בכורות דף לט

או דלמא בכל סעודה וסעודה? אם תימצי לומר בסעודה ראשונה — קודם אכילה או לאחר אכילה? קודם אכילה ודאי מעלי ליה כסמא, לאחר אכילה מאי?

or perhaps does it mean it is fed the amount of a fig-bulk at each and every meal? If you say that it is fed a fig-bulk only at the first meal, is it fed this fodder before its regularly scheduled eating or after eating? The Gemara elaborates: Before eating, it is certainly effective for it like a medicine, which people imbibe before their meals. With regard to after eating, what is the halakha? Is this an effective manner of examining the animal? The Gemara further inquires: Is the animal fed this fodder as a medicine before drinking or after drinking? Before drinking it is certainly effective for it, like barley, which is fed to an animal before it drinks. With regard to after drinking, what is the halakha?

קודם שתיה או לאחר שתיה? וקודם שתיה ודאי מעלי ליה כשערי, לאחר שתיה מאי?

קשור או מותר? מותר — ודאי מעלי ליה, קשור מאי? לבדו או עם חבירו? עם חבירו — ודאי מעלי ליה, לבדו מאי?

The Gemara continues to inquire: Is the animal given the fodder when it is tied or untied? The Gemara explains: When it is untied, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal. When it is tied, what is the halakha? Furthermore, is it fed the fodder when it is by itself, or with another animal? When it is with another animal, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is comfortable. When it is by itself, what is the halakha?

בעיר (ובשדה) [או בשדה]? בשדה — ודאי מעלי ליה, בעיר — מאי? בעי רב אשי: אם תימצי לומר בשדה — גינה הסמוכה לעיר מאי? תיקו.

Likewise, is the animal fed it in the city or in the field? When it is in the field, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is calm. When it is in the city, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a further dilemma: If you say that this treatment is effective only when it is in the field, not when it is the city, what is the halakha with regard to a garden adjacent to the city? No resolution is found for any of these inquiries, and with regard to each of them the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

רבי חנניא בן אנטיגנוס אומר. אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: ובלבד שיהו משולשים.

§ The mishna teaches with regard to constant pale spots that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus says: One examines the animal three times within eighty days. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And this is the halakha provided that they are divided into equal thirds, i.e., there must be an even gap between each of these examinations.

בעי מיניה פנחס, אחוה דמר שמואל, משמואל: אכל ולא איתסי — למפרע הוי מומא, או מיכן ולהבא הוי מומא?

With regard to the statement of the mishna that constant tears are examined by feeding the animal moist and then dry fodder for a period of three months, Pineḥas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, raises a dilemma before Shmuel: If the animal ate the fodder in the required manner and was not healed, which means that it is blemished, is it a retroactive blemish from the day it was discovered, or is it a blemish from that point forward?

למאי נפקא מינה? למימעל בפדיונו. אי אמרת למפרע הוי מומא — מעיל,

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to whether one has violated the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property concerning its redemption money in a case where a consecrated animal was redeemed before the end of the three months of examination and someone derived benefit from the money paid for its redemption. If you say that it is a retroactive blemish, he thereby misuses consecrated property, as the redemption was effective and the money belongs to the Temple treasury.

ואי מיכן ולהבא הוי מומא — לא מעיל, מאי? קרי שמואל עליה: ״פסחים בזזו בז״.

But if it is a blemish from that point forward, then one who derived benefit from money paid before that point has not misused consecrated property, as an unblemished animal cannot be redeemed, and the money remains non-sacred. What, then, is the halakha? Shmuel read this verse with regard to his brother: “The lame take the prey” (Isaiah 33:23), i.e., one who is not learned in Torah has managed to ask a question for which I have no answer.

מתני׳ חוטמו שניקב, ושנפגם, ושנסדק. שפמו שניקבה, שנפגמה, שנסדקה.

MISHNA: For these additional blemishes, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple: Its nose that was pierced, or that was damaged and is lacking, or that was split. Likewise, its lip that was pierced, or that was damaged, or that was split is considered a blemish.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן: ניקבו חוטמין זה לתוך זה — מבחוץ הרי זה מום, מבפנים אינו מום. שפתו שניקבה ושנפגמה ושנסדקה, אמר רב פפא: תורא ברא דשיפתיה.

