Study Menachot folio 56B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The animal may even be slaughtered on the basis of that blemish. R' Yehuda says: Even if the firstborn would die if its blood is not let, one may not let its blood at all.
The Talmud discusses similar cases, including examples involving meal offerings. R' Ḥiyya bar Abba says that R' Yoḥanan says: All of the rabbis who disagree as to whether one may let the blood of a firstborn animal whose blood circulation is constricted concede that one who leavens a meal offering a
Similarly, everyone agrees that one who castrates an animal after one who castrates it is liable, as it is written: “Those whose testicles are bruised, or crushed, or detached, or cut, shall not be offered to YHWH, and you shall not do this in your land” (Leviticus 22:24). If one is liable when the
These rabbis disagree only with regard to one who inflicts a blemish on an already blemished animal, such as one whose blood circulation is constricted. R' Meir maintains that as the verse states: “It shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish in it” (Leviticus 22:21), this categoric
The Talmud analyzes this dispute. And according to the opinion of R' Meir, who derives the halakha from the phrase “there shall be no blemish in it,” isn’t it written also: “It shall be perfect to be accepted”? The Talmud answers: That verse serves to exclude only an animal that was blemished from