

Key Terms:

• רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = Rabbi Yishmael, the Tanna cited here for the view that a hermaphrodite is maximally blemished
• כְּאַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר = he does not hold like Abaye
• לָא אָמְרִינַן = we do not say (this comparison)

Segment 23

TYPE: גמרא (ביאור דעת התנא)

Nor does he accept Rava: a conspicuous crack in flesh is a ‘mum ra’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

כְּרָבָא נָמֵי לָא אָמַר, דִּילְמָא הֵיכָא דְּלָא מִינַּכְרָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּמִינְּכַר — ״מוּם רָע״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ.

English Translation:

Rabbi Yishmael also does not state a ruling like that of Rava, as perhaps his conclusion that a crack found where there is no bone is not a blemish applies only in a case where it is not conspicuous. But in a case where it is conspicuous, such as the female sex organ, we call it “an ill blemish” (Deuteronomy 15:21), and the animal is disqualified for use as an offering.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yishmael also need not accept Rava’s argument. Rava’s proof from garav establishes only that an inconspicuous crack in flesh is not a blemish. A conspicuous one, like a female organ on a male animal, falls under the general term ‘any ill blemish’ (Devarim 15:21), stated regarding the firstborn itself. Rabbi Yishmael can therefore consistently hold that a hermaphrodite firstborn bears a disqualifying, permanent blemish.

Key Terms:

• כְּרָבָא נָמֵי לָא אָמַר = he also does not hold like Rava
• דְּלָא מִינַּכְרָא = which is not conspicuous
• דְּמִינְּכַר = which is conspicuous
• מוּם רָע = an ill (serious) blemish — Devarim 15:21
• קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ = I apply (the verse) to it

Amud Bet (41b)

Segment 1

TYPE: בעיא (רבא)

Rava: is Rabbi Yishmael certain a hermaphrodite is a male firstborn, or is he speaking ‘if you will say’?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בָּעֵי רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּכוֹר הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ, אוֹ דִילְמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, וְ״אִם תִּימְצָא לוֹמַר״ קָאָמַר — אִם תִּימְצָא לוֹמַר בְּכוֹר הוּא, הֲרֵי מוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ!

English Translation:

Rava raises a dilemma: What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael that a hermaphrodite is definitely blemished? Is it obvious to him that a hermaphrodite animal is a male that has firstborn status, and it comes with its blemish, i.e., the female sex organ, and therefore it is permitted to slaughter it outside the Temple? Or perhaps Rabbi Yishmael is uncertain whether or not a hermaphrodite is considered a male, and he says his ruling in the manner of: If you say. In other words, if you say that a hermaphrodite animal is a firstborn, it comes with its blemish, and it may be slaughtered outside the Temple.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava asks what Rabbi Yishmael’s position rests on. Perhaps he is certain that a hermaphrodite is a male, and therefore a full firstborn that comes with its blemish built in. Or perhaps he is in doubt about its sex, and he merely argues ‘if you will say’ (im timtza lomar): even if it is a firstborn, it is blemished, so in either case it may be slaughtered outside the Temple. Both readings yield the same ruling on slaughter; the next segment shows where they differ.

Key Terms:

• בָּעֵי רָבָא = Rava raised a dilemma
• מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ = it is clearly obvious to him
• סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ = he is uncertain
• אִם תִּימְצָא לוֹמַר = if you will say — an argument made for the sake of argument, without committing to the premise
• וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ = and its blemish is with it

Segment 2

TYPE: שאלה ותשובה (נפקא מינה)

Practical difference: lashes for shearing and work, and the obligation to give it to a priest

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִילְקֵא עֲלֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם גִּיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, אִי נָמֵי לְמִיתְּבֵהּ לְכֹהֵן.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the reasons? The Gemara answers that there is a difference with regard to being flogged on account of this animal due to violating the prohibition of shearing and utilizing a firstborn animal for labor (see Deuteronomy 15:19). If it is definitely a firstborn, then one would be flogged for violating the prohibition. But if one is uncertain whether it is a firstborn, although one may not shear it or perform labor with it, one is not liable to flogging for doing so. Alternatively, there is a difference with regard to giving it to a priest. If its status is uncertain, the priest cannot demand the animal from him, in accordance with the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks what difference the two readings make. If Rabbi Yishmael is certain the hermaphrodite is a firstborn, one who shears it or works it violates the prohibition of Devarim 15:19 and receives lashes; if it is only a doubtful firstborn, there are no lashes, since lashes are not given for a doubtful prohibition. Likewise, a certain firstborn must be given to a priest, while for a doubtful one the owner may keep it, since the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Key Terms:

• לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ = what is the practical difference?
• לְמִילְקֵא = to be flogged (receive lashes)
• גִּיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה = shearing and labor
• לְמִיתְּבֵהּ לְכֹהֵן = to give it to a priest
• הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה = the burden of proof rests on the claimant — the background principle

Segment 3

TYPE: ראיה ודחייה

Rabbi Ilai quotes Rabbi Yishmael: ‘a hermaphrodite is a firstborn’ — yet this too may mean ‘if you will say’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אִילְעַאי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּכוֹר הוּא, וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ! וְדִילְמָא ״אִם תִּימְצָא לוֹמַר״ קָאָמַר!

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: Rabbi Ilai says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: A hermaphrodite is a firstborn, and it comes with its blemish. Learn from the baraita that it is obvious to Rabbi Yishmael that a hermaphrodite is a firstborn. The Gemara responds: But perhaps he said his ruling in the manner of: If you say, as explained earlier.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara brings a baraita in which Rabbi Ilai, in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, states flatly that a hermaphrodite is a firstborn and comes with its blemish. This wording seems to show that Rabbi Yishmael considered it a certain firstborn. The Gemara deflects the proof: the same phrasing can be understood as the ‘if you will say’ argument, so the dilemma remains open.

Key Terms:

• תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — introducing a proof
• רַבִּי אִילְעַאי = Rabbi Ilai, a Tanna, transmitter of Rabbi Yishmael’s teaching
• מִשּׁוּם = in the name of
• שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = learn from this
• וְדִילְמָא = but perhaps

Segment 4

TYPE: ראיה (ברייתא)

A second proof: the second ‘male’ in the burnt-offering verses excludes tumtum and androginos

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּא שְׁמַע: זָכָר — וְלֹא נְקֵבָה. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַטָּה ״זָכָר״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְהוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita. It states with regard to a burnt offering from cattle: “A male” (Leviticus 1:3), from which it can be inferred: But not a female. When it says below, with regard to a burnt offering from sheep: “A male” (Leviticus 1:10), a second time, it is difficult to understand, as there is no need for the verse to state this. Why must the verse state “a male” again? This serves to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, which are disqualified from being sacrificed as burnt offerings.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara attempts another proof. A baraita on the laws of the burnt offering notes that ‘male’ appears for cattle (Vayikra 1:3) and again for sheep and goats (Vayikra 1:10). The first excludes a female; the second, which seems superfluous, excludes a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from serving as a burnt offering. The Gemara will now ask which Tanna this baraita follows, in order to infer something about Rabbi Yishmael.

Key Terms:

• זָכָר — וְלֹא נְקֵבָה = a male, and not a female
• לְמַטָּה = below, i.e., in the later verse
• שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = which there is no need to state
• מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = why does the verse state it?
• עוֹלָה = burnt offering

Segment 5

TYPE: קושיא

It cannot be the first tanna: for him a hermaphrodite is a doubt, and a verse is not needed to exclude a doubt

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא תַּנָּא קַמָּא — סְפֵיקָא הוּא, וְאָתֵי קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי סְפֵיקָא?

English Translation:

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: Whose opinion is this? If we say it is the opinion of the first tanna of the mishna, who maintains that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite may not be slaughtered in the Temple or in the rest of the country, then the status of a hermaphrodite is uncertain, as it is unknown whether it is male or female. But does a verse come to exclude a case of uncertainty?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara works through the candidates for the baraita’s author. It cannot be the first tanna of the mishna, for whom a hermaphrodite is of doubtful sex. A doubtful male is already excluded from being offered as a male burnt offering without any verse, so a dedicated verse to exclude it would be superfluous.

