בכורות 39 — Soncino English Talmud

¹or to every single meal? If you say that the first meal is meant, then the question arises, has it to be given before the meal or after the meal. — [The treatment] before a meal certainly does the animal good, like medicine. But suppose it is given after the meal, what then? Also, do we give it [the treatment] before drinking or after drinking? — It certainly does it more good before drinking, like barley. But suppose it is given after drinking? [When it is given the treatment] should it be tied, or must it be unloosened? — It certainly does it more good when it is unloosened. But suppose it is given when it is tied? Also, [do we give it the treatment] when it is by itself or together with another [animal]? — It certainly does it more good when it is together with another. But suppose it is given when it is by itself? Further, [do we give it the treatment] in the city or in the field? — It certainly does it more good in the field. But suppose it is given in the city? R. Ashi inquired: If you will say that [it is preferable] in a field, what is the ruling as regards a garden adjacent to a field? Let all this stand undecided. R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAYS, etc. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac. Provided that the cure is administered at three intervals [during the eighty days]. Phinehas the brother of Mar Samuel inquired of Samuel: If the firstling [ate this for a cure] and did not get better, is it considered a blemish retrospectively or is it considered a blemish only from then onwards? What is the practical difference? For deciding whether the law of Sacrilege applies to redemption money, [if it is redeemed within the three months]. If you say therefore that it is a disqualifying blemish retrospectively, then he commits sacrilege. But if it counts as a blemish only from then onwards, there is no Sacrilege. What is the ruling? — Samuel applied [to R. Phinehas] the verse: The lame take the prey. MISHNAH. IF ITS NOSE IS PERFORATED, NIPPED, OR SLIT, OR ITS UPPER LIP PERFORATED, MUTILATED, OR SLIT [THESE ARE DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught: If the partitions of the nostrils are perforated right through from the outside, this is a disqualifying blemish, if the perforation is inside, it is not considered a blemish. IF ITS UPPER LIP WHICH IS PERFORATED, MUTILATED, OR SLIT. Said R. Papa: The outer line [edge] of its lip is meant. MISHNAH. IF THE INCISORS ARE BROKEN OFF OR LEVELLED [TO THE GUM] OR THE MOLARS ARE TORN OUT [COMPLETELY], [THESE ARE DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES IN A FIRSTLING]. BUT R. HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAID: WE DO NOT EXAMINE BEHIND THE MOLARS, NOR THE MOLARS THEMSELVES. GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught: Which are the molars? Inside from the molars, the molars themselves being considered like the inside. R. Joshua b. Kapuzai says: We are permitted to slaughter the firstling in consequence only of [a defect in] the incisors. R. Hanina b. Antigonus says: We pay no attention whatever to the molars. What does it mean? Moreover, is not the view of R. Joshua b. Kapuzai the same as that of the first Tanna [quoted above]? — There is a lacuna [in the Baraitha] and it should read thus: Which are regarded as the inside teeth? Inside from the molars, and the molars themselves, are all regarded as the inside teeth. When does this rule apply? When they were broken off or levelled [to the gum], but if they were torn away [completely], we may slaughter [the firstling as a consequence]. R. Joshua b. Kapuzai says: We must not slaughter [the firstling] except in consequence of the incisors [becoming defective]. But if the molars were torn away [completely], we must not in consequence of this, slaughter [the firstling], though they do disqualify. R. Hanina b. Antigonus, however, says: We do not pay any attention whatever to the molar teeth and they do not even disqualify. R. Ahadboi b. Ammi asked: Does [the law of] the loss of a limb apply to what is inside [an animal], or does [the law of] a loss of a limb not apply to the inside [of an animal]? To what does this query refer? If to a firstling, does not Scripture write: ‘Lame or blind’? If to a sacrificial animal, does not Scripture write: ‘Blind or broken’? I am not inquiring as regards slaughtering or redeeming [a sacrificial offering]. My inquiry relates to disqualifying [the animal from the altar]. "What is the ruling? The Divine Law says: It shall be perfect to be accepted. This implies that if it is ‘perfect’ then it is valid [as a sacrifice], but if there is anything missing [even inside the animal], then it is not so. Or shall I say while the text ‘It shall be perfect to be accepted’, is inclusive, the text ‘There shall be no blemishes therein’ [informs us] that as a blemish is from the outside, so anything must be missing from the outside [in order to disqualify the animal]? — Come and hear: [Scripture says]: ‘And the two kidneys’ implying that an animal with one kidney or with three kidneys [is not offered up]. And another [Baraitha] taught, [Scripture says]: ‘He shall remove it’ which includes a sacrificial animal possessing one kidney only, [as fit for the altar]. Now, all [the authorities concerned