## Bekhorot Daf 40b

###### Bekhorot 40b:1
[Bekhorot 40b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:1)

וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי שֶׁלְּחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן עוֹדֵף עַל הָעֶלְיוֹן, שָׁאַל רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לַחֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues this version of the mishna: **And** there was **also an incident where the lower jaw** of the firstborn **protruded beyond the upper** jaw, and **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asked the Sages** for a ruling, **and they said: That is a blemish** that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.


###### Bekhorot 40b:2
[Bekhorot 40b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:2)

וְהָא גַּבֵּי אָדָם הוּא דִּתְנַן: שְׂפָתוֹ הָעֶלְיוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, אוֹ שֶׁתַּחְתּוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. גַּבֵּי אָדָם הוּא דִּכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן״, אִישׁ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אֲבָל בִּבְהֵמָה לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** it is **with regard to** the blemishes of **a person that we learned** in a mishna (44a): If **his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower** lip **or** his **lower** lip **protrudes beyond the upper** lip, **that is a blemish.** And **it is** only **with regard to a person that it is written: “Whatever man of the seed of Aaron”** (Leviticus 22:4), which teaches that in order to be fit for the Temple service a priest must be **a man who is equal to the seed of Aaron,** i.e., he has an ordinary appearance like other priests. **But** this requirement is **not** stated **with regard to an animal,** and therefore an animal should not be considered blemished if its lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip.


###### Bekhorot 40b:3
[Bekhorot 40b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:3)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאִית בַּהּ עֶצֶם, הָא דְּלֵית בַּהּ עֶצֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** in response: That is **not difficult; this** mishna is referring to a case **where** the lower jaw **contains a bone** that is longer than the upper jaw, in which case it is a blemish even for an animal, whereas **that** mishna is referring to a case **where** the lower jaw **does not contain a bone,** and therefore it is a blemish only in the case of a person.


###### Bekhorot 40b:4
[Bekhorot 40b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** אוֹזֶן הַגְּדִי הָיְתָה כְּפוּלָה, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא עֶצֶם אֶחָד — מוּם, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם — אֵינוֹ מוּם. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: זְנַב הַגְּדִי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר, וְשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שְׁלֹשׁ חוּלְיוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **the ear of the kid** that **was doubled** and appeared like two ears, **the Sages said: When** the additional ear **is one bone,** i.e., it has its own cartilage, it is **a blemish; when it does not have** its own **bone it is not a blemish. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel says:** In the case of **the tail of a kid that is similar to** that **of a pig or** one that is so short **that it does not have three joints, that is a blemish.**


###### Bekhorot 40b:5
[Bekhorot 40b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:5)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פִּיו בָּלוּם וְרַגְלָיו מְבוּלָּמוֹת, מֵחֲמַת הָרוּחַ — אֵינוֹ מוּם, מֵחֲמַת הָעֶצֶם — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. אׇזְנָיו כְּפוּלוֹת, בְּחַסְחֲסוּת אַחַת — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, בִּשְׁתֵּי חַסְחֲסֻיוֹת — אֵינוֹ מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught:** In a case where **the mouth** of a firstborn animal is **swollen, and** likewise, if **its legs are swollen,** the following distinction applies: If it is swollen **due to the wind,** i.e., it simply swelled up, **it is not a blemish.** If it is swollen **due to** a particularly large **bone, this is a blemish.** If **its ears are doubled,** in a case **where** it has **one cartilage, this is a blemish;** in a case **where** it has **two cartilages, this is not a blemish.**


###### Bekhorot 40b:6
[Bekhorot 40b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:6)

רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: זְנַב הַגְּדִי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא תֵּימָא דְּקַטִּינָא, אֶלָּא דִּכְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲלִימָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabban Gamliel says:** With regard to **the tail of a kid that is similar to** that **of a pig,** that is a blemish. **Rav Pappa says: Do not say** that it is a blemish only **where** its tail is **thin** like that of a pig; **rather,** if it is **round,** i.e., curly like a pig’s tail, **even though it is thick,** like the tail of a goat, this is considered a blemish.


