040b - על אלו מומין פרק ששי בכורות דף מ, ע"ב

[the end of Rashi’s comment from the previous amud:] …that it resembles this case, which it introduces with ומעשה, “and there was a case.”^[1]

And there was also a case where the lower jaw protruded beyond the upper; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asked the Sages, and they said: It is a blemish.^[2]

But that is said of a person, as we learned: If his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower, or the lower beyond the upper – this is a blemish.^[3]

גבי אדם - a kohen.

It is regarding a person, as it is written (Vayikra 22): Any man of the seed of Aharon – a man who is alike to the seed of Aharon;^[4] but in an animal, no!

Rav Pappa said: There is no difficulty: this one is where bone is involved, that one where no bone is involved.

הא דאית בה עצם - If the bone of the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper, it is a blemish even in an animal; but where no bone is involved, only that its lower lip is long, takes in the upper lip and protrudes over it – in a person it is a blemish, but not in an animal.

MISHNAH: If a kid’s ear was doubled – the Sages said: When it is one bone, it is a blemish; when it has no [single] bone, it is not a blemish.

מתני' אזן הגדי שהיתה כפולה - it has two ears on one side, an ear within an ear.

בזמן שהוא עצם אחד - they have only one lobe, for the upper lobe is folded into it and joined at the bottom – this is a blemish.

ואם אינה עצם אחד - the lobes are separate at the top – it is not a blemish. The reason was not explained to me; and it is not like an animal with five legs,^[5] for this ear within an ear is not so noticeable.

Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel says: A kid’s tail that resembles a pig’s, or one that does not have three vertebrae^[6] – this is a blemish.

לשל חזיר - it is explained in the Gemara.

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught: If its mouth is balum or its legs are mevulamos – if because of the space, it is not a blemish; if because of the bone, it is a blemish.

גמ' בלום - short.

מבולמות - narrow in width; אנקפלי"ד in la’az^[7].

אם מחמת הריוח - it does not have much room in the mouth, neither in the bone nor in the flesh of the lips – it is not a blemish.

ואם מחמת העצם - the lips open well, but the jaws are pressed tight against each other so that it cannot open them; so when it eats or bleats it widens the lips and the bone shows like a bulge – this is a blemish. And likewise with the legs: its legs are short “because of the space” – the bone and the flesh of the soles are of one measure, and they were not so wide – it is not a blemish; but “because of the bone” – the bone is short and the flesh widens below and juts outward – this is a blemish. My teacher^[8] read מחמת הרוח, explaining it as I have explained; but to correct the wording is beyond my ability. And some read מחמת הריוח, as I have explained. Another explanation: “its mouth is balum” – swollen; if “because of the wind” – it swelled on account of דיצא – it is not a blemish, for it becomes healthy again; but if “because of the bone” – it is very thick – this is a blemish. And in the Tosefta of Bechoros (ch. 4) we found: because of the wind, it is not a blemish; because of itself, it is a blemish.

If its ears are doubled – with one cartilage, it is a blemish; with two cartilages, it is not a blemish.

חסחוס - the lobe.

Rabban Gamliel says: A kid’s tail that resembles a pig’s:^[9]

Rav Pappa said: Do not say [it means] a thin one; rather, a round one, even though it is thick.

קטינא - very thin.

כריכא - round; for a lamb’s tail is wider than it is thick.

Or one that does not have three vertebrae, etc.:^[10]

Rav Huna said: In a kid – two is a blemish, three is not a blemish; in a lamb – three is a blemish, four is not a blemish.

בגדי שתים - vertebrae in the tail – it is a blemish.

They challenged [from a beraisa]: In a kid – one is a blemish, two is not a blemish; in a lamb – two is a blemish, three is not a blemish.

This is a refutation of Rav Huna.

And Rav Huna – the Mishnah misled him: he thought, since the first clause is about a kid, the last clause is also about a kid; but it is not so – the first clause is about a kid, and the last clause about a lamb.

רישא - a kid’s ear; the last clause: it does not have three vertebrae.

MISHNAH: Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus says: One that has a wart in its eye; one whose bone of the foreleg or hind leg was chipped; one whose bone of the mouth was dislocated;

מתני' יבלת - ורואי"ן (a wart).

ושנפגם עצם ידו - so that the blemish is noticeable; and earlier [the Mishnah] dealt with a broken [bone].

עצמו שבפיו - [the bone] in which the teeth are set, above the gums; for if it were the gums themselves, even if they were chipped or cut away, [the same would apply].

one eye large and one small, one ear large and one small – by sight, but not by measure.

במראה - it is visible to everyone that this one is larger than that one.

אבל לא במדה - if it is noticeable only by measuring, it is not a blemish.

Rabbi Yehudah says: [If] of its two testicles, one is as large as twice its fellow. But the Sages did not agree with him.

ולא הודו לו - this refers to Rabbi Yehudah.

GEMARA: Is that to say that a wart is a blemish?

But they contrasted it: And these are the ones on account of which one may not slaughter, neither in the Mikdash nor outside: one with scabs, and one with a wart!^[11]

גמ' לא במקדש - for it is disqualified from the altar.

ולא במדינה - for it is not a complete blemish, that it could be slaughtered on account of it outside.

גרב - scabs.

And can you hold so? Why, “a wart”^[12] is written in the Torah (Vayikra 22)!

ותסברא - that it is not a blemish?

והא כתיב יבלת באורייתא - among the complete blemishes: (Vayikra 22) blind, or broken, or cut, or a wart.

Rather, there is no difficulty: this one is on its body, that one in its eye.

בגופו - it is not a complete blemish.

Now, the verse is unspecified – what difference is there between on its body and in its eye?

והא קרא סתמא - is written.

Rather, there is no difficulty: this one is where it has bone, that one where it has no bone.

אלא - on its body too it is a blemish. And there is no contradiction between the verse, which implies that even on the body it is a blemish, and the Mishnah, which implies that it is a complete blemish only in the eye, while on the body it is a blemish to disqualify [from the altar] but not to [permit] slaughter: the verse speaks where it has bone; and the Mishnah here, that in the eye it is a blemish, and the other Mishnah, that on the body it is not a blemish, speak where it has no bone.

The verse – where it has bone; the Mishnah – where it has no bone: in its eye it is a blemish, on its body it is not a blemish.

And where it has no bone, on its body, is it disqualified?!

ולית ביה עצם בגופו פסולה הוי - said in astonishment.

Why, it is a mere wart, as we learned: Rabbi Eliezer says: Those with warts are disqualified in a person and valid in an animal!^[13]

תלתול - pieces of flesh hanging from it, like people who have small strips of flesh beside their ears, and they are from their mother’s womb.

פסולין באדם - if he is a kohen he is disqualified from the service, for we require [a kohen] alike to the seed of Aharon.

Rather, both are in its eye, and there is no difficulty: this one in the black, that one in the white.

אלא אידי ואידי בעין - this refers to the Mishnah, not to the verse.

But there are no blemishes in the white!^[14]

והא אין מומין בלבן - and even in the Mikdash it is fit to be slaughtered.

Rather, both are in the white, and Reish Lakish said: There is no difficulty: this one where it has hair, that one where it has no hair.

אידי ואידי - what it teaches, one may not slaughter in the Mikdash or outside – in the white; and also what it teaches, there are no blemishes in the white – both refer to a wart among the blemishes in the white. [Where] it has hair it is unsightly, and about that the Mishnah teaches one may not slaughter, neither in the Mikdash nor outside.

והא דקתני אין מומין בלבן בדלית בה שער - and our Mishnah, which [says] it is a complete blemish, is, as we established, in the black, and also where it has no bone; and the verse, where it has bone. For if our Mishnah here were where it has bone, why does it specify “in its eye”?

One eye large, etc.:^[15]

It was taught: Large – like a calf’s; small – like a goose’s.

One ear large, etc.:^[16]

And the Rabbis – up to how much [do they permit]?

ורבנן - who did not agree with him about the testicles: how small may the other one be for them to declare it fit?

