Bechorot Daf 38 (בכורות דף ל״ח)
Daf: 38 | Amudim: 38a – 38b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (38a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה (המשך) וקושיא
End of the Kelim 17:12 citation: the large Temple drill equals a Neronian sela and a yoke hole — so Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel coincide; Rav Chisda proposes ‘a drill and its play’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּמְלֹא נֶקֶב שֶׁל עוֹל! אִישְׁתִּיק, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: שֶׁמָּא מַקְדֵּחַ וְחִיסּוּמוֹ שָׁנִינוּ.
English Translation:
like the size of the hole of a yoke of an animal. Evidently, the measure of the drilled hole stipulated by Beit Shammai with regard to a deficient skull equals the size of a sela coin stipulated by Beit Hillel according to the statement of Rav Taḥlifa. The Gemara relates: Rav Taḥlifa was silent. And Rav Ḥisda said to him: Perhaps we learned that Beit Shammai did not mean the size of a drilled hole alone, but rather the size of a drilled hole and its obstruction, i.e., a hole that allows for the drill to be inserted and removed. This is slightly larger than the sela mentioned by Beit Hillel.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the mishna in Kelim that Rav Chisda quoted at the end of 37b. The mishna equates three measures: the hole of the large drill of the Temple chamber, an Italian pundeyon or a Neronian sela, and the hole of an animal’s yoke. Rav Chisda’s point is that if, as Rav Tachlifa reported, Beit Hillel measure a deficient skull by a sela, while Beit Shammai measure it by a drilled hole, the two schools would be saying the same thing — yet the mishna in Oholot presents them as disputing. When Rav Tachlifa had no response, Rav Chisda himself offered a resolution: Beit Shammai’s measure is not the bare hole but “a drill and its obstruction” (מקדח וחיסומו) — a hole wide enough for the drill to turn and be pulled out, which is slightly larger than a sela.
Key Terms:
- כִּמְלֹא נֶקֶב שֶׁל עוֹל = the size of the hole of a yoke — the opening through which the yoke’s peg or strap passes
- אִישְׁתִּיק = he was silent — he had no answer to the question
- מַקְדֵּחַ = a drill; here the hole it bores, used as a halakhic measure
- חִיסּוּמוֹ = its obstruction/play — the extra room that lets the drill be inserted and withdrawn freely
- שֶׁמָּא … שָׁנִינוּ = perhaps we learned — a tentative suggestion about the wording of a tannaitic source
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ ומסקנא
Rav Tachlifa affirms the suggestion as certain, ‘as reliable as Chizkiya the father of Ikkesh’; by analogy the mishna’s karshina measure for a pierced ear also includes room to insert and remove
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב תַּחְלִיפָא: לָא תֵּימָא שֶׁמָּא, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי מַקְדֵּחַ וְחִיסּוּמוֹ, צָרִיךְ לְהִתָּלוֹת עָלֶיהָ כְּחִזְקִיָּה אֲבִי עִקֵּשׁ.
English Translation:
And Rav Taḥlifa said to him: Do not say: Perhaps. Rather, say: Beit Shammai definitely was referring to the size of a drilled hole and its obstruction, and you can rely on this explanation since it is certainly correct, as certain as the testimony of Ḥizkiyya, the father of Ikkesh, which is uncontested. It can be derived from here that just as the phrase: Size of a drilled hole, is referring to the size of a hole into which the drill can be inserted and removed, so too, the size of a bitter vetch mentioned in the mishna is referring to a hole into which the bitter vetch can be inserted and removed.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Tachlifa embraces Rav Chisda’s suggestion and upgrades it from “perhaps” to “certainly”: Beit Shammai’s drill hole definitely includes its play, and one may rely on this as firmly as on the famous testimony of Chizkiya the father of Ikkesh. The Gemara then draws the practical consequence for our perek. The mishna on 37a listed among the blemishes of the ear a hole the size of a bitter vetch (כרשינה). Just as “the size of a drill” means a hole the drill can enter and leave, so “the size of a bitter vetch” means a hole into which the vetch can be inserted and from which it can be removed — not one into which it merely fits snugly.
Key Terms:
- לָא תֵּימָא שֶׁמָּא, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי = do not say ‘perhaps’ but ‘certainly’ — an emphatic endorsement
- צָרִיךְ לְהִתָּלוֹת עָלֶיהָ = one may (lit. must) rely on it — it is an established, dependable teaching
- חִזְקִיָּה אֲבִי עִקֵּשׁ = Chizkiya the father of Ikkesh, a sage whose testimony before Rabban Gamliel in Yavne was received as authoritative
- כַּרְשִׁינָה = bitter vetch, a small legume used as the measure of a hole in a firstborn’s ear (37a)
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא (עדות)
The testimony of Chizkiya the father of Ikkesh: a vessel with no receptacle has no separate ‘back’ — impurity on one side renders the whole impure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן: זוֹ עֵדוּת הֵעִיד חִזְקִיָּה אֲבִי עִקֵּשׁ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּיַבְנֶה, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס — אֵין לוֹ אֲחוֹרַיִם לַחֲלִיקָה. נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ — נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara explains the reference to the testimony of Ḥizkiyya the father of Ikkesh. As we learned in a baraita that Ḥizkiyya, the father of Ikkesh, testified this testimony before Rabban Gamliel in Yavne, which he said in the name of Rabban Gamliel the Elder: With regard to earthenware vessels, any vessel that does not have a receptacle has no distinction with regard to the halakhic status of its sides. This is in contrast to the earthenware vessels mentioned in the Torah, where only the inside, and not the outside, is susceptible to ritual impurity. Rather, if its inside, i.e., the sides that are used, became impure, its outside also becomes impure. Likewise, if its outside became impure, its inside also becomes impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara digresses to explain the testimony that Rav Tachlifa invoked as the model of certainty. Chizkiya the father of Ikkesh testified in Yavne in the name of Rabban Gamliel the Elder that a vessel lacking a receptacle (תוך) does not have a distinct outside (אחוריים) for purposes of impurity; if either surface becomes impure, both do. Normally the Torah distinguishes the interior and exterior of a vessel — for earthenware, only impurity entering the inside defiles it. The testimony teaches that this distinction exists only where there is a real “inside” to contrast with the “back.”
Key Terms:
- עֵדוּת = testimony — a tradition reported by a sage in the name of earlier authorities
- כְּלִי חֶרֶס = an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure only through its interior (Leviticus 11:33)
- תּוֹךְ = the interior/receptacle of a vessel
- אֲחוֹרַיִם / גַּבּוֹ = the exterior or back of a vessel
- אֵין לוֹ אֲחוֹרַיִם לַחֲלִיקָה = it has no exterior that is distinguished (from the interior) — no separation between the sides
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
An earthenware vessel without a receptacle cannot become impure at all — so how can the testimony speak of its inside and outside becoming impure?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּלִי חֶרֶס, בְּתוֹכוֹ תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא — אִית לֵיהּ תּוֹךְ — אִיטַּמִּי לֵיהּ, לֵית לֵיהּ תּוֹךְ — לָא אִיטַּמִּי לֵיהּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: With regard to an earthenware vessel, the Merciful One rendered its susceptibility to impurity dependent on the presence of a receptacle, as it states: “And every earthen vessel into whose interior any of them falls” (Leviticus 11:33). Consequently, if there is a receptacle, it will become impure, but if there is no receptacle, it should not become impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the testimony as worded. The Torah made the impurity of earthenware dependent on its interior: “every earthen vessel into whose interior (תוכו) any of them falls.” It follows that an earthenware object with no receptacle is simply not susceptible to impurity. Speaking of its outside and inside becoming impure is therefore incoherent.
