בכורות 37 — parallel

37:1

this excludes the ruling of R. Jose [in the Mishnah]. ‘Three persons are required to annul vows in a place where there is no Sage’; this excludes the ruling of R. Judah. For it has been taught: The annulment of vows requires three persons; ‘R. Judah rules: One of them must be a Sage’. ‘In the place where there is no Sage’. Who, for example? — Said R. Nahman: for example, myself. ‘R. Judah rules: One of them must be a Sage’. Does this imply, therefore, that the rest can be people of any kind? — Said Rabina: They are explained to them and they understand. BUT R. JOSE SAYS: EVEN IF A HIGH PRIEST WERE PRESENT etc. R. Hananel reported in the name of Rab: The halachah is not in accordance with R. Jose. Surely this is obvious, for ‘where a single opinion is opposed to the opinion of more than one, the law follows the latter’! — You might have thought that we must adopt R. Jose's opinion, because he is known to have deep reasons [for his rulings]. He therefore informs us [that it is not so]. You may now infer from this that the former ruling was stated in the name of Samuel. For if it were in the name of Rab, what need is there for the repetition? — ‘One ruling was derived by implication’ from the other. MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A FIRSTLING AND IT BECAME KNOWN THAT HE HAD NOT SHOWN IT [TO A SCHOLAR]. AS REGARDS WHAT [THE PURCHASERS] HAVE EATEN, THERE IS NO REMEDY AND HE MUST RETURN THE MONEY TO THEM. AS REGARDS, HOWEVER, WHAT THEY HAVE NOT YET EATEN, THE FLESH MUST BE BURIED AND HE MUST RETURN THE MONEY TO THEM. AND LIKEWISE IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A COW AND SOLD IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN THAT IT WAS TREFAH, AS REGARDS WHAT [THE PURCHASERS] HAVE EATEN THERE IS NO REMEDY, AND AS REGARDS WHAT THEY HAVE NOT EATEN, THEY RETURN THE FLESH TO HIM AND HE MUST RETURN THE MONEY TO THEM. IF [THE PURCHASERS] [IN THEIR TURN] SOLD IT TO HEATHENS OR CAST IT TO DOGS, THEY MUST PAY HIM THE PRICE OF TREFAH. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If one sells flesh to another which turned out to be flesh of a firstling, or if one sells produce and it turns out to be untithed or if one sells wine and it turns out to be forbidden wine, what [the purchasers] have eaten cannot be remedied and he must return the money to them. R. Simeon b. Eleazar, however, says: In the case of objects for which a man has a loathing, he must return the money to them, [as there was no benefit to them after knowing], whereas in the case of objects for which a man has not a loathing, he deducts from the price [what had been eaten]. And the following are the objects for which a person has a loathing: Carcases, trefahs, forbidden animals and reptiles. And the following are objects for which a person has no loathing: Firstlings, untithed products and forbidden wine. [Do you therefore say that in the case of] a firstling [he deducts]? But why should not [the buyer] say to [the seller] ‘What loss have I caused you’? — No; the statement is required for the case where he sold him the flesh from the place where the blemish was, for he says to him: ‘Had you not eaten it, I would have shown it to [a scholar] and he might have permitted it, in accordance with the ruling of R. Judah. As regards untithed things, he can say: ‘I might have prepared them [ritually] and eaten them’. With reference to forbidden wine, [one can explain that he sold it to him] mixed [with permitted wine], [and had he not consumed it he would have been able to benefit by it] according to the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For we have learnt: If forbidden wine falls into a vat [of permitted wine], it is forbidden to profit from the whole of it. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says: He can sell the whole of it to a heathen, except for the value of the forbidden wine in it. MISHNAH. THESE ARE THE BLEMISHES IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH A FIRST-BORN ANIMAL MAY BE SLAUGHTERED; IF ITS EAR HAS BECOME DEFECTIVE, [BEING CUT OR BORED THROUGH] FROM THE CARTILAGES [INWARD] BUT NOT IF THE DEFECT IS IN THE EAR-LAP; IF IT IS SLIT ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO LOSS [OF SUBSTANCE]; IF IT IS PERFORATED WITH A HOLE AS LARGE AS A KARSHINAH OR IF [THE EAR] HAS BECOME DRY. WHAT IS CALLED ‘BECOMING DRY’? IF IT IS PERFORATED NO DROP OF BLOOD WOULD ISSUE. R. JOSE B. HA-MESHULLAM SAYS: [IT] IS CALLED DRY WHEN IT IS LIABLE TO CRUMBLE. GEMARA. Why is this so? Does not Scripture say ‘Lame or blind’? It also writes: And if there be any blemish therein. But why not argue that [the text] ‘And if there be any blemish therein’ is a general statement while ‘lame or blind’ is a specification; and where a general statement is followed by a specification the scope of the general statement is limited by the things specified, so that only lameness or blindness [in a firstling] are [legal blemishes], but other [defects] are not [legal blemishes]? — [The text]: ‘Any ill blemishes whatsoever’ is another general statement. We have, therefore, a general statement followed by the enumeration of specifications which are in turn followed by a general statement and in such a case we include only such things as are similar to those specified. Hence, just as the specifications are exposed blemishes which cannot become sound again, so all [legal] blemishes must be exposed and unable to become sound again. But why not reason: As the specifications are exposed blemishes which render the animal incapable of carrying out its normal functions and cannot become sound again. so all [legal] blemishes must be exposed rendering the animal incapable of carrying out its normal functions and unable to become sound again? Why then have we learnt: IF THE EAR IS DEFECTIVE FROM THE CARTILAGES, BUT NOT IF THE DEFECT IS IN THE EAR-LAP? — [The text]: ‘Any ill blemish whatsoever’ is a widening of the scope of what constitutes a blemish. If this be so, why not also [slaughter a firstling] in consequence of hidden blemishes? Why then have we learnt: If the incisors are broken off or levelled [to the gum] or the molars are torn out [completely].31

