Bekhorot 75

כמלא נקב של עול

[a size] as large as a hole of a yoke!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which a peg is fastened in order to bind the straps (v. Kel. XVII, 12) . Consequently we see that the carpenter's borer is the size of a sela' and, therefore, what is the difference between Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai?');">¹</span>

אישתיק

- He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Tahlifa.');">²</span>

וא"ל רב חסדא

was silent.

שמא מקדח וחיסומו שנינו

Said R'Hisda to him: perhaps what we have learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'borer' referred to above in connection with the skull.');">³</span>

וא"ל רב תחליפא

refers to the borer and [the removal of] what stopped up [the hole].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The borer being narrow below and wide at the top, some scraping away of the hole is necessary in order that it may enter and come out freely. This would therefore make the hole larger than a sela' and, therefore, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel would differ in the extent of the diminution required in the case of the skull. Incidentally this would solve R. Oshaiah's query above.');">⁴</span>

לא תימא שמא אלא

Thereupon R'Tahlifa said to him: You should not say 'perhaps', it certainly refers to the borer and [the removal of] what stopped up [the hole], and you can confidently accept this explanation as we accept the evidence of Hezekiah the father of Ikkesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though his statement which follows appeared difficult, every effort was made to explain it, since it was known to have been reliable in substance.');">⁵</span>

ודאי מקדח וחיסומו

For it has been taught: This which follows is the evidence given by Hezekiah the father of Ikkesh before Rabban Gamaliel in Jabneh which he reported in the name of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder: Wherever an earthen vessel has no inside,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., is not hollowed out so as to be capable of containing something.');">⁶</span>

צריך להתלות עליה כחזקיה אבי עקש

it is not regarded as having an independent back.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a back for distinction', i.e., its back (outside) cannot become unclean independently of its inside or vice versa. The inside here would mean the part which is customarily used (Tosaf.) .');">⁷</span>

דתנן זו עדות העיד חזקיה אבי עקש לפני רבן גמליאל ביבנה שאמר משום רבן גמליאל הזקן

If then the inside becomes unclean, the back becomes unclean, and if the back becomes unclean, the inside becomes unclean.

כל שאין לו תוך בכלי חרס אין לו אחורים לחליקה

But did not the Divine Law teach that the uncleanness of an earthen vessel depends on the inside?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Lev. XI, 32.');">⁸</span>

נטמא תוכו נטמא גבו נטמא גבו נטמא תוכו

If it has an inside [receiving uncleanness] then the vessel becomes unclean, but if it has no inside, then it does not become unclean? - Said R'Isaac B'Abin: This is what is meant: Wherever an earthen vessel has no inside in a corresponding case with a rinsing vessel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a wooden vessel, as Scripture writes: And every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water. (Lev. XV, 12.) A suggestion that the vessel referred to here is a metal one is refuted by Rashi.');">⁹</span>

כלי חרס בתוכו תלה רחמנא אית ליה תוך איטמי ליה לית ליה תוך לא איטמי ליה

it has no back which is treated independently.

א"ר יצחק בר אבין הכי קאמר

If then its inside becomes unclean, its back [outside] becomes unclean, and if its back becomes unclean, then its inside is unclean.

כל שאין לו תוך בכלי חרס כנגדו בכלי שטף אין לו אחורים לחליקה

What need however is there to make it depend on an earthen vessel?

נטמא תוכו נטמא גבו נטמא גבו נטמא תוכו

Let him say as follows: Wherever in the case of a rinsing vessel there is no inside, there is no back which is treated independently? - He informs us of this very thing, that if it has an inside, then it is like an earthen vessel, as much as [to say]: As in the case of an earthen vessel, if the inside becomes unclean, then the back becomes unclean, and if the back becomes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. 'if the back does not become'.');">¹⁰</span>

למה לי למיתלייה בכלי חרס

unclean, the inside does not become unclean, so it is in the case of a rinsing vessel, i the inside becomes unclean then the back becomes unclean, and if the back becomes unclean, the inside does not become unclean.

