Bechorot Daf 37 (בכורות דף ל״ז)
Daf: 37 | Amudim: 37a – 37b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (37a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא (ביאור)
Rav Chiyya bar Amram’s two rulings each exclude a Tanna: Rabbi Yosei on firstborns, Rabbi Yehuda on vows
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, שְׁלֹשָׁה מְפִירִין אֶת הַנֶּדֶר בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין חָכָם לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: הֲפָרַת נְדָרִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד מֵהֶם חָכָם.
English Translation:
is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the mishna, who prohibits any number of laymen to deem a firstborn animal permitted. The ruling that a group of three laymen may dissolve a vow in a place where there is no Sage is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Dissolution of vows requires a court of three. Rabbi Yehuda says: This is the halakha only if at least one of them is a Sage. If no Sage is available, laymen may not dissolve a vow.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the explanation that began at the end of 36b. Rav Chiyya bar Amram ruled that three laymen may permit a firstborn where there is no expert, and three may dissolve a vow where there is no Sage. Each ruling takes sides in a dispute between Tannaim. The first rejects Rabbi Yosei in the mishna (36a), who holds that no number of laymen, even twenty-three, can stand in for an expert. The second rejects Rabbi Yehuda in a baraita, who requires that at least one of the three people dissolving a vow be a Sage. Rav Chiyya bar Amram holds that three ordinary people are enough in both cases.
Key Terms:
- לְאַפּוֹקֵי = to exclude (the opinion of) — marks the view a ruling rejects
- הֲפָרַת נְדָרִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה = dissolution of vows is done by three — a court of three laymen (in tannaitic usage here, release of vows, also called hatarat nedarim)
- אֶחָד מֵהֶם חָכָם = one of them must be a Sage — Rabbi Yehuda’s requirement
- חָכָם = a Sage — a scholar qualified on his own to release a vow
Segment 2
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה
Who counts as a Sage? Rav Nachman: ‘one like me’; and what Rabbi Yehuda requires of the other two, according to Ravina
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין חָכָם. כְּגוֹן מַאן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד מֵהֶן חָכָם, מִכְּלָל דְּהָנָךְ כֹּל דְּהוּ? אָמַר רָבִינָא: דְּמַסְבְּרִי לֵיהּ וְסָבַר.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥiyya bar Amram stated above that a group of three may dissolve a vow in a place where there is no Sage. This indicates that if there is a Sage, he alone may dissolve a vow. The Gemara asks: Who, for example, is considered such a Sage? Rav Naḥman said: For example, one such as me. The baraita further stated that Rabbi Yehuda says: At least one of the three laymen must be a Sage. The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference that those other two members can be anyone, even complete ignoramuses? Ravina said in explanation: Each member of the group must be one to whom the halakhot of vows is explained and he is able to comprehend them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks what kind of Sage is meant when Rav Chiyya bar Amram speaks of a place where there is no Sage, since such a Sage may release a vow on his own. Rav Nachman, who was a leading judge of his generation, answers simply: someone like me. The Gemara then asks about Rabbi Yehuda’s view: if only one of the three must be a Sage, may the other two be anyone at all? Ravina explains that they cannot be complete ignoramuses. They must be people who understand the laws of vows when these are explained to them. Releasing a vow involves real judgment, such as finding a basis for the person’s regret, so even the laymen need some understanding.
Key Terms:
- כְּגוֹן מַאן = for example, who? — a request to define a category
- כְּגוֹן אֲנָא = such as me — Rav Nachman’s definition of a Sage
- כֹּל דְּהוּ = anyone at all, even an ignoramus
- דְּמַסְבְּרִי לֵיהּ וְסָבַר = when it is explained to him, he understands — the minimum standard for the laymen
Segment 3
TYPE: פסק הלכה (רב חננאל בשם רב)
Rav: the halacha does not follow Rabbi Yosei — needed because his reasoning might have seemed especially strong
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ שָׁם עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. פְּשִׁיטָא, יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא נִמּוּקוֹ עִמּוֹ? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if there is a court of twenty-three Sages there, it may be slaughtered only on the basis of the ruling of an expert. Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious, as there is a principle that in a dispute between an individual Sage and many Sages, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many Sages. The Gemara answers: Rav’s statement is necessary, lest you say that Rabbi Yosei is an exception to the principle, as his reasoning [nimmuko] is with him, i.e., his logic is sound. Rav Ḥananel therefore teaches us that this is not so, and the halakha does not follow his opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
Returning to the mishna, Rav Chananel reports in Rav’s name that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Yosei, who requires an expert even when a court of twenty-three is present. The Gemara asks why this needed to be said, since the general rule is that when one Sage disputes many, the halacha follows the many. The answer is that Rabbi Yosei carries special weight: elsewhere the Gemara says of him that ‘his reasoning is with him’ (nimmuko imo), meaning that his rulings are well grounded and often followed even against the majority. Rav therefore had to state clearly that in this case the majority view stands.
Key Terms:
- אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי = the halacha does not follow Rabbi Yosei
- יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים = an individual against many — the halacha follows the many
- נִמּוּקוֹ עִמּוֹ = his reasoning is with him — a description of Rabbi Yosei whose rulings are given special weight
- פְּשִׁיטָא = it is obvious — a challenge that a statement adds nothing
Segment 4
TYPE: ניסיון לפשוט ספק
Resolve the 36b uncertainty: since Rav already ruled against Rabbi Yosei, the earlier ruling must have been Shmuel’s
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תִּפְשׁוֹט מֵהָא, דְּהָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אִיתְּמַר, דְּאִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב — תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי?
English Translation:
Earlier (36b), the Gemara cited a ruling, which was issued either by Rav or Shmuel, that three regular Jews may deem a firstborn animal permitted in a place where there is no expert, in contrast to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara suggests: Resolve that dilemma from this statement in the name of Rav, that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. It can be inferred from here that that first, uncertain ruling was stated in the name of Shmuel. As, if it was stated in the name of Rav, why do I need two identical rulings?
קלאוד על הדף:
On 36b, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba reported that three laymen may permit a firstborn where there is no expert, but he was unsure whether the ruling came from Rav or from Shmuel. The Gemara now tries to settle that doubt. That ruling is in effect the same as Rav’s statement that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Yosei. If both had come from Rav, he would have said the same thing twice. So the doubtful ruling must have been Shmuel’s.
Key Terms:
- תִּפְשׁוֹט = resolve (the dilemma) — an attempt to settle an open question
- הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא = that first (statement) — the ruling of uncertain attribution on 36b
- מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל = in the name of Shmuel
- תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי = why do I need two? — the argument that a Sage would not repeat himself
Segment 5
TYPE: דחייה
No proof: one of Rav’s two statements may have been inferred by his students from the other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲדָא (מכלל) [מִכְּלָלָא] דַּחֲבִירְתַּהּ אִיתְּמַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: This is insufficient proof, as it is possible that Rav did not issue two identical rulings. Rather, one ruling was stated from the other, by inference. Rav issued only one of these statements explicitly; the other was reported by his students in his name based on an inference from what he had said.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the proof. Rav need not have said the same thing twice. He may have said only one of the statements explicitly, and his students worked out the other from it and passed it on in his name. The ruling that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Yosei and the ruling that three laymen may permit a firstborn mean the same thing, so either one could have been inferred from the other. The uncertainty over whether the 36b ruling came from Rav or Shmuel therefore remains.
