Talmud - Bekhorot 40b בכורות מ׳ ב׳

The Gemara continues this version of the mishna: And there was also an incident where the lower jaw of the firstborn protruded beyond the upper jaw, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asked the Sages for a ruling, and they said: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.

The Gemara challenges: But it is with regard to the blemishes of a person that we learned in a mishna (44a): If his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower lip or his lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip, that is a blemish. And it is only with regard to a person that it is written: “Whatever man of the seed of Aaron” (Leviticus 22:4), which teaches that in order to be fit for the Temple service a priest must be a man who is equal to the seed of Aaron, i.e., he has an ordinary appearance like other priests. But this requirement is not stated with regard to an animal, and therefore an animal should not be considered blemished if its lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip.

Rav Pappa said in response: That is not difficult; this mishna is referring to a case where the lower jaw contains a bone that is longer than the upper jaw, in which case it is a blemish even for an animal, whereas that mishna is referring to a case where the lower jaw does not contain a bone, and therefore it is a blemish only in the case of a person.

MISHNA: With regard to the ear of the kid that was doubled and appeared like two ears, the Sages said: When the additional ear is one bone, i.e., it has its own cartilage, it is a blemish; when it does not have its own bone it is not a blemish. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel says: In the case of the tail of a kid that is similar to that of a pig or one that is so short that it does not have three joints, that is a blemish.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: In a case where the mouth of a firstborn animal is swollen, and likewise, if its legs are swollen, the following distinction applies: If it is swollen due to the wind, i.e., it simply swelled up, it is not a blemish. If it is swollen due to a particularly large bone, this is a blemish. If its ears are doubled, in a case where it has one cartilage, this is a blemish; in a case where it has two cartilages, this is not a blemish.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to the tail of a kid that is similar to that of a pig, that is a blemish. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that it is a blemish only where its tail is thin like that of a pig; rather, if it is round, i.e., curly like a pig’s tail, even though it is thick, like the tail of a goat, this is considered a blemish.

§ The mishna stated: Or if the tail of a kid is so short that it does not have three joints, that is a blemish. Rav Huna says: In the case of the tail of a kid, if it has two joints, that is a blemish; if it has three joints, it is not a blemish. With regard to a lamb, if it has three joints, that is a blemish; if it has four joints, it is not a blemish. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a kid, if its tail has one joint, that is a blemish; if it has two joints, it is not a blemish. With regard to a lamb, if it has two joints, that is a blemish; if it has three joints, it is not a blemish. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna.

The Gemara comments: And Rav Huna issued his statement because the mishna misled him. He thought that from the fact that the first clause is referring to a kid, whose tail is similar to that of a pig, it can be inferred that the latter clause, with its mention of three joints, is also referring to a kid. But it is not so. Rather, the first clause is referring to a kid, but the latter clause is referring to a lamb, as explained in the baraita.

MISHNA: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says that these are blemished animals: One that has a wart in its eyes; and one where the bone of its foreleg or hind leg was damaged; and one where the bone of its mouth, i.e., its jaw, was dislocated; and an animal with one of its eyes large and one small, or one of its ears large and one small where the difference in size is detectable by sight, but not if it is detectable only by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal is blemished if with regard to its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his opinion.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if an animal has a wart in its eyes, it is blemished. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a wart is considered a blemish? And one can raise a contradiction from the mishna (41a): And these are the blemishes that one does not slaughter the firstborn due to them, neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country, as these are not considered full-fledged blemishes…an animal with boils that are moist inside and out, and one with warts.

The Gemara responds: And how can you understand that a wart is not a blemish? After all, a wart is written in the Torah in its list of blemishes (see Leviticus 22:22). Rather, it is not difficult, as that mishna, which states that a wart is not a full-fledged blemish, is referring to a blemish on the animal’s body, whereas this mention of a wart in the Torah and the mishna here is referring to a wart in its eye.

The Gemara asks: Now consider that the verse is written in an unspecified manner. What difference is it to me if the wart is on its body, and what difference is it to me if the wart is in its eye? How is this distinction derived from the verse? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, it is not difficult, as this is referring to a wart that has a bone,and that is referring to a wart that does not have a bone.

The Gemara elaborates: The wart mentioned in the verse and the mishna here is one that has a bone, whereas the wart addressed by the mishna there is one that does not have a bone. Consequently, if the wart is in its eye, it is a blemish, as stated in the verse and the mishna here, but if it is on its body, it is not a blemish, although the animal is disqualified from being sacrificed, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna there.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to a wart that does not have a bone and is on the body, is the animal disqualified from being sacrificed? It is merely hanging flesh, as we learned in a mishna (45b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to those with flesh or skin that hangs from their body, such a blemish disqualifies a person, but with regard to such an animal, it is fit. Rather, both this mishna here and that mishna there are referring to a wart in the animal’s eye, and it is not difficult, as this mishna is referring to a wart in the black of the eye, the pupil, whereas that mishna is referring to a wart in the white of the eye.

The Gemara asks: But it has been established that there are no blemishes in the white part of the eye, which indicates that the animal is not even disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar. Rather, both this statement that there are no blemishes in the white of the eye and that ruling of the mishna that a wart disqualifies the animal from being sacrificed are referring to a wart in the white part of the eye. And Reish Lakish says: It is not difficult; this is referring to a wart that has a hair, and therefore the animal is unfit for the altar, whereas that statement is referring to a case where the wart does not have a hair. As for the mishna here, which rules that a wart is a full-fledged blemish, it is referring to a wart in the pupil of the eye, as explained.

§ The mishna teaches with regard to an animal where one of its eyes is large and one is small that this is a blemish. In this regard, it is taught in a baraita: When the mishna states the term large, it means the eye is as large as the eye of a calf, and when it states the term small, it means it is as small as that of a goose.

The mishna teaches: Or one of its ears is large and one is small, which is detectable by sight, but not if it is detectable only by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal is blemished if with regard to its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his opinion. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, how large can the difference between the two testicles be without this discrepancy being considered a blemish? The Gemara answers that it is taught in a baraita that Aḥerim say: Even if the second, smaller testicle is no bigger than a bean, the animal is fit.

MISHNA: In the case of the tail of a calf that does not reach the leg joint [la’arkov], the Sages said: It is a blemish, because all growth of calves is in this manner:As long as they grow, their tails are extended beneath the leg joint. Which is the leg joint about which the Sages spoke? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They are referring to the leg joint that is in the middle of the thigh.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bechorot 40b explores whether a protruding jaw counts as a blemish disqualifying a firstborn animal, contrasting human and animal disfigurements.