## Bekhorot Daf 44a

###### Bekhorot 44a:1
[Bekhorot 44a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:1)

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כּוֹחֵל שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **even if he does not paint both of his eyes as one,** any priest with an abnormally sunken nose is considered a *ḥarum*.


###### Bekhorot 44a:2
[Bekhorot 44a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:2)

שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה. מָה ״שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה״ ״שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה״? אִילֵּימָא שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה — דְּחָזֵי לְמַעְלָה, שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה — דְּחָזֵי לְמַטָּה, עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה — דַּחֲזַאי עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה, הַיְינוּ ״רוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר וְאֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה כְּאֶחָת״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if both of one’s eyes are above or **both of his eyes** are **below,** he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara asks: **What** does the mishna mean when it mentions a priest wherein **both of his eyes** are **above** or **both of his eyes** are **below? If we say** that the phrase: **Both of his eyes** are **above,** means **that he** constantly **gazes upward,** and the phrase: **Both of his eyes** are **below,** means **that** he constantly **gazes downward,** then the case where **one of his eyes** is **above and one of his eyes** is **below** must similarly mean **that he gazes** with **one of his eyes downward and one of his eyes upward.** But if so, **this is** identical to the next case in the mishna, that one **sees** both **the room** on the ground floor **and the upper story as one.**


###### Bekhorot 44a:3
[Bekhorot 44a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:3)

אֶלָּא, שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה — דְּקָיְימָן לְמַעְלָה, שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה — דְּקָיְימָן לְמַטָּה, עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה — דְּקָיְימִי עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה, וְקָיְימִי כְּסִדְרָן נָמֵי, וְרוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר וְאֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה כְּאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the phrase: **Both of his eyes** are **above,** is referring to a case **where** his eyes **are situated above** their normal place, and the phrase: **Both of his eyes** are **below,** is referring to a case **where** his eyes **are situated below** their normal place. Similarly, the case where **one of his eyes** is **above and one of his eyes** is **below** is **where one of his eyes is situated above and one of his eyes** is situated **below. And** the mishna adds that in a case where his eyes **are situated in their** proper **arrangement as well, but he sees the room** on the ground floor **and the upper story as one,** he too is considered blemished.


###### Bekhorot 44a:4
[Bekhorot 44a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:4)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּעֵינוֹ — כׇּל מָה שֶׁבְּעֵינוֹ, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה, שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה, עֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת לְמַטָּה, וְרוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר וְאֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה כְּאֶחָת, אוֹ שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר עִם חֲבֵירוֹ וְאַחֵר אוֹמֵר: לִי רוֹאֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to blemishes that disqualify priests: “Or a cataract or a *tevallul* in his eye” (Leviticus 21:20). Since it is obvious that a cataract or a *tevallul* can occur only in one’s eyes, why does the verse state: In his eye? The term **“in his eye”** indicates that **any** blemish **that is in his eye** disqualifies him from performing the Temple service. **From here** the Sages **stated:** If **both of his eyes** are **below** or **both of his eyes** are **above,** or if **one of his eyes** is **above and one of his eyes** is **below,** or if **he sees the room and the upper story as one, or** if **when he speaks with his friend another** person **says: He is looking at me,** he is blemished and is disqualified from performing the Temple service.


###### Bekhorot 44a:5
[Bekhorot 44a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עִוֵּר — בֵּין סוֹמֵא בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו, בֵּין סוֹמֵא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו. חֲוַרְוָור וְהַמַּיִם הַקְּבוּעִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ עִוֵּר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: When it is stated that **a blind man [*iver*]** is disqualified from performing the Temple service (see Leviticus 21:18), this applies **whether** he is **blind in both of his eyes or blind in one of his eyes.** With regard to a priest who cannot see due to **pale spots** on the eye **or** due to **tears** streaming from the eye **that are constant, from where** is it derived that he is disqualified? **The** same **verse states: “A blind man [*ish iver*].”** The superfluous word “*ish*” serves to include these conditions as well.