Key Terms:

• מַנִּי = whose (opinion) is this?
• אִילֵּימָא = if we say
• תַּנָּא קַמָּא = the first tanna of the mishna
• סְפֵיקָא = a case of doubt
• לְמַעוֹטֵי = to exclude

Segment 6

TYPE: קושיא

Nor the latter Rabbis: they exclude female, tumtum and androginos from a single ‘male’ regarding a firstborn

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא רַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי מֵחַד קְרָא נָפְקִי, דְּהָא גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹר חַד ״זָכָר״ הוּא דִּכְתִיב, (קא) [וְקָא] מְמַעֲטִי כּוּלְּהוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ!

English Translation:

Rather, perhaps this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the latter Rabbis in the mishna, who hold that a hermaphrodite is definitely not a male, but a distinct entity. Therefore, it is necessary for a verse to exclude it. This, too, is difficult, as according to these Rabbis the exclusion of a female, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite is derived from one verse alone. The Gemara elaborates: As with regard to a firstborn, it is one “male” alone that is written, from which the Rabbis exclude all of the three categories from firstborn status. By contrast, the baraita excludes a female from one mention of the word “male” and a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from another mention of the word “male.”

קלאוד על הדף:

Nor can the baraita follow the latter Rabbis of the mishna, who regard a hermaphrodite as a distinct being, neither male nor female. For a firstborn, the Rabbis derive the exclusion of a female, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite all from a single ‘male,’ while this baraita needs two mentions of ‘male,’ one for a female and one for tumtum and hermaphrodite. The method of derivation does not match. (The bracketed correction in the Hebrew, וְקָא for קא, is an emendation of the printed text.)

Key Terms:

• רַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי = the latter Rabbis — the Sages who speak last in the mishna
• מֵחַד קְרָא נָפְקִי = they derive it from one verse
• מְמַעֲטִי כּוּלְּהוּ = they exclude all of them
• בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ = a distinct entity — how the Rabbis view a hermaphrodite

Segment 7

TYPE: ראיה

So it must be Rabbi Yishmael — and a verse is needed only if he is certain the hermaphrodite is male

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא, פְּשִׁיטָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ — הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ — אִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי סְפֵיקָא?

English Translation:

Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. And in that case, granted, if you say that it is obvious to Rabbi Yishmael that a hermaphrodite is a firstborn male, that is why a verse was necessary to exclude a hermaphrodite from being brought as a burnt offering. But if you say that Rabbi Yishmael is uncertain whether or not a hermaphrodite is considered a male, is it necessary for the verse to exclude a case of uncertainty?

קלאוד על הדף:

By elimination the baraita must follow Rabbi Yishmael. If he holds that a hermaphrodite is definitely male, a verse is indeed needed to exclude it from serving as a burnt offering, since it would otherwise qualify as a male. If he were only in doubt about its sex, the verse would be excluding a doubt, which, as noted, is unnecessary. The baraita thus seems to resolve Rava’s dilemma in favor of certainty.

Key Terms:

• פְּשִׁיטָא = it is obvious
• בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted
• הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא = that is why a verse was needed
• מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ = he is uncertain

Segment 8

TYPE: דחייה

No — it is the latter Rabbis after all; for the firstborn too there are two verses, ‘the males’ and ‘the male’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי, וְגַבֵּי בְּכוֹר תַּרְתֵּי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיב: ״הַזָּכָר״ וְ״הַזְּכָרִים״.

English Translation:

The Gemara responds: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the latter Rabbis, who maintain that a hermaphrodite is not a male, but a distinct entity. And as for the difficulty that in the case of a firstborn they excluded a female, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite from a single verse, that is not so. With regard to a firstborn there are also two verses written: “Males” (Deuteronomy 15:19), and: “That is a male” (Exodus 13:12). As in the case of a burnt offering, one of these serves to exclude a female, while the other serves to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara rejects the proof by reviving the second option. The baraita can follow the latter Rabbis, because the premise that they derive everything from one verse regarding the firstborn is wrong: two verses speak of the firstborn’s maleness, ‘the male’ and ‘the males.’ Just as with the burnt offering, one excludes a female and the other a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. Rava’s dilemma regarding Rabbi Yishmael therefore remains unresolved.

Key Terms:

• לְעוֹלָם = actually, in truth
• תַּרְתֵּי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיב = two verses are written
• הַזָּכָר / הַזְּכָרִים = the male / the males

Segment 9

TYPE: מימרא (רב חסדא)

Rav Chisda: the Rabbis’ dispute concerns only a hermaphrodite; a tumtum is a universally agreed doubt and is sacred out of doubt

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְטוּם — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל סְפֵיקָא הוּא, וְקָדוֹשׁ מִסְּפֵיקָא.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: A hermaphrodite does not have firstborn status; rather, its status is that of a non-sacred animal that may be shorn and utilized for labor. Rav Ḥisda says: This dispute applies to a hermaphrodite, which the Rabbis maintain is a distinct entity, as it has both male and female sex organs, and therefore it does not have firstborn status. But with regard to a tumtum, whose genitalia is covered by skin, everyone agrees that it is an uncertain case, as it is definitely either a male or a female, but there is uncertainty as to which it is. And consequently, it is consecrated due to uncertainty, and it may not be slaughtered either in the Temple or in the rest of the country.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara returns to the Rabbis’ statement that a hermaphrodite is not a firstborn. Rav Chisda limits the dispute: it concerns only the hermaphrodite, which the Rabbis regard as a distinct being and therefore not a male. A tumtum, by contrast, is in everyone’s view either a male or a female whose organs are simply hidden. It is therefore sanctified out of doubt, and may be neither sacrificed nor slaughtered outside the Temple, exactly as the first tanna ruled.

Key Terms:

• רַב חִסְדָּא = Rav Chisda, a third-generation Babylonian Amora
• דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל = according to all opinions
• קָדוֹשׁ מִסְּפֵיקָא = sanctified out of doubt
• מַחְלוֹקֶת = dispute

Segment 10

TYPE: קושיא (רבא על רב חסדא)

Rava: if a tumtum is surely male or female, it should be subject to arakhin — continued on 42a

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בַּעֲרָכִין יֵעָרֵךְ?

English Translation:

Rava said to Rav Ḥisda: If that is so, that a tumtum is certainly either a male or a female, with regard to valuations, when someone vows to give the valuation of a tumtum, it should be valuated, either in accordance with the valuation of a man or a woman.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava challenges Rav Chisda. If a tumtum is certainly either male or female, then one who vows to give the valuation (erekh) of a tumtum should owe a valuation, at least the lower one of a woman. Yet a mishna in Arakhin rules that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are not subject to valuation, which suggests that a tumtum is viewed as a separate category rather than a mere doubt. The daf ends with this challenge, and the discussion continues on 42a.

