Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 24, 2019 | 讬状讟 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 37

Does one need an expert to rule on a blemish? On what factors does it depend? What blemishes are allowed in a firstborn? How is this derived from the verses in the Torah?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诇砖讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 讗转 讛谞讚专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讻诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讞讻诐

is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the mishna, who prohibits any number of laymen to deem a firstborn animal permitted. The ruling that a group of three laymen may dissolve a vow in a place where there is no Sage is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Dissolution of vows requires a court of three. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is the halakha only if at least one of them is a Sage. If no Sage is available, laymen may not dissolve a vow.

讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讻诐 讻讙讜谉 诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讞讻诐 诪讻诇诇 讚讛谞讱 讻诇 讚讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讚诪住转讘专讬 诇讬讛 讜住讘专

Rav 岣yya bar Amram stated above that a group of three may dissolve a vow in a place where there is no Sage. This indicates that if there is a Sage, he alone may dissolve a vow. The Gemara asks: Who, for example, is considered such a Sage? Rav Na岣an said: For example, one such as me. The baraita further stated that Rabbi Yehuda says: At least one of the three laymen must be a Sage. The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference that those other two members can be anyone, even complete ignoramuses? Ravina said in explanation: Each member of the group must be one to whom the halakhot of vows is explained and he is able to comprehend them.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谞讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞诪讜拽讜 注诪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if there is a court of twenty-three Sages there, it may be slaughtered only on the basis of the ruling of an expert. Rav 岣nanel says that Rav says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious, as there is a principle that in a dispute between an individual Sage and many Sages, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many Sages. The Gemara answers: Rav鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say that Rabbi Yosei is an exception to the principle, as his reasoning [nimmuko] is with him, i.e., his logic is sound. Rav 岣nanel therefore teaches us that this is not so, and the halakha does not follow his opinion.

转驻砖讜讟 诪讛讗 讚讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬转诪专 讚讗讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

Earlier (36b), the Gemara cited a ruling, which was issued either by Rav or Shmuel, that three regular Jews may deem a firstborn animal permitted in a place where there is no expert, in contrast to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara suggests: Resolve that dilemma from this statement in the name of Rav, that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. It can be inferred from here that that first, uncertain ruling was stated in the name of Shmuel. As, if it was stated in the name of Rav, why do I need two identical rulings?

讞讚讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讘讬专转讛 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara answers: This is insufficient proof, as it is possible that Rav did not issue two identical rulings. Rather, one ruling was stated from the other, by inference. Rav issued only one of these statements explicitly; the other was reported by his students in his name based on an inference from what he had said.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜谞讜讚注 砖诇讗 讛专讗讛讜 诪讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讗讻诇讜 讜讬讞讝讬专 诇讛诐 讛讚诪讬诐 讜诪讛 砖诇讗 讗讻诇讜 讛讘砖专 讬拽讘专 讜讬讞讝讬专 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters a firstborn animal and sells its meat, and it was discovered that he did not initially show it to one of the Sages, the halakha is that it was actually prohibited to derive any benefit from the meat. In that case, what the buyers ate, they ate, and the Sages penalized the seller in that he must return the money to them, which they paid for the meat that they ate. And with regard to that which they did not eat, that meat must be buried, and he must return the money that they paid for the meat that they did not eat.

讜讻谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜诪讻专讛 讜谞讜讚注 砖讛讬讗 讟专驻讛 诪讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讗讻诇讜 讜诪讛 砖诇讗 讗讻诇讜 讛诐 讬讞讝讬专讜 诇讜 讗转 讛讘砖专 讜讛讜讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讛诐 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 诪讻专讜讛讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讜 讛讟讬诇讜讛讜 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讬砖诇诪讜 讚诪讬 讟专驻讛

And likewise, in the case of one who slaughters a cow and sells it, and it was discovered that it is a tereifa, what the buyers ate, they ate, and what they did not eat, they must return the meat to the seller, who may sell it to a gentile or feed it to the dogs, and he must return the money to the buyers. If the buyers sold it to gentiles or cast it to the dogs, they pay the seller the value of a tereifa, which is less than the value of kosher meat, and the seller refunds the balance to the buyers.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 讘砖专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讘砖专 讘讻讜专 驻讬专讜转 讜谞诪爪讗 讟讘诇讬诐 讬讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讗讻诇讜 讜讬讞讝讬专 诇讛诐 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where one sells meat to another and it was discovered that it is the meat of a firstborn animal, which was not deemed permitted for consumption by an expert, or if one sells produce to another and it was discovered that it is untithed produce, or if one sells wine to another and it turns out that it is wine that was used for a libation in idol worship, the halakha is that what the purchasers ate, they ate, and the seller reimburses them all their money.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谞驻砖 拽爪讛 讘讛谉 讬讞讝讬专 诇讛谉 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 讜砖讗讬谉 讛谞驻砖 拽爪讛 讘讛诐 讬谞讻讛 诇讛诐 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谞驻砖 拽爪讛 讘讛谉 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讛谞驻砖 拽爪讛 讘讛谉 讘讻讜专讜转 讟讘诇讬诐 讜讬讬谉 谞住讱

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, qualifying this ruling: If he sold them items from which one is generally repulsed, he must reimburse them all their money, as they are presumed to not have derived benefit from the consumption of such items. But if he sold them items from which one is not generally repulsed, he deducts for them the value of the benefit from those items and reimburses them the balance. And the following are items from which one is generally repulsed: Carcasses and tereifot, repugnant creatures, and creeping animals. And the following are items from which one is generally not repulsed: Firstborn animals, untithed produce, and wine used for a libation in idol worship.

讘讻讜专 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗驻住讚转讱

The Gemara asks: Why does the seller deduct the value of the meat of a firstborn animal eaten by the purchaser and reimburse him the difference? Let the purchaser say to the seller: What loss have I caused you by eating the meat? Had you not sold it to me, you would have had no rights to partake of it, as this is an unblemished firstborn animal from which deriving benefit is prohibited.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诪诪拽讜诐 诪讜诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讻诇转 讛讜讛 诪讞讝讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讜砖专讬 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara answers: No, this ruling is necessary in a case where he sold him a cut of meat from an area on the animal that contained a blemish, but the seller had not yet brought the animal to be examined and deemed permitted by a Sage. In that instance, the seller can say to the purchaser: Had you not eaten the meat, I would have shown the animal to a Sage and he would have deemed it permitted to me. The Gemara notes that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (28a), who permits a firstborn animal to be examined and deemed permitted even after it has been slaughtered.

