Bekhorot 81

Chapter 81

א <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנא קפץ העליון ולא קפץ התחתון וכנגדו בגמל ניכר:
1 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It has been taught: The upper joint, [the inner part of the knee] not the lower joint [knuckle]. And the corresponding part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The upper joint, as it has there a bone projecting outside, and also because its 'arkub is very thick (R. Gershom) . Another interpretation');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> על אלו מומין שוחטין את הבכור ופסולי המוקדשין נפדין עליהן:
2 in a camel is [easily] recognized.
ג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא תו למה לי הא תנא ליה רישא על אלו מומין שוחטין את הבכור סיפא איצטריכא פסולי המוקדשין נפדין עליהן הא נמי פשיטא מישחט שחטינן מיפרק מיבעיא
3 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE BLEMISHES WE MAY SLAUGHTER A FIRSTBORN ANIMAL, AND CONSECRATED ANIMALS RENDERED UNFIT [FOR THE ALTAR] IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE BLEMISHES MAY BE REDEEMED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After which the animal becomes genuine hullin (v. Glos.) .');"><sup>2</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What need is there to state this again? Has not [the Tanna] stated this in a previous part [as follows]: In consequence of these blemishes we may slaughter the first-born animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 37a.');"><sup>3</sup></span> - There was need [for the Tanna to state this] on account of the second clause in our Mishnah: CONSECRATED ANIMALS RENDERED UNFIT [FOR THE ALTAR] IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE BLEMISHES MAY BE REDEEMED. But surely this too is obvious, for if we may slaughter [the animal in consequence of these blemishes], is there any question about redeeming it? Rather [the explanation is as follows]: Since it stated [in a previous Mishnah]: [Ila] also added three cases [of blemishes], and the Sages said to him: We have only heard of these [already mentioned],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 40a.');"><sup>4</sup></span> the [Tanna] then proceeds [in subsequent Mishnahs] to give the opinions of individual teachers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hanina b. Antigonus and R. Hanina b. Gamaliel who mention several blemishes in connection with a firstling. One might therefore have thought that the Rabbis do not accept as blemishes also those cited by these teachers.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד אלא איידי דתנא שלשה הוסיף ואמרו לו לא שמענו את אלו וקתני ואתי דיחידאה וקא סתים לה בכולהו על אלו מומין שוחטין את הבכור ופסולי המוקדשין נפדין עליהן:
4 Therefore he states without mentioning names in reference to all these [individual rulings]: IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE BLEMISHES WE MAY SLAUGHTER A FIRST-BORN ANIMAL, AND CONSECRATED ANIMALS RENDERED UNFIT [FOR THE ALTAR] IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE BLEMISHES MAY BE REDEEMED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus teaching that the view of R. Hanina b. Antigonus and that of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel are legal decisions. There was therefore need for stating the MISHNAH:');"><sup>6</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>AND IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE FOLLOWING BLEMISHES WE MUST NOT SLAUGHTER A FIRSTLING EITHER IN THE TEMPLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the animals cannot be regarded as unblemished.');"><sup>7</sup></span> OR WITHOUT THE TEMPLE:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they are not genuinely blemished. Lit., 'Province', 'district', in contradistinction to the Temple.');"><sup>8</sup></span> WHITE SPOTS ON THE CORNEA AND WATER [DRIPPING FROM THE EYE] WHEN NOT PERMANENT FEATURES, OR MOLARS WHICH HAVE BEEN BROKEN BUT NOT TORN OUT [COMPLETELY] OR [AN ANIMAL] AFFECTED WITH GARAB,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. GEMARA:');"><sup>9</sup></span> YABELETH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An excrescence or large wart, having, however, no bone, for otherwise it would be a real blemish, v. supra 40b.');"><sup>10</sup></span> OR HAZZAZITH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scabs or swollen lumps.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ה <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ואלו שאין שוחטין עליהן לא במקדש ולא במדינה חוורור והמים שאין קבועין וחוטין הפנימיות שנפגמו אבל לא שנעקרו ובעל גרב ובעל יבלת ובעל חזזית זקן וחולה ומזוהם ושנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית אדם ע"פ עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים
5 AN OLD [ANIMAL] OR A SICK ONE, [AN ANIMAL] OF OFFENSIVE SMELL OR APPEARANCE, OR [AN ANIMAL] WHICH WITH A TRANSGRESSION HAS BEEN COMMITTED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having copulated with a human being.');"><sup>12</sup></span> OR AN ANIMAL WHICH IS KNOWN TO HAVE KILLED A HUMAN BEING ON THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS OR OF THE OWNERS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For where there are two witnesses of the copulation or the boring, then the animal is stoned and no benefit can be derived from it.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ו וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס לא במקדש ולא במדינה ר"ש אומר אין לך מום גדול מזה וחכמים אומרים אינו בכור אלא נגזז ונעבד:
6 A TUMTUM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the sex of the animal is unknown, as the genitals are covered with a skin.');"><sup>14</sup></span> OR A HERMAPHRODITE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal possessing both the male and the female characteristics. Both in this case and that of a tumtum we are uncertain whether we should regard the animal as a male or a female.');"><sup>15</sup></span> CAN BE SLAUGHTERED NEITHER IN THE TEMPLE NOR WITHOUT THE TEMPLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage CAN NEITHER BE SLAUGHTERED etc. is repeated here by the Tanna to teach us that even in the case of a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, we may not slaughter it in the Temple or outside the Temple in consequence of this defect, as it is not a genuine blemish, unlike the view of R. Ishmael which follows.');"><sup>16</sup></span> R'ISHMAEL HOWEVER SAYS: THERE IS NO GREATER BLEMISH THAN THAT [OF A HERMAPHRODITE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the sexual part it is virtually blemished. It has therefore the law of a blemished firstling which may be slaughtered, but shearing or working with it is prohibited.');"><sup>17</sup></span> BUT THE SAGES SAY: IT HAS NOT [THE LAW] OF A FIRST-BORN AND MAY BE SHORN AND WORKED WITH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we regard it as a special type of animal, distinct from all others.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וגרב לא והכתיב (ויקרא כב, כב) גרב באורייתא וחזזית לא והכתיב (ויקרא כב, כב) ילפת באורייתא ותניא גרב זה החרס ילפת זו חזזית המצרית ואמר ר"ל למה נקרא שמה ילפת שמלפפת והולכת עד יום המיתה
7 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>And is not garab [a blemish]? Is it not written in the Scriptures: 'or a garab'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 22. E.V. 'scabbed'.');"><sup>19</sup></span> And also, is not hazzazith [a blemish]? Is it not written in the Scriptures 'or yallefeth'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V.' scurvy'.');"><sup>20</sup></span> For it has been taught: Garab is the same as heres,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A dry eruption of the skin, as hard as a potsherd. ,pkh rcjhu ;hpku');"><sup>21</sup></span> yallefeth is the same as the Egyptian hazzazith? And Resh Lakish explained: Why is it called yallefeth? Because it continues to cling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' comes from the word to cling, to join, the word (in Ex. XXXVI) being translated in Targum Onkelos .');"><sup>22</sup></span>
ח בשלמא חזזית אחזזית לא קשיא כאן בחזזית המצרית כאן בחזזית דעלמא אלא גרב אגרב קשיא גרב אגרב נמי לא קשיא הא בלח הא ביבש לח איתסי יבש לא מיתסי
8 [to the body] to the day of death. Now there is no difficulty as regards [different meanings of] the hazzazith [of the text] and the hazzazith [of our Mishnah], as here the text refers to Egyptian hazzazith and [the Mishnah] refers to a general hazzazith. But does not the [interpretation of] garab [in the text] and garab [of the Mishnah] present a contradiction? - The [different interpretations of] garab of the text and garab [of our Mishnah] also offer no difficulty, for in one case it refers to where it is moist and in the other to where it is dry, the moist healing whereas the dry does not heal, [and therefore it is a blemish]. But does the moist garab heal?
ט ולח מיתסי והכתיב (דברים כח, כז) יככה ה' בשחין מצרים וגו' ומדכתיב ובחרס הרי גרב לח אמור וקאמר אשר לא תוכל להרפא
9 Is it not written: The Lord will smite the with the boil of Egypt and with the emerods and with the garab [scab] and with heres [itch]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVIII, 27.');"><sup>23</sup></span> and since it says: 'And with heres' [a dry eruption], then the garab [scab] must be moist, and the text continues: 'Whereof thou canst not be healed'? - Rather explain that there are three kinds of garab. The garab of the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 22.');"><sup>24</sup></span> refers [to a scab] which is dry both inside and outside.
