Bekhorot 80

ומעשה נמי שלחי התחתון עודף על העליון שאל רשב"ג לחכמים ואמרו

AND IT HAPPENED also THAT THE LOWER JAW WAS LARGER THAN THE UPPER ONE, AND R'SIMEON B. GAMALIEL ASKED THE SAGES [FOR A RULING], AND THEY SAID: THIS IS A BLEMISH.

ה"ז מום

But did we not learn of this [blemish] only with reference to a human being:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest. How then can we compare the two things?');">¹</span>

והא גבי אדם הוא דתנן

'If the upper lip is larger than th lower one or the lower lip is larger than the upper one, this is a blemish'?

שפתו העליונה עודפת על התחתונה או שתחתונה עודפת על העליונה ה"ז מום

Now only with reference to a human being does Scripture write: What man soever of the seed of Aaron,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4.');">²</span>

גבי אדם הוא דכתיב

[implying] that among the seed of Aaron man must be normal but not with regard to a beast?

(ויקרא כב, ד) איש איש מזרע אהרן איש ששוה בזרעו של אהרן אבל בבהמה לא

Said R'Papa: This offers no difficulty.

אמר רב פפא

In one case there is a bone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the bone of the lower jaw is larger than the upper one, it is regarded as a blemish even in an animal.');">³</span>

לא קשיא הא דאית בה עצם הא דלית בה עצם:

whereas in the other there is no bone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only the lower lip overlaps and is larger than the upper. This is a blemish in a human being but not in an animal.');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אוזן הגדי היתה כפולה אמרו חכמים

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IN REGARD TO THE EAR OF A KID WHICH WAS DOUBLED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It has two ears on one side, an ear within an ear. The Mishnah speaks here of a kid, because this animal often has its ear somewhat folded and doubled.');">⁵</span>

בזמן שהוא עצם אחד מום בזמן שאין בו עצם אינו מום

THE SAGES RULED [AS FOLLOWS]: IF IT IS ALL ONE BONE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the tip of the outside ear is bent over and is connected with the inside ear. We do not regard this as a case of an additional limb, because the deformity is not visible. omg');">⁶</span>

רבי חנניא בן גמליאל אומר

IT IS A BLEMISH, BUT IF IT IS NOT ALL ONE BONE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi. I.e., if the tips of the outside ear and the inside one are not connected. According to this interpretation, the word refers to the lub, 'tip of the ear', and the reason why it is called 'a bone' is because it is a hard physical substance, like that of a bone. Maimonides, however, apparently reads: 'If it is another' and explains it as follows: If the external ear appears like a separate and distinct member, then it is a blemish, but if it does not seem like an extra member, then it is not a blemish. This interpretation would remove the difficulty why according to Rashi's version it is not regarded as an additional limb where it is 'one bone'. Cur. edd.: If it has no bone.');">⁷</span>

זנב הגדי שהוא דומה לשל חזיר ושאין בה שלש חוליות ה"ז מום:

IT IS NOT A BLEMISH.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר

R'HANINA THE SON OF GAMALIEL SAYS: IF THE TAIL OF A KID IS LIKE THAT OF A SWINE, OR IF THE TAIL DOES NOT POSSESS THREE VERTEBRAE, THIS IS A BLEMISH.

פיו בלום ורגליו מבולמות מחמת הרוח אינו מום מחמת העצם ה"ז מום

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: If a firstling's mouth is shrunk<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or swollen (Rashi) .');">⁸</span>

אזניו כפולות בחסחסות אחת ה"ז מום בשתי חסחסיות אינו מום:

or if its feet are shrunk, if it is on accoun [lack of] room<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the mouth, so that the animal is not able to open its mouth well.');">⁹</span>

ר"ג אומר

then it is not a blemish, but if it is on account of the bone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal opens its mouth well, but the jaws are tight and prevent it from opening the mouth wide enough. According to Rashi's second jur juhr explanation the meaning is: If the swelling is due to the air, (reading not) which it breathes, then it is not blemished and it will recover. But if it is because of the bone being unduly thick, it is a blemish.');">¹⁰</span>

זנב הגדי שהוא דומה לשל חזיר:

it is a blemish.

אמר רב פפא

Doubled ears with one system of cartilages constitute a blemish, but with two systems of cartilages are not a blemish.

לא תימא דקטינא אלא דכריכא אף ע"ג דאלימא:

R'GAMALIEL SAYS: THE TAIL OF A KID WHICH WAS LIKE THAT OF A SWINE.

