Bechorot Daf 40 (בכורות דף מ׳)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (40a)

Segment 1

TYPE: משנה (המשך ציטוט ממסכת כלים)

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua’s source: the two measuring rods in Shushan HaBira, half a fingerbreadth and a full fingerbreadth longer than Moses’ cubit

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה, אַחַת עַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית וְאַחַת עַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית דְּרוֹמִית, שֶׁעַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית הָיְתָה יְתֵירָה עַל שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה חֲצִי אֶצְבַּע, וְשֶׁעַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית דְּרוֹמִית הָיְתָה יְתֵירָה עָלֶיהָ חֲצִי אֶצְבַּע, נִמְצֵאת יְתֵירָה עַל שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה אֶצְבַּע.

English Translation:

in the chamber of Shushan the capital, which was located above the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, one in the northeast corner and one in the southeast corner. The one that was in the northeast corner was longer than the cubit used by Moses in the building of the Tabernacle, which was six handbreadths, by half a fingerbreadth, and the one that was in the southeast corner was longer than the other one by another half a fingerbreadth. One therefore finds it longer than Moses’ cubit by a full fingerbreadth.

קלאוד על הדף:

This segment completes the quotation that began at the end of 39b. Rabba had said that the baraita’s definition of a fingerbreadth (one-fourth of the handbreadth of an average person) was stated for the length of tzitzit; Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua instead locates it in the mishna of Kelim 17:9, which describes two standard cubit-rods kept in the chamber of Shushan HaBira over the eastern gate of the Temple Mount. One rod exceeded the six-handbreadth cubit of Moses by half a fingerbreadth, and the second exceeded it by a full fingerbreadth. Since these rods are defined by fractions of a fingerbreadth, the precise size of that fingerbreadth matters, and that is what the baraita fixes.

Key Terms:

• שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה = Shushan the capital; a chamber over the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, decorated with an image of the Persian capital Shushan
• קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית / דְּרוֹמִית = the northeast / southeast corner (of that chamber)
• אַמָּה שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה = the cubit of Moses, the standard six-handbreadth cubit used in building the Mishkan
• יְתֵירָה = longer, exceeding
• חֲצִי אֶצְבַּע = half a fingerbreadth

Segment 2

TYPE: משנה (המשך) — טעם הדבר

Why two cubits? Artisans were paid by the small and delivered by the large, to avoid me’ila

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלָמָה הָיוּ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה? (כשהיו) [שֶׁהָיוּ] אוּמָּנִין נוֹטְלִין בַּקְּטַנָּה, וּמַחְזִירִין בַּגְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי מְעִילָה.

English Translation:

The mishna continues: And why did the Sages say that there should be two measures of a cubit, one large and one small? It was so that the artisans who were working in the Temple would take payment according the amount of work they did, as measured by the small cubit, and return it to the Temple through their work, as measured by the large cubit, so they would not come to misuse consecrated property. If they would accept any payment that they did not deserve, they would be misusing consecrated property. It was with regard to the fingerbreadth mentioned in this mishna that the baraita cited above teaches that it is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Kelim mishna explains the purpose of keeping a larger and a smaller standard. Craftsmen who contracted with the Temple treasury were paid according to the smaller cubit but delivered their work according to the larger one, so that they would certainly never receive more than they had earned. Taking even a small overpayment from hekdesh would constitute me’ila, the misuse of consecrated property, and the built-in margin guarantees they stay on the right side of the line. The translation’s final sentence states the Gemara’s point: the fingerbreadth whose half and whole define these margins is the one the baraita fixes at a quarter of a handbreadth.