GEMARA: With regard to the case of the nose that was pierced, the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where its nostrils were pierced one into the other, if the perforation is visible on the outside of the nostril, this is a blemish; if it is visible only on the inside of the nostril, it is not a blemish. With regard to the case of: Its lip that was pierced or that was damaged or that was split, Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the outer row, i.e., the front, protruding part of its lip.

מתני׳ חוטין החיצונות שנפגמו, ושנגממו, הפנימים שנעקרו. רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר: אין בודקין מן התיומת ולפנים, ואף לא את התיומת.

MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn: The external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched, and likewise, the internal gums that were extracted. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the double teeth, i.e., the large molars that appear like two teeth, and inward, and one does not examine even the place of the double teeth themselves. This is because even if they were extracted, it is a concealed blemish, and it does not permit the slaughter of the firstborn.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן: התיומת, איזהו תיומת? מן התיומת ולפנים, ותיומת עצמה כלפנים. רבי יהושע בן קפוצאי אומר: אין שוחטין אלא על החיצונות בלבד. רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר:

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the mishna is referring to the double teeth, what are the double teeth? The area from the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves, are considered like the inward part, i.e., the location of a concealed blemish, for which one may not slaughter the animal. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth alone. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not consider the double teeth at all.

אין משגיחין על התיומת כל עיקר.

מאי קאמר? ותו, רבי יהושע בן קפוצאי היינו תנא קמא!

The Gemara notes that the baraita asks about the double teeth but does not answer the question: What is the tanna saying? And furthermore, the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai is the same as that of the first tanna, as they both maintain that a blemish to the double teeth is considered a concealed blemish.

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני: איזהו הפנימית? מן התיומת ולפנים, ותיומת עצמה כלפנים. במה דברים אמורים? שנפגמו ושנגממו, אבל נעקרו — שוחטין.

The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: What are the inner gums, for which a firstborn is not slaughtered if a blemish was found there? The inner gums are located from the place of the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves are considered like the inward part. In what case is this statement, that one does not slaughter the animal, said? It is said in a case where the inner gums were damaged or were scratched. But if they were extracted, one does slaughter the firstborn for this blemish.

רבי יהושע בן קפוצאי אומר: אין שוחטין אלא על החיצונות, אבל פנימיות שנעקרו — מישחט עלייהו לא שחטינן, אבל אפסולי מיפסל. רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר:

The Gemara continues its interpretation of the baraita. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth. But with regard to the inner gums that were extracted, one does not slaughter the animal for them, but it is disqualified as an offering. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not pay attention to the double teeth at all, and a blemish there does not even disqualify the firstborn from sacrifice.

אין משגיחין על התיומת כל עיקר, ואפילו איפסולי לא איפסיל.

בעי רב אחדבוי בר אמי: יש מחוסר אבר מבפנים, או אין מחוסר אבר מבפנים? למאי? אי לבכור — ״פסח או עור״ כתיב,

§ Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raises a dilemma: Is there halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal, or is there no halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal? The Gemara inquires: With regard to what issue did he raise this dilemma? If it was with regard to whether such a blemish renders permitted the slaughter of a firstborn outside the Temple, it is written: “Lameness or blindness” (Deuteronomy 15:21), which indicates that the blemish must be exposed.

אי לקדשים, ״עורת או שבור״ כתיב! לאישחוטי ולאיפרוקי לא איבעיא לן, כי מיבעיא לן לאיפסולי — מאי?

If the dilemma was raised with regard to whether other sacrificial animals with such a blemish are thereby disqualified from being sacrificed and may be redeemed, it is written: “Blind or broken” (Leviticus 22:22), which are also types of exposed blemishes. The Gemara explains that we do not raise this dilemma with regard to slaughtering the firstborn or redeeming other sacrificial animals, as it is clearly not considered a blemish to that extent. Rather, we raise the dilemma with regard to disqualifying the animal from sacrifice. What is the halakha?

״תמים יהיה לרצון״ אמר רחמנא, תמים — אין, חסרון — לא. או דלמא ״תמים יהיה לרצון״, ״כל מום לא יהיה בו״ — מה מום מאבראי, אף חסרון מאבראי.

The Gemara clarifies the dilemma. The Merciful One states: “It shall be complete to be accepted” (Leviticus 22:21), which indicates that a complete animal, yes, is fit as a sacrifice, but if it is lacking in any manner, even on the inside, it is not fit. Or perhaps one should interpret this phrase: “It shall be complete to be accepted,” in light of what is stated immediately afterward: “There shall be no blemish therein.” Just as a blemish is on the outside, as taught by the next verse, which says: “Blind or broken,” so too, the status of lacking a limb applies only if it is lacking on the outside.

תא שמע: ״ואת שתי הכליות״ — ולא בעל כוליא אחת, ולא בעל שלש כוליות. ותניא אידך: ״יסירנה״ — לרבות בעל כוליא אחת.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that this matter is subject to a dispute. It is taught in one baraita: When it states with regard to the burning of the sacrificial portions of a peace offering: “And the two kidneys” (Leviticus 3:4), this teaches that one sacrifices only an animal that has two kidneys, but not an animal that has one kidney, nor one that has three kidneys. And it is taught in another baraita that when that verse states: “And the two kidneys…he shall take it away,” the singular form serves to include an animal that has one kidney, which may be sacrificed. Evidently, these tanna’im disagree as to whether an animal lacking a kidney is fit to be sacrificed.

סברוה, דכולי עלמא אין בריה באחת, דהא מיחסר חסר. לימא בהא קמיפלגי: דמר סבר, חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון, ומר סבר, חסרון מבפנים לא שמיה חסרון.

The Sages initially assumed that everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and only one kidney is found because this offering became lacking a kidney only after birth. If so, let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is not considered a lack.

אמר רב חייא בר יוסף: דכולי עלמא יש בריה באחת, וחסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון, ולא קשיא: כאן — כשנבראה בשתים וחסרו, כאן — כשנבראה באחת מעיקרא.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: There is no dispute here, as everyone agrees that there is such an entity born with one kidney, and everyone also agrees that the lack of an internal limb is considered a lack that disqualifies the animal. And the contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult: Here, in the first baraita, where it was created with two kidneys and one is lacking, the animal is disqualified. Whereas there, where it was created with one kidney from the outset, it is not lacking and therefore it is fit.

והא דומיא דשלש קתני, מה שלש מעיקרא, אף אחת מעיקרא!

The Gemara asks: But the first baraita teaches the case of an animal that has one kidney as similar to that of an animal that has three kidneys. One can therefore infer: Just as these three kidneys were present from the outset, as an animal does not grow new limbs, so too, the animal with one kidney alone was like that from the outset.

אלא, הכא ביש בריה מעיקרא קמיפלגי, מר סבר: יש בריה באחת, ומר סבר: אין בריה באחת.

Rather, everyone agrees that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to the matter of whether there is an entity created with one kidney from the outset. One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that there is an entity created with one kidney, and it may be assumed that this is such an animal, and it is not lacking a limb. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that there is no entity created with one kidney, and this animal is lacking a limb and is disqualified for sacrifice.

ורבי יוחנן אמר: דכולי עלמא אין בריה באחת, וחסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון. ולא קשיא: כאן שחסרה קודם שחיטה, כאן שחסרה לאחר שחיטה. ולאחר שחיטה קודם קבלה מי שרי?

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and yet it is not difficult. Here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before its slaughter. Whereas there, the second baraita is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after its slaughter, and therefore it is fit. The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after its slaughter but before the collection of the blood in a vessel for sprinkling, is it permitted to sacrifice it?

והאמר רבי זירא אמר רב: הצורם אזן הפר ואחר כך קיבל דמו — פסול, שנאמר ״ולקח מדם הפר״ — הפר שהיה כבר! אלא: כאן שחסרה קודם קבלה,

But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: In the case of one who slits the ear of the bull with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collects its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: “And the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull” (Leviticus 4:5). By using the term “the bull,” the verse indicates that the bull must be at the time of collection of the blood as it already was before slaughter, without a blemish. Rather, here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before the collection of the blood, whereas there, in the second baraita, it is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after the collection of the blood.