讟讘诇讬诐 讛讜讛 诪转拽讬谞谞讗 诇讛讜 讜讗讻诇谞讗 诇讛讜 讬讬谉 谞住讱 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 讜讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara adds that with regard to untithed produce, although one could claim that the purchaser did not cause a loss to the seller, as untithed produce is prohibited for consumption, the seller can say to the purchaser: Had you not eaten my produce, I would have remedied it, i.e., separated its tithes, and eaten it. Similarly, with regard to wine used for a libation in idol worship, which is also prohibited to be consumed, this is referring to a seller who sold it in a mixture of permitted wine. In this case, had the purchaser not consumed the wine mixture, the seller could have derived benefit from it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讚转谞谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬诪讻专 讻讜诇讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讚诪讬 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖讘讜

As we learned in a mishna (Avoda Zara 74a): In the case of wine used for a libation in idol worship that fell into a wine cistern, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all the wine in the cistern, even if the volume of the wine used for a libation was small in comparison to the volume of the rest of the wine in the cistern. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All of the wine in the cistern may be sold to a gentile, and the money paid for it is permitted, except for the value of the wine used for a libation that is in it.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 注诇 讗诇讜 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 谞驻讙诪讛 讗讝谞讜 诪谉 讛讞住讞讜住 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛注讜专 谞住讚拽讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讞住专讛 谞讬拽讘讛 诪诇讗 讻专砖讬谞讛 讗讜 砖讬讘砖讛 讗讬讝讛讜 讬讘砖讛 讻诇 砖转谞拽讘 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 讟讬驻转 讚诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讗讜诪专 讬讘砖讛 砖转讛讗 谞驻专讻转

MISHNA: For these blemishes, one may slaughter the firstborn animal outside the Temple: If the firstborn鈥檚 ear was damaged and lacking from the cartilage [ha岣s岣s], but not if the skin was damaged; and likewise, if the ear was split, although it is not lacking; or if the ear was pierced with a hole the size of a bitter vetch, which is a type of legume; or if it was an ear that is desiccated. What is a desiccated ear that is considered a blemish? It is any ear that if it is pierced it does not discharge a drop of blood. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: Desiccated means that the ear is so dry that it will crumble if one touches it.

讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 驻住讞 讜注讜专 讻转讬讘

GEMARA: With regard to the blemishes mentioned in this mishna and in the subsequent mishnayot, the Gemara asks: Why is it permitted to slaughter and eat a firstborn that sustained these blemishes? Only a lame animal and a blind animal are written in the verse that discusses this halakha. That verse states: 鈥淎nd if there be any blemish therein, lameness, or blindness, any ill blemish whatsoever, you shall not sacrifice it to the Lord your God. You shall eat it within your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:21鈥22).

讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 讻诇诇 驻住讞 讗讜 注讜专 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 驻住讞 讜注讜专 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: It is also written in the beginning of the verse: 鈥淚f there be any blemish therein,鈥 which indicates that other blemishes are also included. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the phrase 鈥渋f there be any blemish therein鈥 is a generalization, while 鈥渓ameness, or blindness鈥 is a detail. According to the principles of midrashic exegesis, if a generalization and a detail are mentioned, the generalization includes only that which is specified in the detail. Therefore, it should be concluded that in the event of lameness and blindness, yes, one may slaughter the firstborn, but in the event of another matter, one may not slaughter it.

讻诇 诪讜诐 专注 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讜讗讬谞谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讜讗讬谞谉 讞讜讝专讬谉

The Gemara answers: By subsequently stating: 鈥淎ny ill blemish,鈥 it then generalized again. Consequently, it is a generalization and a detail and a generalization, represented in the phrases 鈥渁ny blemish,鈥 鈥渓ameness or blindness,鈥 and 鈥渁ny ill blemish,鈥 and according to the principles of midrashic exegesis, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the items mentioned in the detail, i.e., in the phrase 鈥渓ameness or blindness,鈥 are clearly defined as blemishes that are exposed and do not regenerate, so too, all blemishes that are exposed and do not regenerate are considered blemishes with regard to a firstborn.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讜讘讜讟诇 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讗祝 讻诇 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讜讘讜讟诇 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 谞驻讙诪讛 讗讝谞讜 诪谉 讛讞住讞讜住 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注讜专

The Gemara suggests: But say instead that just as the items mentioned in the detail, i.e., in the phrase 鈥渓ameness or blindness,鈥 are clearly defined as blemishes that are exposed and that cause an animal to desist from its normal labor, and they are blemishes that do not regenerate, so too, all blemishes that are exposed and that cause an animal to desist from its labor and do not regenerate are included in this halakha. If so, a blemish that does not fit these criteria would not render the firstborn permitted to be slaughtered. Why then did we learn in the mishna that if the firstborn鈥檚 ear was damaged and lacking from the cartilage, but not if it is lacking from the skin, it is considered a blemish, despite the fact that this does not cause the animal to desist from its labor?

讻诇 诪讜诐 专注 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘住转专 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讞讜讟讬谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 砖谞驻讙诪讜 讜砖谞讙诪诪讜 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 砖谞注拽专讜

The Gemara answers: The word 鈥渁ny鈥 in 鈥渁ny ill blemish鈥 is an amplification, and it includes even blemishes that are different from those defined by the detail. The Gemara challenges: If so, blemishes that are hidden should also be included. Why then did we learn in the mishna (39a) that animals with external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched [veshenigmemu] and likewise animals with internal gums that were entirely extracted are considered blemished?

谞注拽专讜 讗讬谉 谞驻讙诪讜 讜谞讙诪诪讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 诪讜诐 专注 讜诇讬讻讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注讜专

It can be inferred that if the internal gums were extracted then yes, one may slaughter the firstborn, but if they were merely damaged or they were scratched, one may not, since it is a hidden blemish. The Gemara answers: I require that it be an 鈥渋ll blemish,鈥 which must be exposed and degrading, and a hidden blemish is not considered such an 鈥渋ll blemish.鈥 The Gemara asks: If so, that all blemishes are included by the words: 鈥淎ny ill blemish,鈥 aside from hidden blemishes, a temporary blemish should also render it permitted for the firstborn to be slaughtered. Why then did we learn in the mishna: If the firstborn鈥檚 ear was damaged and lacking from the cartilage it may be slaughtered, but not if it is damaged and lacking from the skin, since it is a temporary blemish?

诪讜诐 注讜讘专 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬驻专拽 诇讗 驻专拽讬谞谉 注诇讜讬讛 诪砖讞讟 砖讞讟讬谞谉 注诇讜讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗诐 讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘讜 诪诪谞讛 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara answers: A temporary blemish is not excluded by the exegesis but is based on logical reasoning: Now, if we do not even redeem an offering due to a temporary blemish, will we slaughter a firstborn outside the Temple, for which redemption is not performed, due to a temporary blemish? The Gemara explains the source for this assertion that an offering is not redeemed because of a temporary blemish. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd if it be any impure animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:11). The verse is speaking of ritually pure animals with blemishes.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖谞驻讚讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪诪砖 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讛讟诪讗讛 讛专讬 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘讜 诪诪谞讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖谞驻讚讜

The baraita continues: Do you say that the verse is speaking of animals with blemishes that were redeemed, or is it referring only to an actual impure animal, such as a donkey or a horse that was consecrated; but with regard to a kosher animal, perhaps its consecrated status cannot be removed by redemption even if it was blemished? When the verse states: 鈥淎nd if it be of an impure animal鈥 (Leviticus 27:27), a non-kosher animal is mentioned. So how do I realize the meaning of: 鈥淥f which they may not bring an offering鈥? You must say that this is referring to blemished animals that were redeemed, indicating that redemption is permitted.

讬讻讜诇 讬驻讚讜 注诇 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘讜 诪诪谞讛 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 讛讬讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讞专

The baraita concludes: One might have thought that offerings may be redeemed due to a temporary blemish that they sustained. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥f which they may not bring an offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:11). This teaches that an animal that is not sacrificed at all is redeemed, which excludes this animal that has a temporary blemish, which is not sacrificed today, but rather may be sacrificed tomorrow.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 驻住讞 讜注讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara comments: If you wish, say a different explanation as to why a temporary blemish is not included in the amplification of the verse: 鈥淎ny ill blemish鈥: If so, that even a temporary blemish permits its slaughter, why do I need the verse to mention a lame animal and a blind animal? It would have sufficed to state: 鈥淎ny ill blemish.鈥 Rather, the verse excludes a temporary blemish that is unlike these two blemishes, which are permanent.

谞住讚拽讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讞住专讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛住讚拽 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛驻讙讬诪讛 讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚住讚拽 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches: If the ear of the firstborn animal was split, although it is not lacking, one may slaughter the animal outside the Temple. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The split that permits the animal to be slaughtered is one of any size. With regard to the damage, whether it was done by the hand of a person or by the hand of God, it may be slaughtered. The Gemara asks: Should it be derived by inference that with regard to a split, if it was caused by the hand of God it is not considered a blemish? That also should be considered an obvious blemish and render the animal permitted for slaughter.

讗诇讗 住讚拽 讜驻讙讬诪讛 讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 驻讙讬诪讛 讻讚讬 砖转讞讙讜专 讘讛 爪讬驻讜专谉

The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita should be interpreted as follows: The animal may be slaughtered for a split of any size, and with regard to a split and damage, whether it was done by the hand of God or by the hand of a person, the animal may be slaughtered. And what is the measure of the damage that is considered a blemish? It must be large enough that a fingernail will be retained [sheta岣or] on it, i.e., if one passes his fingernail over the ear of the animal it can enter the area of the damage.

谞拽讘讛 诪诇讗 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 谞拽讬讘转 讛讗讜讝谉 诪诇讗 讻专砖讬谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讻注讚砖讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讬讘砖讛 砖讗诐 转讬谞拽讘 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 讟讬驻转 讚诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讗讜诪专 讬讘砖讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 谞驻专讻转

搂 The mishna stated that if the ear of a firstborn animal was pierced with a hole the size of a bitter vetch, the animal is slaughtered because of it. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: How large must the piercing of the ear be? It must be the size of a karshina. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Like the size of a lentil, which is slightly smaller. And what is a desiccated ear that is considered a blemish? It is an ear that if it is pierced, it does not discharge a drop of blood. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: Desiccated means that the ear is so dry that it will crumble if one touches it.

转谞讗 拽专讜讘讬谉 讚讘专讬讛谉 诇讛讬讜转 砖讜讬谉 讚讘专讬讛谉 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讟讜讘讗 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

A Sage taught: Their statements are close to being identical in practice. The Gemara asks: The statements of whom are close to being identical? If we say that he is referring to the statements of the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam with regard to a desiccated ear, there is a significant difference between these two opinions. One says it is determined by whether blood emerges, while the other holds it is based on whether it crumbles. Rather, he is referring to the statement of the first tanna and the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as a karshina and a lentil are almost identical in size.

讻注讚砖讛 讗讬谉 讘爪讬专 诪讻注讚砖讛 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪专爪注 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪专爪注 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讛住讜诇 讜讛住讬专讛 讜讛诪讞讟 讜讛诪拽讚讞 讜讛诪讻转讘

The Gemara asks with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: If the ear was pierced with a hole like the size of a lentil, then yes, it is considered a blemish, but if it was pierced with a hole less than the size of a lentil, then is it not considered a blemish? And one can raise a contradiction from a baraita: The Torah provides a description of the process by which a Hebrew slave who has already completed his six years of servitude may continue on as a slave of his master: 鈥淎nd you shall take the awl and put it through his ear and in the door鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:17). From this verse, I have derived only that an awl can be used. From where do I know to include the palm thorn [hassol], a thorn, a needle, and a gimlet, and a stylus for writing on wax as valid tools for piercing his ear?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇拽讞转 讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞诇拽讞 讘讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪专爪注 诪讛 诪专爪注 诪讬讜讞讚 砖诇 诪转讻转 讗祝 讻诇 砖诇 诪转讻转

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take,鈥 which indicates that anything that can be taken by hand is a valid tool. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Not all these items can be used. Rather, since the verse specifies an 鈥渁wl,鈥 only items similar to an awl can be used; just as an awl is distinct in that it is fashioned of metal, so too, anything fashioned of metal can be used.

讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讚谉 讘专讘讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讻砖讛谉 专讜爪注讬谉 讗讬谉 专讜爪注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪讬诇转

And the latter clause of the baraita teaches: Rabbi Elazar said that Yudan the Distinguished would teach as follows: When they pierce the ear of the slave, they pierce only in the earlobe.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讻讛谉 谞专爪注 诪驻谞讬 砖谞注砖讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 讘诪讬诇转 讛讬讜 专讜爪注讬谉 讛讬讗讱 注讘讚 讻讛谉 谞注砖讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讗 讗讬谉 专讜爪注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讙讜讘讛 砖诇 讗讜讝谉

And the Rabbis say: The piercing is not performed on that part of the ear, since there is a tradition that the ear of a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced, because the piercing renders him blemished and unfit to serve in the Temple. And if you say that they pierced the slave in the earlobe, how does a Hebrew slave who is a priest become blemished through piercing? A wound on this part of the ear heals. This indicates that they pierce only on the upper part of the ear, through the cartilage.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇砖讞讜讟 讻讗谉 诇驻住讜诇

In any event, it is clear from the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that the piercing of a needle is considered a blemish, despite the fact that it is definitely smaller than the size of a lentil. The Gemara answers: Rav 岣na bar Ketina said: It is not difficult, as here, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that the hole must be the size of a lentil with regard to slaughtering an animal outside the Temple due to the blemish. There, with regard to disqualifying the animal from being sacrificed, even a tiny hole is considered a blemish, just as it renders the priest blemished.

诪讗讬 讻专砖讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讛讬谞讚讗

搂 According to the first opinion cited in the baraita, the size of the hole that is considered a blemish in the ear of the firstborn animal is like that of a karshina. The Gemara asks: What is a karshina? Rav Sherevya says: It is a bitter vetch, called hinda in Aramaic.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 专讘讛 讻专砖讬谞讛 讛谞讻谞住转 讜讬讜爪讗讛 讗讜 讻专砖讬谞讛 讛注讜诪讚转 讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 砖诪注转讬

With regard to this halakha, Rav Hoshaya asked Rav Huna the Great: Is this measure referring to a bitter vetch that can enter and exit the hole in the ear, which means that the hole is slightly larger than the bitter vetch? Or is it referring to a bitter vetch that is stationary in the hole, meaning that the hole is precisely the size of a bitter vetch? Rav Huna the Great said to him: I did not hear this halakha specifically, but I heard a similar halakha to it, that the expression: The size of a bitter vetch [melo karshina], means that the bitter vetch can enter and exit the hole.

讚转谞谉 讛砖讚专讛 讜讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖讞住专讜 讻诪讛 讞住专讜谉 讘砖讚专讛 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讜讘讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬谞讟诇 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讬诪讜转

As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 2:3): The spine and the skull of a corpse that are incomplete do not impart ritual impurity in a tent. This halakha was unanimously accepted, but the details were subject to dispute: How much is considered a deficiency in the spine so that it will not impart impurity in a tent? Beit Shammai say: If it is missing two vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: Even if it is missing only one vertebra, it will not impart impurity. And likewise, they disagree concerning the deficiency in the skull: Beit Shammai say that it must be missing a piece like the size of a drilled hole, and Beit Hillel say: It must be missing an amount that if removed from a living person, he would die.

讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讚讬 砖讬谞讟诇 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讜讚讬诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻住诇注

The Gemara relates: And Rav 岣sda was sitting, and he raised a dilemma: That which was stated: An amount that if removed from a living person, how much is that? Rav Ta岣ifa bar Avudimi said to him: This is what Shmuel says: It is like the size of a sela coin.

讜讗讬转诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诪转谞讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara notes: And it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to whom Rabbi Ta岣ifa cited when relating this halakha to Rav 岣sda. Rav Safra says that he told him a halakha of the amora鈥檌m citing Shmuel. And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says that he told him a baraita that stipulated that the measure is like the size of a sela coin. And your mnemonic to remember what each one said is the common talmudic phrase: Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda teaches [tanei], generally indicating a source from a tanna, which hints that according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, Rav Ta岣ifa cited a baraita to Rav 岣sda, while according to Rav Safra, he related a tradition from Shmuel.

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 注砖讬转讛 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讞讚 讚转谞谉 诪讗讜专 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 砖讬注讜专讜 诪诇讗 讗讙专讜祝 讙讚讜诇 讜讝讛讜 讗讙专讜驻讜 砖诇 讘谉 讗讘讟讬讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讬砖谞讜 讻专讗砖 讙讚讜诇 砖诇 讗讚诐

And Rav 岣sda said to Rav Ta岣ifa: If so, that the measure of the deficiency according to the opinion of Beit Hillel is the size of a sela coin, you have made the statement of Beit Shammai and the statement of Beit Hillel one and the same, since the size of a sela coin and a drilled hole is identical. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:12): With regard to a window that was not fashioned by the hands of a person, such as where a stone fell out of the wall by itself, its measure for which ritual impurity is transmitted from room to room is like the size of a large fist. And this is the size of the fist of Ben Avatia岣, who was known to be an exceptionally large man. Rabbi Yosei said: And the size of this fist is like the size of a large human head.

谞注砖讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 砖讬注专讜讛讜 讻诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 讙讚讜诇 砖诇 诇砖讻讛 砖讛讜讗 讻驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 砖诇 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 讜讻住诇注 谞讬专讜谞讬转 讜讬砖谞讜

The mishna continues: But if the window was made by the hand of a person, its measure for which ritual impurity is transmitted is like the size of the drilled hole of the large drill of the chamber in the Temple, which is like the size of the Italian pundeyon and like the size of a sela of the emperor Nero. And its size is

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 37

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诇砖讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 讗转 讛谞讚专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讻诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讞讻诐

is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the mishna, who prohibits any number of laymen to deem a firstborn animal permitted. The ruling that a group of three laymen may dissolve a vow in a place where there is no Sage is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Dissolution of vows requires a court of three. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is the halakha only if at least one of them is a Sage. If no Sage is available, laymen may not dissolve a vow.

讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讻诐 讻讙讜谉 诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讞讻诐 诪讻诇诇 讚讛谞讱 讻诇 讚讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讚诪住转讘专讬 诇讬讛 讜住讘专

Rav 岣yya bar Amram stated above that a group of three may dissolve a vow in a place where there is no Sage. This indicates that if there is a Sage, he alone may dissolve a vow. The Gemara asks: Who, for example, is considered such a Sage? Rav Na岣an said: For example, one such as me. The baraita further stated that Rabbi Yehuda says: At least one of the three laymen must be a Sage. The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference that those other two members can be anyone, even complete ignoramuses? Ravina said in explanation: Each member of the group must be one to whom the halakhot of vows is explained and he is able to comprehend them.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谞讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞诪讜拽讜 注诪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if there is a court of twenty-three Sages there, it may be slaughtered only on the basis of the ruling of an expert. Rav 岣nanel says that Rav says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious, as there is a principle that in a dispute between an individual Sage and many Sages, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many Sages. The Gemara answers: Rav鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say that Rabbi Yosei is an exception to the principle, as his reasoning [nimmuko] is with him, i.e., his logic is sound. Rav 岣nanel therefore teaches us that this is not so, and the halakha does not follow his opinion.

转驻砖讜讟 诪讛讗 讚讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬转诪专 讚讗讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

Earlier (36b), the Gemara cited a ruling, which was issued either by Rav or Shmuel, that three regular Jews may deem a firstborn animal permitted in a place where there is no expert, in contrast to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara suggests: Resolve that dilemma from this statement in the name of Rav, that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. It can be inferred from here that that first, uncertain ruling was stated in the name of Shmuel. As, if it was stated in the name of Rav, why do I need two identical rulings?

讞讚讗 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讘讬专转讛 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara answers: This is insufficient proof, as it is possible that Rav did not issue two identical rulings. Rather, one ruling was stated from the other, by inference. Rav issued only one of these statements explicitly; the other was reported by his students in his name based on an inference from what he had said.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讜谞讜讚注 砖诇讗 讛专讗讛讜 诪讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讗讻诇讜 讜讬讞讝讬专 诇讛诐 讛讚诪讬诐 讜诪讛 砖诇讗 讗讻诇讜 讛讘砖专 讬拽讘专 讜讬讞讝讬专 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters a firstborn animal and sells its meat, and it was discovered that he did not initially show it to one of the Sages, the halakha is that it was actually prohibited to derive any benefit from the meat. In that case, what the buyers ate, they ate, and the Sages penalized the seller in that he must return the money to them, which they paid for the meat that they ate. And with regard to that which they did not eat, that meat must be buried, and he must return the money that they paid for the meat that they did not eat.

讜讻谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜诪讻专讛 讜谞讜讚注 砖讛讬讗 讟专驻讛 诪讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讗讻诇讜 讜诪讛 砖诇讗 讗讻诇讜 讛诐 讬讞讝讬专讜 诇讜 讗转 讛讘砖专 讜讛讜讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讛诐 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 诪讻专讜讛讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讜 讛讟讬诇讜讛讜 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讬砖诇诪讜 讚诪讬 讟专驻讛

And likewise, in the case of one who slaughters a cow and sells it, and it was discovered that it is a tereifa, what the buyers ate, they ate, and what they did not eat, they must return the meat to the seller, who may sell it to a gentile or feed it to the dogs, and he must return the money to the buyers. If the buyers sold it to gentiles or cast it to the dogs, they pay the seller the value of a tereifa, which is less than the value of kosher meat, and the seller refunds the balance to the buyers.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 讘砖专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讘砖专 讘讻讜专 驻讬专讜转 讜谞诪爪讗 讟讘诇讬诐 讬讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讗讻诇讜 讜讬讞讝讬专 诇讛诐 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where one sells meat to another and it was discovered that it is the meat of a firstborn animal, which was not deemed permitted for consumption by an expert, or if one sells produce to another and it was discovered that it is untithed produce, or if one sells wine to another and it turns out that it is wine that was used for a libation in idol worship, the halakha is that what the purchasers ate, they ate, and the seller reimburses them all their money.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谞驻砖 拽爪讛 讘讛谉 讬讞讝讬专 诇讛谉 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 讜砖讗讬谉 讛谞驻砖 拽爪讛 讘讛诐 讬谞讻讛 诇讛诐 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛谞驻砖 拽爪讛 讘讛谉 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讛谞驻砖 拽爪讛 讘讛谉 讘讻讜专讜转 讟讘诇讬诐 讜讬讬谉 谞住讱

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, qualifying this ruling: If he sold them items from which one is generally repulsed, he must reimburse them all their money, as they are presumed to not have derived benefit from the consumption of such items. But if he sold them items from which one is not generally repulsed, he deducts for them the value of the benefit from those items and reimburses them the balance. And the following are items from which one is generally repulsed: Carcasses and tereifot, repugnant creatures, and creeping animals. And the following are items from which one is generally not repulsed: Firstborn animals, untithed produce, and wine used for a libation in idol worship.

讘讻讜专 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗驻住讚转讱

The Gemara asks: Why does the seller deduct the value of the meat of a firstborn animal eaten by the purchaser and reimburse him the difference? Let the purchaser say to the seller: What loss have I caused you by eating the meat? Had you not sold it to me, you would have had no rights to partake of it, as this is an unblemished firstborn animal from which deriving benefit is prohibited.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诪诪拽讜诐 诪讜诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讻诇转 讛讜讛 诪讞讝讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讜砖专讬 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara answers: No, this ruling is necessary in a case where he sold him a cut of meat from an area on the animal that contained a blemish, but the seller had not yet brought the animal to be examined and deemed permitted by a Sage. In that instance, the seller can say to the purchaser: Had you not eaten the meat, I would have shown the animal to a Sage and he would have deemed it permitted to me. The Gemara notes that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (28a), who permits a firstborn animal to be examined and deemed permitted even after it has been slaughtered.

讟讘诇讬诐 讛讜讛 诪转拽讬谞谞讗 诇讛讜 讜讗讻诇谞讗 诇讛讜 讬讬谉 谞住讱 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 讜讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara adds that with regard to untithed produce, although one could claim that the purchaser did not cause a loss to the seller, as untithed produce is prohibited for consumption, the seller can say to the purchaser: Had you not eaten my produce, I would have remedied it, i.e., separated its tithes, and eaten it. Similarly, with regard to wine used for a libation in idol worship, which is also prohibited to be consumed, this is referring to a seller who sold it in a mixture of permitted wine. In this case, had the purchaser not consumed the wine mixture, the seller could have derived benefit from it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讚转谞谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬诪讻专 讻讜诇讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讚诪讬 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖讘讜

As we learned in a mishna (Avoda Zara 74a): In the case of wine used for a libation in idol worship that fell into a wine cistern, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all the wine in the cistern, even if the volume of the wine used for a libation was small in comparison to the volume of the rest of the wine in the cistern. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All of the wine in the cistern may be sold to a gentile, and the money paid for it is permitted, except for the value of the wine used for a libation that is in it.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 注诇 讗诇讜 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 谞驻讙诪讛 讗讝谞讜 诪谉 讛讞住讞讜住 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛注讜专 谞住讚拽讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讞住专讛 谞讬拽讘讛 诪诇讗 讻专砖讬谞讛 讗讜 砖讬讘砖讛 讗讬讝讛讜 讬讘砖讛 讻诇 砖转谞拽讘 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 讟讬驻转 讚诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讗讜诪专 讬讘砖讛 砖转讛讗 谞驻专讻转

MISHNA: For these blemishes, one may slaughter the firstborn animal outside the Temple: If the firstborn鈥檚 ear was damaged and lacking from the cartilage [ha岣s岣s], but not if the skin was damaged; and likewise, if the ear was split, although it is not lacking; or if the ear was pierced with a hole the size of a bitter vetch, which is a type of legume; or if it was an ear that is desiccated. What is a desiccated ear that is considered a blemish? It is any ear that if it is pierced it does not discharge a drop of blood. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: Desiccated means that the ear is so dry that it will crumble if one touches it.

讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 驻住讞 讜注讜专 讻转讬讘

GEMARA: With regard to the blemishes mentioned in this mishna and in the subsequent mishnayot, the Gemara asks: Why is it permitted to slaughter and eat a firstborn that sustained these blemishes? Only a lame animal and a blind animal are written in the verse that discusses this halakha. That verse states: 鈥淎nd if there be any blemish therein, lameness, or blindness, any ill blemish whatsoever, you shall not sacrifice it to the Lord your God. You shall eat it within your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:21鈥22).

讻转讬讘 谞诪讬 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 讻诇诇 驻住讞 讗讜 注讜专 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 驻住讞 讜注讜专 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: It is also written in the beginning of the verse: 鈥淚f there be any blemish therein,鈥 which indicates that other blemishes are also included. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the phrase 鈥渋f there be any blemish therein鈥 is a generalization, while 鈥渓ameness, or blindness鈥 is a detail. According to the principles of midrashic exegesis, if a generalization and a detail are mentioned, the generalization includes only that which is specified in the detail. Therefore, it should be concluded that in the event of lameness and blindness, yes, one may slaughter the firstborn, but in the event of another matter, one may not slaughter it.

讻诇 诪讜诐 专注 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讜讗讬谞谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讜讗讬谞谉 讞讜讝专讬谉

The Gemara answers: By subsequently stating: 鈥淎ny ill blemish,鈥 it then generalized again. Consequently, it is a generalization and a detail and a generalization, represented in the phrases 鈥渁ny blemish,鈥 鈥渓ameness or blindness,鈥 and 鈥渁ny ill blemish,鈥 and according to the principles of midrashic exegesis, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the items mentioned in the detail, i.e., in the phrase 鈥渓ameness or blindness,鈥 are clearly defined as blemishes that are exposed and do not regenerate, so too, all blemishes that are exposed and do not regenerate are considered blemishes with regard to a firstborn.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讜讘讜讟诇 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讗祝 讻诇 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讜讘讜讟诇 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 谞驻讙诪讛 讗讝谞讜 诪谉 讛讞住讞讜住 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注讜专

The Gemara suggests: But say instead that just as the items mentioned in the detail, i.e., in the phrase 鈥渓ameness or blindness,鈥 are clearly defined as blemishes that are exposed and that cause an animal to desist from its normal labor, and they are blemishes that do not regenerate, so too, all blemishes that are exposed and that cause an animal to desist from its labor and do not regenerate are included in this halakha. If so, a blemish that does not fit these criteria would not render the firstborn permitted to be slaughtered. Why then did we learn in the mishna that if the firstborn鈥檚 ear was damaged and lacking from the cartilage, but not if it is lacking from the skin, it is considered a blemish, despite the fact that this does not cause the animal to desist from its labor?

讻诇 诪讜诐 专注 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讘住转专 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讞讜讟讬谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 砖谞驻讙诪讜 讜砖谞讙诪诪讜 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 砖谞注拽专讜

The Gemara answers: The word 鈥渁ny鈥 in 鈥渁ny ill blemish鈥 is an amplification, and it includes even blemishes that are different from those defined by the detail. The Gemara challenges: If so, blemishes that are hidden should also be included. Why then did we learn in the mishna (39a) that animals with external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched [veshenigmemu] and likewise animals with internal gums that were entirely extracted are considered blemished?

谞注拽专讜 讗讬谉 谞驻讙诪讜 讜谞讙诪诪讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 诪讜诐 专注 讜诇讬讻讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注讜专

It can be inferred that if the internal gums were extracted then yes, one may slaughter the firstborn, but if they were merely damaged or they were scratched, one may not, since it is a hidden blemish. The Gemara answers: I require that it be an 鈥渋ll blemish,鈥 which must be exposed and degrading, and a hidden blemish is not considered such an 鈥渋ll blemish.鈥 The Gemara asks: If so, that all blemishes are included by the words: 鈥淎ny ill blemish,鈥 aside from hidden blemishes, a temporary blemish should also render it permitted for the firstborn to be slaughtered. Why then did we learn in the mishna: If the firstborn鈥檚 ear was damaged and lacking from the cartilage it may be slaughtered, but not if it is damaged and lacking from the skin, since it is a temporary blemish?

诪讜诐 注讜讘专 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬驻专拽 诇讗 驻专拽讬谞谉 注诇讜讬讛 诪砖讞讟 砖讞讟讬谞谉 注诇讜讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗诐 讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘讜 诪诪谞讛 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara answers: A temporary blemish is not excluded by the exegesis but is based on logical reasoning: Now, if we do not even redeem an offering due to a temporary blemish, will we slaughter a firstborn outside the Temple, for which redemption is not performed, due to a temporary blemish? The Gemara explains the source for this assertion that an offering is not redeemed because of a temporary blemish. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd if it be any impure animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:11). The verse is speaking of ritually pure animals with blemishes.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖谞驻讚讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪诪砖 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讛讟诪讗讛 讛专讬 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘讜 诪诪谞讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖谞驻讚讜

The baraita continues: Do you say that the verse is speaking of animals with blemishes that were redeemed, or is it referring only to an actual impure animal, such as a donkey or a horse that was consecrated; but with regard to a kosher animal, perhaps its consecrated status cannot be removed by redemption even if it was blemished? When the verse states: 鈥淎nd if it be of an impure animal鈥 (Leviticus 27:27), a non-kosher animal is mentioned. So how do I realize the meaning of: 鈥淥f which they may not bring an offering鈥? You must say that this is referring to blemished animals that were redeemed, indicating that redemption is permitted.

讬讻讜诇 讬驻讚讜 注诇 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘讜 诪诪谞讛 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 讛讬讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讞专

The baraita concludes: One might have thought that offerings may be redeemed due to a temporary blemish that they sustained. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥f which they may not bring an offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:11). This teaches that an animal that is not sacrificed at all is redeemed, which excludes this animal that has a temporary blemish, which is not sacrificed today, but rather may be sacrificed tomorrow.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 驻住讞 讜注讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara comments: If you wish, say a different explanation as to why a temporary blemish is not included in the amplification of the verse: 鈥淎ny ill blemish鈥: If so, that even a temporary blemish permits its slaughter, why do I need the verse to mention a lame animal and a blind animal? It would have sufficed to state: 鈥淎ny ill blemish.鈥 Rather, the verse excludes a temporary blemish that is unlike these two blemishes, which are permanent.

谞住讚拽讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讞住专讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛住讚拽 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛驻讙讬诪讛 讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚住讚拽 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches: If the ear of the firstborn animal was split, although it is not lacking, one may slaughter the animal outside the Temple. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The split that permits the animal to be slaughtered is one of any size. With regard to the damage, whether it was done by the hand of a person or by the hand of God, it may be slaughtered. The Gemara asks: Should it be derived by inference that with regard to a split, if it was caused by the hand of God it is not considered a blemish? That also should be considered an obvious blemish and render the animal permitted for slaughter.

讗诇讗 住讚拽 讜驻讙讬诪讛 讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 驻讙讬诪讛 讻讚讬 砖转讞讙讜专 讘讛 爪讬驻讜专谉

The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita should be interpreted as follows: The animal may be slaughtered for a split of any size, and with regard to a split and damage, whether it was done by the hand of God or by the hand of a person, the animal may be slaughtered. And what is the measure of the damage that is considered a blemish? It must be large enough that a fingernail will be retained [sheta岣or] on it, i.e., if one passes his fingernail over the ear of the animal it can enter the area of the damage.

谞拽讘讛 诪诇讗 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 谞拽讬讘转 讛讗讜讝谉 诪诇讗 讻专砖讬谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讻注讚砖讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讬讘砖讛 砖讗诐 转讬谞拽讘 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 讟讬驻转 讚诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讗讜诪专 讬讘砖讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 谞驻专讻转

搂 The mishna stated that if the ear of a firstborn animal was pierced with a hole the size of a bitter vetch, the animal is slaughtered because of it. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: How large must the piercing of the ear be? It must be the size of a karshina. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Like the size of a lentil, which is slightly smaller. And what is a desiccated ear that is considered a blemish? It is an ear that if it is pierced, it does not discharge a drop of blood. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: Desiccated means that the ear is so dry that it will crumble if one touches it.

转谞讗 拽专讜讘讬谉 讚讘专讬讛谉 诇讛讬讜转 砖讜讬谉 讚讘专讬讛谉 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讛诪砖讜诇诐 讟讜讘讗 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

A Sage taught: Their statements are close to being identical in practice. The Gemara asks: The statements of whom are close to being identical? If we say that he is referring to the statements of the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam with regard to a desiccated ear, there is a significant difference between these two opinions. One says it is determined by whether blood emerges, while the other holds it is based on whether it crumbles. Rather, he is referring to the statement of the first tanna and the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as a karshina and a lentil are almost identical in size.

讻注讚砖讛 讗讬谉 讘爪讬专 诪讻注讚砖讛 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪专爪注 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪专爪注 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讛住讜诇 讜讛住讬专讛 讜讛诪讞讟 讜讛诪拽讚讞 讜讛诪讻转讘

The Gemara asks with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: If the ear was pierced with a hole like the size of a lentil, then yes, it is considered a blemish, but if it was pierced with a hole less than the size of a lentil, then is it not considered a blemish? And one can raise a contradiction from a baraita: The Torah provides a description of the process by which a Hebrew slave who has already completed his six years of servitude may continue on as a slave of his master: 鈥淎nd you shall take the awl and put it through his ear and in the door鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:17). From this verse, I have derived only that an awl can be used. From where do I know to include the palm thorn [hassol], a thorn, a needle, and a gimlet, and a stylus for writing on wax as valid tools for piercing his ear?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇拽讞转 讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞诇拽讞 讘讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪专爪注 诪讛 诪专爪注 诪讬讜讞讚 砖诇 诪转讻转 讗祝 讻诇 砖诇 诪转讻转

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take,鈥 which indicates that anything that can be taken by hand is a valid tool. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Not all these items can be used. Rather, since the verse specifies an 鈥渁wl,鈥 only items similar to an awl can be used; just as an awl is distinct in that it is fashioned of metal, so too, anything fashioned of metal can be used.

讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讚谉 讘专讘讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讻砖讛谉 专讜爪注讬谉 讗讬谉 专讜爪注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪讬诇转

And the latter clause of the baraita teaches: Rabbi Elazar said that Yudan the Distinguished would teach as follows: When they pierce the ear of the slave, they pierce only in the earlobe.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讻讛谉 谞专爪注 诪驻谞讬 砖谞注砖讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 讘诪讬诇转 讛讬讜 专讜爪注讬谉 讛讬讗讱 注讘讚 讻讛谉 谞注砖讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讗 讗讬谉 专讜爪注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讙讜讘讛 砖诇 讗讜讝谉

And the Rabbis say: The piercing is not performed on that part of the ear, since there is a tradition that the ear of a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced, because the piercing renders him blemished and unfit to serve in the Temple. And if you say that they pierced the slave in the earlobe, how does a Hebrew slave who is a priest become blemished through piercing? A wound on this part of the ear heals. This indicates that they pierce only on the upper part of the ear, through the cartilage.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇砖讞讜讟 讻讗谉 诇驻住讜诇

In any event, it is clear from the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that the piercing of a needle is considered a blemish, despite the fact that it is definitely smaller than the size of a lentil. The Gemara answers: Rav 岣na bar Ketina said: It is not difficult, as here, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that the hole must be the size of a lentil with regard to slaughtering an animal outside the Temple due to the blemish. There, with regard to disqualifying the animal from being sacrificed, even a tiny hole is considered a blemish, just as it renders the priest blemished.

诪讗讬 讻专砖讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讛讬谞讚讗

搂 According to the first opinion cited in the baraita, the size of the hole that is considered a blemish in the ear of the firstborn animal is like that of a karshina. The Gemara asks: What is a karshina? Rav Sherevya says: It is a bitter vetch, called hinda in Aramaic.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 专讘讛 讻专砖讬谞讛 讛谞讻谞住转 讜讬讜爪讗讛 讗讜 讻专砖讬谞讛 讛注讜诪讚转 讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 砖诪注转讬

With regard to this halakha, Rav Hoshaya asked Rav Huna the Great: Is this measure referring to a bitter vetch that can enter and exit the hole in the ear, which means that the hole is slightly larger than the bitter vetch? Or is it referring to a bitter vetch that is stationary in the hole, meaning that the hole is precisely the size of a bitter vetch? Rav Huna the Great said to him: I did not hear this halakha specifically, but I heard a similar halakha to it, that the expression: The size of a bitter vetch [melo karshina], means that the bitter vetch can enter and exit the hole.

讚转谞谉 讛砖讚专讛 讜讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖讞住专讜 讻诪讛 讞住专讜谉 讘砖讚专讛 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讜讘讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬谞讟诇 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讬诪讜转

As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 2:3): The spine and the skull of a corpse that are incomplete do not impart ritual impurity in a tent. This halakha was unanimously accepted, but the details were subject to dispute: How much is considered a deficiency in the spine so that it will not impart impurity in a tent? Beit Shammai say: If it is missing two vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: Even if it is missing only one vertebra, it will not impart impurity. And likewise, they disagree concerning the deficiency in the skull: Beit Shammai say that it must be missing a piece like the size of a drilled hole, and Beit Hillel say: It must be missing an amount that if removed from a living person, he would die.

讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讚讬 砖讬谞讟诇 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讜讚讬诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻住诇注

The Gemara relates: And Rav 岣sda was sitting, and he raised a dilemma: That which was stated: An amount that if removed from a living person, how much is that? Rav Ta岣ifa bar Avudimi said to him: This is what Shmuel says: It is like the size of a sela coin.

讜讗讬转诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 砖诪注转转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诪转谞讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara notes: And it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to whom Rabbi Ta岣ifa cited when relating this halakha to Rav 岣sda. Rav Safra says that he told him a halakha of the amora鈥檌m citing Shmuel. And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says that he told him a baraita that stipulated that the measure is like the size of a sela coin. And your mnemonic to remember what each one said is the common talmudic phrase: Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda teaches [tanei], generally indicating a source from a tanna, which hints that according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, Rav Ta岣ifa cited a baraita to Rav 岣sda, while according to Rav Safra, he related a tradition from Shmuel.

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 注砖讬转讛 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讞讚 讚转谞谉 诪讗讜专 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 砖讬注讜专讜 诪诇讗 讗讙专讜祝 讙讚讜诇 讜讝讛讜 讗讙专讜驻讜 砖诇 讘谉 讗讘讟讬讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讬砖谞讜 讻专讗砖 讙讚讜诇 砖诇 讗讚诐

And Rav 岣sda said to Rav Ta岣ifa: If so, that the measure of the deficiency according to the opinion of Beit Hillel is the size of a sela coin, you have made the statement of Beit Shammai and the statement of Beit Hillel one and the same, since the size of a sela coin and a drilled hole is identical. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:12): With regard to a window that was not fashioned by the hands of a person, such as where a stone fell out of the wall by itself, its measure for which ritual impurity is transmitted from room to room is like the size of a large fist. And this is the size of the fist of Ben Avatia岣, who was known to be an exceptionally large man. Rabbi Yosei said: And the size of this fist is like the size of a large human head.

谞注砖讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 砖讬注专讜讛讜 讻诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 讙讚讜诇 砖诇 诇砖讻讛 砖讛讜讗 讻驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 砖诇 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 讜讻住诇注 谞讬专讜谞讬转 讜讬砖谞讜

The mishna continues: But if the window was made by the hand of a person, its measure for which ritual impurity is transmitted is like the size of the drilled hole of the large drill of the chamber in the Temple, which is like the size of the Italian pundeyon and like the size of a sela of the emperor Nero. And its size is

Scroll To Top