בכורות 40:2 — Soncino English Talmud

AND 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.^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

^ᵃnote:A priest. How then can we compare the two things?
^ᵇnote:Lev. XXII, 4.
^ᶜnote:If the bone of the lower jaw is larger than the upper one, it is regarded as a blemish even in an animal.
^ᵈnote:Only the lower lip overlaps and is larger than the upper. This is a blemish in a human being but not in an animal.
^ᵉnote: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.
^ᶠnote: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.
^ᵍnote: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.
^ʰnote:Or swollen (Rashi).
^ⁱnote:In the mouth, so that the animal is not able to open its mouth well.
^ʲnote: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.
^ᵏnote:That it is required to be like that of a swine in every way, in order to be a disqualifying blemish.
^ˡnote:THE EAR OF A KID etc.
^ᵐnote:OR IF THE TAIL etc.
^ⁿnote:An excrescence or large warts on the skin.
^ᵒnote:For this defect is noticeable. The case where it was broken has already been stated previously.
^ᵖnote:I.e., the jaw (R. Gershom), not the teeth.
^ᵠnote: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.
^ʳnote:To offer it on the altar, since it is disqualified.
^ˢnote: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.
^ᵗnote:A scurf or itch.
^ᵘnote:Infra 41a. We see therefore that it is not regarded as a genuine blemish.
^ᵛnote:Lev. XXII, 22.
^ʷnote:That of the text and also of the Mishnah quoted.
^ˣnote:In reality even in the body yabeleth is a blemish.
^ʸnote:Therefore even in the body yabeleth is considered a blemish.
^ᶻnote: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.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., in both the other Mishnah and the Baraitha, but not to the scriptural text.
^ᵃᵇnote:Our Mishnah which regards yabeleth as a blemish.
^ᵃᶜnote:A yabeleth in the white part of the eye only renders an animal unfit for the Temple.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. supra 38a.
^ᵃᵉnote:The Mishnah infra 41a, like the statement of the quoted Mishnah that no blemishes disqualify the white part of the eye.
^ᵃᶠnote:Therefore although it is in the white part, since there is hair on the yabeleth it is not acceptable for a sacrifice.
^ᵃᵍnote: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.
^ᵃʰnote:Who do not agree with Rabbi Judah in connection with the case of one ball being as large as two of the other (Rashi).
^ᵃⁱnote:How small may its companion stone be and still not be regarded as a blemish.
^ᵃʲnote:But if it is less, then it is a blemish.
^ᵃᵏnote:Explained later in the Gemara.
^ᵃˡnote: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.