that the eyes and ears be inspected carefully, and that we not offer in sacrifice an animal with an ear slit from the front, one with an ear slit from the back, or one whose ear is torn.” (1)

His statement, “rather, one born without a tail”: this refers to an animal that has no tail. However, the author qualifies this by stipulating that it be congenital—that is, that it was created without a tail. Such an animal is valid for sacrifice. The apparent implication of the author’s words is that, if its tail was cut off, it is not valid, by analogy with an animal whose ear has been cut off—indeed, more so than the cutting of an ear—for it benefits more from its tail than from its ear, even though each has a benefit. The tail, however, has great benefit.

For this reason, some scholars distinguished between an animal that was born without a tail and one whose tail was cut off. They said: An animal born without a tail is valid for sacrifice, just as an animal with very small ears and an animal without horns are valid; likewise is one born without a tail. But if its tail has been cut off, it is not valid.

However, the correct view is that an animal without a tail, whether it was born so or its tail was cut off, is valid for sacrifice, just as in the case of the ear.

As for an animal whose fat tail has been cut off, it is not valid, because the fat tail has value and is a sought-after part. Accordingly, if a sheep’s fat tail is cut off, it is not valid for sacrifice; whereas, if a goat’s tail is cut off, it is valid.