Comentario sobre Behorot 6:13

על אלו מומין. נפגמה – there is no notch without loss, but a slit [in the ear] implies also without loss, and the measurement of a notch is when one makes a notch deep a=enough for the nail to halt on passing over the edge (see Talmud Bekhorot 37b).

Introduction Chapter six delineates the types of blemishes that disqualify a first born animal from being sacrificed. The Torah lists only two types of blemishes “lame and blind” (see Deuteronomy 15:21). However, the same verse also states, “any serious blemish.” From this verse the rabbis derive that any blemish that is significant like being lame and blind, renders the animal unfit. The general rule is that the blemish must be visible and a type of blemish that doesn’t heal. Today’s mishnah deals with blemishes of the ear.

חסחוס (if the ear is split from the cartilage inwards) – the lobe of the ear which is called TANRUS in the foreign language.

In consequence of the following blemishes a first-born animal may be slaughtered:
If its ear has become defective, from the cartilages [inward] but not if the defect is in the ear-flap; In order for the defect in the ear to disqualify the animal, it must be in the inner, cartilage part of the ear, and not in the flappy outside part. To be defective means that part of the ear has been removed.

אבל לא מן העור- for the distinguished skin is healthy and it is not a blemish and this skin is the soft ear-lap.

If it is slit although there was no loss [of substance]; The animal is also disqualified if the entire cartilage part is slit, even if no part of the ear is missing.

נקיבה מלא כרשינה – that there is in the cavity of the incision a measurement of the berry of vetch, whether the incision is long or whether it is round, if there is in all of them to combine in its cavity like the measurement of a berry of a vetch, this is a blemish.

If it is perforated with a hole as large as a karshinah A karshinah is a type of legume. If the ear has a hole in it the size of this legume, the animal is disqualified.

שתהא נפרכת – it becomes crumbles and broken pieces when they handle it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi. But these blemishes that are considered in our Mishnah, when they slaughter upon them the firstling, we derive from Biblical verses, as it is written (Deuteronomy 15:21): “But if it has a defect,” is a generalization, “lameness or blindness” is a detail, “any serious defect” – it returned to provide a generalization, you do not judge other than what is similar to the detail. Just as the detail explains open blemishes that do not return [to their healthy state], so also, all open blemishes and they don’t return [to their healthy state] (and the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher).

Or if [the ear] has become dry. What is considered “becoming dry”? If when pierced no drop of blood comes out. Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: [it] is dry when it crumbles [when touched]. A dry and withered out ear also disqualifies the animal. There are two opinions as to what makes an ear considered to be dry and withered out. The first is that it is void of blood. The second is that it is so dry that it crumbles when touched.

ריס של עין- the eyelid of the eye.

Introduction This mishnah deals with blemishes of the eye. Leviticus 21:20 states that a priest that has a blemish in his eye cannot serve on the altar. Our mishnah explains what that means, at least with regard to the blemished animal.

הרי בעיניו – that is to say, behold that there is in his eyes.

One whose eyelid is pierced, defected or slit, If the eyelid is pierced, defected or slit, the animal is considered blemished.

דק (cataract; veiled or withered spot in the eye) – TILA in the foreign language.

Or if the eye has a cataract, or a tevalul, halazon [snail-shaped], nahash [snake-shaped] or a [berry-shaped] growth on the eye, [the animal is disqualified]. Most of this section deals with various growths on the eye. A cataract will also disqualify the animal.

חלזון, נחש – that is an eye-disease, also called נחש (see Talmud Bekhorot 38b), and we call it NAHASH for it is made striped like a snake. And it is additional flesh that is stretched and covers part of the black that is I the eye, and we call it TIFRA in Arabic, like we call the fingernail TIFRA, because it covers the eye in the manner that the fingernail covers the flesh of the finger.

What is a tevalul? The white of the eye breaking through the ring and entering into the black. But if the black breaks through the ring and goes into the white, it is not a [disqualifying] blemish, because there are no disqualifying blemishes as regards the white of the eye. The mishnah now explains “tevalul” which is the word used in Leviticus 21:20 for an eye blemish. If a white thread goes out from the white of the eye and enters the pupil, the animal is considered blemished, because this would affect its vision. However, if the black has broken through to the white the animal is not considered blemished, because blemishes have to be the pupil and not to the white part of the eye.

עינב (growth on the eye) – that there is in his eye like the berry/grain of a growth.

לבן הפוסק בסירא – SIRA/thorn that is a line that is in the eye around the black that from which the vision of the eye comes. But if a white thread comes out from the white that is in the eye and breaks through a line and enters into the black, this is a blemish.

שחור ונכנס בלבן – if one black thread comes out from the black that is in the eye and breaks through the thorn, and enters into the white [of the eye].

אינו מום שאין מומין בלבן – for it is not the eye, but rather the fat of the eye.

חורוד (white spots on the cornea/cataract) – like white drops on the eye. The Aramaic translation of white is חיור/white.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with blemishes of the eye.

והמים (rheum)– that descends into the eye and prevents the seeing.

Havarvar [white spots] on the cornea and water constantly dripping from the eye, [are disqualifying blemishes]. The two blemishes discussed here are white spots on the cornea, which is probably a type of cataract and water dripping from the eye, which probably means that the animal has an eye infection.

הקבועים – it refers to both, to the white spots on the cornea and the water/rheum.

What do we mean by a permanent hawarwar? If it remained for a period of eighty days. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: we must examine it three times in the eighty days. In order for the white spots to be considered a blemish they must be present for eighty days in a row. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus adds in that we must check at least three times during the eighty days. It is not sufficient if we know that the white spots were there in the beginning of the eighty days and at the end.

בודקין אותו שלשה פעמים בתוך שמונים יום – on every twenty-seven days which is one-third of the time of eighty days, approximately, we examine it if the cataract/white spots on the cornea went away. And if it it went away, even though it returned, we count eighty days from the day that it returned, for it isn’t lasting white spots on the cornea/cataracts until it stands for eight days. But if he did not examine it within the eighty [days], even though the cataracts/white spots on the cornea are found there on the eightieth day, it is not a blemish, lest in the meanwhile, it went away and then returned. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus.

And the following are cases of constant dripping from the eye [and how to test its permanency]: if it ate [for a cure] fresh [fodder] and dry [fodder] from a field sufficiently watered by rain [it is a permanent blemish, if not cured]. [If it ate] fresh [fodder] and then dry [fodder] from a field requiring artificial irrigation, or if it ate dry [fodder] first and then fresh [fodder from field watered by rain] it is not a blemish unless it eats dry [fodder] after the fresh. There is a cure for a dripping eye to eat first fresh fodder and then dry fodder from a field irrigated by rain. If the animal eats this cure and it isn’t healed then the animal has a permanent blemish. However, if he eats fodder from an artificially irrigated field or dry fodder and then fresh fodder from a rain-irrigated field, and the eye continues to drip, it is not a sign of a permanent blemish because the animal did not eat the proper cure.

אלו הן מהם הקבועים – meaning to say, how do we know if it lasting or transitory?

אכל לח ויבש של גשמים – if they fed it straw and leeks for medicinal purposes that we call FINEO in the foreign language.

לח – that grows in Adar and half of Nisan.

ויבש- that grows in Elul and half of Tishrei.

של גשמים – that is that grew in a field sufficiently watered by rain and requiring no artificial irrigation. But our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows (see Talmud Bekhorot 38b): If it ate moist (i.e., that grew during Adar and half of Nisan) and dry (i.e., that grew during Elul and half of Tishrei) of a field regarding a field naturally watered by rain, it is a blemish; if it was a field requiring irrigation, it is not a blemish. But if it is a field naturally water by rain, [if] it ate dry (i.e., that grew during Elul and half of Tishrei) and afterwards, it ate moist (i.e., that which grew during Adar and half of Nisan) it is not a blemish until it would eat dry (i.e., that which grew during Elul and half of Tishrei) after that which is moist (i.e., that which grew during Adar and half of Nisan).

של בית השלחין - land that requires watering it is not for medicinal purposes, and we don’t examine it.

אכל יבש ואחר כך לח- for medicinal purposes, this is not its cure, and even though he was not cured through it, it is not a blemish.

עד שיאכל יבש אחר הלח – this is the manner of his cure, straw and leeks that grow in Adar and half of Nisan, we feed it during Adar and half of Nisan, but straw and leeks that grew in Elul and half of Tishrei, we feed it in Elul and half of Tishrei. For we don’t slaughter it until all the days of the summer have passed and we examine it at both times, and if it was not cured, it is a blemish, and it (i.e., the animal) needs to eat from them no less than a dried fig during each and every meal all three months at the beginning of the meal and after it drank, and it would not be tied at the time that it eats these grasses for medicinal purposes, and there wouldn’t be an individual [animal] but with its fellows, in the field and not within the city. And if it fulfilled all of these conditions and was not cured, it is a blemish and we slaughter it.

חוטמו שניקב וכו' – and this is where the outer partitions/walls of the nose were perforated, that the perforation is seen from the outside. But [if] it is not seen other than from inside, as for example, when the partition that divides the nose was perforated, it is not a blemish, for it is secret, and we derive from [the principle] of a generalization and a specification, that we require blemishes that are revealed [in the open].

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with defects of the nose and mouth.

שנפגם – and it has something missing/lacking.

If its nose is perforated, defective, or slit, or its upper lip perforated, defective, or slit [these are disqualifying blemishes]. If there is any defect of the nose or upper lip, the first born is considered blemished and it may be slaughtered.

שנסדק – but there is nothing lacking/missing. And the measurement of the notch/incision, in order that the fingernail can encircle it.

If the outer incisors are defective or leveled [to the gum] or the molars are torn out [completely], [these are disqualifying blemishes]. But Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: we do not examine behind the molars, nor the molars themselves. I have translated this section to refer to the defects of the teeth. The words may also be understood as referring to defects of the gums. In any case, the rule is stricter with regard to the outer incisors than it is for the inner molars. For the inner molars to be considered defective, they must be completely torn out.

שפתו – the outer row/line of the lip [of the firstling], meaning to say, the outer point/thin part.

חיטיו החיצונות – the teeth that are in the middle of the mouth.

שנפגמו – that are missing.

נגממו (incisors are broken off/levelled with the gums) – squashed beyond recognition -, and there doesn’t remain from them other than a small mark/trace, and they don’t protrude like they are accustomed to be.

הפנימיות – the large teeth that we call MASHILASH, that were completely uprooted. But if they were damaged or worn down/levelled, it is not a blemish.

אין בודקין את המתאימות ולפנים – the large teeth that one appears like two [teeth] and are made like twins. From there and inward it is not considered a blemish because it is in secret. But they themselves, when they were uprooted, are not a blemish. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Hananiah (Hanina in the Mishnah) ben Antigonus.

זובן (bag which contains a male animal’s membrum) – the case/casket that the sinew of the cattle is hidden/covered in). When it is damaged/mutilated, it is a blemish because it does not return healthy, but if it was removed it is not a blemish, for it returns to its normal condition.

Today’s mishnah deals with defects in an animal’s genitalia.
If the sheath [of the penis] is defective or the genitals of a female animal in the case of sacrificial offerings [it is defective.] If the sheath that holds the male penis is defective, it won’t heal and therefore it constitutes a permanent wound. A female animal whose genitalia are defective cannot be offered as a sacrifice. It is not relevant to say that it cannot be a first-born since a bekhor (a first-born) must be a male.

עריה של נקבה (genitals of a female animal) – pudenda that protrudes outward and appears on the rest of the area of the body.

If the tail is mutilated from the bone but not from the joint; or if the top end [root] of the tail is bared to the bone; or if there is flesh between one joint and another [in the tail] to the amount of a finger's breadth [the animal is defective]. There are three defects listed here: 1) If the tail is mutilated on its bone part, then the animal is defective because the wound will not heal. However, if it is mutilated on the joint between the segments it can still be sacrificed as a first born. 2) If the root end of the tail is bared to the bone. 3) If there is too much space between the joints of the tail.

במוקדשים – in the rest of Holy Things that have in them female [animals] as for example, peace offerings, for whereas regarding the firstling, there isn’t a female.

אבל לא מן הפרק (but not at the joint) – that is damaged between the joints a long ascent, when all of the tail has not been severed.

או שהיה ראש הזנב מפציל את עצם – the head of the tail is suspended below, the flesh and skin is peeled and the boney remains uncovered, it still is not a long ascent, since it is the head of the vone.

מפציל – that it was peeled/split off. Another explanation- that the tail was divided at its end to two tails and there is a bone in each of them.

ובין חוליא לחוליא מלוא אצבע – that the vertebrae/links of the tail are far from each other, the distance of a finger’s breadth, which is the width of a thumb.

אין לו ביצים או אין לו אלא ביצה אחת – Our Mishnah is deficient and this is how it should be read (see Talmud Bekhorot 40a): It (i.e., the animal) doesn’t have two testicles in two sacks, but rather [only] in one sack; alternatively, two sacks and one testicle, behold this is a blemish.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with blemishes to an animal’s genitalia.

ר' ישמעאל אומר אם יש לו שני כיסים – He is disputing the concluding clause, for the first Tanna/teacher states if it doesn’t have anything other than one testicle and two sacks, it is a blemish, but this is not the case, for whenever it has two sacks, it is certain that it has two testicles. But on the first clause, he admits/agrees that where it doesn’t have other than one sack, it is like someone that doesn’t have anything other than one testicle.

If [a first born] has no testicles or if it only has one testicle, [it is a blemish]. The lack of one or both testicles is considered a defect.

רבי עקיבא אומר- we certainly don’t say this, but rather, we have the reading, “he sets it on its buttocks and squeezes [its testicles]. And its example is found in the chapter [five of Tractate Eruvin 53b]: “How did they augment towns?” – is it (“sets it on its buttocks”) taught עכוזו (with an AYIN) or is it taught אכוזו (with an ALEPH)? [It is taught] עכוזו (i.e., with an AYIN) – they set the firstling on one rump/buttocks (though it could mean the genitals), for he has only one genital in two sacks.

Rabbi Ishmael says: if it has two pouches, then it has two testicles, but if it only has one pouch, then it only has one testicle. The remainder of the mishnah deals with how one determines if an animal has both testicles [since this is not a test that I have ever administered, I will assume that how many testicles an animal has is not readily apparent.] Rabbi Ishmael says that one simply counts the pouches. If it has two pouches, then it has two testicles and is not defective.

וממעך (dissolve by rubbing/crushing) – and feels the sack and the groin.

Rabbi Akiva says: [the animal] is placed on its buttocks and he squeezes [the pouch]. If a testicle is [in there, inside the pouch] it will eventually come out. Rabbi Akiva does not believe that if there are two pouches there are necessarily two testicles. Rather one must test the animal to see if there are really two inside there.

אם יש שם ביצה אחת סופה לצאת - but if it does not come out, it is a blemish.

It happened that one squeezed it and [the testicle] did not come out, but when it was slaughtered [the testicle] was found attached to the loins, and Rabbi Akiva permitted [the animal] while Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited it. It seems that this story supports Rabbi Ishmael’s view, because Rabbi Akiva’s test does not work. The animal is tested and the testicle does not come out, even though it is later revealed to have been there. This animal had both testicles and therefore it should not have been slaughtered. Generally, if a first-born is slaughtered when it shouldn’t have been, the meat is prohibited. However, Rabbi Akiva allows the animal to be eaten, because according to Rabbi Akiva if the testicle does not emerge when squeezed it is blemished. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited the animal because it was not blemished and should not have been slaughtered.

והתיר רבי עקיבא – that it is a blemish, for he did not find it (i.e., the genital in its place when he crushed it/rubbed it and felt it and. And such is the Halakha.

בעל חמש רגלים או שלש – but that we calculate it as a blemish and not as “torn,” these words [apply] when it has more or less in its hands, that is, those of the side of the head, but missing a foot or having an additional foot from its back feet , it is a “torn” animal, and it is prohibited to be consumed.

Introduction This mishnah deals with defects in the legs and feet.

קלוט (an animal with un-cloven hooves – a sign of uncleanness – born of a clean animal, a monster or a hybrid) – round, and even if they are slit/cloven – it is a blemish, for the split hooves of an pure animal are not round.

If [a first born] has five legs or if it has only three legs, or if its feet are uncloven like that of a donkey, or if it is a shahul or a kasul [these are blemishes]. An extra or a missing leg renders an animal defective, as do several other defects in the leg.

שחול (an animal with a dislocated hip) – that its thigh/haunch is detached. The Aramaic of “I drew him [Moses] out [of the water]” (see Exodus 2:10) is שחלתיה /”I drew him out.”

What is a shahul? [An animal] with a dislocated hip. What is a kasul? [An animal] one of whose hips is higher than the other. The mishnah now defines the terms shahul and kasul. The first term refers to an animal with a dislocated hip, whereas the second term refers to an animal whose hips are of different height. Both defects make a first born animal fit for slaughter.

כסול (an animal with a deformed hip) – it is the manner of an animal that the thigh/haunch is attached to the fat-tail near the groin, but not above from the grown, and in this one, the thigh/haunch is upon the groin.

אף על פי שאינו ניכר – when it (i.e., the animal) stands, the break is not seen, but it is recognized when it walks that it limps, for it is not recognized at all, it is not a blemish.

Introduction Today’s mishnah begins by continuing to discuss blemishes of the leg. It then continues with a discussion of some additional blemishes that were added by a sage named Ila.

מומין אלו – bone of the foreleg or the bone of the hindleg that were mentioned above.

If the bone of the fore-leg or of its hind-leg is broken, even though it is not noticeable, [this is a blemish]. A broken leg counts as a blemish even if the break is not noticeable.

אילא – the name of a Sage.

These blemishes Ila enumerated in Yavneh and the sages agreed with him. As we learned in mishnah 4:5, Ila was an expert on animal blemishes, perhaps we might call him the veterinarian of his times. The above list of blemishes was recited by Ila in front of the sages in Yavneh, after the destruction of the Temple. They agreed with him that these blemishes disqualify the first-born animal from being sacrificed.

עגול כשל אדם – that it is not the manner that the roundness of the eye of an animal is like that of a human.

He also added another three cases [of blemishes]. They said to him: we have only heard these [already mentioned previously]. The above list was one that Ila had received from his teachers, and therefore the rabbis accepted it. In other words, Ila’s authority stemmed from his knowledge of tradition and not his scientific acumen. We know this because when Ila added a few more blemishes, the rabbis disagreed with him. They were willing to accept only the blemishes that they had already heard about, and not those that Ila personally added.

רוב המדבר – that is that part of the tongue that is not attached to its jaws.

[The three added by Ila were]: one whose eyeball is round like that of a human or whose mouth is like that of a pig or if the greater part of the speaking part of the tongue has been removed. A subsequent court ruled however: each of these cases is a [disqualifying] blemish. The mishnah now lists the blemishes that Ila added. Interestingly, a subsequent court agreed with Ila. Perhaps this demonstrates a shift in how courts adjudicated halakhah. While the earlier rabbis accepted only tradition, later rabbis began to accept the authority of the innovations of individual rabbis.

ובית דין של אחריהן אמרו הרי אלו מומין – and such is the Halakha.

מעשה שהלחי התחתון – because it is taught above (see Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 6, Mishnah 8) that its mouth (i.e., of a firstling animal) is similar to that of a pig, the Rabbis argue with [the opinion] of Illa, it comes to tell us that now the Rabbis do not dispute it other than regarding its upper lip which is stretched over its lower [lip], but [if] its lower lip is stretched over the upper[lip], the Rabbis admit/agree that it is a blemish. And also the story regarding the lower jaw that stretches over the upper [jaw], and the Sages stated that this is a blemish. These words [apply] when the bone of the lower jaw stretches over the [bone of] the upper [jaw], then it is a blemish even in an animal. But if it lacks a bone but rather that its lower lip is longer and receives the upper lip, it is blemish in a human but not in an animal.

Introduction This mishnah lists a few additional blemishes which disqualify the first born.

אזן הגדי שהיתה כפולה – that it has two ears from one side, an ear within an ear.

It happened that the lower jaw [of a first born] was larger than the upper jaw. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel asked the sages [for a ruling] and they said: this is a blemish. In this case an animal seems to be blemished, but Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel is not sure if the blemish is sufficient to disqualify it. He brings the animal in front of the other sages and they rule that it is a blemish and it is disqualified.

בזמן שהיא עצם אחד – and it has only one earlobe, in which the upper earlobe is doubled inside it and combined below, it is a blemish.

The ear of a kid which was doubled: the sages ruled: if it is all one bone, it is a blemish, but if it is not all one bone, it is not a blemish. If the kid seems to have one ear inside of another ear, the kid is considered blemished if the ear has only one “bone” meaning one ear lobe. This would seem to refer to a case where the external lobe was bent over and turned into the internal ear. However, if the “bone” (the lobe) is split at the top, the animal is not blemished. We should note that the reason for this is unclear and indeed the Rambam has a different and opposite version of the mishnah: if it is one bone it is blemished but if it is not one bone, it is not blemished.

ואם אינה עצם אחד – the earlobes are differentiated/separated above.

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: if the tail of a kid is like that of a pig, or if the tail does not possess three vertebrae, this is a blemish. If a kid’s tail looks like a pig’s tail, or does not have the full three vertebrae, the animal is blemished.

אינו מום – but the reason is not explained. But nevertheless, it is not similar to an animal (i.e., a firstling) with five feet, for an ear within an ear is not seen all that often.

שהיא דומה לשל חזיר – round like the tail of a pig, and even though it is not thin like it.

שלש חוליות – it is specifically in the tail of a lamb that we require three vertebrae [of the spinal column], but the tail of a kid, one vertebrae alone is a blemish, two are not a blemish. And such is the Halakha.

יבלת (wart) – POROSH in the foreign language. And even if its is the white of he eye, and it has hair, it is a blemish.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: if [a first born] has a wart in its eye or if a bone of its fore-leg or hind-leg is defective, or if the bone of the mouth split, or one eye is large and the other small, or one ear is large and the other small, being visibly so and not merely in measurement [all of these are blemishes].
Rabbi Judah says: if one testicle is as large as two of the other [this is a blemish]. But the sages didn’t agree with him.
In the first section of this mishnah, Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus adds several more defects to the list. In the second section, Rabbi Judah adds another defect, but the other sages disagree with him.
Since the mishnah is quite clear on its own, there is no commentary below.

ושנפגם עצם ידו- that the blemish is known. And above, we are speaking about when it is broken.

ושנפסק עצמו שבפיו – that the teeth are set in it. It (i.e., the Mishnah) is speaking of above the sinews. For if it is the sinews themselves, which are the teeth themselves that are in the middle of the mouth, but it is taught above (see Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 7, Mishnah 4): “if the incisors are damaged or worn down, it is a blemish.”

עינו אחת גדולה – like that of a calf.

ואחת קטנה – like that of a goose.

במראה – that it appears to all that this one is larger than the other one.

אבל לא במדה – that it is not recognized other than by measurement, it is not a blemish.

ולא הודו לא חכמים – with Rabbi Yehuda. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

ערקוב (the inner part of the knee/inner angle of the joint which unites the thigh and the leg of the animal) – to the upper tie which is the place of the connection of the thigh with the foreleg. But corresponding to it in a camel it is recognized that it has corresponding to this upper leg from under the hip-bone to the ankle (i.e., the knee and the surrounding parts), this bone protrudes outward.

Introduction This is the final mishnah that lists blemishes that disqualify an animal.

כל מרבית העגלים כן (through the whole period of growth of calves it is so) – all of the growth of calves and their custom – is that their tails reach the inner part of the knee [therefore, less than this it is a blemish], and when they are grown up, they (i.e., the tails) extend/stretch below.

If the tail of a calf does not reach the joint, [it is a blemish]. The sages said: the growth of all calves is in this manner, as long as [the animals] grow, the tails also extend [below]. To which joint does this refer? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: the joint in the middle of the hip. According to the first opinion, if the tail does not reach the joint in the middle of the hip, the joint that connects the thigh bone with the thigh, the animal is defective. The other sages disagree and say that it is normal for the tail to grow slowly. Thus if early in life the tail does not reach the hip joint, it is not a blemish because it will grow later.

שבאמצע הירך – this is the upper joints/hams of the knee that I explained which correspond to that of a known camel.

In consequence of these blemishes we may slaughter a firstborn animal, and consecrated animals rendered unfit [for the altar] in consequence of these blemishes may be redeemed. This section relates to all of the blemishes listed above in the chapter. If a first born has any one of these blemishes it may be slaughtered and it need not be brought to the Temple as a sacrifice. If a consecrated animal develops one of these blemishes it cannot be offered as a sacrifice and must be redeemed for money.

על אלו מומין שוחטין את הבכור – even though it is taught in the beginning of our chapter (see Mishnah 1 of this chapter), “on account of these blemishes they slaughter the firstling,” it returns and teaches it again here, because it is taught three, it adds, etc. and they said to him: we did not hear of these” (see Mishnah 8 of this chapter), he reviewed them and generalized them to state that even on these blemishes, they slaughter [the firstling].

