Bekhorot

GEMARA. What is the meaning of the RIS?1 R. Papa said: The eyelid.2 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.3 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,4 barka.5 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.6 Once, however, I passed in front of him. He said to me: Sit down my son, sit. This7 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?8 — 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 this9 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.10 [The white of the eye] is called the fat of the eye, but not simply their eyes.11 And what is the reason of R. Meir? — Said Raba:12 What is the meaning of teballul? — Anything which disturbs [mebalbel] the action of the eye. MISHNAH. HAWARWAR [WHITE SPOTS]13 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.14 R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAID: WE MUST EXAMINE IT THREE TIMES IN THE EIGHTY DAYS.15 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]16 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]17 IT IS NOT A BLEMISH. UNLESS IT EATS DRY [FODDER] AFTER18 THE FRESH.19 GEMARA. What opinion does our Mishnah20 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,21 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,22 unless it ate dry [fodder] after fresh. And this [treatment] must last for three months.23 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?24 — 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.25 [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!26 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]?27 — Read rather as follows: [In] Adar and a half of Nisan fresh [fodder], [in] Elul and half of Tishri dry.28 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]29 and, similarly, the dry in the period of dry,30 or [does the Mishnah mean that] we give it to eat fresh [fodder] together with dry in the period of fresh [fodder]?31 — Come and hear:32 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.33 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 colleges34 it was asked: Does the amount mentioned refer only to the animal's first meal,35 spot in the eye is a disqualifying blemish. him when he says that the animal has a permanent blemish? of the eye is in the white part. that a blemish does not disqualify in the white part of the eye. blemish, as probably during this period the defect disappeared and has now returned. This defect would, therefore, be a natural thing. transitory one. tested with both foods.