Key Terms:

• אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה = if so, then now
• עֲרָכִין = valuations — fixed sums vowed to the Temple according to a person’s age and sex (Vayikra 27)
• יֵעָרֵךְ = should be valuated
• רָבָא = Rava, a fourth-generation Babylonian Amora

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 41 is a turning point inside Perek 6, על אלו מומין. Amud aleph begins by settling the last item of the blemish catalogue: which joint a calf’s tail must reach. A short mishna then closes the whole list with the formula “for all these one slaughters a firstborn and redeems disqualified consecrated animals.” The Gemara asks why the perek repeats its own opening line, and answers that the anonymous restatement makes the individual opinions recorded along the way into halacha. A new mishna follows, listing conditions that fall in between: they are not true blemishes, so a firstborn may not be slaughtered outside the Temple because of them, yet many of them also bar it from the altar. These include passing eye spots and tears, damaged gums, moist garav, warts, chazazit, an old, sick or foul-smelling animal, and an animal used for bestiality or that killed a person on the word of one witness or of the owner. The mishna ends with the tumtum and the androginos (hermaphrodite), with a three-way dispute. The Gemara works through each clause: the three kinds of garav, the three exclusions of “min” for old, sick and foul-smelling animals, the exclusions of Vayikra 1:2, and whether the female organ of a hermaphrodite is a “cracked” (charutz) blemish. Amud bet takes up Rava’s question of whether Rabbi Yishmael is certain a hermaphrodite is a male firstborn or is only arguing “if you will say”. Two attempted proofs both fail. The daf ends with Rav Chisda’s ruling that a tumtum is a universally agreed doubt and with Rava’s challenge from arakhin, which continues on 42a.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• The tail and the arkov: a baraita explains that the joint a calf’s tail must reach (40b mishna) is the upper joint, between thighbone and tibia, not the lower one. In a camel this joint is plainly visible; in a calf it is hidden under the flesh. A tail that falls short of it is a permanent blemish.
• The closing formula: the mishna declares that for all the blemishes listed one may slaughter a firstborn outside the Temple and redeem disqualified consecrated animals (פסולי המוקדשין).
• Why repeat it? The perek already opened with “for these blemishes one slaughters the firstborn” (37a). Nor is the redemption clause news: if a blemish permits slaughtering a firstborn, whose sanctity can never be redeemed, it surely permits redeeming other consecrated animals.
• The answer: along the way the mishna recorded individual opinions: Ila’s three additional blemishes, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus. The anonymous restatement (stam mishna) tells us that the halacha follows all of them.
• The in-between list: a new mishna lists conditions for which one slaughters a firstborn “neither in the Temple nor in the country”. These are pale eye spots (חוורור) and tears that are not constant, internal gums chipped but not uprooted, garav, warts (יבלת), chazazit, an old, sick or foul-smelling (מזוהם) animal, and an animal used for a transgression or that killed a person, known only on one witness or the owner’s word.
• Tumtum and androginos: the first tanna rules that neither is slaughtered in the Temple or outside it. Rabbi Shimon (in the mishna’s text; the Gemara quotes the same words as Rabbi Yishmael) says “you have no greater blemish than this”, so it may be slaughtered outside. The Rabbis say a hermaphrodite is not a firstborn at all and may be shorn and worked.
• Garav and yalefet in the Torah: the Gemara challenges the mishna from Vayikra 22:22, which lists “garav or yalefet” as blemishes. A baraita identifies garav with hard boils (cheres) and yalefet with the Egyptian chazazit, and Reish Lakish explains the name: it clings (מלפפת) to its victim until death.
• Two easy answers: the Torah’s chazazit is the incurable Egyptian kind, and the mishna’s is ordinary. The Torah’s garav is dry and does not heal, while the mishna’s is moist and heals.
• Three kinds of garav: Devarim 28:27 calls “garav and cheres” incurable, which suggests moist garav does not heal either. The Gemara distinguishes three kinds. Garav that is dry inside and out is the Torah’s blemish, called cheres. Garav that is moist inside and out is the mishna’s, and it heals. Garav that is dry inside and moist outside is the garav of Egypt, the weeping blisters (אבעבעות) of Shemot 9:10.
• Old, sick and foul-smelling: a baraita derives all three from the three “min” of Vayikra 1:10. The Gemara shows each is needed (צריכותא). Age is permanent but natural; sickness may pass but is unnatural. A foul-smelling animal is not weak but repulsive, so it cannot be learned from the other two, and they cannot be learned from it.
• Rove’a, nirva, ne’evad, muktzeh, noge’ach: a baraita excludes all five from the altar through the phrases of Vayikra 1:2. Such animals are normally stoned, so a verse is needed only where the act is known through one witness or the owner. That is too little for execution but enough to bar the animal from the altar.
• Tumtum explained: in the Temple it may be female, and outside it may be an unblemished male, so it is barred in both places.
• The hermaphrodite’s “crack”: the Gemara asks why the first tanna does not let a hermaphrodite be slaughtered outside the Temple. Even if it is male, its female organ should be a charutz blemish.
• Abaye: “broken or cracked” (Vayikra 22:22) compares cracked to broken. Just as a break is in bone, a crack that counts as a blemish must be in bone.
• Rava: a crack in flesh is not a blemish, and garav proves it. Garav is cheres, a crack in the skin that looks sunken “deeper than the skin” (Vayikra 13:30). If a non-repulsive crack in flesh were a blemish, garav, which is both a crack and repulsive, would follow by kal vachomer and need no verse. Since the Torah lists it, a flesh crack is not a blemish.
• Rabbi Yishmael’s view explained: he rejects Abaye, holding that cracked and broken are separate blemishes. He also need not accept Rava, whose proof covers only an inconspicuous crack. A conspicuous one is “an ill blemish” (מום רע, Devarim 15:21).

Amud Bet Highlights

• Rava’s dilemma: does Rabbi Yishmael hold that a hermaphrodite is certainly a male firstborn that comes with its blemish? Or is he in doubt and arguing “if you will say” (אם תמצא לומר): even if it is a firstborn, it is blemished?
• The practical difference: if it is a certain firstborn, one who shears it or works it receives lashes (Devarim 15:19), and it must be given to a priest. If it is only a doubtful firstborn, there are no lashes, and the owner keeps it, since the burden of proof lies on the claimant.
• First proof rejected: Rabbi Ilai quotes Rabbi Yishmael: “a hermaphrodite is a firstborn and comes with its blemish”. The Gemara answers that this phrasing can still be read as “if you will say”.
• Second proof, the double “male”: a baraita on the burnt offering learns from the first “male” (Vayikra 1:3) that a female is excluded, and from the second (Vayikra 1:10) that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are excluded. Whose view is this?
• By elimination: it cannot be the first tanna, for whom a hermaphrodite is a doubt, since no verse is needed to exclude a doubt. Nor, it seems, the latter Rabbis, who exclude female, tumtum and hermaphrodite from a single “male” regarding a firstborn. So it must be Rabbi Yishmael, and a verse is needed only if he holds the hermaphrodite is certainly male.
• The proof deflected: the baraita can follow the latter Rabbis after all. For a firstborn too there are two verses, “the males” (Devarim 15:19) and “the male” (Shemot 13:12): one excludes a female and the other a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. Rava’s dilemma stays open.
• Rav Chisda: the Rabbis’ dispute concerns only the hermaphrodite, which they see as a distinct being. A tumtum is, in everyone’s view, either male or female with hidden organs. It is sanctified out of doubt and is neither sacrificed nor slaughtered outside, as the first tanna ruled.
• Rava’s challenge: if a tumtum is surely male or female, one who vows the valuation (ערך) of a tumtum should owe at least a woman’s valuation. Yet the mishna in Arakhin exempts a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from valuation. The daf ends here; the answer comes on 42a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

The tail must reach the upper joint. The closing formula of the catalogue confirms, as a stam mishna, that the blemishes taught by Ila, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus are halacha, and that every listed blemish permits both slaughtering a firstborn and redeeming disqualified kodashim. The in-between conditions do neither: a moist garav and an ordinary chazazit heal and are temporary. An old, sick or foul-smelling animal is excluded from the altar by the three “min”. Rove’a, nirva, ne’evad, muktzeh and noge’ach are excluded by Vayikra 1:2 where only one witness or the owner testifies. A tumtum is barred both inside and outside the Temple. According to the first tanna, a hermaphrodite is also barred both inside and outside, since a crack in flesh is not a Torah blemish (by Abaye’s comparison or Rava’s proof from garav). Rabbi Yishmael disagrees on both counts. Whether he considers a hermaphrodite a certain firstborn remains unresolved after two failed proofs. Rav Chisda’s statement that a tumtum is a sanctified doubt in everyone’s view is under challenge from arakhin as the daf ends.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Ilai, the Rabbis, Ila, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel, Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus

Amoraim: Reish Lakish, Abaye, Rava, Rav Chisda

One-Line Takeaway

Not every defect is a blemish: only a permanent, recognized flaw frees a firstborn from the altar. What heals, what is only suspected, and what is only doubtful (like a tumtum) leaves the animal stuck between the Temple and the table.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf finishes the long list of blemishes that let a kohen eat a firstborn animal, and then starts a brand-new list: problems that are not real blemishes, so the animal is stuck. It can’t go on the altar, and it can’t be eaten as a blemished firstborn either! Along the way we learn about three kinds of skin bumps, why the Torah needs three little words for old, sick and smelly animals, and a big puzzle about an animal whose body doesn’t clearly look male or female.

