Bekhorot 78

והא"ר זירא אמר רב

Has not R'Ze'ira said in the name of Rab.

הצורם אזן הפר ואח"כ קיבל דמו פסול שנאמר

If one makes a slit in the ear of the bull<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Belonging to the anointed priest, after its slaughter but before the receiving of the blood.');">¹</span>

(ויקרא טז, יד) ולקח מדם הפר הפר שהיה כבר

and subsequently receives its bloods, it is disqualified, as it is written in the Scriptures: And he shall take of the blood of t bullock,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 14.');">²</span>

אלא כאן שחסרה קודם קבלה כאן שחסרה לאחר קבלה

[implying] the bullock as it had been before?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And just as at the slaughtering the bullock was unblemished, so it must be perfect when its blood is received in the vessel.');">³</span>

ולאחר קבלה קודם זריקה מי שרי

Rather [the explanation] is that in one case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it says that a loss inside the animal disqualifies.');">⁴</span>

והתניא

the loss took place before the blood was received, and in the other after the blood was received.

(שמות יב, ה) שה תמים זכר בן שנה יהיה לכם שיהא תמים בן שנה בשעת שחיטה

But is a defect in the sacrifice after the blood was received, but before the sprinkling permitted?

ומנין בקבלה והולכה והזייה

Has it not been taught: [Scripture says]: Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 5.');">⁵</span>

ת"ל

[This intimates] that it must be unblemished and a year old at the time of slaughtering.

יהיה שיהו כל הויותיו תם ובן שנה

Whence do we infer that the same rule applies at the time of the receiving of the blood, its carrying [to the altar] and its sprinkling?

תרגמא אבן שנה

Because the text states: 'It shall be', [implying] that it must be unblemished and a year old in all the phases [of the sacrificial rite]? - Explain this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement just cited: In all phases etc.');">⁶</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא דתניא ר' יהושע אומר

to refer only to the law of a year old.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But as regards the rule of being unblemished, this is only necessary at the slaughtering and receiving of the blood.');">⁷</span>

כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר מהן כזית בשר או כזית חלב זורק את הדם

It also stands to reason.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the loss after receiving the blood does not disqualify the animal.');">⁸</span>

שמע מינה

For it was taught, R'Joshua said: In all the sacrificial animals mentioned in the Torah, if there is left [a piece of flesh] the size of an or [a piece of fat] the size of an olive, the blood may be sprinkled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the size of an olive remains of the flesh, which is sufficient for the eating of a man, and the size of an olive of fat, which is adequate for burning on the altar, we may proceed to sprinkle the blood. If, however, nothing remains, then there cannot be any sprinkling. We thus see that if everything is lost except the size of an olive of flesh and fat, we can still conclude the sacrificial rite. Therefore the statement that 'in all phases it must be perfect' quoted in the Baraitha just mentioned, can only refer to the law of its being a year old.');">⁹</span>

ומי איכא מידי דבשעת שחיטה הוי בן שנה ובשעת קבלה והולכה הוי בן שתי שנים

it stands proved.

אמר רבא זאת אומרת

But does there exist an object which at the time of slaughtering is a year old and at the time when the blood is received and carried is two years old? - Said Raba: This proves that [even] hours disqualify in the case of [sacrifices].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, for example. if the lamb was born last year on the fourteenth of Nisan at the eighth hour, he must be careful to slaughter and sprinkle its blood before the ninth hour, for the ninth hour disqualifies it and it is as if it had entered the second year.');">¹⁰</span>

שעות פוסלות בקדשים

Shall we say [that R'Ahadobi's query above] goes back to Tannaim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Tannaim differ in the matter.');">¹¹</span>

לימא כתנאי

[For it was taught, Scripture says]: That which hath its stones bruised or crushed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. with stones (Rashi) .');">¹²</span>

(ויקרא כב, כד) ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות כולן בביצים דברי רבי יהודה

or torn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Completely by hand, only still hanging on to the bag.');">¹³</span>

בביצים ולא בגיד

or cut,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With a knife, only still hanging on to the bag. Lev. XXII, 24.');">¹⁴</span>

אימא

all these blemishes must be in the stones.

אף בביצים דברי רבי יהודה

This is the view of R'Judah.

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר

[Do you say] 'in the stones' but not in the membrum virile?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely since the latter is more open and visible a blemish in it should certainly disqualify.');">¹⁵</span>

כולן בגיד

- Read then: Also in the stones.

רבי יוסי אומר

This is the view of R'Judah.

מעוך וכתות אף בביצים נתוק וכרות בגיד אין בביצים לא

R'Eleazar B'Jacob says: All these blemishes must be in the membrum.

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר

R'Jose however says: 'Bruised or crushed' can be in the stones also, whereas 'torn or cut' in the membrum is [a blemish], but in the stones is not [a blemish].

חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון ומר סבר

What does it mean?

לא שמיה חסרון

Does it not mean that the point at issue is that one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah.');">¹⁶</span>

ותסברא

holds that a deficiency inside [the animal] is considered a deficiency, whereas the other Master holds that a deficiency inside [the animal] is not considered a deficiency! But do you consider this as reasonable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the point at issue is as you say.');">¹⁷</span>

רבי יוסי מאי קסבר

What in this case does R'Jose hold?

אי קסבר חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון אפי' נתוק וכרות נמי ואי קסבר לא שמיה חסרון אפי' מעוך וכתות נמי לא

If he holds: A deficiency inside [an animal] is considered a deficiency, then 'torn or cut' should apply [to all parts].