כאן שחסרה לאחר קבלה.

ולאחר קבלה קודם זריקה, מי שרי? והתניא: ״שה תמים זכר בן שנה יהיה לכם״, שיהא תמים בן שנה בשעת שחיטה.

The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after the collection of the blood but before the sprinkling of the blood, is it permitted to be sacrificed upon the altar? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male in its year” (Exodus 12:5), indicating that it shall be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter?

ומנין בקבלה והולכה והזייה? תלמוד לומר: ״יהיה״, שיהו כל הויותיו תם ובן שנה.

The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that it must also be unblemished at the time of the collection of the blood, and at the time of conveying its blood to the altar, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood? The verse states: “Shall be,” emphasizing that all actions that are performed upon it shall be performed only when it is unblemished and in its first year. This teaches that the offering must be unblemished even at the time of the sprinkling of its blood.

תרגמה אבן שנה, הכי נמי מסתברא, דתניא: רבי יהושע אומר: כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר מהן כזית בשר או כזית חלב — זורק את הדם, שמע מינה.

The Gemara answers: Interpret this baraita as teaching that only the requirement that the animal must be in its first year is necessary at the time of sprinkling. Nevertheless, it need not be unblemished at this stage. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah that were slaughtered and their blood was collected, from which there remains either an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat, the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering. Learn from this baraita that even if most of the offering is lacking, it is not disqualified after the collection of the blood.

ומי איכא מידי, דבשעת שחיטה הוי בן שנה, ובשעת קבלה והולכה הוי בן שתי שנים? אמר רבא: זאת אומרת שעות פוסלות בקדשים.

The Gemara asks with regard to the interpretation of the baraita: But is there anything where at the time of its slaughter the animal is in its first year but at the time of the collection of the blood and conveying it to the altar it is in its second year? Rava says: That is to say that hours disqualify in the case of sacrificial animals, i.e., one measures the age of the offering from the exact time of its birth. Therefore, if the animal reaches its second year between the time when it is slaughtered and the collection of its blood it is disqualified.

לימא כתנאי: ״ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות״ — כולן בביצים, דברי רבי יהודה.

§ The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether the lack of an internal organ disqualifies an offering from being sacrificed. Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita discussing the verse that provides a list of animals disqualified from the altar: “And that whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut you shall not sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:24). All of these blemishes are found in the animal’s testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

בביצים ולא בגיד? אימא: אף בביצים — דברי רבי יהודה. רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר: כולן בגיד. רבי יוסי אומר: ״מעוך וכתות״ — אף בביצים,

The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that these blemishes are only in the testicles and not in the penis? There too these should be considered blemishes, as the penis is more exposed and visible than the testicles. Rather, say that all of them also apply to the testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: All of them are considered blemishes only when found on the penis. Rabbi Yosei says: The blemishes of “bruised, or crushed” apply also to the testicles, while with regard to the blemishes of “torn or cut,” on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles they are not considered a blemish.

״נתוק וכרות״ — בגיד אין, בביצים לא.

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי, דמר סבר: חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון, ומר סבר: לא שמיה חסרון?

The Gemara explains the relevance of the dispute to the matter at hand: What, is it not that these tanna’im disagree about this: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack. Therefore, in cases where the testicles are damaged they are considered lacking, disqualifying the animal, despite the fact that the blemish is not exposed. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, holds that the lack of an internal limb is not called a lack.

ותסברא? רבי יוסי מאי קסבר? אי קסבר חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון — אפילו ״נתוק וכרות״ נמי! ואי קסבר לא שמיה חסרון — אפילו ״מעוך וכתות״ נמי לא!

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? If so, what does Rabbi Yosei hold? If he holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack, then even “torn or cut” should be considered a lack, despite the fact that these blemishes are not visible. And if he holds that a lack of an internal limb is not called a lack, then even “bruised, or crushed,” should not be considered a lack, as they are not exposed.