Quick Reminder: Why Blemishes Matter 🐑🔍

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 eat it only if it has a מום (mum, a “blemish,” a real, lasting injury). A blemish that will go away doesn’t count.

For the last few dapim, the mishna has been giving a long catalogue of blemishes: ears, eyes, noses, lips, legs, and finally, at the end of yesterday’s daf, tails.

The Simple Idea 💡: A firstborn can be eaten outside the Temple only with a permanent blemish.

How Long Should a Calf’s Tail Be? 🐄📏

Yesterday’s mishna said: if a calf’s tail is so short that it doesn’t reach the ערקוב (arkov, a joint in the back leg), that’s a blemish.

But a back leg has two joints! Which one?

A ברייתא (baraita, a teaching from the time of the mishna) answers: the upper joint, near the top of the leg. And it gives a helpful tip. On a camel, you can see that joint sticking out easily. On a calf, it’s hidden under the meat, so the examiner has to know where to feel for it.

Think of it like… measuring how tall a kid is against a mark on the wall. You have to agree which mark you mean, or the measurement is useless!

The Simple Idea 💡: A calf’s tail must reach the upper joint of the leg; shorter than that is a blemish.

”For All These Blemishes…” 🔁📜

Now a tiny mishna closes the whole list: “For all these blemishes, you may slaughter a firstborn, and you may redeem (פדה, pada, swap for money) holy animals that became unfit for the altar.”

But wait! The Gemara says: we already heard this at the very start of the perek (on 37a): “For these blemishes, you may slaughter a firstborn.” Why say it again?

Maybe the new part is about redeeming other holy animals? No, says the Gemara, that’s obvious too! A firstborn is super holy (it’s holy from the moment it’s born, and you can’t redeem it at all). If a blemish is enough to let us slaughter a firstborn, of course it’s enough for other, less holy animals.

So why repeat it? Here’s the clever answer. In the middle of the list, some blemishes were taught by just one Sage: Ila, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus. You might think, “Only one Rabbi said it, so maybe we don’t follow it.” By repeating the rule without anyone’s name (a סתם משנה, stam mishna, an “unnamed mishna”), the mishna is quietly saying: all of those blemishes count, including the ones from the single Sages!

Think of it like… a class where a few kids suggest extra rules for a game. At the end the teacher says, “Okay, all of these are the rules.” Now everyone knows the extra rules are official too.

The Simple Idea 💡: When the mishna repeats a rule with no name attached, it’s telling us “this is the halacha,” even for the ideas of single Sages.

The Stuck Animals 🚫🐐

Now a new mishna with a new list. These are problems that are not real blemishes. So:

• ❌ The firstborn can’t be slaughtered and eaten outside the Temple (no permanent blemish).
• ❌ Many of them can’t go on the altar either.

The animal is stuck. The owner just has to wait until it gets a real blemish.

What’s on the list?

Group 1: little or temporary problems

• Eye spots and watery eyes that aren’t permanent
• Gums that got chipped but weren’t pulled out
• A גרב (garav, a kind of skin boil) that is moist
• Warts, and a skin rash called חזזית (chazazit)

Group 2: not a “body” problem at all

• An animal that is old, sick, or smells bad
• An animal that was used for a serious sin with a person, or one that killed a person, when we only know about it from one witness or from the owner himself

Then the mishna adds a special case: an animal that is a טומטום (tumtum, its body is covered so we can’t tell if it’s male or female) or an אנדרוגינוס (androginos, it has signs of both). The Sages disagree:

Think of it like… a library book that’s a little torn. It’s not ruined enough to throw away, but it’s too damaged to put back on the shelf. So it sits in the back room until someone decides what to do!

The Simple Idea 💡: Some problems are too small to count as a blemish but still keep the animal off the altar, so the animal just has to wait.

Three Kinds of Bumps 🦠🔬

But wait! says the Gemara. The Torah itself lists garav and yalefet as blemishes (Vayikra 22:22)! And a baraita says yalefet is the same as the “Egyptian chazazit.” (Reish Lakish explains the name: yalefet clings, melapefet, to the animal and never lets go.) So how can the mishna say garav and chazazit aren’t blemishes?

Chazazit is easy: the Torah means the Egyptian kind, which never heals. The mishna means a regular chazazit, which goes away.

Garav is trickier. The answer: the Torah’s garav is dry, and dry ones never heal. The mishna’s garav is moist, and moist ones heal.

But wait again! A verse in Devarim (28:27), among the curses, talks about “the boil of Egypt… garav and cheres (a hard, dry boil), which cannot be healed.” If cheres is the dry kind, then the garav in that verse must be the moist kind, and it says it can’t heal!

So the Gemara says: there are actually three kinds of garav!

How do we know the Egyptian one was moist on the outside? Because the plague of boils in Egypt made blisters that oozed (Shemot 9:10).

Think of it like… a scraped knee. A wet scrape that’s still fresh usually heals in a week. A hard, dry scar stays forever. Same knee, very different story!

The Simple Idea 💡: A skin bump that will heal isn’t a real blemish; only the kind that stays forever counts.

Old, Sick and Smelly 👴🤒👃

Where does the Torah say we can’t bring an old, sick or smelly animal as an offering, even with no blemish?

A baraita finds it in Vayikra 1:10: “from the flock, from the sheep, or from the goats.” The little word מן (min, “from”) shows up three times. Each one means “only some of them, not all.” Three “froms” leave out three kinds of animals: old, sick and smelly!

But why does the Torah need all three? Couldn’t we figure one out from another? The Gemara explains (this kind of question is called צריכותא, tzerichuta, “why each one is needed”):

• If the Torah only said old, you’d think: old is forever, but sickness can go away, so a sick animal is fine.
• If the Torah only said sick, you’d think: being sick isn’t normal, but every animal gets old, so an old animal is fine.
• And a smelly animal might be strong and healthy! It’s left out because it’s yucky, not because it’s weak. So you couldn’t learn it from old or sick, and you couldn’t learn old or sick from it.

Think of it like… a birthday gift. You wouldn’t give a toy that’s worn out, one that’s broken, or one that smells funny. Each is a different reason, and each needs its own “no thanks!”

The Simple Idea 💡: Old, sick and smelly animals stay off the altar, and the Torah needed a separate hint for each one because each has a different reason.

Animals Involved in Serious Wrongs ⚖️🐂

Next: where do we learn that an animal involved in a serious sin can’t be an offering?

A baraita reads Vayikra 1:2, “from the animals, from the cattle and from the flock,” and finds five kinds of animals left out:

• An animal that was part of a forbidden act with a person (the Hebrew terms are רובע and נרבע, rove’a and nirva)
• An animal that people worshipped as an idol (נעבד, ne’evad)
• An animal set aside for idol worship (מוקצה, muktzeh)
• An animal that gored and killed a person (נוגח, noge’ach)

But wait! Those animals get put to death by a court anyway! Why do we need a verse to say they can’t be offerings?

The answer is in the mishna’s own words: we only know about it from one witness or from the owner. A court needs two witnesses to punish, so the animal isn’t put to death. But even one witness is enough to keep it far away from the altar.

Think of it like… if one kid says, “I saw that ball get used to break a window,” the principal can’t punish anyone on just one kid’s word. But you probably wouldn’t pick that ball as the class prize!

The Simple Idea 💡: Even when there isn’t enough proof to punish, an animal tied to a serious wrong is still kept away from the altar.

The Animal Nobody Can Figure Out 🤷🐑

Back to the tumtum and the androginos.

The tumtum is easy to understand. We can’t bring it in the Temple, because maybe it’s a girl, and girls aren’t firstborns. And we can’t slaughter it outside, because maybe it’s a boy with no blemish, and you can’t slaughter a holy, unblemished firstborn outside! Stuck both ways.

But the androginos is harder. The Gemara asks: even if it’s a boy, its body has something that looks like a “crack,” and the Torah lists חרוץ (charutz, “cracked”) as a blemish. So shouldn’t we be allowed to slaughter it outside?

Two answers say no:

• 🔨 Abaye: The verse says “broken or cracked” together. “Broken” is always about a bone. So “cracked” must also mean a crack in a bone, not in soft skin.
• 🧠 Rava: Even without that, think about garav! We learned that garav (cheres) is a kind of crack in the skin, and it’s also yucky. If every skin crack were a blemish, the Torah wouldn’t need to mention garav at all. It would be obvious! Since the Torah does mention garav separately, a plain skin crack must not be a blemish.

So how does Rabbi Yishmael say “it’s the biggest blemish”? The Gemara explains: he doesn’t accept Abaye’s “broken equals cracked” idea, and he can answer Rava too. Rava’s proof only shows that a hidden, hard-to-see crack isn’t a blemish. But a crack that’s easy to see counts under the Torah’s words “any bad blemish” (Devarim 15:21).

Think of it like… a scratch on a phone. A tiny scratch you can barely see? Still a perfectly good phone. A big scratch right across the screen? Everyone would agree that’s a real problem.

The Simple Idea 💡: Most Sages say a crack in the skin isn’t a Torah blemish, but Rabbi Yishmael says an obvious one counts.

Rava’s Big Question: Sure or Not Sure? 🤔❓

Now Rava asks about Rabbi Yishmael. When he says an androginos firstborn may be slaughtered, is he:

• ✅ Sure it’s a boy (and therefore a real firstborn that happens to have a blemish)?
• 🤷 Or not sure, and just saying, “even if it’s a firstborn, it’s blemished anyway”? (This is called אם תמצא לומר, im timtza lomar, “if you want to say…”)

Does it matter? Yes! If it’s definitely a firstborn:

• Someone who shears its wool or makes it work gets lashes, because that’s forbidden for a firstborn (Devarim 15:19).
• The owner must give it to a kohen.

If it’s only maybe a firstborn:

• No lashes, because we don’t punish for a “maybe.”
• The owner can keep it, because whoever wants to take something from someone else has to prove it’s his.

Think of it like… a lost-and-found jacket. If it definitely has your name in it, you get it back. If it only might be yours, the school keeps it until you can prove it!

The Simple Idea 💡: Being sure something is holy brings more rules than just maybe being holy.

Trying to Solve the Puzzle 🧩🔎

The Gemara tries to answer Rava’s question.

Try #1: Rabbi Ilai quoted Rabbi Yishmael: “An androginos is a firstborn.” Sounds sure! But the Gemara says: maybe that’s still just the “if you want to say” idea. Not proven.

Try #2: A baraita about the עולה (olah, the “burnt offering,” which must be a boy). The word “male” appears twice: once for cattle (Vayikra 1:3) and once for sheep and goats (Vayikra 1:10). The first one leaves out girls. The second one leaves out the tumtum and the androginos.

Whose teaching is that? Let’s check each Sage:

• ❌ Not the first tanna. For him, an androginos is a “maybe.” You don’t need a whole extra verse to leave out a “maybe,” because a “maybe boy” already can’t be used when you need a boy!
• ❌ Not the later Rabbis, it seems. For the firstborn, they learn “no girl, no tumtum, no androginos” all from one word “male.” But this baraita uses two.
• ✅ So it must be Rabbi Yishmael! And a verse is only needed if he’s sure the androginos is a boy.

Solved? Not so fast! The Gemara says: actually, it can be the later Rabbis. For the firstborn there are two verses too: “the male” and “the males.” One leaves out girls, the other leaves out tumtum and androginos, just like the burnt offering.

So Rava’s question stays unanswered.

Think of it like… a detective who thinks he’s found the culprit by crossing everyone else off the list, and then discovers one of the “crossed-off” suspects has no alibi after all. Back to square one!

The Simple Idea 💡: The Gemara tried hard, but we still don’t know if Rabbi Yishmael was sure or just saying “even if.”

Rav Chisda and the Tumtum 🔒🐄

Last, Rav Chisda explains the Rabbis who said an androginos “isn’t a firstborn.” He says the argument is only about the androginos. The Rabbis think an androginos is its own kind of creature, not a boy and not a girl.

But a tumtum is different. Everyone agrees a tumtum really is either a boy or a girl. We just can’t see which! So it’s holy as a “maybe,” and it can’t be offered or slaughtered, just like the first tanna said.

Then Rava pushes back. There’s a mitzvah called ערכין (arakhin, “valuations”), where someone promises to give the Temple the “value” of a person, and the Torah sets one amount for men and another for women. If a tumtum is definitely a boy or a girl, then someone who promises “the value of this tumtum” should at least owe the lower amount! But a mishna in Arakhin says a tumtum has no valuation at all.

And the daf ends right there, in the middle of Rava’s challenge. We’ll find out how Rav Chisda answers on the next daf!

Think of it like… a wrapped present. It’s definitely something inside, either a ball or a book. We just can’t see which until it’s opened!

The Simple Idea 💡: A tumtum is really a boy or a girl that we just can’t see, but Rava has a tough question about that, and we’ll hear the answer tomorrow.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• A calf’s tail must reach the upper joint of the back leg; a shorter tail is a blemish.
• The mishna repeats “for all these blemishes” without a name to tell us that even the blemishes taught by single Sages are the halacha.
• A new list: temporary spots, chipped gums, moist garav, warts, regular chazazit, and old, sick, smelly animals or ones involved in a serious wrong (known from just one witness) are not blemishes. The animal is stuck until it gets a real one.
• There are three kinds of garav: dry (never heals), moist (heals), and the Egyptian kind (dry inside, oozing outside, never heals).
• Three little “froms” in the Torah leave out old, sick and smelly animals, and each one is needed because each has a different reason.
• A tumtum is stuck both ways because it might be a girl or an unblemished boy. For an androginos, Abaye and Rava say a skin “crack” isn’t a Torah blemish, while Rabbi Yishmael says an obvious one is.
• Rava asks whether Rabbi Yishmael is sure an androginos is a firstborn; that would mean lashes for shearing it and that it must go to a kohen. The Gemara tries two proofs, and the question stays open.
• Rav Chisda: a tumtum is a real boy or girl we just can’t see. Rava challenges him from the laws of arakhin, and the daf ends in the middle of the argument.

⚖️ Halacha

The Tail and the Upper Joint

Source in Daf: 41a, Segment 1 (the baraita on the 40b mishna: the tail must reach the upper joint, not the lower one; the corresponding joint is conspicuous in a camel and hidden in a calf)

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: This halacha gathers the tail blemishes of the 40b mishna, which our baraita goes on to explain. The Rambam does not repeat the anatomical sign of the baraita (the joint that stands out in a camel); instead he translates the measurement into vertebrae: in a kid a tail of one vertebra is a blemish and two is fit, in a lamb two is a blemish and three is fit. The underlying principle is the same as the baraita’s: what matters is a tail that is abnormally short against the natural landmark of the leg, which only an examiner who knows the anatomy can judge. In our time the Rema (YD 309:2) adds, citing the Pesakim of Mahari (Rabbi Yisrael Isserlein), that “if the tail was cut above the vertebra it is a blemish” (our translation), one of the few tail blemishes still used in practice to permit a firstborn.