Key Terms:
- תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One (the Torah) made it dependent
- בְּתוֹכוֹ = in its interior — the verse’s key word for earthenware impurity
- אִיטַּמִּי / לָא אִיטַּמִּי = it becomes impure / it does not become impure
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avin: the testimony refers to rinsable vessels (kli shetef) that correspond to a receptacle-less earthenware vessel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אָבִין: הָכִי קָאָמַר, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס — כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בִּכְלִי שֶׁטֶף אֵין לוֹ אֲחוֹרַיִם לַחֲלִיקָה, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ — נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avin said in response: The testimony is not referring to earthenware vessels, but to vessels that are purified through immersion in a ritual bath, such as wooden vessels, which are susceptible to ritual impurity even if they lack a receptacle. Accordingly, this is what the tanna is saying: With regard to earthenware vessels, any vessel that does not have a receptacle never becomes impure. The halakha in the corresponding case with regard to a vessel that is purified though rinsing, i.e., immersion in a ritual bath, where it lacks a receptacle, is that there is no distinction with regard to the halakhic status of its sides. Therefore, if its inside, i.e., the side that is used, became impure, its outside also becomes impure. Likewise, if its outside became impure, its inside also becomes impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avin reinterprets the testimony. Its subject is not earthenware but a vessel purified by immersion (כלי שטף) — wood, metal, leather and the like — which, unlike earthenware, can become impure even without a receptacle. The earthenware reference is only a point of comparison: where an earthenware vessel without a receptacle would be entirely pure, the corresponding rinsable vessel is impure and has no distinction between its sides.
Key Terms:
- כְּלִי שֶׁטֶף = a vessel purified by rinsing, i.e., immersion in a mikveh (wood, metal, leather, cloth) — as opposed to earthenware, which can only be broken
- כְּנֶגְדּוֹ = the corresponding case
- הָכִי קָאָמַר = this is what (the tanna) is saying — introduces a reinterpretation
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Why mention earthenware at all? Say simply that a rinsable vessel without a receptacle has no distinct back
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְלְיֵיהּ בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס? נֵימָא: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ בִּכְלִי שֶׁטֶף — אֵין לוֹ אֲחוֹרַיִם לַחֲלִיקָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why do I need to render this halakha dependent on an earthenware vessel? Let us simply say: With regard to a vessel that is purified though rinsing, any vessel that does not have a receptacle has no distinction with regard to the halakhic status of its sides.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses the reinterpretation. If the testimony is really about rinsable vessels, why frame it in terms of earthenware? It could have stated directly that a rinsable vessel lacking a receptacle has no separate exterior. The earthenware reference must be teaching something.
Key Terms:
- לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְלְיֵיהּ = why do I need to make it dependent (on earthenware)?
- נֵימָא = let (the tanna) say
- אֲחוֹרַיִם לַחֲלִיקָה = a separately-treated exterior
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
The comparison teaches the converse: a rinsable vessel WITH a receptacle is treated like earthenware — impurity of the inside spreads to the outside, but not the reverse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ תּוֹךְ — הֲרֵי הוּא כִּכְלִי חֶרֶס; מָה כְּלִי חֶרֶס, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, לֹא נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — לֹא נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ; אַף כְּלִי שֶׁטֶף, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, לֹא נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — לֹא נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: This association teaches us that if the vessel that is purified through rinsing has a receptacle, it is like an earthenware vessel. Therefore, just as in the case of an earthenware vessel, if its inside became impure, its outside also becomes impure, but if its inside did not become impure, its outside does not become impure, so too, with regard to a vessel that is purified through rinsing, if its inside became impure, its outside becomes impure. But if its inside did not become impure, its outside does not become impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The earthenware reference yields an additional rule. A rinsable vessel that does have a receptacle is likened to earthenware: if its inside becomes impure, the outside is impure too, but if only the outside is touched, the inside remains pure. The testimony thus implies a contrast: without a receptacle, the sides are one; with a receptacle, the inside and outside are treated separately, as with earthenware.
Key Terms:
- הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = this is what it teaches us
- הֲרֵי הוּא כִּכְלִי חֶרֶס = it is like an earthenware vessel (regarding the separation of sides)
- נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ = if its inside became impure, its outside became impure
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
The Torah limited earthenware to ‘its interior’ — but where does it say a rinsable vessel becomes impure only through its inside?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא כְּלִי חֶרֶס, גַּלִּי בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא ״תּוֹכוֹ״, אֶלָּא כְּלִי שֶׁטֶף, מִי גַּלִּי בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא תּוֹכוֹ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted that with regard to an earthenware vessel, the Merciful One revealed that it is rendered ritually impure only if the impure item fell into its “inside” (see Leviticus 11:33). But with regard to a vessel that is purified though rinsing, did the Merciful One reveal with regard to it that it becomes impure only through its inside? Therefore, even if the impure item touched the outside, it should become entirely impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects to the new rule. For earthenware, the Torah explicitly speaks of the interior, so it makes sense that external contact does not defile it. No such verse limits rinsable vessels; by Torah law, contact with any surface should render the whole vessel impure. Why, then, should a rinsable vessel with a receptacle remain pure inside when its exterior is touched?
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted — concedes one case to sharpen the question about another
- גַּלִּי בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One revealed regarding it — i.e., the Torah specified
- ״תּוֹכוֹ״ = ‘its interior’ — the limiting term in Leviticus 11:33
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
The rule concerns rabbinic impurity of liquids: per Kelim 25:6, liquids defiling the outside leave the inside, rim and handles pure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי בְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — הָכִי נָמֵי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּטוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין דְּרַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: כְּלִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא אֲחוֹרָיו בְּמַשְׁקִין — אֲחוֹרָיו טְמֵאִין, תּוֹכוֹ אׇגְנוֹ אׇזְנוֹ וְיָדָיו טְהוֹרִין, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — כּוּלּוֹ טָמֵא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: If it is referring to ritual impurity that is by Torah law, then indeed a vessel that is purified through rinsing can be become impure even through its outside. But here we are dealing with the ritual impurity of liquids, i.e., liquids that became impure and subsequently touched the vessel, which becomes impure only by rabbinic law. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 25:6): With regard to a vessel whose outside became ritually impure by contact with impure liquids, only its outside is impure, but its inside, its rim, its ear-shaped handle, and its straight handle are pure. If its inside became impure, it becomes impure in its entirety.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara concedes that for Torah-level impurity a rinsable vessel is defiled in its entirety from any contact. The testimony deals only with impurity transmitted by impure liquids, which is rabbinic. The mishna in Kelim 25:6 confirms this distinction: when liquids defile a vessel’s outside, only the outside is impure, while the inside, the rim and the handles stay pure; but if the inside is defiled, the whole vessel is impure. The separation of sides is therefore a rabbinic structure layered onto a rabbinic impurity.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = impurity by Torah law
- טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין = impurity of liquids — impure liquids defiling a vessel, a rabbinic enactment
- אׇגְנוֹ = its rim (the brim of the vessel)
- אׇזְנוֹ וְיָדָיו = its ear-shaped handle and its straight handles
- הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן = here what are we dealing with — introduces a narrowing of the case
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא (טעם)
By Torah law food and liquid do not defile vessels; the Sages decreed it because of the bodily fluids of a zav and zava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֵין אוֹכֶל מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי, וְאֵין מַשְׁקֶה מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי, וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזוּר מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֵה זָב וְזָבָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the reason: By Torah law, food does not transmit impurity to a vessel, and a liquid does not transmit impurity to a vessel. And it was the Sages who decreed that an impure liquid transmits impurity to a vessel, because of the concern that people will be lenient with regard to the liquid of a zav and a zava, such as their urine or saliva, which are a primary source of impurity and impart impurity to vessels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains why the impurity of liquids on vessels is rabbinic. By Torah law, impure food or drink cannot transmit impurity to a vessel. The Sages nevertheless decreed that impure liquids do defile vessels, because the spittle and urine of a zav or zava are themselves primary sources of impurity (אב הטומאה) that do defile vessels; if people became accustomed to treating all liquids as harmless to vessels, they might come to treat those fluids lightly as well.
