בכורות 40 — Soncino English Talmud

¹in [the gate called] the Castle of Shushan, one in the north-east corner, and the other in the south-east corner. That in the northeast corner was larger than the Mosaic cubit by half a finger's breadth and that of the south-east corner was larger than its companion by half a finger's breadth. Consequently the latter was a finger's breadth larger than the Mosaic cubit. And why were there a large and small standard-cubit? So that while the workmen used to undertake their tasks according to the smaller cubit [of Moses] but executed in accordance with the large, in order that it should not come to commit sacrilege. And what need was there for two standard-cubits? — One standard-cubit [which was half a finger's breadth larger than that of Moses] was used for measuring gold and silver and the other [which was a whole finger's-breadth larger] was used for building [the wall]. R. Nahman b. Isaac or you may say R. Huna b. Nathan, said: [The exact measurement of a finger's breadth mentioned above has] reference to what we have learnt: OR IF THERE IS FLESH BETWEEN ONE JOINT AND ANOTHER TO THE AMOUNT OF A FINGER'S BREADTH. MISHNAH. IF [A FIRSTLING] HAS NO STONES OR IF IT ONLY HAS ONE STONE, [IT IS A BLEMISH]. R. ISHMAEL SAYS: IF IT HAS TWO BAGS, THEN IT HAS TWO STONES, BUT IF IT ONLY HAS ONE BAG, THEN IT ONLY HAS ONE STONE. R. AKIBA SAYS: [THE ANIMAL] IS PLACED ON ITS BUTTOCK AND HE RUBS [THE BAG]. IF A TESTICLE IS [THERE, INSIDE THE BAG] IT WILL EVENTUALLY COME OUT. IT HAPPENED THAT ONE RUBBED IT AND [THE STONE] DID NOT COME OUT, BUT WHEN IT WAS SLAUGHTERED [THE STONE] WAS FOUND ATTACHED TO THE LOINS, AND R. AKIBA PERMITTED [THE ANIMAL] WHILE R. JOHANAN B. NURI PROHIBITED IT. GEMARA. If in a case where it only has one stone, you say [in the Mishnah] that it is a blemish, in a case where it has no stones at all, is there any question? — Something is omitted, and it must read thus: IF [THE FIRSTLING] HAS NOT the two STONES in two bags, only in one bag, OR IF IT HAS two bags containing ONLY ONE STONE, IT IS A BLEMISH. R. ISHMAEL SAYS: IF IT HAS TWO BAGS, IT CERTAINLY HAS TWO STONES. IF HOWEVER IT HAS ONLY ONE BAG, IT IS AS IF IT HAS ONLY ONE STONE. WHEREUPON R. AKIBA SAYS: We do not say ‘it certainly has’ BUT WE PLACE THE ANIMAL ON ITS BUTTOCK AND RUB [THE BAG] AND IF THERE IS A STONE [INSIDE] THEN IT COMES OUT EVENTUALLY. IF HAPPENED THAT HE RUBBED IT AND THE STONE DID NOT COME OUT etc. It has been taught: Said R. Jose: It happened at Peran in the house of Menahem that he rubbed [the bag] and [the stone] did not come out. When however it was slaughtered, the stone was found attached to the loins and R. Akiba permitted [the animal to be eaten] whereas R. Johanan b. Nuri prohibited it. Said R. Akiba to R. Johanan b. Nuri: ‘How long will you waste the money of Israel’? Said R. Johanan b. Nuri to R. Akiba: ‘How long will you allow Israel to eat nebelahs’? But do we not ritually cut it? — Rather [R. Johanan] must have said trefahs. But it is not a case here of the prohibition of trefahs! Then [this is what he said to R. Akiba]: How long will you allow Israel to eat consecrated sacrifices without [the wall of Jerusalem]? MISHNAH. IF [A FIRSTLING] HAS FIVE FEET OR IF IT HAS ONLY THREE FEET OR IF ITS FEET ARE CLOSED LIKE THAT OF AN ASS OR A SHAHUL OR A KASUL [THESE ARE BLEMISHES]. WHAT IS MEANT BY SHAHUL? [AN ANIMAL] WITH A DISLOCATED HIP [WITHOUT THE SINEWS BEING SEVERED]. WHAT IS MEANT BY KASUL? [AN ANIMAL] ONE OF WHOSE HIPS IS HIGHER THAN THE OTHER. GEMARA. Said Rab Huna: This is meant only when [the animal] has one foot too few or one too many in front; but if behind, it is also trefah, for ‘every addition is considered equal to the entire absence [of the respective limb]’. OR WHOSE FEET ARE CLOSED LIKE THAT OF AN ASS. Said R. Papa: You should not say that they are round as well as not cloven, but even if their feet are only round [like that of an ass] although they are not cloven, [it is a blemish]. A SHAHUL OR A KASUL etc. Our Rabbis taught: What is meant by kasul and what is meant by shahul? Shahul