”For All These Blemishes One Slaughters a Firstborn”

Source in Daf: 41a, Segments 2-4 (the closing formula of the catalogue: for these blemishes one slaughters a firstborn and redeems disqualified consecrated animals; the Gemara’s question why the opening of the perek is repeated, and the answer that the repetition is a stam mishna canonizing Ila, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus)

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: The Rambam states the mishna’s closing rule as a single equation: every permanent blemish that allows a disqualified consecrated animal to be redeemed is also a blemish on which a firstborn is slaughtered “in any place,” that is, outside the Temple. The Gemara asked in Segment 3 why the mishna needed to say both halves, since redemption follows obviously once slaughter is allowed; the Rambam’s formulation shows that the two lists are, in practice, one list. His count of 67 blemishes “appropriate to a male” is the 73 of Issurei Mizbeach less those that can only occur in a female. By folding the individual opinions of the perek (Ila on the ear, Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus on the eye, and the others) into that one catalogue without attribution, the Rambam treats them as established law, exactly as the Gemara’s answer in Segment 4 says: a stam mishna that repeats the list “to establish the halacha” like them.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 309:1

Hebrew:

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):

A firstborn in our time has no permission except through a blemish. Even if the owner or the priest wants to put it into a vaulted pen until it dies on its own, they are not permitted; rather the priest must raise it until a blemish befalls it.

Connection: Since there is no altar, the first half of our mishna (“one slaughters a firstborn”) is the only way a firstborn can ever be eaten today, which is why the blemish catalogue of this perek is still practical law. The Shulchan Aruch insists that the priest raise the animal until a blemish appears, so the question of which conditions count as a permanent blemish, and which (like those in the next mishna) do not, determines when the meat may be eaten.

Temporary and Minor Defects: Neither Offered Nor Slaughtered

Source in Daf: 41a, Segment 5 (the mishna: “and these are the ones for which one does not slaughter, neither in the Temple nor in the country”: eye spots and tears that are not constant, inner gums that were damaged but not uprooted, garav, yabelet, chazazit)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 2:2

Hebrew:

וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁמָּנִינוּ שָׁם שֶׁאֵין הַקָּרְבָּן מִן הַמֻּבְחָר וְאֵין הַקָּדָשִׁים קְרֵבִין בָּהֶן וְלֹא נִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּךְ אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נִשְׁחָט עֲלֵיהֶן וְלֹא קָרֵב אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה עוֹמֵד עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד לוֹ מוּם קָבוּעַ. וְכֵן אִם נוֹלָד בִּבְכוֹר מוּם עוֹבֵר הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ נִשְׁחָט בְּכָל מָקוֹם וְלֹא קָרֵב אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה רוֹעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם קָבוּעַ וְיִשָּׁחֵט עָלָיו:

English:

All of the conditions mentioned there which cause a sacrifice to be considered as less than desirable and hence, due to them, a consecrated animal is not offered, but also is not redeemed cause a firstborn not to be slaughtered due to them, nor offered. Instead, the animal remains until it contracts a permanent blemish. Similarly, if a firstborn contracts a temporary blemish, it should not be slaughtered in any place, nor should it be offered. Instead, it should pasture until it contracts a permanent blemish and is slaughtered because of it.

Connection: This is the Rambam’s version of the mishna’s heading, “neither in the Temple nor in the country.” A firstborn with a temporary blemish or a defect that merely makes it “less than desirable” is in limbo: it cannot go on the altar, and it cannot be slaughtered outside as a blemished animal. It simply pastures until a permanent blemish appears. The Rambam groups the two kinds of defect together just as the mishna does, but in Issurei Mizbeach, cited next, he sorts them into two separate lists.

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:7

Hebrew:

אַרְבָּעָה מוּמִין עוֹבְרִים יֵשׁ בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. גָּרָב לַח. חֲזָזִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִצְרִית. מַיִם שֶׁיּוֹרְדִין בָּעַיִן וְאֵינָן קְבוּעִין. סַנְוִירִין שֶׁאֵינָן קְבוּעִין:

English:

There are four temporary blemishes [that disqualify] both a man and an animal: a) a moist skin eruption; b) a boil that does not resemble those of Egypt; c) water that descends in the eyes that is not a permanent condition; d) a degeneration of nerves in the eye that is not permanent.

Connection: Two items of our mishna appear here as true temporary blemishes: the moist garav (גָּרָב לַח) and the chazazit that is not Egyptian. These are exactly the categories the Gemara establishes in Segments 8 and 10: the garav of the mishna is the one that is moist inside and out and can heal, and the chazazit of the mishna is the ordinary one, not the Egyptian kind. So too “water that descends in the eyes and is not permanent,” the tearing of our mishna (מַיִם שֶׁאֵין קְבוּעִין). Because these are real blemishes, only temporary, offering such an animal is a Torah transgression (Issurei Mizbeach 1:5 applies the verse “do not sacrifice… an ox or a sheep that has a blemish” to “an animal with a moist garav or chazazit”).

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 “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: The mishna’s “inner gums (or teeth) that were damaged but not uprooted” appear here as “if its inner teeth were damaged” (אִם נִפְגְּמוּ חִטָּיו הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת; the Sefaria translation renders the word as “tonsils”). Uprooting them is a full blemish, listed in 2:3; mere damage only makes the animal “not of the choice.” The Rambam’s added ruling, that if such an animal was offered “it appears to me that it was accepted,” marks the difference between this list and the temporary blemishes of 2:7: here the disqualification rests on “the choice of your vows,” a standard of excellence, not on the Torah’s prohibition of a blemished animal.

Garav, Yalefet and Chazazit: Which Are Torah Blemishes?

Source in Daf: 41a, Segments 7-10 (the Gemara’s challenge that garav and yalefet are listed in the Torah; the answer that the Torah’s garav is dry and the mishna’s moist, and that yalefet is the Egyptian chazazit; the further challenge from “the garav and the cheres” of Devarim 28:27; the threefold division: dry inside and out, moist inside and out, dry inside and moist outside)

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:10

Hebrew:

אַרְבָּעָה רְאוּיִין לִהְיוֹת בְּכָל הַגּוּף וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גָּרָב יָבֵשׁ כָּל שֶׁהוּא וְזֶהוּ הַ “גָּרָב” הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם וְזֶה הוּא “יַבֶּלֶת” הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲזָזִית מִצְרִית כָּל שֶׁהִיא וְהִיא חֲזָזִית קָשָׁה וּכְעוּרָה וְזוֹ הוּא “יַלֶּפֶת” הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה:

English:

There are four [types of blemishes] that may occur in any place in the body. They are: a) one who has a dry skin eruption of even the slightest size. This is the meaning of the term gerev mentioned in the Torah; b) a growth that has a bone. This is the meaning of the term yabelet mentioned in the Torah; c) one who has an Egyptian boil of the slightest size. It is a type of boil which is firm and of distasteful appearance. This is the meaning of the term yalefet mentioned in the Torah.

Connection: The Rambam rules exactly as the Gemara resolves the contradiction. The Torah’s garav is the dry one (גָּרָב יָבֵשׁ), a permanent blemish “of even the slightest size”; the Torah’s yalefet is the Egyptian chazazit, “firm and of distasteful appearance.” Read together with Issurei Mizbeach 2:7 above, where the moist garav and the non-Egyptian chazazit are temporary, the Rambam reproduces the Gemara’s split: the same names cover a permanent blemish when the lesion matches the Torah’s description and a passing one when it matches our mishna. These blemishes are listed among the 50 shared by priests and animals, which is why the Rambam places them in the laws of priestly fitness and then incorporates them for animals by reference (Issurei Mizbeach 2:1).

