Internal Deficiencies and Protocols for Eye Blemishes

How the Talmud defines permanent eye secretions, internal bodily defects, and damage incurred during the sacrificial service.

Evaluating Eye Secretions through Regulated Feeding

The Gemara investigates whether eye secretions called מַיִם הַקְּבוּעִים (constant tear secretions) constitute a permanent disqualifying blemish. To verify permanence, the animal must undergo an exacting feeding trial of moist fodder followed by dry fodder. The Gemara raises several unresolved dilemmas: must it be fed before or after eating, before or after drinking, while untied or tied, alone or accompanied, and in a field or near a city?

Because these questions end in a תֵּיקוּ (unresolved dilemma), the Rambam rules that any deviation leaves the animal in a state of doubtful blemish. To confirm a permanent blemish, the animal must consume a fig-bulk before its first meal, after drinking, untied in an open field, and in the company of another animal. If any optimal condition is omitted, the animal cannot be offered upon the altar nor redeemed. Furthermore, one who inflicts another blemish upon such an animal is exempt from lashes due to this doubt.

וְאִם חָסֵר אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה וְלֹא נִפְדֵּית

And if one of all these factors was lacking, there is a doubt concerning the matter, and it should be neither offered nor redeemed. (Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 2:14)

Retroactive Permanence and Redemption Value

The Gemara asks whether an unhealed blemish is established retroactively from the moment it appeared, or only from the conclusion of the testing period. The practical difference concerns מְעִילָה (unlawful benefit from consecrated property) if someone redeemed the animal during the testing period and subsequently used those redemption funds. If the blemish is retroactive, the redemption was valid and the money became sacred; if not, the redemption was invalid.

The Rambam codifies this as an unresolved סָפֵק (doubt). Consequently, an individual who uses such funds after despairing of the animal's recovery is under doubtful misuse of consecrated property and does not bring a guilt offering. (Codification in the Shulchan Arukh is not present for this case, as laws of sacrificial redemption are omitted from practical codes outside Temple times).

Internal Missing Limbs and Altar Disqualification

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami inquires whether the absence of an internal organ, such as a kidney or spleen, constitutes a disqualifying defect. The Gemara clarifies that an internal deficiency is not classified as an exposed מּוּם (blemish) that permits a consecrated animal to be redeemed or enables a firstborn to be slaughtered outside the Temple. However, it may invalidate the offering under the biblical requirement of תָּמִים (unblemished completeness).

The Rambam rules that an animal lacking an internal organ—or possessing a redundant one, such as three kidneys or two spleens—is disqualified from the altar. The animal must be burned rather than sacrificed. Nevertheless, as the Arukh HaShulchan notes based on this sugya, such an internal deficiency does not render non-sacrificial meat טְרֵפָה (fatally defective), meaning it remains permissible for ordinary consumption.

לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם שֶׁאֵין חִסָּרוֹן שֶׁבִּפְנִים מוּם אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין חָסֵר כְּלָל

Not because it is blemished, because an internal flaw is not considered a blemish, but because an animal that is lacking is never offered. (Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 2:11)

Deficiencies Incurred After Sacrificial Slaughter

The Gemara addresses damage incurred after שְׁחִיטָה (ritual slaughter) but prior to completing the service. If an animal becomes deficient before קַבָּלַת הַדָּם (collection of the blood), it is invalid, based on the verse requiring the blood to come from a complete bull. If the defect occurs between blood collection and זְרִיקָה (sprinkling on the altar), Rabbi Yehoshua teaches that the blood may still be sprinkled as long as an olive-bulk of meat or sacrificial fat survives.

The Rambam rules that slitting an ear or removing any substance prior to receiving the blood disqualifies the sacrificial offering entirely. By contrast, if meat is lost or burned after reception, the priest still sprinkles the blood provided that an olive-bulk remains of the flesh or sacrificial fats.

אִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר כְּזַיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִן הָאֵימוּרִין זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם

If an olive-sized portion of the meat or an olive-sized portion of the sacrificial fats remains, he sprinkles the blood. (Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 1:30)

An animal must meet strict environmental conditions to establish permanent eye blemishes, must remain fully intact through blood reception, and cannot be offered with internal organ deficiencies.

Learn Bekhorot 39 on Super Daf