Key Terms:
- חֲדָא מִכְּלָלָא דַּחֲבִירְתַּהּ אִיתְּמַר = one was stated by inference from the other
- מִכְּלָלָא = by inference, from the implication of a statement
- אִיתְּמַר = it was stated (reported in the name of an Amora)
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
A firstborn slaughtered and sold without being shown to an expert: eaten meat is refunded, uneaten meat is buried and refunded
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא הֶרְאָהוּ — מַה שֶּׁאָכְלוּ אָכְלוּ, וְיַחְזִיר לָהֶם הַדָּמִים, וּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא אָכְלוּ — הַבָּשָׂר יִקָּבֵר, וְיַחְזִיר אֶת הַדָּמִים.
English Translation:
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters a firstborn animal and sells its meat, and it was discovered that he did not initially show it to one of the Sages, the halakha is that it was actually prohibited to derive any benefit from the meat. In that case, what the buyers ate, they ate, and the Sages penalized the seller in that he must return the money to them, which they paid for the meat that they ate. And with regard to that which they did not eat, that meat must be buried, and he must return the money that they paid for the meat that they did not eat.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna deals with a seller who slaughtered a firstborn and sold its meat, and it then came out that he never showed the animal to an expert. Without an expert’s ruling the meat is forbidden for any benefit, and the Sages fined the seller. The buyers do not have to pay for what they have already eaten, so the seller must refund the price of that meat as well. The meat they have not eaten must be buried, as with anything forbidden for benefit, and the seller refunds its price too. In other words, the seller loses the full price because he sold the meat without having the animal examined.
Key Terms:
- הֶרְאָהוּ = showed it (to an expert) — the examination needed before a blemished firstborn may be slaughtered
- מַה שֶּׁאָכְלוּ אָכְלוּ = what they ate, they ate — the buyers bear no liability for meat already eaten
- יַחְזִיר לָהֶם הַדָּמִים = he must return the money to them
- הַבָּשָׂר יִקָּבֵר = the meat must be buried — disposal of an item forbidden for benefit
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
A cow sold and found to be a tereifa: refund the price; uneaten meat goes back to the seller; meat the buyers sold to gentiles or gave to dogs is paid for at tereifa value
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפָּרָה וּמְכָרָהּ, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה — מַה שֶּׁאָכְלוּ אָכְלוּ, וּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא אָכְלוּ — הֵם יַחֲזִירוּ לוֹ אֶת הַבָּשָׂר, וְהוּא יַחֲזִיר לָהֶם אֶת הַדָּמִים. מְכָרוּהוּ לְגוֹיִם, אוֹ הִטִּילוּהוּ לִכְלָבִים — יְשַׁלְּמוּ דְּמֵי טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
And likewise, in the case of one who slaughters a cow and sells it, and it was discovered that it is a tereifa, what the buyers ate, they ate, and what they did not eat, they must return the meat to the seller, who may sell it to a gentile or feed it to the dogs, and he must return the money to the buyers. If the buyers sold it to gentiles or cast it to the dogs, they pay the seller the value of a tereifa, which is less than the value of kosher meat, and the seller refunds the balance to the buyers.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna gives a parallel case: someone slaughters a cow, sells the meat, and it turns out to be a tereifa. Again the buyers do not pay for what they ate, and the seller refunds the price. The difference is in the uneaten meat. A tereifa may not be eaten, but one may benefit from it, so the buyers return the meat to the seller, who can sell it to a gentile or feed it to dogs. If the buyers already did so themselves, they benefited from it and must pay the seller what a tereifa is worth, which is less than kosher meat, and he refunds the rest. Unlike a firstborn that was not examined, a tereifa is not forbidden for benefit, so it keeps some value.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה = tereifa — an animal with a fatal defect, forbidden to eat though permitted for benefit
- הֵם יַחֲזִירוּ לוֹ אֶת הַבָּשָׂר = they return the meat to him — since it has value as a tereifa
- הִטִּילוּהוּ לִכְלָבִים = cast it to the dogs
- דְּמֵי טְרֵפָה = the value of a tereifa — the lower price of non-kosher meat
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Meat found to be a firstborn, produce found to be untithed, wine found to be libation wine: what was eaten was eaten, and the seller refunds
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר בָּשָׂר לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְנִמְצָא בְּשַׂר בְּכוֹר, פֵּירוֹת וְנִמְצָא טְבָלִים, יַיִן וְנִמְצָא יֵין נֶסֶךְ — מַה שֶּׁאָכְלוּ אָכְלוּ, וְיַחְזִיר לָהֶם אֶת הַדָּמִים.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where one sells meat to another and it was discovered that it is the meat of a firstborn animal, which was not deemed permitted for consumption by an expert, or if one sells produce to another and it was discovered that it is untithed produce, or if one sells wine to another and it turns out that it is wine that was used for a libation in idol worship, the halakha is that what the purchasers ate, they ate, and the seller reimburses them all their money.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita extends the mishna’s rule to other forbidden foods. If someone sells meat that turns out to be an unexamined firstborn, produce that turns out to be tevel (untithed), or wine that turns out to be yayin nesekh (wine used in idol worship), the buyers owe nothing for what they consumed and the seller refunds the full price. The common idea is that a seller who passes forbidden goods off as permitted bears the loss. The buyers paid for permitted food and got forbidden food.
Key Terms:
- טְבָלִים = tevel — produce from which terumah and tithes have not yet been separated, forbidden to eat
- יֵין נֶסֶךְ = yayin nesekh — wine used for a libation in idol worship, forbidden for benefit
- בְּשַׂר בְּכוֹר = the meat of a firstborn (here, one not permitted by an expert)
- תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן = the Sages taught — introduces a baraita
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא (רבי שמעון בן אלעזר)
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: for repulsive foods the full price is refunded; for non-repulsive foods the buyer’s benefit is deducted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: דְּבָרִים שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ קָצָה בָּהֶן — יַחֲזִיר לָהֶן אֶת הַדָּמִים, וְשֶׁאֵין הַנֶּפֶשׁ קָצָה בָּהֶם — יְנַכֶּה לָהֶם אֶת הַדָּמִים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן דְּבָרִים שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ קָצָה בָּהֶן: נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין הַנֶּפֶשׁ קָצָה בָּהֶן: בְּכוֹרוֹת, טְבָלִים וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, qualifying this ruling: If he sold them items from which one is generally repulsed, he must reimburse them all their money, as they are presumed to not have derived benefit from the consumption of such items. But if he sold them items from which one is not generally repulsed, he deducts for them the value of the benefit from those items and reimburses them the balance. And the following are items from which one is generally repulsed: Carcasses and tereifot, repugnant creatures, and creeping animals. And the following are items from which one is generally not repulsed: Firstborn animals, untithed produce, and wine used for a libation in idol worship.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar qualifies the baraita by looking at the buyer’s actual benefit. Food that people naturally find disgusting, such as nevelot, tereifot, sheqatzim and remasim, gives the buyer no real pleasure once he learns what it was, so the seller refunds everything. Firstborns, tevel and libation wine are no different in taste from permitted food, so the buyer did get the benefit of a good meal, and the seller may deduct its value and refund only the rest. The distinction measures the buyer’s gain by how he would feel about what he ate, not by its legal status.
