Bekhorot 76

Chapter 76

א <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי הריס אמר רב פפא תורא ברא דעינא: דק תבלול: ת"ר דק משוקע הרי זה מום צף אינו מום
1 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is the meaning of the RIS?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in the Mishnah above as being a blemish.');"><sup>1</sup></span> R'Papa said: The eyelid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the outer row of the eye'.');"><sup>2</sup></span> OR IF IT HAS A CATARACT OR A TEBALLUL. Our Rabbis taught: A cataract which causes the eye to sink is a [disqualifying] blemish, but if it is floating, it is not a disqualifying blemish. But has not the opposite been taught? - This offers no difficulty. 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>
ב והתניא איפכא לא קשיא הא בשחור הא בלבן והא אין מומין בלבן אלא הא בדוק לבן הא בדוק שחור
2 But surely blemishes in the white of the eye do not disqualify! One statement then refers to a white spot, and the other to a black spot. For Rabbah B'Bar Hana said: R'Oshaiah of Usha told me, A black spot which causes the eye to sink is a [disqualifying] blemish, but if it is floating it is not a [disqualifying] blemish. A white spot if it causes the eye to sink is not a disqualifying blemish, but if it is floating, it is a disqualifying blemish. And mnemonic for this is,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By which to remember which of the two affections of the eye is considered a blemish.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג דאמר רבה בר בר חנה סח לי יאשיה דמן אושא דק שחור משוקע הרי זה מום צף אינו מום דק לבן משוקע אינו מום צף הרי זה מום וסימניך ברקא:
3 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> HALAZON, NAHASH AND A GROWTH IN THE EYE. 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. Never had I passed in front of him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He being a great man of his generation.');"><sup>6</sup></span> Once, however, I passed in front of him.
ד חלזון נחש ועצב: איבעיא להו חלזון הוא נחש או דלמא חלזון או נחש
4 He said to me: Sit down my son, sit. This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He possessed a firstling which had a halazon.');"><sup>7</sup></span> halazon is a permanent blemish, in consequence of which [the animal] may be slaughtered and this is what the Sages called nahash. And although the Sages have said: A man must not examine his own [animals] to discover their blemishes, yet he is allowed to teach the rule to his pupils and the pupils are permitted to examine.
ה ת"ש דאמר רבה בר בר חנה סח לי רבי יוחנן בן אלעזר זקן אחד היה בשכונתינו ור"ש בן יוסי לקוניא שמו ומימי לא עברתי לפניו פעם אחת עברתי לפניו אמר לי שב בני שב חלזון זה מום קבוע לשחוט עליו וזהו נחש שאמרו חכמים
5 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> - He too came to us and taught it before the case arose. WHAT DOES TEBALLUL MEAN? THE WHITE OF THE EYE BREAKING THROUGH THE RING AND ENCROACHING ON THE BLACK. Whose opinion does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah which states that a blemish does not disqualify the white part of the eye.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ו ואע"פ שאמרו אין אדם רואה מומין לעצמו אבל מורה הלכה לתלמידים ותלמידים מורין לו
6 represent? - It is that of R'Jose. For it was taught: If the white of the eye encroaches on the black or if the black encroaches on the white, it is a disqualifying blemish.
ז והאמר ר' אבא אמר רב הונא כל תלמיד חכם שמורה הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו אין שומעין לו איהו נמי מורה ובא הוה מעיקרא:
7 This is the view of R'Meir. 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. Said Rab: What is the reason of R'Jose?
ח איזהו תבלול לבן הפוסק את הסירא: מתני׳ מני רבי יוסי היא דתניא לבן ונכנס בשחור שחור ונכנס בלבן ה"ז מום דברי ר"מ ר' יוסי אומר לבן ונכנס בשחור ה"ז מום שחור ונכנס בלבן אינו מום שאין מומין בלבן
8 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> [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> And what is the reason of R'Meir? - Said Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Added with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>12</sup></span> What is the meaning of teballul? - Anything which disturbs [mebalbel] the action of the eye. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>HAWARWAR [WHITE SPOTS]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or a membrane (Gershom) .');"><sup>13</sup></span> ON THE CORNEA AND WATER CONSTANTLY DRIPPING FROM THE EYE, [ARE DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES].
