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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 27, 2019 | 讻状讘 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 40

More discussions related to blemishes in animals – what is considered a blemish and what is not? Which ones were a source of debate between various rabbis? What are the reasons behind the commandment not to sacrifice animals that are blemished?


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

讘砖讜砖谉 讛讘讬专讛 讗讞转 注诇 拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 讜讗讞转 注诇 拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 砖注诇 拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 讛讬转讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 砖诇 诪砖讛 讞爪讬 讗爪讘注 讜砖注诇 拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讛讬转讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇讬讛 讞爪讬 讗爪讘注 谞诪爪讗转 讬转讬专讛 注诇 砖诇 诪砖讛 讗爪讘注

in the chamber of Shushan the capital, which was located above the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, one in the northeast corner and one in the southeast corner. The one that was in the northeast corner was longer than the cubit used by Moses in the building of the Tabernacle, which was six handbreadths, by half a fingerbreadth, and the one that was in the southeast corner was longer than the other one by another half a fingerbreadth. One therefore finds it longer than Moses鈥 cubit by a full fingerbreadth.

讜诇诪讛 讛讬讜 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 讻砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪谞讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讘拽讟谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讘讙讚讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讬讘讜讗讜 诇讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛

The mishna continues: And why did the Sages say that there should be two measures of a cubit, one large and one small? It was so that the artisans who were working in the Temple would take payment according the amount of work they did, as measured by the small cubit, and return it to the Temple through their work, as measured by the large cubit, so they would not come to misuse consecrated property. If they would accept any payment that they did not deserve, they would be misusing consecrated property. It was with regard to the fingerbreadth mentioned in this mishna that the baraita cited above teaches that it is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.

转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚讗 讚讻住驻讗 讜讝讛讘讗 讜讞讚讗 讚讘谞讬讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: Why do I need two large cubits? The Gemara answers: One, the shorter of the two, was used to measure silver and gold. Since silver and gold were valuable, the difference between the two measurements was set at only half a fingerbreadth, so that the artisans would not suffer too great a loss. And the other one, which was longer than Moses鈥 cubit by a full fingerbreadth, was used in the construction of wood and stone structures.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 砖讬砖 讘砖专 讘讬谉 讞讜诇讬讗 诇讞讜诇讬讗 诪诇讗 讗爪讘注

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, and some say Rav Huna bar Natan, said: This baraita, which states that a fingerbreadth is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person, is referring to that which we learned in the mishna here with regard to the blemishes of a firstborn animal: In a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. That measure of a full fingerbreadth is one-fourth of a handbreadth.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讬爪讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讜砖讬讘讜 注诇 注讻讜讝讜 讜诪诪注讱 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬爪讛 住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 诪注砖讛 砖诪讬注讱 讜诇讗 讬爪讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讚讘讜拽讛 讘讻住诇讬诐 讜讛转讬专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗住专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬

MISHNA: The firstborn animal may be slaughtered if it has no testicles or if it has only one testicle. Rabbi Yishmael says: If the animal has two scrotal sacs, it can be assumed that it has two testicles; if the animal does not have two scrotal sacs, it can be assumed that it has only one testicle. Rabbi Akiva says: The matter can be ascertained: One seats the animal on its rump and mashes the sac; if there is a testicle, ultimately it is going to emerge. There was an incident where one mashed the sac and the testicle did not emerge. Then, the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted the consumption of its flesh, as the testicle had not previously emerged, and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption.

讙诪壮 讛砖转讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 讗诪专转 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讻诇诇 诪讬讘注讬讗 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讘砖转讬 讻讬住讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讻讬住 讗讞讚 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖转讬 讻讬住讬谉 讜讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a firstborn may be slaughtered if it has no testicles or if it has only one testicle. The Gemara asks: Now that with regard to a case where it has only one testicle you said that it is a blemish, is it necessary to state the same in a case where it has no testicles at all? The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: If it does not have two testicles in two scrotal sacs, but in one sac, or alternatively, if it has two sacs and one testicle, it is a blemish.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 讻讬住讬诐 讘讬讚讜注 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讻讬住 讗讞讚 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 讚诪讬 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讬讚讜注 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诪讜砖讬讘讜 注诇 注讻讜讝讜 讜诪诪注讱 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬爪讛 住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转

The Gemara continues this version of the mishna. Rabbi Yishmael says: If the animal has two scrotal sacs, it is known that it has two testicles, and therefore it is not blemished and may not be slaughtered; if the animal has only one scrotal sac it is considered like one that has only one testicle, even if it actually has two testicles. And Rabbi Akiva comes to say: If it has two sacs, we do not say the claim of: It is known. Rather, one seats the animal on its rump and mashes the sac; if there is a testicle, ultimately it is going to emerge. If the testicle does not emerge, clearly it has only one testicle and is blemished.

讜诪注砖讛 砖诪讬注讱 讜诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘驻讬专谉 砖诇 讘讬转 诪谞讞诐 砖诪讬注讱 讜诇讗 讬爪讗转 讜谞砖讞讟讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讚讘讜拽讛 讘讻住诇讬诐 讜讛转讬专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗住专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And there was an incident where one mashed the sac and the testicle did not emerge. Then the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted the consumption of its flesh, and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption. The Gemara elaborates on this incident: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident in Piran of Beit Mena岣m where a firstborn animal apparently had only one testicle, and someone mashed its sac and the other testicle did not emerge. And the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted its consumption, and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 注讚 诪转讬 讗转讛 诪讻诇讛 诪诪讜谞谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讚 诪转讬 讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇 讬砖专讗诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 诇讗讜 诪讬砖讞讟 砖讞讟讬讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri: Until when will you consume the property of the Jewish people by prohibiting animals in such cases? Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: Until when will you feed the Jewish people unslaughtered animal carcasses? The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri use the term animal carcasses here? After all, aren鈥檛 they properly slaughtered?