Old, Sick and Foul-Smelling Animals

Source in Daf: 41a, Segment 5 (the mishna: an old, sick or foul-smelling animal), and 41a, Segments 11-13 (the baraita deriving all three from the three exclusions of “min” in Vayikra 1:10, and the Gemara’s explanation why each is needed: old is natural but permanent, sick is unnatural but may pass, foul-smelling is neither weak nor natural but repulsive)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:6

Hebrew:

כָּל מוּם מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְשִׁבְעִים מוּם הַמְּנוּיִין בַּבְּהֵמָה פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. וְאִם נָפַל אֶחָד מֵהֶם בִּתְמִימָה שֶׁהִיא קֹדֶשׁ תִּפָּדֶה וְתֵצֵא לְחֻלִּין. חוּץ מִזָּקֵן וְחוֹלֶה וּמְזֹהָם שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְקָרְבָּן אֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה. אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה קַיָּם וְרוֹעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד בּוֹ מוּם אַחֵר קָבוּעַ מִשְּׁאָר הַמּוּמִין וְיִפָּדֶה. וְכֵן בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהּ מוּם עוֹבֵר אֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה וְלֹא נִפְדֵּית:

English:

All of the 73 blemishes listed disqualify an animal from being offered as a sacrifice. If an animal that is consecrated contracts one of these blemishes, it should be redeemed and it becomes like an ordinary animal with the exception of an animal that is old, sick, or foul-smelling. Although such animals are unfit for sacrifice, they may not be redeemed. Instead, they should be maintained until they contract another permanent blemish. Then it should be redeemed. Similarly, a consecrated animal that contracts a temporary blemish should neither be redeemed, nor sacrificed.

Connection: The Rambam rules that an old, sick or foul-smelling consecrated animal may neither be offered nor redeemed: it stays and pastures until it develops “another permanent blemish from among the other blemishes.” That is our mishna’s status of “neither in the Temple nor in the country,” applied to all consecrated animals. The reason (noted from Rashi on 41b in the Touger translation’s footnote) is that these are disqualifications learned from the extra word “min,” not true blemishes, so they do not trigger the Torah’s permission to redeem a blemished animal. For a firstborn the consequence is identical: it waits for a real blemish (Bechorot 2:2 above).

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:12-13

Hebrew (7:12):

וְעוֹד יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה מוּמִין אֲחֵרִים וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. הַזָּקֵן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִהְיוֹת רוֹתֵת וְרוֹעֵד כְּשֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד. הַחוֹלֶה כְּשֶׁהוּא רוֹעֵד מִפְּנֵי חָלְיוֹ וְכִשְׁלוֹן כֹּחוֹ. אֲבָל הַטְּרֵפָה כָּשֵׁר בָּאָדָם וּפָסוּל בִּבְהֵמָה. וְכֵן יוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן כָּשֵׁר בָּאָדָם וּפָסוּל בִּבְהֵמָה:

English (7:12):

There are also three other types of blemishes: a) an elderly man who has reached the stage that he quivers and trembles when he stands; b) a person who is sick and trembles because of his illness and the weakening of his strength. A treifah is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals. Similarly, one born through Caesarian section is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals.

Hebrew (7:13):

הַמְזֹהָם וְכֹהֵן שֶׁהוּא מְזֹהָם בְּזֵעָתוֹ רוֹחֵץ וְשָׁף כָּל גּוּפוֹ בְּבשֶֹׁם וְעוֹבֵד. הָיָה רֵיחַ פִּיו רַע נוֹתֵן בְּפִיו פִּלְפֵּל אוֹ זַנְגְּבִיל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְעוֹבֵד. וְאִם עָבַד בְּזִהוּם זֵעָתוֹ אוֹ בְּזִהוּם פִּיו הֲרֵי חִלֵּל עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כִּשְׁאָר אֵלּוּ הַבַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין כֻּלָּם:

English (7:13):

c) One who is foul-smelling. A priest who has a foul-smelling odor because of sweat may wash and rub perfume on his flesh and serve. If he has a foul odor emanating from his mouth, he may put pepper, ginger, or the like in his mouth and serve. If, however, he serves while his body is foul-smelling due to sweat or he had bad breath, he desecrates his service like one who has any of the other blemishes.

Connection: Here the Rambam defines the three conditions of the baraita in Segment 11. “Old” is not a matter of years but of the trembling that comes with age; “sick” is trembling from illness and loss of strength. These match the Gemara’s analysis in Segment 12: old age is natural and does not pass, illness is unnatural but may pass, and each would not have been learned from the other. The “foul-smelling” priest may wash and perfume himself, which shows why the Gemara in Segment 13 treated this condition as distinct: it is not weakness at all but repulsiveness, something that in a person can be covered over. For an animal, which cannot be perfumed into fitness, the condition disqualifies until a real blemish appears.

An Animal Used for a Transgression or That Killed a Person

Source in Daf: 41a, Segment 5 (the mishna: an animal with which a transgression was committed, or that killed a person, “on the testimony of one witness or on the word of the owner”), and 41a, Segments 14-16 (the question of the source, and the baraita from Vayikra 1:2 excluding rove’a and nirva, muktzeh, ne’evad and noge’ach; the challenge that these are stoned anyway; the answer: the verse speaks of one witness or the owner’s admission)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:9

Hebrew:

וְכֵן בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהּ עֲבֵרָה אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִיתָה אֶת הָאָדָם בְּעֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים לֹא קְרֵבָה וְלֹא נִפְדֵּית עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד לָהּ מוּם קָבוּעַ:

English:

Similarly, when a transgression was performed with a consecrated animal or it killed a person, but [was observed] only by one witness or by the owner, it is neither sacrificed not redeemed until it contracts a permanent blemish.

Connection: The Rambam copies the mishna’s conditions precisely: a transgression or a killing known only through one witness or the owner. Such an animal is neither offered nor redeemed until a permanent blemish appears, the same limbo as the old, sick and foul-smelling animal.

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 4:2

Hebrew:

הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע וְשֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם אִם הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים הֲרֵי הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הָעוֹף נִסְקָלִין וּבְשָׂרָן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּאֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לְגָבוֹהַּ. וּבַמֶּה אָמְרוּ שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ מֻתָּרִין לְהֶדְיוֹט. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד בִּלְבַד וְהַבְּעָלִים שׁוֹתְקִין אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֵד כְּלָל. הָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד וְהַבְּעָלִים מַכְחִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין אַף לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

English:

When an animal or a fowl had relations with a person, was sodomized, or killed a person, it should be executed by stoning if [the act was observed] by two witnesses. It is forbidden to benefit from their flesh. Needless to say, such animals are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. With regard to which situations was it said that they are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar? When [the animals] were permitted to ordinary individuals, e.g., there was only one witness [who observed the transgression] and the owner remained silent or the owner testified [concerning the transgression] although no witnesses were present. If there was one witness who observed the transgression and the owner contradicts him, the animals are permitted, even [as sacrifices] for the altar.

Connection: This is the Gemara’s answer in Segment 16, in practical form. With two witnesses the animal is stoned and forbidden in benefit, so no verse is needed to bar it from the altar. The verse “from the animal” is needed only where it remains permitted to an ordinary person, as when there is one witness and the owner is silent, or the owner alone admits it. The Rambam adds a nuance the mishna implies: if the owner contradicts the single witness, the testimony has no force at all, and the animal is fit even for the altar.

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 3:6

Hebrew:

וְכֵן הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע וְהַמֻּקְצֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהַנֶּעֱבָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה הֲרֵי הֵן פְּסוּלִין לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר “כִּי מָשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם” כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה פָּסוּל. וּבַעֲבֵרָה הוּא אוֹמֵר “כִּי הִשְׁחִית כָּל בָּשָׂר”. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כְּתִיב “כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ”. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה וְעוֹף שֶׁהָרְגוּ אֶת הָאָדָם הֲרֵי הֵן כְּרוֹבֵעַ אוֹ נִרְבָּע וּפְסוּלִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

English:

Similarly, an animal that had relations with a person, which was sodomized, which was set aside for pagan worship, or which was worshipped, even though it is permitted to be eaten, is unacceptable as a sacrifice for the altar. [This is derived as follows: When describing animals unfit for sacrifices, Leviticus 22:25] states: “For their perversion is in them.” [Implied is that] any [animal] characterized by perversion is forbidden. With regard to forbidden [sexual behavior, Genesis 6:12] states: “For all flesh has perverted [its path].” With regard to pagan worship, [Exodus 32:7] states: “For your nation has perverted itself.” Similarly, an animal or fowl which killed a person are considered equivalent to one that had relations with a person or which was sodomized and they are unacceptable for the altar.