Key Terms:
- אֵין אוֹכֶל מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי = food does not defile a vessel (by Torah law)
- מַשְׁקֶה = a liquid
- גְּזוּר = they decreed — a rabbinic enactment
- מַשְׁקֵה זָב וְזָבָה = the bodily fluids (saliva, urine) of a man or woman with a genital discharge, which are primary sources of impurity
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא (המשך הטעם)
Hence the Sages modeled this rabbinic impurity on earthenware rather than on the rinsable vessel’s own Torah-level rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִלְכָּךְ, שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן כְּטוּמְאָה דִּכְלִי חֶרֶס, וְלָא שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן כְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ.
English Translation:
Therefore, the Sages deemed the impurity of a vessel that is purified though rinsing whose outside became impure through liquid to be like the impurity of an earthenware vessel, and if its exterior became impure, its interior remains pure. But the Sages did not deem its impurity like the impurity of itself, i.e., a vessel that is purified through rinsing, by Torah law, that if its exterior became impure, the vessel becomes impure in its entirety.
קלאוד על הדף:
Since the decree is rabbinic, the Sages were free to shape it. They patterned it on the earthenware model — outside impurity does not reach the inside — rather than on the Torah-level rule for rinsable vessels, under which any contact defiles the whole. This deliberate difference in structure becomes the subject of the next segment.
Key Terms:
- שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן = the Sages made it (treated it as)
- כְּטוּמְאָה דִּכְלִי חֶרֶס = like the impurity of an earthenware vessel
- דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ = of itself — the vessel’s own Torah-level law
Segment 12
TYPE: טעם וקושיא
The distinction serves as a marker (heikera) so teruma and kodashim touched by it are not burned; then why not make a marker for a vessel with no receptacle too?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עֲבַדוּ רַבָּנַן הֶיכֵּירָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִישְׂרוֹף עֲלֵיהּ תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים. אִי הָכִי, אֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ נָמֵי, לֶיעְבֵּיד נָמֵי הֶיכֵּירָא!
English Translation:
The reason for this is that through this ruling the Sages employed an indicator that it is impure only by rabbinic law so that people will not burn teruma and consecrated items due to having come into contact with those vessels, as by Torah law they are ritually pure and it is prohibited to burn them. The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the case under discussion, then with regard to a vessel that is purified through rinsing that has no receptacle as well, the Sages should employ an indicator. They should rule that the inside remains pure so that teruma and consecrated items will not be burned after coming in contact with it. Why then did Ḥizkiyya, the father of Ikkesh, testify that if its outside became impure, its inside becomes impure as well?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the purpose: the Sages created a visible difference (היכירא) so that people would remember that this impurity is only rabbinic. Teruma or sacrificial food touched by such a vessel is only rabbinically impure and may not be burned, since destroying holy food that is pure by Torah law is forbidden. The Gemara then challenges Chizkiya’s testimony: if a marker is so important, the Sages should likewise have kept the inside of a receptacle-less rinsable vessel pure when only its outside was touched — yet the testimony says the whole becomes impure.
Key Terms:
- הֶיכֵּירָא = a distinguishing marker — a feature that signals a law’s rabbinic status
- לִישְׂרוֹף = to burn — the required disposal of impure teruma and kodashim
- תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים = priestly gifts and consecrated (sacrificial) food
- אִי הָכִי = if so
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
One marker suffices: once the receptacle case is distinguished, everyone knows the receptacle-less case is also rabbinic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיוָן דַּעֲבַדוּ הֶיכֵּירָא בְּיֵשׁ לוֹ תּוֹךְ, יְדִיעַ דְּאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ דְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Since the Sages employed an indicator with regard to vessels that are purified through rinsing that have a receptacle, it is thereby known that the impurity of a vessel that does not have a receptacle that comes in contact with an impure liquid is by rabbinic law. Therefore, no one will burn teruma and consecrated items that came in contact with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that a single marker is enough. Because the Sages made a visible distinction for rinsable vessels with a receptacle, it becomes known that the whole category of liquid impurity on vessels is rabbinic, including vessels without a receptacle. No one will therefore burn teruma or kodashim that touched a receptacle-less vessel defiled by liquids.
Key Terms:
- כֵּיוָן דַּעֲבַדוּ = since they made
- יְדִיעַ = it is known
- דְּרַבָּנַן = by rabbinic law
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Is a rinsable vessel without a receptacle susceptible at all by Torah law? The sack analogy requires an item carried both full and empty
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ בִּכְלִי שֶׁטֶף, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בַּר קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הוּא? דּוּמְיָא דְּשַׂק בָּעֵינַן, מָה שַׂק מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָן, אַף כֹּל מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And with regard to a vessel that is purified through rinsing, is it susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law, so that the Sages found it necessary to decree that the exterior is susceptible to impurity of liquids? After all, in order for a vessel to be susceptible to impurity it is required to be similar to a sack, which is mentioned with regard to ritual impurity (see Leviticus 11:32): Just as a sack is carried both full and empty, so too, any object must be capable of being carried both full and empty in order to become ritually impure. This excludes a vessel that has no receptacle and cannot be carried full.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions the premise that a rinsable vessel without a receptacle is susceptible to Torah-level impurity. The Torah lists a sack (שק) among vessels that become impure (Leviticus 11:32), and Chazal derive that only an item which, like a sack, is carried both full and empty is a vessel for purposes of impurity. A flat object without a receptacle cannot be carried full, so it should be excluded entirely — why would the Sages need any decree about its outside?
