Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 39 for kids: What Counts as a Blemish?

בכורות ל״ט

🐑 This daf asks how to check an animal and which blemishes count for a firstborn. It also asks when an offering must still be unblemished.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 39a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 39b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 39

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 39 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 39a, in English Tab translation (36)
  1. Or perhaps… if you say it is at the first meal — If it were given at every meal, there would be no question whether to give it before or after eating: at the second meal it would necessarily be after an earlier meal. The question arises only if it is given at the first meal of each day.
  2. Before eating, it certainly helps like medicine — People ordinarily take medicine before eating.
  3. What about after eating? — Does this count as a valid examination of the animal or not?
  4. The correct reading is: Before drinking, it certainly helps like barley — Animals ordinarily eat barley before drinking.
  5. Untied, it certainly helps — Because the animal is at ease.
  6. With another animal — It is comfortable in company, so the feeding is effective.
  7. In the field — It is comfortable in the open air.
  8. A garden next to the city — Is it considered like a field or not?
  9. Divided into equal thirds — If he sees the blemish today, he examines it after twenty-six and a half days, again after twenty-six and a half days, and again after twenty-seven days, completing eighty days. Over these intervals, such a blemish may disappear; if it does, it is a temporary blemish.
  10. Whether one misuses its redemption money — This question is not about a firstborn, which cannot be redeemed, but about another consecrated animal with constant tears. Its owner immediately set aside money to redeem it and declared it redeemed with that money. The animal was then examined, and someone benefited from the money before the three-month examination ended.
  11. If you say it was a blemish retroactively — The redemption was valid, the money became sacred, and one who benefited from it must bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property.
  12. Shmuel applied this verse to him — “The lame take the prey” describes something unexpected: lame people seizing spoils. Likewise, you are not especially sharp, yet you have asked a question I cannot answer.
  13. Its lip — Its lip.
  14. Visible on the outside — The hole pierced the outer walls of the nose and can be seen.
  15. Visible on the inside — The partition dividing the nostrils was pierced.
  16. It is not a blemish — Because it is in a concealed place.
  17. The outer row of its lip — The lip’s outer edge, not its broad surface.
  18. Double teeth — Large teeth, each of which looks like two teeth.
  19. Not even the double teeth — If the gum tissue opposite them is pulled out, it is not a blemish.
  20. What are the double teeth? — This is explained fully below.
  21. The double teeth themselves are considered inward — One may not slaughter the animal on account of a blemish there.
  22. The outer teeth — Those in the middle of the mouth.
  23. One does not consider them — Even for disqualification from the altar, they do not count.
  24. What is the tanna saying? — It asks, “What are the double teeth?” but answers, “From the double teeth inward.”
  25. This is what it means: What are the inner gums? — These are the gums of which the mishna says that extraction is a blemish, but chipping or cutting them down is not.
  26. But it is disqualified — It is disqualified from the altar. One must wait until it develops another blemish, and then it may be slaughtered.
  27. Lame and blind are written — These words imply visible blemishes, not hidden ones.
  28. To slaughter — The question is whether a firstborn may be slaughtered because an internal organ is missing.
  29. And to redeem — I have no question about redeeming consecrated animals: an internal deficiency is not considered enough of a blemish.
  30. Acceptable — Acceptable for the altar.
  31. And the two kidneys — This is written about sacrifices.
  32. He shall remove it — The singular wording implies that he may remove one kidney and offer it on the altar.
  33. No creature is born with one — No creature is born with only one kidney; an animal that has only one is missing the other.
  34. This one — The ruling that disqualifies it concerns an animal born with two kidneys that later lost one, leaving a recognizable place where it was. The baraita that permits it concerns an animal born with one kidney, so nothing is missing.
  35. The sage who disqualifies holds that no creature is born with one — This animal must therefore be missing a kidney. My teacher wondered why the Gemara does not also object that the baraita lists one kidney alongside three, implying that both cases concern an animal born that way. To me this is not difficult. At first, when we thought everyone agreed that an animal could be born with one kidney, its listing alongside three implied that even one kidney from birth disqualifies it. We could not see why: it is not a visible blemish, and no internal organ is missing. Because of this difficulty, the Gemara explained that this sage holds no animal is born with one kidney, so this animal is missing one. Its case cannot be like that of three kidneys, since an animal cannot be born with one. And if he held that it could be born with one, why would he disqualify it?