means [an animal] whose hip became dislocated [without the severing of the sinews]. Kasul means [an animal] one of whose legs is fixed in the loin and the other over the loin. A Tanna taught: What is meant by a sarua’ or a kalut? Sarua’ means [an animal] one of whose legs is longer than the other, kalut means one whose feet are uncloven like that of an ass or a horse. MISHNAH. IF THE BONE OF THE FORE-FOOT [OF A FIRSTLING] OR OF ITS HIND-FOOT IS BROKEN, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT NOTICEABLE, [THIS IS A BLEMISH]. THESE BLEMISHES ILA ENUMERATED IN JABNEH AND THE SAGES AGREED WITH HIM. HE ALSO ADDED ANOTHER THREE CASES [OF BLEMISHES]. THEY THEREUPON SAID TO HIM: WE HAVE ONLY HEARD THESE [ALREADY MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY]. ONE WHICH HAS ITS EYEBALL ROUND LIKE THAT OF A MAN OR A MOUTH LIKE THAT OF A SWINE OR ONE WHICH HAS LOST THE GREATER PART OF THE ANTERIOR OF THE TONGUE, [THESE ARE THE ADDITIONAL BLEMISHES]. A SUBSEQUENT BETH DIN RULED HOWEVER: EACH OF THESE CASES IS A [DISQUALIFYING] BLEMISH. GEMARA. You say EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT NOTICEABLE. But is it then a blemish? — Said R. Papa: [The break] is not noticeable in itself but it is noticeable owing to the animal's inability to carry out its normal functions. THESE BLEMISHES ILA RECORDED etc. Does this mean to say that this is not a usual thing? The following was cited in contradiction. If a woman gives birth to a kind of animal, beast or bird, whether clean or unclean, if it is a male she must observe the regulations relating to the birth of a male, and if it is a female she must observe the regulations relating to the birth of a female. If [the sex], however, is not known, then she must keep the regulations relating both to a male and a female. These are the words of R. Meir. And Rabbah b. Bar Hana reported in the name of R. Johanan: What is the reason of R. Meir? Since its eyeball is round like that of a man. — Said R. Joseph: This offers no difficulty. In one case the shape of the black of the eye is meant, and in the other the slit [in which the eye is seated is meant]. OR HAS A MOUTH LIKE THAT OF A SWINE. Said R. Papa: You should not say that the mouth must be pointed besides the lip being parted, but if [the lip] is parted, even though the mouth is not pointed. OR ONE WHICH HAD THE GREATER PART OF THE ANTERIOR OF THE TONGUE REMOVED. Whose opinion does this represent? — It is that of R. Judah. For it has been taught: And one which has the greater part of the tongue removed; R. Judah, however, says: The greater part of the anterior of the tongue. MISHNAH. AND IT HAPPENED THAT THE LOWER JAW [OF A FIRSTLING] WAS LARGER THAN THE UPPER JAW. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL ASKED THE SAGES [FOR A RULING] AND THEY SAID: THIS IS A BLEMISH. GEMARA. What has he taught that he cites an incident? — Since we have learnt [in the previous] Mishnah: Or its mouth was like that of a swine, and the Rabbis differ from R. [Ila]. And it is with reference to this that we are now told that the Rabbis differ from R. [Ila] only where the upper lip is larger than the lower one, but where the lower lip is larger than the upper one, [they agree that] this is a [disqualifying] blemish.^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

^ᵃnote:The eastern gate of the Temple mount on which the picture of the Castle of Shushan was sculptured, v. Mid, I, 3.
^ᵇnote:Illegally benefiting from a sacred object. For if the workmen followed the Mosaic cubit, since it is not always possible to be exact, there was a fear that what was actually holy might be used in a secular manner.
^ᶜnote:The Mosaic cubit being stipulated but the workmen in executing the work, giving the larger cubit.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘hollow, arched pitcher’.
^ᵉnote:And the loins, as a test.
^ᶠnote:To be eaten, for it was a blemish, owing to the fact that it was not in its place.
^ᵍnote:Since the stone was eventually found.
^ʰnote:About its being a blemish?
^ⁱnote:In the Mishnah.