讗诇讗 讟专讬驻讜转 诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讟专讬驻讜转 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 注讚 诪转讬 讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇 讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓

The Gemara responds: Rather, Yo岣nan ben Nuri actually referred to animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. The Gemara challenges: But it is not a prohibition of tereifot. Rather, he said: Until when will you feed the Jewish people sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard? According to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri this is not a blemish, and therefore the animal is an unblemished offering, which may not be eaten outside the Temple.

诪转谞讬壮 讘注诇 讞诪砖 专讙诇讬诐 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诇砖 讜砖专讙诇讬讜 砖讛讜讗 拽诇讜讟讜转 讻砖诇 讞诪讜专 讜讛砖讞讜诇 讜讛讻住讜诇 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讞讜诇 砖谞砖诪讟讛 讬专讬讻讜 讜讻住讜诇 砖讗讞转 诪讬专讬讻讬诐 讙讘讜讛讜转

MISHNA: An animal with five legs, or one that has only three, or one whose hooves on its legs were closed like those of a donkey and not split, or the sha岣l, or the kasul may be slaughtered. What is a sha岣l? It is an animal with a thighbone that was dislocated. And what is a kasul? It is an animal whose build is asymmetrical in that one of its thighs is higher than the other.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞住专 讜讬转专 讘讬讚 讗讘诇 讘专讙诇 讟专驻讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 讚讻诇 讬转讬专 讻谞讟讜诇 讚诪讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an animal with five legs or three legs is blemished. Rav Huna says: The Sages taught this only in a case where the animal was missing or had an additional foreleg. But if it was missing or had an additional hind leg, not only is it blemished, but it is also a tereifa. The reason is that any extra limb is like a removed limb, and an animal whose hind leg was removed is a tereifa.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚注讙讬诇谉 讜诇讗 住讚讬拽谉 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讙讬诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚住讚讬拽谉

With regard to the ruling of the mishna that an animal whose hooves were closed like those of a donkey is blemished, Rav Pappa says: Do not say that it is a blemish only in a case where its hooves are entirely like those of a donkey, i.e., round and not split at all. Rather, when they are round, even though they are also split, it is still considered a blemish.

讜讛砖讞讜诇 讜讛讻住讜诇 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讻住讜诇 讜讗讬讝讛讜 砖讞讜诇 砖讞讜诇 砖谞砖诪讟讛 讬专讬讻讜 讻住讜诇 砖专讙诇讜 讗讞讚 讘转讜讱 讛讻住诇 讜专讙诇讜 讗讞讚 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻住诇 转谞讗 讛砖专讜注 讜讛拽诇讜讟 砖专讜注 砖谞砖转专讘讘 诇讜 讬专讬讻讜 拽诇讜讟 砖专讙诇讬讜 拽诇讜讟讜转 讻砖诇 讞诪讜专 讜讻砖诇 住讜住

The mishna teaches: Or the sha岣l, or the kasul may be slaughtered. In this regard, the Sages taught: What is the kasul and what is the sha岣l? The sha岣l is an animal with a thighbone that was dislocated. The kasul is an animal that is irregular in that one of its legs is inside the loin, i.e., in its proper place, and in one of its legs the bone is dislocated and is above the loin. It is taught in a baraita: What are the saru鈥檃 and kalut mentioned in the Torah (see Leviticus 22:23) among the animals disqualified from being sacrificed? The saru鈥檃 is one whose thigh is longer than the other; the kalut is one whose hooves on its legs are closed like those of a donkey and like those of a horse.

诪转谞讬壮 谞砖讘专 注爪诐 讬讚讜 讜注爪诐 专讙诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诪讜诪讬谉 讗诇讜 诪谞讛 讗讬诇讗 讘讬讘谞讛 讜讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐

MISHNA: Additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn include those where the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg was broken, even though it is not conspicuous. With regard to these blemishes listed in this chapter, Ila, who was expert in blemishes of the firstborn, enumerated them in Yavne, and the Sages deferred to his expertise.

讜注讜讚 砖诇砖讛 讛讜住讬祝 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讙诇讙诇 注讬谞讜 注讙讜诇 讻砖诇 讗讚诐 讜驻讬讜 讚讜诪讛 讻砖诇 讞讝讬专 讜砖谞讬讟诇 专讜讘 讛诪讚讘专 讘诇砖讜谞讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讞专讬讛谉 讗诪专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

And Ila added three additional blemishes, and the Sages said to him: We did not hear about those. Ila added: An animal whose eye is round like that of a person, or whose mouth is similar to that of a pig, or where most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person was removed. The court that followed them said with regard to each of those three blemishes: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.

讙诪壮 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诪讬 拽讗 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诪讞诪转 注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 谞讬讻专 诪讞诪转 诪诇讗讻讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg was broken it is considered a blemish, despite the fact that it is not conspicuous. The Gemara asks: If it is not conspicuous, is it a blemish? A blemish must be on an exposed part of the body (see 37b). Rav Pappa says: The mishna means that it is not conspicuous on its own account, i.e., the shape of the leg is no different from the usual. But it is conspicuous on account of its work, i.e., the manner in which the animal walks.

诪讜诪讬谉 讗诇讜 诪谞讛 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪驻诇转 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讜讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗诐 讝讻专 转砖讘 诇讝讻专

搂 The mishna teaches that with regard to these blemishes listed in this chapter, Ila enumerated them in Yavne, and he added three more, including an animal whose eye is round like that of a person. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that it is not the manner of animals to have eyes of this kind? And one can raise a contradiction from a mishna (Nidda 21a): With regard to a woman who miscarries a fetus in the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, whether it is a non-kosher animal or whether it is a kosher animal, if it is male, the woman observes the periods of impurity, i.e., seven days, and purity, i.e., thirty-three days, established in the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a male.

讗诐 谞拽讘讛 转砖讘 诇谞拽讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讚讜注 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

If it is female, the woman observes the periods of impurity, i.e., fourteen days, and purity, i.e., sixty-six days, established in the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a female. If its sex is unknown, the woman observes the more severe restrictions from the case of the birth of a male and the more severe restrictions from the case of the birth of a female: She is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure until only forty days after birth, like a woman who gave birth to a male. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙诇讙诇 注讬谞讜 注讙讜诇 讻砖诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗讜讻诪讗 讛讗 讘讞讬讜讜专讗

And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? Since the eye of these animals is round like that of a person, a woman who miscarries a fetus of this kind is impure. Rav Yosef said in resolution of this apparent contradiction: It is not difficult; this is referring to the black portion of the eye, whereas that is referring to the white portion of the eye.

讜驻讬讜 讚讜诪讛 讻砖诇 讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚砖驻讬讚 讜驻专讜住 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚驻专讜住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 砖驻讬讚

The mishna teaches: Or its mouth is similar to that of a pig. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that this is referring only to a case where the mouth is pointed and the upper lip overlaps the bottom lip, exactly like that of a pig. Rather, when it overlaps, even though it is not pointed, this is a blemish.

讜砖谞讬讟诇 专讜讘 讛诪讚讘专 砖讘诇砖讜谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗转 砖谞讬讟诇 专讜讘 讛诇砖讜谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讜讘 讛诪讚讘专 砖诇 诇砖讜谞讜

The mishna teaches: Or that most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person was removed. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Or that most of its tongue was removed; Rabbi Yehuda says: Most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person must be removed to be considered a blemish.

诪转谞讬壮 讜诪注砖讛 砖讛诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 注讜讚祝 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谉 讜砖讗诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

MISHNA: And there was an incident where the lower jaw of the firstborn protruded beyond the upper jaw, and Rabban Gamliel asked the Sages for a ruling, and they said: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜诪注砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讚转谞谉 驻讬讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讞讝讬专 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讘砖驻转讜 注诇讬讜谞讛 注讜讚驻转 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗讘诇 砖讛转讞转讜谞讛 注讜讚驻转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the ruling taught in the previous mishna that the tanna is referring to when he teaches here: And there was an incident? The Gemara answers: Since we learned in the list of blemishes in the previous mishna the case where its mouth is similar to that of a pig, and the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Ila in that case, we say here that when the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Ila, it is only in a case where its upper lip overlaps the lower lip. But in a case where the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper jaw, everyone agrees that this is a blemish.

讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 注讜讚祝 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谉 砖讗诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

The Gemara continues this version of the mishna: And there was also an incident where the lower jaw of the firstborn protruded beyond the upper jaw, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asked the Sages for a ruling, and they said: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.

讜讛讗 讙讘讬 讗讚诐 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 砖驻转讜 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 注讜讚驻转 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗讜 砖转讞转讜谞讛 注讜讚驻转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 讙讘讬 讗讚诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讝专注 讗讛专谉 讗讬砖 砖砖讜讛 讘讝专注讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 讗讘诇 讘讘讛诪讛 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But it is with regard to the blemishes of a person that we learned in a mishna (44a): If his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower lip or his lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip, that is a blemish. And it is only with regard to a person that it is written: 鈥淲hatever man of the seed of Aaron鈥 (Leviticus 22:4), which teaches that in order to be fit for the Temple service a priest must be a man who is equal to the seed of Aaron, i.e., he has an ordinary appearance like other priests. But this requirement is not stated with regard to an animal, and therefore an animal should not be considered blemished if its lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 注爪诐 讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 注爪诐

Rav Pappa said in response: That is not difficult; this mishna is referring to a case where the lower jaw contains a bone that is longer than the upper jaw, in which case it is a blemish even for an animal, whereas that mishna is referring to a case where the lower jaw does not contain a bone, and therefore it is a blemish only in the case of a person.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讜讝谉 讛讙讚讬 讛讬转讛 讻驻讜诇讛 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 注爪诐 讗讞讚 诪讜诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 注爪诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讝谞讘 讛讙讚讬 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇 讞讝讬专 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖诇砖 讞讜诇讬讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

MISHNA: With regard to the ear of the kid that was doubled and appeared like two ears, the Sages said: When the additional ear is one bone, i.e., it has its own cartilage, it is a blemish; when it does not have its own bone it is not a blemish. Rabbi 岣nanya ben Gamliel says: In the case of the tail of a kid that is similar to that of a pig or one that is so short that it does not have three joints, that is a blemish.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讬讜 讘诇讜诐 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪讘讜诇诪讜转 诪讞诪转 讛专讜讞 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 诪讞诪转 讛注爪诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 讗讝谞讬讜 讻驻讜诇讜转 讘讞住讞住讜转 讗讞转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 讘砖转讬 讞住讞住讬讜转 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught: In a case where the mouth of a firstborn animal is swollen, and likewise, if its legs are swollen, the following distinction applies: If it is swollen due to the wind, i.e., it simply swelled up, it is not a blemish. If it is swollen due to a particularly large bone, this is a blemish. If its ears are doubled, in a case where it has one cartilage, this is a blemish; in a case where it has two cartilages, this is not a blemish.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讝谞讘 讛讙讚讬 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇 讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚拽讟讬谞讗 讗诇讗 讚讻专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诇讬诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to the tail of a kid that is similar to that of a pig, that is a blemish. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that it is a blemish only where its tail is thin like that of a pig; rather, if it is round, i.e., curly like a pig鈥檚 tail, even though it is thick, like the tail of a goat, this is considered a blemish.

讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖诇砖 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讙讚讬 砖转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 砖诇砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 讘讟诇讛 砖诇砖 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 讗专讘注 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 诪讬转讬讘讬 讘讙讚讬 讗讞转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 砖转讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 讘讟诇讛 砖转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 砖诇砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

搂 The mishna stated: Or if the tail of a kid is so short that it does not have three joints, that is a blemish. Rav Huna says: In the case of the tail of a kid, if it has two joints, that is a blemish; if it has three joints, it is not a blemish. With regard to a lamb, if it has three joints, that is a blemish; if it has four joints, it is not a blemish. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a kid, if its tail has one joint, that is a blemish; if it has two joints, it is not a blemish. With regard to a lamb, if it has two joints, that is a blemish; if it has three joints, it is not a blemish. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讟注讬转讬讛 讗讬讛讜 住讘专 诪讚专讬砖讗 讘讙讚讬 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘讙讚讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讬砖讗 讘讙讚讬 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟诇讛

