But here there is a difficulty: some experts say that cutting off the fat tail is in the animal’s interest, because the fat that accumulates in the fat tail, if it has no fat tail, is deposited on its back instead, and the animal benefits from it while being lighter and spared fatigue. Some sheep develop exceedingly large fat tails, and the weight of this fat affects their legs. However, the apparent wording of the jurists is that it is never valid for sacrifice—meaning an animal whose fat tail has been cut off.

Accordingly, the question arises concerning Australian sheep. Australian sheep do not have fat tails; rather, they have tails like a cow’s tail, in which there is no valued and sought-after portion. Thus, they resemble what the jurists said regarding a tailless animal: it is valid for sacrifice whether it was born that way or its tail was cut off. We have observed this in two ways:

First, Australian sheep sometimes arrive whose tails have not been cut off.

Second, there may sometimes be an Australian ewe upon which a local ram mounts, and she then gives birth to an offspring that has no fat tail, but only a tail. This indicates that it has no fat tail by natural creation, but only a tail.

His statement, “the hornless”: this is an animal that was not created with horns, and it is valid for sacrifice. Which is better: one with horns or one without horns?

The answer is: one with horns. This is why the hadith states, “Whoever goes early to the Friday prayer, it is as though he has offered a horned ram.” (1) Had the attribute of having horns not been desirable, the ram would not have been described as horned.

His statement, “a castrated animal that has not had its penis cut off”: a castrated animal is one whose testicles have been removed. It is valid for sacrifice, despite being physically deficient. At this point, one must distinguish between a castrated animal