Key Terms:

• אוּמָּנִין = craftsmen, artisans employed in Temple work
• נוֹטְלִין בַּקְּטַנָּה = take (payment) according to the small measure
• מַחְזִירִין בַּגְּדוֹלָה = return (deliver work) according to the large measure
• מְעִילָה = misuse of consecrated property, benefiting from hekdesh, which obligates a guilt-offering (asham me’ilot) and repayment of the value plus a fifth

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why two oversized cubits? One for gold and silver work, one for building

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? חֲדָא — דְּכַסְפָּא וְזַהֲבָא, וַחֲדָא — דְּבִנְיָינָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: Why do I need two large cubits? The Gemara answers: One, the shorter of the two, was used to measure silver and gold. Since silver and gold were valuable, the difference between the two measurements was set at only half a fingerbreadth, so that the artisans would not suffer too great a loss. And the other one, which was longer than Moses’ cubit by a full fingerbreadth, was used in the construction of wood and stone structures.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks why two enlarged rods were needed when one would suffice to protect against me’ila. The answer is that each served a different kind of work. For precious metals such as silver and gold, a margin of only half a fingerbreadth was used, since even a small excess of costly material would be a heavy loss to the craftsman. For ordinary construction in wood and stone, the full fingerbreadth margin was used, as the material is cheap and a generous safety margin costs the builder little.

Key Terms:

• תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי = why do I need two?
• כַּסְפָּא וְזַהֲבָא = silver and gold
• בִּנְיָינָא = building, construction work

Segment 4

TYPE: מימרא (דעה חלוקה)

A third view: the baraita’s fingerbreadth refers to our mishna, the full fingerbreadth of flesh between the tail joints

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וְאִי תֵּימָא רַב הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן, לְאוֹתָהּ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּשָׂר בֵּין חוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע.

English Translation:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and some say Rav Huna bar Natan, said: This baraita, which states that a fingerbreadth is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person, is referring to that which we learned in the mishna here with regard to the blemishes of a firstborn animal: In a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. That measure of a full fingerbreadth is one-fourth of a handbreadth.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (or, according to another version, Rav Huna bar Natan) offers a third location for the baraita’s fingerbreadth, and it brings the discussion back to our own perek. The mishna on 39a counted as a blemish a tail in which there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one vertebra and the next, and that fingerbreadth is likewise one-fourth of an average person’s handbreadth. The three opinions, Rabba (tzitzit), Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua (the Shushan rods) and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (the firstborn’s tail), all agree on the measure itself; they differ only on which mishna the baraita was formulated to explain.

Key Terms:

• חוּלְיָא = a vertebra, joint (here, of the tail)
• מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע = a full fingerbreadth
• וְאִי תֵּימָא = and some say, a formula introducing an alternative attribution of a statement

Segment 5

TYPE: משנה

Testicle blemishes: none or only one; Rabbi Yishmael judges by the sacs, Rabbi Akiva by pressing; the case of the hidden testicle

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין לוֹ בֵּיצִים, אוֹ אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּיצָה אַחַת. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי כִּיסִין — יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי בֵּיצִים, אֵין לוֹ שְׁנֵי כִּיסִין — אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּיצָה אַחַת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מוֹשִׁיבוֹ עַל עַכּוּזוֹ וּמְמַעֵךְ, אִם יֵשׁ בֵּיצָה — סוֹפָהּ לָצֵאת. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁמִּיעֵךְ וְלֹא יָצָא, נִשְׁחֲטָה וְנִמְצֵאת דְּבוּקָה בַּכְּסָלִים, וְהִתִּיר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְאָסַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי.

English Translation:

MISHNA: The firstborn animal may be slaughtered if it has no testicles or if it has only one testicle. Rabbi Yishmael says: If the animal has two scrotal sacs, it can be assumed that it has two testicles; if the animal does not have two scrotal sacs, it can be assumed that it has only one testicle. Rabbi Akiva says: The matter can be ascertained: One seats the animal on its rump and mashes the sac; if there is a testicle, ultimately it is going to emerge. There was an incident where one mashed the sac and the testicle did not emerge. Then, the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted the consumption of its flesh, as the testicle had not previously emerged, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption.

קלאוד על הדף:

A new mishna in the perek’s catalogue turns to the genitals. An animal with no testicles or only one is blemished and may be slaughtered. Rabbi Yishmael holds that the external sacs are a reliable guide: two sacs indicate two testicles, one sac indicates only one. Rabbi Akiva proposes a practical test, seating the animal on its rump and pressing until any hidden testicle emerges. The mishna closes with a disputed case in which the test failed, yet after slaughter the second testicle was found attached to the loins: Rabbi Akiva permitted the meat, while Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri prohibited it.