It was taught: Others say: Even if it is only double the second one, it is valid.^[17]

MISHNAH: A calf’s tail that does not reach the arkov – the Sages said: All young calves are so; as long as they grow, [their tails] stretch.

מתני' לערקוב - to the joint of the thigh; and in the Gemara it explains which arkov.

כל מרבית עגלים - the whole way of calves’ growth is so, that their tails reach the arkov; therefore less than that is a blemish; and as they grow, [their tails] keep stretching further down.

Which arkov did they mean?

Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus says: The arkov in the middle of the thigh.

שבאמצע הירך - it is explained in the Gemara.

Tosfos

פיו בלום - Rashi (the Kuntres)^[18] explained in his second explanation, “swollen,” etc.; [but it is right] as in his first explanation, which explained balum as “short”; for balum is an expression of closing, as in its nose is balum later in perek Mumin Elu (43b), which means its nostrils are blocked, as Rashi explains there; and as in he closes himself (bolem) at a time of quarrel in perek Kisuy Hadam (Chullin 89a).

והא אין מומין בלבן - And although this is a dispute above (38b), we established above that our Mishnah follows the one who says there are no blemishes in the white.

אלא אידי ואידי בשחור גרסינן - This is our reading [“both are in the black”], and we do not read “in the white.”^[19]

Notes

1. 1. These words close Rashi’s comment גמ' מאי תנא on the previous amud (Bechoros 40a): the beraisa was taught because it resembles this case, which it introduces with the word ומעשה, “and there was a case.”
2. 2. This continues the beraisa begun on the previous amud about blemishes of the lips and jaw. A mum (blemish) is a bodily defect that disqualifies an animal from the altar; a firstborn animal (bechor) with a permanent blemish may be slaughtered and eaten by the kohen anywhere.
3. 3. This Mishnah is in the chapter Mumin Elu, which lists the blemishes that disqualify a kohen from the Temple service.
4. 4. A kohen must look like the rest of Aharon’s descendants, so any irregularity in his appearance disqualifies him, even where the same thing would not be a blemish in an animal.
5. 5. An animal with an extra limb, such as a fifth leg, is blemished. Rashi distinguishes: an ear within an ear is not so noticeable.
6. 6. Chulyos are the vertebrae, the bony joints of the tail.
7. 7. La’az is the vernacular, Old French, in which Rashi often glosses difficult words.
8. 8. “The teacher” (המורה) is Rashi’s teacher.
9. 9. The Mishnah taught in the name of Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel that a kid’s tail resembling a pig’s is a blemish. A kid’s tail is normally flat and broad; the Gemara explains in what way it must resemble a pig’s.
10. 10. This is the last clause of his words: a tail that lacks three vertebrae is a blemish. The Mishnah does not say whether this refers to a kid or to a lamb.
11. 11. A Mishnah lists blemishes that are not complete blemishes: they disqualify the animal from the altar, but do not permit a bechor to be slaughtered and eaten outside.
12. 12. Vayikra 22:22 lists “blind, or broken, or cut, or a wart” among the blemishes that disqualify an offering.
13. 13. A taltul is a hanging piece of flesh. Rabbi Eliezer holds that it disqualifies a kohen because of his appearance, but it is not a blemish in an animal.
14. 14. Earlier (38b) the Tannaim disagree whether a defect in the white of the eye can be a blemish; our Mishnah was established as following the view that there are no blemishes in the white (see Tosfos).
15. 15. The Mishnah counts it a blemish when one eye is larger than the other, if this is visible to the eye and not only by measuring. The beraisa now gives the measure of “large” and “small.”
16. 16. One ear visibly larger than the other is a blemish. As Rashi explains, the next question, “and the Rabbis – up to how much?”, refers to Rabbi Yehudah’s ruling on the testicles, with which the Sages disagreed.
17. 17. “Others” (אחרים) is a name for a Tanna in a beraisa; the Gemara in Horayos (13b) identifies him as Rabbi Meir.
18. 18. Kuntres is the Tosfos’ name for Rashi’s commentary.
19. 19. Our printed Gemara reads “rather, both are in the white”; Tosfos read “both are in the black,” since the Gemara had just objected that there are no blemishes in the white.