Bekhorot

GEMARA. It has been taught: The upper joint, [the inner part of the knee] not the lower joint [knuckle]. And the corresponding part1 in a camel is [easily] recognized. MISHNAH. IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE BLEMISHES WE MAY SLAUGHTER A FIRSTBORN ANIMAL, AND CONSECRATED ANIMALS RENDERED UNFIT [FOR THE ALTAR] IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE BLEMISHES MAY BE REDEEMED.2 GEMARA. What need is there to state this again? Has not [the Tanna] stated this in a previous part [as follows]: In consequence of these blemishes we may slaughter the first-born animal?3 — There was need [for the Tanna to state this] on account of the second clause in our Mishnah: CONSECRATED ANIMALS RENDERED UNFIT [FOR THE ALTAR] IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE BLEMISHES MAY BE REDEEMED. But surely this too is obvious, for if we may slaughter [the animal in consequence of these blemishes], is there any question about redeeming it? Rather [the explanation is as follows]: Since it stated [in a previous Mishnah]: [Ila] also added three cases [of blemishes], and the Sages said to him: We have only heard of these [already mentioned],4 the [Tanna] then proceeds [in subsequent Mishnahs] to give the opinions of individual teachers.5 Therefore he states without mentioning names in reference to all these [individual rulings]: IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE BLEMISHES WE MAY SLAUGHTER A FIRST-BORN ANIMAL, AND CONSECRATED ANIMALS RENDERED UNFIT [FOR THE ALTAR] IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE BLEMISHES MAY BE REDEEMED.6 MISHNAH. AND IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE FOLLOWING BLEMISHES WE MUST NOT SLAUGHTER A FIRSTLING EITHER IN THE TEMPLE7 OR WITHOUT THE TEMPLE:8 WHITE SPOTS ON THE CORNEA AND WATER [DRIPPING FROM THE EYE] WHEN NOT PERMANENT FEATURES, OR MOLARS WHICH HAVE BEEN BROKEN BUT NOT TORN OUT [COMPLETELY] OR [AN ANIMAL] AFFECTED WITH GARAB,9 YABELETH,10 OR HAZZAZITH,11 AN OLD [ANIMAL] OR A SICK ONE, [AN ANIMAL] OF OFFENSIVE SMELL OR APPEARANCE, OR [AN ANIMAL] WHICH WITH A TRANSGRESSION HAS BEEN COMMITTED12 OR AN ANIMAL WHICH IS KNOWN TO HAVE KILLED A HUMAN BEING ON THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS OR OF THE OWNERS.13 A TUMTUM14 OR A HERMAPHRODITE15 CAN BE SLAUGHTERED NEITHER IN THE TEMPLE NOR WITHOUT THE TEMPLE.16 R. ISHMAEL HOWEVER SAYS: THERE IS NO GREATER BLEMISH THAN THAT [OF A HERMAPHRODITE].17 BUT THE SAGES SAY: IT HAS NOT [THE LAW] OF A FIRST-BORN AND MAY BE SHORN AND WORKED WITH.18 GEMARA. And is not garab [a blemish]? Is it not written in the Scriptures: ‘or a garab’?19 And also, is not hazzazith [a blemish]? Is it not written in the Scriptures ‘or yallefeth’?20 For it has been taught: Garab is the same as heres,21 yallefeth is the same as the Egyptian hazzazith? And Resh Lakish explained: Why is it called yallefeth? Because it continues to cling22 [to the body] to the day of death. Now there is no difficulty as regards [different meanings of] the hazzazith [of the text] and the hazzazith [of our Mishnah], as here the text refers to Egyptian hazzazith and [the Mishnah] refers to a general hazzazith. But does not the [interpretation of] garab [in the text] and garab [of the Mishnah] present a contradiction? — The [different interpretations of] garab of the text and garab [of our Mishnah] also offer no difficulty, for in one case it refers to where it is moist and in the other to where it is dry, the moist healing whereas the dry does not heal, [and therefore it is a blemish]. But does the moist garab heal? Is it not written: The Lord will smite thee with the boil of Egypt and with the emerods and with the garab [scab] and with heres [itch]23 and since it says: ‘And with heres’ [a dry eruption], then the garab [scab] must be moist, and the text continues: ‘Whereof thou canst not be healed’? — Rather explain that there are three kinds of garab. The garab of the text24 refers [to a scab] which is dry both inside and outside. The garab of our Mishnah refers to where it is moist both inside and outside. The garab of Egypt25 is where it is dry inside and moist outside, for R. Joshua b. Levi said: The boil which the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians was moist outside and dry inside, for it is written: And it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast.26 AN OLD ANIMAL OR A SICK ONE OR AN ANIMAL OF OFFENSIVE SMELL OR SIGHT. Whence is it proven?27 — Our Rabbis taught: Scripture says: Of28 the flock, ‘or of the sheep’, ‘or of the goats’, [intimating] the exclusion of an old [animal], a sick one, and one with an offensive [smell or appearance]. And all [the three restrictive texts] are necessary. For if the Divine Law had only written [one restrictive text] [I would say it is] to exclude the case of an old animal [from Temple sacrifice], I might have thought that this was because it cannot recover its former strength, but as regards a sick animal, since it may recover its health, I might have said that it is not so.29 Or if the Divine Law had only written [one restrictive text] [I would say it is]30 to exclude the case of a sick animal, I might have thought that the reason was because it is not usual for an animal to be ill, but in regard to an old animal, since it is a usual thing,31 I might have said it is not so. And if the Divine Law had written [two restrictive texts], [I might have thought that] they only excluded the two cases where [the animals] are weak, but as regards an animal with an offensive smell or sight but which is not [physically] weak, I might have said that it was not so. And even if [a scriptural text had been written] to exclude the case of [an animal] with an offensive smell or appearance, I might have thought that the reason was because it was repulsive, but in the case of the other animals which are not repulsive, I might have said that it was not so. There is need therefore [for the three restrictive texts]. OR AN ANIMAL WITH WHICH A TRANSGRESSION HAD BEEN COMMITTED etc. Whence is it proven [that we must not slaughter it in the Temple]? — Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says]: Of the cattle’32 intimating the exclusion of an animal which covered33 [a woman] and the animal that was covered [by a man]; ‘even of the herd’34 [intimates] the exclusion of an animal which was worshipped as an idol; ‘of the flock’ [intimates] the exclusion of one designated for idolatrous purposes. The text ‘or of the flock’ intimates one which has gored a person [to death]. But are not these35 liable to the penalty of death? — The reference here is to cases where there is only one witness or where the owners confess.36 [A TUMTUM OR A HERMAPHRODITE]. Now we quite understand a tumtum being disqualified for the Temple, the reason being in case it is a female.37 It is also disqualified without the Temple, in case it is a male and not blemished.38 As regards a hermaphrodite also, we understand its being disqualified for the Temple, in case it is a male. But in regard to slaughtering it without the Temple, granted that it is a male, let it at least be regarded as having a depression at its female genitals, in consequence of which he may slaughter the animal? — Said Abaye: Scripture says: ‘Or broken’, ‘or haruz’,39 [intimating] that ‘haruz’ must be like ‘broken’; just as ‘broken’ must be in a bone, [in order to disqualify], so ‘haruz’ must be in a bone, [but not in a fleshy part]. Raba says: Even without [the comparison] with ‘broken’, you could not say that a depression in the fleshy part is considered a blemish. For if you were to assume that a depression in the fleshy part is a blemish, since a Master said: garab,40 [a dry scab], is the same as heres,41 [a dry scab] is cut into [deeper than the surface],42 for Scripture says: ‘And the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin’,43 like the sun-lit spots which have a semblance of being deeper than the shaded spots [which appear to be raised]. Consequently, let Scripture write haruz44 and then there would be no need to write garab, for I would argue, if haruz [in the fleshy part] which is not repulsive is yet regarded as a blemish, how much more so ought this to be the case with garab, which is repulsive? The Divine Law therefore mentions garab, [intimating] that a depression in the fleshy part is not a blemish. 45 R. ISHMAEL SAYS: THERE IS NO GREATER BLEMISH [THAN THAT OF A HERMAPHRODITE]. He does not hold the opinion of Abaye, for we do not draw the analogy between haruz to ‘broken’.46 He also does not hold the opinion of Raba, for it may be that a depression in the fleshy part is not a blemish where the haruz is not distinguishable, but where it is distinguishable,47 we apply the scriptural text ‘Ill blemish’. 48 Another interpretation (Rashi) is: The ‘arkub of a camel is noticeable, as its tail reaches that part. V. Hul., Sonc. ed., 76a. One might therefore have thought that the Rabbis do not accept as blemishes also those cited by these teachers. was therefore need for stating the Mishnah. derived from it. uncertain whether we should regard the animal as a male or a female. case of a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, we may not slaughter it in the Temple or outside the Temple in consequence of this defect, as it is not a genuine blemish, unlike the view of R. Ishmael which follows. slaughtered, but shearing or working with it is prohibited. Onkelos ;hpku . and moist. the altar. regarded as a disability. exempt from the fine; and the stoning of an animal is a fine on its owner. hullin into the Temple court. applies to a bone.