here] hold that a living creature is not created with one kidney only, and in the case here there was a definite loss of a kidney. Shall it therefore be said that this is the point at issue, that one Master holds that a deficiency inside the animal is considered a loss [which can disqualify], whereas the other Master holds that a deficiency inside the animal is not considered a deficiency [to disqualify]? — Said R. Hiyya b. Joseph: All [the authorities] agree that a living creature can be created with one kidney only, and the deficiency inside is considered a deficiency; and still there is no difficulty. In one case, we are dealing with an animal which was created with two [kidneys] and there was a loss [of a kidney], whereas in the other case, it speaks of where it was created originally with one kidney only [and therefore the animal was not disqualified from the altar]. But is not the case [of one kidney] stated to be similar to the case of three kidneys; consequently as three kidneys were created originally, so one kidney was created originally? — Rather the point at issue here is whether a living creature can be created [with one kidney only]. One Master holds that a living creature can be created with one kidney only [and therefore an animal with one kidney is permitted for the altar] whereas the other holds that a living creature cannot be created with one kidney only. R. Johanan however said: All agree that a living creature [cannot be created] with one [kidney] only, and that the deficiency [of a limb] inside an animal is considered a deficiency. And still there is no difficulty [as regards the two Baraithas above]. In one case, the loss took place before it was slaughtered, and in the other, after the slaughtering. But even if the loss took place after the slaughtering, only before the blood was received [in a vessel] is it permitted [to offer it]?^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^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ᵃnote:For if we adopt the view that every single meal is meant, then it is immaterial whether before or after the meal, since when the second meal arrives, although it is after a meal (the first one), we still give it this food to eat.
^ᵇnote:This does not apply to a firstling to which no redemption money applies, but to consecrated animals in general.
^ᶜnote:Which is usually given before a meal, and it does more good then than after a meal.
^ᵈnote:Do we regard this as a satisfactory test so that if it is not cured the defect is pronounced a disqualifying blemish.
^ᵉnote:It being the custom of clean animals to eat barley before drinking, as it does them more good then than after drinking.
^ᶠnote:Do the fresh and dry fodder have any good effect?
^ᵍnote:The animal being more content when it eats in such a condition.
^ʰnote:Enjoying its food better in company.
^ⁱnote:The animal preferring the open space of the field.
^ʲnote:Where the animal is fed with fodder (fresh and dry) for a cure. Does it enjoy the air here as well as in a field?
^ᵏnote:That it is examined for example, to-day and at the end of twenty-six and a half days, then further at the end of twenty-six and a half days and subsequently at the end of the period of twenty-seven days. There is usually a change at these three particular periods, and consequently if he did not examine the animal at these specific times, then we cannot declare that the animal had a permanent blemish. Tosaf, explains it as meaning that the examination must take place at the commencement of the eighty days, at the conclusion of the period and in the middle, a three-fold examination.
^ˡnote:If it is used for a secular purpose.
^ᵐnote:The defect of the dripping eye.
^ⁿnote:If he has derived a benefit from the redemption money and he must bring a suitable sacrifice.
^ᵒnote:Isa. XXXIII, 23.
^ᵖnote:The verse states something almost incredible, viz., that the lame take prey. Similarly although Samuel was the much greater scholar then Phinehas, yet the latter asked him a question which he confessed was beyond him.
^ᵠnote:The partition which divides the nose inside.
^ʳnote:For it is in a hidden part.
^ˢnote:I.e., but not its breadth.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘from the molars and within’, as in those teeth a defect is not recognized either when the animal cats or bleats. The molar is called ,nuh, (twin) from its shape, each tooth possessing two roots and looking like two.
^ᵘnote:If they were completely torn out, as it is not a blemish from the inside.
^ᵛnote:This passage is explained below in the Gemara.
^ʷnote:Var. lec. Kapusai.
^ˣnote:In the centre of the mouth.
^ʸnote:Even for the altar the animal is not disqualified.
^ᶻnote:The Baraitha asking the question, What are the molar teeth? and then proceeding to say, ‘From the molars etc’.
^ᵃᵃnote:With reference to which the Mishnah says, If they were torn away it is a blemish and if they were broken off it is not a blemish.
^ᵃᵇnote:The animal for offering up on the altar, and he must wait until another blemish occurs, after which he may slaughter it.
^ᵃᶜnote:E.g., the loss of a kidney or milt.
^ᵃᵈnote:Implying that only open defects are disqualifying blemishes. The verse is in Deut. XV, 21.
^ᵃᵉnote:Again implying that only open defects are regarded as blemishes. The verse is in Lev. XXII, 22.