Key Terms:
- בַּר קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה = capable of receiving impurity
- דּוּמְיָא דְּשַׂק = similar to a sack — the paradigm of a susceptible vessel
- מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָן = moved about full and empty — the criterion derived from the sack
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ, קושיא ותירוץ
The case is a receptacle-less item fit for sitting, susceptible to midras impurity; earthenware is excluded since it has no midras
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּהָנָךְ דַּחֲזוּ לְמִדְרָסוֹת. אִי הָכִי, חֶרֶס נָמֵי! אֵין מִדְרָס בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that it is referring to these vessels that are suited for sitting and are susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading, i.e., the ritual impurity imparted by a zav, zava, or a menstruating woman who sits or lies down on an item, even though it lacks a receptacle. The Gemara challenges: If so, with regard to an earthenware vessel that has no inside, the Rabbis should also decree that it is susceptible to the impurity of liquids if it is fit for sitting. The Gemara answers: There is no ritual impurity imparted by treading with regard to earthenware vessels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the testimony concerns flat rinsable items suited for sitting or lying, which are susceptible to midras — the impurity conveyed when a zav, zava or niddah treads, sits or lies on them — even without a receptacle. The follow-up asks why the Sages did not then decree similarly for flat earthenware fit for sitting. The answer: earthenware is never subject to midras impurity, so a receptacle-less earthenware item has no Torah-level susceptibility to build on.
Key Terms:
- מִדְרָס = treading impurity — conveyed by a zav, zava or niddah who sits, lies or leans on an object designated for that use
- דַּחֲזוּ לְמִדְרָסוֹת = that are fit for treading, i.e., suitable for sitting or lying upon
- אֵין מִדְרָס בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס = earthenware does not contract midras impurity
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ (שיטה אחרת)
Back to the skull: Rav Pappa answers that the Kelim mishna equating a drill with a sela speaks of the LARGE drill
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מַקְדֵּחַ גָּדוֹל שָׁנִינוּ.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara returns to the matter of an incomplete skull. According to the opinion of Beit Shammai, if the skull is missing a piece of bone the size of a drilled hole, it does not impart impurity. According to Shmuel, Beit Hillel holds that it must be missing a piece the size of a sela coin. If so, there would be no disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as it was taught with regard to a window that imparts ritual impurity that a drilled hole is the same size as a sela coin. The Gemara now offers an additional answer: Rav Pappa says that it was with regard to a large drill that we learned that the minimum size of a window that imparts impurity equals the size of a sela coin.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having finished the digression about Chizkiya’s testimony, the Gemara returns to Rav Chisda’s difficulty that Beit Shammai’s drill and Beit Hillel’s sela seem identical. Rav Pappa offers an alternative to “a drill and its play”: the mishna in Kelim equates a sela only with the large drill of the Temple chamber. The unspecified drill mentioned by Beit Shammai regarding a skull is a different, smaller instrument, so the two schools’ measures differ after all.
Key Terms:
- מַקְדֵּחַ גָּדוֹל = the large drill — of the Temple chamber
- שָׁנִינוּ = we learned (in the mishna)
- גֻּלְגֹּלֶת = skull — a skull missing bone of a certain size no longer imparts impurity in a tent (Oholot 2:3)
Segment 17
TYPE: דיוק וקושיא
Inference: an unspecified drill is smaller than a sela. This fits Rabbi Meir’s reading, but what of the Rabbis’?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּלָל דְּמַקְדֵּחַ סְתָם זוּטַרא נָמֵי מִכְּסֶלַע. הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
English Translation:
The Gemara comments that by inference, the unspecified drill mentioned in the statement of Beit Shammai with regard to an incomplete skull is also smaller than the size of a sela coin mentioned by Beit Hillel. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the explanation of Rabbi Meir for the opinion of Beit Shammai. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is there to say?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara spells out Rav Pappa’s implication: an unspecified drill is smaller than a sela. This works according to Rabbi Meir, who explains Beit Shammai’s drill as the small physicians’ drill. But the Rabbis explain Beit Shammai’s drill as the large Temple drill, and that drill is exactly the size of a sela according to the Kelim mishna — so on their view the original difficulty returns.
Key Terms:
- מִכְּלָל = by inference
- סְתָם = unspecified, ordinary
- זוּטַרא = smaller
- הָנִיחָא … אֶלָּא … מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר = this works well for … but for … what is there to say? — a standard challenge format
Segment 18
TYPE: משנה (מקור)
Oholot 2:3: Rabbi Meir says Beit Shammai meant the small physicians’ drill; the Rabbis say the large drill of the chamber
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן: בְּאֵיזֶה מַקְדֵּחַ אָמְרוּ? בְּקָטָן שֶׁל רוֹפְאִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּגָדוֹל שֶׁל לִשְׁכָּה.
English Translation:
As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 2:3): With regard to which drill did Beit Shammai state their opinion concerning an incomplete skull? It was with regard to a small drill of doctors, used for drilling bones. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It was with regard to a large drill, such as that used in the Temple chamber. According to the mishna concerning a window that imparts impurity, the size of this drill is like that of a sela coin, and the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel would still be identical.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites the source of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. The mishna in Oholot asks which drill Beit Shammai meant. Rabbi Meir says the small drill used by physicians to bore bone; the Rabbis say the large drill of the Temple chamber. According to the Rabbis, then, Rav Pappa’s answer does not help, because the large drill equals a sela.
Key Terms:
- קָטָן שֶׁל רוֹפְאִים = the small drill of physicians, used in surgery on bone
- גָּדוֹל שֶׁל לִשְׁכָּה = the large drill of the (Temple) chamber
- בְּאֵיזֶה מַקְדֵּחַ אָמְרוּ = with regard to which drill did they say (it)?
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
Even for Rabbi Meir there is a problem: Beit Shammai would be lenient and Beit Hillel stringent — a case not listed in Eduyot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִי נִיחָא? הָוֵה לֵיהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. וַאֲנַן דִּתְנַן — תְּנַן, דְּלָא תְּנַן — לָא תְּנַן!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks further: And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, does it work out well? If the unspecified drill mentioned by Beit Shammai is smaller than a sela coin, then this is an instance of the leniencies of Beit Shammai and of the stringencies of Beit Hillel, as with regard to a skull that was missing a piece only the size of a drilled hole, Beit Shammai are lenient and hold that it does not impart impurity in a tent, while Beit Hillel do consider it impure. And we have a principle: That which we learned in the mishna in tractate Eduyyot pertaining to the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, we learned, and that which we did not learn there, we did not learn. Therefore, in all other cases, Beit Shammai are stringent and Beit Hillel are lenient.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns the difficulty back on Rabbi Meir as well. If Beit Shammai’s drill is smaller than Beit Hillel’s sela, then a skull missing a drill-sized piece is pure according to Beit Shammai and still impure according to Beit Hillel — making this a leniency of Beit Shammai and a stringency of Beit Hillel. The tractate Eduyot carefully lists every such case, and the principle is that what is listed is listed and what is not listed is not; since this skull case does not appear there, it cannot be a case where Beit Shammai are the lenient ones.
Key Terms:
- מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל = among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel — the catalogue in Eduyot chapters 4-5
- דִּתְנַן — תְּנַן, דְּלָא תְּנַן — לָא תְּנַן = what we learned, we learned; what we did not learn, we did not learn — the Eduyot list is exhaustive
- עֵדֻיּוֹת = tractate Eduyot, a collection of testimonies and listed exceptions
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Nachman: the Kelim mishna speaks of a Neronian sela, equal to the large drill; an ordinary sela is smaller than an ordinary drill
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: סֶלַע נִירוֹנִית שָׁנִינוּ, כְּמַקְדֵּחַ גָּדוֹל, סֶלַע סְתָם זוּטַרא מִמַּקְדֵּחַ סְתָם.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman says: It is specifically with regard to a sela of the emperor Nero that we learned in the mishna concerning a window that imparts impurity that it is like the size of a large drilled hole. But with regard to the unspecified sela coin mentioned by Beit Hillel as the measure, it is even smaller than an unspecified drilled hole. Therefore, Beit Shammai are stringent even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman resolves both difficulties by distinguishing coins. The sela that equals the large drill in the Kelim mishna is the large sela of Nero. The ordinary sela of Beit Hillel is smaller even than an ordinary drill hole. Thus Beit Shammai’s measure is larger than Beit Hillel’s, which means Beit Hillel declare the skull pure sooner — Beit Shammai are stringent and Beit Hillel lenient, as usual — and this holds even according to Rabbi Meir.