אלא הכא במומים שבגלוי קמיפלגי רבי יהודה סבר

And if he holds: A deficienc inside [an animal] is not considered a deficiency, then even 'bruised or crushed' should not apply [to all parts]! Rather [explain that] the point at issue here is whether they are open blemishes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All unanimously hold that a loss of a limb inside the animal is not considered a loss, and the reason of the authority who disqualifies the balls is not because it is considered a loss but because it is regarded as a blemish.');">¹⁸</span>

מעוך וכתות הוי מומא דמיכווצן נתוק וכרות הוי מומא דהא תליין

R'Judah holds: 'Bruised or crushed' are blemishes because [the stones or membrum] shrink afterwards.'

ר"א בן יעקב סבר

Torn or cut' are blemishes because they are hanging.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Knocking against the bag and being visible outside, since not attached above.');">¹⁹</span>

מעוך וכתות לא הוי מומא דמעיקרא נמי זמנין דמיכווצן נתוק וכרות לא הוי מומא דמעיקרא נמי זימנין דתליין

R'Eleazar B'Jacob, however, holds: 'Bruised or crushed' are not blemishes, for originally [when the animal is well] they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The stones');">²⁰</span>

ור' יוסי סבר

also sometimes shrink.'

מעוך וכתות הוי מומא דהא ליתנהו נתוק וכרות לא הוי מומא דהא איתנהו:

Torn or cut' are not blemishes, for originally [when the animal is well] they some times also hang.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נפגם הזובן העריה של נקבה במוקדשין

And R'Jose holds: 'Bruised or crushed' are blemishes, for they are not in existence now.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it is a loss.');">²¹</span>

נפגם הזנב מן העצם אבל לא מן הפרק או שראש זנב מפצל נקלפה העור והבשר והעצם נשאר או שיש בשר מחוליא לחוליא מלא אצבע:

'Torn or cut' however, are not blemishes because they are still in existence.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ר אלעזר

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[OTHER BLEMISHES ARE] IF THE BAG<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Containing the male animal's membrum.');">²²</span>

נפגם ולא ניטל כיס ולא זכרות

IS MUTILATED OR THE GENITALS OF A FEMALE ANIMAL IN THE CASE OF SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This cannot refer to a first-born animal, as the law of a first-born only applies to a male.');">²³</span>

תניא נמי הכי

IF THE TAIL IS MUTILATED FROM THE BONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a blemish because it cannot recover.');">²⁴</span>

נפגם ולא ניטל כיס ולא זכרות

BUT NOT FROM THE JOINT;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., between the joints, for this can heal. khmpn');">²⁵</span>

אמר רבי יוסי בן המשולם

OR IF THE TOP END [ROOT] OF THE TAIL DIVIDES THE BONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the backbone is branched at the place where the tail begins appearing like two tails. Rashi explains 'peels' the backbone, i.e., if the end of the backbone is bare of skin and flesh.');">²⁶</span>

מעשה בעינבל אחד שנטלו זאב וחזר לאיתנו:

OR IF THERE IS FLESH BETWEEN ONE JOINT AND ANOTHER [IN THE TAIL] TO THE AMOUNT OF A FINGER'S BREADTH.

נפגמה הזנב מן העצם וכו':

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Said R'Eleazar: [The Mishnah particularly means a bag] which is mutilated, but not if it is removed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then it can return to its normal condition.');">²⁷</span>

תנא

[The mutilation also only applies to] the bag, but not to the membrum itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this is hidden and can heal.');">²⁸</span>

אצבע שאמרו אחד מארבעה בטפח של כל האדם

It has been taught likewise: [If the bag was] mutilated [it is a blemish], but not if it was removed.

למאי הלכתא

[The mutilation applies to] the bag and not to the membrum.

אמר רבה

Said R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam: It happened at En-Bul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' N.W. of Saffed.');">²⁹</span>

לענין תכלת

that a wolf took [the whole bag] of one and it returned to its normal condition.

דתניא

IF THE TAIL IS MUTILATED FROM THE BONE etc. A Tanna taught: The measurement of a finger's breadth mentioned [by the Sages] is one-fourth of any man's handbreadth, [i.e., a thumb's breadth].

כמה חוטין הוא נותן

What is the legal import of this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Has the measure of a finger's breadth been mentioned?');">³⁰</span>

ב"ש אומרים

Said Raba: It is in connection with the subject of purple blue.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fringes, which require the blue show-fringes. ,akuan');">³¹</span>

ארבעה וב"ה אומרים

For it has been taught: How many threads does he put into [the hole of the corner for fringes]?

שלשה

Beth Shammai say: Four; whereas Beth Hillel say: Three.

וכמה תהא משולשת

And how far must the threads of the show-fringes hang down [beyond the border]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Another explanation is: What is the length of the twisted thread, independently of the show-fringes? And the word is employed to indicate that it is a third of the whole, i.e., that the show-fringes together with the twisted thread are twelve finger-breadths, that is three handbreadths.');">³²</span>

ב"ש אומרים

- Beth Shammai say: Four finger-breadths, whereas Beth Hillel say: Three finger-breadths.

ארבעה וב"ה אומרים

And the three finger-breadths mentioned by Beth Hillel are each equal to one of the four finger-breadths of any man's hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Making altogether the size of three thumbs.');">³³</span>

שלשה

R'Huna son of R'Joshua says: [The measurement of a fingerbreadth here mentioned has reference to] the two standard-cubits, as we have learnt: Two standard-cubits were deposited

ושליש שב"ה אומרים אחד מארבע בטפח של כל אדם

רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר

לשתי אמות

דתנן

שתי אמות היו