Dislocated Limbs and Eye Blemishes in Bekhorot

Tosafot harmonizes a dislocated thigh with the laws of tereifot and resolves a seeming contradiction regarding blemishes in the eye.

Blemishes Versus Fatal Defects

A firstborn animal designated as a בכור (firstborn) possesses inherent sanctity and cannot be slaughtered for common food. It may only be consumed if it sustains a permanent מום (blemish). However, a blemish must not be confused with a fatal physical flaw.

If an injury is so severe that it renders the animal a טריפה (fatally injured animal), eating it is strictly forbidden by biblical law. The Gemara must therefore determine how an animal can have a structural defect qualifying as a מום without becoming a טריפה.

Rashi and the Dislocated Thigh

The mishna teaches that a שחול (an animal with a dislocated thighbone) has a permanent blemish and may be slaughtered. Rashi notes that this applies only when the inner tendons have not rotted away. If the tendons decomposed, the animal would become a טריפה.

Tosafot immediately questions Rashi's formulation based on a passage in Chullin 55b. There, one rabbinic authority rules that a dislocated hip renders the animal a tereifa even without decay of the tendons. If our mishna describes a traumatic dislocation, it would directly conflict with that opinion.

וקשיא לפירושו דאיכא מאן דטריף התם אפילו לא איעכול ולא איפסוק

And it is difficult according to his explanation, for there is an authority there who renders it a tereifah even if they did not decay and were not severed. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 40a:11:1)

A Congenital Structural Condition

To resolve this conflict, Tosafot reinterprets the case of the mishna. Rather than a post-birth traumatic injury, the animal was malformed from its very creation.

Because this dislocation is a congenital deformity, it is considered a permanent physical blemish rather than a fatal wound. Consequently, the animal never enters the status of a טריפה and can be slaughtered for ordinary consumption once permitted by its blemish.

Challenging Blemishes in the Eye

Later on the daf, the Gemara analyzes whether a יבלת (wart) in an animal's eye constitutes a valid blemish. The Gemara attempts to locate this blemish in the white of the eye.

Immediately, the Gemara objects: behold, blemishes cannot exist in the white of the eye. According to this foundational premise, an imperfection in the white part leaves the animal entirely valid for sacrifice on the altar.

Resolving an Established Tannaitic View

Tosafot is troubled by the absolute certainty of the Gemara's objection. On Bekhorot 38b, whether blemishes occur in the white of the eye is a matter of machloket (dispute) among the Tannaim. Why would the Gemara here treat it as an indisputable rule?

Tosafot explains that our specific mishna had already been established on 38b according to that specific opinion. Because this mishna operates within the premise that the white has no blemishes, the Gemara logically uses that settled view to challenge the proposed distinction.

Tosafot harmonizes apparent legal contradictions by distinguishing congenital flaws from traumatic injuries and contextualizing the Gemara's premises within settled tannaitic rulings.

Learn Bekhorot 40 on Super Daf