Connection: The baraita in Segment 15 lists five exclusions: rove’a, nirva, muktzeh, ne’evad and noge’ach. The Rambam names all five, and adds a second source from “for their corruption is in them” (Vayikra 22:25), linking each category to the language of “corruption” (השחתה) used of sexual sin and idolatry. The killer animal (noge’ach) is treated “as rove’a or nirva.” The first clause, “even though they are permitted to be eaten,” is the Gemara’s point again: the altar is stricter than the ordinary table.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 2:3

Hebrew:

וְכֵן אִם נֶעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵרָה. אוֹ שֶׁהָרַג בְּעֵד אֶחָד. אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים. אוֹ שֶׁהֻקְצָה אוֹ נֶעֱבָד. יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ:

English:

Similarly, if a transgression was performed with it or it killed a human according to the testimony of only one witness or the owner, it was set aside to be worshiped as a false deity or it was worshiped, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish, as explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach.

Connection: The Rambam applies these laws to the firstborn in the words of our mishna, “on one witness or on the word of the owner,” and adds the muktzeh and ne’evad of the baraita. The firstborn pastures until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. We searched Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah 309-316 and did not find these cases of a firstborn there; they are Temple-era laws preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

Tumtum and Androginos

Source in Daf: 41a, Segment 6 (the mishna: tumtum and androginos, “neither in the Temple nor in the country”; Rabbi Shimon (Rabbi Yishmael in the Gemara’s version): “you have no greater blemish than this”; the Rabbis: it is not a firstborn but may be shorn and worked), 41a, Segments 17-23 (why a tumtum may not be slaughtered outside; Abaye’s and Rava’s answers on the “crack” of the female organ), and 41b, Segments 1-9 (Rava’s question whether Rabbi Yishmael is certain; the derivation of the second “male”; Rav Chisda: the dispute concerns only the androginos, while a tumtum is a doubt)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 3:3

Hebrew:

הַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הֵן פְּסוּלִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִדֶּרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת לְפִי שֶׁהֵן סָפֵק זָכָר סָפֵק נְקֵבָה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִין אַחֵר. וּבַקָּרְבָּנוֹת נֶאֱמַר “זָכָר תָּמִים” וּ”נְקֵבָה תְּמִימָה” עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זָכָר וַדַּאי אוֹ נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית. לְפִיכָךְ אַף הָעוֹף שֶׁהוּא טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס פָּסוּל לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

English:

Although there are no blemishes greater than that of a tumtum or an androgynus, they are not acceptable for the altar for another reason. Since there is an unresolved doubt whether they are males or females, they are considered of another type, and with regard to the sacrifices, it is said: “a perfect male” and “a perfect female.” [Implied is that] they must be definitely male or definitely female. Therefore even a fowl which is a tumtum or an androgynus is unacceptable for the altar.

Connection: The Rambam adopts Rabbi Yishmael’s phrase, “you have no greater blemish than this,” but uses it in a different direction: for the altar, the tumtum and androginos are disqualified not because of the blemish but because they are “a doubtful male, a doubtful female,” and the Torah requires “a perfect male” or “a perfect female.” This is the verse-based reasoning of the baraita on 41b (Segment 4), which excludes tumtum and androginos from the second mention of “male.” The Rambam extends it even to birds, where blemishes are normally irrelevant, which shows that the disqualification is one of identity, not of physical defect.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 2:5

Hebrew:

בְּכוֹר שֶׁהוּא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵין בּוֹ קְדֻשָּׁה כְּלָל. וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּנְקֵבָה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. וְעוֹבְדִים בּוֹ וְגוֹזְזִים אוֹתוֹ כִּשְׁאָר הַחֻלִּין. נוֹלַד טֻמְטוּם הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק בְּכוֹר וְיֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ לִבְעָלָיו. בֵּין שֶׁהֵטִיל מַיִם מִמְּקוֹם זִכְרוּת בֵּין שֶׁהֵטִיל מִמְּקוֹם נַקְבוּת:

English:

When a firstborn animal is an androgynus, it does not have any sacred quality associated with it. It is like a female, concerning which the priest has no claim at all. One may perform labor with it and shear it like other ordinary animals. When an animal is born as a tumtum, it is considered as a firstborn of doubtful status. It may be eaten by its owner after it contracts a blemish. This applies whether it urinates from a place that appears to indicate that it is male or it urinates from a place that appears to indicate that it is female.

Connection: For the firstborn, the Rambam rules like the Rabbis of the mishna on the androginos: it “has no sanctity at all” and “may be worked and shorn,” in the mishna’s own words (נִגְזָז וְנֶעֱבָד). On the tumtum he rules like Rav Chisda (41b, Segment 9), that all agree it is a doubtful firstborn: it is eaten by its owner once it is blemished, and the priest cannot claim it. The Rambam adds that the tumtum’s manner of urinating does not resolve the doubt.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 315:1

Hebrew:

ספק בכור אין הבעלים צריכים ליתנו לכהן אלא ישהנו עד שיפול בו מום ויאכלנו ואסור בגיזה ועבודה ואם תקפו כהן אין מוציאין אותו מידו:

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

A doubtful firstborn: the owner need not give it to the priest; rather he keeps it until a blemish befalls it and eats it. It is forbidden in shearing and labor. And if a priest seized it, it is not taken from him.

Connection: This se’if spells out what “a doubtful firstborn” means in practice, and it answers the “practical difference” of 41b, Segment 2: shearing and labor are forbidden (out of doubt), and whether it must be given to a priest. Since the priest cannot prove his claim, the owner keeps the animal; it is eaten only after a blemish appears. The Rema adds that some rule a priest who seized it must return it (the Rosh, cited by the Tur), and that this is the halacha.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 315:2-3

Hebrew (315:2):

יוצא דופן ושנולד אחריו דרך רחם שניהם אינם בכור אפי’ ילדה נקבה תחלה דרך דופן וזכר אחריה דרך רחם כיון שקדמו אחר בכור שהוא טומטום הרי זה ספק בכור ויאכל במומו לבעליו ודוקא במטיל מים במקום נקבות אבל אם מטיל מים במקום זכרות בכור ודאי הוא וצריך ליתנו לכהן. (טור בשם הרא”ש ולא כרמב”ם):

English (315:2, our translation):

An animal born by caesarean section and the one born after it through the womb are both not a firstborn, even if a female was born first by caesarean and a male after it through the womb, since another preceded it. A firstborn that is a tumtum is a doubtful firstborn and is eaten in its blemish by its owner. This applies only when it urinates from the female place, but if it urinates from the male place, it is a definite firstborn and must be given to the priest (the Tur in the name of the Rosh, not like the Rambam).

Hebrew (315:3):

אנדרוגינוס הוא ספק בכור ויאכל במומו לבעלים:

English (315:3, our translation):

An androginos is a doubtful firstborn and is eaten in its blemish by its owner.

Connection: On the tumtum the Shulchan Aruch follows the Rosh against the Rambam: urinating from the male place resolves the doubt and makes it a definite firstborn, while the Rambam (Bechorot 2:5) holds that it does not. On the androginos the codes divide more sharply. The Rambam rules like the Rabbis of our mishna, that it has no sanctity at all; the Shulchan Aruch treats it as a doubtful firstborn, closer to the first tanna, who forbade slaughtering it “neither in the Temple nor in the country,” and to Rava’s question on 41b whether even Rabbi Yishmael is certain about it. In practice an androginos firstborn today is kept until it is blemished and then eaten by its owner, and shearing and working it are forbidden out of doubt.

Summary of Rulings

The firstborn of a kosher animal remains holy today, so the rulings of Yoreh De’ah 309 and 315 are practical law, and the line drawn in this mishna between a true permanent blemish and a temporary or “not choice” defect still decides when a firstborn may be eaten. The rules of the altar and of redeeming disqualified consecrated animals are preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.