Midrash for Bekhorot 81:74
כאביי לא אמר חרוץ דומיא דשבור לא אמרינן כרבא נמי לא אמר דילמא היכא דלא מינכרא אבל היכא דמינכר מום רע קרינא ביה
Consequently, let Scripture write haruz<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4.');"><sup>44</sup></span> and then there would be no need to write garab, for I would argue, if haruz [in the fleshy part] which is not repulsive is yet regarded as a blemish, how much more so ought this to be the case with garab, which is repulsive? The Divine Law therefore mentions garab, [intimating] that a depression in the fleshy part is not a blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that garab is a blemish, not because of the depression, as it is in the fleshy part, and that haruz only applies to a bone.');"><sup>45</sup></span> R'ISHMAEL SAYS: THERE IS NO GREATER BLEMISH [THAN THAT OF A HERMAPHRODITE]. He does not hold the opinion of Abaye, for we do not draw the analogy between haruz to 'broken'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But hold that even in a fleshy part it is a haruz.');"><sup>46</sup></span> He also does not hold the opinion of Raba, for it may be that a depression in the fleshy part is not a blemish where the haruz is not distinguishable, but where it is distinguishable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As for example, in the case of the female genitals, although it is the fleshy part.');"><sup>47</sup></span> we apply the scriptural text 'Ill blemish'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 21. As the kind of animal which must not be offered in the Temple.');"><sup>48</sup></span>