Bechoros Daf 39 בכורות דַף 39

The Mishnah's Tanna Kamma says חוטין החיצונות שנפגמו ושנגממו – if the bechor’s front gums were notched or cut, הפנימים שנעקרו – or its back [gums] were uprooted completely, it is a מום. Rebbe Chanina ben Antignos says: אין בודקין מן התיומת ולפנים – we do not examine the area from the twin-like teeth and inwards, ואף לא את התיומת – and not even the area of the twin-like teeth themselves. A Baraisa presents three opinions, explained as follows: the Tanna Kamma identifies the [gums of the] "תיומת" and inwards as "פנימית" – inner [gums], about which they ruled: if notched or cut, it is not a מום, but if they were uprooted completely, the bechor may be shechted as a בעל מום. Rebbe Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says we may only shecht based on a מום of the outer area, but regarding the inner gums, מישחט עלייהו לא שחטינן – we may not shecht the bechor based on them, אבל אפסולי מיפסל – but it disqualifies the bechor from being brought as a korban. Rebbe Chanina ben Antignos says אין משגיחין על התיומת כל עיקר – we pay no attention to the twin-like teeth, even if their gums were entirely uprooted, it is not disqualified as a korban.

Rav Achadvoi bar Ami asked: יש מחוסר אבר מבפנים – is there a law about [an animal] which is missing an internal organ, או אין מחוסר אבר מבפנים – or is there no law about [an animal] which is missing an internal organ? The Gemara clarifies what the question was about: regarding a bechor, the passuk says “lame or blind,” indicating the מום must be exposed to view; regarding other korbanos, the passuk only says an animal which is עורת או שבור – blind or broken may be redeemed, but not those with interior מומין!? The Gemara answers that as far as allowing a bechor to be shechted, or korbanos to be redeemed, missing an internal organ is not a מום. Rather, he asked whether it is a blemish לאיפסולי – to disqualify the animal as a korban. Do we say that since the Torah says "תמים יהיה לרצון" – it shall be complete to find favor, so it must be "תמים" – complete and not missing any organ, even internally, or is "תמים" defined by the later phrase, "כל מום לא יהיה בו" – there shall not be any blemish in it? Accordingly, only an exposed deficiency would disqualify.

The Gemara presents a machlokes Tannaim: Rebbe Yehudah says that when the Torah disqualifies מעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות – [an animal whose reproductive organs are] squashed, crushed, detached, or cut, it refers even to injuries בביצים – in the testicles, and certainly to those בגיד – in the male member. Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov says it refers only to defects of the גיד. Rebbe Yose says “squashed and crushed” apply even to the ביצים, but “detached and cut” only to the גיד. The Gemara proves they are not arguing about whether missing an internal organ disqualifies a korban, because Rebbe Yose’s distinction between the different injuries would be inexplicable. Rather, they argue about which defects constitute מומים שבגלוי – exposed blemishes. Rebbe Yehudah holds even crushed ביצים are an exposed blemish, דמיכווצן – because they become visibly shriveled, and if they are detached and cut, they are תליין – visibly dangling. Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that since sometimes uninjured ביצים are shriveled or dangling to begin with, these are not a מום שבגלוי. Rebbe Yose holds that crushed ביצים are a blemish, דהא ליתנהו – because they are effectively nonexistent, as opposed to detached or cut ביצים.