בכורות 39:2 — Soncino English Talmud

Has 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^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

^ᵃnote:Belonging to the anointed priest, after its slaughter but before the receiving of the blood.
^ᵇnote:Lev. XVI, 14.
^ᶜnote:And just as at the slaughtering the bullock was unblemished, so it must be perfect when its blood is received in the vessel.
^ᵈnote:When it says that a loss inside the animal disqualifies.
^ᵉnote:Ex. XII, 5.
^ᶠnote:The statement just cited: In all phases etc.
^ᵍnote:But as regards the rule of being unblemished, this is only necessary at the slaughtering and receiving of the blood.
^ʰnote:That the loss after receiving the blood does not disqualify the animal.
^ⁱnote: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.
^ʲnote: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.
^ᵏnote:I.e., Tannaim differ in the matter.
^ˡnote:E.g. with stones (Rashi).
^ᵐnote:Completely by hand, only still hanging on to the bag.
^ⁿnote:With a knife, only still hanging on to the bag. Lev. XXII, 24.
^ᵒnote:Surely since the latter is more open and visible a blemish in it should certainly disqualify.
^ᵖnote:R. Judah.
^ᵠnote:That the point at issue is as you say.
^ʳnote: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.
^ˢnote:Knocking against the bag and being visible outside, since not attached above.
^ᵗnote:The stones
^ᵘnote:And therefore it is a loss.
^ᵛnote:Containing the male animal's membrum.
^ʷnote:This cannot refer to a first-born animal, as the law of a first-born only applies to a male.
^ˣnote:This is a blemish because it cannot recover.
^ʸnote:I.e., between the joints, for this can heal.
^ᶻnote: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.
^ᵃᵃnote:For then it can return to its normal condition.
^ᵃᵇnote:As this is hidden and can heal.
^ᵃᶜnote:N.W. of Saffed.
^ᵃᵈnote:Has the measure of a finger's breadth been mentioned?
^ᵃᵉnote:The fringes, which require the blue show-fringes.
^ᵃᶠnote: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.
^ᵃᵍnote:Making altogether the size of three thumbs.