Midrash for Bekhorot 81:50
ואי כתב רחמנא תרי למעוטי הני דכחישי אבל מזוהם דלא כחיש אימא לא
to exclude the case of a sick animal, I might have thought that the reason was because it is not usual for an animal to be ill, but in regard to an old animal, since it is a usual thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A normal thing for an animal which grows old not to retain its former vigour and therefore this should not be regarded as a disability.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
Sifrei Devarim
Whence do we derive (the same for animals that are) scrofulous, warty, scabbied, old, sick, or malodorous? From "every." I might think that they could be slaughtered (and eaten) outside Jerusalem; it is, therefore, written "lame or blind': "lame" and "blind" were in the category (of blemished animals). Why did they leave that category (for special mention)? To make them the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as "lame" and "blind" are distinct in being external blemishes, which do not heal, so, all (blemishes which render a bechor subject to slaughtering and eating outside Jerusalem) must be of that kind.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sifrei Devarim
Whence do I derive (the same for) one that is sick, old, or malodorous? From "any unseemly thing."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy