## Bekhorot Daf 39a

###### Bekhorot 39a:1
[Bekhorot 39a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:1)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:2
[Bekhorot 39a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:2)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:3
[Bekhorot 39a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:3)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:4
[Bekhorot 39a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:4)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:5
[Bekhorot 39a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:5)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:6
[Bekhorot 39a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:6)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:7
[Bekhorot 39a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:7)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:8
[Bekhorot 39a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:8)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:9
[Bekhorot 39a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:9)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:10
[Bekhorot 39a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:10)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:11
[Bekhorot 39a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:11)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:12
[Bekhorot 39a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:12)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:13
[Bekhorot 39a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:13)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:14
[Bekhorot 39a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:14)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:15
[Bekhorot 39a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:15)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:16
[Bekhorot 39a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:16)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:17
[Bekhorot 39a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:17)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:18
[Bekhorot 39a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:18)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:19
[Bekhorot 39a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:19)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:20
[Bekhorot 39a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:20)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:21
[Bekhorot 39a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:21)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:22
[Bekhorot 39a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:22)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 39a:23
[Bekhorot 39a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/39a:23)

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

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