נימא

Now we may readily grant this in the case of an earthen vessel, the Divine Law having revealed explicitly in that connection that uncleanness depends on the inside [receiving uncleanness]; but as regards a rinsing vessel, did the Divine Law reveal explicitly that uncleanness depends on the inside [receiving uncleanness]? - If we were referring to a case of biblical uncleanness, it would indeed be so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the outside of a rinsing vessel becomes unclean, the inside too becomes unclean, whether it is capable of containing or not.');">¹¹</span>

כל שאין לו תוך בכלי שטף אין לו אחורים לחליקה

We are dealing here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When we say that where it is capable of containing and the outside becomes unclean, the inside does not become unclean as in the case of an earthen vessel, and where it is incapable of containing, Hezekiah requires to inform us that there is no distinction as regards the back and inside and whichever becomes unclean, the other also becomes unclean.');">¹²</span>

הא קמ"ל דיש לו תוך הרי הוא ככלי חרס

however with unclean liquids [which have come in contact with a rinsing vessel], the resulting uncleanness being due to a rabbinic enactment.

מה כלי חרס נטמא תוכו נטמא גבו לא נטמא תוכו לא נטמא גבו

For we have learnt: If the back [outside] of a vessel has been defiled by unclean liquids, its back becomes unclean, but its inside, its edge,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or its basin (Rashi) .');">¹³</span>

אף כלי שטף נטמא תוכו נטמא גבו לא נטמא תוכו לא נטמא גבו

its handle and its projectors remain clean.

בשלמא כלי חרס גלי ביה רחמנא תוכו אלא כלי שטף מי גלי ביה רחמנא תוכו

If its inside however becomes unclean, the whole vessel becomes unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kelim XXV, 6.');">¹⁴</span>

אי בטומאה דאורייתא ה"נ הכא במאי עסקינן בטומאת משקין דרבנן

for according to the biblical law, food cannot make a vessel unclean nor can unclean liquid make a vessel unclean, and only the Rabbis have declared uncleanness on account of the liquid of a zab and a zabah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One afflicted with gonorrhoea. His or her spittle is one of the direct causes of levitical impurity and it makes a vessel unclean biblically, whereas other unclean liquids cannot do so, but only make the vessel rabbinically unclean.');">¹⁵</span>

דתנן

The Rabbis consequently declared it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A rinsing vessel.');">¹⁶</span>

כלי שנטמא אחוריו במשקין אחוריו טמאין תוכו אגנו אזנו וידיו טהורין

to have uncleanness of an earthen vessel but they did not declare it [in this particular instance] to be biblically unclean on its own account, the Rabbis differentiating in order that terumah and holy objects might not be burnt on its account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus not causing unnecessary burning of holy things.');">¹⁷</span>

נטמא תוכו כולו טמא

But if this be so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the uncleanness here be a rabbinic enactment and therefore a distinction between the inside and the back was made, just as in the case of an earthen vessel, in order not to burn holy things unnecessarily.');">¹⁸</span>

דמדאורייתא אין אוכל מטמא כלי ואין משקה מטמא כלי ורבנן הוא דגזור משום משקה זב וזבה

where there is no inside, let there also be a distinction made?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where the back becomes unclean, the inside does not become unclean.');">¹⁹</span>

הלכך שויוה רבנן כטומאה דכלי חרס ולא שויוה רבנן כטומאה דאורייתא דנפשיה

Since where there is an inside, the Rabbis differentiated, it will indeed be known that where there is no inside the uncleanness is a rabbinic enactment [and that therefore terumah must not be burnt in consequence of it].

עבדו רבנן היכירא כי היכי דלא לישרוף עליה תרומה וקדשים

But with regard to a rinsing vessel, where there is no inside, is it susceptible of becoming unclean according to the biblical law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there should be need to take a precaution in case an unclean liquid comes in contact with it. Moreover, it states above that if the case were one of biblical uncleanness etc. The objection therefore arises that where it is not capable of containing there can be no uncleanness biblically!');">²⁰</span>

אי הכי אין לו תוך נמי ליעביד נמי היכירא

For we do not require [in order that a vessel may become unclean] that it should resemble a sack<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture saying. 'It shall be unclean whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin or sack (Lev. XI, 32) .');">²¹</span>

כיון דעבדו היכירא ביש לו תוך ידיע דאין לו תוך דרבנן

that is [to say], As a sack is handled either fully or empty, so anything [in order t receive uncleanness] must be in a condition to be handled either full or empty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., capable of containing.');">²²</span>

ואין לו תוך בכלי שטף דאורייתא בר קבולי טומאה הוא

- It refers to those [articles] which are fit to be used as seats.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As couches, stools or chairs.');">²³</span>

דומיא דשק בעינן מה שק מיטלטל מלא וריקן אף כל מיטלטל מלא וריקן

If this be so, then why not also declare an earthen vessel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without an inside, but fit to be used as a chair etc.');">²⁴</span>

בהנך דחזו למדרסות אי הכי חרס נמי

unclean [rabbinically]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the view of R. Isaac b. Abin above.');">²⁵</span>

אין מדרס בכלי חרס

- Midras<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Causing uncleanness by treading, lying or sitting on it.');">²⁶</span>

רב פפא אמר

is not employed with an earthen vessel, [for fear of breaking it].