או שאין בה שלש חוליות וכו':

Said R'Papa: Do not say that it must be round as well as [very] thin;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is required to be like that of a swine in every way, in order to be a disqualifying blemish.');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב הונא

enough if it is round, even though it is thick.

בגדי שתים ה"ז מום שלש אינו מום

OR IF THE TAIL DOES NOT POSSESS THREE VERTEBRAE etc. Said R'Huna: In a kid, two vertebrae in the tail constitute a blemish, but three are not a blemish.

בטלה שלש הרי זה מום ארבע אינו מום

But in a lamb, three vertebrae constitute a blemish, whereas four are not a blemish.

מיתיבי

An objection was raised: In a kid, one vertebra in the tail is a blemish, whereas two are not a blemish.

בגדי אחת הרי זה מום שתים אינו מום

But in a lamb two vertebrae are a blemish while three are not a blemish.

בטלה שתים הרי זה מום שלש אינו מום

Is not this a refutation of R'Huna?

תיובתא דרב הונא

How then does R'Huna [explain his position]? - Our Mishnah misled him.

ורב הונא מתני' אטעיתיה

He was under the impression that just as the first part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' THE EAR OF A KID etc.');">¹²</span>

איהו סבר

[of the Mishnah] referred to a kid, similarly the second part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' OR IF THE TAIL etc.');">¹³</span>

מדרישא בגדי סיפא נמי בגדי

referred to a kid.

ולא היא רישא בגדי וסיפא בטלה:

It is not so, however.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר

The first part refers to a kid, whereas the second part refers to a lamb.

את שיבלת בעיניו ושנפגם עצם ידו ורגלו ושנפרק עצמו של פיו

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>R'HANINA THE SON OR ANTIGONUS SAYS: IF [A FIRSTLING] HAS A YABELETH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An excrescence or large warts on the skin.');">¹⁴</span>

עינו אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה אזנו אחד גדולה ואחד קטנה במראה אבל לא במדה

IN ITS EYE OR IF A BONE OF ITS FORE-FOOT OR HINDLEG IS DEFECTIVE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this defect is noticeable. The case where it was broken has already been stated previously.');">¹⁵</span>

רבי יהודה אומר

OR IF THE BONE OF THE MOUTH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the jaw (R. Gershom) , not the teeth.');">¹⁶</span>

שתי ביציו אחת גדולה כשתים שבחבירתה

SPLIT OR ONE EYE IS [ABNORMALLY] LARGE AND THE OTHER SMALL, OR ONE EAR [ABNORMALLY] LARGE AND THE OTHER SMALL, BEING VISIBLY SO AND NOT MERELY IN ACTUAL MEASUREMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it is not recognized by sight as a deformity but is only found to be so by measurement, then it is not a disqualifying blemish, since a disqualifying blemish must be visible and noticeable.');">¹⁷</span>

ולא הודו לו חכמים:

ALL THESE ARE DISQUALIFYING BLEMISHES.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למימרא דיבלת הוי מומא

R'JUDAH SAYS: IF ONE STONE IS AS LARGE AS TWO OF THE OTHER'[THIS IS A BLEMISH].

ורמינהו ואלו שאין שוחטין עליהן לא במקדש ולא במדינה

THE SAGES, HOWEVER, DID NOT CONCUR WITH R'JUDAH'S RULING.

בעל גרב ובעל יבלת

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Does this mean to say that a yabeleth is a [disqualifying] blemish?

ותסברא

Against this I quote the following: We must not slaughter a firstling either in the Temple<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To offer it on the altar, since it is disqualified.');">¹⁸</span>

הא כתיבא {ויקרא כב } יבלת באורייתא

or in the country<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A term used in contra distinction to the Sanctuary and Temple. It is forbidden to slaughter a firstling under such circumstances, unless it is actually blemished.');">¹⁹</span>

אלא ל"ק הא בגופו הא בעינו

in consequence of the following blemishes: One affected with garab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A scurf or itch.');">²⁰</span>

מכדי קרא סתמא מה לי בגופו ומה לי בעינו

or yabeleth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 41a. We see therefore that it is not regarded as a genuine blemish.');">²¹</span>

אלא לא קשיא הא דאית בה עצם הא דלית בה עצם

- But do you consider it reasonable [that yabeleth should not be a real blemish]?

דקרא דאית בה עצם מתני' דלית בה עצם

Is there not a text 'or yabeleth'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 22.');">²²</span>

בעינו הוי מומא בגופא לא הוי מומא

in Scripture? - There is no contradiction.

ולית לה עצם בגופא פסולה

In the one case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the text and also of the Mishnah quoted.');">²³</span>

הרי תלתול בעלמא הוא דתנן ר"א אומר

the body is referred to and in the other [our Mishnah], the eye.

