## Bekhorot Daf 41a

###### Bekhorot 41a:1
[Bekhorot 41a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנָא: קֶפֶץ הָעֶלְיוֹן וְלֹא קֶפֶץ הַתַּחְתּוֹן, וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ בְּגָמָל נִיכָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the case in the mishna of the tail of a calf that does not reach the leg joint, it is **taught** in a *baraita*: This leg joint is **the upper joint,** between the thighbone and the tibia, **and not the lower joint,** between the middle and lower bones. **And** with regard to this upper joint, **the corresponding** bone **in** the leg of **a camel is conspicuous,** but in a calf it is not noticeable from the outside.


###### Bekhorot 41a:2
[Bekhorot 41a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, וּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **For these blemishes** enumerated in the previous *mishnayot*, **one slaughters the firstborn** outside the Temple **and disqualified consecrated** animals **may be redeemed on their account.**


###### Bekhorot 41a:3
[Bekhorot 41a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר! סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא: פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶן. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא — מִישְׁחָט שָׁחֲטִינַן, מִיפְרָק מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **this additional** statement that for these blemishes one slaughters the firstborn outside the Temple? It was already **taught** in **the first clause,** at the beginning of the chapter: **For these blemishes, one may slaughter the firstborn** animal outside the Temple. The Gemara answers that **the latter clause** of the mishna was **necessary: Disqualified consecrated** animals **may be redeemed due to** these blemishes. The Gemara asks: But **this too** is **obvious;** if **one may slaughter** a firstborn due to these blemishes, **is** it **necessary** to state that **one may redeem them?**


###### Bekhorot 41a:4
[Bekhorot 41a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:4)

אֶלָּא, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה הוֹסִיף, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, וְקָתָנֵי וְאָתֵי דִּיחִידָאָה, וְקָא סָתֵים לַהּ בְּכוּלְּהוּ: עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, since** a previous mishna **taught** that Ila **added three** additional blemishes, **and** the Sages **said to him: We did not hear** about **those, and** then the *tanna* of the mishna **proceeded to teach** *halakhot* in the name **of individual** opinions, those of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, one might have thought that the *halakha* is not in accordance with their rulings. Therefore, he states **an unattributed** ruling in this mishna **with regard to all their** statements: **For** all **these blemishes** enumerated in the previous *mishnayot*, **one slaughters the firstborn, and disqualified consecrated** animals **may be redeemed due to them.** This indicates that the *halakha* is in accordance with all of these individual opinions.


###### Bekhorot 41a:5
[Bekhorot 41a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן, לֹא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה: חֲוַורְוָר, וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁאֵין קְבוּעִין, וְחוּטִין הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ — אֲבָל לֹא שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ, וּבַעַל גָּרָב, וּבַעַל יַבֶּלֶת, וּבַעַל חֲזָזִית, זָקֵן, וְחוֹלֶה, וּמְזוֹהָם, וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה, וְשֶׁהֵמִית אָדָם — עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **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: Pale spots** on the eye **and tears** streaming from the eye **that are not constant; and internal gums that were damaged but that were not extracted; and** an animal **with boils** that are moist inside and out **[*garav*]; and** an animal **with warts; and** an animal **with boils [*ḥazazit*];** and **an old or sick** animal, **or** one with **a foul odor; and** one **with which a transgression was performed,** e.g., it copulated with a person or was the object of bestiality; **and** one **that killed a person.** In these latter two cases, the act of bestiality or killing became known **on the basis** of the testimony **of one witness or on the basis of the owner.**


###### Bekhorot 41a:6
[Bekhorot 41a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:6)

וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, לֹא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר, אֶלָּא נִגְזָז וְנֶעֱבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** one does not slaughter **a *tumtum*,** whose sexual organs are concealed, **and a hermaphrodite [*ve’anderoginos*],** which has both male and female sexual organs, **neither in the Temple nor in** the rest of **the country. Rabbi Shimon says: You have no blemish greater than that,** and it may be slaughtered. **And the Rabbis say:** The halakhic status of a hermaphrodite **is not** that of **a firstborn; rather,** its halakhic status is that of a non-sacred animal that may **be shorn and utilized for labor.**


###### Bekhorot 41a:7
[Bekhorot 41a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** וְגָרָב לָא? וְהָכְתִיב ״גָּרָב״ בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! וַחֲזָזִית לָא? וְהָכְתִיב ״יַלֶּפֶת״ בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! וְתַנְיָא: ״גָּרָב״ — זֶה הַחֶרֶס, ״יַלֶּפֶת״ — זוֹ חֲזָזִית הַמִּצְרִית, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״יַלֶּפֶת״? שֶׁמְּלַפֶּפֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת עַד יוֹם הַמִּיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that the two types of boils: *Garav* and *ḥazazit*, are not considered full-fledged blemishes for which one may slaughter a firstborn outside the Temple. The Gemara asks: **And is *garav* not** considered a blemish? **But isn’t it written “*garav*” in the Torah,** in the list of blemishes (see Leviticus 22:22)? **And** furthermore, **is *ḥazazit* not** considered a blemish? **But isn’t it written “*yalefet*” in the Torah,** in the same verse, **and it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“*Garav*”; this is** referring to boils that are hard as **earthenware [*ḥeres*]; “*yalefet*”; this is the *ḥazazit*** that affected **the Egyptians** (see Exodus 9:10). **And Reish Lakish says: Why is it called *yalefet*?** The reason is **that it grabs [*melapefet*] continuously** onto an invalid **until the day of death,** i.e., it cannot be healed.


###### Bekhorot 41a:8
[Bekhorot 41a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:8)

בִּשְׁלָמָא חֲזָזִית אַחֲזָזִית לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּחֲזָזִית הַמִּצְרִית, כָּאן בַּחֲזָזִית דְּעָלְמָא. אֶלָּא גָּרָב אַגָּרָב קַשְׁיָא! גָּרָב אַגָּרָב נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּלַח, הָא בְּיָבֵשׁ. לַח — אִיתַּסִּי, יָבֵשׁ — לָא מִיתַּסֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted,** the contradiction **between** the status of **the *ḥazazit*** mentioned in the Torah and that of **the *ḥazazit*** in the mishna is **not difficult,** as **here** the Torah is referring **to an Egyptian *ḥazazit*,** and **there** the mishna is referring **to a regular *ḥazazit*. But** the contradiction **between** the status of **the *garav*** listed in the Torah and **the *garav*** of the mishna is **difficult.** The Gemara answers that the contradiction **between the *garav*** in the Torah and **the *garav*** in the mishna is **also not difficult: This** ruling of the mishna is referring **to moist** boils, whereas **that** *garav* of the Torah is referring **to dry** boils. **Moist** boils will **heal** and therefore are considered a temporary blemish for which one may not slaughter a firstborn; **dry** ones will **not heal.**


###### Bekhorot 41a:9
[Bekhorot 41a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:9)

וְלַח מִיתַּסֵּי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״יַכְּכָה ה׳ בִּשְׁחִין מִצְרַיִם וְגוֹ׳״, וּמִדִּכְתִיב ״וּבְחֶרֶס״ הֲרֵי גָּרָב לַח אָמוּר, וְקָאָמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא תוּכַל לְהֵרָפֵא״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** does **a moist** boil **heal? But isn’t it written: “The Lord will smite you with the boil of Egypt,** and with the hemorrhoids, and with *garav*, and with *ḥares*, from which you cannot be healed” (Deuteronomy 28:27). **And since it is written: “And with *ḥares*,”** which is referring to boils that are as hard as earthenware [*ḥeres*], **moist *garav* is** thereby **stated, and** with regard to both types that verse **states: “From which you cannot be healed.”**


###### Bekhorot 41a:10
[Bekhorot 41a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:10)

אֶלָּא, תְּלָתָא הֲווֹ: דִּקְרָא — יָבֵשׁ בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, דְּמַתְנִיתִין — לַח מִבַּחוּץ וּמִבִּפְנִים, דְּמִצְרַיִם — יָבֵשׁ מִבִּפְנִים וְלַח מִבַּחוּץ, דִּכְתִיב ״וַיְהִי שְׁחִין פּוֹרֵחַ אֲבַעְבּוּעוֹת בָּאָדָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, there are three** types of *garav*: First, the *garav* **of the verse** that deals with blemishes, which is **dry both on the inside and on the outside.** This cannot be healed, and it is called *ḥares* in Deuteronomy. The second is the *garav* **of the mishna,** which can be healed, and is **moist on the outside and inside.** Third, the *garav* **of Egypt,** mentioned in Deuteronomy as one of the types of boils of Egypt. This *garav* is **dry on the inside** and therefore cannot be healed, **but** it **is moist on the outside, as it is written** with regard to the plague of boils in Egypt: **“And it became a boil breaking forth with *avabu’ot* upon man** and upon animal” (Exodus 9:10). *Avabu’ot* is referring to a substance that pours out [*nove’a*] and is moist.


###### Bekhorot 41a:11
[Bekhorot 41a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:11)

וְהַזָּקֵן וְהַחוֹלֶה וְהַמְזוֹהָם. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִן הַצֹּאן וּמִן הַכְּשָׂבִים וּמִן הָעִזִּים״ — פְּרָט לַזָּקֵן וְלַחוֹלֶה וְלַמְזוֹהָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Among the conditions that are not considered full-fledged blemishes, but one may not sacrifice an animal with one such condition as an offering either, the mishna lists: **And an old** animal, **or a sick** animal, **or** one with **a foul odor.** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? They are derived from a verse, **as the Sages taught:** The verse states: “And if his offering be **from [*min*] the flock, whether from the sheep or from the goats”** (Leviticus 1:10). These three instances of the word “from [*min*]” serve to **exclude the old, and the sick, and the** animal with **a foul odor,** which may not be sacrificed.