^ᵃᶠnote:A firstling, in consequence of a loss inside the animal.
^ᵃᵍnote:For to such an extent it would not be a blemish.
^ᵃʰnote:For the altar. The verse is in Lev. XXII, 21.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lev. VII, 4 in connection with sacrifices.
^ᵃʲnote:Ibid. Emphasis on the singular ‘it’.
^ᵃᵏnote:As regards a contradiction between the two Baraithas.
^ᵃˡnote:The Baraitha which disqualifies an animal where there is the loss of a kidney.
^ᵃᵐnote:In the Baraitha where it says that an animal with one kidney or three kidneys is disqualified.
^ᵃⁿnote:And still it disqualifies the animal.
^ᵃᵒnote:And therefore if we find only one kidney, we say that the animal originally possessed two kidneys and has been deprived of one, thereby becoming disqualified from the altar.
^ᵃᵖnote:The loss therefore disqualifies the animal from the altar,
^ᵃᵠnote:For sprinkling purposes.

²Has not R. Ze'ira said in the name of Rab. If one makes a slit in the ear of the bull and subsequently receives its bloods, it is disqualified, as it is written in the Scriptures: And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, [implying] the bullock as it had been before? Rather [the explanation] is that in one case, the loss took place before the blood was received, and in the other after the blood was received. But is a defect in the sacrifice after the blood was received, but before the sprinkling permitted? Has it not been taught: [Scripture says]: Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. [This intimates] that it must be unblemished and a year old at the time of slaughtering. Whence do we infer that the same rule applies at the time of the receiving of the blood, its carrying [to the altar] and its sprinkling? Because the text states: ‘It shall be’, [implying] that it must be unblemished and a year old in all the phases [of the sacrificial rite]? — Explain this to refer only to the law of a year old. It also stands to reason. For it was taught, R. Joshua said: In all the sacrificial animals mentioned in the Torah, if there is left [a piece of flesh] the size of an olive or [a piece of fat] the size of an olive, the blood may be sprinkled, it stands proved. But does there exist an object which at the time of slaughtering is a year old and at the time when the blood is received and carried is two years old? — Said Raba: This proves that [even] hours disqualify in the case of [sacrifices]. Shall we say [that R. Ahadobi's query above] goes back to Tannaim? [For it was taught, Scripture says]: That which hath its stones bruised or crushed or torn or cut, all these blemishes must be in the stones. This is the view of R. Judah. [Do you say] ‘in the stones’ but not in the membrum virile? — Read then: Also in the stones. This is the view of R. Judah. R. Eleazar b. Jacob says: All these blemishes must be in the membrum. R. Jose however says: ‘Bruised or crushed’ can be in the stones also, whereas ‘torn or cut’ in the membrum is [a blemish], but in the stones is not [a blemish]. What does it mean? Does it not mean that the point at issue is that one Master holds that a deficiency inside [the animal] is considered a deficiency, whereas the other Master holds that a deficiency inside [the animal] is not considered a deficiency! But do you consider this as reasonable? What in this case does R. Jose hold? If he holds: A deficiency inside [an animal] is considered a deficiency, then ‘torn or cut’ should apply [to all parts]. And if he holds: A deficiency inside [an animal] is not considered a deficiency, then even ‘bruised or crushed’ should not apply [to all parts]! Rather [explain that] the point at issue here is whether they are open blemishes. R. Judah holds: ‘Bruised or crushed’ are blemishes because [the stones or membrum] shrink afterwards. ‘Torn or cut’ are blemishes because they are hanging. R. Eleazar b. Jacob, however, holds: ‘Bruised or crushed’ are not blemishes, for originally [when the animal is well] they also sometimes shrink. ‘Torn or cut’ are not blemishes, for originally [when the animal is well] they some times also hang. And R. Jose holds: ‘Bruised or crushed’ are blemishes, for they are not in existence now. ‘Torn or cut’ however, are not blemishes because they are still in existence. MISHNAH. [OTHER BLEMISHES ARE] IF THE BAG IS MUTILATED OR THE GENITALS OF A FEMALE ANIMAL IN THE CASE OF SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS: IF THE TAIL IS MUTILATED FROM THE BONE BUT NOT FROM THE JOINT; OR IF THE TOP END [ROOT] OF THE TAIL DIVIDES THE BONE OR IF THERE IS FLESH BETWEEN ONE JOINT AND ANOTHER [IN THE TAIL] TO THE AMOUNT OF A FINGER'S BREADTH. GEMARA. Said R. Eleazar: [The Mishnah particularly means a bag] which is mutilated, but not if it is removed. [The mutilation also only applies to] the bag, but not to the membrum itself. It has been taught likewise: [If the bag was] mutilated [it is a blemish], but not if it was removed. [The mutilation applies to] the bag and not to the membrum. Said R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam: It happened at En-Bul that a wolf took [the whole bag] of one and it returned to its normal condition. IF THE TAIL IS MUTILATED FROM THE BONE etc. A Tanna taught: The measurement of a finger's breadth mentioned [by the Sages] is one-fourth of any man's handbreadth, [i.e., a thumb's breadth]. What is the legal import of this? Said Raba: It is in connection with the subject of purple blue. For it has been taught: How many threads does he put into [the hole of the corner for fringes]? Beth Shammai say: Four; whereas Beth Hillel say: Three. And how far must the threads of the show-fringes hang down [beyond the border]? — Beth Shammai say: Four finger-breadths, whereas Beth Hillel say: Three finger-breadths. And the three finger-breadths mentioned by Beth Hillel are each equal to one of the four finger-breadths of any man's hand. R. Huna son of R. Joshua says: [The measurement of a fingerbreadth here mentioned has reference to] the two standard-cubits, as we have learnt: Two standard-cubits were deposited^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^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ

^ᵃʳnote:Belonging to the anointed priest, after its slaughter but before the receiving of the blood.
^ᵃˢnote:Lev. XVI, 14.
^ᵃᵗnote:And just as at the slaughtering the bullock was unblemished, so it must be perfect when its blood is received in the vessel.
^ᵃᵘnote:When it says that a loss inside the animal disqualifies.
^ᵃᵛnote:Ex. XII, 5.
^ᵃʷnote:The statement just cited: In all phases etc.
^ᵃˣnote:But as regards the rule of being unblemished, this is only necessary at the slaughtering and receiving of the blood.
^ᵃʸnote:That the loss after receiving the blood does not disqualify the animal.
^ᵃᶻnote:For since the size of an olive remains of the flesh, which is sufficient for the eating of a man, and the size of an olive of fat, which is adequate for burning on the altar, we may proceed to sprinkle the blood. If, however, nothing remains, then there cannot be any sprinkling. We thus see that if everything is lost except the size of an olive of flesh and fat, we can still conclude the sacrificial rite. Therefore the statement that ‘in all phases it must be perfect’ quoted in the Baraitha just mentioned, can only refer to the law of its being a year old.
^ᵇᵃnote:Hence, for example. if the lamb was born last year on the fourteenth of Nisan at the eighth hour, he must be careful to slaughter and sprinkle its blood before the ninth hour, for the ninth hour disqualifies it and it is as if it had entered the second year.
^ᵇᵇnote:I.e., Tannaim differ in the matter.
^ᵇᶜnote:E.g. with stones (Rashi).
^ᵇᵈnote:Completely by hand, only still hanging on to the bag.
^ᵇᵉnote:With a knife, only still hanging on to the bag. Lev. XXII, 24.
^ᵇᶠnote:Surely since the latter is more open and visible a blemish in it should certainly disqualify.
^ᵇᵍnote:R. Judah.
^ᵇʰnote:That the point at issue is as you say.
^ᵇⁱnote:All unanimously hold that a loss of a limb inside the animal is not considered a loss, and the reason of the authority who disqualifies the balls is not because it is considered a loss but because it is regarded as a blemish.
^ᵇʲnote:Knocking against the bag and being visible outside, since not attached above.
^ᵇᵏnote:The stones
^ᵇˡnote:And therefore it is a loss.
^ᵇᵐnote:Containing the male animal's membrum.
^ᵇⁿnote:This cannot refer to a first-born animal, as the law of a first-born only applies to a male.
^ᵇᵒnote:This is a blemish because it cannot recover.
^ᵇᵖnote:I.e., between the joints, for this can heal.
^ᵇᵠnote:I.e., if the backbone is branched at the place where the tail begins appearing like two tails. Rashi explains khmpn ‘peels’ the backbone, i.e., if the end of the backbone is bare of skin and flesh.
^ᵇʳnote:For then it can return to its normal condition.
^ᵇˢnote:As this is hidden and can heal.
^ᵇᵗnote:N.W. of Saffed.
^ᵇᵘnote:Has the measure of a finger's breadth been mentioned?
^ᵇᵛnote:The fringes, which require the blue show-fringes.
^ᵇʷnote:Another explanation is: What is the length of the twisted thread, independently of the show-fringes? And the word ,akuan is employed to indicate that it is a third of the whole, i.e., that the show-fringes together with the twisted thread are twelve finger-breadths, that is three handbreadths.
^ᵇˣnote:Making altogether the size of three thumbs.