^ʲnote:R. Ishmael differs therefore only as regards the second clause of the Mishnah, but as regards the first, he agrees that where the animal has only one bag it is a blemish, for it is as if there was only one stone.
^ᵏnote:The name of a village (Rashi). Tosaf. renders the passage irhpc vagn ‘It happened in the stables of the house of Menahem’ etc. deriving irhp from vrp .
^ˡnote:For since you forbid the eating of the animal as an unblemished firstling without Jerusalem, there is no other remedy except burying it.
^ᵐnote:Animals not ritually slaughtered or which died of themselves.
^ⁿnote:Animals afflicted with a fatal organic disease.
^ᵒnote:For it is an unblemished firstling which can only be eaten in Jerusalem and, according to your ruling, it will be eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem.
^ᵖnote:I.e., uncloven hoofs.
^ᵠnote:The statement of the Mishnah, A FIRSTLING WHICH HAS FIVE FEET etc.
^ʳnote:E.g., if in the one case it has three fore-feet as well as its two hind-feet, and in the other, it has the two hind-feet and one fore-foot. The reason is that trefah does not apply to the fore-foot.
^ˢnote:As well as being a blemish.
^ᵗnote:And the law is that if the part from the knee upwards is cut then the animal is trefah.
^ᵘnote:I.e., that in every respect it must resemble an ass in order to constitute a blemish.
^ᵛnote:For the hoofs of a clean animal are not round.
^ʷnote:Normally the leg of an animal is attached to the fat-tail in proximity of the loin but not over it.
^ˣnote:This is explained in the Gemara below.
^ʸnote:A medical expert v. supra 29a.
^ᶻnote:Contrary to the Sages above who oppose the additional cases of blemishes mentioned by Ila.
^ᵃᵃnote:Of walking naturally, as at present it limps.
^ᵃᵇnote:That the eyeball should be round?
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., seven days of impurity and then the continuation for thirty-three days in blood of purification. Lit., ‘she sits’.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., fourteen impure days and then continue with sixty-six days of the blood of purification.
^ᵃᵉnote:The stricter rules of both sexes i.e., fourteen impure days and only thirty-three pure days.
^ᵃᶠnote:Who maintains that if a woman gives birth to a species of animal etc. it is considered as a genuine offspring.
^ᵃᵍnote:We therefore see that a round eyeball is not an abnormal feature.
^ᵃʰnote:Which is a usual thing.
^ᵃⁱnote:It is unusual for this to be round. The reading of the text is thrhm , according to Rashi and R. Gershom. R. Hananel has trvhm , referring to the red parts surrounding the black of the eye. Cur. edd. truuhj , ‘the white part’.
^ᵃʲnote:That we compare it with the swine in all particulars in order to constitute a blemish.
^ᵃᵏnote:It is a blemish. Another interpretation of shpas xurpu given by Rashi is: The mouth is round besides the upper lip and upper jaws overlapping the lower jaws.
^ᵃˡnote:And since the Mishnah speaks of the anterior part of the tongue, must represent the view of R. Judah and not that of the first Tanna quoted.
^ᵃᵐnote:Similar to that quoted in the Mishnah and on a similar subject.
^ᵃⁿnote:When they declare above: We have only heard these already mentioned etc.

²AND IT HAPPENED also THAT THE LOWER JAW WAS LARGER THAN THE UPPER ONE, AND R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL ASKED THE SAGES [FOR A RULING], AND THEY SAID: THIS IS A BLEMISH. But did we not learn of this [blemish] only with reference to a human being: ‘If the upper lip is larger than the lower one or the lower lip is larger than the upper one, this is a blemish’? Now only with reference to a human being does Scripture write: What man soever of the seed of Aaron, [implying] that among the seed of Aaron man must be normal but not with regard to a beast? Said R. Papa: This offers no difficulty. In one case there is a bone, whereas in the other there is no bone. MISHNAH. IN REGARD TO THE EAR OF A KID WHICH WAS DOUBLED, THE SAGES RULED [AS FOLLOWS]: IF IT IS ALL ONE BONE, IT IS A BLEMISH, BUT IF IT IS NOT ALL ONE BONE, IT IS NOT A BLEMISH. R. HANINA THE SON OF GAMALIEL SAYS: IF THE TAIL OF A KID IS LIKE THAT OF A SWINE, OR IF THE TAIL DOES NOT POSSESS THREE VERTEBRAE, THIS IS A BLEMISH. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If a firstling's mouth is shrunk or if its feet are shrunk, if it is on account of [lack of] room then it is not a blemish, but if it is on account of the bone, it is a blemish. Doubled ears with one system of cartilages constitute a blemish, but with two systems of cartilages are not a blemish. R. GAMALIEL SAYS: THE TAIL OF A KID WHICH WAS LIKE THAT OF A SWINE. Said R. Papa: Do not say that it must be round as well as [very] thin; enough if it is round, even though it is thick. OR IF THE TAIL DOES NOT POSSESS THREE VERTEBRAE etc. Said R. Huna: In a kid, two vertebrae in the tail constitute a blemish, but three are not a blemish. But in a lamb, three vertebrae constitute a blemish, whereas four are not a blemish. An objection was raised: In a kid, one vertebra in the tail is a blemish, whereas two are not a blemish. But in a lamb two vertebrae are a blemish while three are not a blemish. Is not this a refutation of R. Huna? How then does R. Huna [explain his position]? — Our Mishnah misled him. He was under the impression that just as the first part [of the Mishnah] referred to a kid, similarly the second part referred to a kid. It is not so, however. The first part refers to a kid, whereas the second part refers to a lamb. MISHNAH. R. HANINA THE SON OR ANTIGONUS SAYS: IF [A FIRSTLING] HAS A YABELETH IN ITS EYE OR IF A BONE OF ITS FORE-FOOT OR HINDLEG IS DEFECTIVE, OR IF THE BONE OF THE MOUTH SPLIT OR ONE EYE IS [ABNORMALLY] LARGE AND THE OTHER SMALL, OR ONE EAR [ABNORMALLY] LARGE AND THE OTHER SMALL, BEING VISIBLY SO AND NOT MERELY IN ACTUAL MEASUREMENT. ALL THESE ARE DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES. R. JUDAH SAYS: IF ONE STONE IS AS LARGE AS TWO OF THE OTHER. [THIS IS A BLEMISH]. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, DID NOT CONCUR WITH R. JUDAH'S RULING. GEMARA. Does this mean to say that a yabeleth is a [disqualifying] blemish? Against this I quote the following: We must not slaughter a firstling either in the Temple or in the country in consequence of the following blemishes: One affected with garab, or yabeleth! — But do you consider it reasonable [that yabeleth should not be a real blemish]? Is there not a text ‘or yabeleth’ in Scripture? — There is no contradiction. In the one case, the body is referred to and in the other [our Mishnah], the eye. But let us see now. Holy Writ makes no distinction; what difference then does it make whether the blemish is in the eye or on the body? — Rather say that there is no difficulty [for the following reason]. In one case it has a bone and in the other it has no bone. [The yabeleth of] the text refers to where it has a bone. [The yabeleth of] our Mishnah, however, refers to where it has no bone. Therefore [if it is] in its eye, it is considered a [disqualifying] blemish, but on its body, it is not a [disqualifying] blemish. But if there is no bone on the body, does it really disqualify [from the altar]? Is it not then a mere wart? For it has been taught: R. Eleazar says: Those with warts, if human beings, are unfit for the altar, if beasts, they are fit for the altar? — Rather explain as follows: In one case as well as in the other, it refers to the eye, and yet there is no difficulty. In one case it refers to the black part [of the eye] and in the other it refers to the white. But surely blemishes do not disqualify in the white part of the eye? — Rather explain this [as follows]: In one case as well as in the other we are dealing with the white part of the eye, [nevertheless] said Resh Lakish: It offers no difficulty. In one case [the yabeleth] has hair on it, in the other, it has no hair on it. ITS ONE EYE WAS ABNORMALLY LARGE etc. A Tanna taught: ‘Large’ means as large as that of a calf, and ‘small’ means as small as that of a goose. ITS ONE EAR WAS ABNORMALLY LARGE etc. And the Rabbis, what is their limit? — It was taught, Others say: Even if the second stone is only the size of a bean, it is permitted. MISHNAH. IF THE TAIL OF A [FIRSTBORN] CALF DOES NOT REACH THE ‘ARKUB , [IT IS A BLEMISH]. THE SAGES SAID: THE GROWTH OF ALL CALVES IS IN THIS MANNER. AS LONG AS [THE ANIMALS] GROW, THE TAILS ALSO EXTEND [BELOW]. WHICH ARKUB MENTIONED IS MEANT? R. HANINA. B. ANTIGONUS SAYS: THE ‘ARKUB IN THE THIGH.^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^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ

^ᵃᵒnote:A priest. How then can we compare the two things?
^ᵃᵖnote:Lev. XXII, 4.
^ᵃᵠnote:If the bone of the lower jaw is larger than the upper one, it is regarded as a blemish even in an animal.
^ᵃʳnote:Only the lower lip overlaps and is larger than the upper. This is a blemish in a human being but not in an animal.
^ᵃˢnote:It has two ears on one side, an ear within an ear. The Mishnah speaks here of a kid, because this animal often has its ear somewhat folded and doubled.
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., if the tip of the outside ear is bent over and is connected with the inside ear. We do not regard this as a case of an additional limb, because the deformity is not visible.
^ᵃᵘnote:So Rashi. I.e., if the tips of the outside ear and the inside one are not connected. According to this interpretation, the word omg refers to the lub, ‘tip of the ear’, and the reason why it is called ‘a bone’ is because it is a hard physical substance, like that of a bone. Maimonides, however, apparently reads: ‘If it is another’ and explains it as follows: If the external ear appears like a separate and distinct member, then it is a blemish, but if it does not seem like an extra member, then it is not a blemish. This interpretation would remove the difficulty why according to Rashi's version it is not regarded as an additional limb where it is ‘one bone’. Cur. edd.: If it has no bone.
^ᵃᵛnote:Or swollen (Rashi).
^ᵃʷnote:In the mouth, so that the animal is not able to open its mouth well.
^ᵃˣnote:The animal opens its mouth well, but the jaws are tight and prevent it from opening the mouth wide enough. According to Rashi's second explanation the meaning is: If the swelling is due to the air, (reading jur not juhr ) which it breathes, then it is not blemished and it will recover. But if it is because of the bone being unduly thick, it is a blemish.
^ᵃʸnote:That it is required to be like that of a swine in every way, in order to be a disqualifying blemish.
^ᵃᶻnote:THE EAR OF A KID etc.
^ᵇᵃnote:OR IF THE TAIL etc.
^ᵇᵇnote:An excrescence or large warts on the skin.
^ᵇᶜnote:For this defect is noticeable. The case where it was broken has already been stated previously.
^ᵇᵈnote:I.e., the jaw (R. Gershom), not the teeth.
^ᵇᵉnote:For if it is not recognized by sight as a deformity but is only found to be so by measurement, then it is not a disqualifying blemish, since a disqualifying blemish must be visible and noticeable.
^ᵇᶠnote:To offer it on the altar, since it is disqualified.
^ᵇᵍnote:A term used in contra distinction to the Sanctuary and Temple. It is forbidden to slaughter a firstling under such circumstances, unless it is actually blemished.
^ᵇʰnote:A scurf or itch.
^ᵇⁱnote:Infra 41a. We see therefore that it is not regarded as a genuine blemish.
^ᵇʲnote:Lev. XXII, 22.
^ᵇᵏnote:That of the text and also of the Mishnah quoted.
^ᵇˡnote:In reality even in the body yabeleth is a blemish.
^ᵇᵐnote:Therefore even in the body yabeleth is considered a blemish.
^ᵇⁿnote:And also the Mishnah quoted. Therefore a yabeleth in the eye is a blemish, as our Mishnah holds, even without a bone, and as the other Mishnah refers to the body, a yabeleth in such a case is not a disqualifying blemish, since it has no bone.
^ᵇᵒnote:I.e., in both the other Mishnah and the Baraitha, but not to the scriptural text.
^ᵇᵖnote:Our Mishnah which regards yabeleth as a blemish.
^ᵇᵠnote:A yabeleth in the white part of the eye only renders an animal unfit for the Temple.
^ᵇʳnote:V. supra 38a.
^ᵇˢnote:The Mishnah infra 41a, like the statement of the quoted Mishnah that no blemishes disqualify the white part of the eye.
^ᵇᵗnote:Therefore although it is in the white part, since there is hair on the yabeleth it is not acceptable for a sacrifice.
^ᵇᵘnote:Therefore the rule of the Mishnah stands that blemishes do not disqualify in the white part of the eye. Our Mishnah here however which declares a yabeleth to be a real blemish refers to a case where it is in the black part of the eye, even without a bone, while the scriptural text refers to where there is a bone; consequently both on the body and in the eye, a yabeleth constitutes a blemish.
^ᵇᵛnote:Who do not agree with Rabbi Judah in connection with the case of one ball being as large as two of the other (Rashi).
^ᵇʷnote:How small may its companion stone be and still not be regarded as a blemish.
^ᵇˣnote:But if it is less, then it is a blemish.
^ᵇʸnote:Explained later in the Gemara.
^ᵇᶻnote:To reach the ‘arkub, and if not, it is a blemish, Another version (Tosaf. Yom Tob.) is that the tail does not usually reach the ‘arkub and therefore if it is short of the ‘arkub, it is not a blemish.