אלא, הכא במומים שבגלוי קמיפלגי. רבי יהודה סבר: ״מעוך וכתות״ הוי מומא, דמיכווצן, ״נתוק וכרות״ הוי מומא, דהא תליין. רבי אליעזר בן יעקב סבר:

Rather, here they disagree with regard to exposed blemishes. Rabbi Yehuda holds that “bruised or crushed” testicles are considered blemished, as the testicles noticeably shrink due to the crushing. Likewise, testicles that are “torn or cut” are considered blemished, as the testicles appear to be hanging, i.e., dangling, to such an extent that they do not appear to be attached in the usual manner. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that testicles that are “bruised or crushed” are not considered noticeable blemishes, as initially, before they become damaged, there are times that the testicles also shrink. Furthermore, testicles that are “torn or cut” are not considered blemished either, as initially, prior to being torn or cut, there are times that the testicles also hang.

״מעוך וכתות״ לא הוי מומא, דמעיקרא נמי זמנין דמיכווצן, ״נתוק וכרות״ לא הוי מומא, דמעיקרא נמי זימנין דתליין.

ורבי יוסי סבר: ״מעוך וכתות״ הוי מומא — דהא ליתנהו, ״נתוק וכרות״ לא הוי מומא — דהא איתנהו.

And Rabbi Yosei holds that “bruised or crushed” testicles are considered blemished, as they are no longer present in their normal state, but are entirely broken. But he maintains that “torn or cut” testicles are not considered blemished, as they are still present in the pouch, despite the fact that they no longer function.

מתני׳ נפגם הזובן, העריה של נקבה במוקדשין, נפגם הזנב מן העצם, אבל לא מן הפרק, או שראש זנב מפצל, נקלפה העור והבשר והעצם נשאר,

MISHNA: The mishna details additional blemishes that enable the slaughter of firstborn animals: If the pouch [hazoven] in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed, or if the genitalia of a female sacrificial animal, were damaged and lacking; if the tail was damaged from the tailbone, but not if it was damaged from the joint, i.e., one of the joints between the vertebrae, because it heals; or in a case where the end of the tail is split, i.e., the skin and the flesh were removed and the bone remained exposed; or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint; these are all blemishes.

או שיש בשר מחוליא לחוליא מלא אצבע.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אלעזר: נפגם ולא ניטל, כיס ולא זכרות. תניא נמי הכי: נפגם ולא ניטל, כיס ולא זכרות. אמר רבי יוסי בן המשולם:

GEMARA: With regard to the case where the pouch in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed was damaged, Rabbi Elazar says: This applies only if the pouch was damaged, but not in a case where it was removed. Furthermore, it is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if the male sex organ was damaged. The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: It is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if it was removed, and only if the pouch was damaged, but not the male sex organ. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: An incident occurred involving one animal in Inbal, where a wolf removed its pouch and it later returned to its strength, i.e., it grew again.

מעשה בעינבל אחד שנטלו זאב וחזר לאיתנו.

נפגמה הזנב מן העצם וכו׳. תנא: אצבע שאמרו — אחד מארבעה בטפח של כל האדם. למאי הלכתא? אמר רבה: לענין תכלת, דתניא: כמה חוטין הוא נותן?

§ The mishna stated: If the tail was damaged from the tailbone…or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. A tanna taught: The fingerbreadth of which the Sages spoke is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rabba says: It is stated with regard to tekhelet, i.e., ritual fringes. As it is taught in a baraita: How many strings does one place on a garment?Beit Shammai say: Four strings are inserted into the hole in the garment so that there are eight strings hanging down altogether, and Beit Hillel say: Three strings are inserted into the hole so that six are hanging down.

בית שמאי אומרים: ארבעה, ובית הלל אומרים: שלשה.

וכמה תהא משולשת? בית שמאי אומרים: ארבעה, ובית הלל אומרים: שלשה. ושליש שבית הלל אומרים — אחד מארבע בטפח של כל אדם.

The baraita continues: And how much should be hanging beyond the knots and windings? Beit Shammai say: Four fingerbreadths, and Beit Hillel say: Three fingerbreadths. And the three fingerbreadths that Beit Hillel say should be hanging are each one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.

רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר: לשתי אמות, דתנן: שתי אמות היו

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says that this baraita discussing the fingerbreadth is referring to the two cubits mentioned in a different context, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:9): There were two rods for measuring cubits