The Gemara comments: And Rav Huna issued his statement because the mishna misled him. He thought that from the fact that the first clause is referring to a kid, whose tail is similar to that of a pig, it can be inferred that the latter clause, with its mention of three joints, is also referring to a kid. But it is not so. Rather, the first clause is referring to a kid, but the latter clause is referring to a lamb, as explained in the baraita.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讗转 砖讬讘诇转 讘注讬谞讬讜 讜砖谞驻讙诐 注爪诐 讬讚讜 讜专讙诇讜 讜砖谞驻专拽 注爪诪讜 砖诇 驻讬讜 注讬谞讜 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 讗讝谞讜 讗讞讚 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞讚 拽讟谞讛 讘诪专讗讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬讜 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讻砖转讬诐 砖讘讞讘讬专转讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐

MISHNA: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says that these are blemished animals: One that has a wart in its eyes; and one where the bone of its foreleg or hind leg was damaged; and one where the bone of its mouth, i.e., its jaw, was dislocated; and an animal with one of its eyes large and one small, or one of its ears large and one small where the difference in size is detectable by sight, but not if it is detectable only by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal is blemished if with regard to its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his opinion.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讬讘诇转 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗 讘诪拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讘注诇 讙专讘 讜讘注诇 讬讘诇转

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if an animal has a wart in its eyes, it is blemished. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a wart is considered a blemish? And one can raise a contradiction from the mishna (41a): And these are the blemishes that one does not slaughter the firstborn due to them, neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country, as these are not considered full-fledged blemishes鈥n animal with boils that are moist inside and out, and one with warts.

讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘讗 讬讘诇转 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙讜驻讜 讛讗 讘注讬谞讜

The Gemara responds: And how can you understand that a wart is not a blemish? After all, a wart is written in the Torah in its list of blemishes (see Leviticus 22:22). Rather, it is not difficult, as that mishna, which states that a wart is not a full-fledged blemish, is referring to a blemish on the animal鈥檚 body, whereas this mention of a wart in the Torah and the mishna here is referring to a wart in its eye.

诪讻讚讬 拽专讗 住转诪讗 诪讛 诇讬 讘讙讜驻讜 讜诪讛 诇讬 讘注讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 注爪诐 讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 注爪诐

The Gemara asks: Now consider that the verse is written in an unspecified manner. What difference is it to me if the wart is on its body, and what difference is it to me if the wart is in its eye? How is this distinction derived from the verse? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, it is not difficult, as this is referring to a wart that has a bone,and that is referring to a wart that does not have a bone.

讚拽专讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 注爪诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讬转 讘讛 注爪诐 讘注讬谞讜 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 讘讙讜驻讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗

The Gemara elaborates: The wart mentioned in the verse and the mishna here is one that has a bone, whereas the wart addressed by the mishna there is one that does not have a bone. Consequently, if the wart is in its eye, it is a blemish, as stated in the verse and the mishna here, but if it is on its body, it is not a blemish, although the animal is disqualified from being sacrificed, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna there.

讜诇讬转 诇讛 注爪诐 讘讙讜驻讗 驻住讜诇讛 讛专讬 转诇转讜诇 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讬 讛转讬诇讜诇讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘讗讚诐 讜讻砖讬专讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘注讬谞讜 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘砖讞讜专 讛讗 讘诇讘谉

The Gemara asks: And with regard to a wart that does not have a bone and is on the body, is the animal disqualified from being sacrificed? It is merely hanging flesh, as we learned in a mishna (45b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to those with flesh or skin that hangs from their body, such a blemish disqualifies a person, but with regard to such an animal, it is fit. Rather, both this mishna here and that mishna there are referring to a wart in the animal鈥檚 eye, and it is not difficult, as this mishna is referring to a wart in the black of the eye, the pupil, whereas that mishna is referring to a wart in the white of the eye.

讜讛讗 讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 讘诇讘谉 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘诇讘谉 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖注专 讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖注专

The Gemara asks: But it has been established that there are no blemishes in the white part of the eye, which indicates that the animal is not even disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar. Rather, both this statement that there are no blemishes in the white of the eye and that ruling of the mishna that a wart disqualifies the animal from being sacrificed are referring to a wart in the white part of the eye. And Reish Lakish says: It is not difficult; this is referring to a wart that has a hair, and therefore the animal is unfit for the altar, whereas that statement is referring to a case where the wart does not have a hair. As for the mishna here, which rules that a wart is a full-fledged blemish, it is referring to a wart in the pupil of the eye, as explained.

注讬谞讜 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讻砖诇 注讙诇 拽讟谞讛 讻砖诇 讗讜讜讝

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to an animal where one of its eyes is large and one is small that this is a blemish. In this regard, it is taught in a baraita: When the mishna states the term large, it means the eye is as large as the eye of a calf, and when it states the term small, it means it is as small as that of a goose.

讗讝谞讜 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讻讜壮 讜专讘谞谉 注讚 讻诪讛 转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诇砖谞讬讛 讗诇讗 讻驻讜诇 讻砖讬专讛

The mishna teaches: Or one of its ears is large and one is small, which is detectable by sight, but not if it is detectable only by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal is blemished if with regard to its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his opinion. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, how large can the difference between the two testicles be without this discrepancy being considered a blemish? The Gemara answers that it is taught in a baraita that A岣rim say: Even if the second, smaller testicle is no bigger than a bean, the animal is fit.

诪转谞讬壮 讝谞讘 讛注讙诇 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讙注转 诇注专拽讜讘 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讻诇 诪专讘讬转 注讙诇讬诐 讻谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讛讜 诪讙讚诇讬谉 讛谉 谞诪转讞讜转 讗讬讝讛讜 注专拽讜讘 砖讗诪专讜 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讘注专拽讜讘 砖讘讗诪爪注 讛讬专讱

MISHNA: In the case of the tail of a calf that does not reach the leg joint [la鈥檃rkov], the Sages said: It is a blemish, because all growth of calves is in this manner:As long as they grow, their tails are extended beneath the leg joint. Which is the leg joint about which the Sages spoke? Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: They are referring to the leg joint that is in the middle of the thigh.

  • 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 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 40

讘砖讜砖谉 讛讘讬专讛 讗讞转 注诇 拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 讜讗讞转 注诇 拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 砖注诇 拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 讛讬转讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 砖诇 诪砖讛 讞爪讬 讗爪讘注 讜砖注诇 拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讛讬转讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇讬讛 讞爪讬 讗爪讘注 谞诪爪讗转 讬转讬专讛 注诇 砖诇 诪砖讛 讗爪讘注

in the chamber of Shushan the capital, which was located above the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, one in the northeast corner and one in the southeast corner. The one that was in the northeast corner was longer than the cubit used by Moses in the building of the Tabernacle, which was six handbreadths, by half a fingerbreadth, and the one that was in the southeast corner was longer than the other one by another half a fingerbreadth. One therefore finds it longer than Moses鈥 cubit by a full fingerbreadth.

讜诇诪讛 讛讬讜 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 讻砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪谞讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讘拽讟谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讘讙讚讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讬讘讜讗讜 诇讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛

The mishna continues: And why did the Sages say that there should be two measures of a cubit, one large and one small? It was so that the artisans who were working in the Temple would take payment according the amount of work they did, as measured by the small cubit, and return it to the Temple through their work, as measured by the large cubit, so they would not come to misuse consecrated property. If they would accept any payment that they did not deserve, they would be misusing consecrated property. It was with regard to the fingerbreadth mentioned in this mishna that the baraita cited above teaches that it is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.

转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚讗 讚讻住驻讗 讜讝讛讘讗 讜讞讚讗 讚讘谞讬讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: Why do I need two large cubits? The Gemara answers: One, the shorter of the two, was used to measure silver and gold. Since silver and gold were valuable, the difference between the two measurements was set at only half a fingerbreadth, so that the artisans would not suffer too great a loss. And the other one, which was longer than Moses鈥 cubit by a full fingerbreadth, was used in the construction of wood and stone structures.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 砖讬砖 讘砖专 讘讬谉 讞讜诇讬讗 诇讞讜诇讬讗 诪诇讗 讗爪讘注

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, and some say Rav Huna bar Natan, said: This baraita, which states that a fingerbreadth is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person, is referring to that which we learned in the mishna here with regard to the blemishes of a firstborn animal: In a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. That measure of a full fingerbreadth is one-fourth of a handbreadth.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讬爪讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 讻讬住讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讜砖讬讘讜 注诇 注讻讜讝讜 讜诪诪注讱 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬爪讛 住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 诪注砖讛 砖诪讬注讱 讜诇讗 讬爪讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讚讘讜拽讛 讘讻住诇讬诐 讜讛转讬专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗住专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬

MISHNA: The firstborn animal may be slaughtered if it has no testicles or if it has only one testicle. Rabbi Yishmael says: If the animal has two scrotal sacs, it can be assumed that it has two testicles; if the animal does not have two scrotal sacs, it can be assumed that it has only one testicle. Rabbi Akiva says: The matter can be ascertained: One seats the animal on its rump and mashes the sac; if there is a testicle, ultimately it is going to emerge. There was an incident where one mashed the sac and the testicle did not emerge. Then, the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted the consumption of its flesh, as the testicle had not previously emerged, and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption.

讙诪壮 讛砖转讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 讗诪专转 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讻诇诇 诪讬讘注讬讗 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讘砖转讬 讻讬住讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讻讬住 讗讞讚 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖转讬 讻讬住讬谉 讜讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a firstborn may be slaughtered if it has no testicles or if it has only one testicle. The Gemara asks: Now that with regard to a case where it has only one testicle you said that it is a blemish, is it necessary to state the same in a case where it has no testicles at all? The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: If it does not have two testicles in two scrotal sacs, but in one sac, or alternatively, if it has two sacs and one testicle, it is a blemish.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 讻讬住讬诐 讘讬讚讜注 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讻讬住 讗讞讚 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 讚诪讬 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讬讚讜注 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诪讜砖讬讘讜 注诇 注讻讜讝讜 讜诪诪注讱 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬爪讛 住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转

The Gemara continues this version of the mishna. Rabbi Yishmael says: If the animal has two scrotal sacs, it is known that it has two testicles, and therefore it is not blemished and may not be slaughtered; if the animal has only one scrotal sac it is considered like one that has only one testicle, even if it actually has two testicles. And Rabbi Akiva comes to say: If it has two sacs, we do not say the claim of: It is known. Rather, one seats the animal on its rump and mashes the sac; if there is a testicle, ultimately it is going to emerge. If the testicle does not emerge, clearly it has only one testicle and is blemished.

讜诪注砖讛 砖诪讬注讱 讜诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘驻讬专谉 砖诇 讘讬转 诪谞讞诐 砖诪讬注讱 讜诇讗 讬爪讗转 讜谞砖讞讟讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讚讘讜拽讛 讘讻住诇讬诐 讜讛转讬专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗住专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And there was an incident where one mashed the sac and the testicle did not emerge. Then the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted the consumption of its flesh, and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption. The Gemara elaborates on this incident: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident in Piran of Beit Mena岣m where a firstborn animal apparently had only one testicle, and someone mashed its sac and the other testicle did not emerge. And the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted its consumption, and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 注讚 诪转讬 讗转讛 诪讻诇讛 诪诪讜谞谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讚 诪转讬 讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇 讬砖专讗诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 诇讗讜 诪讬砖讞讟 砖讞讟讬讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri: Until when will you consume the property of the Jewish people by prohibiting animals in such cases? Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: Until when will you feed the Jewish people unslaughtered animal carcasses? The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri use the term animal carcasses here? After all, aren鈥檛 they properly slaughtered?

讗诇讗 讟专讬驻讜转 诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讟专讬驻讜转 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 注讚 诪转讬 讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇 讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓

The Gemara responds: Rather, Yo岣nan ben Nuri actually referred to animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. The Gemara challenges: But it is not a prohibition of tereifot. Rather, he said: Until when will you feed the Jewish people sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard? According to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri this is not a blemish, and therefore the animal is an unblemished offering, which may not be eaten outside the Temple.

