Bekhorot 77

או דלמא בכל סעודה וסעודה

or to every single meal?

אם תימצי לומר בסעודה ראשונה קודם אכילה או לאחר אכילה

If you say that the first meal is meant, then the question arises, has it to be given before the meal or after the meal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if we adopt the view that every single meal is meant, then it is immaterial whether before or after the meal, since when the second meal arrives, although it is after a meal (the first one) , we still give it this food to eat.');">¹</span>

קודם אכילה ודאי מעלי ליה כסמא לאחר אכילה מאי

- [The treatment]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This does not apply to a firstling to which no redemption money applies, but to consecrated animals in general.');">²</span>

קודם שתיה או לאחר שתיה

before a meal certainly does the animal good, like medicine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is usually given before a meal, and it does more good then than after a meal.');">³</span>

וקודם שתיה ודאי מעלי ליה כשערי לאחר שתיה מאי

But suppose it is given after the meal, what then?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do we regard this as a satisfactory test so that if it is not cured the defect is pronounced a disqualifying blemish.');">⁴</span>

קשור או מותר

Also, do we give it [the treatment] before drinking or after drinking? - It certainly does it more good before drinking, like barley.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being the custom of clean animals to eat barley before drinking, as it does them more good then than after drinking.');">⁵</span>

מותר ודאי מעלי ליה קשור מאי

But suppose it is given after drinking?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do the fresh and dry fodder have any good effect?');">⁶</span>

לבדו או עם חבירו עם חבירו

[When it is given the treatment] should it be tied, or must it be unloosened?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal being more content when it eats in such a condition.');">⁷</span>

ודאי מעלי ליה לבדו מאי

- It certainly does it more good when it is unloosened.

בעיר ובשדה

But suppose it is given when it is tied?

בשדה ודאי מעלי ליה בעיר מאי

Also, [do we give it the treatment] when it is by itself or together with another [animal]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enjoying its food better in company.');">⁸</span>

בעי רב אשי

- It certainly does it more good when it is together with another.

אם תימצי לומר בשדה גינה הסמוכה לעיר מאי

But suppose it is given when it is by itself?

תיקו:

Further, [do we give it the treatment] in the city or in the field?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal preferring the open space of the field.');">⁹</span>

ר"ח בן אנטיגנוס אומר:

- It certainly does it more good in the field.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק

But suppose it is given in the city?

ובלבד שיהו משולשים

R'Ashi inquired: If you will say that [it is preferable] in a field, what is the ruling as regards a garden adjace to a field?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the animal is fed with fodder (fresh and dry) for a cure. Does it enjoy the air here as well as in a field?');">¹⁰</span>

בעי מיניה פנחס אחוה דמר שמואל משמואל

Let all this stand undecided.

אכל ולא איתסי למפרע הוי מומא או מיכן ולהבא הוי מומא

R'HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAYS, etc. Said R'Nahman B'Isaac.

למאי נ"מ למימעל בפדיונו

Provided that the cure is administered at three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is examined for example, to-day and at the end of twenty-six and a half days, then further at the end of twenty-six and a half days and subsequently at the end of the period of twenty-seven days. There is usually a change at these three particular periods, and consequently if he did not examine the animal at these specific times, then we cannot declare that the animal had a permanent blemish. Tosaf, explains it as meaning that the examination must take place at the commencement of the eighty days, at the conclusion of the period and in the middle, a three-fold examination.');">¹¹</span>

אי אמרת למפרע הוי מומא מעיל ואי מיכן ולהבא הוי מומא לא מעיל

intervals [during the eighty days].

מאי

Phinehas the brother of Mar Samuel inquired of Samuel: If the firstling [ate this for a cure] and did not get better, is it considered a blemish retrospectively or is it considered a blemish only from then onwards?

קרי שמואל עליה

What is the practical difference?

(ישעיהו לג, כג) פסחים בזזו (בוז):

For deciding whether the law of Sacrilege applies to redemption money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is used for a secular purpose.');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חוטמו שניקב ושנפגם ושנסדק

[if it is redeemed within the three months].

שפמו שניקבה שנפגמה שנסדקה:

If you say therefore that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The defect of the dripping eye.');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר

is a disqualifying blemish retrospectively, then he commits sacrilege.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he has derived a benefit from the redemption money and he must bring a suitable sacrifice.');">¹⁴</span>

ניקבו חוטמין זה לתוך זה מבחוץ הרי זה מום מבפנים אינו מום:

But if it counts as blemish only from then onwards, there is no Sacrilege.