Key Terms:
- סֶלַע נִירוֹנִית = a sela of Nero, a larger coin than the ordinary sela
- סֶלַע סְתָם = an ordinary sela
- זוּטַרא מִמַּקְדֵּחַ סְתָם = smaller than an ordinary drill hole
Segment 21
TYPE: משנה
New mishna — blemishes of the eye: a pierced, damaged or split eyelid; a cataract, tevallul, ‘snail’, ‘snake’, ‘berry’; tevallul defined
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הָרִיס שֶׁל עַיִן שֶׁנִּיקַּב, שֶׁנִּפְגַּם, שֶׁנִּסְדַּק, הֲרֵי בְּעֵינוֹ דַּק, תְּבַלּוּל, חִלָּזוֹן, נָחָשׁ, עָצָב. אֵיזֶהוּ תְּבַלּוּל? לָבָן הַפּוֹסֵק בַּסִּירָא וְנִכְנָס בַּשָּׁחוֹר. שָׁחוֹר נִכְנַס בַּלָּבָן — אֵינוֹ מוּם.
English Translation:
MISHNA: For these blemishes of the eye, one may slaughter the firstborn animal outside the Temple: The eyelid that was pierced, an eyelid that was damaged and is lacking, or an eyelid that was split; and likewise, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple if there was in his eye a cataract, a tevallul, or a growth in the shape of a snail, a snake, or a berry that covers the pupil. What is a tevallul? It is a white thread that bisects the iris and enters the black pupil. If it is a black thread that bisects the iris and enters the white of the eye it is not a blemish.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues the perek’s catalogue of blemishes that permit a firstborn to be slaughtered outside the Temple, moving from the ear (37a-b) to the eye. It lists a ris that is pierced, notched or split, and growths in the eye: a dak (cataract), a tevallul, and formations shaped like a snail (חלזון), a snake (נחש) or a berry (עצב). Dak and tevallul are taken from the Torah’s own list of blemishes that disqualify a kohen (Leviticus 21:20), which are applied to animals as well. The mishna defines tevallul as a white thread that crosses the iris and enters the black, and rules that a black thread entering the white is not a blemish.
Key Terms:
- הָרִיס = the eyelid (defined in the Gemara as the outer rim of the eye)
- נִיקַּב / נִפְגַּם / נִסְדַּק = pierced / notched (missing a piece) / split
- דַּק = a cataract or film on the eye (Leviticus 21:20)
- תְּבַלּוּל = a tevallul — a white line that crosses into the dark of the eye (Leviticus 21:20)
- חִלָּזוֹן, נָחָשׁ, עָצָב = growths shaped like a snail, a snake, and a berry
- סִירָא = the ring around the pupil — the iris
Amud Bet (38b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא (ביאור מונחים) וברייתא
Rav Pappa: the ris is the outer barrier of the eye. Baraita: a sunken cataract is a blemish, a floating one is not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי הָרִיס? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תּוֹרָא בָּרָא דְּעֵינָא. דַּק תְּבַלּוּל, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דַּק מְשׁוּקָּע — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, צָף — אֵינוֹ מוּם.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna’s list of blemishes of the eye included an eyelid [ris] that was pierced, damaged, or split. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The ris? Rav Pappa says: It means the outer line, or barrier, of the eye, i.e., the eyelid. The mishna further stated: A cataract, a tevallul. With regard to a cataract, the Sages taught: A sunken cataract, i.e., one that is in the eye itself, is a blemish, but a floating cataract, i.e., one that is floating above the eye, is not a blemish.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defines the mishna’s terms. Rav Pappa explains ris as the “outer rampart” of the eye — the eyelid that guards it. On the dak, a baraita distinguishes between a cataract that is sunk into the eye, which is a blemish, and one floating on its surface, which is not.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹרָא בָּרָא דְּעֵינָא = the outer wall of the eye — the eyelid
- מְשׁוּקָּע = sunken — embedded in the eye
- צָף = floating — on the surface of the eye
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A contradictory baraita says the opposite; first answer (black vs. white of the eye) fails, so the baraitot refer to a white cataract and a black cataract
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בַּשָּׁחוֹר הָא בַּלָּבָן. וְהָא: אֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן! אֶלָּא, הָא בְּדוּק לָבָן, הָא בְּדוּק שָׁחוֹר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t the opposite taught in a baraita, that a sunken cataract is not a blemish whereas a floating one is a blemish? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult, as this first baraita is referring to a cataract in the black portion of the eye, whereas that second baraita is referring to one in the white portion of the eye. The Gemara challenges: But it was taught that there are no blemishes in the white portion of the eye. Rather, both baraitot are referring to the black portion of the eye, and this second baraita is referring to a white cataract, whereas that first baraita is referring to a black cataract.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another baraita teaches the reverse: a floating cataract is a blemish and a sunken one is not. The Gemara first suggests that one baraita refers to the black of the eye and the other to the white, but this is rejected because there are no blemishes in the white of the eye at all. The final answer is that both baraitot speak of the black of the eye, but they address cataracts of different colors: one speaks of a black cataract, the other of a white one.
Key Terms:
- וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא = but isn’t the opposite taught?
- שָׁחוֹר / לָבָן = the black (pupil and iris) / the white of the eye
- אֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן = there are no blemishes in the white of the eye
- דַּק לָבָן / דַּק שָׁחוֹר = a white cataract / a black cataract
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא (סיוע)
Yoshiya of Usha: a black cataract is a blemish if sunken, a white one if floating; mnemonic: barka
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: סָח לִי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא: דַּק שָׁחוֹר מְשׁוּקָּע — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, צָף — אֵינוֹ מוּם. דַּק לָבָן מְשׁוּקָּע — אֵינוֹ מוּם, צָף — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, וְסִימָנָיךְ: בַּרְקָא.
English Translation:
This is as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Yoshiya from Usha told me that with regard to a black cataract, if it is sunken it is a blemish, but if it is floating it is not a blemish. Conversely, with regard to a white cataract, if it is sunken it is not a blemish, whereas if it is floating it is a blemish. And your mnemonic to remember this is barka, which is a disease in which white patches float above the eye, and it is considered a blemish.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar bar Chana supports the resolution with a tradition from Yoshiya of Usha. A black cataract is a blemish when sunken but not when floating; a white cataract is the reverse — a blemish when floating, not when sunken. The reasoning seems to be that each is noticeable when it stands out: a white film floating over the dark eye is conspicuous, while a dark one is conspicuous only when it penetrates the eye. The mnemonic barka refers to a known eye disease of white floating patches, recalling that a floating white cataract is a blemish.
