Bekhorot

or to every single meal? If you say that the first meal is meant, then the question arises, has it to be given before the meal or after the meal.1 — [The treatment]2 before a meal certainly does the animal good, like medicine.3 But suppose it is given after the meal, what then?4 Also, do we give it [the treatment] before drinking or after drinking? — It certainly does it more good before drinking, like barley.5 But suppose it is given after drinking?6 [When it is given the treatment] should it be tied, or must it be unloosened?7 — It certainly does it more good when it is unloosened. But suppose it is given when it is tied? Also, [do we give it the treatment] when it is by itself or together with another [animal]?8 — It certainly does it more good when it is together with another. But suppose it is given when it is by itself? Further, [do we give it the treatment] in the city or in the field?9 — It certainly does it more good in the field. But suppose it is given in the city? R. Ashi inquired: If you will say that [it is preferable] in a field, what is the ruling as regards a garden adjacent to a field?10 Let all this stand undecided. R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAYS, etc. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac. Provided that the cure is administered at three11 intervals [during the eighty days]. Phinehas the brother of Mar Samuel inquired of Samuel: If the firstling [ate this for a cure] and did not get better, is it considered a blemish retrospectively or is it considered a blemish only from then onwards? What is the practical difference? For deciding whether the law of Sacrilege applies to redemption money,12 [if it is redeemed within the three months]. If you say therefore that it13 is a disqualifying blemish retrospectively, then he commits sacrilege.14 But if it counts as a blemish only from then onwards, there is no Sacrilege. What is the ruling? — Samuel applied [to R. Phinehas] the verse: The15 lame take the prey.16 MISHNAH. IF ITS NOSE IS PERFORATED, NIPPED, OR SLIT, OR ITS UPPER LIP PERFORATED, MUTILATED, OR SLIT [THESE ARE DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught: If the partitions of the nostrils are perforated right through from the outside, this is a disqualifying blemish, if the perforation is inside,17 it is not considered a blemish.18 IF ITS UPPER LIP WHICH IS PERFORATED, MUTILATED, OR SLIT. Said R. Papa: The outer line [edge] of its lip is meant.19 MISHNAH. IF THE INCISORS ARE BROKEN OFF OR LEVELLED [TO THE GUM] OR THE MOLARS ARE TORN OUT [COMPLETELY], [THESE ARE DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES IN A FIRSTLING]. BUT R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAID: WE DO NOT EXAMINE BEHIND THE MOLARS,20 NOR THE MOLARS THEMSELVES.21 GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught: Which are the molars?22 Inside from the molars, the molars themselves being considered like the inside. R. Joshua b. Kapuzai23 says: We are permitted to slaughter the firstling in consequence only of [a defect in] the incisors.24 R. Hanina b. Antigonus says: We pay no attention whatever to the molars.25 What does it mean?26 Moreover, is not the view of R. Joshua b. Kapuzai the same as that of the first Tanna [quoted above]? — There is a lacuna [in the Baraitha] and it should read thus: Which are regarded as the inside teeth?27 Inside from the molars, and the molars themselves, are all regarded as the inside teeth. When does this rule apply? When they were broken off or levelled [to the gum], but if they were torn away [completely], we may slaughter [the firstling as a consequence]. R. Joshua b. Kapuzai says: We must not slaughter [the firstling] except in consequence of the incisors [becoming defective]. But if the molars were torn away [completely], we must not in consequence of this, slaughter [the firstling], though they do disqualify.28 R. Hanina b. Antigonus, however, says: We do not pay any attention whatever to the molar teeth and they do not even disqualify. R. Ahadboi b. Ammi asked: Does [the law of] the loss of a limb apply to what is inside [an animal],29 or does [the law of] a loss of a limb not apply to the inside [of an animal]? To what does this query refer? If to a firstling, does not Scripture write: ‘Lame or blind’?30 If to a sacrificial animal, does not Scripture write: ‘Blind or broken’?31 I am not inquiring as regards slaughtering32 or redeeming [a sacrificial offering].33 My inquiry relates to disqualifying [the animal from the altar]. "What is the ruling? The Divine Law says: It shall be perfect to be accepted.34 This implies that if it is ‘perfect’ then it is valid [as a sacrifice], but if there is anything missing [even inside the animal], then it is not so. Or shall I say while the text ‘It shall be perfect to be accepted’, is inclusive, the text ‘There shall be no blemishes therein’ [informs us] that as a blemish is from the outside, so anything must be missing from the outside [in order to disqualify the animal]? — Come and hear: [Scripture says]: ‘And the two kidneys’35 implying that an animal with one kidney or with three kidneys [is not offered up]. And another [Baraitha] taught, [Scripture says]: ‘He shall remove it’36 which includes a sacrificial animal possessing one kidney only, [as fit for the altar]. Now, all [the authorities concerned here] hold that a living creature is not created with one kidney only, and in the case here there was a definite loss of a kidney. Shall it therefore be said that this is the point at issue, that one Master holds that a deficiency inside the animal is considered a loss [which can disqualify], whereas the other Master holds that a deficiency inside the animal is not considered a deficiency [to disqualify]? — Said R. Hiyya b. Joseph: All [the authorities] agree that a living creature can be created with one kidney only, and the deficiency inside is considered a deficiency; and still there is no difficulty.37 In one case,38 we are dealing with an animal which was created with two [kidneys] and there was a loss [of a kidney], whereas in the other case, it speaks of where it was created originally with one kidney only [and therefore the animal was not disqualified from the altar]. But is not the case [of one kidney]39 stated to be similar to the case of three kidneys; consequently as three kidneys were created originally, so one kidney was created originally?40 — Rather the point at issue here is whether a living creature can be created [with one kidney only]. One Master holds that a living creature can be created with one kidney only [and therefore an animal with one kidney is permitted for the altar] whereas the other holds that a living creature cannot be created with one kidney only.41 R. Johanan however said: All agree that a living creature [cannot be created] with one [kidney] only, and that the deficiency [of a limb] inside an animal is considered a deficiency. And still there is no difficulty [as regards the two Baraithas above]. In one case, the loss took place before it was slaughtered,42 and in the other, after the slaughtering. But even if the loss took place after the slaughtering, only before the blood was received [in a vessel] 43 is it permitted [to offer it]? when the second meal arrives, although it is after a meal (the first one), we still give it this food to eat. twenty-six and a half days and subsequently at the end of the period of twenty-seven days. There is usually a change at these three particular periods, and consequently if he did not examine the animal at these specific times, then we cannot declare that the animal had a permanent blemish. Tosaf, explains it as meaning that the examination must take place at the commencement of the eighty days, at the conclusion of the period and in the middle, a three-fold examination. greater scholar then Phinehas, yet the latter asked him a question which he confessed was beyond him. The molar is called ,nuh, (twin) from its shape, each tooth possessing two roots and looking like two. not a blemish. it. deprived of one, thereby becoming disqualified from the altar.