שפתו שניקבה ושנפגמה ושנסדקה:

What is the ruling? - Samuel applied [to R'Phinehas] the verse: The<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XXXIII, 23.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב פפא תורא ברא דשיפתיה:

lame take the prey.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse states something almost incredible, viz., that the lame take prey. Similarly although Samuel was the much greater scholar then Phinehas, yet the latter asked him a question which he confessed was beyond him.');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חוטין החיצונות שנפגמו ושנגממו הפנימים שנעקרו

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ITS NOSE IS PERFORATED, NIPPED, OR SLIT, OR ITS UPPER LIP PERFORATED, MUTILATED, OR SLIT [THESE ARE DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES].

רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis have taught: If the partitions of the nostrils are perforated right through from the outside, this is a disqualifying blemish, if the perforation is inside,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The partition which divides the nose inside.');">¹⁷</span>

אין בודקין מן התיומת ולפנים ואף לא את התיומת:

it is not considered a blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is in a hidden part.');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר

IF ITS UPPER LIP WHICH IS PERFORATED, MUTILATED, OR SLIT.

התיומת איזהו תיומת מן התיומת ולפנים ותיומת עצמה כלפנים

Said R'Papa: The outer line [edge] of its lip is meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., but not its breadth. ,nuh,');">¹⁹</span>

רבי יהושע בן קפוצאי אומר

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE INCISORS ARE BROKEN OFF OR LEVELLED [TO THE GUM] OR THE MOLARS ARE TORN OUT [COMPLETELY], [THESE ARE DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES IN A FIRSTLING].

אין שוחטין אלא על החיצונות בלבד

BUT R'HANINA B. ANTIGONUS SAID: WE DO NOT EXAMINE BEHIND THE MOLARS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the molars and within', as in those teeth a defect is not recognized either when the animal cats or bleats. The molar is called');">²⁰</span>

רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר

NOR THE MOLARS THEMSELVES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they were completely torn out, as it is not a blemish from the inside.');">²¹</span>

אין משגיחין על התיומת כל עיקר

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis have taught: Which are the molars?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This passage is explained below in the GEMARA:');">²²</span>

מאי קאמר

Inside from the molars, the molars themselves being considered like the inside.

ותו רבי יהושע בן קפוצאי היינו תנא קמא

R'Joshua B'Kapuzai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. Kapusai.');">²³</span>

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני

says: We are permitted to slaughter the firstling in consequence only of [a defect in] the incisors.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the centre of the mouth.');">²⁴</span>

איזהו הפנימית

R'Hanina B'Antigonus says: We pay no attention whatever to the molars.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even for the altar the animal is not disqualified.');">²⁵</span>

מן התיומת ולפנים ותיומת עצמה כלפנים

What does it mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha asking the question, What are the molar teeth? and then proceeding to say, 'From the molars etc'.');">²⁶</span>

בד"א

Moreover, is not the view of R'Joshua B'Kapuzai the same as that of the first Tanna [quoted above]? - There is a lacuna [in the Baraitha] and it should read thus: Which are regarded as the inside teeth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to which the Mishnah says, If they were torn away it is a blemish and if they were broken off it is not a blemish.');">²⁷</span>

שנפגמו ושנגממו אבל נעקרו שוחטין

Inside from the molars, and the molars themselves, are all regarded as the inside teeth.

ר' יהושע בן קפוצאי אומר

When does this rule apply?

אין שוחטין אלא על החיצונות אבל פנימיות שנעקרו מישחט עלייהו לא שחטינן אבל אפסולי מיפסל

When they were broken off or levelled [to the gum], but if they were torn away [completely], we may slaughter [the firstling as a consequence].

ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר

R'Joshua B'Kapuzai says: We must not slaughter [the firstling] except in consequence of the incisors [becoming defective].

אין משגיחין על התיומת כל עיקר ואפי' איפסולי לא איפסיל

But if the molars were torn away [completely], we must not in consequence of this, slaughter [the firstling], though they do disqualify.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal for offering up on the altar, and he must wait until another blemish occurs, after which he may slaughter it.');">²⁸</span>

בעי רב אחדבוי בר אמי

R'Hanina B'Antigonus, however, says: We do not pay any attention whatever to the molar teeth and they do not even disqualify.

יש מחוסר אבר מבפנים או אין מחוסר אבר מבפנים

R'Ahadboi B'Ammi asked: Does [the law of] the loss of a limb apply to what is inside [an animal],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the loss of a kidney or milt.');">²⁹</span>

למאי

or does [the law of] a loss of a limb not apply to the inside [of an animal]?

אי לבכור (דברים טו, כא) פסח או עור כתיב אי לקדשים {ויקרא כג } עורת או שבור כתיב

To what does this query refer?

