or perhaps does it mean it is fed the amount of a fig-bulk at each and every meal? If you say that it is fed a fig-bulk only at the first meal, is it fed this fodder before its regularly scheduled eating or after eating? The Gemara elaborates: Before eating, it is certainly effective for it like a medicine, which people imbibe before their meals. With regard to after eating, what is the halakha? Is this an effective manner of examining the animal? The Gemara further inquires: Is the animal fed this fodder as a medicine before drinking or after drinking? Before drinking it is certainly effective for it, like barley, which is fed to an animal before it drinks. With regard to after drinking, what is the halakha?

The Gemara continues to inquire: Is the animal given the fodder when it is tied or untied? The Gemara explains: When it is untied, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal. When it is tied, what is the halakha? Furthermore, is it fed the fodder when it is by itself, or with another animal? When it is with another animal, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is comfortable. When it is by itself, what is the halakha?

Likewise, is the animal fed it in the city or in the field? When it is in the field, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is calm. When it is in the city, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a further dilemma: If you say that this treatment is effective only when it is in the field, not when it is the city, what is the halakha with regard to a garden adjacent to the city? No resolution is found for any of these inquiries, and with regard to each of them the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

§ The mishna teaches with regard to constant pale spots that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus says: One examines the animal three times within eighty days. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And this is the halakha provided that they are divided into equal thirds, i.e., there must be an even gap between each of these examinations.

With regard to the statement of the mishna that constant tears are examined by feeding the animal moist and then dry fodder for a period of three months, Pineḥas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, raises a dilemma before Shmuel: If the animal ate the fodder in the required manner and was not healed, which means that it is blemished, is it a retroactive blemish from the day it was discovered, or is it a blemish from that point forward?

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to whether one has violated the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property concerning its redemption money in a case where a consecrated animal was redeemed before the end of the three months of examination and someone derived benefit from the money paid for its redemption. If you say that it is a retroactive blemish, he thereby misuses consecrated property, as the redemption was effective and the money belongs to the Temple treasury.

But if it is a blemish from that point forward, then one who derived benefit from money paid before that point has not misused consecrated property, as an unblemished animal cannot be redeemed, and the money remains non-sacred. What, then, is the halakha? Shmuel read this verse with regard to his brother: “The lame take the prey” (Isaiah 33:23), i.e., one who is not learned in Torah has managed to ask a question for which I have no answer.

MISHNA: For these additional blemishes, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple: Its nose that was pierced, or that was damaged and is lacking, or that was split. Likewise, its lip that was pierced, or that was damaged, or that was split is considered a blemish.

GEMARA: With regard to the case of the nose that was pierced, the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where its nostrils were pierced one into the other, if the perforation is visible on the outside of the nostril, this is a blemish; if it is visible only on the inside of the nostril, it is not a blemish. With regard to the case of: Its lip that was pierced or that was damaged or that was split, Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the outer row, i.e., the front, protruding part of its lip.

MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn: The external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched, and likewise, the internal gums that were extracted. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the double teeth, i.e., the large molars that appear like two teeth, and inward, and one does not examine even the place of the double teeth themselves. This is because even if they were extracted, it is a concealed blemish, and it does not permit the slaughter of the firstborn.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the mishna is referring to the double teeth, what are the double teeth? The area from the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves, are considered like the inward part, i.e., the location of a concealed blemish, for which one may not slaughter the animal. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth alone. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not consider the double teeth at all.

The Gemara notes that the baraita asks about the double teeth but does not answer the question: What is the tanna saying? And furthermore, the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai is the same as that of the first tanna, as they both maintain that a blemish to the double teeth is considered a concealed blemish.

The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: What are the inner gums, for which a firstborn is not slaughtered if a blemish was found there? The inner gums are located from the place of the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves are considered like the inward part. In what case is this statement, that one does not slaughter the animal, said? It is said in a case where the inner gums were damaged or were scratched. But if they were extracted, one does slaughter the firstborn for this blemish.

The Gemara continues its interpretation of the baraita. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth. But with regard to the inner gums that were extracted, one does not slaughter the animal for them, but it is disqualified as an offering. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not pay attention to the double teeth at all, and a blemish there does not even disqualify the firstborn from sacrifice.

§ Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raises a dilemma: Is there halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal, or is there no halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal? The Gemara inquires: With regard to what issue did he raise this dilemma? If it was with regard to whether such a blemish renders permitted the slaughter of a firstborn outside the Temple, it is written: “Lameness or blindness” (Deuteronomy 15:21), which indicates that the blemish must be exposed.

If the dilemma was raised with regard to whether other sacrificial animals with such a blemish are thereby disqualified from being sacrificed and may be redeemed, it is written: “Blind or broken” (Leviticus 22:22), which are also types of exposed blemishes. The Gemara explains that we do not raise this dilemma with regard to slaughtering the firstborn or redeeming other sacrificial animals, as it is clearly not considered a blemish to that extent. Rather, we raise the dilemma with regard to disqualifying the animal from sacrifice. What is the halakha?

The Gemara clarifies the dilemma. The Merciful One states: “It shall be complete to be accepted” (Leviticus 22:21), which indicates that a complete animal, yes, is fit as a sacrifice, but if it is lacking in any manner, even on the inside, it is not fit. Or perhaps one should interpret this phrase: “It shall be complete to be accepted,” in light of what is stated immediately afterward: “There shall be no blemish therein.” Just as a blemish is on the outside, as taught by the next verse, which says: “Blind or broken,” so too, the status of lacking a limb applies only if it is lacking on the outside.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that this matter is subject to a dispute. It is taught in one baraita: When it states with regard to the burning of the sacrificial portions of a peace offering: “And the two kidneys” (Leviticus 3:4), this teaches that one sacrifices only an animal that has two kidneys, but not an animal that has one kidney, nor one that has three kidneys. And it is taught in another baraita that when that verse states: “And the two kidneys…he shall take it away,” the singular form serves to include an animal that has one kidney, which may be sacrificed. Evidently, these tanna’im disagree as to whether an animal lacking a kidney is fit to be sacrificed.

The Sages initially assumed that everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and only one kidney is found because this offering became lacking a kidney only after birth. If so, let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is not considered a lack.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: There is no dispute here, as everyone agrees that there is such an entity born with one kidney, and everyone also agrees that the lack of an internal limb is considered a lack that disqualifies the animal. And the contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult: Here, in the first baraita, where it was created with two kidneys and one is lacking, the animal is disqualified. Whereas there, where it was created with one kidney from the outset, it is not lacking and therefore it is fit.

The Gemara asks: But the first baraita teaches the case of an animal that has one kidney as similar to that of an animal that has three kidneys. One can therefore infer: Just as these three kidneys were present from the outset, as an animal does not grow new limbs, so too, the animal with one kidney alone was like that from the outset.

Rather, everyone agrees that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to the matter of whether there is an entity created with one kidney from the outset. One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that there is an entity created with one kidney, and it may be assumed that this is such an animal, and it is not lacking a limb. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that there is no entity created with one kidney, and this animal is lacking a limb and is disqualified for sacrifice.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and yet it is not difficult. Here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before its slaughter. Whereas there, the second baraita is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after its slaughter, and therefore it is fit. The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after its slaughter but before the collection of the blood in a vessel for sprinkling, is it permitted to sacrifice it?