ט אמר רב מ"ט דרבי יוסי דכתיב (תהלים עג, ז) יצא מחלב עינימו תרבא דעינא איקרי עינימו סתמא לא איקרי ור"מ מ"ט מה לשון תבלול דבר המבלבל את העינים:
9 WHAT DO WE MEAN BY A PERMANENT HAWARWAR? IF IT REMAINED FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHTY DAYS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without diminishing from what it was originally.');"><sup>14</sup></span> 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> 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> FROM A FIELD SUFFICIENTLY WATERED BY RAIN, OR FRESH [FODDER] AND DRY [FODDER] FROM A FIELD REQUIRING ARTIFICIAL IRRIGATION, [IT IS A PERMANENT BLEMISH, IF NOT CURED]. 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>
י <strong><big>מתני'</big></strong> חורוור והמים הקבועין איזהו חורוור הקבוע כל ששהה שמונים יום ר' חנניא בן אנטיגנוס אמר בודקין אותו ג' פעמים בתוך שמונים יום
10 IT IS NOT A BLEMISH. UNLESS IT EATS DRY [FODDER] AFTER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek. cur. edd. 'and after'.');"><sup>18</sup></span> THE FRESH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if the animal is not cured then, it is a blemish.');"><sup>19</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What opinion does our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which says that a permanent hawarwar must remain so for eighty days.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יא ואלו הן מים הקבועין אכל לח ויבש של גשמים לח ויבש של שלחים או אכל היבש ואח"כ הלח אינו מום עד שיאכל הלח ואח"כ היבש:
11 represent? - It is that of R'Judah. For it has been taught: A permanent hawarwar must remain for forty days, and water constantly dripping [from the eye] must remain so for eighty days.
יב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מתני' מני רבי יהודה היא דתניא חורוור קבוע ארבעים יום ומים הקבועים שמונים יום דברי ר"מ ורבי יהודה אומר חורוור שמונים יום
12 This is the view of R'Meir. But R'Judah says: A permanent hawarwar must remain for eighty days. 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> but not fresh [fodder] and dry from a field requiring irrigation. Or if it ate dry [fodder] followed by fresh, it is not a blemish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is not the way of curing it.');"><sup>22</sup></span> unless it ate dry [fodder] after fresh.
יג ואלו הן מים הקבועים אכל לח ויבש של בית השלחין או שאכל יבש ואח"כ אכל הלח אין מום עד שיאכל יבש אחר הלח וישנו ג' חדשים
13 And this [treatment] must last for three months.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal eating the fresh fodder and then the dry for the period mentioned.');"><sup>23</sup></span> 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> - 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>
יד והא תרוייהו תננהי אכל לח ויבש של גשמים לח ויבש של בית השלחין
14 [IF IT ATE] FROM A FIELD REQUIRING IRRIGATION, it is not a blemish, [EVEN IF IT DID NOT BECOME CURED]. [And even in the case of a field] watered by rain, IF IT ATE DRY [FODDER] AND AFTERWARDS FRESH IT IS NOT A BLEMISH, UNLESS IT ATE DRY [FODDER] AFTER FRESH.'
טו חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אכל לח ויבש של גשמים ה"ז מום בית השלחין אינו מום ודגשמים נמי אכל יבש ואח"כ אכל לח אינו מום עד שיאכל יבש אחר הלח
15 And this treatment must last for three months.' 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> 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>
טז וישנו ג' חדשים איני והתניא והא רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב יצחק בר אשיאן אדר וניסן לח אלול ותשרי יבש אימא אדר וחצי ניסן לח אלול וחצי תשרי יבש:
16 - Read rather as follows: [In] Adar and a half of Nisan fresh [fodder], [in] Elul and half of Tishr dry.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., three months are required in all.');"><sup>28</sup></span> 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> 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> or [does the Mishnah mean that] we give it to eat fresh [fodder] together with dry in the period of fresh [fodder]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 7.');"><sup>31</sup></span> - Come and hear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A solution, that the fresh fodder we give to eat in Adar and Nisan and the dry in Elul and Tishri.');"><sup>32</sup></span> For R'Idi B'Abin reported in the name of R'Isaac B'Ashian: [In] Adar and Nisan [it is given] fresh [fodder] and [in] Elul and Tishri dry. 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>
יז איבעיא להו לח בזמן לח ויבש בזמן היבש או דלמא לח ויבש בזמן הלח
17 And how much [of this] do we give it to eat daily? - R'Johanan reported in the name of R'Phinehas B'Aruba: The size of a dry fig. Said 'Ulla: In the Palestinian colleges<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the West'.');"><sup>34</sup></span> it was asked: Does the amount mentioned refer only to the animal's first meal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which it eats daily as a cure.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
יח תא שמע דאמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב יצחק בר אשיאן אדר וניסן לח אלול ותשרי יבש דלמא פירי דאלול ותשרי מאכילנא ליה באדר וניסן
18 
יט וכמה מאכילין אותו אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי פנחס בן ערובא כגרוגרת אמר רבא בעי במערבא כגרוגרות בסעודה ראשונה
19 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter