041a - על אלו מומין פרק ששי בכורות דף מא, ע"א

GEMARA: It was taught: The upper [joint] contracted and the lower [joint] did not contract, and opposite it, in a camel, it is noticeable.

גמ' קפץ העליון - the upper joint contracted – that is, its knee, the place where the shin and the thigh join; and the lower [joint], near the hooves, did not contract.

כנגדו בגמל ניכר - for the camel has, opposite the knee, a bone that protrudes outward. This is my teacher’s explanation in Shechitas Chullin. Another explanation I heard: for example, that the camel’s tail reaches that joint.

MISHNAH: For these blemishes one may slaughter the firstborn, and disqualified consecrated animals are redeemed on account of them.^[1]

GEMARA: Why do I need this again?

He already taught it in the opening clause [of the chapter]: For these blemishes one may slaughter the firstborn!

The latter clause was needed: disqualified consecrated animals are redeemed on account of them.

But this too is obvious! We may slaughter [a bechor for them] – need it be said that we may redeem [consecrated animals]?

Rather, since [the Tanna] taught that [Ila] added three and they said to him: We have not heard these,^[2] and he went on to teach [blemishes stated] by individual [Tannaim], he states it without attribution for all of them: For these blemishes one may slaughter the firstborn, and disqualified consecrated animals are redeemed on account of them.

וקתני ואתי דיחידאה - because we said above, we have not heard etc. [any but] these first ones that he listed in Yavneh; and then the Tanna went on to blemishes that are not stated without attribution but by individuals, such as Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus and Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel, and one might think that the Sages disagree with them. Therefore he went back and stated without attribution about all of them: For these blemishes one may slaughter etc.

MISHNAH: And these are [the flaws] for which one may slaughter neither in the Mikdash nor in the country:^[3] a white spot [in the eye]; watery eyes that are not permanent; inner teeth that were chipped but not uprooted; one with a garav rash, one with a wart, one with a chazazis scab; an old one, a sick one, a foul-smelling one; one with which a sin was committed; and one that killed a person – on the testimony of one witness or of the owner.

מתני' ובעל יבלת - as we established above etc.: where it has no bone, for if there is bone it is a full blemish; and it has no hair, and it is on the white of the eye; for if it is on its body it is merely a lump.

גרב וחזזית - kinds of boils.

מזוהם - foul-smelling.

ושנעבדה בו עבירה - it was used for bestiality.

או שהמית אדם ע"פ עד אחד - there is only one witness, whether to the bestiality or to the goring.

ע"פ עצמו - there is no witness, but the owners said so; for if there were two witnesses to the matter it would be stoned, and it would be forbidden even for benefit.

And a tumtum or an androginos^[4] [may be slaughtered] neither in the Mikdash nor in the country.

וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס - they are possibly male, and holy; possibly female, and not holy.

(Rabbi Shimon) says: You have no blemish greater than this.

אין לך מום גדול מזה - this refers to the androginos: the female place counts as a blemish, and it is like a blemished bechor, which is slaughtered in the country and forbidden in shearing and in work.

And the Sages say: It is not a bechor; rather, it may be shorn and worked.

וחכ"א אינו בכור - for it is a creature unto itself, and it may be shorn and worked.

GEMARA: And garav is not [a blemish]? But garav is written in the Torah!^[5]

גמ' וגרב לא - is it not a full blemish?

והכתיב גרב באורייתא - (Vayikra 22:22) regarding blind or broken, where it is written: or garav or yalefes.

And chazazis is not? But yalefes is written in the Torah!

ותו חזזית לא - it is a full blemish, for it is written in the Torah!

And it was taught: Garav is cheres; yalefes is the Egyptian chazazis.

זה חרס - a boil that is hard like earthenware.

חזזית המצרית - the boil that was brought upon the Egyptians.

And Reish Lakish said: Why is it called yalefes? Because it clings on until the day of death.

מלפפת - it sticks to him, as we render in Targum (Shemos 36) ‘and he joined’ as ולפיף.

Granted, chazazis against chazazis is no difficulty: here [in the Torah] it is the Egyptian chazazis, there [in our Mishnah] it is ordinary chazazis.

But garav against garav is a difficulty!

Garav against garav is also no difficulty: this is the wet kind, that is the dry kind. The wet kind heals; the dry kind does not heal.

And the wet kind heals? But it is written: Hashem will strike you with the boil of Egypt, etc., and since it is written and with cheres, the garav mentioned there is the wet kind – and it says which you will not be able to heal!^[6]

Rather, there are three [kinds]: that of the verse [of blemishes] is dry both inside and outside; that of our Mishnah is wet outside and inside; that of Egypt is dry inside and wet outside, as it is written: And it became a boil breaking out in blisters on man.

אלא תלתא גרב הוו דקרא - regarding blemishes, from which we expound this is cheres: dry inside and outside.

דמצרים - that is, the one in the curses, and with garav and with cheres: dry inside and wet outside. And since it is dry inside it does not heal, and if it were on a bechor it would also be a full blemish.

דמתני' - wet inside and wet outside.

פורח - that is, what appears on top; for something that protrudes is called ‘breaking out.’

וכתיב אבעבועות - which is a term of welling up, implying that on the outside it was wet.

And the old, the sick and the foul-smelling:^[7]

From where are these matters [derived]?

מנא הני מילי - that one may not slaughter it in the Mikdash.

For the Rabbis taught: ‘From the flock, from the sheep, or from the goats’ – to exclude the old, the sick and the foul-smelling.^[8]

מן הצאן מן הכשבים - the verse is written in Vayikra: And if his offering is from the flock, from the sheep or from the goats, etc.; we expound ‘from the flock’ – and not all the flock, and so with all of them.

And [all three] are needed. For if the Merciful One had written [only] to exclude the old, [I would say that is] because it never becomes healthy again; but the sick, which can become healthy again, I would say not.

And if He had written [only] to exclude the sick, [that is] because it is not the natural way; but the old, which is the natural way, I would say not.

And if the Merciful One had written two, [I would say they exclude] these because they are weak; but the foul-smelling, which is not weak, I would say not.

And if [He had written only] to exclude the foul-smelling, because it is repulsive, these, which are not repulsive, I would say not. [So all three] are needed.

And one with which a sin was committed, etc.:^[9]

From where are these matters [derived]?

For the Rabbis taught: ‘From the animals’ – to exclude one that mated with a person or was mated by a person; ‘from the cattle’ – to exclude one that was worshipped; ‘from the flock’ – to exclude one set aside [for idolatry]; ‘and from the flock’ – to exclude the gorer.

נעבד - which they made into an object of idol worship.

מוקצה - which was designated and set aside for the needs of idol worship.

נוגח - [gored] a person and he died.

But these are liable to be put to death!

ופרכינן והני בני קטלא נינהו - and we challenge: but these are liable to be put to death – referring to the one that mated or was mated, and the gorer.

[The Mishnah speaks of a case known] by one witness or by the owner.

And [the Gemara] answers: where there is only one witness to the matter, or the owners themselves admitted on their own; for then the animals are no longer stoned, since one who admits to a fine is exempt.^[10]

Granted a tumtum: not in the Mikdash, for perhaps it is female; not in the country, for perhaps it is male and has no blemish.

דילמא נקבה היא - and he would offer it as a bechor, though he does not consecrate it, and it is not holy with the sanctity of a firstborn; so he would be bringing chullin into the Temple courtyard.

But an androginos – granted, not in the Mikdash, for perhaps it is female; but not in the country either? Even if it is male, let its female organ count as a gash, and let one slaughter it on account of that!^[11]

וישחט עליה - for charutz is written in the Torah, as it is written (Vayikra 22:22): blind, or broken, or gashed.

Abaye said: The verse says or gashed or broken – a gash is like a break: just as a break is in a place of bone, so a gash [that counts as a blemish] is in a place of bone.

Rava said: Even without ‘broken’ you cannot say that a gash in a place of flesh is a blemish. For if it should enter your mind that it is a blemish – since [the beraisa] said garav is cheres, it is a gash, as it is written and its appearance is deeper than the skin, like the appearance of sunlight, which is deeper than the shade.^[12]

כיון דאמר מר גרב זה החרס - it is certainly a sunken gash, [for] it is a lesion.

וכתיב - regarding lesions (ibid. 13): ‘deep’, meaning low, like the appearance of sunlight, which looks deep, lower than the shade. Therefore let [the Torah] write charitz, which would imply that even in a place of flesh it is a blemish, even though it is not repulsive like garav – and all the more so garav.

Then let the Merciful One write gashed, and garav would not be needed, and I would say: if a gash, which is not repulsive, is a blemish, is garav, which is repulsive, not all the more so?

The Merciful One wrote garav to tell us that a gash in a place of flesh is not a blemish.

(Rabbi Yishmael says: You have no blemish greater than this):^[13]

He does not hold like Abaye, [for] we do not say that a gash is like a break;

nor does he hold like Rava: perhaps [Rava meant] where it is not noticeable, but where it is noticeable, we apply to it [the words] a bad blemish…

דילמא - we also infer that a gash in a place of flesh is not a blemish where the gash is not so noticeable, like the female organ of an animal.

[ה"ג גרב זה החרס - It is difficult: why did [the Gemara] not ask from that garav in the curses of Mishneh Torah, where it is written with garav and with cheres? That garav is not cheres, and it is a permanent blemish, for it is written of it which you will not be able to heal. One can answer that [the beraisa] means that here [the verse] speaks in the manner of ‘this, and even that’:^[14] garav, which is cheres, dry outside and inside, is a blemish, and even yalefes, which is wet outside and dry inside, as we say shortly, is also a blemish. And regarding the curses it speaks in the manner of ‘this, and even that’: that he will be struck with garav, and even with cheres, which is harsher.]

אלא תלתא הוו כו' - [The garav] of the verse regarding blemishes, from which we expound this is cheres, is dry inside and outside; that of Egypt is wet outside and dry inside; and since it is dry inside it does not heal. And if the Egyptians were healed of it, perhaps it was a miracle. And one may wonder: the boil of Egypt written at the start of the verse of curses – which is it? For garav and cheres, which have no cure, are written in that very verse.

Notes

1. 1. This Mishnah closes the chapter’s long list of blemishes. A bechor (the firstborn male of a kosher animal) belongs to the kohen; unblemished, it is offered on the altar, but once it has a permanent blemish it is slaughtered and eaten anywhere (“in the country”). Pesulei hamukdashin are ordinary consecrated animals that became blemished; they are redeemed, and the money buys a new offering.
2. 2. The Mishnah on 40a: Ila listed blemishes in Yavneh and the Sages agreed with him; he added three more, and they said: “We have not heard [any but] these.” The Mishnah then lists blemishes stated by individual Tannaim, so the closing line states, as the accepted ruling, that all of them count [Bechoros 40a].
3. 3. These are not full blemishes, so a bechor with them may not be slaughtered and eaten outside the Mikdash as a blemished animal; yet they still bar it from the altar. It must therefore be kept until it develops a real blemish.
4. 4. A tumtum is an animal whose genitals are covered, so its sex is unknown; an androginos has both male and female organs. Since only a male is a bechor, each is a doubtful bechor.
5. 5. Vayikra 22:22 lists the blemishes that disqualify an offering: “blind, or broken, or gashed, or with a wart, or garav, or yalefes.” Since the Torah calls garav and yalefes blemishes, how can the Mishnah say that they do not permit slaughtering the bechor?
6. 6. Devarim 28:27, among the curses: “Hashem will strike you with the boil of Egypt … and with garav and with cheres, which you will not be able to heal.” Cheres is the dry kind; since it is listed beside garav, that garav must be the wet kind – and yet it too cannot be healed.
7. 7. The Mishnah listed an old, sick or foul-smelling bechor among those that may be slaughtered neither in the Mikdash nor outside: none of these is a bodily blemish, so it does not permit slaughter outside, yet such an animal may not be offered either. The Gemara asks for the source that they are unfit for the altar.
8. 8. Vayikra 1:10: “And if his offering is from the flock, from the sheep or from the goats.” Each “from” (min) is read as limiting – some of the flock, but not all of it – and each limitation excludes another kind of animal.
9. 9. The clause covers an animal used for bestiality, or one that killed a person, where this is known only from one witness or from the owner’s admission. With two witnesses a beis din would stone it; here it is not stoned, but it is still unfit for the altar, and since it has no bodily blemish it may not be slaughtered outside either.
10. 10. One who admits on his own to an act that carries a knas (a fine) is exempt from it; only witnesses can impose it. The stoning of the animal, which costs the owner its value, is treated like such a fine, so the owner’s admission cannot bring it about.
11. 11. Charutz, a gash or slit, is one of the blemishes listed in Vayikra 22:22. If the androginos is a male, its female opening is like a slit, so it should count as a blemish and permit slaughter outside the Mikdash.
12. 12. Vayikra 13:25, about a tzaraas mark: “its appearance is deeper than the skin” – it looks sunken, as a patch of sunlight looks deeper than the shade beside it. A cheres sore is likewise a sunken gash in the flesh; so if a gash in flesh were a blemish, the Torah would not need to list garav.
13. 13. The Mishnah’s view that the female organ of an androginos is the greatest blemish, so it is a blemished bechor: slaughtered and eaten outside the Mikdash, but forbidden in shearing and work. The Gemara asks how this fits with Abaye and Rava, who both held that a gash in flesh is no blemish.
14. 14. ‘Zo af zo’ (‘this, and even that’) is a way of listing in which the second item goes beyond the first. Read so, the two verses need not mean the same garav.