Key Terms:

• בֵּיצִים = testicles
• כִּיסִין = the scrotal sacs
• מוֹשִׁיבוֹ עַל עַכּוּזוֹ = he seats it on its rump
• מְמַעֵךְ = presses, massages (the sac)
• כְּסָלִים = the loins, the inner area near the kidneys

Segment 6

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (חסורי מחסרא)

If one testicle is a blemish, none certainly is; the mishna is emended to speak of placement and number

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ הַשְׁתָּא אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּיצָה אַחַת אָמְרַתְּ הָוֵי מוּמָא, אֵין לוֹ כְּלָל מִיבַּעְיָא? חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵין לוֹ שְׁתֵּי בֵּיצִים בִּשְׁתֵּי כִּיסִין אֶלָּא בְּכִיס אֶחָד, אִי נָמֵי שְׁתֵּי כִּיסִין וּבֵיצָה אַחַת — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.

English Translation:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a firstborn may be slaughtered if it has no testicles or if it has only one testicle. The Gemara asks: Now that with regard to a case where it has only one testicle you said that it is a blemish, is it necessary to state the same in a case where it has no testicles at all? The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: If it does not have two testicles in two scrotal sacs, but in one sac, or alternatively, if it has two sacs and one testicle, it is a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara objects that the mishna’s first clause seems redundant: if having only one testicle is a blemish, it hardly needs saying that having none is a blemish. It resolves this with the familiar device of chasurei mechsera, explaining that the mishna is elliptical. Its real teaching concerns two subtler cases: two testicles found together in a single sac, and two sacs that contain only one testicle. Both are blemishes, and they set the stage for the dispute that follows about how to tell what the sacs contain.

Key Terms:

• הַשְׁתָּא … מִיבַּעְיָא = now that (the lesser case is ruled so), is it necessary (to state the greater case)?
• חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי = the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it teaches
• כִּיס אֶחָד = a single sac

Segment 7

TYPE: גמרא (המשך הנוסח המתוקן)

The emended mishna: Rabbi Yishmael relies on the presumption of two sacs; Rabbi Akiva rejects ‘it is known’ and requires pressing

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי כִּיסִים — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי בֵּיצִים, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא כִּיס אֶחָד — כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּיצָה אַחַת דָּמֵי, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְמֵימַר: בְּיָדוּעַ לָא אָמְרִינַן, אֶלָּא מוֹשִׁיבוֹ עַל עַכּוּזוֹ וּמְמַעֵךְ, אִם יֵשׁ בֵּיצָה סוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת.

English Translation:

The Gemara continues this version of the mishna. Rabbi Yishmael says: If the animal has two scrotal sacs, it is known that it has two testicles, and therefore it is not blemished and may not be slaughtered; if the animal has only one scrotal sac it is considered like one that has only one testicle, even if it actually has two testicles. And Rabbi Akiva comes to say: If it has two sacs, we do not say the claim of: It is known. Rather, one seats the animal on its rump and mashes the sac; if there is a testicle, ultimately it is going to emerge. If the testicle does not emerge, clearly it has only one testicle and is blemished.

קלאוד על הדף:

The reconstruction continues. According to Rabbi Yishmael, two sacs establish with certainty (b’yadua) that there are two testicles, so the animal is unblemished and may not be slaughtered outside; one sac is treated as one testicle even if the animal actually has two. Rabbi Akiva disputes the assumption of certainty: an external appearance does not prove anything, and the only reliable way to know is to press the sac and see whether the testicle descends. If it does not emerge, the animal is treated as having only one testicle and is blemished.

