Bekhorot 78

Chapter 78

א והא"ר זירא אמר רב הצורם אזן הפר ואח"כ קיבל דמו פסול שנאמר (ויקרא טז, יד) ולקח מדם הפר הפר שהיה כבר אלא כאן שחסרה קודם קבלה כאן שחסרה לאחר קבלה

1 Has not R'Ze'ira said in the name of Rab. If one makes a slit in the ear of the bull1 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,2 [implying] the bullock as it had been before?3

ב ולאחר קבלה קודם זריקה מי שרי והתניא (שמות יב, ה) שה תמים זכר בן שנה יהיה לכם שיהא תמים בן שנה בשעת שחיטה

2 Rather [the explanation] is that in one case,4 the loss took place before the blood was received, and in the other after the blood was received. But is a defect in the sacrifice after the blood was received, but before the sprinkling permitted?

ג ומנין בקבלה והולכה והזייה ת"ל יהיה שיהו כל הויותיו תם ובן שנה

3 Has it not been taught: [Scripture says]: Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year.5 [This intimates] that it must be unblemished and a year old at the time of slaughtering. 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?

ד תרגמא אבן שנה הכי נמי מסתברא דתניא ר' יהושע אומר כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר מהן כזית בשר או כזית חלב זורק את הדם שמע מינה

4 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 this6 to refer only to the law of a year old.7 It also stands to reason.8 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

ה ומי איכא מידי דבשעת שחיטה הוי בן שנה ובשעת קבלה והולכה הוי בן שתי שנים אמר רבא זאת אומרת שעות פוסלות בקדשים

5 it stands proved. 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 Shall we say [that R'Ahadobi's query above] goes back to Tannaim?11

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

6 [For it was taught, Scripture says]: That which hath its stones bruised or crushed12 or torn13

ז בביצים ולא בגיד אימא אף בביצים דברי רבי יהודה רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר כולן בגיד רבי יוסי אומר מעוך וכתות אף בביצים נתוק וכרות בגיד אין בביצים לא

7 or cut,14 all these blemishes must be in the stones. This is the view of R'Judah. [Do you say] 'in the stones' but not in the membrum virile?15 - Read then: Also in the stones. This is the view of R'Judah. R'Eleazar B'Jacob says: All these blemishes must be in the membrum.

ח מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון ומר סבר לא שמיה חסרון

8 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]. What does it mean? Does it not mean that the point at issue is that one Master16

ט ותסברא רבי יוסי מאי קסבר אי קסבר חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון אפי' נתוק וכרות נמי ואי קסבר לא שמיה חסרון אפי' מעוך וכתות נמי לא

9 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?17 What in this case does R'Jose hold? If he holds: A deficiency inside [an animal] is considered a deficiency, then 'torn or cut' should apply [to all parts].

י אלא הכא במומים שבגלוי קמיפלגי רבי יהודה סבר מעוך וכתות הוי מומא דמיכווצן נתוק וכרות הוי מומא דהא תליין ר"א בן יעקב סבר מעוך וכתות לא הוי מומא דמעיקרא נמי זמנין דמיכווצן נתוק וכרות לא הוי מומא דמעיקרא נמי זימנין דתליין

10 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 R'Judah holds: 'Bruised or crushed' are blemishes because [the stones or membrum] shrink afterwards.' Torn or cut' are blemishes because they are hanging.19 R'Eleazar B'Jacob, however, holds: 'Bruised or crushed' are not blemishes, for originally [when the animal is well] they20

יא ור' יוסי סבר מעוך וכתות הוי מומא דהא ליתנהו נתוק וכרות לא הוי מומא דהא איתנהו:

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

יב <big>מתני׳</big> נפגם הזובן העריה של נקבה במוקדשין נפגם הזנב מן העצם אבל לא מן הפרק או שראש זנב מפצל נקלפה העור והבשר והעצם נשאר או שיש בשר מחוליא לחוליא מלא אצבע:

12 And R'Jose holds: 'Bruised or crushed' are blemishes, for they are not in existence now.21 'Torn or cut' however, are not blemishes because they are still in existence.

יג <big>גמ׳</big> א"ר אלעזר נפגם ולא ניטל כיס ולא זכרות תניא נמי הכי נפגם ולא ניטל כיס ולא זכרות אמר רבי יוסי בן המשולם מעשה בעינבל אחד שנטלו זאב וחזר לאיתנו:

13 <big>MISHNAH: </big>[OTHER BLEMISHES ARE] IF THE BAG22 IS MUTILATED OR THE GENITALS OF A FEMALE ANIMAL IN THE CASE OF SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS:23 IF THE TAIL IS MUTILATED FROM THE BONE24 BUT NOT FROM THE JOINT;25 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 OR IF THERE IS FLESH BETWEEN ONE JOINT AND ANOTHER [IN THE TAIL] TO THE AMOUNT OF A FINGER'S BREADTH.

יד נפגמה הזנב מן העצם וכו': תנא אצבע שאמרו אחד מארבעה בטפח של כל האדם למאי הלכתא אמר רבה לענין תכלת דתניא כמה חוטין הוא נותן ב"ש אומרים ארבעה וב"ה אומרים שלשה

14 <big>GEMARA: </big>Said R'Eleazar: [The Mishnah particularly means a bag] which is mutilated, but not if it is removed.27 [The mutilation also only applies to] the bag, but not to the membrum itself.28 It has been taught likewise: [If the bag was] mutilated [it is a blemish], but not if it was removed. [The mutilation applies to] the bag and not to the membrum. Said R'Jose B'ha-Meshullam: It happened at En-Bul29 that a wolf took [the whole bag] of one and it returned to its normal condition. 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]. What is the legal import of this?30 Said Raba: It is in connection with the subject of purple blue.31 For it has been taught: How many threads does he put into [the hole of the corner for fringes]? Beth Shammai say: Four; whereas Beth Hillel say: Three.

טו וכמה תהא משולשת ב"ש אומרים ארבעה וב"ה אומרים שלשה ושליש שב"ה אומרים אחד מארבע בטפח של כל אדם

15 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 - Beth Shammai say: Four finger-breadths, whereas Beth Hillel say: Three finger-breadths. And the three finger-breadths mentioned by Beth Hillel are each equal to one of the four finger-breadths of any man's hand.33 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

טז רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר לשתי אמות דתנן שתי אמות היו

Previous Chapter Next Chapter