Key Terms:
- דְּבָרִים שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ קָצָה בָּהֶן = things the soul is repulsed by — foods people find disgusting
- יְנַכֶּה לָהֶם אֶת הַדָּמִים = he deducts (the value of their benefit) from the money
- נְבֵילוֹת = nevelot — carcasses of animals that died without proper slaughter
- שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים = sheqatzim and remasim — repugnant creatures and creeping animals
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
For a firstborn, the buyer should be able to say: ‘What loss did I cause you?’ — the seller could never have used it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּכוֹר — וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַאי אַפְסֵדְתָּךְ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why does the seller deduct the value of the meat of a firstborn animal eaten by the purchaser and reimburse him the difference? Let the purchaser say to the seller: What loss have I caused you by eating the meat? Had you not sold it to me, you would have had no rights to partake of it, as this is an unblemished firstborn animal from which deriving benefit is prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s ruling about the firstborn. Deducting the buyer’s benefit makes sense only if the buyer used up something of value that belonged to the seller. An unblemished firstborn, or one never examined, is forbidden for benefit to its owner. So the buyer can argue that he cost the seller nothing by eating it, since the seller could never have benefited from it anyway. Why then should the seller be allowed to deduct anything?
Key Terms:
- מַאי אַפְסֵדְתָּךְ = what loss have I caused you? — the buyer’s claim that he destroyed nothing of value
- וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ = but let him say to him — introduces a counter-argument the defendant could make
- בְּכוֹר = a firstborn animal — forbidden for benefit until it develops a blemish and an expert permits it
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
The case is meat sold from the blemished part: the seller could have had it permitted after slaughter, following Rabbi Yehuda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא צְרִיכָא, כְּגוֹן דְּזַבֵּין לֵיהּ מִמְּקוֹם מוּמָא, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו דְּאָכְלַתְּ הֲוָה מַחְזֵינָא לֵיהּ וְשָׁרֵי נִיהֲלֵיהּ, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: No, this ruling is necessary in a case where he sold him a cut of meat from an area on the animal that contained a blemish, but the seller had not yet brought the animal to be examined and deemed permitted by a Sage. In that instance, the seller can say to the purchaser: Had you not eaten the meat, I would have shown the animal to a Sage and he would have deemed it permitted to me. The Gemara notes that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (28a), who permits a firstborn animal to be examined and deemed permitted even after it has been slaughtered.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the case is one where the seller sold the buyer the cut of meat that included the blemish, before any expert had examined the animal. The seller can now say that, had the buyer not eaten that piece, he would have shown the blemish to an expert, who would have permitted the animal even after slaughter. That follows Rabbi Yehuda (28a), who allows an expert to examine a firstborn after it has been slaughtered. By eating the blemished part, the buyer destroyed the evidence that would have made the whole animal permitted, so he did cause a real loss.
Key Terms:
- לָא צְרִיכָא = it is necessary only (for the following case) — narrows a ruling to a specific scenario
- מִמְּקוֹם מוּמָא = from the place of the blemish — the cut of meat that contained the blemish
- מַחְזֵינָא לֵיהּ = I would have shown it (to an expert)
- כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה = in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda — who permits examining a firstborn after slaughter
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ (המשך)
Tevel: ‘I would have tithed it’; libation wine: sold in a mixture that could be sold to gentiles, following Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טְבָלִים — הֲוָה מַתְקֵינְנָא לְהוּ וְאָכֵלְנָא לְהוּ, יֵין נֶסֶךְ — עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת, וּכְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds that with regard to untithed produce, although one could claim that the purchaser did not cause a loss to the seller, as untithed produce is prohibited for consumption, the seller can say to the purchaser: Had you not eaten my produce, I would have remedied it, i.e., separated its tithes, and eaten it. Similarly, with regard to wine used for a libation in idol worship, which is also prohibited to be consumed, this is referring to a seller who sold it in a mixture of permitted wine. In this case, had the purchaser not consumed the wine mixture, the seller could have derived benefit from it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers the same question for the other two items. With tevel the seller can say that he would have separated the tithes and eaten the produce himself, so the buyer did cost him something. With libation wine, which is forbidden for any benefit, the case is wine mixed into a larger amount of permitted wine. Under Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s view such a mixture still has value, so the buyer who drank it caused the seller a real loss. In all three cases the deduction is justified because the item could have been made usable.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵינְנָא לְהוּ = I would have fixed them — i.e., separated the tithes
- עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת = through a mixture — forbidden wine mixed with permitted wine
- רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל = Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel — a Tanna and Nasi
Segment 13
TYPE: מקור (משנה עבודה זרה)
The mishna (Avoda Zara 74a): libation wine fallen into a cistern forbids it all; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel lets it be sold to gentiles except the value of the libation wine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן: יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר — כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: יִמָּכֵר כּוּלּוֹ לְגוֹיִם, חוּץ מִדְּמֵי יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹ.
English Translation:
As we learned in a mishna (Avoda Zara 74a): In the case of wine used for a libation in idol worship that fell into a wine cistern, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all the wine in the cistern, even if the volume of the wine used for a libation was small in comparison to the volume of the rest of the wine in the cistern. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All of the wine in the cistern may be sold to a gentile, and the money paid for it is permitted, except for the value of the wine used for a libation that is in it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara quotes the source of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s view. According to the first Tanna, when libation wine falls into a cistern of permitted wine, all of it becomes forbidden for benefit, however small the forbidden amount. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that the whole cistern may be sold to a gentile and the seller may keep the money, except for the value of the forbidden wine in it, which he must get rid of. On his view the mixture keeps almost all its value, which explains why the buyer of such wine caused the seller a loss.
Key Terms:
- בּוֹר = a cistern — here, a large vat of wine
- אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה = forbidden for benefit — may not be eaten, sold or used in any way
- יִמָּכֵר כּוּלּוֹ לְגוֹיִם = all of it may be sold to gentiles
- חוּץ מִדְּמֵי יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹ = except for the value of the libation wine in it
Segment 14
TYPE: הדרן
Hadran: the conclusion of the fifth perek, Kol Pesulei HaMukdashin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין.
English Translation:
HADRAN: We shall return to you, Perek Kol Pesulei HaMukdashin — the fifth chapter of Bechorot concludes here.
קלאוד על הדף:
With this the fifth perek of Bechorot, Kol Pesulei HaMukdashin, comes to a close. The perek opened with the rules for selling and weighing the meat of disqualified consecrated animals. It then dealt at length with who may be trusted to examine a firstborn and what happens when an expert or a layman rules wrongly. It ends with the seller who sold forbidden meat. The traditional hadran declares the learner’s intention to return to the perek and the perek’s ‘return’ to the learner. The masechet continues with the sixth perek, and Bechorot has nine perakim in all.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ = we shall return to you — the formula said on completing a perek
- כׇּל פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין = all disqualified consecrated animals — the opening words and title of the fifth perek
- פֶּרֶק = a chapter of the Mishna and Talmud
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה (פרק ששי)
Opening mishna of Perek 6 (Al Eilu Mumin): ear blemishes — cartilage damaged, split, pierced the size of a karshina, or desiccated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר: נִפְגְּמָה אׇזְנוֹ מִן הַחַסְחוּס, אֲבָל לֹא הָעוֹר, נִסְדְּקָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָסְרָה, נִיקְּבָה מְלֹא כַרְשִׁינָה, אוֹ שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה. אֵיזֶהוּ יְבֵשָׁה? כֹּל שֶׁתִּנָּקֵב וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה טִיפַּת דָּם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: יְבֵשָׁה שֶׁתְּהֵא נִפְרֶכֶת.