  36. Missing before slaughter — If the kidney was lost before slaughter, the animal is disqualified.
Tosafot on Bechorot 39a, in English Tab translation (1)
  1. They must be evenly spaced — The examinations should take place at the beginning, middle, and end of the eighty days. The same reading applies to the three sinew stitches that make a scroll of Esther valid: they should be placed at the beginning, middle, and end of the column. Rashi explains there instead that the gaps between the stitches, and between the stitches and the top and bottom of the column, must be equal. The teaching about the cities of refuge in Makkot certainly follows that pattern: the distances from the southern border to Hebron, from Hebron to Shechem, from Shechem to Kedesh, and from Kedesh to the northern border must be equal. The cities are not placed at the beginning, middle, and end of the land. Here, too, Rashi divides the eighty days into equal intervals, apparently to follow that approach. But the cases are not quite alike: by that reasoning, the three examinations should be on days twenty, forty, and sixty, leaving twenty days both before the first and after the last. That cannot be the meaning here. Rather, as I explained, they occur at the beginning, middle, and end. This is supported by the discussion in Yevamot of a man whose condition dates from birth: the Gemara does not suspect that he recovered in between, because he was impaired at both the beginning and the end. That suggests three checks—at the beginning, middle, and end. The arrangement of three villages discussed in Eruvin appears to follow neither this pattern nor the one in Makkot.
Rashi on Bechorot 39b, in English Tab translation (34)
  1. One who slits the bull’s ear — this concerns the anointed priest’s bull after slaughter.
  2. As it was before — it was intact when its blood was collected.
  3. Interpret it as referring to being in its first year — the requirement that it remain so throughout applies to its age; it need be unblemished only at slaughter and when its blood is collected.
  4. This, too, is reasonable — an offering that becomes deficient after its blood is collected remains valid.
  5. An olive-bulk of flesh — enough for a person to eat.
  6. Or an olive-bulk of fat — enough to be offered on the altar.
  7. He sprinkles the blood — if nothing remains, he does not, for the verse says, “You shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27): without flesh, there is no blood offering. Yet if even an olive-bulk remains, he sprinkles, though almost the entire animal is gone. Thus the requirement that it remain qualified throughout refers to its being in its first year.
  8. Hours disqualify — if this lamb was born last year on the fourteenth of Nisan during the eighth hour of the day, one must slaughter it this year before the ninth hour. At that point it enters its second year and is disqualified.
  9. Let us say — that Rav Aḥadevoi’s question is a dispute between tanna’im.
  10. In the testicles but not in the penis? — This is a question: Would damage to the penis not be a blemish? It certainly would, since the penis is more exposed than the testicles.
  11. Crushed — crushed with stones until they were reduced to pulp.
  12. Torn off — completely detached by hand, though still hanging in the scrotal sac.
  13. Cut off — cut with a knife, but still hanging in the scrotal sac and slightly attached. Cutting is less severe than tearing off, as stated in the preceding chapter (Bekhorot 33b): “to include tearing off after cutting.” Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning is explained below.
  14. All of them apply to the penis — not to the testicles.
  15. Rabbi Yehuda holds that an internal loss counts as a loss.
  16. Rather, they disagree about visible blemishes — all agree that an internal loss counts as a loss. Those who disqualify damage to the testicles do so because it is a visible blemish, not because something is missing.
  17. For they hang down — they dangle and knock against the scrotal sac, making it visible from outside that they are not firmly attached above.
  18. Sometimes they shrink — even when healthy.
  19. For they are no longer there — so something is missing.
  20. Mishnah: The sheath — the covering in which the scrotal sac is concealed.
  21. And the female genital opening in consecrated animals — this applies to other offerings that can be female, not to a firstborn offering. In a peace offering, which can be female, damage to that opening is a blemish.
  22. From the joint — if the tail is only slightly damaged between its joints, rather than severed entirely, it heals.
  23. Or the tip of the tail exposes the bone — when skin and flesh are stripped from the hanging tip, leaving bone exposed, it no longer heals because the damage is at the tip. “Exposes” has the sense of “peeled” in Genesis 30.