###### Bekhorot 40b:7
[Bekhorot 40b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:7)

אוֹ שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שָׁלֹשׁ חוּלְיוֹת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בַּגְּדִי — שְׁתַּיִם הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, שָׁלֹשׁ אֵינוֹ מוּם. בַּטָּלֶה — שָׁלֹשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, אַרְבַּע אֵינוֹ מוּם. מֵיתִיבִי: בַּגְּדִי — אַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, שְׁתַּיִם אֵינוֹ מוּם. בַּטָּלֶה — שְׁתַּיִם הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, שָׁלֹשׁ אֵינוֹ מוּם. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרַב הוּנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna stated: **Or** if the tail of a kid is so short **that it does not have three joints,** that is a blemish. **Rav Huna says: In** the case of the tail of **a kid,** if it has **two** joints, **that is a blemish;** if it has **three** joints, **it is not a blemish. With regard to a lamb,** if it has **three** joints, **that is a blemish;** if it has **four** joints, **it is not a blemish.** The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **In** the case of **a kid,** if its tail has **one** joint, **that is a blemish;** if it has **two** joints, **it is not a blemish. With regard to a lamb,** if it has **two** joints, **that is a blemish;** if it has **three** joints, **it is not a blemish.** The Gemara concludes: This is **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rav Huna.**


###### Bekhorot 40b:8
[Bekhorot 40b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:8)

וְרַב הוּנָא, מַתְנִיתִין אַטְעִיתֵיהּ; אִיהוּ סָבַר: מִדְּרֵישָׁא בִּגְדִי — סֵיפָא נָמֵי בִּגְדִי, וְלָא הִיא — רֵישָׁא בִּגְדִי, וְסֵיפָא בְּטָלֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Rav Huna** issued his statement because **the mishna misled him. He thought** that **from** the fact **that the first clause** is referring **to a kid,** whose tail is similar to that of a pig, it can be inferred that **the latter clause,** with its mention of three joints, is **also** referring **to a kid. But it is not so.** Rather, **the first clause** is referring **to a kid, but the latter clause** is referring **to a lamb,** as explained in the *baraita*.


###### Bekhorot 40b:9
[Bekhorot 40b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֶת שֶׁיַּבֶּלֶת בְּעֵינָיו, וְשֶׁנִּפְגַּם עֶצֶם יָדוֹ וְרַגְלוֹ, וְשֶׁנִּפְרַק עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל פִּיו, עֵינוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה, אׇזְנוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה, בַּמַּרְאֶה אֲבָל לֹא בַּמִּדָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁתֵּי בֵּיצָיו, אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה כִּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁבַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says** that these are blemished animals: One **that has a wart in its eyes; and** one **where the bone of its foreleg or hind leg was damaged; and** one **where the bone of its mouth,** i.e., its jaw, **was dislocated;** and an animal with **one of its eyes large and one small,** or **one of its ears large and one small** where the difference in size is detectable **by sight, but not** if it is detectable only **by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says:** An animal is blemished if with regard to **its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his** opinion.


###### Bekhorot 40b:10
[Bekhorot 40b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:10)

**גְּמָ׳** לְמֵימְרָא דְּיַבֶּלֶת הָוֵי מוּמָא? וּרְמִינְהוּ: וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן לֹא בְּמִקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה — בַּעַל גָּרָב וּבַעַל יַבֶּלֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that if an animal has a wart in its eyes, it is blemished. The Gemara asks: Is this **to say that a wart is** considered **a blemish? And** one can **raise a contradiction** from the mishna (41a): **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,** as these are not considered full-fledged blemishes…an animal **with boils** that are moist inside and out, **and** one **with warts.**


###### Bekhorot 40b:11
[Bekhorot 40b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:11)

וְתִסְבְּרָא? הָא כְּתִיבָא ״יַבֶּלֶת״ בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! אֶלָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּגוּפוֹ, הָא — בְּעֵינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And** how can **you understand** that a wart is not a blemish? After all, **a wart is written in the Torah** in its list of blemishes (see Leviticus 22:22). **Rather,** it is **not difficult,** as **that** mishna, which states that a wart is not a full-fledged blemish, is referring to a blemish **on** the animal’s **body,** whereas **this** mention of a wart in the Torah and the mishna here is referring to a wart **in its eye.**


###### Bekhorot 40b:12
[Bekhorot 40b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:12)

מִכְּדֵי קְרָא סְתָמָא, מָה לִי בְּגוּפוֹ וּמָה לִי בְּעֵינוֹ? אֶלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאִית בַּהּ עֶצֶם, הָא דְּלֵית בַּהּ עֶצֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Now** consider that **the verse** is written in **an unspecified** manner. **What** difference is it **to me** if the wart is **on its body, and what** difference is it **to me** if the wart is **in its eye?** How is this distinction derived from the verse? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: **Rather,** it is **not difficult,** as **this** is referring to a wart **that has a bone,**and **that** is referring to a wart **that does not have a bone.**


###### Bekhorot 40b:13
[Bekhorot 40b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:13)

דִּקְרָא — דְּאִית בַּהּ עֶצֶם, מַתְנִיתִין — דְּלֵית בַּהּ עֶצֶם; בְּעֵינוֹ — הָוֵי מוּמָא, בְּגוּפָא — לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: The wart mentioned **in the verse** and the mishna here is one **that has a bone,** whereas the wart addressed by **the mishna** there is one **that does not have a bone.** Consequently, if the wart is **in its eye, it is a blemish,** as stated in the verse and the mishna here, but if it is **on** its **body, it is not a blemish,** although the animal is disqualified from being sacrificed, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna there.


###### Bekhorot 40b:14
[Bekhorot 40b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:14)

וְלֵית לַהּ עֶצֶם בְּגוּפָא פְּסוּלָה? הֲרֵי תִּלְתּוּל בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בַּעֲלֵי הַתִּילּוּלִין פְּסוּלִין בָּאָדָם וּכְשֵׁירִין בַּבְּהֵמָה! אֶלָּא, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּעֵינוֹ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בַּשָּׁחוֹר, הָא — בַּלָּבָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to a wart that **does not have a bone** and is **on the body,** is the animal **disqualified** from being sacrificed? **It is merely hanging** flesh, **as we learned** in a mishna (45b) that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** With regard to those **with** flesh or skin that **hangs** from their body, such a blemish **disqualifies a person, but with regard to** such **an animal,** it is **fit. Rather,** both **this** mishna here **and that** mishna there are referring to a wart **in the** animal’s **eye, and** it is **not difficult,** as **this** mishna is referring to a wart **in the black** of the eye, the pupil, whereas **that** mishna is referring to a wart **in the white** of the eye.


###### Bekhorot 40b:15
[Bekhorot 40b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:15)

וְהָא אֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן! אֶלָּא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּלָּבָן, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — דְּאִית בַּהּ שֵׂעָר, הָא — דְּלֵית בַּהּ שֵׂעָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** it has been established that **there are no blemishes in the white** part of the eye, which indicates that the animal is not even disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar. **Rather,** both **this** statement that there are no blemishes in the white of the eye **and that** ruling of the mishna that a wart disqualifies the animal from being sacrificed are referring to a wart **in the white** part of the eye. **And Reish Lakish says:** It is **not difficult; this** is referring to a wart **that has a hair,** and therefore the animal is unfit for the altar, whereas **that** statement is referring to a case **where** the wart **does not have a hair.** As for the mishna here, which rules that a wart is a full-fledged blemish, it is referring to a wart in the pupil of the eye, as explained.


###### Bekhorot 40b:16
[Bekhorot 40b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:16)

עֵינוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל, קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches with regard to an animal where **one of its eyes** is **large** and one is small that this is a blemish. In this regard, it is **taught** in a *baraita*: When the mishna states the term **large,** it means the eye is as large **as** the eye **of a calf,** and when it states the term **small,** it means it is as small **as** that of **a goose.**


###### Bekhorot 40b:17
[Bekhorot 40b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:17)

אׇזְנוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְכוּ׳. וְרַבָּנַן עַד כַּמָּה? תַּנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ אֵינָהּ לַשְּׁנִיָּה אֶלָּא כְּפוֹל — כְּשֵׁירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: Or **one of its ears** is **large** and one is small, which is detectable by sight, but not if it is detectable only by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal is blemished if with regard to its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his opinion. The Gemara asks: **And** according to **the Rabbis, how large** can the difference between the two testicles be without this discrepancy being considered a blemish? The Gemara answers that it **is taught** in a *baraita* that ***Aḥerim* say: Even** if **the second,** smaller testicle is **no** bigger **than a bean,** the animal **is fit.**


###### Bekhorot 40b:18
[Bekhorot 40b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/40b:18)

**מַתְנִי׳** זְנַב הָעֵגֶל — שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַגַּעַת לָעַרְקוֹב, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: כֹּל מַרְבִּית עֲגָלִים כֵּן, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיְּהוּ מְגַדְּלִין — הֵן נִמְתָּחוֹת. אֵיזֶהוּ עַרְקוֹב שֶׁאָמְרוּ? רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: בְּעַרְקוֹב שֶׁבְּאֶמְצַע הַיָּרֵךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **the tail of a calf that does not reach the leg joint [*la’arkov*], the Sages said:** It is a blemish, because **all growth of calves** is in **this** manner:**As long as they grow,** their tails **are extended** beneath the leg joint. **Which is the leg joint** about **which** the Sages **spoke? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says:** They are referring **to** the **leg joint that is in the middle of the thigh.**