English Translation:
MISHNA: For these blemishes, one may slaughter the firstborn animal outside the Temple: If the firstborn’s ear was damaged and lacking from the cartilage [haḥasḥus], but not if the skin was damaged; and likewise, if the ear was split, although it is not lacking; or if the ear was pierced with a hole the size of a bitter vetch, which is a type of legume; or if it was an ear that is desiccated. What is a desiccated ear that is considered a blemish? It is any ear that if it is pierced it does not discharge a drop of blood. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: Desiccated means that the ear is so dry that it will crumble if one touches it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sixth perek, Al Eilu Mumin, begins its catalogue of the blemishes that allow a firstborn to be slaughtered and eaten outside the Temple. It starts with the ear. Damage to the cartilage counts as a blemish, but damage only to the skin does not, because skin grows back. A split counts even when nothing is missing. A hole counts if it is the size of a karshina (bitter vetch). A desiccated ear also counts. The first Tanna defines a desiccated ear as one that does not bleed when pierced, and Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam requires that it be dry enough to crumble.
Key Terms:
- עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין = for these blemishes — the opening words and title of the sixth perek
- חַסְחוּס = cartilage — the firm part of the ear, which does not regenerate
- נִסְדְּקָה = it was split
- כַרְשִׁינָה = karshina — bitter vetch, a small legume used as a measure
- יְבֵשָׁה = desiccated — an ear that has dried up
- נִפְרֶכֶת = crumbles — Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam’s test for desiccation
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Why do these blemishes permit a firstborn? The verse mentions only lameness and blindness
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אַמַּאי? פִּסֵּחַ וְעִוֵּר כְּתִיב!
English Translation:
GEMARA: With regard to the blemishes mentioned in this mishna and in the subsequent mishnayot, the Gemara asks: Why is it permitted to slaughter and eat a firstborn that sustained these blemishes? Only a lame animal and a blind animal are written in the verse that discusses this halakha. That verse states: “And if there be any blemish therein, lameness, or blindness, any ill blemish whatsoever, you shall not sacrifice it to the Lord your God. You shall eat it within your gates” (Deuteronomy 15:21–22).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens its analysis of the whole perek by asking for the source. The verse that allows a blemished firstborn to be eaten ‘within your gates’ (Deuteronomy 15:21-22) names only lameness and blindness. Why then should an ear blemish, or any of the many blemishes listed in this perek, permit the animal? The question sets up the exegetical framework for the rest of the catalogue.
Key Terms:
- פִּסֵּחַ = lame
- עִוֵּר = blind
- אַמַּאי = why? — a question demanding a source
- כְּתִיב = it is written
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא (כלל ופרט)
‘If there be any blemish’ includes others — but a generalization followed by a detail includes only the detail
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתִיב נָמֵי ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם״, וְאֵימָא: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בּוֹ מוּם״ — כָּלַל, ״פִּסֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר״ — פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מָה שֶׁבַּפְּרָט; פִּסֵּחַ וְעִוֵּר — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא!
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It is also written in the beginning of the verse: “If there be any blemish therein,” which indicates that other blemishes are also included. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the phrase “if there be any blemish therein” is a generalization, while “lameness, or blindness” is a detail. According to the principles of midrashic exegesis, if a generalization and a detail are mentioned, the generalization includes only that which is specified in the detail. Therefore, it should be concluded that in the event of lameness and blindness, yes, one may slaughter the firstborn, but in the event of another matter, one may not slaughter it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the verse also opens with the general phrase ‘if there be any blemish therein,’ which suggests that blemishes other than lameness and blindness are included. It then objects with one of the thirteen hermeneutic rules of Rabbi Yishmael. When a general term (klal) is followed by a specific term (prat), the general term covers only what the specific term names. ‘Any blemish’ followed by ‘lameness or blindness’ should then limit the law to those two blemishes alone.
Key Terms:
- כָּלַל = a generalization (klal)
- פָּרַט = a detail, specification (prat)
- כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מָה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט = a generalization and a detail — the generalization includes only what is in the detail
- מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא = something else, any other matter
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ (כלל ופרט וכלל)
‘Any ill blemish’ generalizes again: a klal-prat-klal includes all blemishes like the detail — visible and permanent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״כֹּל מוּם רָע״ — חָזַר וְכָלַל, כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל — אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט; מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ — מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי וְאֵינָן חוֹזְרִין, אַף כֹּל מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי וְאֵינָן חוֹזְרִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: By subsequently stating: “Any ill blemish,” it then generalized again. Consequently, it is a generalization and a detail and a generalization, represented in the phrases “any blemish,” “lameness or blindness,” and “any ill blemish,” and according to the principles of midrashic exegesis, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the items mentioned in the detail, i.e., in the phrase “lameness or blindness,” are clearly defined as blemishes that are exposed and do not regenerate, so too, all blemishes that are exposed and do not regenerate are considered blemishes with regard to a firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the verse goes on to say ‘any ill blemish,’ a second general term. A generalization, a detail and another generalization (klal u-prat u-klal) form a different pattern. Here the law includes everything similar to the detail, neither less nor more. Lameness and blindness are both visible and permanent, so any blemish that is visible and does not heal permits the firstborn. This principle explains why the perek lists so many blemishes beyond the two named in the verse.
Key Terms:
- חָזַר וְכָלַל = it generalized again
- כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל = generalization, detail, generalization — includes what resembles the detail
- כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט = similar to the detail
- מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי = exposed (visible) blemishes
- וְאֵינָן חוֹזְרִין = and they do not return (heal) — permanent blemishes
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
Why not add a third feature of the detail — that the blemish stops the animal from working? Then an ear blemish would not count
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ — מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי, וּבוֹטֵל מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר, אַף כֹּל — מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי, וּבוֹטֵל מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: נִפְגְּמָה אׇזְנוֹ מִן הַחַסְחוּס וְלֹא מִן הָעוֹר?
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: But say instead that just as the items mentioned in the detail, i.e., in the phrase “lameness or blindness,” are clearly defined as blemishes that are exposed and that cause an animal to desist from its normal labor, and they are blemishes that do not regenerate, so too, all blemishes that are exposed and that cause an animal to desist from its labor and do not regenerate are included in this halakha. If so, a blemish that does not fit these criteria would not render the firstborn permitted to be slaughtered. Why then did we learn in the mishna that if the firstborn’s ear was damaged and lacking from the cartilage, but not if it is lacking from the skin, it is considered a blemish, despite the fact that this does not cause the animal to desist from its labor?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why only two features of lameness and blindness are carried over. These blemishes also stop the animal from doing its normal work, since a lame or blind animal cannot plough or carry loads. If that feature were required too, only visible, permanent and disabling blemishes would permit a firstborn. Yet the mishna counts damaged ear cartilage as a blemish, and it does not stop the animal from working at all.
Key Terms:
- בּוֹטֵל מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ = desists from its work — a blemish that disables the animal
- וְאֵימָא = but say (instead) — proposes an alternative reading
- אַלְּמָה תְּנַן = why then did we learn (in the mishna)? — points to a contradiction with a mishna
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא
The word ‘any’ (kol) amplifies, adding non-disabling blemishes — but then hidden blemishes should count too, unlike the gum mishna (39a)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֹּל מוּם רָע רִיבּוּיָא הוּא, אִי הָכִי, מוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר נָמֵי? אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: חוּטִין הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ וְשֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ, וְהַפְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ —
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The word “any” in “any ill blemish” is an amplification, and it includes even blemishes that are different from those defined by the detail. The Gemara challenges: If so, blemishes that are hidden should also be included. Why then did we learn in the mishna (39a) that animals with external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched [veshenigmemu] and likewise animals with internal gums that were entirely extracted are considered blemished?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the word ‘any’ (kol) in ‘any ill blemish’ amplifies, so it includes blemishes that do not fully match the detail, such as those that do not disable the animal. That leads to a new objection. If ‘any’ widens the category, it should include hidden blemishes too, such as damage inside the mouth. Yet a later mishna (39a) treats the outer and inner gums differently, implying that damage to the inner gums, which are hidden, does not count. The quotation of that mishna continues on 37b.
