וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: הַצּוֹרֵם אֹזֶן הַפָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ קִיבֵּל דָּמוֹ – פָּסוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר״ – הַפָּר שֶׁהָיָה כְּבָר! אֶלָּא: כָּאן – שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם קַבָּלָה, כָּאן – שֶׁחָסְרָה לְאַחַר קַבָּלָה.

But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: In the case of one who slits the ear of the bull with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collects its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: “And the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull” (Leviticus 4:5). By using the term “the bull,” the verse indicates that the bull must be at the time of collection of the blood as it already was before slaughter, without a blemish. Rather, here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before the collection of the blood, whereas there, in the second baraita, it is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after the collection of the blood.

וּלְאַחַר קַבָּלָה קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה, מִי שָׁרֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״שֶׂה תָמִים זָכָר בֶּן שָׁנָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא תָּמִים בֶּן שָׁנָה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה;

The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after the collection of the blood but before the sprinkling of the blood, is it permitted to be sacrificed upon the altar? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male in its year” (Exodus 12:5), indicating that it shall be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter?

וּמִנַּיִן בְּקַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה וְהַזָּיָיה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִהְיֶה״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כָּל הֲוָיוֹתָיו תָּם וּבֶן שָׁנָה!

The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that it must also be unblemished at the time of the collection of the blood, and at the time of conveying its blood to the altar, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood? The verse states: “Shall be,” emphasizing that all actions that are performed upon it shall be performed only when it is unblemished and in its first year. This teaches that the offering must be unblemished even at the time of the sprinkling of its blood.

תַּרְגְּמָא אַבֶּן שָׁנָה. הָכִי נַמִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵהֶן כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר אוֹ כַּזַּיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

The Gemara answers: Interpret this baraita as teaching that only the requirement that the animal must be in its first year is necessary at the time of sprinkling. Nevertheless, it need not be unblemished at this stage. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah that were slaughtered and their blood was collected, from which there remains either an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat, the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering. Learn from this baraita that even if most of the offering is lacking, it is not disqualified after the collection of the blood.

וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵי דְּבִשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה הָוֵי בֶּן שָׁנָה, וּבִשְׁעַת קַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה הָוֵי בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים? אֲמַר רָבָא, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: שָׁעוֹת פּוֹסְלוֹת בְּקָדָשִׁים.

The Gemara asks with regard to the interpretation of the baraita: But is there anything where at the time of its slaughter the animal is in its first year but at the time of the collection of the blood and conveying it to the altar it is in its second year? Rava says: That is to say that hours disqualify in the case of sacrificial animals,

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וּמָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ – כּוּלָּן בַּבֵּיצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

§ The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether the lack of an internal organ disqualifies an offering from being sacrificed. Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita discussing the verse that provides a list of animals disqualified from the altar: “And that whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut you shall not sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:24). All of these blemishes are found in the animal’s testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

בַּבֵּיצִים וְלֹא בַּגִּיד? אֵימָא: אַף בַּבֵּיצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּן בַּגִּיד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת – אַף בַּבֵּיצִים, נָתוּק וְכָרוּת – בַּגִּיד אִין, בַּבֵּיצִים לָא.

The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that these blemishes are only in the testicles and not in the penis? There too these should be considered blemishes, as the penis is more exposed and visible than the testicles. Rather, say that all of them also apply to the testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: All of them are considered blemishes only when found on the penis. Rabbi Yosei says: The blemishes of “bruised, or crushed” apply also to the testicles, while with regard to the blemishes of “torn or cut,” on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles they are not considered a blemish.

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן?

The Gemara explains the relevance of the dispute to the matter at hand: What, is it not that these tanna’im disagree about this: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack. Therefore, in cases where the testicles are damaged they are considered lacking, disqualifying the animal, despite the fact that the blemish is not exposed. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, holds that the lack of an internal limb is not called a lack.

וְתִסְבְּרָא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן – אֲפִילּוּ נָתוּק וְכָרוּת נַמִי, וְאִי קָסָבַר לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן – אֲפִילּוּ מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת נַמִי לָא!

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? If so, what does Rabbi Yosei hold? If he holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack, then even “torn or cut” should be considered a lack, despite the fact that these blemishes are not visible. And if he holds that a lack of an internal limb is not called a lack, then even “bruised, or crushed,” should not be considered a lack, as they are not exposed.

אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמוּמִים שֶׁבְּגָלוּי קָמִיפַּלְגִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת הָוֵי מוּמָא – דְּמִיכַּוְּוצָן, נָתוּק וְכָרוּת הָוֵי מוּמָא – דְּהָא תַּלְיָין. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא – דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נַמִי זִמְנִין דְּמִיכַּוְּוצָן, נָתוּק וְכָרוּת לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא – דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נַמִי זִימְנִין דְּתַלְיָין.

Rather, here they disagree with regard to exposed blemishes. Rabbi Yehuda holds that “bruised or crushed” testicles are considered blemished, as the testicles noticeably shrink due to the crushing. Likewise, testicles that are “torn or cut” are considered blemished, as the testicles appear to be hanging, i.e., dangling, to such an extent that they do not appear to be attached in the usual manner. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that testicles that are “bruised or crushed” are not considered noticeable blemishes, as initially, before they become damaged, there are times that the testicles also shrink. Furthermore, testicles that are “torn or cut” are not considered blemished either, as initially, prior to being torn or cut, there are times that the testicles also hang.

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת הָוֵי מוּמָא – דְּהָא לֵיתְנְהוּ, נָתוּק וְכָרוּת לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא – דְּהָא אִיתְנְהוּ.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that “bruised or crushed” testicles are considered blemished, as they are no longer present in their normal state, but are entirely broken. But he maintains that “torn or cut” testicles are not considered blemished, as they are still present in the pouch, despite the fact that they no longer function.

מתני׳ נִפְגַּם הַזּוֹבֶן, הָעֶרְיָה שֶׁל נְקֵבָה בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. נִפְגַּם הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַפֶּרֶק, אוֹ שֶׁרֹאשׁ זָנָב מְפֻצָּל, נִקְלְפָה הָעוֹר וְהַבָּשָׂר וְהָעֶצֶם נִשְׁאַר, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּשָׂר מֵחוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע.

The mishna details additional blemishes that enable the slaughter of firstborn animals: If the pouch [hazoven] in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed, or if the genitalia of a female sacrificial animal, were damaged and lacking; if the tail was damaged from the tailbone, but not if it was damaged from the joint, i.e., one of the joints between the vertebrae, because it heals; or in a case where the end of the tail is split, i.e., the skin and the flesh were removed and the bone remained exposed; or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint; these are all blemishes.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נִפְגַּם – וְלֹא נִיטַּל, כִּיס – וְלֹא זַכְרוּת. תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: נִפְגַּם – וְלֹא נִיטַּל, כִּיס – וְלֹא זַכְרוּת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעִינְבָּל אֶחָד שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ זְאֵב, וְחָזַר לְאֵיתָנוֹ.

With regard to the case where the pouch in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed was damaged, Rabbi Elazar says: This applies only if the pouch was damaged, but not in a case where it was removed. Furthermore, it is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if the male sex organ was damaged. this opinion is also taught in a baraita: It is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if it was removed, and only if the pouch was damaged, but not the male sex organ. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: An incident occurred involving one animal in Inbal, where a wolf removed its pouch and it later returned to its strength, i.e., it grew again.

״נִפְגְּמָה הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם״ וכו׳. תָּנָא: אֶצְבַּע שֶׁאָמְרוּ – אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעָה בְּטֶפַח שֶׁל כָּל הָאָדָם. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַבָּה: לְעִנְיַן תְּכֵלֶת. דְּתַנְיָא: כַּמָּה חוּטִין הוּא נוֹתֵן? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַרְבָּעָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשָׁה.

§ The mishna stated: If the tail was damaged from the tailbone… or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. A tanna taught: The fingerbreadth of which the Sages spoke is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rabba says: It is stated with regard to tekhelet, i.e., ritual fringes. As it is taught in a baraita: How many strings does one place on a garment? Beit Shammai say: Four strings and Beit Hillel say: Three strings are inserted into the hole so that six are hanging down.

וְכַמָּה תְּהֵא מְשׁוּלֶּשֶׁת? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַרְבָּעָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשָׁה. וּשְׁלִישׁ שֶׁבֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים – אֶחָד מֵאַרְבַּע בְּטֶפַח שֶׁל כָּל אָדָם.

The baraita continues: And how much should be hanging beyond the knots and windings? Beit Shammai say: Four fingerbreadths, and Beit Hillel say: Three fingerbreadths. And the three fingerbreadths that Beit Hillel say should be hanging are each one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: לִשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת. דִּתְנַן: שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת הָיוּ

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says that this baraita discussing the fingerbreadth is referring to the two cubits mentioned in a different context, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:9): There were two rods for measuring cubits