לאישחוטי ולאיפרוקי לא איבעיא לן

If to firstling, does not Scripture write: 'Lame or blind'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that only open defects are disqualifying blemishes. The verse is in Deut. XV, 21.');">³⁰</span>

כי מיבעיא לן לאיפסולי מאי

If to a sacrificial animal, does not Scripture write: 'Bl or broken'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Again implying that only open defects are regarded as blemishes. The verse is in Lev. XXII, 22.');">³¹</span>

(ויקרא כב, כא) תמים יהיה לרצון אמר רחמנא תמים אין חסרון לא

I am not inquiring as regards slaughtering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A firstling, in consequence of a loss inside the animal.');">³²</span>

או דלמא

or redeeming [a sacrificial offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For to such an extent it would not be a blemish.');">³³</span>

תמים יהיה לרבות כל מום לא יהיה בו מה מום מאבראי אף חסרון מאבראי

My inquiry relates to disqualifying [the animal from the altar]. "What is the ruling?

ת"ש

The Divine Law says: It shall be perfect to be accepted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the altar. The verse is in Lev. XXII, 21.');">³⁴</span>

(ויקרא ז, ד) ואת שתי הכליות ולא בעל כוליא אחת ולא בעל שלש כוליות

This implies that if it is 'perfect' then it is valid [as a sacrifice], but if there anything missing [even inside the animal], then it is not so.

ותניא אידך

Or shall I say while the text 'It shall be perfect be accepted', is inclusive, the text 'There shall be no blemishes therein' [informs us] that as a blemish is fro the outside, so anything must be missing from the outside [in order to disqualify the animal]? - Come and hear: [Scripture says]: 'And the two kidneys'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 4 in connection with sacrifices.');">³⁵</span>

יסירנה לרבות בעל כוליא אחת

implying that an animal with one kidney or with three kidneys [is not offered up].

סברוה

And another [Baraitha] taught, [Scripture says]: 'He shall remove it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Emphasis on the singular 'it'.');">³⁶</span>

דכ"ע אין בריה באחת דהא מיחסר חסר

which includes a sacrificial animal possessing one kidney only, [as fit for the altar].

לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר

Now, all [the authorities concerned here] hold that a living creature is not created with one kidney only, and in the case here there was a definite loss of a kidney.

חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון ומר סבר

Shall it therefore be said that this is the point at issue, that one Master hol that a deficiency inside the animal is considered a loss [which can disqualify], whereas the other Master holds that a deficiency inside the animal is not considered a deficiency [to disqualify]? - Said R'Hiyya B'Joseph: All [the authorities] agree that a living creature can be created with one kidney only, and the deficiency inside is considered a deficiency; and still there is no difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards a contradiction between the two Baraithas.');">³⁷</span>

חסרון מבפנים לא שמיה חסרון

In one case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha which disqualifies an animal where there is the loss of a kidney.');">³⁸</span>

אמר רב חייא בר יוסף

we are dealing with an animal which was created with two [kidneys] and there was a loss [of a kidney], whereas in the other case, it speaks of where it was created originally with one kidney only [and therefore the animal was not disqualified from the altar].

דכ"ע יש בריה באחת וחסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון

But is not the case [of one kidney]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha where it says that an animal with one kidney or three kidneys is disqualified.');">³⁹</span>

ולא קשיא כאן כשנבראה בשתים וחסרו כאן כשנבראה באחת מעיקרא

stated to be similar to the case of three kidneys; consequently as three kidneys were created originally, so one kidney was created originally?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And still it disqualifies the animal.');">⁴⁰</span>

והא דומיא דשלש קתני מה שלש מעיקרא אף אחת מעיקרא

- Rather the point at issue here is whether a living creature can be created [with one kidney only].

אלא הכא ביש בריה מעיקרא קמיפלגי מר סבר

One Master holds that a living creature can be created with one kidney only [and therefore an animal with one kidney is permitted for the altar] whereas the other holds that a living creature cannot be created with one kidney only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore if we find only one kidney, we say that the animal originally possessed two kidneys and has been deprived of one, thereby becoming disqualified from the altar.');">⁴¹</span>

יש בריה באחת ומר סבר

R'Johanan however said: All agree that a living creature [cannot be created] with one [kidney] only, and that the deficiency [of a limb] inside an animal is considered a deficiency.

אין בריה באחת

And still there is no difficult [as regards the two Baraithas above].

ור' יוחנן אמר

In one case, the loss took place before it was slaughtered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The loss therefore disqualifies the animal from the altar,');">⁴²</span>

דכולי עלמא אין בריה באחת וחסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון

and in the other, after the slaughtering.

ולא קשיא כאן שחסרה קודם שחיטה כאן שחסרה לאחר שחיטה

But even if the loss took place after the slaughtering, only before the blood was received [in a vessel]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For sprinkling purposes.');">⁴³</span>

ולאחר שחיטה קודם קבלה מי שרי

is it permitted [to offer it]?