Bekhorot

in [the gate called] the Castle of Shushan,1 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.2 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 silver3 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 BUTTOCK4 AND HE RUBS [THE BAG].5 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]6 WHILE R. JOHANAN B. NURI PROHIBITED IT.7 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?8 — Something is omitted,9 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:10 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 Peran11 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’?12 Said R. Johanan b. Nuri to R. Akiba: ‘How long will you allow Israel to eat nebelahs’?13 But do we not ritually cut it? — Rather [R. Johanan] must have said trefahs.14 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]?15 MISHNAH. IF [A FIRSTLING] HAS FIVE FEET OR IF IT HAS ONLY THREE FEET OR IF ITS FEET ARE CLOSED16 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: This17 is meant only when [the animal] has one foot too few or one too many in front;18 but if behind, it is also trefah,19 for ‘every addition is considered equal to the entire absence [of the respective limb]’.20 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,21 but even if their feet are only round [like that of an ass] although they are not cloven, [it is a blemish].22 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 loin23 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,24 [THIS IS A BLEMISH]. THESE BLEMISHES ILA25 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:26 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.27 THESE BLEMISHES ILA RECORDED etc. Does this mean to say that this is not a usual thing?28 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,29 and if it is a female she must observe the regulations relating to the birth of a female.30 If [the sex], however, is not known, then she must keep the regulations relating both to a male and a female.31 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?32 Since its eyeball is round like that of a man.33 — Said R. Joseph: This offers no difficulty. In one case the shape of the black of the eye is meant,34 and in the other the slit35 [in which the eye is seated is meant]. OR HAS A MOUTH LIKE THAT OF A SWINE. Said R. Papa: You should not say36 that the mouth must be pointed besides the lip being parted, but if [the lip] is parted, even though the mouth is not pointed.37 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.38 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?39 — Since we have learnt [in the previous] Mishnah: Or its mouth was like that of a swine, and the Rabbis differ from R. [Ila].40 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. possible to be exact, there was a fear that what was actually holy might be used in a secular manner. where the animal has only one bag it is a blemish, for it is as if there was only one stone. house of Menahem’ etc. deriving irhp from vrp . remedy except burying it. outside the walls of Jerusalem. one fore-foot. The reason is that trefah does not apply to the fore-foot. Hananel has trvhm , referring to the red parts surrounding the black of the eye. Cur. edd. truuhj , ‘the white part’. upper lip and upper jaws overlapping the lower jaws. the first Tanna quoted.