诪转谞讬壮 讘注诇 讞诪砖 专讙诇讬诐 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诇砖 讜砖专讙诇讬讜 砖讛讜讗 拽诇讜讟讜转 讻砖诇 讞诪讜专 讜讛砖讞讜诇 讜讛讻住讜诇 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讞讜诇 砖谞砖诪讟讛 讬专讬讻讜 讜讻住讜诇 砖讗讞转 诪讬专讬讻讬诐 讙讘讜讛讜转

MISHNA: An animal with five legs, or one that has only three, or one whose hooves on its legs were closed like those of a donkey and not split, or the sha岣l, or the kasul may be slaughtered. What is a sha岣l? It is an animal with a thighbone that was dislocated. And what is a kasul? It is an animal whose build is asymmetrical in that one of its thighs is higher than the other.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞住专 讜讬转专 讘讬讚 讗讘诇 讘专讙诇 讟专驻讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 讚讻诇 讬转讬专 讻谞讟讜诇 讚诪讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an animal with five legs or three legs is blemished. Rav Huna says: The Sages taught this only in a case where the animal was missing or had an additional foreleg. But if it was missing or had an additional hind leg, not only is it blemished, but it is also a tereifa. The reason is that any extra limb is like a removed limb, and an animal whose hind leg was removed is a tereifa.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚注讙讬诇谉 讜诇讗 住讚讬拽谉 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讙讬诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚住讚讬拽谉

With regard to the ruling of the mishna that an animal whose hooves were closed like those of a donkey is blemished, Rav Pappa says: Do not say that it is a blemish only in a case where its hooves are entirely like those of a donkey, i.e., round and not split at all. Rather, when they are round, even though they are also split, it is still considered a blemish.

讜讛砖讞讜诇 讜讛讻住讜诇 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讻住讜诇 讜讗讬讝讛讜 砖讞讜诇 砖讞讜诇 砖谞砖诪讟讛 讬专讬讻讜 讻住讜诇 砖专讙诇讜 讗讞讚 讘转讜讱 讛讻住诇 讜专讙诇讜 讗讞讚 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻住诇 转谞讗 讛砖专讜注 讜讛拽诇讜讟 砖专讜注 砖谞砖转专讘讘 诇讜 讬专讬讻讜 拽诇讜讟 砖专讙诇讬讜 拽诇讜讟讜转 讻砖诇 讞诪讜专 讜讻砖诇 住讜住

The mishna teaches: Or the sha岣l, or the kasul may be slaughtered. In this regard, the Sages taught: What is the kasul and what is the sha岣l? The sha岣l is an animal with a thighbone that was dislocated. The kasul is an animal that is irregular in that one of its legs is inside the loin, i.e., in its proper place, and in one of its legs the bone is dislocated and is above the loin. It is taught in a baraita: What are the saru鈥檃 and kalut mentioned in the Torah (see Leviticus 22:23) among the animals disqualified from being sacrificed? The saru鈥檃 is one whose thigh is longer than the other; the kalut is one whose hooves on its legs are closed like those of a donkey and like those of a horse.

诪转谞讬壮 谞砖讘专 注爪诐 讬讚讜 讜注爪诐 专讙诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诪讜诪讬谉 讗诇讜 诪谞讛 讗讬诇讗 讘讬讘谞讛 讜讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐

MISHNA: Additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn include those where the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg was broken, even though it is not conspicuous. With regard to these blemishes listed in this chapter, Ila, who was expert in blemishes of the firstborn, enumerated them in Yavne, and the Sages deferred to his expertise.

讜注讜讚 砖诇砖讛 讛讜住讬祝 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讙诇讙诇 注讬谞讜 注讙讜诇 讻砖诇 讗讚诐 讜驻讬讜 讚讜诪讛 讻砖诇 讞讝讬专 讜砖谞讬讟诇 专讜讘 讛诪讚讘专 讘诇砖讜谞讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讞专讬讛谉 讗诪专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

And Ila added three additional blemishes, and the Sages said to him: We did not hear about those. Ila added: An animal whose eye is round like that of a person, or whose mouth is similar to that of a pig, or where most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person was removed. The court that followed them said with regard to each of those three blemishes: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.

讙诪壮 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诪讬 拽讗 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诪讞诪转 注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 谞讬讻专 诪讞诪转 诪诇讗讻讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg was broken it is considered a blemish, despite the fact that it is not conspicuous. The Gemara asks: If it is not conspicuous, is it a blemish? A blemish must be on an exposed part of the body (see 37b). Rav Pappa says: The mishna means that it is not conspicuous on its own account, i.e., the shape of the leg is no different from the usual. But it is conspicuous on account of its work, i.e., the manner in which the animal walks.

诪讜诪讬谉 讗诇讜 诪谞讛 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪驻诇转 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讜讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗诐 讝讻专 转砖讘 诇讝讻专

搂 The mishna teaches that with regard to these blemishes listed in this chapter, Ila enumerated them in Yavne, and he added three more, including an animal whose eye is round like that of a person. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that it is not the manner of animals to have eyes of this kind? And one can raise a contradiction from a mishna (Nidda 21a): With regard to a woman who miscarries a fetus in the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, whether it is a non-kosher animal or whether it is a kosher animal, if it is male, the woman observes the periods of impurity, i.e., seven days, and purity, i.e., thirty-three days, established in the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a male.

讗诐 谞拽讘讛 转砖讘 诇谞拽讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讚讜注 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

If it is female, the woman observes the periods of impurity, i.e., fourteen days, and purity, i.e., sixty-six days, established in the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a female. If its sex is unknown, the woman observes the more severe restrictions from the case of the birth of a male and the more severe restrictions from the case of the birth of a female: She is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure until only forty days after birth, like a woman who gave birth to a male. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙诇讙诇 注讬谞讜 注讙讜诇 讻砖诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗讜讻诪讗 讛讗 讘讞讬讜讜专讗

And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? Since the eye of these animals is round like that of a person, a woman who miscarries a fetus of this kind is impure. Rav Yosef said in resolution of this apparent contradiction: It is not difficult; this is referring to the black portion of the eye, whereas that is referring to the white portion of the eye.

