Bekhorot 76
דק משוקע הרי זה מום צף אינו מום
One statement refers to the black part of the eye, and the other case to the white.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first impression was that the passage referred to the two parts of the eye.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
דאמר רבה בר בר חנה סח לי יאשיה דמן אושא
barka.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An affection of the eye-sight occasioned by lightning which is white and cataract and similarly the floating white spot in the eye is a disqualifying blemish.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
דק לבן משוקע אינו מום צף הרי זה מום
A query was put forward: Does [the Mishnah mean that] HALAZON is the same thing as NAHASH or does it mean halazon or nahash? - Come and hear: For Rabbah B'Bar Hana said: R'Johanan B'Eleazar told me: A certain old man [a priest] lived in our quarter whose name was R'Simeon B'Jose B'Lekunia.
ת"ש דאמר רבה בר בר חנה סח לי רבי יוחנן בן אלעזר
But surely it is not so! For did not R'Abba say that R'Huna reported in the name of Rab: Wherever a scholar comes before us and teaches a [new] rule, if he enunciated it before a practical case arose for the application of the rule, then we listen to him, but if not, we do not listen to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is on account of the case that he is induced to pronounce the new rule. And here also how can we listen to him when he says that the animal has a permanent blemish?');"><sup>8</sup></span>
כל תלמיד חכם שמורה הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו אין שומעין לו
R'Jose says: If the white encroaches on the black it is a blemish, whereas if the black of the eye encroaches on the white, it is not a blemish, for blemishes do not disqualify in the white of the eye.
איזהו תבלול לבן הפוסק את הסירא:
Scripture says: Their eyes stand forth from fatness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LXXIII, 7. The wicked man has become degenerate because of the excessive fatness in his eye, and the fatness of the eye is in the white part.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
מתני׳ מני
[The white of the eye] is called the fat of the eye, but not simply their eyes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The white part has therefore a qualification, 'fat', implying that it is not actually the eye. R. Jose therefore maintains that a blemish does not disqualify in the white part of the eye.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
דכתיב
R'HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAID: WE MUST EXAMINE IT THREE TIMES IN THE EIGHTY DAYS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And failing this examination, even if the white spots are found on the eightieth day, they are not considered a blemish, as probably during this period the defect disappeared and has now returned. This defect would, therefore, be a natural thing.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
(תהלים עג, ז) יצא מחלב עינימו תרבא דעינא איקרי עינימו סתמא לא איקרי
AND THE FOLLOWING ARE CASES OF CONSTANT DRIPPING FROM THE EYE [AND HOW TO TEST ITS PERMANENCY]: IF IT ATE [FOR A CURE] FRESH [FODDER] AND DRY [FODDER]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'dry' grass which grows in Tishri, the fresh grass (lit., 'moist') growing in Nisan.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
מה לשון תבלול דבר המבלבל את העינים:
IF IT ATE DRY [FODDER] FIRST AND THEN FRESH [FODDER]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And although it was not cured, it is not a blemish, as this is not the way to cure the animal.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
דתניא
And the following are cases of permanent hawarwar [and how to test their permanency]: if it ate fresh [fodder] with dry [fodder] from a field sufficiently watered by rain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is for the purpose of curing the animal.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
אכל לח ויבש של בית השלחין או שאכל יבש ואח"כ אכל הלח אין מום עד שיאכל יבש אחר הלח
But have we not learnt both [kinds of fields]: IF IT ATE FRESH [FODDER] AND DRY [FODDER] FROM A FIELD SUFFICIENTLY WATERED BY RAIN, OF IF IT ATE FRESH [FODDER] AND DRY [FODDER] FROM A FIELD REQUIRING IRRIGATION?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can you say that the Mishnah is the view of R. Judah?');"><sup>24</sup></span>
וישנו ג' חדשים
- There is a lacuna in the Mishnah and it should read thus: IF IT ATE THE FRESH [FODDER] AND DRY [FODDER] FROM A FIELD SUFFICIENTLY WATERED BY RAIN, it is a blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it did not become cured thereby.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
אכל לח ויבש של גשמים ה"ז מום בית השלחין אינו מום
But surely this is not so!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only three months are required for the treatment in order to ascertain whether it is a permanent blemish or a transitory one.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
ודגשמים נמי אכל יבש ואח"כ אכל לח אינו מום עד שיאכל יבש אחר הלח
Has not R'Idi B'Abin reported in the name of R'Isaac B'Ashian: [In] Adar and Nisan [it is given] fresh [fodder], in Elul and Tishri dry [fodder]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We therefore see that more than three months are necessary for the treatment.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
איני
The following query was put forward: [Does the Mishnah mean that] the fresh [fodder] [given to the firstling to eat for a cure] must be in the period of fresh [fodder]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in Adar and Nisan.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
והתניא
and, similarly, the dry in the period of dry,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,in Elul and Tishri, and we do not slaughter the firstling until the 'whole summer has passed; thus the animal is tested with both foods.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
אדר וחצי ניסן לח אלול וחצי תשרי יבש:
It may be, however, that this passage means that the [dry] produce of Elul and Tishri is given to the animal to eat in Adar and Nisan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is consequently no proof here that the foods must be given at the particular periods of their growth.');"><sup>33</sup></span>