###### Bekhorot 44a:6
[Bekhorot 44a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:6)

אָמַר רָבָא: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִישׁ״, ״עִוֵּר״, ״דַּק״, ״תְּבַלּוּל״, ״בְּעֵינוֹ״? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עִוֵּר״ מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ כְּלָל, אֲבָל חֲוַרְוָור וְהַמַּיִם הַקְּבוּעִין דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בֵּיהּ — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִישׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Why do I** need **the Merciful One to write** the terms **“man,” “blind,” “cataract,” “*tevallul*,”** and **“in his eye”** (Leviticus 21:18, 20)? All these **are necessary, as had the Merciful One written** only **“blind,”** then one might say that a blind person is disqualified **because** his eyes **are not in** their sockets **at all,** i.e., they were enucleated. **But** in the case of a priest with **pale spots** on the eye **or tears** streaming from the eye **that are constant, where** his eyes **are** still **in** their sockets but he cannot see, perhaps he is **not** considered blemished. Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote “man”** to include these conditions as well.


###### Bekhorot 44a:7
[Bekhorot 44a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:7)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִישׁ״ — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָא חָזֵי כְּלָל, אֲבָל מַחְסוֹרַיְיתָא — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״דַּק״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״דַּק״ — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְחַסְּרָן, אֲבָל מְבַלְבְּלִיתָא — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תְּבַלּוּל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had the Merciful One written** only **“man,”** one might have thought that only total blindness disqualifies a priest, **because he cannot see at all. But** if his condition causes merely **impaired** vision, then he is **not** considered blemished. Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote “cataract”** to include conditions of impaired vision as well. **And had the Merciful One written** only that a priest with **a cataract** is disqualified, it might have been thought that such a priest is disqualified **because** his vision is **impaired. But** if his vision is not impaired but his eyes are **mixed,** i.e., the black and white parts of his eyes are mixed together, then he is **not** disqualified. Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote “*tevallul*.”**


###### Bekhorot 44a:8
[Bekhorot 44a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:8)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תְּבַלּוּל״ — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְבַלְבְּלָן, אֲבָל מִשּׁוּם מְשַׁנְּיוּתָא — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בְּעֵינוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had the Merciful One written** only **“*tevallul*,”** one might say that this disqualifies a priest **because** his eyes are **mixed. But** the Torah does **not** disqualify a priest **due to a deviation** from normal appearance, e.g., especially large eyes, or eyes situated higher than normal. Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote “in his eye.”**


###### Bekhorot 44a:9
[Bekhorot 44a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:9)

אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכָּךְ, כֹּל מֵחֲמַת כַּהְיוּתָא — אָתְיָא מֵ״אִישׁ״, מַחְסוֹרַיְיתָא — מִ״דַּק״, מְבַלְבְּלִיתָא — מִ״תְּבַלּוּל״, מְשַׁנְּיוּתָא — מִ״בְּעֵינוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In summary, **Rava says: Therefore, all** blemishes of the eyes that disqualify a priest **on account of dimness,** i.e., blindness, **are derived from** the term **“man.”** All blemishes of the eyes that are related to vision **impairment** are derived **from “cataract.”** All blemishes that are related to parts of the eye being **intermingled** are derived **from “*tevallul*.”** Finally, the disqualification of **deviations** is derived **from “in his eye.”**


###### Bekhorot 44a:10
[Bekhorot 44a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:10)

סָכֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״סָנֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ״. זַגְדְּיָין. מַחְוֵי רַב הוּנָא: חַד מִדִּידַן וְחַד מִדִּידְהוּ, וְאִיקְּפַד רַב יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that those unable to **look at the sun [*sakhei shemesh*]** are disqualified from performing the Temple service. **Rav Yosef taught** that this is a reference to those who **hate the sun [*sanei shemesh*],** i.e., they are incapable of opening their eyes in sunlight. The mishna further states that **one whose eyes are different** is disqualified from performing the Temple service. In order to illustrate this blemish, **Rav Huna pointed** with his finger while saying: The term: Different eyes, is referring to an individual wherein **one** of his eyes is like **ours and one** of his eyes is like **theirs. And** since Rav Huna was pointing at Rav Yehuda, who had abnormal eyes, **Rav Yehuda took offense.**


###### Bekhorot 44a:11
[Bekhorot 44a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:11)

מֵיתִיבִי: שָׁכְבָנָא — שֶׁגְּבִינָיו שׁוֹכְבִים, זַגְדּוֹם — אֶחָד שָׁחוֹר וְאֶחָד לָבָן. תַּנָּא: כֹּל זוּגָא דְּלָא שָׁוֵי לַהֲדָדֵי, ״זַגְדּוֹם״ קָרֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita* to Rav Huna’s interpretation of one whose eyes are different: When the Sages taught that **a *shekhavna*** is disqualified from performing the Temple service, they were referring to one **whose eyebrows lie** flat [***shokhvim***] and cover his eyes. When they taught that **one whose eyes are different [*zagdum*]** is disqualified, they were referring to a case where **one** of his eyebrows is **black and one** is **white.** The Gemara responds: With regard to **any pair** of limbs **that are not identical to one another,** the ***tanna*** of this *baraita* **calls** them **different.**


###### Bekhorot 44a:12
[Bekhorot 44a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:12)

הַצַּיְרָן. עֵינָיו תְּרוּטוֹת, וְצִירָנִיּוֹת, דּוֹמְעוֹת, דּוֹלְפוֹת, טוֹרְדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **one whose eyes tear constantly** is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara cites a *baraita* that defines such an individual: **His eyes,** i.e., his eyelids, **droop** and can open only partially, **or** his eyes are **round;** his eyes **tear,** or tears **stream** from his eyes, or tears **flow** intensely from them.


###### Bekhorot 44a:13
[Bekhorot 44a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:13)

תַּנָּא: הַזִּדֵּיר וְהַלּוּפְיָן (וְהַתָּמִיר) [וְהַתִּימְיָן]. זִוֵּיר — דִּמְזַוַּר עֵינֵיהּ, לוּפְיָן — דִּנְפִישִׁין זִיפֵיהּ, (תָּמִיר) [תִּימְיָן] — שֶׁתַּמּוּ (זִיפִין) [זִיפָיו]. וְהָנֵי גַּבֵּי מוּמִין תָּנוּ לְהוּ? וְהָתְנַן: שֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ רִיסֵי עֵינָיו פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאִשְׁתְּיוּר גַּרְדּוּמֵי, הָא דְּלָא אִישְׁתְּיוּר גַּרְדּוּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages taught in a *baraita*: **The *zadir*, and the *lupin*, and the *tamir*** are disqualified from performing the Temple service. ***Zadir*** is a reference to one **whose eyes are strange. *Lupin*** is a reference to one **with an abundance of eyelashes. *Tamir*** is a reference **to one whose eyelashes are depleted.** The Gemara asks: **And** does the *tanna* **teach these** cases together **with** full-fledged **blemishes? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: **One whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified** from performing the Temple service **due to the appearance** of a blemish? Clearly, this is not considered an actual blemish. The Gemara answers that it is **not difficult. This** mishna is referring to a case **where the roots** of his eyelashes **remain,** whereas **that** *baraita* is referring to a case **where the roots do not remain.**


###### Bekhorot 44a:14
[Bekhorot 44a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** עֵינָיו גְּדוֹלוֹת כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל, אוֹ קְטַנּוֹת כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז. גּוּפוֹ גָּדוֹל מֵאֵבָרָיו, אוֹ קָטָן מֵאֵבָרָיו. חוֹטְמוֹ גָּדוֹל מֵאֵבָרָיו, אוֹ קָטָן מֵאֵיבָרָיו. הַצִומֵּם וְהַצִּומֵּעַ — אֵיזֶהוּ צִומֵּעַ? כֹּל שֶׁאׇזְנָיו קְטַנּוֹת, וְהַצִּומֵּם — כֹּל שֶׁאׇזְנָיו דּוֹמוֹת לִסְפוֹג. שְׂפָתוֹ הָעֶלְיוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. וְשֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ שִׁינָּיו — פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: If a priest’s **eyes are large like those of a calf or small like those of a goose;** if **his body is** disproportionately **large** relative **to his limbs or** disproportionately **small** relative **to his limbs;** if **his nose is** disproportionately **large** relative **to his limbs or** disproportionately **small** relative **to his limbs,** he is disqualified. And **the *tzomem* and the *tzome’a*** are also disqualified. **What is a *tzome’a*?** It is **anyone whose ears are small. And** what is **the *tzomem*?** It is **anyone whose ears are similar to a sponge.** If **his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower** lip or his **lower** lip **protrudes beyond the upper** lip, **that is a blemish. And one whose teeth fell out is disqualified due to the appearance** of a blemish.


###### Bekhorot 44a:15
[Bekhorot 44a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:15)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב: מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּפְרֹשׂ אֶת הָאֹהֶל עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן״, מִי פְּרָשׂוֹ? מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ פְּרָשׂוֹ, וּכְתִיב: ״עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת אוֹרֶךְ הַקָּרֶשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav says: Moses, our teacher, was ten *ammot*** tall, **as it is stated: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle”** (Exodus 40:19). **Who spread** the tent over the Tabernacle? **Moses, our teacher, spread it, and it is written** with regard to the height of the Tabernacle: **“Ten *ammot* shall be the length of a board”** (Exodus 26:16). Moses must have been at least as tall as the Tabernacle itself for him to have spread the tent over it.


###### Bekhorot 44a:16
[Bekhorot 44a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב: אִם כֵּן עֲשִׂיתוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ בַּעַל מוּם! דִּתְנַן: גּוּפוֹ גָּדוֹל מֵאֵבָרָיו אוֹ קָטָן מֵאֵבָרָיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁימִי! בְּאַמָּה שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said to Rav: If so, you have rendered Moses, our teacher, a blemished** person, **as we learned** in the mishna: If **one’s body is** disproportionately **large** relative **to his limbs or** disproportionately **small** relative **to his limbs,** then he is blemished. A typical person is no more than three arm-lengths [*ammot*] tall, and yet Moses was apparently ten times taller than the length of his own arm. Rav **said to him: Shimi,** when I said that Moses was ten *ammot* tall, I **said** so **in** reference to the **cubit [*amma*] of a board** used in the building of the Tabernacle. The limbs of Moses were proportional to the rest of his body, but he was indeed ten cubits tall.


###### Bekhorot 44a:17
[Bekhorot 44a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:17)

חוֹטְמוֹ גָּדוֹל וכו׳. תָּנָא: כְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught that if **one’s nose is** disproportionately **large** relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, he is blemished. The Sages **taught** in a *baraita*: The measure of disproportion is the size **of** one’s **small finger.**


###### Bekhorot 44a:18
[Bekhorot 44a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:18)

הַצִּומֵּם וְהַצִּומֵּעַ. תָּנָא: אַף הַצִּימֵּחַ. לָא הֲווֹ יָדְעִי רַבָּנַן מַאי ״צִימֵּחַ״, שְׁמַעוּ לְהָהוּא טַיָּיעָא דַּהֲוָה קָאָמַר: ״מַאן דְּבָעֵי צִימֵּחַ״, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח גַּדְיָא חֲזִיזָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna also taught that **the *tzomem* and the *tzome’a*** are blemished. The Sages **taught** in a *baraita*: **The *tzime’aḥ*** is **also** disqualified from performing the Temple service. **The Sages did not know what a *tzime’aḥ*** is. **They heard a certain Arab who was saying: Who wants a *tzime’aḥ*, and it was found** to be **a long-eared goat.**


###### Bekhorot 44a:19
[Bekhorot 44a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:19)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: עֵז שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קַרְנַיִם, וְרָחֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קַרְנַיִם — כְּשֵׁרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the *halakha* of a *tzomem*, *tzome’a*, and *tzime’aḥ* with regard to animals. **Rav Ḥisda says: A female goat that has no horns and a female lamb that has horns are fit for** sacrificing **upon the altar,** i.e., they are not considered blemished, despite the fact that they differ from regular female goats and female lambs.


###### Bekhorot 44a:20
[Bekhorot 44a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:20)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כְּמוּמִין, וְאֵינָן כְּמוּמִין, וְשׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶם בְּמִקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא בַּמְּדִינָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: עֵז שֶׁאֵין (לוֹ) [לָהּ] קַרְנַיִם, וְרָחֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ (לוֹ) [לָהּ] קַרְנַיִם, וְהַצִּימֵּחַ, וְהַצִּימֵּם, וְהַצִּימֵּעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **this is also taught** in a *baraita*: **There are matters that** appear **like blemishes but they are not** truly **like blemishes, and** one may therefore **slaughter** sacrificial animals **on** account of **them in the Temple,** i.e., they are fit for sacrifice despite these blemishes; **but** if they are firstborn animals, they are **not** permitted for slaughter **in the** rest of the **country** on account of these blemishes, as the unique physical characteristics of these animals are not true blemishes. **And these are** the blemishes: **A female goat that has no horns, and a female lamb that has horns, and the *tzime’aḥ*, and the *tzomem*, and the *tzome’a*.**


###### Bekhorot 44a:21
[Bekhorot 44a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:21)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: נִטְּלוּ קַרְנוֹתָן וְזַכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן — פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵין פּוֹדִין עֲלֵיהֶם. נִטְּלוּ טְלָפַיִים וְזַכְרוּתָם עִמָּהֶן — פְּסוּלִין, וְנִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the horns of an animal, **Rav Ḥisda says** that **Ameimar says:** If **the horns** of an animal **were removed, and their bones,** i.e., the bones inside the horns, were removed **with them,** the animal **is unfit** for sacrifice. **But** even so, **one may not redeem** the animal **on account of** such blemishes, as they are not full-fledged blemishes. But if **the hooves were removed, and their bones,** i.e., the portion of the leg to which the hooves are attached, were removed **with them, they are unfit** for sacrifice **and they are** even **redeemed on account of** such blemishes, as they are full-fledged blemishes.


###### Bekhorot 44a:22
[Bekhorot 44a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:22)

מֵיתִיבִי: נִטְּלוּ קַרְנַיִין וּטְלָפַיִין וְזַכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן — פְּסוּלִין וְנִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶן! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִיתְעֲקוּר אִיתְעֲקוֹרֵי, הָא דְּאִיגּוּם אִיגּוֹמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda stated that the removal of a horn and its bone is not considered a full-fledged blemish that enables the animal to be redeemed. The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: If **the horns or the hooves** of an animal **were removed, and their** respective **bones** were removed **with them, they are unfit and they are redeemed on account of them.** The Gemara explains that it is **not difficult. This** *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the bone **was** entirely **uprooted,** which is a full-fledged blemish on account of which the animal may be redeemed. **That** statement of Rav Ḥisda is referring to a case **where** the bones **were cut** but were not uprooted entirely.


###### Bekhorot 44a:23
[Bekhorot 44a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/44a:23)

וּדְאִיגּוּם אִיגּוֹמֵי, פָּסוּל? וּרְמִינְהוּ: פָּרָה שֶׁקַּרְנֶיהָ וּטְלָפֶיהָ שְׁחוֹרִים — יָגוֹד! תַּרְגְּמַהּ זְעֵירִי: מֵעִילָּוֵי זַכְרוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** in a case **where** the bones of the animal **were cut,** is the animal even rendered **unfit? And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna (*Para* 2:2): With regard to a red **heifer whose horns and hooves are black,** the *halakha* is that **one should cut** away the black parts so that the heifer remains entirely red. Evidently, cutting away the horns of the heifer does not inflict a blemish upon it. **Ze’eiri interpreted** the mishna as referring to cutting the horn specifically **from above the bone** inside it. In such a case, the heifer is not disqualified. Cutting the bone itself does disqualify the animal.