Bekhorot

[a size] as large as a hole of a yoke!1 — He2 was silent. Said R. Hisda to him: perhaps what we have learnt3 refers to the borer and [the removal of] what stopped up [the hole].4 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.5 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,6 it is not regarded as having an independent back.7 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?8 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 vessel9 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 becomes10 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.11 We are dealing here12 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,13 its handle and its projectors remain clean. If its inside however becomes unclean, the whole vessel becomes unclean;14 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.15 The Rabbis consequently declared it16 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.17 But if this be so,18 where there is no inside, let there also be a distinction made?19 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?20 For we do not require [in order that a vessel may become unclean] that it should resemble a sack21 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?22 — It refers to those [articles] which are fit to be used as seats.23 If this be so, then why not also declare an earthen vessel24 unclean [rabbinically]?25 — Midras26 is not employed with an earthen vessel, [for fear of breaking it]. R. Papa says:27 The Mishnah above states distinctly a ‘large borer’, from which we can deduce that an ordinary borer is smaller than a sela’.28 This would indeed hold good according to the view of R. Meir29 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.30 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 easier31 and the ruling of Beth Hillel severer; and [as regards examples of this kind of ruling] what we have learnt32 we accept33 and what we have not learnt in the Mishnah we do not accept! — Said R. Nahman:34 A Neronian sela’ is distinctly mentioned above.35 A Neronian sela’ is as large as a large borer, but an ordinary sela’ is even smaller than an ordinary borer.36 MISHNAH. ONE WHOSE RIS [EYELID] IS PERFORATED, NIPPED OR SLIT, OR IF IT HAS A CATARACT OR A TEBALLUL,37 HALAZON [SNAIL-SHAPED], NAHASH [SNAKE-SHAPED]38 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 borer jsen is the size of a sela’ and, therefore, what is the difference between Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai? 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. have been reliable in substance. The inside here would mean the part which is customarily used (Tosaf.). suggestion that the vessel referred to here is a metal one is refuted by Rashi. containing or not. 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. vessel unclean biblically, whereas other unclean liquids cannot do so, but only make the vessel rabbinically unclean. made, just as in the case of an earthen vessel, in order not to burn holy things unnecessarily. 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! solved in the following manner. the ordinary one, which is smaller than a sela’. Therefore the measurements of the two schools are not alike. skull. This is less than a sela’, and thus there is a difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. ohel, whereas Beth Hillel would demand a greater decrease. Hillel. 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.