בעלי התילולין פסולין באדם וכשירין בבהמה

But let us see now.

אלא אידי ואידי בעינו ולא קשיא הא בשחור הא בלבן

Holy Writ makes no distinction; what difference then does it make whether the blemish is in the eye or on the body? - Rather say that there is no difficulty [for the following reason].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reality even in the body yabeleth is a blemish.');">²⁴</span>

והא אין מומין בלבן אלא אידי ואידי בלבן ואמר ר"ל

In one case it has a bone and in the other it has no bone.

לא קשיא הא דאית בה שער הא דלית בה שער:

[The yabeleth of] the text refers to where it has a bone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore even in the body yabeleth is considered a blemish.');">²⁵</span>

עינו אחת גדולה וכו':

[The yabeleth of] our Mishnah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And also the Mishnah quoted. Therefore a yabeleth in the eye is a blemish, as our Mishnah holds, even without a bone, and as the other Mishnah refers to the body, a yabeleth in such a case is not a disqualifying blemish, since it has no bone.');">²⁶</span>

תנא

however, refers to where it has no bone.

גדולה כשל עגל קטנה כשל אווז:

Therefore [if it is] in its eye, it is considered a [disqualifying] blemish, but on its body, it is not a [disqualifying] blemish.

אזנו אחת גדולה וכו':

But if there is no bone on the body, does it really disqualify [from the altar]?

ורבנן עד כמה

Is it not then a mere wart?

תניא אחרים אומרים

it has been taught: R'Eleazar says: Those with warts, if human beings, are unfit for the altar, if beasts, they are fit for the altar? - Rather explain as follows: In one case as well as in the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in both the other Mishnah and the Baraitha, but not to the scriptural text.');">²⁷</span>

אפילו אינה לשניה אלא כפול כשירה:

it refers to the eye, an yet there is no difficulty.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> זנב העגל שאינה מגעת לערקוב

In one case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah which regards yabeleth as a blemish.');">²⁸</span>

אמרו חכמים

it refers to the black part [of the eye] and in the other it refers to white.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A yabeleth in the white part of the eye only renders an animal unfit for the Temple.');">²⁹</span>

כל מרבית עגלים כן כל זמן שיהו מגדלין הן נמתחות

But surely blemishes do not disqualify in the white part of the eye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 38a.');">³⁰</span>

איזהו ערקוב שאמרו

- Rather explain this [as follows]: In one case as well as in the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah infra 41a, like the statement of the quoted Mishnah that no blemishes disqualify the white part of the eye.');">³¹</span>

ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר

we are dealing with the white part of the eye, [nevertheless] said Resh Lakish: It offers no difficulty.

בערקוב שבאמצע הירך:

In one case [the yabeleth] has hair on it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore although it is in the white part, since there is hair on the yabeleth it is not acceptable for a sacrifice.');">³²</span> in the other, it has no hai on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the rule of the Mishnah stands that blemishes do not disqualify in the white part of the eye. Our Mishnah here however which declares a yabeleth to be a real blemish refers to a case where it is in the black part of the eye, even without a bone, while the scriptural text refers to where there is a bone; consequently both on the body and in the eye, a yabeleth constitutes a blemish.');">³³</span> ITS ONE EYE WAS ABNORMALLY LARGE etc. A Tanna taught: 'Large' means as large as that of a calf, and 'small' means as small as that of a goose. ITS ONE EAR WAS ABNORMALLY LARGE etc. And the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who do not agree with Rabbi Judah in connection with the case of one ball being as large as two of the other (Rashi) .');">³⁴</span> what is their limit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How small may its companion stone be and still not be regarded as a blemish.');">³⁵</span> - It was taught, Others say: Even if the second stone is only the size of a bean, it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if it is less, then it is a blemish.');">³⁶</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE TAIL OF A [FIRSTBORN] CALF DOES NOT REACH THE 'ARKUB<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Explained later in the GEMARA:');">³⁷</span> , [IT IS A BLEMISH]. THE SAGES SAID: THE GROWTH OF ALL CALVES IS IN THIS MANNER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To reach the 'arkub, and if not, it is a blemish, Another version (Tosaf. Yom Tob.) is that the tail does not usually reach the 'arkub and therefore if it is short of the 'arkub, it is not a blemish.');">³⁸</span> AS LONG AS [THE ANIMALS] GROW, THE TAILS ALSO EXTEND [BELOW]. WHICH ARKUB MENTIONED IS MEANT? R'HANINA. B. ANTIGONUS SAYS: THE 'ARKUB IN THE THIGH.