לא במקדש – because they are not appropriate, for one does not offer up in the Sanctuary any other than the most choice.

Introduction The blemishes listed in this mishnah disqualify an animal from being valid as a sacrifice. However, they are not permanent blemishes and therefore if the animal is a first born, it may not be slaughtered. Basically, all the owner can do is wait until either the blemish goes away or a permanent blemish develops.

ולא במדינה – that they are not lasting/permanent to release them from their sanctity, but rather we set them aside until another lasting blemish befalls them and they are slaughtered for it.

And in consequence of the following blemishes one may not slaughter a first born either in the Temple or in the rest of the state: This is an introduction to the rest of the mishnah.

גרב (itch) – a kind of moist boil from without and from within. And the boil mentioned in the Torah is a blemish, for it is a dry boil.

White spots on the cornea and water [dripping from the eye] which are not permanent, These blemishes were listed in mishnah three. If they are not permanent, the animal may not be slaughtered, although it may not be sacrificed.

יבלת (wart) - on the white of the eye and it has no hair in it. But above (see Mishnah 10 in our chapter) when we considered blemishes that we slaughter [the firstling] we were speaking about when it has hair.

Or molars which have been broken but not torn out [completely]; Problems with the molars were listed in mishnah four. Since they have not been torn out, the blemish is not permanent.

ובעל חזזית – there are two varieties of lichen. The Egyptian lichen is the lichen written of in the Torah which is moist from the outside and dry from the inside, and it is a blemish that does not return to health, and the Master stated (see Talmud Bekhorot 41a) – Why is it called lichen? Because it continues to cling [to the body] until the day of death, but the lichen that is taught here is a kind of boil that has a cure.

Or [an animal] affected with garav, a wart, or hazazit. A garav and a hazazit are kinds of boil. Since boils and warts are impermanent, they do not allow the first born to be slaughtered.

ומזוהם – that a bad smells goes out from it.

An old [animal] or a sick one, [an animal] of offensive smell; An old, sick or foul-smelling animal cannot be sacrificed, but since these are not exactly blemishes, they also can’t be slaughtered.

ושנעבד בו עבירה - (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 8, Mishnah 1) that it (the firstling) had sexual relations with a woman or that it put a man to death with the testimony of one witness, for there is only witness - neither with carnal connection with beasts nor with goring.

Or [an animal] which with a transgression has been committed or an animal which is known to have killed a human being on the testimony of one witness or of the owners. If two witnesses see an animal commit a transgression, either having sexual relations with a human or killing a human, the animal must be executed and can obviously not be sacrificed. However, if there is only witness, or if the owners were the witnesses, then the animal need not be executed. However, since it did commit a capital crime, it cannot be sacrificed but neither can it be slaughtered to be eaten.

או על פי עצמו – that there is no witness there at all, but the owners stated that we saw it (i.e., the firstling) that it had copulated in an unnatural way or that it put someone to death, it (i.e., the animal) is not stoned by their word. For if there were two kosher witnesses testifying in the matter, the bull would be stoned, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.

A tumtum or a hermaphrodite cannot be slaughtered, neither in the Temple or in the rest of the state. Rabbi Ishmael however says: there is no greater blemish than that [of a hermaphrodite]. But the sages say: it is not considered a first-born and it may be shorn and worked with. A tumtum is an animal (or human being) with neither male nor female genitalia, whereas a hermaphrodite has both sets of genitalia. There are three opinions as to the status of a first born that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. According to the first opinion, while it cannot be sacrificed, because it is blemished, it also cannot be slaughtered and eaten. Rabbi Ishmael holds that it is blemished and therefore it can be slaughtered and eaten. The other sages say that such an animal is not even considered a first born because it may not be a male. They too would hold that it can be slaughtered and eaten.

וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס – that they are doubtfully male and are Holy, doubtfully female and not holy.

אין לך מום גדול מזה – it is referring to the beast of double sex, that in the place of females, it is like a blemish, for it is like firstling with a blemish, and it is slaughtered in the provinces, and it is prohibited to use its shearing and its labor.

וחכמים אומרים אינו בכור – it is a creature of its own kind. And it may be sheared and worked. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.