Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 41 for kids: Which Blemishes Count?

בכורות מ״א

🐄 This daf asks which conditions count as blemishes in a firstborn animal and which do not. It also asks what to do when an animal’s firstborn status is uncertain.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 41a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 41b 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 41

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 41 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 41a, in English Tab translation (35)
  1. The upper joint — The upper joint is where the shinbone meets the thighbone, not the lower joint near the hooves.
  2. Its counterpart in a camel is visible — A camel has a bone that protrudes at the corresponding joint. This is my teacher’s explanation in the discussion of slaughtering non-sacred animals. I also heard another explanation: a camel’s tail reaches that joint.
  3. And he went on to teach individual opinions — Earlier, the Sages said they had heard only of the first blemishes listed at Yavne. The mishna then taught blemishes named by individuals, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel. One might have thought the other Sages disagreed, so it concludes with an unattributed ruling that all these blemishes permit slaughter.
  4. And one with a wart — As explained above, this wart has no bone or hair and is on the white of the eye. On the body, it would merely be a dangling growth.
  5. Garav and ḥazazit — Types of boils.
  6. Foul-smelling — It smells bad.
  7. And one with which a transgression was performed — It was the object of bestiality.
  8. Or one that killed a person, on the testimony of one witness — There is only one witness to either the bestiality or the goring.
  9. On the owner's own testimony — There is no witness; only the owner says it happened. If there were two witnesses, the animal would be subject to stoning and even benefit from it would be forbidden.
  10. A tumtum and a hermaphrodite — It is uncertain whether each is male and has the sanctity of a firstborn, or female and does not.
  11. You have no greater blemish than this — This refers to the hermaphrodite: its female organ counts as a blemish. It may be slaughtered outside the Temple as a blemished firstborn, but may not be shorn or used for labor.
  12. And the Rabbis say: It is not a firstborn — It is a distinct kind of creature, so it may be shorn and used for labor.
  13. And garav is not — Is it not a full-fledged blemish?
  14. But isn't garav written in the Torah? — It appears in Leviticus alongside blindness, a broken limb, and yalefet.
  15. And furthermore, is ḥazazit not — Is it not a full-fledged blemish? It too is written in the Torah.
  16. This is ḥeres — A boil as hard as earthenware.
  17. The Egyptian ḥazazit — The boil that afflicted the Egyptians.
  18. It clings — It stays attached, like the Aramaic translation of “and he joined,” which uses the word “bound.”
  19. Rather, there are three kinds of garav; the one in the verse — The garav listed among the blemishes, which is identified as ḥeres, is dry inside and out.
  20. The Egyptian one — This is the garav mentioned among the curses. It is dry inside and moist outside. Because it is dry inside, it does not heal; in a firstborn, it would also be a full-fledged blemish.
  21. The one in the mishna — It is moist inside and out.
  22. Breaking forth — It appears on the surface; something that protrudes is described as breaking forth.
  23. And it says avabu’ot — The word suggests something that flows out, indicating that it was moist on the outside.
  24. From where do we know this? — That it may not be slaughtered in the Temple.
  25. From the flock, from the sheep — Leviticus says, “If his offering is from the flock, from the sheep or from the goats.” We interpret “from the flock” to mean some of the flock, not all of it; the other phrases are interpreted similarly.
  26. Ne’evad — an animal that people made an object of idol worship.
  27. Muktzeh — an animal set aside and designated for idol worship.
  28. Nogeaḥ — an animal that gored a person to death.
  29. And we ask, ‘Are these liable to be put to death?’ — this refers to an animal that mounted a person, one that was mounted by a person, and one that gored a person.
  30. And he answers: The case is one in which there was only one witness, or the owners admitted it on their own. The animals are then not stoned, because one who admits liability for a fine is exempt.
  31. Perhaps it is female — and he might offer it as a firstborn without separately consecrating it. But a female is not consecrated as a firstborn, so he would be bringing an unconsecrated animal into the Temple courtyard.
  32. And let it be slaughtered on that account — for the Torah lists a groove among the blemishes: ‘blind, or broken, or grooved’ (Leviticus 22:22).
  33. Since the Sage said, ‘Garav is the hard kind’ — it must be a lesion marked by grooves.
  34. And it is written — regarding skin lesions, ‘deep’ (Leviticus 13), meaning sunken, as a sunlit area looks lower than the shade. The Torah could therefore have said ‘grooved,’ which would include even a groove in ordinary flesh as a blemish, though it is not as repulsive as garav; all the more so would garav be a blemish.
  35. Perhaps — we can also infer that a groove in ordinary flesh is not a blemish when it is not as noticeable as a female animal’s openings.
Tosafot on Bechorot 41a, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. The correct reading is: “Garav—this is the hard, pottery-like boil” — Why not cite the garav in the curses in Deuteronomy? That garav is listed separately from ḥares, and it is a permanent blemish, since the verse says, “from which you cannot be healed.” We can answer that the teaching moves from one case to an even less obvious one: Garav that is dry inside and out is a blemish, and even yalefet, which is moist outside but dry inside, is a blemish, as explained below. The curses move in the other direction: One will be afflicted with garav and even with ḥares, which is worse.
  2. Rather, there are three kinds — The garav in the verse about blemishes, described as pottery-like, is dry inside and out. The Egyptian garav is moist outside but dry inside; because it is dry inside, it cannot heal. If the Egyptians did recover from it, perhaps that was a miracle. But what is the “boil of Egypt” mentioned at the beginning of the verse of curses? Garav and ḥares, both incurable, are listed separately in that same verse.
Rashi on Bechorot 41b, in English Tab translation (22)
  1. Or perhaps he is uncertain — Whether it is male or female. When he says, “It comes with its blemish,” he means: If it is a firstborn, it comes with its blemish.
  2. To be flogged for it — If it is definitely a firstborn, one is flogged, since even a blemished firstborn may not be shorn or used for labor. If its status is uncertain, one is not flogged.
  3. Or to give it to a priest — If it is a firstborn, one gives it to a priest, who may eat it because of this blemish. If its status is uncertain, its Israelite owner may eat it because of the blemish, as with any doubtful firstborn: the burden of proof rests on the claimant.
  4. Perhaps he means “if” — That is, if it is a firstborn, it comes with its blemish.
  5. “Male, but not female” — This is how it reads in Torat Kohanim. The verse about a cattle burnt offering says, “He shall offer an unblemished male,” implying not a female.
  6. When it says “male” below — In the passage about a sheep burnt offering.
  7. Which need not be stated — It is not needed to exclude a female, since she has already been excluded.
  8. To exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite — That is what the second mention of “male” comes to do.
  9. Whose opinion is it? — The teaching that the later mention of “male” excludes a tumtum and a hermaphrodite.
  10. If it is the first tanna — The first tanna of the mishna holds that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are of uncertain status.
  11. Would a verse need to exclude an uncertain case? — This is a question: There is no uncertainty before Heaven. Rather, the verse must be excluding a definite, distinct type of creature, unlike the first tanna’s view.
  12. Rather, the latter Rabbis — The latter Rabbis of the mishna are certain that it is a distinct type of creature. They therefore say it is not a firstborn and may be shorn and used for labor.
  13. They should all be excluded by one mention of “male” — In the case of a firstborn, only one mention of “male” is written, yet it excludes a female, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite.
  14. Rather, it is clearly Rabbi Yishmael’s view — We must attribute the teaching to him, as the Gemara goes on to explain. It cannot be attributed to those Rabbis, and on this reading Rabbi Yishmael is certain that a hermaphrodite is male.
  15. That is why a verse was needed to exclude it — Though it is male, it has no sanctity if dedicated as a burnt offering; it may even be shorn and used for labor. The first mention of “male” cannot teach this, since only one is written concerning a firstborn, and Rabbi Yishmael does not permit shearing it or using it for labor. Its blemish permits only slaughter.
  16. But if he is uncertain — If Rabbi Yishmael is unsure whether it is male or female, this teaching cannot follow his view: A verse does not come to exclude an uncertain case. Whose view, then, is it?
  17. It is indeed the latter Rabbis — You argued that one verse should suffice, since only one excludes them in the case of a firstborn. But that is not so: Two mentions are written concerning a firstborn.
  18. “The male” — As in the phrase, “You shall consecrate the male.”
  19. “The males” — As in the phrase, “The males among those you have shall belong to the Lord.”
  20. The dispute — The latter Rabbis’ claim that it is a distinct type of creature concerns a hermaphrodite.
  21. But a tumtum is uncertain according to everyone — It may not be shorn or slaughtered, either in the Temple or outside it.
  22. If so — If a tumtum’s sex is uncertain, a vow to give its valuation should require payment according to either a man’s valuation or a woman’s.
Tosafot on Bechorot 41b, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. If you say it follows the first tanna, who considers its status uncertain, can a verse come to exclude an uncertain case? — One might ask how the Gemara knows that the first tanna’s reason is uncertainty. Perhaps a hermaphrodite is definitely a firstborn, but its female organ is like certain damaged parts: a blemish that bars slaughter in the Temple but does not permit slaughter outside it. The answer is that Rabbi Yishmael says in a baraita, “It is a firstborn, and it comes with its blemish.” This implies that, for the first tanna, it is not definitely a firstborn.