Key Terms:
- רִיבּוּיָא = an amplification — a word that extends a law beyond its plain scope
- מוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר = hidden blemishes — not visible from outside
- חוּטִין = the gums
- שֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ = that were scratched or nicked
- שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ = that were entirely uprooted
Amud Bet (37b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא
Hidden blemishes are not an ‘ill blemish’ (mum ra) — but then a temporary blemish should count, unlike the ear-skin ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נֶעְקְרוּ אִין, נִפְגְּמוּ וְנִגְמְמוּ לָא? בָּעֵינָא ״מוּם רָע״, וְלֵיכָּא! אִי הָכִי, מוּם עוֹבֵר נָמֵי! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: וְלֹא מִן הָעוֹר?
English Translation:
It can be inferred that if the internal gums were extracted then yes, one may slaughter the firstborn, but if they were merely damaged or they were scratched, one may not, since it is a hidden blemish. The Gemara answers: I require that it be an “ill blemish,” which must be exposed and degrading, and a hidden blemish is not considered such an “ill blemish.” The Gemara asks: If so, that all blemishes are included by the words: “Any ill blemish,” aside from hidden blemishes, a temporary blemish should also render it permitted for the firstborn to be slaughtered. Why then did we learn in the mishna: If the firstborn’s ear was damaged and lacking from the cartilage it may be slaughtered, but not if it is damaged and lacking from the skin, since it is a temporary blemish?
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna on 39a implies that the inner gums count as a blemish only when they are completely uprooted, not when they are merely damaged or scratched. The Gemara explains that the word ‘ill’ (ra) requires a blemish that can be seen, so a hidden blemish is excluded. It then raises a new objection. If ‘any’ includes everything except hidden blemishes, a temporary blemish should count as well. Yet the mishna says that damage to the skin of the ear, which heals, does not permit the firstborn.
Key Terms:
- מוּם רָע = an ill blemish — understood as a blemish that is visible
- מוּם עוֹבֵר = a temporary (passing) blemish — one that will heal
- בָּעֵינָא = I require
- וְלֵיכָּא = and it is not present
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ (סברא) וברייתא
A temporary blemish is excluded by logic: if it cannot even justify redemption, surely it cannot justify slaughtering a firstborn
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוּם עוֹבֵר סְבָרָא הוּא, הַשְׁתָּא מִיפְרָק לָא פָּרְקִינַן עִלָּוֵיהּ, מִשְׁחָט שָׁחֲטִינַן עִלָּוֵיהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאִם כׇּל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״ — בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: A temporary blemish is not excluded by the exegesis but is based on logical reasoning: Now, if we do not even redeem an offering due to a temporary blemish, will we slaughter a firstborn outside the Temple, for which redemption is not performed, due to a temporary blemish? The Gemara explains the source for this assertion that an offering is not redeemed because of a temporary blemish. As it is taught in a baraita: “And if it be any impure animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:11). The verse is speaking of ritually pure animals with blemishes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the verse is not needed to exclude a temporary blemish, because reasoning excludes it. An ordinary consecrated animal with a temporary blemish cannot be redeemed. A firstborn cannot be redeemed at all, and once blemished it is slaughtered and eaten in its holy state. It would make no sense for a temporary blemish to allow that, when it does not even allow the lesser step of redemption. The Gemara then brings the source that temporary blemishes do not allow redemption: a baraita on Leviticus 27:11 that reads ‘impure animal’ as referring to a pure animal with a blemish.
Key Terms:
- סְבָרָא = logical reasoning (as opposed to scriptural derivation)
- מִיפְרָק לָא פָּרְקִינַן = we do not (even) redeem
- מִשְׁחָט שָׁחֲטִינַן = shall we slaughter?
- בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר = the verse speaks of blemished animals
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Proof: verse 27 already covers truly impure animals, so verse 11 must refer to blemished pure animals that are redeemed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מַמָּשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְאִם בִּבְהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה״, הֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה״? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Do you say that the verse is speaking of animals with blemishes that were redeemed, or is it referring only to an actual impure animal, such as a donkey or a horse that was consecrated; but with regard to a kosher animal, perhaps its consecrated status cannot be removed by redemption even if it was blemished? When the verse states: “And if it be of an impure animal” (Leviticus 27:27), a non-kosher animal is mentioned. So how do I realize the meaning of: “Of which they may not bring an offering”? You must say that this is referring to blemished animals that were redeemed, indicating that redemption is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita explains why ‘impure animal’ in Leviticus 27:11 does not mean a non-kosher animal such as a donkey or horse. Verse 27 of the same chapter already deals with consecrated non-kosher animals. Verse 11 must therefore have a different subject. It refers to kosher consecrated animals that became blemished and so are ‘impure’ in the sense that they can no longer be offered, and the verse teaches that they may be redeemed.
Key Terms:
- בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ = blemished animals that were redeemed
- בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מַמָּשׁ = an actually impure (non-kosher) animal
- מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים = how do I fulfill (the meaning of) — asks what a seemingly redundant verse teaches
- הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר = you must say
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא (סיום)
‘Of which they may not bring an offering’ — only an animal that can never be offered; a temporary blemish is excluded
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל יִפָּדוּ עַל מוּם עוֹבֵר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״ — מִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה כׇּל עִיקָּר, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא לְמָחָר.
English Translation:
The baraita concludes: One might have thought that offerings may be redeemed due to a temporary blemish that they sustained. Therefore, the verse states: “Of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:11). This teaches that an animal that is not sacrificed at all is redeemed, which excludes this animal that has a temporary blemish, which is not sacrificed today, but rather may be sacrificed tomorrow.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita concludes by excluding temporary blemishes. The words ‘of which they may not bring an offering’ describe an animal that cannot be offered at all, that is, one with a permanent blemish. An animal with a temporary blemish cannot be offered today but will be fit again once it heals, so it may not be redeemed. Together with the Gemara’s reasoning this completes the answer: a firstborn with a temporary blemish certainly may not be slaughtered on account of it.
Key Terms:
- יָכוֹל = one might have thought
- תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = therefore the verse states
- כׇּל עִיקָּר = at all
- אֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא לְמָחָר = it is not offered today but tomorrow — a temporary blemish
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ אחר
Alternatively: if a temporary blemish counted, ‘lame or blind’ would be superfluous — they teach permanence
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִם כֵּן פִּסֵּחַ וְעִוֵּר לְמָה לִי?
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: If you wish, say a different explanation as to why a temporary blemish is not included in the amplification of the verse: “Any ill blemish”: If so, that even a temporary blemish permits its slaughter, why do I need the verse to mention a lame animal and a blind animal? It would have sufficed to state: “Any ill blemish.” Rather, the verse excludes a temporary blemish that is unlike these two blemishes, which are permanent.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara gives a second answer that relies on the verse itself. If every blemish except a hidden one counted, the Torah could simply have said ‘any ill blemish,’ and the words ‘lameness or blindness’ would add nothing. Naming two permanent blemishes shows that permanence is required. So, on this answer as well, a temporary blemish does not permit a firstborn to be slaughtered.
Key Terms:
- אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא = if you wish, say — introduces an alternative answer
- לְמָה לִי = why do I need it? — an argument from redundancy
- פִּסֵּחַ וְעִוֵּר = lame and blind — the two blemishes named in the verse
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא וקושיא
A baraita: a split of any size, damage by man or by God — does that imply a split by God’s hand is not a blemish?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִסְדְּקָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָסְרָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַסֶּדֶק — כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, הַפְּגִימָה — בֵּין בִּידֵי אָדָם בֵּין בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. מִכְּלָל דְּסֶדֶק בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם לָא?
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: If the ear of the firstborn animal was split, although it is not lacking, one may slaughter the animal outside the Temple. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The split that permits the animal to be slaughtered is one of any size. With regard to the damage, whether it was done by the hand of a person or by the hand of God, it may be slaughtered. The Gemara asks: Should it be derived by inference that with regard to a split, if it was caused by the hand of God it is not considered a blemish? That also should be considered an obvious blemish and render the animal permitted for slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Moving on to the mishna’s second ear blemish, the Gemara cites a baraita: a split of any size is a blemish, and damage counts whether done by a person or ‘by the hand of Heaven,’ that is, naturally. As worded, the baraita seems to say ‘by man or by God’ only about damage, which would imply that a naturally occurring split does not count. The Gemara asks why that should be, since a natural split is just as visible and permanent.
Key Terms:
- סֶדֶק = a split — a tear with no missing tissue
- פְּגִימָה = damage — a nick with tissue missing
- בִּידֵי אָדָם = by human hand
- בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם = by the hand of Heaven — naturally, without human action
- מִכְּלָל = by inference
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ (פירוש הברייתא)
Read: both split and damage count whether by man or by God; the minimum damage is enough to catch a fingernail
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, סֶדֶק וּפְגִימָה — בֵּין בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם בֵּין בִּידֵי אָדָם. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּר פְּגִימָה? כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּחְגּוֹר בָּהּ צִיפּוֹרֶן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita should be interpreted as follows: The animal may be slaughtered for a split of any size, and with regard to a split and damage, whether it was done by the hand of God or by the hand of a person, the animal may be slaughtered. And what is the measure of the damage that is considered a blemish? It must be large enough that a fingernail will be retained [shetaḥgor] on it, i.e., if one passes his fingernail over the ear of the animal it can enter the area of the damage.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rereads the baraita. ‘Of any size’ refers to the split, and ‘whether by man or by God’ refers to both the split and the damage. It then adds a minimum size for damage: the nick must be large enough to catch a fingernail drawn along the edge of the ear. A split needs no minimum size because the ear is already divided, but a nick in the edge must be big enough to be felt.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיעוּר = a minimum measure
- כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּחְגּוֹר בָּהּ צִיפּוֹרֶן = enough that a fingernail catches in it
- צִיפּוֹרֶן = a fingernail
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Hole size: a karshina (first Tanna) or a lentil (Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda); definitions of a desiccated ear
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִקְּבָה מְלֹא וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כַּמָּה נְקִיבַת הָאוֹזֶן? מְלֹא כַרְשִׁינָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא יְבֵשָׁה? שֶׁאִם תִּינָּקֵב וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה טִיפַּת דָּם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: יְבֵשָׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נִפְרֶכֶת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna stated that if the ear of a firstborn animal was pierced with a hole the size of a bitter vetch, the animal is slaughtered because of it. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: How large must the piercing of the ear be? It must be the size of a karshina. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Like the size of a lentil, which is slightly smaller. And what is a desiccated ear that is considered a blemish? It is an ear that if it is pierced, it does not discharge a drop of blood. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: Desiccated means that the ear is so dry that it will crumble if one touches it.
קלאוד על הדף:
On the third ear blemish, the baraita gives the size of the hole as a karshina (bitter vetch). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says the size of a lentil, which is slightly smaller. The baraita then repeats the dispute over a desiccated ear found in the mishna: either an ear that does not bleed when pierced, or, according to Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, one so dry that it crumbles.
Key Terms:
- נְקִיבַת הָאוֹזֶן = the piercing of the ear
- עֲדָשָׁה = a lentil
- טִיפַּת דָּם = a drop of blood
- רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה = Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda — a Tanna of the generation after Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא וביאור
‘Their statements are close to being identical’ — the karshina and lentil views, not the two definitions of desiccation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא: קְרוֹבִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן לִהְיוֹת שָׁוִין. דִּבְרֵיהֶן דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם — טוּבָא אִיכָּא! אֶלָּא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
A Sage taught: Their statements are close to being identical in practice. The Gemara asks: The statements of whom are close to being identical? If we say that he is referring to the statements of the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam with regard to a desiccated ear, there is a significant difference between these two opinions. One says it is determined by whether blood emerges, while the other holds it is based on whether it crumbles. Rather, he is referring to the statement of the first tanna and the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as a karshina and a lentil are almost identical in size.
קלאוד על הדף:
A Tanna remarks that the two opinions are almost the same. The Gemara asks which two opinions he means. It cannot be the dispute over a desiccated ear, because ‘does not bleed’ and ‘crumbles’ are quite different tests. It must be the dispute over the hole, because a karshina and a lentil are nearly the same size, so in practice the two opinions hardly differ.
Key Terms:
- קְרוֹבִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן לִהְיוֹת שָׁוִין = their statements are close to being equal
- טוּבָא אִיכָּא = there is a great deal (of difference)
- תַּנָּא קַמָּא = the first Tanna — the anonymous opening opinion
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא (רמינהי)
Contradiction: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda allows even a needle to pierce the ear of a Hebrew slave
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כַּעֲדָשָׁה — אִין, בְּצִיר מִכַּעֲדָשָׁה — לָא? וּרְמִינְהִי: ״מַרְצֵעַ״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַרְצֵעַ, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הַסּוֹל, וְהַסִּירָה, וְהַמַּחַט, וְהַמַּקְדֵּחַ, וְהַמַּכְתֵּב?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: If the ear was pierced with a hole like the size of a lentil, then yes, it is considered a blemish, but if it was pierced with a hole less than the size of a lentil, then is it not considered a blemish? And one can raise a contradiction from a baraita: The Torah provides a description of the process by which a Hebrew slave who has already completed his six years of servitude may continue on as a slave of his master: “And you shall take the awl and put it through his ear and in the door” (Deuteronomy 15:17). From this verse, I have derived only that an awl can be used. From where do I know to include the palm thorn [hassol], a thorn, a needle, and a gimlet, and a stylus for writing on wax as valid tools for piercing his ear?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. If he requires a lentil-sized hole for a blemish, it seems that a smaller hole is not a blemish. A baraita about the Hebrew slave seems to imply otherwise. The Torah describes piercing the ear of a slave who chooses to remain with his master ‘with the awl’ (Deuteronomy 15:17), and the baraita asks how we know that other tools, including a palm thorn, a thorn, a needle, a drill and a stylus, may also be used. The contradiction itself is explained in the segments that follow.
Key Terms:
- וּרְמִינְהִי = and they raised a contradiction — sets one source against another
- מַרְצֵעַ = an awl — the tool named in the verse
- נִרְצָע = a pierced slave — one who chose to remain in service
- מַחַט = a needle
- מַקְדֵּחַ = a drill, gimlet
- מַכְתֵּב = a stylus for writing on wax tablets
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda: ‘and you shall take’ includes anything held in the hand; Rabbi: only metal, like an awl
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״ — כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּלְקָח בַּיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״מַרְצֵעַ״ — מָה מַרְצֵעַ מְיוּחָד שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, אַף כֹּל שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall take,” which indicates that anything that can be taken by hand is a valid tool. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Not all these items can be used. Rather, since the verse specifies an “awl,” only items similar to an awl can be used; just as an awl is distinct in that it is fashioned of metal, so too, anything fashioned of metal can be used.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita gives the dispute. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, reads ‘and you shall take’ broadly: anything that can be held in the hand may be used for piercing, including a thorn or a needle. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi reads the awl as a model and requires a tool that, like an awl, is made of metal. On Rabbi Yosei’s view, then, the slave’s ear may be pierced even with a needle, which makes a very small hole.
Key Terms:
- וְלָקַחְתָּ = and you shall take — read as including any handheld tool
- כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּלְקָח בַּיָּד = anything that is taken in the hand
- מְיוּחָד = distinct, characterized by
- מַתֶּכֶת = metal
- רַבִּי = Rabbi — Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, compiler of the Mishna
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא (סיפא)
The end of the baraita: Yudan the Distinguished taught that the piercing was done in the earlobe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אָמַר רַבִּי, יוּדָן בְּרִבִּי הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ: כְּשֶׁהֵן רוֹצְעִין, אֵין רוֹצְעִין אֶלָּא בַּמִּילָת.
English Translation:
And the latter clause of the baraita teaches: Rabbi Elazar said that Yudan the Distinguished would teach as follows: When they pierce the ear of the slave, they pierce only in the earlobe.
קלאוד על הדף:
The latter clause of the same baraita reports, through Rabbi Elazar, that Yudan the Distinguished (berabbi) taught that the ear of the slave is pierced only in the soft earlobe. This sets up the dispute that follows, in which the Rabbis argue that the piercing must be through the cartilage. That will show that even a needle-sized hole counts as a blemish.
Key Terms:
- סֵיפָא = the latter clause (of a mishna or baraita)
- מִילָת = the earlobe — the soft, fleshy lower part of the ear
- בְּרִבִּי = berabbi — an honorific for a distinguished scholar
- רוֹצְעִין = they pierce
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא (חכמים)
The Rabbis: a priest-slave is not pierced because it makes him blemished — so piercing must be in the cartilage, and a needle-hole blemishes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי כֹּהֵן נִרְצָע, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בַּעַל מוּם. וְאִם תֹּאמַר: בַּמִּילָת הָיוּ רוֹצְעִין, הֵיאַךְ עֶבֶד כֹּהֵן נַעֲשֶׂה בַּעַל מוּם? הָא אֵין רוֹצְעִין אֶלָּא בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁל אוֹזֶן.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis say: The piercing is not performed on that part of the ear, since there is a tradition that the ear of a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced, because the piercing renders him blemished and unfit to serve in the Temple. And if you say that they pierced the slave in the earlobe, how does a Hebrew slave who is a priest become blemished through piercing? A wound on this part of the ear heals. This indicates that they pierce only on the upper part of the ear, through the cartilage.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis disagree. There is a tradition that a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all, because the piercing would give him a blemish and disqualify him from Temple service. A wound in the earlobe heals, so it would not be a lasting blemish. The piercing must therefore be through the upper, cartilage part of the ear. Since the baraita allows a needle, this suggests that even a needle hole in the cartilage is a blemish, which contradicts Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who requires a lentil-sized hole.
Key Terms:
- עֶבֶד עִבְרִי = a Hebrew slave
- עֶבֶד עִבְרִי כֹּהֵן = a Hebrew slave who is a priest
- בַּעַל מוּם = a person or animal with a blemish — disqualified from Temple service or offering
- גוֹבַהּ שֶׁל אוֹזֶן = the upper part of the ear — the cartilage
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ (רב חנא בר קטינא)
Rav Chana bar Ketina: a lentil-sized hole is needed to permit slaughter; a smaller hole is enough to disqualify
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר קַטִּינָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן לִשְׁחוֹט, כָּאן לִפְסוֹל.
English Translation:
In any event, it is clear from the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that the piercing of a needle is considered a blemish, despite the fact that it is definitely smaller than the size of a lentil. The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥana bar Ketina said: It is not difficult, as here, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that the hole must be the size of a lentil with regard to slaughtering an animal outside the Temple due to the blemish. There, with regard to disqualifying the animal from being sacrificed, even a tiny hole is considered a blemish, just as it renders the priest blemished.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chana bar Ketina resolves the contradiction by distinguishing two laws of blemishes. To permit slaughtering a firstborn outside the Temple, a hole the size of a lentil is required. To disqualify an animal from the altar, or a priest from service, even a needle hole is enough. The two thresholds are not inconsistent. The law is strict in both directions: a small blemish already makes the animal unfit for the altar, but a larger one is needed before the firstborn’s holiness gives way enough for it to be eaten outside.
Key Terms:
- כָּאן לִשְׁחוֹט = here, to slaughter (a firstborn outside the Temple)
- כָּאן לִפְסוֹל = there, to disqualify (from the altar or Temple service)
- לָא קַשְׁיָא = it is not difficult — introduces a resolution
Segment 15
TYPE: ביאור מונח
Rav Sherevya: a karshina is the bitter vetch, called hinda in Aramaic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי כַּרְשִׁינָה? אָמַר רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא: הִינְדָּא.
English Translation:
§ According to the first opinion cited in the baraita, the size of the hole that is considered a blemish in the ear of the firstborn animal is like that of a karshina. The Gemara asks: What is a karshina? Rav Sherevya says: It is a bitter vetch, called hinda in Aramaic.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defines the karshina used as the measure in the mishna. Rav Sherevya identifies it with the plant known in Aramaic as hinda, the bitter vetch, a small legume used mostly as animal fodder. Knowing which seed is meant matters, because the mishna’s measure depends on its size.
Key Terms:
- כַּרְשִׁינָה = karshina — bitter vetch
- הִינְדָּא = hinda — the Aramaic name for bitter vetch
- מַאי = what is?
Segment 16
TYPE: בעיא
Rav Hoshaya asks: must the karshina pass in and out of the hole, or merely sit in it? Rav Huna the Great: ‘I heard a parallel’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא מֵרַב הוּנָא רַבָּה: כַּרְשִׁינָה הַנִּכְנֶסֶת וְיוֹצְאָה, אוֹ כַרְשִׁינָה הָעוֹמֶדֶת? אָמַר לוֹ: זוֹ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי, כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שָׁמַעְתִּי.
English Translation:
With regard to this halakha, Rav Hoshaya asked Rav Huna the Great: Is this measure referring to a bitter vetch that can enter and exit the hole in the ear, which means that the hole is slightly larger than the bitter vetch? Or is it referring to a bitter vetch that is stationary in the hole, meaning that the hole is precisely the size of a bitter vetch? Rav Huna the Great said to him: I did not hear this halakha specifically, but I heard a similar halakha to it, that the expression: The size of a bitter vetch [melo karshina], means that the bitter vetch can enter and exit the hole.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Hoshaya asks Rav Huna the Great how the measure is meant. Must the hole be large enough for a karshina to pass in and out freely, or is it enough that a karshina fits snugly in it? Rav Huna answers that he received no tradition on this case, but he did on a similar one. From it he concludes that ‘the size of’ (melo) a measure means one that can pass in and out freely. The parallel is quoted in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- הַנִּכְנֶסֶת וְיוֹצְאָה = that enters and exits — passes through freely
- הָעוֹמֶדֶת = that stands (stationary) — fits exactly
- זוֹ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי = this I did not hear (as a tradition)
- כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שָׁמַעְתִּי = I heard (a ruling) similar to it
Segment 17
TYPE: מקור (משנה אהלות)
The parallel (Oholot 2:3): how much must be missing from a corpse’s spine or skull so it no longer imparts tent impurity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן: הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁחָסְרוּ, כַּמָּה חֶסְרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה וְלֹא יְהֵא מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי חוּלְיוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חוּלְיָא אַחַת. וּבַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כִּמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי וְיָמוּת.
English Translation:
As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 2:3): The spine and the skull of a corpse that are incomplete do not impart ritual impurity in a tent. This halakha was unanimously accepted, but the details were subject to dispute: How much is considered a deficiency in the spine so that it will not impart impurity in a tent? Beit Shammai say: If it is missing two vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: Even if it is missing only one vertebra, it will not impart impurity. And likewise, they disagree concerning the deficiency in the skull: Beit Shammai say that it must be missing a piece like the size of a drilled hole, and Beit Hillel say: It must be missing an amount that if removed from a living person, he would die.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna’s parallel comes from the laws of corpse impurity. A complete spine or skull of a corpse imparts impurity in a tent (ohel), but once a certain amount is missing it no longer does. For the spine, Beit Shammai require two vertebrae to be missing and Beit Hillel only one. For the skull, Beit Shammai require a hole the size of a drill hole (melo makdeach), while Beit Hillel require a gap large enough that, if it were removed from a living person, he would die. The phrase ‘melo makdeach’ is what connects this source to the karshina question.
Key Terms:
- שִׁדְרָה = the spine
- גּוּלְגּוֹלֶת = the skull
- מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל = imparts impurity in a tent — the impurity a corpse spreads to everything under the same roof
- חוּלְיָא = a vertebra
- כִּמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ = the size of a drill hole
- כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי וְיָמוּת = enough that if removed from a living person he would die
Segment 18
TYPE: בעיא ותשובה
Rav Chisda asks the size of Beit Hillel’s measure; Rav Tachlifa bar Avudimi cites Shmuel: a sela
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְיָתֵיב רַב חִסְדָּא וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: ״כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי״ — וְכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבוּדִימִי: הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל — כְּסֶלַע.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: And Rav Ḥisda was sitting, and he raised a dilemma: That which was stated: An amount that if removed from a living person, how much is that? Rav Taḥlifa bar Avudimi said to him: This is what Shmuel says: It is like the size of a sela coin.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda asks how large Beit Hillel’s measure, a gap in the skull large enough to kill a living person, actually is. Rav Tachlifa bar Avudimi answers in Shmuel’s name that it is the size of a sela coin. This gives Beit Hillel’s description a concrete size, but, as the following segments show, it causes a problem when compared with Beit Shammai’s measure.
Key Terms:
- קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ = he raised a dilemma
- סֶלַע = a sela — a silver coin, also used as a measure of size
- וְכַמָּה = and how much?
Segment 19
TYPE: מחלוקת בציטוט
Rav Safra: Rav Tachlifa cited an Amoraic teaching; Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: he cited a baraita (mnemonic: ‘tanei’)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיתְּמַר: רַב סָפְרָא אָמַר: שְׁמַעְתְּתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר: מַתְנִיתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וְסִימָנָיךְ: תָּנֵי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And it was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to whom Rabbi Taḥlifa cited when relating this halakha to Rav Ḥisda. Rav Safra says that he told him a halakha of the amora’im citing Shmuel. And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says that he told him a baraita that stipulated that the measure is like the size of a sela coin. And your mnemonic to remember what each one said is the common talmudic phrase: Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda teaches [tanei], generally indicating a source from a tanna, which hints that according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, Rav Taḥlifa cited a baraita to Rav Ḥisda, while according to Rav Safra, he related a tradition from Shmuel.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes a disagreement about what Rav Tachlifa bar Avudimi was quoting. Rav Safra says it was an Amoraic teaching (shematata) in Shmuel’s name. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says it was a baraita (matnita) that set the measure at a sela. The Gemara gives a mnemonic: the common phrase ‘Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught (tanei)’ uses the word for a tannaitic teaching, which recalls that he is the one who says the source was a baraita. The difference matters, since a baraita carries more weight than an Amoraic tradition.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמַעְתְּתָא = an Amoraic teaching or tradition
- מַתְנִיתָא = a tannaitic source — here, a baraita
- סִימָנָיךְ = your mnemonic — a memory aid for who said what
- תָּנֵי = he teaches — used of reciting tannaitic material
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Chisda: then Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel say the same thing, since a sela equals the large drill hole (Kelim 17:12)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, עָשִׂיתָה דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל אֶחָד! דִּתְנַן: מָאוֹר שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה בִּידֵי אָדָם, שִׁיעוּרוֹ מְלֹא אֶגְרוֹף גָּדוֹל, וְזֶהוּ אֶגְרוֹפוֹ שֶׁל בֶּן אֲבַטִּיחַ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְיֶשְׁנוֹ כְּרֹאשׁ גָּדוֹל שֶׁל אָדָם.
English Translation:
And Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Taḥlifa: If so, that the measure of the deficiency according to the opinion of Beit Hillel is the size of a sela coin, you have made the statement of Beit Shammai and the statement of Beit Hillel one and the same, since the size of a sela coin and a drilled hole is identical. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:12): With regard to a window that was not fashioned by the hands of a person, such as where a stone fell out of the wall by itself, its measure for which ritual impurity is transmitted from room to room is like the size of a large fist. And this is the size of the fist of Ben Avatiaḥ, who was known to be an exceptionally large man. Rabbi Yosei said: And the size of this fist is like the size of a large human head.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda objects that if Beit Hillel’s measure is a sela, it is the same as Beit Shammai’s drill hole, and the two schools would not be disagreeing at all. He proves that the two sizes are equal from a mishna in Kelim (17:12) on the size of a window through which impurity passes from room to room. A window not made by a person must be the size of a large fist, the fist of Ben Avatiach, a man known for his size; Rabbi Yosei says it is as large as a big human head. The mishna’s measure for a window made by a person, which proves Rav Chisda’s point, follows in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- עָשִׂיתָה … אֶחָד = you have made (their statements) one — the objection that a dispute would vanish
- מָאוֹר = an opening or window in a wall
- אֶגְרוֹף = a fist — a measure of size
- בֶּן אֲבַטִּיחַ = Ben Avatiach — a man known for his large size
- כְּרֹאשׁ גָּדוֹל שֶׁל אָדָם = like a large human head
Segment 21
TYPE: מקור (המשך)
A man-made window: the large drill of the Temple chamber = Italian pundeyon = Neronian sela (continues on 38a)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נַעֲשָׂה בִּידֵי אָדָם, שִׁיעֲרוּהוּ כִּמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ גָּדוֹל שֶׁל לִשְׁכָּה, שֶׁהוּא כְּפוּנְדְּיוֹן (שֶׁל) הָאִיטַלְקִי, וּכְסֶלַע נִירוֹנִית, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ
English Translation:
The mishna continues: But if the window was made by the hand of a person, its measure for which ritual impurity is transmitted is like the size of the drilled hole of the large drill of the chamber in the Temple, which is like the size of the Italian pundeyon and like the size of a sela of the emperor Nero. And its size is
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna in Kelim continues: a window made by a person must be the size of the hole made by the large drill kept in the Temple chamber. That is the size of an Italian pundeyon and of a sela of Nero. So the ‘drill hole’ used as a measure is the same size as a sela, and Rav Chisda’s objection stands: if Beit Hillel’s measure is a sela, it is the same as Beit Shammai’s drill hole. The daf breaks off in the middle of the mishna’s last clause, which, together with the Gemara’s answer, continues on 38a.
Key Terms:
- מַקְדֵּחַ גָּדוֹל שֶׁל לִשְׁכָּה = the large drill of the (Temple) chamber — a standard measure
- פוּנְדְּיוֹן הָאִיטַלְקִי = the Italian pundeyon — a Roman coin
- סֶלַע נִירוֹנִית = a sela of Nero — a coin minted under that emperor
- נַעֲשָׂה בִּידֵי אָדָם = made by human hands