—

37:2

[thus implying that] when torn out completely [they are blemishes] but not where they are broken off or levelled [to the gum]? — We require [that it should appear] ‘an ill blemish’, which is not the case [where it is not torn out]. If this be so, why should not [a firstling be slaughtered] in consequence of a transitory blemish? Why have we learnt: BUT NOT IF THE DEFECT IS IN THE EAR-LAP? — There is a logical reason [why we do not slaughter a firstling] in consequence of a transitory blemish, for seeing that we do not redeem [a consecrated animal] in consequence [of a transitory blemish], shall we slaughter in consequence of it?" For it has been taught: [Scripture says]: And if it be any unclean beast of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord. The text deals here with sacrifices rendered unfit which were redeemed. You say sacrifices rendered unfit. Perhaps it is really not so, but it speaks actually of an unclean animal? Since it says: ‘And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation’ the case of an unclean animal is already stated. How then do I interpret the text ‘Of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord’? You must say that it refers to sacrifices rendered unfit which were redeemed. I might, however, conclude that one may redeem in consequence of a transitory blemish, hence Scripture explicitly states: ‘Of which they may not bring an offering unto the Lord’, thus intimating [that it refers to] a sacrifice which is completely unfit [for the altar], but excluding this case of a transitory blemish, which although unfit for sacrifice today, is fit tomorrow. And if you prefer [another solution] I may say: If this be a fact [that a transitory defect is a legal blemish] then of what avail is the text ‘Lame and blind’ [which implies only permanent blemishes]? IF IT WAS SLIT, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NOT ANY LOSS [OF SUBSTANCE]. Our Rabbis taught: A slit may be as small as you please. A defect [a cut] may be either through the agency of man or by nature. Does this imply that a slit has not the same ruling when brought about by nature? — Rather state it thus: A slit may be as small as you please, and both a slit and a cut may be either through the agency of man or by nature. And how large is a cut? — A notch deep enough to stop the finger nail. IF IT WAS PERFORATED AS LARGE etc. Our Rabbis taught: How large is the perforation of the ear? — As large as a karshinah. R. Jose son of R. Judah says: As large as a lentil. What is called dry? If when perforated [the sore] does not bring forth a drop of blood. R. Jose b. Ha-meshullam says: [It is called] ‘dry’ as long as it is liable to crumble. A Tanna taught: Their views are nearly alike. Whose views [are meant]? Shall I say the views of the first Tanna [quoted above] and R. Jose b. Ha-meshullam? Surely there is a considerable difference! — Rather you must say, the views of the first Tanna [quoted above] and R. Jose son of R. Judah. [But does R. Jose son of R. Judah maintain that a blemish is constituted] by [a hole] the size of a lentil and not by less than the size of a lentil? Against this I quote: Scripture says ‘An awl’. I have here mentioned only an awl [wherewith to bore the ear of a slave]; whence do you include also a prick, a thorn, a borer, and a stylus? Hence the text states: Then thou shalt take, thus including everything which can be taken in a hand. This is the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah. Rabbi says, [Since the text says] ‘An awl’, we infer that as an awl is exclusively of metal, so anything used must be of metal. And it is stated in the following clause: Said R. Eleazar: Judan the son of Rabbis used to expound as follows: The boring is only done through the ear-lap. The Sages, however, rule: A Hebrew slave who is a priest must not have his ear bored, because he becomes blemished. Now if you maintain that the boring was done through the ear-lap, then the Hebrew slave who is a priest cannot become blemished, hence we only bore through the top part of the ear! — Said Rab Hana b. Kattina: This offers no difficulty. Here for the purpose of slaughtering, [the size of a lentil is required] but there in the case of causing a disqualification [even a needle can render the animal blemished for the altar]. What is karshinah? Said R. Sherabya: Indian vetch. R. Oshaiah inquired from R. Huna the Great: [Must the hole be] of a size so that the karshinah may enter and come out [with ease] or as to contain a karshinah [only with difficulty]? — He replied to him: I have not heard the answer to this particular query, but I have heard [a solution of] a similar query. For we have learnt: A spinal column and a skull which have shrunk [do not cause uncleanness]. And how great must be the shrinkage in the spinal column in order not to cause uncleanness? Beth Shammai say: Two vertebrae, whereas Beth Hillel say: One vertebra. And as regards the skull, Beth Shammai say: [The amount of the shrinkage] must be equal to a borer; and Beth Hillel say: As much as is required to be taken away from a living person in order to prove fatal. Now R. Hisda sat discoursing and inquired: [You say] as much as is required to be taken from a living person [so as to prove fatal]. And how much would this be? — R. Tahlifa b. Abudimi said to him: Thus did Samuel say: As much as a sela’. (And it was stated; R. Safra said: [R. Tahlifa] reported to [R. Hisda] a ruling [in the name of Samuel], whereas Rab Samuel b. Judah says: [R. Tahlifa] quoted [to Rab Hisda] a Baraitha [reported by Samuel]. And the way to remember this is by the sentence: R. Samuel b. Judah reported a Baraitha). Said [R. Hisda] to him [R. Tahlifa]: If so, then you have made the views of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel identical. For we have learnt: In a light-hole which was not made by the agency of man, the size required is as large as a big fist, such as the fist of Ben Battiah. Said R. Jose: And this [fist] is as large as a big head of a man. If [the light-hole], however, was made by the agency of man, [the Sages] fixed the size to be as large as a hole made with the large [carpenter's borer kept in the Temple cell, which is as large as an Italian dupondium or as large as a Neronian sela’. And it has

—