מקדח גדול שנינו מכלל דמקדח סתם זוטרא נמי מכסלע

R'Papa says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difficulty you raised above concerning Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel apparently holding the same view, can be solved in the following manner.');">²⁷</span>

הניחא לרבי מאיר אלא לרבנן מאי איכא למימר

The Mishnah above states distinctly a 'large borer', from which we can deduce that an ordinary borer is smaller than a sela'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And Beth Shammai in connection with the passage above referring to the loss in the skull mean by the term 'borer' the ordinary one, which is smaller than a sela'. Therefore the measurements of the two schools are not alike.');">²⁸</span>

דתנן

This would indeed hold good according to the view of R'Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who explains below that a physician's borer is meant in the statement referring to the size of the shrinkage in the skull. This is less than a sela', and thus there is a difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.');">²⁹</span>

באיזה מקדח אמרו בקטן של רופאים דברי רבי מאיר

but according to the view of the Rabbis, what answer would you give?

וחכ"א

For we have learnt: To what kind of borer did Beth Shammai refer?

בגדול של לשכה

To a small one, belonging to doctors.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which the head is bored when a wound has to be examined.');">³⁰</span>

ולרבי מאיר מי ניחא

The Sages said however: They refer to the large [carpenter's] borer kept in the Temple cell.

הוה ליה מקולי ב"ש ומחומרי ב"ה

But is it satisfactory even according to the view of R'Meir?

ואנן דתנן תנן דלא תנן לא תנן

Would this not then be a case where the ruling of Beth Shammai would be easier<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Beth Shammai would then hold that a smaller portion is required in order to free the skull from uncleanness of ohel, whereas Beth Hillel would demand a greater decrease.');">³¹</span>

אמר רב נחמן

and the ruling of Beth Hillel severer; and [as regards examples of this kind of ruling] what we have learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In 'Ed. V, I, where only six cases are enumerated in which Beth Shammai are more lenient in their rulings than Beth Hillel.');">³²</span>

סלע נירונית שנינו כמקדח גדול סלע סתם זוטרא ממקדח סתם:

we accept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we have learnt'.');">³³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הריס של עין שניקב שנפגם שנסדק

and what we have not learnt in the Mishnah we do not accept! - Said R'Nahman:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Explaining the view of R. Meir.');">³⁴</span>

הרי בעינו דק תבלול חלזון נחש עצב

A Neronian sela' is distinctly mentioned above.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah referring to the light-hole etc.');">³⁵</span>

איזהו תבלול לבן הפוסק בסירא ונכנס בשחור

A Neronian sela' is as large as a large borer, but an ordinary sela' is even smaller than an ordinary borer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore Beth Shammai, requiring a shrinkage in the skull of the size of a borer before it can be exempt from the impurity of overshadowing would be severer in their ruling than Beth Hillel, who only require the decrease of the size of an ordinary sela', which is even less than the size of an ordinary borer.');">³⁶</span>

שחור נכנס בלבן אינו מום:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ONE WHOSE RIS [EYELID] IS PERFORATED, NIPPED OR SLIT, OR IF IT HAS A CATARACT OR A TEBALLUL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Explained below in the GEMARA:');">³⁷</span> HALAZON [SNAIL-SHAPED], NAHASH [SNAKE-SHAPED]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara explains this below.');">³⁸</span> AND A [BERRY-SHAPED] GROWTH ON THE EYE, [IS DISQUALIFIED]. WHAT DOES TEBALLUL MEAN? THE WHITE OF THE EYE BREAKING THROUGH THE RING AND ENCROACHING ON THE BLACK, BUT IF THE BLACK BREAKS THROUGH THE RING AND INVADES THE WHITE, IT IS NOT A [DISQUALIFYING] BLEMISH, [BECAUSE THERE ARE NO DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES AS REGARDS THE WHITE OF THE EYE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only the black part is looked upon as the eye. Added with Sh. Mek.');">³⁹</span>