###### Bekhorot 41a:12
[Bekhorot 41a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:12)

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמַעוֹטֵי זָקֵן, דְּלָא הָדַר בָּרֵיא, אֲבָל חוֹלֶה, דַּהֲדַר בָּרֵיא — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב לְמַעוֹטֵי חוֹלֶה, דְּלָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ, אֲבָל זָקֵן, דְּהַיְינוּ אוֹרְחֵיהּ — אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** all three exclusions **are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written** the word “from” once, one might have said that this serves **to exclude an old** animal, **which will not become healthy again,** as it will never get younger. **But** with regard to a **sick** animal, **which** might **become healthy again, say** that it is **not** disqualified. **And,** alternatively, **had** the Merciful One **written** only one term of exclusion, one might have said that it serves **to exclude a sick** animal, **as** it is **not the** natural **manner** of an animal to be sick. **But** with regard to **an old** animal, **as this is the** natural **manner** of all animals to grow old, **say** that it should **not** be disqualified from the altar.


###### Bekhorot 41a:13
[Bekhorot 41a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:13)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא תְּרֵי, לְמַעוֹטֵי הָנֵי דִּכְחִישִׁי, אֲבָל מְזוֹהָם דְּלָא כְּחִישׁ — אֵימָא לָא, וְאִי נָמֵי לְמַעוֹטֵי מְזוֹהָם מִשּׁוּם דִּמְאִיס, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּלָא מְאִיסִי — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had the Merciful One written** only **two** terms of exclusion, one might have said that they serve **to exclude these weak** animals, the sick and the old, as one should sacrifice only a fat, healthy animal. **But** with regard to an animal with **a foul odor, which is not weak, say** that it should **not** be disqualified. **And alternatively,** had there been only one term of exclusion, one might have said that it serves **to exclude** an animal with **a foul odor, as** it is **repulsive. But** with regard to **these** other two cases of an old and a sick animal, **which are not repulsive, say** that they are **not** excluded. Therefore, all three exclusions **are necessary.**


###### Bekhorot 41a:14
[Bekhorot 41a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:14)

וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And** an animal **with which a transgression was performed,** and one that killed a person that was known on the basis of the testimony of one witness or the owner, are disqualified from being sacrificed. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived?


###### Bekhorot 41a:15
[Bekhorot 41a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:15)

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ — לְהוֹצִיא רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע, ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנֶּעֱבָד, ״מִן הַצֹּאן״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמּוּקְצֶה, ״וּמִן הַצֹּאן״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנּוֹגֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
They are derived from a verse, **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* that when the verse states: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2), each mention of the word “from” is interpreted as a term of exclusion. The expression **“from the cattle”** serves **to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality.** The expression **“from the herd”** serves **to exclude** an animal **worshipped** as a deity, and **“from the flock”** serves **to exclude** an animal **set aside** for idol worship. Finally, the word “or” in the expression **“or from the flock”** serves **to exclude** an animal that **gored** and killed a person.


###### Bekhorot 41a:16
[Bekhorot 41a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:16)

הָנֵי בְּנֵי קְטָלָא נִינְהוּ! עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: In **these** cases of an animal that copulated with a person, an animal that was the subject of bestiality, and an animal that gored and killed a person, **they are liable to death** by stoning. Why, then, is a verse necessary to exclude them? The Gemara answers that this is referring to a case where the incident was known **on the basis** of the testimony **of one witness or on the basis of the owner.** Therefore, the animal is not killed, as there are not two witnesses to the event, but the testimony is sufficient to disqualify the animal as a sacrifice.


###### Bekhorot 41a:17
[Bekhorot 41a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:17)

בִּשְׁלָמָא טוּמְטוּם, בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ לָא — דִּילְמָא נְקֵבָה הִיא, בַּמְּדִינָה לָא — דִּילְמָא זָכָר הוּא וְלֵית בֵּהּ מוּמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that one does not slaughter a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite, neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country. The Gemara asks: **Granted,** one does not slaughter **a *tumtum*, neither in the Temple,** as **perhaps it is a female** and therefore does not have firstborn status and may not be sacrificed, **nor in** the rest of **the country,** as **perhaps it is a male and it does not have a blemish,** in which case he would be slaughtering a sacrificial animal.