  2. Can a verse come to exclude an uncertain case? — The Gemara asks a similar question elsewhere about a koy, an animal of uncertain classification, and about the first appearance of yellowish hairs. This differs from passages that do derive exclusions from verses for uncertain cases, such as “a definite tenth, not an uncertain tenth,” or uncertainty over whether a white patch or a white hair appeared first. A tumtum, too, could reasonably be excluded while its status is uncertain: some tumtums are male and some female. But a koy, the initial yellowish hairs, and a hermaphrodite each have a single underlying status, known to Heaven, even if we do not know it. One might object that Rav treats a hermaphrodite’s sex as uncertain, yet excludes it from entering the Temple by interpreting “from male to female” as definite males and females only. How, then, can a verse exclude it? Here the Gemara’s question concerns an extra “male” in the law of burnt offerings. If that word excludes a hermaphrodite because it is an unusual kind of male, its exclusion as a male implies that it is male, contrary to the first tanna’s uncertainty. Rav’s verse, by contrast, has two expressions, “from male” and “to female.” One can exclude a tumtum and the other a hermaphrodite; whichever sex a hermaphrodite is, the relevant expression excludes it as unusual. On this explanation Rav can agree with Rav Ḥisda below that a tumtum remains consecrated because its sex is uncertain: Rav’s exclusion of a tumtum arises from the extra wording. Alternatively, both expressions are needed to exclude a hermaphrodite, whether it is male or female; otherwise one might think it is excluded only if it is one of the two. Rav could nevertheless apply the exclusion to a tumtum as well, disagreeing with Rav Ḥisda, as Rabbi Yoḥanan also does below. Another possibility is that both expressions are needed for a tumtum alone, excluding it whether its concealed organs prove male or female; the same then applies to a hermaphrodite because it differs from an ordinary male or female. Abaye likewise excludes a tumtum elsewhere where there is extra wording. This raises a question about the Gemara’s later challenge to Rav Ḥisda from valuations: why remove “tumtum” from the baraita there, when that passage has two exclusions and a hermaphrodite might need only one? The answer is that a hermaphrodite needs both: excluding it from the male valuation alone could still leave it subject to the female valuation. Finally, one might ask why the Gemara challenges Rav Ḥisda from the exclusion of a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from peace offerings, since “if male, if female” contains two exclusions. Rabbi Yitzḥak says the reading here is “male or female,” as the verse about sheep says and as the halakhic midrash interprets it. The separate verse about cattle says “if male, if female,” but its wording is used to include the offspring of blemished animals. Thus the challenge is sound: the verse about sheep has only one exclusion, with “or” excluding a category as it does elsewhere.
  3. And they exclude all of them from it — That is, a female, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite. Even according to Rav Ḥisda below, who says to remove the tumtum from the list, “all of them” can refer to the female and the hermaphrodite.
  4. Granted, if it is obvious to him — That is, if Rabbi Yishmael is certain that the animal is a firstborn and comes with its blemish, a verse is needed to exclude it. But why need a verse when its blemish already disqualifies it from the altar? One explanation is that the verse teaches that even if someone consecrates it as a burnt offering, it acquires no sanctity at all and may even be shorn or used for labor. This is difficult, since an animal blemished from the outset is barred from shearing and labor only by rabbinic decree. Another explanation says that, though male, it cannot be offered because its female organ is a blemish; on this reading the verse establishes that this organ counts as a blemish. A further answer is that the verse excludes it more completely than an ordinary blemished animal, which can be substituted for another consecrated animal. But if so, why ask how a verse can exclude an uncertain case? Even an animal that might be female could otherwise have substitution apply to it. The question is specifically why an extra “male” excludes it from being offered: if its sex is uncertain, the wording is unnecessary for that purpose. One might also ask why the baraita must follow Rabbi Yishmael rather than another sage who considers a hermaphrodite male. The answer is that, on the explanation based on its blemish, the baraita fits Rabbi Yishmael’s view exactly.
  5. The male; the males — Why is “the males” needed? Could “the male” alone not exclude a hermaphrodite, as similar wording does elsewhere? Perhaps the many verses about firstborn males each have their own interpretations. The earlier discussion that assigns an exclusion to “the males” need not follow the latter Rabbis’ interpretation here.
  6. But a tumtum, everyone agrees, is an uncertain case — Rav Ḥisda does not mean that a verse can never exclude an uncertain case: some tumtums are male and some female, so such an exclusion would be possible. Rather, he finds it unreasonable to apply this exclusion to a tumtum, which is fully male or fully female beneath the covering. Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees below: he treats a tumtum as a distinct category on which sanctity does not take effect, even if it is later found to be male. Why, then, does the Gemara not challenge Rav Ḥisda from the mishna about one who designates an unborn animal as a burnt offering if male or a peace offering if female? That mishna says that if it is born a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, sanctity does not take effect, even when offspring become consecrated only at birth. For Rav Ḥisda, a tumtum should surely be consecrated under one of the two conditions. The answer is that he can read the mishna as saying that the person’s designation does not take effect, while the sanctity that applies to offspring of consecrated animals does take effect at birth. The discussion there does not instead limit the mishna to unconsecrated mothers, because its wording appears to cover both unconsecrated and consecrated animals.

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 41.