Key Terms:
- סָח לִי = he told me — introduces a personal transmission
- יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא = Yoshiya of Usha, a sage of the Galilean town that housed the Sanhedrin after Yavne
- סִימָנָיךְ = your mnemonic
- בַּרְקָא = barka — an eye ailment with floating white spots
Segment 4
TYPE: בעיא
Are the mishna’s ‘snail’ and ‘snake’ one blemish or two?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חִלָּזוֹן נָחָשׁ וְעָצָב. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: חִלָּזוֹן הוּא נָחָשׁ, אוֹ דִלְמָא חִלָּזוֹן אוֹ נָחָשׁ?
English Translation:
§ The mishna included in its list of blemishes of the eye a growth in the shape of a snail, a snake, or a berry that covers the pupil. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the snail mentioned in the mishna the same as the snake, or perhaps they are two distinct blemishes, and the mishna means a snail or a snake?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara addresses the list of growths in the eye. The mishna mentions a snail (חלזון) and a snake (נחש) side by side, and the question is whether these are two names for the same growth — a snail that is also called a snake — or two different shapes, each independently a blemish.
Key Terms:
- אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ = a dilemma was raised before them
- חִלָּזוֹן = a snail — a coiled growth on the eye
- אוֹ דִלְמָא = or perhaps
Segment 5
TYPE: פשיטת הבעיא (מעשה)
Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya tells Rabbi Yochanan ben Elazar: the snail is a permanent blemish and is the ‘snake’ of the Sages
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: סָח לִי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, זָקֵן אֶחָד הָיָה בִּשְׁכוּנָתֵינוּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹסֵי לָקוֹנְיָא שְׁמוֹ, וּמִיָּמַי לֹא עָבַרְתִּי לְפָנָיו. פַּעַם אַחַת עָבַרְתִּי לְפָנָיו, אָמַר לִי: שֵׁב בְּנִי, שֵׁב. חִלָּזוֹן זֶה מוּם קָבוּעַ לִשְׁחוֹט עָלָיו, וְזֶהוּ נָחָשׁ שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Elazar told me: There was a certain elder in our neighborhood, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya was his name, and in all my days I did not pass before him. But once I did pass before him, and he said to me: Sit, my son, sit, and I will teach you one matter: This snail that you see in the eye of a firstborn is a permanent blemish, and it is permitted to slaughter the animal on its account. And this is also the snake mentioned by the Sages as a blemish.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the dilemma from a story transmitted by Rabba bar bar Chana. Rabbi Yochanan ben Elazar had an elderly neighbor, Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya, before whom he had never passed; when he once did, the elder invited him to sit and taught him that the chilazon in the eye is a permanent blemish permitting slaughter, and that it is identical with the nachash that the Sages mention. The snail and snake are therefore one blemish under two names.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁכוּנָתֵינוּ = in our neighborhood
- וּמִיָּמַי לֹא עָבַרְתִּי לְפָנָיו = in all my days I had not passed before him — he had not studied with him or come before him
- שֵׁב בְּנִי, שֵׁב = sit, my son, sit
- מוּם קָבוּעַ = a permanent blemish, which permits slaughter of a firstborn outside the Temple
Segment 6
TYPE: המשך המעשה
Though a man may not judge blemishes for himself, a teacher may instruct his students and they may rule for him
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: אֵין אָדָם רוֹאֶה מוּמִין לְעַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל מוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה לַתַּלְמִידִים, וְתַלְמִידִים מוֹרִין לוֹ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya adds: And even though the Sages said that a person cannot see blemishes for himself, and therefore I cannot permit this firstborn to myself, even so a halakhic authority may issue a halakhic ruling to his students, and the students may then issue a halakhic ruling for him based on what he taught them. Consequently, once I have taught you this halakha, you may permit my firstborn to me due to this blemish.
קלאוד על הדף:
The elder explains his purpose: he owned a firstborn with this blemish. Although a person may not examine blemishes on his own firstborn, since he is an interested party, a scholar may teach the relevant law to his students, and they may then rule on his animal. In effect, he taught the halakha so that his young neighbor could permit the firstborn to him.
Key Terms:
- אֵין אָדָם רוֹאֶה מוּמִין לְעַצְמוֹ = a person may not examine blemishes for himself (on his own firstborn)
- מוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה = issues a halakhic ruling, teaches the law
- וְתַלְמִידִים מוֹרִין לוֹ = and students may rule for him
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav Huna: a scholar’s self-serving ruling is accepted only if stated before the case arose; answer — Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei had always taught this
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה וּבָא, אִם קוֹדֶם מַעֲשֶׂה אֲמָרָהּ — שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ! אִיהוּ נָמֵי מוֹרֶה וּבָא הֲוָה מֵעִיקָּרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Elazar permit the firstborn in this manner? But doesn’t Rabbi Abba say that Rav Huna says: With regard to any Torah scholar who is engaged in issuing a ruling of halakha in a situation relevant to himself, if he already stated the ruling before the incident, i.e., before it was relevant to him, one listens to him; and if not, i.e., the ruling followed the incident, one does not listen to him? The Gemara answers that he too, Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya, was engaged in issuing this ruling of halakha at the outset, before it became relevant to him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the story with Rav Huna’s principle, reported by Rabbi Abba: a scholar who rules on a matter that benefits him is heeded only if he stated the ruling before the case arose; otherwise he is suspected of shaping the law to his interest. How then could the elder’s ruling be relied upon? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya had been teaching this ruling from the outset, before he owned the blemished firstborn, so his teaching was trustworthy.
Key Terms:
- מוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה וּבָא = comes to rule on a halakha (in a matter concerning himself)
- קוֹדֶם מַעֲשֶׂה = before the incident — before the case became relevant to him
- שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ = we listen to him
- מֵעִיקָּרָא = from the outset
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא ומחלוקת תנאים
Tevallul: the mishna follows Rabbi Yosei — only a white thread into the black is a blemish; Rabbi Meir counts either direction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיזֶהוּ תְּבַלּוּל? לָבָן הַפּוֹסֵק אֶת הַסִּירָא. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: לָבָן וְנִכְנָס בַּשָּׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וְנִכְנָס בַּלָּבָן — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לָבָן וְנִכְנָס בַּשָּׁחוֹר — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, שָׁחוֹר וְנִכְנָס בַּלָּבָן — אֵינוֹ מוּם, שֶׁאֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן.
English Translation:
§ The mishna further stated: What is a tevallul? It is a white thread that bisects the iris and enters the black pupil. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: If there is either a white thread that enters the black, or a black thread that enters the white, it is a blemish; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: If it is a white thread that enters the black, it is a blemish, but if it is a black thread that enters the white, it is not a blemish, as there are no blemishes in the white of the eye.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the author of the mishna’s definition of tevallul. A baraita records a dispute: Rabbi Meir holds that either a white line entering the black or a black line entering the white is a blemish, while Rabbi Yosei holds that only a white line entering the black is a blemish, since there are no blemishes in the white of the eye. The mishna, which excludes a black line entering the white, follows Rabbi Yosei.
Key Terms:
- מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי = whose (opinion) is our mishna?