讜驻讬讜 讚讜诪讛 讻砖诇 讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚砖驻讬讚 讜驻专讜住 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚驻专讜住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 砖驻讬讚

The mishna teaches: Or its mouth is similar to that of a pig. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that this is referring only to a case where the mouth is pointed and the upper lip overlaps the bottom lip, exactly like that of a pig. Rather, when it overlaps, even though it is not pointed, this is a blemish.

讜砖谞讬讟诇 专讜讘 讛诪讚讘专 砖讘诇砖讜谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗转 砖谞讬讟诇 专讜讘 讛诇砖讜谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讜讘 讛诪讚讘专 砖诇 诇砖讜谞讜

The mishna teaches: Or that most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person was removed. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Or that most of its tongue was removed; Rabbi Yehuda says: Most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person must be removed to be considered a blemish.

诪转谞讬壮 讜诪注砖讛 砖讛诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 注讜讚祝 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谉 讜砖讗诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

MISHNA: And there was an incident where the lower jaw of the firstborn protruded beyond the upper jaw, and Rabban Gamliel asked the Sages for a ruling, and they said: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜诪注砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讚转谞谉 驻讬讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讞讝讬专 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讘砖驻转讜 注诇讬讜谞讛 注讜讚驻转 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗讘诇 砖讛转讞转讜谞讛 注讜讚驻转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the ruling taught in the previous mishna that the tanna is referring to when he teaches here: And there was an incident? The Gemara answers: Since we learned in the list of blemishes in the previous mishna the case where its mouth is similar to that of a pig, and the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Ila in that case, we say here that when the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Ila, it is only in a case where its upper lip overlaps the lower lip. But in a case where the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper jaw, everyone agrees that this is a blemish.

讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 注讜讚祝 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谉 砖讗诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

The Gemara continues this version of the mishna: And there was also an incident where the lower jaw of the firstborn protruded beyond the upper jaw, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asked the Sages for a ruling, and they said: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.

讜讛讗 讙讘讬 讗讚诐 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 砖驻转讜 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 注讜讚驻转 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗讜 砖转讞转讜谞讛 注讜讚驻转 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 讙讘讬 讗讚诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讝专注 讗讛专谉 讗讬砖 砖砖讜讛 讘讝专注讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 讗讘诇 讘讘讛诪讛 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But it is with regard to the blemishes of a person that we learned in a mishna (44a): If his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower lip or his lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip, that is a blemish. And it is only with regard to a person that it is written: 鈥淲hatever man of the seed of Aaron鈥 (Leviticus 22:4), which teaches that in order to be fit for the Temple service a priest must be a man who is equal to the seed of Aaron, i.e., he has an ordinary appearance like other priests. But this requirement is not stated with regard to an animal, and therefore an animal should not be considered blemished if its lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 注爪诐 讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 注爪诐

Rav Pappa said in response: That is not difficult; this mishna is referring to a case where the lower jaw contains a bone that is longer than the upper jaw, in which case it is a blemish even for an animal, whereas that mishna is referring to a case where the lower jaw does not contain a bone, and therefore it is a blemish only in the case of a person.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讜讝谉 讛讙讚讬 讛讬转讛 讻驻讜诇讛 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 注爪诐 讗讞讚 诪讜诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 注爪诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讝谞讘 讛讙讚讬 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇 讞讝讬专 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖诇砖 讞讜诇讬讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐

MISHNA: With regard to the ear of the kid that was doubled and appeared like two ears, the Sages said: When the additional ear is one bone, i.e., it has its own cartilage, it is a blemish; when it does not have its own bone it is not a blemish. Rabbi 岣nanya ben Gamliel says: In the case of the tail of a kid that is similar to that of a pig or one that is so short that it does not have three joints, that is a blemish.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讬讜 讘诇讜诐 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪讘讜诇诪讜转 诪讞诪转 讛专讜讞 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 诪讞诪转 讛注爪诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 讗讝谞讬讜 讻驻讜诇讜转 讘讞住讞住讜转 讗讞转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 讘砖转讬 讞住讞住讬讜转 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught: In a case where the mouth of a firstborn animal is swollen, and likewise, if its legs are swollen, the following distinction applies: If it is swollen due to the wind, i.e., it simply swelled up, it is not a blemish. If it is swollen due to a particularly large bone, this is a blemish. If its ears are doubled, in a case where it has one cartilage, this is a blemish; in a case where it has two cartilages, this is not a blemish.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讝谞讘 讛讙讚讬 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇 讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚拽讟讬谞讗 讗诇讗 讚讻专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诇讬诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to the tail of a kid that is similar to that of a pig, that is a blemish. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that it is a blemish only where its tail is thin like that of a pig; rather, if it is round, i.e., curly like a pig鈥檚 tail, even though it is thick, like the tail of a goat, this is considered a blemish.

讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖诇砖 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讙讚讬 砖转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 砖诇砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 讘讟诇讛 砖诇砖 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 讗专讘注 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 诪讬转讬讘讬 讘讙讚讬 讗讞转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 砖转讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 讘讟诇讛 砖转讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 砖诇砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讜诐 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

搂 The mishna stated: Or if the tail of a kid is so short that it does not have three joints, that is a blemish. Rav Huna says: In the case of the tail of a kid, if it has two joints, that is a blemish; if it has three joints, it is not a blemish. With regard to a lamb, if it has three joints, that is a blemish; if it has four joints, it is not a blemish. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a kid, if its tail has one joint, that is a blemish; if it has two joints, it is not a blemish. With regard to a lamb, if it has two joints, that is a blemish; if it has three joints, it is not a blemish. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讟注讬转讬讛 讗讬讛讜 住讘专 诪讚专讬砖讗 讘讙讚讬 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘讙讚讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讬砖讗 讘讙讚讬 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟诇讛

The Gemara comments: And Rav Huna issued his statement because the mishna misled him. He thought that from the fact that the first clause is referring to a kid, whose tail is similar to that of a pig, it can be inferred that the latter clause, with its mention of three joints, is also referring to a kid. But it is not so. Rather, the first clause is referring to a kid, but the latter clause is referring to a lamb, as explained in the baraita.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讗转 砖讬讘诇转 讘注讬谞讬讜 讜砖谞驻讙诐 注爪诐 讬讚讜 讜专讙诇讜 讜砖谞驻专拽 注爪诪讜 砖诇 驻讬讜 注讬谞讜 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 拽讟谞讛 讗讝谞讜 讗讞讚 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞讚 拽讟谞讛 讘诪专讗讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬讜 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讻砖转讬诐 砖讘讞讘讬专转讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐

MISHNA: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says that these are blemished animals: One that has a wart in its eyes; and one where the bone of its foreleg or hind leg was damaged; and one where the bone of its mouth, i.e., its jaw, was dislocated; and an animal with one of its eyes large and one small, or one of its ears large and one small where the difference in size is detectable by sight, but not if it is detectable only by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal is blemished if with regard to its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his opinion.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讬讘诇转 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗 讘诪拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讘注诇 讙专讘 讜讘注诇 讬讘诇转

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if an animal has a wart in its eyes, it is blemished. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a wart is considered a blemish? And one can raise a contradiction from the mishna (41a): And these are the blemishes that one does not slaughter the firstborn due to them, neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country, as these are not considered full-fledged blemishes鈥n animal with boils that are moist inside and out, and one with warts.

讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘讗 讬讘诇转 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙讜驻讜 讛讗 讘注讬谞讜

The Gemara responds: And how can you understand that a wart is not a blemish? After all, a wart is written in the Torah in its list of blemishes (see Leviticus 22:22). Rather, it is not difficult, as that mishna, which states that a wart is not a full-fledged blemish, is referring to a blemish on the animal鈥檚 body, whereas this mention of a wart in the Torah and the mishna here is referring to a wart in its eye.

诪讻讚讬 拽专讗 住转诪讗 诪讛 诇讬 讘讙讜驻讜 讜诪讛 诇讬 讘注讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 注爪诐 讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 注爪诐

The Gemara asks: Now consider that the verse is written in an unspecified manner. What difference is it to me if the wart is on its body, and what difference is it to me if the wart is in its eye? How is this distinction derived from the verse? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, it is not difficult, as this is referring to a wart that has a bone,and that is referring to a wart that does not have a bone.

讚拽专讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 注爪诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讬转 讘讛 注爪诐 讘注讬谞讜 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 讘讙讜驻讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗

The Gemara elaborates: The wart mentioned in the verse and the mishna here is one that has a bone, whereas the wart addressed by the mishna there is one that does not have a bone. Consequently, if the wart is in its eye, it is a blemish, as stated in the verse and the mishna here, but if it is on its body, it is not a blemish, although the animal is disqualified from being sacrificed, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna there.

讜诇讬转 诇讛 注爪诐 讘讙讜驻讗 驻住讜诇讛 讛专讬 转诇转讜诇 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘注诇讬 讛转讬诇讜诇讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘讗讚诐 讜讻砖讬专讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘注讬谞讜 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘砖讞讜专 讛讗 讘诇讘谉

The Gemara asks: And with regard to a wart that does not have a bone and is on the body, is the animal disqualified from being sacrificed? It is merely hanging flesh, as we learned in a mishna (45b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to those with flesh or skin that hangs from their body, such a blemish disqualifies a person, but with regard to such an animal, it is fit. Rather, both this mishna here and that mishna there are referring to a wart in the animal鈥檚 eye, and it is not difficult, as this mishna is referring to a wart in the black of the eye, the pupil, whereas that mishna is referring to a wart in the white of the eye.

讜讛讗 讗讬谉 诪讜诪讬谉 讘诇讘谉 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘诇讘谉 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖注专 讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖注专

The Gemara asks: But it has been established that there are no blemishes in the white part of the eye, which indicates that the animal is not even disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar. Rather, both this statement that there are no blemishes in the white of the eye and that ruling of the mishna that a wart disqualifies the animal from being sacrificed are referring to a wart in the white part of the eye. And Reish Lakish says: It is not difficult; this is referring to a wart that has a hair, and therefore the animal is unfit for the altar, whereas that statement is referring to a case where the wart does not have a hair. As for the mishna here, which rules that a wart is a full-fledged blemish, it is referring to a wart in the pupil of the eye, as explained.

注讬谞讜 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讻砖诇 注讙诇 拽讟谞讛 讻砖诇 讗讜讜讝

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to an animal where one of its eyes is large and one is small that this is a blemish. In this regard, it is taught in a baraita: When the mishna states the term large, it means the eye is as large as the eye of a calf, and when it states the term small, it means it is as small as that of a goose.

讗讝谞讜 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讻讜壮 讜专讘谞谉 注讚 讻诪讛 转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诇砖谞讬讛 讗诇讗 讻驻讜诇 讻砖讬专讛

The mishna teaches: Or one of its ears is large and one is small, which is detectable by sight, but not if it is detectable only by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal is blemished if with regard to its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his opinion. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, how large can the difference between the two testicles be without this discrepancy being considered a blemish? The Gemara answers that it is taught in a baraita that A岣rim say: Even if the second, smaller testicle is no bigger than a bean, the animal is fit.

诪转谞讬壮 讝谞讘 讛注讙诇 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讙注转 诇注专拽讜讘 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讻诇 诪专讘讬转 注讙诇讬诐 讻谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讛讜 诪讙讚诇讬谉 讛谉 谞诪转讞讜转 讗讬讝讛讜 注专拽讜讘 砖讗诪专讜 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讘注专拽讜讘 砖讘讗诪爪注 讛讬专讱

MISHNA: In the case of the tail of a calf that does not reach the leg joint [la鈥檃rkov], the Sages said: It is a blemish, because all growth of calves is in this manner:As long as they grow, their tails are extended beneath the leg joint. Which is the leg joint about which the Sages spoke? Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: They are referring to the leg joint that is in the middle of the thigh.

Scroll To Top