039a - על אלו מומין פרק ששי בכורות דף לט, ע"א

Or perhaps [the fodder must be given] at each and every meal?^[1]

If you say at the first meal: before eating [its regular food], or after eating?

או דלמא כו אם תימצי לומר בסעודה ראשונה כו' - For if you say at every meal, there is nothing further to ask, since it certainly makes no difference to us whether it is before eating or after eating, for at the second meal it is after eating, and we feed it [anyway]. But if you say that we give it [the fodder] only at the first meal of each day, then we must ask.

Before eating, it certainly benefits it, like a medicine;

קודם אכילה ודאי מעלי ליה כסמא - Like a drug, for everyone drinks medicine for healing before eating.

after eating, what?

לאחר אכילה מאי - Is it a [valid] test in this way or not?

Before drinking or after drinking?

And before drinking, it certainly benefits it, like barley;

ה"ג קודם שתיה ודאי מעלי ליה כשערי - For it is the way of an animal to eat barley before drinking.

after drinking, what?

Tied up or loose?

Loose, it certainly benefits it;

מותר ודאי מעלי ליה - For it is at ease.

Tied up, what? Alone, or with its companion?

With its companion, it certainly benefits it;

עם חבירו - It is at ease in company, and the eating helps it.

alone, what?

In the city or in the field?

In the field, it certainly benefits it;

בשדה - It is at ease in the open air.

in the city, what?

Rav Ashi asked: If you say [that] in the field [it is a valid test], a garden next to the city, what?

גינה הסמוכה לעיר - Is it like a field or not?

Let it stand.^[2]

Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus says [etc.]:^[3] Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: Provided that they are spaced in thirds.

שיהו משולשים - Into three parts: if he sees it today, he examines it from now until day twenty-six and a half, and again on day twenty-six and a half [after that], and again on day twenty-seven, so that they make eighty; for within these three periods it is the way of such a blemish to pass and not be seen, and then it is a passing blemish.^[4]

Pinchas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, asked Shmuel: If it ate and was not cured, is it a blemish retroactively, or is it a blemish from now on?

What difference does it make? For me’ilah with its redemption [money].^[5]

למימעל בפדיונו - He is not asking about a bechor, for redemption does not apply to it, but about other consecrated animals whose eyes drip, where he set aside their redemption at once and said, “They are hereby redeemed onto these coins,” and afterwards he examined it, and before its examination period of three months was over he benefited from the redemption [money].

If you say it is a blemish retroactively, he has committed me’ilah;

אי אמרת למפרע הוי מומא - It turns out that its redemption was a valid redemption, and its redemption [money] is holy, and one brings a korban for me’ilah.

and if it is a blemish from now on, he has not committed me’ilah.

What [is the law]?

Shmuel applied to him [the verse]:

קרי שמואל עליה - This verse, “the lame take the spoil” – that it is a thing the mind cannot bear, that the lame should take spoils. That is to say: you are not sharp, yet you asked such a question, to which I do not know the answer.

(Yeshayahu 33:23) “The lame take the spoil.”^[6]

MISHNAH: [If the bechor’s] nose was pierced, chipped or split;^[7]

its lip was pierced, chipped or split.

שפמו - Lip.

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught: If the nostrils were pierced into one another – from the outside, it is a blemish;

מבחוץ - For the hole is visible, that the outer walls of the nose were pierced.

from the inside, it is not a blemish.

מבפנים - That the partition dividing the nose was pierced.

אינו מום - For it is in a hidden place.

Its lip was pierced, chipped or split:^[8]

Rav Papa said: [That is] the outer rim of its lip.

תורא ברא דשיפתיה - The outer row of the lip, that is, the edge of the lip, and not its width.

MISHNAH: [If] the outer teeth were chipped or broken off, [or] the inner ones uprooted. Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the tiyomes inward, nor even the tiyomes [itself].^[9]

מתאימות - Large teeth, which are called maiseler [molars], where one looks like two.

ואף לא את המתאימות - For if the teeth opposite them were uprooted, it is not a blemish.

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught: The tiyomes.

Which is the tiyomes?

איזו התיומת - All of it is explained below.

From the tiyomes inward, and the tiyomes itself is like the inner ones.

ותיומת עצמה כלפנים - And one does not slaughter [a bechor] on account of it.^[10]

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai says: One slaughters only on account of the outer ones alone.

החיצונות - Those in the middle of the mouth.

Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus says: One pays no attention to the tiyomes at all.

אין משגיחין - For it is not disqualified even from the altar.

What is it saying?

מאי קאמר - That it says, “Which is the tiyomes? From the tiyomes inward.”

And furthermore, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai is the same as the Tanna Kamma!^[11]

[The beraisa] is missing [words], and this is what it teaches: Which are the inner ones? From the tiyomes inward, and the tiyomes itself is like the inner ones.

ה"ק איזו היא הפנימית - This is what it means: which are the inner ones, of which we said in the Mishnah that if uprooted it is a blemish, [but if] chipped or broken off it is not a blemish.

When is this said? When they were chipped or broken off; but if they were uprooted, one may slaughter.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai says: One slaughters only on account of the outer ones – but inner ones that were uprooted, we do not slaughter on account of them, yet it is disqualified.^[12]

אבל איפסולי מיפסל - From upon the altar; and he should wait until another blemish befalls it, and slaughter it.

Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus says: One pays no attention to the tiyomes at all – and it is not even disqualified.

Rav Achadvoi bar Ami asked: Is there [the rule of] a missing limb internally, or is there no missing limb internally?^[13]

For what?

If for a bechor, “lame or blind” (Devarim 15) is written.^[14]

פסח ועור כתיב - Implying a visible [blemish], yes; a hidden one, no.

If for kodashim, “blind or broken” (Vayikra 22) is written!^[15]

לאישתחוטי - [To permit] slaughtering a bechor on account of an internal lack.^[16]

ולאפרוקי - [And to permit redeeming] kodashim, I do not ask, for it is not considered so much of a blemish.

When we ask, it is about disqualifying [from the altar]: what?

“It shall be perfect to be accepted” (Vayikra 22), the Torah said: perfect, yes; [having] a lack, no.^[17]

לרצון - [Accepted on] the altar.

Or perhaps: “It shall be perfect” – to include “there shall be no blemish in it”: just as a blemish is external, so too a lack [that disqualifies] is external?^[18]

Come and hear: (Vayikra 7) “And the two kidneys” – and not one with one kidney, and not one with three kidneys.^[19]

ואת שתי הכליות - It is written about the offerings.

And another [beraisa] taught: “He shall remove it” – to include one with one kidney.^[20]

יסירנה - It implies one kidney: he shall remove it and burn it.

They assumed that all agree there is no creature [born] with one, for it is certainly lacking.

אין בריה באחת - No creature is created with one kidney, and this one that has only one is lacking.

Shall we say that they disagree about this: one Master holds an internal lack is called a lack, and the other Master holds an internal lack is not called a lack?

Rav Chiya bar Yosef said: All agree there is a creature [born] with one, and an internal lack is called a lack. And it is not difficult:

here, when it was created with two and they were reduced;

הא - That [beraisa] which disqualifies is when it was created with two and they were reduced, for we see that its place is recognizable; and this beraisa which declares it fit is, for example, when it was created with one, where there is no lack.

there, when it was created with one from the outset.

But it is taught like the case of three: just as three is from the outset, so too one is from the outset!

Rather, here they disagree about whether there is such a creature from the outset: one Master holds there is a creature [born] with one, and the other Master holds there is no creature [born] with one.

מר דפסיל סבר אין בריה באחת - And this one is certainly lacking. My teacher was in doubt why [the Gemara] did not also challenge him: “But it is taught like the case of three!” But to my mind there is no difficulty at all. For when we thought that all agree there is a creature [born] with one, we challenged: since there is a creature with one, and he too taught it together with three, surely when it was created with one it is also unfit – and we would not have known the reason why it is unfit, since it is not a visible blemish, and there is no lack [when it was created so] internally. Because of this refutation he explained it according to the view that there is no creature with one, and it is lacking; and perforce it is not like the case of three, since there is no creature with one. And if you say, let us explain it according to the view that there is a creature with one – if so, why is it unfit?

And Rabbi Yochanan said: All agree there is no creature [born] with one, and an internal lack is called a lack. And it is not difficult: here, when it became lacking before shechitah; there, when it became lacking after shechitah.

חסרה קודם שחיטה - It disqualifies it.

And after shechitah but before kabbalah, is it permitted?^[21]

Tosfos

שיהו משולשין - At the beginning of the eighty [days], at the end of the eighty and in the middle of the eighty.^[22] And in this way one must explain [the passage] in Perek Hakorei es Hamegillah (Megillah 19a) regarding a megillah, where it says that if one sewed into it three threads of sinew it is fit, and says “provided that they are spaced in thirds” – meaning at the beginning of the sheet, in its middle and at its end. And there Rashi explained that [the distance] from the top of the sheet to the [first] sinew should be like that from one sinew to the next, both above and below. And that [passage] in Makkos (9b), regarding the cities of refuge, is certainly of this sort: “and you shall divide into three” – that they should be spaced in thirds, that from the south [border] to Chevron should be like from Chevron to Shechem, and from Chevron to Shechem like from Shechem to Kedesh, and from Shechem to Kedesh like from Kedesh to the north; and we do not say that they should be at the beginning of Eretz Yisrael, at its end and in its middle. And here Rashi explained “that they be spaced in thirds” as three parts: if he sees it today, he examines it from now until day twenty-six and a half, and again on day twenty-six etc., which is day eighty. It seems that he explained it so in order to explain it in the manner of Makkos (ibid.). Yet it is not entirely like that one, for then he should have explained that he examines at the end of twenty, at the end of forty and at the end of sixty, so that twenty of the eighty remain after the last examination, just as there are twenty before the first examination. But it is not at all possible to explain it so; rather, as I explained at first, as is implied in Perek Ha’arel (Yevamos 80a) regarding a congenital saris, where it explains “anyone who did not see a moment of fitness,” and asks, “But let us be concerned that perhaps he became healthy in between,” and answers, “Since its beginning and its end are afflicted, we are not concerned” – implying that three times means its beginning, its end and its middle. And it seems that the villages that are “spaced in thirds” in Keitzad Me’abrin (Eruvin 57a) are neither like this one nor like that one of Makkos.