###### Bekhorot 41a:18
[Bekhorot 41a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:18)

אֶלָּא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ לָא, דִּלְמָא נְקֵבָה הִיא. אֶלָּא בַּמְּדִינָה נָמֵי, נְהִי דְּזָכָר הוּא — תֵּעָשֶׂה נַקְבוּת חָרִיץ, וְיִשְׁחוֹט עָלֶהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in the case of **a hermaphrodite, granted** that one does **not** slaughter it **in the Temple,** as **perhaps it is a female. But with regard to** the rest of **the country, even let it be** considered **a male;** nevertheless, its **female** sex organ **should be considered** as **a crack [*ḥaritz*],** which is included in the blemish of “cracked” [*ḥarutz*] listed in the Torah (Leviticus 22:22), **and** let **one slaughter** it **due to** that blemish.


###### Bekhorot 41a:19
[Bekhorot 41a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:19)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָמַר קְרָא ״אוֹ חָרוּץ אוֹ שָׁבוּר״, חָרוּץ דּוּמְיָא דְּשָׁבוּר, מָה שָׁבוּר בִּמְקוֹם עֶצֶם, אַף חָרוּץ בִּמְקוֹם עֶצֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** in response: **The verse states: “Or cracked or broken”** (Leviticus 22:22), which teaches that the blemish of being **cracked is similar to** that of being **broken: Just as** the blemish of being **broken** is relevant **in the location of a bone,** as there is no break where there is only flesh, **so too,** the term **cracked** is referring to a blemish found **in the location of a bone,** not in the location of the sex organs.


###### Bekhorot 41a:20
[Bekhorot 41a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:20)

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא שָׁבוּר נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ חָרוּץ בִּמְקוֹם בָּשָׂר הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הָוֵי מוּמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״גָּרָב״ זֶהוּ חֶרֶס, מִיחְרָץ חֲרִיץ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמַרְאֵהוּ עָמוֹק מִן הָעוֹר״, כְּמַרְאֵה חַמָּה הָעֲמוּקָּה מִן הַצֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Even **without** the comparison to **“broken,” you cannot say that a crack in the location of flesh,** where there is no bone, **is a blemish. As, if** it would **enter your mind** that **it is a blemish, since** the *tanna* of the *baraita* cited above **said** with regard to **“*garav*”** that **this is** referring to boils that are hard as **earthenware [*ḥeres*],** evidently this blemish is **a crack** in the skin, **as it is written** with regard to the skin disease of leprosy: **“And its appearance is deeper than the skin”** (Leviticus 13:30), and the Sages explained: **It is similar to the appearance of** an area lit by the **sun that** seems **deeper than the shade,** which appears to cover it.


###### Bekhorot 41a:21
[Bekhorot 41a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:21)

וְלִיכְתֹּב רַחֲמָנָא ״חָרוּץ״ וְלָא בָּעֵי ״גָּרָב״, וְאָמֵינָא: ״חָרוּץ״ דְּלָא מְאִיס — הָוֵי מוּמָא, ״גָּרָב״ דִּמְאִיס — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״גָּרָב״ לְמֵימַר דְּחָרוּץ בִּמְקוֹם בָּשָׂר — לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if so, **let the Merciful One write: Crack, and** it would **not need** to state ***garav*, and I** would **say:** If being **cracked, which is not repulsive, is a blemish,** then with regard to ***garav*, which is repulsive,** should it **not all the more so** be considered a blemish? Therefore, **the Merciful One writes *garav*, to say that a crack** found **in the location of flesh is not a blemish.** Consequently, one cannot say that the female sex organ of a hermaphrodite should be considered a blemish for which one may slaughter a firstborn outside the Temple.


###### Bekhorot 41a:22
[Bekhorot 41a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:22)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. כְּאַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר, חָרוּץ דּוּמְיָא דְּשָׁבוּר לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In this connection, the Gemara cites the statement of the mishna with regard to a hermaphrodite: **Rabbi Yishmael says: You have no blemish greater than that,** and it may be slaughtered. Evidently, Rabbi Yishmael maintains that the female sex organ of a hermaphrodite is considered a blemish. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yishmael does **not state** a ruling **like** that of **Abaye,** as he maintains that **we do not say** that the blemish of being **cracked is similar to** that of being **broken.** Rather, they are entirely different blemishes, and a crack found on flesh is considered a blemish.


###### Bekhorot 41a:23
[Bekhorot 41a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/41a:23)

כְּרָבָא נָמֵי לָא אָמַר, דִּילְמָא הֵיכָא דְּלָא מִינַּכְרָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּמִינְּכַר — ״מוּם רָע״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yishmael **also** does **not state** a ruling **like** that of **Rava,** as **perhaps** his conclusion that a crack found where there is no bone is not a blemish applies only in a case **where it is not conspicuous. But** in a case **where it is conspicuous,** such as the female sex organ, **we call it “an ill blemish”** (Deuteronomy 15:21), and the animal is disqualified for use as an offering.