  24. Gemara: Damaged — damage to the sheath is a blemish because it does not heal.
  25. But not removed — removal is not a blemish because the sheath grows back.
  26. Sac — If the scrotum is damaged, it is a blemish. But damage to the penis itself is not a blemish, because it heals.
  27. That a wolf took — The entire penis.
  28. The fingerbreadth they mentioned, etc. — We do not yet know what this statement refers to, so the Gemara asks for what practical ruling they specified a fingerbreadth.
  29. One of four in a handbreadth — Fingers differ in width. As stated in tractate Menachot, a handbreadth prescribed by the Torah equals four thumbbreadths, six little-finger breadths, or five and one-third ordinary fingerbreadths. Here, when the Sages specify a fingerbreadth, they mean one-fourth of a person's handbreadth: a thumbbreadth.
  30. For what practical ruling — Did they specify a fingerbreadth?
  31. How many strands — Did they specify for ritual fringes?
  32. Hanging down — The fringe hangs below the corner of the garment, since it is attached not at the very edge but three fingerbreadths inward.
  33. One of four — Three thumbbreadths, each a quarter of a handbreadth. Alternatively: How much of the fringe should be braided, apart from the loose strands?
  34. Two cubits — Two measuring rods, each one cubit long.
Tosafot on Bechorot 39b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. But Rabbi Zeira said in Rav’s name: ‘One who nicks’ — In the second chapter of Zevaḥim (25b), the text reads, ‘For it was taught: One who nicks.’
  2. All of them apply to the penis and not to the testicles — Nevertheless, the end of the verse, ‘You shall not do this in your land,’ prohibits castration even when it involves the testicles, wherever it causes sterility. It is forbidden even if done indirectly, as explained in the chapter ‘Eight Creeping Things’ (Shabbat 110b). Only with regard to a sacrificial blemish does this not count as a visible blemish, for the reason given shortly.
  3. Or the tip of the tail splits the bone — Rashi explains that the skin and flesh have peeled away, leaving the bone exposed, taking ‘splits’ to mean ‘peels.’ But if that were the meaning, the Mishnah and Gemara should have said ‘peeled.’ Rather, it seems that the tip divides the bone in two, like the ‘forked’ horns described in Ḥullin (59b), which branch in both directions. The Tosefta (chapter 4) says, ‘Or the tip of the tail is split into two bones.’
  4. How many threads does he put in? Beit Shammai say four — We must determine whether this means four in all, or four white threads and four blue ones, and whether it refers to the threads before they are folded. If it means four of each before folding, they become sixteen strands. The eight strands we now use are all designated white, for we follow Beit Shammai, as stated in the chapter ‘The Blue Thread’ (Menaḥot 41b). If one breaks, the fringes are invalid. Although a remnant of blue remains valid when the white is intact, here all the threads are designated white. The Sifrei on Ki Tetze appears to say that Beit Shammai require four threads of each kind. It says: ‘How many threads make fringes? No fewer than three, according to Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say four blue threads and four white threads, extending four fingerbreadths; and the law follows Beit Shammai.’ Yet in the chapter ‘The Blue Thread,’ Rav Yirmeya of Difti used eight threads, making sixteen strands, while Mar son of Ravina made them as we do. This suggests that most people followed Mar son of Ravina. Perhaps he understood Beit Shammai’s four white and four blue threads as the count after folding—two of each kind before folding. On that reading, the fringes we make now have half their threads designated white and half blue. Beit Hillel’s three threads, however, must be counted before folding, since folding cannot produce three strands. Their three and Beit Shammai’s four would thus be counted differently.
  5. How much? — Rashi explains that this asks how far the fringes hang below the corner of the garment: they are attached not at the very edge but three fingerbreadths in for Beit Hillel, and four for Beit Shammai. But the Gemara resolves their distance from the corner as the length of a thumb joint. Its mention of three fingerbreadths only rules out attaching them farther in. Another explanation Rashi gives seems preferable: the question asks how long the braided section is, apart from the loose threads. Beit Shammai answer: four fingerbreadths. Since the ideal fringes have one-third braid and two-thirds loose threads, that makes four fingerbreadths of braid and eight of loose threads, twelve in all. This also fits the phrase ‘and four white threads over four fingerbreadths.’ In the chapter ‘The Blue Thread,’ however, Rashi explains the four fingerbreadths as the length of the loose threads alone, apart from the braid. On his reading, the ideal fringes have two fingerbreadths of braid and four of loose threads.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 39.