Notes

1. 1. This continues the question asked “in the West” (Eretz Yisrael) on 38b about the Mishnah’s test for “permanent water” (dripping eyes): the bechor is fed fresh and dry fodder, a dried-fig’s amount, and if it is not cured, the dripping is a permanent blemish. The questions ask under which conditions the feeding counts as a valid test.
2. 2. Teiku – “let it stand”: the question is left without an answer and remains open.
3. 3. The Mishnah (Bechoros 38b) teaches that a cataract or dripping eye counts as permanent if it lasted eighty days; Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus says the animal is examined three times within the eighty days.
4. 4. A passing blemish (mum over) is one that may heal. Only a permanent blemish (mum kavua) permits a bechor to be slaughtered and eaten outside the Mikdash, so a blemish that disappears within the eighty days does not count.
5. 5. Me’ilah is the unauthorized use of hekdesh (consecrated property); one who benefits from it repays its value plus a fifth and brings a korban asham. A consecrated animal that has a permanent blemish may be redeemed, and the redemption money then becomes hekdesh; if the blemish was not permanent, the redemption does not take effect.
6. 6. Yeshayahu 33:23: “then the lame take the spoil” – something one would not expect. As Rashi explains, Shmuel meant that he had no answer to this question.
7. 7. Our chapter, Al Eilu Mumin, lists the blemishes for which a bechor may be slaughtered outside the Mikdash. This Mishnah moves on from the eye to the nose and the lip.
8. 8. The Gemara returns to the Mishnah’s clause on the lip (the Mishnah’s שפמו). A lip has a thin outer edge and a broad inner part, and Rav Papa defines which part the hole, chip or split must be in.
9. 9. Chutin here are the teeth. The outer ones are the front teeth, in the middle of the mouth: chipping or breaking them is a blemish, while the inner teeth count only if uprooted. The tiyomes (“twin”) is a large tooth that looks like two; Rashi reads מתאימות.
10. 10. To “slaughter on account of” a blemish means it counts as a permanent blemish, so the bechor may be slaughtered and eaten anywhere. The tiyomes is reckoned with the inner teeth.
11. 11. Tanna Kamma – “the first Tanna”: the anonymous opening opinion of a Mishnah or beraisa. As the beraisa reads, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai seems to say what it already said.
12. 12. A blemish can work at two levels: a full blemish permits a bechor to be slaughtered and eaten outside; a lesser one only disqualifies the animal from the altar, and then it must wait for another blemish (Rashi).
13. 13. Mechusar ever – an animal missing a limb or organ is unfit as an offering. The question is whether a lack inside the body, which cannot be seen, counts like one on the outside.
14. 14. Devarim 15:21, on the bechor: “if it has a blemish, lame or blind” – visible blemishes.
15. 15. Vayikra 22:22, on offerings: “blind or broken” – also visible blemishes.
16. 16. Rashi here explains the words לאישחוטי ולאיפרוקי לא איבעיא לן (“for slaughtering [a bechor] and redeeming [kodashim] we do not ask”), which stand in other editions but are missing from our printed line.
17. 17. Vayikra 22:21: “It shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish in it.” “Perfect” might exclude any lack at all, even an internal one.
18. 18. The verse places “there shall be no blemish in it” next to “perfect”, so “perfect” may be defined by “blemish”: only a lack that is outside, like a blemish, disqualifies.
19. 19. Vayikra 7:4: the two kidneys of the offering are burned on the altar. The beraisa reads “the two” as excluding an animal with one kidney or with three.
20. 20. “He shall remove it” (יסירנה, Vayikra 3:4) is singular, so it is read as including even an animal with a single kidney – seemingly against the first beraisa.
21. 21. The blood service of an offering has four steps: shechitah, kabbalah (receiving the blood in a sacred vessel), holachah (carrying it to the altar) and zerikah (applying it). The discussion continues on 39b.
22. 22. Tosfos holds that the three examinations come at the beginning, the middle and the end of the eighty days, not at three equal intervals as Rashi explains, and compares other “thirds” in the Gemara: sinews in a megillah and the cities of refuge.