Study Bekhorot folio 37B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
It can be inferred that if the internal gums were extracted then yes, one may slaughter the firstborn, but if they were merely damaged or they were scratched, one may not, since it is a hidden blemish. The Talmud answers: I require that it be an “ill blemish,” which must be exposed and degrading
The Talmud answers: A temporary blemish is not excluded by the exegesis but is based on logical reasoning: Now, if we do not even redeem an offering due to a temporary blemish, will we slaughter a firstborn outside the Temple, for which redemption is not performed, due to a temporary blemish? The T
The baraita continues: Do you say that the verse is speaking of animals with blemishes that were redeemed, or is it referring only to an actual impure animal, such as a donkey or a horse that was consecrated; but with regard to a kosher animal, perhaps its consecrated status cannot be removed by re
The baraita concludes: One might have thought that offerings may be redeemed due to a temporary blemish that they sustained. Therefore, the verse states: “Of which they may not bring an offering to YHWH” (Leviticus 27:11). This teaches that an animal that is not sacrificed at all is redeemed, which
The Talmud comments: If you wish, say a different explanation as to why a temporary blemish is not included in the amplification of the verse: “Any ill blemish”: If so, that even a temporary blemish permits its slaughter, why do I need the verse to mention a lame animal and a blind animal? It would