- לָבָן הַפּוֹסֵק אֶת הַסִּירָא = a white (line) that cuts across the iris
- דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר = the statement of Rabbi Meir
Segment 9
TYPE: טעמי המחלוקת
Rav: Rabbi Yosei derives from Psalms 73:7 that the white is the ‘fat of the eye’, not ‘the eye’; Rabbi Meir reads tevallul as that which mixes up (mevalbel) the eye
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? דִּכְתִיב: ״יָצָא מֵחֵלֶב עֵינֵימוֹ״, תַּרְבָּא דְּעֵינָא — אִיקְּרִי, ״עֵינֵימוֹ״ סְתָמָא — לָא אִיקְּרִי. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ? מָה לְשׁוֹן ״תְּבַלּוּל״? דָּבָר הַמְבַלְבֵּל אֶת הָעֵינַיִם.
English Translation:
Rav says: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei? As it is written: “Their eyes stand forth from fatness” (Psalms 73:7), which is interpreted to mean that the wicked embark on an evil path due to the fatness in the eyes, which is in the white portion. This indicates that the white portion is called the fat of the eye, but it is not called simply: Their eyes. Conversely, a tevallul is considered a blemish only if it is in the eye itself, as it states: “Or tevallul in his eye” (Leviticus 21:20). The Gemara further asks: And with regard to Rabbi Meir, what is his reason? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir would explain as follows: What is the meaning of the expression tevallul? It is a substance that mixes [hamevalbel] within the eyes, i.e., which passes through the white and the black in any fashion.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav explains Rabbi Yosei’s view through a verse: “their eyes stand out from fat” (Psalms 73:7) shows that the white of the eye is called the fat of the eye, while the Torah’s tevallul blemish must be “in his eye” — the eye proper, meaning the dark part. Rabbi Meir reasons from the word itself: tevallul comes from mevalbel, something that mixes or confuses the eye, which happens whether a white line crosses into the black or a black line into the white.
Key Terms:
- ״יָצָא מֵחֵלֶב עֵינֵימוֹ״ = ‘their eyes stand out from fatness’ (Psalms 73:7), describing the arrogant wicked
- תַּרְבָּא דְּעֵינָא = the fat of the eye — the white
- הַמְבַלְבֵּל = that which mixes up or confuses — Rabbi Meir’s etymology of tevallul
- ״בְּעֵינוֹ״ = ‘in his eye’ (Leviticus 21:20) — the eye proper
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: chavarvar and constant tears; chavarvar is constant after 80 days; Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus requires three examinations in that period
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ חֲוַרְוָור וְהַמַּיִם הַקְּבוּעִין. אֵיזֶהוּ חֲוַרְוָור הַקָּבוּעַ? כֹּל שֶׁשָּׁהָה שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אֹמֵר: בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בְּתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Pale spots on the eye and tears streaming from the eye that are constant are blemishes that enable the slaughter of the firstborn. Which are the pale spots that are constant? They are any spots that persisted for eighty days. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus said: One examines it three times within eighty days. Only if the spots are found during all three examinations are they considered constant.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna adds two further eye conditions: chavarvar (pale spots or whiteness in the eye) and constant watering of the eye. Both are blemishes only if permanent. Chavarvar is considered permanent if it lasts eighty days, and Rabbi Chananya ben Antigonus adds that the animal must be examined three times during those eighty days, with the spots found each time.
Key Terms:
- חֲוַרְוָור = chavarvar — whitish spots or paleness on the eye
- מַּיִם הַקְּבוּעִין = constant water — chronic tearing of the eye
- קָבוּעַ = permanent — as opposed to a passing condition (מום עובר) that does not permit slaughter
- בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים = one examines it three times
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
How constant tears are confirmed: treatment with moist then dry fodder; other sequences prove nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מַיִם הַקְּבוּעִין: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים, לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל שְׁלָחִים, אוֹ אָכַל הַיָּבֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַלַּח — אֵינוֹ מוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַלַּח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַיָּבֵשׁ.
English Translation:
And these are the constant tears, i.e., this is how it is known whether the blemish is temporary or permanent: In a case where the animal ate, for medicinal purposes, moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain, or if the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field, or even if the animal did not eat them together but ate the dry fodder and thereafter ate the moist fodder, and the condition of constant tears was not healed, it is not a blemish. It is not a blemish unless the animal eats the moist fodder and thereafter eats the dry fodder and is not thereby healed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna explains how to determine that watering eyes are permanent. The accepted treatment is to feed the animal moist fodder and then dry fodder; if this fails to heal it, the condition is permanent. If it ate moist and dry fodder of a rain-watered field or of an irrigated field, or ate dry before moist, and remained unhealed, this does not yet establish a blemish; only failure after the moist-then-dry sequence does.
Key Terms:
- לַח וְיָבֵשׁ = moist and dry (fodder)
- שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים = from a rain-watered field
- שֶׁל שְׁלָחִים / בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין = from an irrigated field
- עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַלַּח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַיָּבֵשׁ = until it eats the moist and then the dry
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא (זיהוי שיטה) וברייתא
The mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda: Rabbi Meir sets chavarvar at 40 days and tears at 80; Rabbi Yehuda sets chavarvar at 80
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: חֲוַרְוָור קָבוּעַ — אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם, וּמַיִם הַקְּבוּעִים — שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חֲוַרְוָור — שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: A blemish of constant pale spots is a condition that persisted for forty days, and constant tears is a condition that persisted for eighty days; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda says: A blemish of constant pale spots is a condition that persisted for eighty days.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the mishna’s eighty-day measure for chavarvar with Rabbi Yehuda. A baraita records that Rabbi Meir sets permanence for chavarvar at forty days and for constant tears at eighty days, while Rabbi Yehuda sets chavarvar too at eighty days. The mishna’s eighty days for chavarvar thus reflects Rabbi Yehuda.
Key Terms:
- אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם = forty days
- שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם = eighty days
- דְּתַנְיָא = as it is taught (in a baraita)
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Rabbi Yehuda on constant tears: irrigated-field fodder, or dry before moist, proves nothing; only dry after moist, over three months
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מַיִם הַקְּבוּעִים: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין, אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל יָבֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל הַלַּח — אֵין מוּם עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל יָבֵשׁ אַחַר הַלַּח, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: And these are the constant tears, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: In a case where the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field, or ate the dry fodder and thereafter ate the moist fodder, and the animal was not healed, its status as a blemish is not certain. It is not a blemish unless the animal eats the dry fodder after eating the moist fodder and is not thereby healed. And the duration of this period of eating moist and then dry fodder extends for three months.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues with Rabbi Yehuda’s account of constant tears. If the animal ate moist and dry fodder from an irrigated field, or dry fodder followed by moist, its failure to heal does not yet establish a blemish; only dry fodder after moist counts, and the treatment period extends over three months. Notably, Rabbi Yehuda mentions only the irrigated field, setting up the Gemara’s question.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין = an irrigated field, needing artificial watering
- אֵין מוּם = it is not (yet) a blemish
- שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים = three months — the length of the treatment period
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
But the mishna lists both rain-watered and irrigated fodder as inconclusive, whereas Rabbi Yehuda mentions only irrigated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ תְּנַנְהִי: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים, לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But how can the mishna be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? We learned about two types of fields in the mishna: A case where the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain and a case where the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field and was not healed. In either case, it is not a blemish. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda mentioned only moist fodder and dry fodder from a field that requires irrigation, from which it can be inferred that if the animal was fed moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain and it was not healed, its condition is a blemish.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects to identifying the mishna with Rabbi Yehuda. The mishna treats both rain-watered and irrigated fodder as inconclusive, while Rabbi Yehuda lists only irrigated fodder, implying that failure after eating rain-watered fodder does establish a blemish. The two sources seem to differ.
Key Terms:
- וְהָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ תְּנַנְהִי = but we learned both of them (in the mishna)
- גְּשָׁמִים = rain — fodder of a field watered by rain alone
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ (חסורי מחסרא)
The mishna is elliptical: rain-watered moist and dry fodder IS conclusive, irrigated is not; for rain-watered too, dry before moist proves nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין — אֵינוֹ מוּם, וְהַגְּשָׁמִים נָמֵי, אָכַל יָבֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל לַח — אֵינוֹ מוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל יָבֵשׁ אַחַר הַלַּח.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching, in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita: If the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain, it is a blemish. If it ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field, it is not a blemish. And with regard to a field watered exclusively with rain as well, if it ate the dry fodder and thereafter ate the moist fodder it is not a blemish. It is a not blemish until the animal eats the dry fodder after the moist fodder.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the mishna is missing words and should be read in line with Rabbi Yehuda. If the animal ate moist and dry fodder of a rain-watered field and was not healed, the condition is a blemish; irrigated fodder proves nothing. And even with rain-watered fodder, eating dry before moist proves nothing — only moist followed by dry counts. Rain-watered fodder is presumably considered the more potent remedy, so its failure is decisive.
Key Terms:
- חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי = (the mishna) is lacking (words) and this is what it teaches — a standard emendation formula
- הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם = this is a blemish
- וְהַגְּשָׁמִים נָמֵי = and (with) rain-watered (fodder) too
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Three months? Rav Yitzchak bar Ashiyan names four months (Adar-Nisan moist, Elul-Tishrei dry); emend to Adar plus half Nisan and Elul plus half Tishrei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְיֶשְׁנוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. אִינִי? וְהָתַנְיָא — וְהָא רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָאן: אֲדָר וְנִיסָן — לַח, אֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרִי — יָבֵשׁ! אֵימָא: אֲדָר וַחֲצִי נִיסָן — לַח, אֱלוּל וַחֲצִי תִשְׁרֵי — יָבֵשׁ.
English Translation:
With regard to the statement of the baraita: And the duration of this period of eating moist and then dry fodder lasts for three months, the Gemara asks: Is that so? But isn’t it taught that Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashiyan says: The months of Adar and Nisan are the moist period mentioned in the mishna, as the fodder is still moist at that time of year; and the months of Elul and Tishrei are the dry period, as this is the end of summer? In total, there are four months, not three. The Gemara answers that one should say as follows: The months of Adar and half of Nisan are the moist period, and the months of Elul and half of Tishrei are the dry period, for a total of three months.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions the baraita’s three-month duration. Rav Yitzchak bar Ashiyan taught that Adar and Nisan are the season of moist fodder and Elul and Tishrei the season of dry fodder, which adds up to four months. The Gemara emends the statement: the moist period is Adar and half of Nisan, and the dry period is Elul and half of Tishrei, three months in total.
Key Terms:
- אִינִי = is that so?
- אֲדָר וְנִיסָן — לַח = Adar and Nisan — (the time of) moist (fodder), the end of the rainy season
- אֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרִי — יָבֵשׁ = Elul and Tishrei — (the time of) dry (fodder), the end of summer
- אֵימָא = say (rather) — introduces an emendation
Segment 17
TYPE: בעיא
Must moist fodder be given in the moist season and dry in the dry season, or both during the moist season?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לַח בִּזְמַן לַח, וְיָבֵשׁ בִּזְמַן הַיָּבֵשׁ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: לַח וְיָבֵשׁ בִּזְמַן הַלַּח?
English Translation:
With regard to the ruling of the mishna that the animal must be given moist fodder and then dry fodder, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean it must be fed moist fodder at the time of moist fodder, i.e., at the end of the rainy season, and dry fodder at the time of dry fodder, at the conclusion of summer? Or perhaps it is fed moist fodder and then dry fodder leftover from the previous summer, both at the time of moist fodder.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks how the treatment is administered in time. Perhaps each type must be fed in its own season — moist fodder in the late rainy season and dry fodder at the end of summer — or perhaps both are fed during the moist season, using dry fodder left over from the previous summer. The question affects how long one waits before declaring the blemish permanent.
Key Terms:
- לַח בִּזְמַן לַח = moist (fodder) at the time of moist (fodder)
- יָבֵשׁ בִּזְמַן הַיָּבֵשׁ = dry (fodder) at the time of dry (fodder)
- אוֹ דִלְמָא = or perhaps
Segment 18
TYPE: ניסיון פשיטה ודחייה
Proof from Rav Yitzchak bar Ashiyan’s seasons is rejected: perhaps Elul-Tishrei produce is fed in Adar-Nisan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָאן: אֲדָר וְנִיסָן — לַח, אֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרִי — יָבֵשׁ. דִּלְמָא פֵּירֵי דֶּאֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרִי מַאֲכִילִנַן לֵיהּ בַּאֲדָר וְנִיסָן!
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashiyan said: The months of Adar and Nisan are the period of moist fodder; Elul and Tishrei are the period of dry fodder. This indicates that the animal is given the fodder that is available at that time. The Gemara refutes this proof: That statement is not necessarily referring to the time when it is fed, as perhaps one feeds it the produce of Elul and Tishrei in Adar and Nisan.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to resolve the dilemma from Rav Yitzchak bar Ashiyan’s statement naming Adar-Nisan as the moist period and Elul-Tishrei as the dry period, implying that each fodder is fed in its season. The proof is rejected: the months may describe the type of produce rather than the time of feeding — produce harvested in Elul and Tishrei could be fed in Adar and Nisan. The dilemma remains open.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — introduces a proposed proof
- פֵּירֵי דֶּאֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרִי = the produce of Elul and Tishrei
- מַאֲכִילִנַן לֵיהּ = we feed it (to the animal)
Segment 19
TYPE: שאלה ומימרא (בעיא בהמשך)
How much fodder? Rabbi Yochanan citing Rabbi Pinchas ben Arova: a fig-bulk; Rava reports a question in the West — a fig-bulk at the first meal… (continues on 39a)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן עָרוֹבָא: כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. אָמַר רָבָא: (בָּעֵי) [בָּעַן] בְּמַעְרְבָא: כִּגְרוֹגְרוֹת בִּסְעוּדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה,
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And how much does one feed it? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Arova: One feeds it the amount of a fig-bulk. Rava says: They raise a dilemma in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Does this mean that it is fed the amount of a fig-bulk at its first meal each day,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks what quantity of fodder constitutes the treatment. Rabbi Yochanan, in the name of Rabbi Pinchas ben Arova, sets it at a fig-bulk (גרוגרת). Rava then reports a question raised in Eretz Yisrael about how this is applied — whether the fig-bulk is required at the animal’s first meal of the day — and the daf ends mid-sentence, with the alternatives of the dilemma continuing on 39a.
Key Terms:
- כַּמָּה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ = how much do we feed it?
- כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת = the size of a dried fig — a common halakhic measure
- בָּעַן בְּמַעְרְבָא = they asked in the West, i.e., in Eretz Yisrael
- סְעוּדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה = the first meal (of the day)