בכורות 38 — Soncino English Talmud

¹[a size] as large as a hole of a yoke! — He was silent. Said R. Hisda to him: perhaps what we have learnt refers to the borer and [the removal of] what stopped up [the hole]. Thereupon R. Tahlifa said to him: You should not say ‘perhaps’, it certainly refers to the borer and [the removal of] what stopped up [the hole], and you can confidently accept this explanation as we accept the evidence of Hezekiah the father of Ikkesh. For it has been taught: This which follows is the evidence given by Hezekiah the father of Ikkesh before Rabban Gamaliel in Jabneh which he reported in the name of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder: Wherever an earthen vessel has no inside, it is not regarded as having an independent back. If then the inside becomes unclean, the back becomes unclean, and if the back becomes unclean, the inside becomes unclean. But did not the Divine Law teach that the uncleanness of an earthen vessel depends on the inside? If it has an inside [receiving uncleanness] then the vessel becomes unclean, but if it has no inside, then it does not become unclean? — Said R. Isaac b. Abin: This is what is meant: Wherever an earthen vessel has no inside in a corresponding case with a rinsing vessel it has no back which is treated independently. If then its inside becomes unclean, its back [outside] becomes unclean, and if its back becomes unclean, then its inside is unclean. What need however is there to make it depend on an earthen vessel? Let him say as follows: Wherever in the case of a rinsing vessel there is no inside, there is no back which is treated independently? — He informs us of this very thing, that if it has an inside, then it is like an earthen vessel, as much as [to say]: As in the case of an earthen vessel, if the inside becomes unclean, then the back becomes unclean, and if the back becomes unclean, the inside does not become unclean, so it is in the case of a rinsing vessel, if the inside becomes unclean then the back becomes unclean, and if the back becomes unclean, the inside does not become unclean. Now we may readily grant this in the case of an earthen vessel, the Divine Law having revealed explicitly in that connection that uncleanness depends on the inside [receiving uncleanness]; but as regards a rinsing vessel, did the Divine Law reveal explicitly that uncleanness depends on the inside [receiving uncleanness]? — If we were referring to a case of biblical uncleanness, it would indeed be so. We are dealing here however with unclean liquids [which have come in contact with a rinsing vessel], the resulting uncleanness being due to a rabbinic enactment. For we have learnt: If the back [outside] of a vessel has been defiled by unclean liquids, its back becomes unclean, but its inside, its edge, its handle and its projectors remain clean. If its inside however becomes unclean, the whole vessel becomes unclean; for according to the biblical law, food cannot make a vessel unclean nor can unclean liquid make a vessel unclean, and only the Rabbis have declared uncleanness on account of the liquid of a zab and a zabah. The Rabbis consequently declared it to have uncleanness of an earthen vessel but they did not declare it [in this particular instance] to be biblically unclean on its own account, the Rabbis differentiating in order that terumah and holy objects might not be burnt on its account. But if this be so, where there is no inside, let there also be a distinction made? Since where there is an inside, the Rabbis differentiated, it will indeed be known that where there is no inside the uncleanness is a rabbinic enactment [and that therefore terumah must not be burnt in consequence of it]. But with regard to a rinsing vessel, where there is no inside, is it susceptible of becoming unclean according to the biblical law? For we do not require [in order that a vessel may become unclean] that it should resemble a sack that is [to say], As a sack is handled either fully or empty, so anything [in order to receive uncleanness] must be in a condition to be handled either full or empty? — It refers to those [articles] which are fit to be used as seats. If this be so, then why not also declare an earthen vessel unclean [rabbinically]? — Midras is not employed with an earthen vessel, [for fear of breaking it]. R. Papa says: The Mishnah above states distinctly a ‘large borer’, from which we can deduce that an ordinary borer is smaller than a sela’. This would indeed hold good according to the view of R. Meir but according to the view of the Rabbis, what answer would you give? For we have learnt: To what kind of borer did Beth Shammai refer? To a small one, belonging to doctors. The Sages said however: They refer to the large [carpenter's] borer kept in the Temple cell. But is it satisfactory even according to the view of R. Meir? Would this not then be a case where the ruling of Beth Shammai would be easier and the ruling of Beth Hillel severer; and [as regards examples of this kind of ruling] what we have learnt we accept and what we have not learnt in the Mishnah we do not accept! — Said R. Nahman: A Neronian sela’ is distinctly mentioned above. A Neronian sela’ is as large as a large borer, but an ordinary sela’ is even smaller than an ordinary borer. MISHNAH. ONE WHOSE RIS [EYELID] IS PERFORATED, NIPPED OR SLIT, OR IF IT HAS A CATARACT OR A TEBALLUL, HALAZON [SNAIL-SHAPED], NAHASH [SNAKE-SHAPED] AND A [BERRY-SHAPED] GROWTH ON THE EYE, [IS DISQUALIFIED]. WHAT DOES TEBALLUL MEAN? THE WHITE OF THE EYE BREAKING THROUGH THE RING AND ENCROACHING ON THE BLACK, BUT IF THE BLACK BREAKS THROUGH THE RING AND INVADES THE WHITE, IT IS NOT A [DISQUALIFYING] BLEMISH, [BECAUSE THERE ARE NO DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES AS REGARDS THE WHITE OF THE EYE].39^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ᵃnote:In which a peg is fastened in order to bind the straps (v. Kel. XVII, 12). Consequently we see that the carpenter's borer jsen is the size of a sela’ and, therefore, what is the difference between Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai?
^ᵇnote:Rab Tahlifa.
^ᶜnote:The ‘borer’ referred to above in connection with the skull.
^ᵈnote:The borer being narrow below and wide at the top, some scraping away of the hole is necessary in order that it may enter and come out freely. This would therefore make the hole larger than a sela’ and, therefore, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel would differ in the extent of the diminution required in the case of the skull. Incidentally this would solve R. Oshaiah's query above.
^ᵉnote:Though his statement which follows appeared difficult, every effort was made to explain it, since it was known to have been reliable in substance.
^ᶠnote:I.e., is not hollowed out so as to be capable of containing something.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘a back for distinction’, i.e., its back (outside) cannot become unclean independently of its inside or vice versa. The inside here would mean the part which is customarily used (Tosaf.).
^ʰnote:v. Lev. XI, 32.
^ⁱnote:I.e., a wooden vessel, as Scripture writes: And every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water. (Lev. XV, 12.) A suggestion that the vessel referred to here is a metal one is refuted by Rashi.
^ʲnote:So Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. ‘if the back does not become’.
^ᵏnote:That if the outside of a rinsing vessel becomes unclean, the inside too becomes unclean, whether it is capable of containing or not.
^ˡnote:When we say that where it is capable of containing and the outside becomes unclean, the inside does not become unclean as in the case of an earthen vessel, and where it is incapable of containing, Hezekiah requires to inform us that there is no distinction as regards the back and inside and whichever becomes unclean, the other also becomes unclean.
^ᵐnote:Or its basin (Rashi).
^ⁿnote:Kelim XXV, 6.
^ᵒnote:One afflicted with gonorrhoea. His or her spittle is one of the direct causes of levitical impurity and it makes a vessel unclean biblically, whereas other unclean liquids cannot do so, but only make the vessel rabbinically unclean.
^ᵖnote:A rinsing vessel.
^ᵠnote:Thus not causing unnecessary burning of holy things.
^ʳnote:If the uncleanness here be a rabbinic enactment and therefore a distinction between the inside and the back was made, just as in the case of an earthen vessel, in order not to burn holy things unnecessarily.
^ˢnote:That where the back becomes unclean, the inside does not become unclean.
^ᵗnote:That there should be need to take a precaution in case an unclean liquid comes in contact with it. Moreover, it states above that if the case were one of biblical uncleanness etc. The objection therefore arises that where it is not capable of containing there can be no uncleanness biblically!
^ᵘnote:Scripture saying. ‘It shall be unclean whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin or sack (Lev. XI, 32).
^ᵛnote:I.e., capable of containing.
^ʷnote:As couches, stools or chairs.
^ˣnote:Without an inside, but fit to be used as a chair etc.
^ʸnote:According to the view of R. Isaac b. Abin above.
^ᶻnote:Causing uncleanness by treading, lying or sitting on it.
^ᵃᵃnote:The difficulty you raised above concerning Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel apparently holding the same view, can be solved in the following manner.
^ᵃᵇnote:And Beth Shammai in connection with the passage above referring to the loss in the skull mean by the term ‘borer’ the ordinary one, which is smaller than a sela’. Therefore the measurements of the two schools are not alike.
^ᵃᶜnote:Who explains below that a physician's borer is meant in the statement referring to the size of the shrinkage in the skull. This is less than a sela’, and thus there is a difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
^ᵃᵈnote:With which the head is bored when a wound has to be examined.
^ᵃᵉnote:For Beth Shammai would then hold that a smaller portion is required in order to free the skull from uncleanness of ohel, whereas Beth Hillel would demand a greater decrease.
^ᵃᶠnote:In ‘Ed. V, I, where only six cases are enumerated in which Beth Shammai are more lenient in their rulings than Beth Hillel.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., ‘we have learnt’.
^ᵃʰnote:Explaining the view of R. Meir.
^ᵃⁱnote:In the Mishnah referring to the light-hole etc.
^ᵃʲnote:Therefore Beth Shammai, requiring a shrinkage in the skull of the size of a borer before it can be exempt from the impurity of overshadowing would be severer in their ruling than Beth Hillel, who only require the decrease of the size of an ordinary sela’, which is even less than the size of an ordinary borer.
^ᵃᵏnote:Explained below in the Gemara.
^ᵃˡnote:The Gemara explains this below.
^ᵃᵐnote:For only the black part is looked upon as the eye. Added with Sh. Mek.

²GEMARA. What is the meaning of the RIS? R. Papa said: The eyelid. OR IF IT HAS A CATARACT OR A TEBALLUL. Our Rabbis taught: A cataract which causes the eye to sink is a [disqualifying] blemish, but if it is floating, it is not a disqualifying blemish. But has not the opposite been taught? — This offers no difficulty. One statement refers to the black part of the eye, and the other case to the white. But surely blemishes in the white of the eye do not disqualify! One statement then refers to a white spot, and the other to a black spot. For Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: R. Oshaiah of Usha told me, A black spot which causes the eye to sink is a [disqualifying] blemish, but if it is floating it is not a [disqualifying] blemish. A white spot if it causes the eye to sink is not a disqualifying blemish, but if it is floating, it is a disqualifying blemish. And mnemonic for this is, barka. HALAZON, NAHASH AND A GROWTH IN THE EYE. A query was put forward: Does [the Mishnah mean that] HALAZON is the same thing as NAHASH or does it mean halazon or nahash? — Come and hear: For Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: R. Johanan b. Eleazar told me: A certain old man [a priest] lived in our quarter whose name was R. Simeon b. Jose b. Lekunia. Never had I passed in front of him. Once, however, I passed in front of him. He said to me: Sit down my son, sit. This halazon is a permanent blemish, in consequence of which [the animal] may be slaughtered and this is what the Sages called nahash. And although the Sages have said: A man must not examine his own [animals] to discover their blemishes, yet he is allowed to teach the rule to his pupils and the pupils are permitted to examine. But surely it is not so! For did not R. Abba say that R. Huna reported in the name of Rab: Wherever a scholar comes before us and teaches a [new] rule, if he enunciated it before a practical case arose for the application of the rule, then we listen to him, but if not, we do not listen to him? — He too came to us and taught it before the case arose. WHAT DOES TEBALLUL MEAN? THE WHITE OF THE EYE BREAKING THROUGH THE RING AND ENCROACHING ON THE BLACK. Whose opinion does this represent? — It is that of R. Jose. For it was taught: If the white of the eye encroaches on the black or if the black encroaches on the white, it is a disqualifying blemish. This is the view of R. Meir. R. Jose says: If the white encroaches on the black it is a blemish, whereas if the black of the eye encroaches on the white, it is not a blemish, for blemishes do not disqualify in the white of the eye. Said Rab: What is the reason of R. Jose? Scripture says: Their eyes stand forth from fatness. [The white of the eye] is called the fat of the eye, but not simply their eyes. And what is the reason of R. Meir? — Said Raba: What is the meaning of teballul? — Anything which disturbs [mebalbel] the action of the eye. MISHNAH. HAWARWAR [WHITE SPOTS] ON THE CORNEA AND WATER CONSTANTLY DRIPPING FROM THE EYE, [ARE DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES]. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY A PERMANENT HAWARWAR? IF IT REMAINED FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHTY DAYS. R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAID: WE MUST EXAMINE IT THREE TIMES IN THE EIGHTY DAYS. AND THE FOLLOWING ARE CASES OF CONSTANT DRIPPING FROM THE EYE [AND HOW TO TEST ITS PERMANENCY]: IF IT ATE [FOR A CURE] FRESH [FODDER] AND DRY [FODDER] FROM A FIELD SUFFICIENTLY WATERED BY RAIN, OR FRESH [FODDER] AND DRY [FODDER] FROM A FIELD REQUIRING ARTIFICIAL IRRIGATION, [IT IS A PERMANENT BLEMISH, IF NOT CURED]. IF IT ATE DRY [FODDER] FIRST AND THEN FRESH [FODDER] IT IS NOT A BLEMISH. UNLESS IT EATS DRY [FODDER] AFTER THE FRESH. GEMARA. What opinion does our Mishnah represent? — It is that of R. Judah. For it has been taught: A permanent hawarwar must remain for forty days, and water constantly dripping [from the eye] must remain so for eighty days. This is the view of R. Meir. But R. Judah says: A permanent hawarwar must remain for eighty days. And the following are cases of permanent hawarwar [and how to test their permanency]: if it ate fresh [fodder] with dry [fodder] from a field sufficiently watered by rain, but not fresh [fodder] and dry from a field requiring irrigation. Or if it ate dry [fodder] followed by fresh, it is not a blemish, unless it ate dry [fodder] after fresh. And this [treatment] must last for three months. But have we not learnt both [kinds of fields]: IF IT ATE FRESH [FODDER] AND DRY [FODDER] FROM A FIELD SUFFICIENTLY WATERED BY RAIN, OF IF IT ATE FRESH [FODDER] AND DRY [FODDER] FROM A FIELD REQUIRING IRRIGATION? — There is a lacuna in the Mishnah and it should read thus: IF IT ATE THE FRESH [FODDER] AND DRY [FODDER] FROM A FIELD SUFFICIENTLY WATERED BY RAIN, it is a blemish. [IF IT ATE] FROM A FIELD REQUIRING IRRIGATION, it is not a blemish, [EVEN IF IT DID NOT BECOME CURED]. [And even in the case of a field] watered by rain, IF IT ATE DRY [FODDER] AND AFTERWARDS FRESH IT IS NOT A BLEMISH, UNLESS IT ATE DRY [FODDER] AFTER FRESH. ‘And this treatment must last for three months.’ But surely this is not so! Has not R. Idi b. Abin reported in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian: [In] Adar and Nisan [it is given] fresh [fodder], in Elul and Tishri dry [fodder]? — Read rather as follows: [In] Adar and a half of Nisan fresh [fodder], [in] Elul and half of Tishri dry. The following query was put forward: [Does the Mishnah mean that] the fresh [fodder] [given to the firstling to eat for a cure] must be in the period of fresh [fodder] and, similarly, the dry in the period of dry, or [does the Mishnah mean that] we give it to eat fresh [fodder] together with dry in the period of fresh [fodder]? — Come and hear: For R. Idi b. Abin reported in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian: [In] Adar and Nisan [it is given] fresh [fodder] and [in] Elul and Tishri dry. It may be, however, that this passage means that the [dry] produce of Elul and Tishri is given to the animal to eat in Adar and Nisan. And how much [of this] do we give it to eat daily? — R. Johanan reported in the name of R. Phinehas b. Aruba: The size of a dry fig. Said ‘Ulla: In the Palestinian colleges it was asked: Does the amount mentioned refer only to the animal's first meal,^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ

^ᵃⁿnote:Mentioned in the Mishnah above as being a blemish.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘the outer row of the eye’.
^ᵃᵖnote:The first impression was that the passage referred to the two parts of the eye.
^ᵃᵠnote:By which to remember which of the two affections of the eye is considered a blemish.
^ᵃʳnote:An affection of the eye-sight occasioned by lightning which is white and cataract and similarly the floating white spot in the eye is a disqualifying blemish.
^ᵃˢnote:He being a great man of his generation.
^ᵃᵗnote:He possessed a firstling which had a halazon.
^ᵃᵘnote:Since it is on account of the case that he is induced to pronounce the new rule. And here also how can we listen to him when he says that the animal has a permanent blemish?
^ᵃᵛnote:The Mishnah which states that a blemish does not disqualify the white part of the eye.
^ᵃʷnote:Ps. LXXIII, 7. The wicked man has become degenerate because of the excessive fatness in his eye, and the fatness of the eye is in the white part.
^ᵃˣnote:The white part has therefore a qualification, ‘fat’, implying that it is not actually the eye. R. Jose therefore maintains that a blemish does not disqualify in the white part of the eye.
^ᵃʸnote:Added with Sh. Mek.
^ᵃᶻnote:Or a membrane (Gershom).
^ᵇᵃnote:Without diminishing from what it was originally.
^ᵇᵇnote:And failing this examination, even if the white spots are found on the eightieth day, they are not considered a blemish, as probably during this period the defect disappeared and has now returned. This defect would, therefore, be a natural thing.
^ᵇᶜnote:Lit., ‘dry’ grass which grows in Tishri, the fresh grass (lit., ‘moist’) growing in Nisan.
^ᵇᵈnote:And although it was not cured, it is not a blemish, as this is not the way to cure the animal.
^ᵇᵉnote:So Sh. Mek. cur. edd. ‘and after’.
^ᵇᶠnote:And if the animal is not cured then, it is a blemish.
^ᵇᵍnote:Which says that a permanent hawarwar must remain so for eighty days.
^ᵇʰnote:This is for the purpose of curing the animal.
^ᵇⁱnote:For it is not the way of curing it.
^ᵇʲnote:The animal eating the fresh fodder and then the dry for the period mentioned.
^ᵇᵏnote:How then can you say that the Mishnah is the view of R. Judah?
^ᵇˡnote:If it did not become cured thereby.
^ᵇᵐnote:That only three months are required for the treatment in order to ascertain whether it is a permanent blemish or a transitory one.
^ᵇⁿnote:We therefore see that more than three months are necessary for the treatment.
^ᵇᵒnote:I.e., three months are required in all.
^ᵇᵖnote:I.e., in Adar and Nisan.
^ᵇᵠnote:I.e.,in Elul and Tishri, and we do not slaughter the firstling until the ‘whole summer has passed; thus the animal is tested with both foods.
^ᵇʳnote:V. note 7.
^ᵇˢnote:A solution, that the fresh fodder we give to eat in Adar and Nisan and the dry in Elul and Tishri.
^ᵇᵗnote:There is consequently no proof here that the foods must be given at the particular periods of their growth.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit., ‘the West’.
^ᵇᵛnote:Which it eats daily as a cure.