י אלא תלתא הוו דקרא יבש בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ דמתני' לח מבחוץ ומבפנים דמצרים יבש מבפנים ולח מבחוץ דכתיב (שמות ט, י) ויהי שחין פורח אבעבועות באדם:
10 The garab of our Mishnah refers to where it is moist both inside and outside. The garab of Egypt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in the imprecations in Deut. XXVIII. ,gcgct gcub');"><sup>25</sup></span> is where it is dry inside and moist outside, for R'Joshua B'Levi said: The boil which the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians was moist outside and dry inside, for it is written: And it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. IX, 10 The word in the text is connected with 'pouring forth', implying something wet and moist.');"><sup>26</sup></span> AN OLD ANIMAL OR A SICK ONE OR AN ANIMAL OF OFFENSIVE SMELL OR SIGHT.
יא והזקן והחולה והמזוהם: מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא א, ב) מן הצאן ומן הכשבים ומן העזים פרט לזקן ולחולה ולמזוהם
11 Whence is it proven?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we must not slaughter these animals in the Temple. in');"><sup>27</sup></span> - Our Rabbis taught: Scripture says: Of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2, 10. The word (of) in each case is partitive implying that some cattle, herd etc. cannot be offered up on the altar.');"><sup>28</sup></span> the flock, 'or of the sheep', 'or of the goats', [intimat the exclusion of an old [animal], a sick one, and one with an offensive [smell or appearance]. And all [the three restrictive texts] are necessary.
יב וצריכי דאי כתב רחמנא למעוטי זקן דלא הדר בריא אבל חולה דהדר בריא אימא לא ואי כתב למעוטי חולה דלאו אורחיה אבל זקן דהיינו אורחיה אימא לא
12 For if the Divine Law had only written [one restrictive text] [I would s it is] to exclude the case of an old animal [from Temple sacrifice], I might have thought that this was because it cannot recover its former strength, but as regards a sick animal, since it may recover its health, I might have said that it is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that it is not disqualified for the Temple.');"><sup>29</sup></span> Or if the Divine Law had only written [one restrictive text] [I would say it is]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sh. Mek.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יג ואי כתב רחמנא תרי למעוטי הני דכחישי אבל מזוהם דלא כחיש אימא לא ואי נמי למעוטי מזוהם משום דמאיס אבל הני דלא מאיסי אימא לא צריכי:
13 to exclude the case of a sick animal, I might have thought that the reason was because it is not usual for an animal to be ill, but in regard to an old animal, since it is a usual thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A normal thing for an animal which grows old not to retain its former vigour and therefore this should not be regarded as a disability.');"><sup>31</sup></span> I might have said it is not so.
יד ושנעבדה בו עבירה וכו': מנא הני מילי
14 And if the Divine Law had written [two restrictive texts], [I might have thought that] they only excluded the two cases where [the animals] are weak, but as regards an animal with an offensive smell or sight but which is not [physically] weak, I might have said that it was not so. And even if [a scriptural text had been written] to exclude the case of [an animal] with an offensive smell or appearance, I might have thought that the reason was because it was repulsive, but in the case of the other animals which are not repulsive, I might have said that it was not so.
טו דת"ר (ויקרא א, ב) מן הבהמה להוציא רובע ונרבע מן הבקר להוציא את הנעבד מן הצאן להוציא את המוקצה ומן הצאן להוציא את הנוגח
15 There is need therefore [for the three restrictive texts]. OR AN ANIMAL WITH WHICH A TRANSGRESSION HAD BEEN COMMITTED etc. Whence is it proven [that we must not slaughter it in the Temple]? - Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture says]: Of the cattle'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
טז הני בני קטלא נינהו ע"פ עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים
16 intimating the exclusion of an animal which covered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., had connection with a beast.');"><sup>33</sup></span> [a woman] and the animal that was covered [by a man]; 'even of the herd'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
יז בשלמא טומטום במקדש לא דילמא נקבה היא במדינה לא דילמא זכר הוא ולית בה מומא
17 [intimates] the exclusion of an animal which was worshipped as an idol; 'of the flock' [intimates] the exclusion of one designated for idolatrous purposes.
יח אלא אנדרוגינוס בשלמא במקדש לא דלמא נקבה היא אלא במדינה נמי נהי דזכר הוא תעשה נקבות חריץ וישחוט עלה
18 The text 'or of the flock' intimates one which has gored a person [to death]. But are not these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A goring animal, one which covered a woman and which was covered by a man.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
יט אמר אביי אמר קרא (ויקרא כב, כב) או חרוץ או שבור חרוץ דומיא דשבור מה שבור במקום עצם אף חרוץ במקום עצם
19 liable to the penalty of death? - The reference here is to cases where there is only one witness or where the owners confess.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal is not stoned in such circumstances, as the law is that one who confesses an act which entails a fine is exempt from the fine; and the stoning of an animal is a fine on its owner.');"><sup>36</sup></span> [A TUMTUM OR A HERMAPHRODITE]. Now we quite understand a tumtum being disqualified for the Temple, the reason being in case it is a female.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if he brings it as a first-born, when it is not consecrated as such, since a firstling must be a male, he brings hullin into the Temple court.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
כ רבא אמר בלא שבור נמי לא מצית אמרת חרוץ במקום בשר הוי מומא דאי סלקא דעתך הוי מומא כיון דאמר גרב זהו חרס מיחרץ דכתיב (ויקרא יג, כה) ומראהו עמוק מן העור כמראה חמה העמוקה מן הצל
20 It is also disqualified without the Temple, in case it is a male and not blemished.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it should be brought to the Temple.');"><sup>38</sup></span> As regards a hermaphrodite also, we understand its being disqualified for the Temple, in case it is a male. But in regard to slaughtering it without the Temple, granted that it is a male, le it at least be regarded as having a depression at its female genitals, in consequence of which he may slaughter the animal? - Said Abaye: Scripture says: 'Or broken', 'or haruz',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 22. E.V. 'Maimed' by a deep incision or abnormal cavity and depression.');"><sup>39</sup></span> [intimating] that 'haruz' must be like 'broken'; just as 'broken' must be in a bone, [in order to disqualify], so 'haruz' must be in a bone, [b not in a fleshy part]. Raba says: Even without [the comparison] with 'broken', you could not say that a depression in the fleshy part is considered a blemish.
כא וליכתב רחמנא חרוץ ולא בעי גרב ואמינא חרוץ דלא מאיס הוי מומא גרב דמאיס לא כל שכן כתב רחמנא גרב למימר דחרוץ במקום בשר לא הוי מומא:
21 For if you were to assume that a depression in the fleshy part is a blemish, since a Master said: garab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A dry eruption, or scab.');"><sup>40</sup></span> [a dry scab], is the same as heres,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A skin eruption, as hard as a potsherd. v. supra.');"><sup>41</sup></span> [a dry scab] is cut into [deeper than the surface],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is therefore a skin plague.');"><sup>42</sup></span>
כב רבי ישמעאל אומר אין לך מום גדול מזה: כאביי לא אמר חרוץ דומיא דשבור לא אמרינן
22 for Scripture says: 'And the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIII, 25. In connection with leprosy.');"><sup>43</sup></span> like the sun-lit spots which have a semblance of being deeper than the shaded spots [which appear to be raised]. Consequently, let Scripture write haruz<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4.');"><sup>44</sup></span> and then there would be no need to write garab, for I would argue, if haruz [in the fleshy part] which is not repulsive is yet regarded as a blemish, how much more so ought this to be the case with garab, which is repulsive? The Divine Law therefore mentions garab, [intimating] that a depression in the fleshy part is not a blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that garab is a blemish, not because of the depression, as it is in the fleshy part, and that haruz only applies to a bone.');"><sup>45</sup></span> R'ISHMAEL SAYS: THERE IS NO GREATER BLEMISH [THAN THAT OF A HERMAPHRODITE]. He does not hold the opinion of Abaye, for we do not draw the analogy between haruz to 'broken'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But hold that even in a fleshy part it is a haruz.');"><sup>46</sup></span> He also does not hold the opinion of Raba, for it may be that a depression in the fleshy part is not a blemish where the haruz is not distinguishable, but where it is distinguishable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As for example, in the case of the female genitals, although it is the fleshy part.');"><sup>47</sup></span> we apply the scriptural text 'Ill blemish'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 21. As the kind of animal which must not be offered in the Temple.');"><sup>48</sup></span>
כג כרבא נמי לא אמר דילמא היכא דלא מינכרא אבל היכא דמינכר מום רע קרינא ביה
23 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter