The Beast Born With a Single Kidney and the Question of a Hidden Defect

Rav Achadboi bar Ami asked: is a missing internal organ counted as a missing limb, or is a missing internal organ not counted as a missing limb? With regard to slaughtering it and redeeming it, we do not ask; where we do ask is with regard to disqualifying it: what is the law? "It shall be perfect to be accepted" (Leviticus 22:21), the Merciful One said "perfect" for the altar, perfect yes, lacking no; or perhaps "it shall be perfect to be accepted, no blemish shall be in it": just as a blemish is external, so a lack must be external. Come and hear: "and the two kidneys," and not one that has a single kidney, and not one that has three kidneys; and it was taught elsewhere: "he shall remove it," to include one that has a single kidney. They supposed that all hold there is no creature created with one kidney, since that would be a missing organ. Is it not that they differ in this, that one holds a lack within is called a lack and the other holds it is not called a lack? No. All hold there is a creature created with one kidney, and a lack within is called a lack, and there is no difficulty: here, where it was created with two and they were lost; there, where it was created with one from the start. And this is comparable to the three the teaching speaks of: just as three is from the start, so one is from the start. Rather, they differ over whether there is a creature created with one: one master holds there is a creature created with one, and the other holds there is not. And Rabbi Yochanan said: all hold there is no creature created with one, and a lack within is called a lack; rather, here, where they were lost before the receiving of the blood; there, where they were lost after the receiving of the blood. And after receiving, before the sprinkling of the blood, it is permitted? But it was taught: "a lamb perfect, a male, in its first year" (Exodus 12:5), that it be perfect and in its first year at the time of slaughter; and whence at the receiving, the carrying, and the sprinkling? Scripture teaches "it shall be," that all its states be perfect and in its first year. Interpret it regarding being in its first year. So too it is reasonable, for it was taught: Rabbi Joshua says, all the sacrifices in the Torah from which an olive's bulk of flesh or an olive's bulk of fat remained, one sprinkles the blood. Learn from this. And is there anything that at the time of slaughter is in its first year and at the receiving, carrying, and sprinkling is in its second year? Rava said: this tells us that hours disqualify in consecrated animals.