Key Terms:

• בְּיָדוּעַ = it is known, a matter treated as certain
• כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ … דָּמֵי = is considered like one that has no …
• וַאֲתָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְמֵימַר = and Rabbi Akiva comes to say, introducing his disagreement

Segment 8

TYPE: ברייתא

Rabbi Yosei’s report of the incident at Piran of Beit Menachem

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁמִּיעֵךְ וְלֹא יָצָא וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּפָירָן שֶׁל בֵּית מְנַחֵם, שֶׁמִּיעֵךְ וְלֹא יָצָאת, וְנִשְׁחֲטָה וְנִמְצֵאת דְּבוּקָה בַּכְּסָלִים, וְהִתִּיר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְאָסַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches: And there was an incident where one mashed the sac and the testicle did not emerge. Then the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted the consumption of its flesh, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption. The Gemara elaborates on this incident: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident in Piran of Beit Menaḥem where a firstborn animal apparently had only one testicle, and someone mashed its sac and the other testicle did not emerge. And the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted its consumption, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption.

קלאוד על הדף:

A baraita supplies the setting of the mishna’s anonymous incident. Rabbi Yosei relates that it took place in Piran of Beit Menachem: the sac was pressed, the testicle did not appear, and the firstborn was slaughtered as blemished, only for the testicle to be found attached to the loins. Rabbi Akiva permitted the meat, since by his own test the animal had been properly judged blemished at the time, and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri prohibited it, since in reality the animal had two testicles and was never blemished at all.

Key Terms:

• פָּירָן שֶׁל בֵּית מְנַחֵם = Piran of Beit Menachem, the place where the incident occurred
• דְּבוּקָה בַּכְּסָלִים = attached to the loins
• הִתִּיר / אָסַר = permitted / prohibited (the meat)

Segment 9

TYPE: ברייתא וקושיא

Rabbi Akiva: ‘How long will you waste Israel’s money?’ Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri: ‘How long will you feed Israel neveilot?’ — but it was slaughtered

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: עַד מָתַי אַתָּה מְכַלֶּה מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: עַד מָתַי אַתָּה מַאֲכִיל יִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֵילוֹת! לָאו מִישְׁחָט שַׁחְטֵיהּ?

English Translation:

The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: Until when will you consume the property of the Jewish people by prohibiting animals in such cases? Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: Until when will you feed the Jewish people unslaughtered animal carcasses? The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri use the term animal carcasses here? After all, aren’t they properly slaughtered?

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita records a sharp exchange. Rabbi Akiva accuses Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri of needlessly destroying the property of Jewish owners by forbidding animals that were judged according to the accepted test. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri retorts that Rabbi Akiva is feeding Israel neveilot, carcasses. The Gemara stops at this word: a nevela is an animal that died without valid shechita, but this animal was properly slaughtered, so the accusation as worded cannot be literal.

Key Terms:

• עַד מָתַי = until when, how long
• מְכַלֶּה מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל = destroys the money of Israel, causes needless financial loss
• נְבֵילוֹת = neveilot, carcasses of animals that died without valid ritual slaughter
• לָאו מִישְׁחָט שַׁחְטֵיהּ = but was it not slaughtered?

Segment 10

TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא ותירוץ

Not neveilot, not tereifot — Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri meant ‘sacrificial animals eaten outside’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא: טְרֵיפוֹת. לָא אִיסּוּר טְרֵיפוֹת הוּא?! אֶלָּא: עַד מָתַי אַתָּה מַאֲכִיל יִשְׂרָאֵל קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ!

English Translation:

The Gemara responds: Rather, Yoḥanan ben Nuri actually referred to animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. The Gemara challenges: But it is not a prohibition of tereifot. Rather, he said: Until when will you feed the Jewish people sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard? According to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri this is not a blemish, and therefore the animal is an unblemished offering, which may not be eaten outside the Temple.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara first suggests he said tereifot, but rejects that too: there is nothing here that makes the animal a tereifa, a creature with a fatal defect. The correct wording is therefore that Rabbi Akiva is feeding Israel kodashim outside the Temple. Since in Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s view the firstborn was never blemished, it remained an unblemished offering whose meat may be eaten only by kohanim within the sanctity of Jerusalem after its blood is applied on the altar; slaughtering and eating it in the provinces is a grave prohibition. The emended rebuke thus matches the real stakes of the dispute.

Key Terms:

• טְרֵיפוֹת = tereifot, animals with a defect from which they will not survive
• קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ = sacrificial animals (slaughtered and eaten) outside the Temple
• לָא אִיסּוּר טְרֵיפוֹת הוּא = it is not a prohibition of tereifot

Segment 11

TYPE: משנה

Limb blemishes: five or three legs, donkey-like hooves, the shachul and the kasul

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ בַּעַל חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ, וְשֶׁרַגְלָיו קְלוּטוֹת כְּשֶׁל חֲמוֹר, וְהַשָּׁחוּל וְהַכָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ שָׁחוּל? שֶׁנִּשְׁמְטָה יְרֵיכוֹ. וְכָסוּל? שֶׁאַחַת מִירֵיכוֹתָיו גְּבוֹהוֹת.

English Translation:

MISHNA: An animal with five legs, or one that has only three, or one whose hooves on its legs were closed like those of a donkey and not split, or the shaḥul, or the kasul may be slaughtered. What is a shaḥul? It is an animal with a thighbone that was dislocated. And what is a kasul? It is an animal whose build is asymmetrical in that one of its thighs is higher than the other.

קלאוד על הדף:

The next mishna lists blemishes of the legs. An animal with an extra leg or a missing leg, one whose hooves are closed like a donkey’s rather than split, the shachul whose thighbone is dislocated, and the kasul whose thighs stand at unequal heights are all blemished, and a firstborn so affected may be slaughtered outside. These are permanent, visible deformities of structure, the kind of conspicuous blemish the perek has been cataloguing.

Key Terms:

• בַּעַל חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם = an animal with five legs
• קְלוּטוֹת = closed, unsplit (hooves), like a donkey’s
• שָׁחוּל = shachul, an animal whose thighbone is dislocated
• כָּסוּל = kasul, an animal with one thigh higher than the other
• נִשְׁמְטָה יְרֵיכוֹ = its thigh slipped out of its socket

Segment 12

TYPE: גמרא — מימרא

Rav Huna: an extra or missing foreleg is a blemish, but a hind leg also makes it a tereifa, since an extra limb is like a missing one

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָסֵר וְיָתֵר בַּיָּד, אֲבָל בָּרֶגֶל — טְרֵפָה נָמֵי הָוֵי, דְּכֹל יָתֵיר כְּנָטוּל דָּמֵי.

English Translation:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an animal with five legs or three legs is blemished. Rav Huna says: The Sages taught this only in a case where the animal was missing or had an additional foreleg. But if it was missing or had an additional hind leg, not only is it blemished, but it is also a tereifa. The reason is that any extra limb is like a removed limb, and an animal whose hind leg was removed is a tereifa.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Huna limits the mishna’s ruling to the forelegs. If the extra or missing leg is a hind leg, the animal is not merely blemished but also a tereifa, forbidden to everyone even after valid slaughter. His reasoning rests on the principle that an extra limb is regarded as if a limb were removed (kol yateir k’natul dami), and an animal missing a hind leg from the thigh is among the tereifot. The mishna’s permission to slaughter and eat therefore applies only to forelegs.

Key Terms:

• חָסֵר וְיָתֵר = missing or extra
• יָד / רֶגֶל = foreleg / hind leg
• כֹּל יָתֵיר כְּנָטוּל דָּמֵי = anything extra is considered as if removed
• טְרֵפָה = tereifa, an animal with a fatal defect, forbidden to eat

Segment 13

TYPE: מימרא

Rav Pappa: round hooves are a blemish even if they are also split

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא תֵּימָא דַּעֲגִילָן וְלָא סְדִיקָן, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דַּעֲגִילָן, אַף עַל גַּב דִּסְדִיקָן.

English Translation:

With regard to the ruling of the mishna that an animal whose hooves were closed like those of a donkey is blemished, Rav Pappa says: Do not say that it is a blemish only in a case where its hooves are entirely like those of a donkey, i.e., round and not split at all. Rather, when they are round, even though they are also split, it is still considered a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Pappa clarifies the mishna’s donkey-like hooves. One should not think that the blemish requires a hoof that is completely round and undivided like a donkey’s. As soon as the hoof is rounded in shape, it counts as a blemish even if a split is still present. The decisive feature is the abnormal round form, not the absence of the cleft.

Key Terms:

• עֲגִילָן = round
• סְדִיקָן = split, cloven
• לָא תֵּימָא … אֶלָּא = do not say … rather, a formula of clarification

Segment 14

TYPE: ברייתא

Defining the kasul and shachul; the Torah’s saru’a and kalut

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהַשָּׁחוּל וְהַכָּסוּל וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ כָּסוּל וְאֵיזֶהוּ שָׁחוּל? שָׁחוּל — שֶׁנִּשְׁמְטָה יְרֵיכוֹ, כָּסוּל — שֶׁרַגְלוֹ אֶחָד בְּתוֹךְ הַכֶּסֶל, וְרַגְלוֹ אֶחָד עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּסֶל. תָּנָא: הַשָּׂרוּעַ וְהַקָּלוּט — שָׂרוּעַ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּרְבֵּב לוֹ יְרֵיכוֹ, קָלוּט — שֶׁרַגְלָיו קְלוּטוֹת כְּשֶׁל חֲמוֹר וּכְשֶׁל סוּס.

English Translation:

The mishna teaches: Or the shaḥul, or the kasul may be slaughtered. In this regard, the Sages taught: What is the kasul and what is the shaḥul? The shaḥul is an animal with a thighbone that was dislocated. The kasul is an animal that is irregular in that one of its legs is inside the loin, i.e., in its proper place, and in one of its legs the bone is dislocated and is above the loin. It is taught in a baraita: What are the saru’a and kalut mentioned in the Torah (see Leviticus 22:23) among the animals disqualified from being sacrificed? The saru’a is one whose thigh is longer than the other; the kalut is one whose hooves on its legs are closed like those of a donkey and like those of a horse.

קלאוד על הדף:

A baraita refines the definitions. The shachul has a thigh dislocated from its socket, while the kasul has one leg in its place within the loin and the other displaced above it, producing the uneven stance described in the mishna. A second tannaitic teaching interprets two terms from the Torah’s list of blemishes in Vayikra 22:23: the saru’a is an animal one of whose thighs is elongated beyond the other, and the kalut has hooves closed like those of a donkey or a horse. The mishna’s catalogue is thus anchored in the verse.

Key Terms:

• כֶּסֶל = the loin, the hip area
• שָׂרוּעַ = saru’a, an animal with one limb longer than the other (Vayikra 22:23)
• קָלוּט = kalut, an animal with closed hooves (Vayikra 22:23)
• נִשְׁתַּרְבֵּב = was extended, protruded

Segment 15

TYPE: משנה

A broken leg bone is a blemish even if not visible; Ila listed the blemishes in Yavne and the Sages accepted them

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם יָדוֹ וְעֶצֶם רַגְלוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר. מוּמִין אֵלּוּ מָנָה אִילָא בְּיַבְנֶה, וְהוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים.

English Translation:

MISHNA: Additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn include those where the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg was broken, even though it is not conspicuous. With regard to these blemishes listed in this chapter, Ila, who was expert in blemishes of the firstborn, enumerated them in Yavne, and the Sages deferred to his expertise.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna adds that a broken bone of the foreleg or hind leg is a blemish even if the break is not conspicuous. It then reveals the source of much of the perek’s list: Ila, an expert in blemishes, enumerated these blemishes before the Sages at Yavne, and they accepted his testimony. This is a striking glimpse into how practical veterinary expertise entered the halachic tradition.

Key Terms:

• אֵינוֹ נִיכָּר = is not conspicuous, not visible
• אִילָא = Ila, an expert in firstborn blemishes who testified at Yavne
• מָנָה = counted, enumerated
• הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים = the Sages agreed with him

Segment 16

TYPE: משנה (המשך)

Ila’s three further blemishes, unknown to the Sages: a round human-like eye, a pig-like mouth, and loss of most of the ‘speaking’ part of the tongue; a later court accepted them

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְעוֹד שְׁלֹשָׁה הוֹסִיף, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ. שֶׁגַּלְגַּל עֵינוֹ עָגוֹל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם, וּפִיו דּוֹמֶה כְּשֶׁל חֲזִיר, וְשֶׁנִּיטַּל רוֹב הַמְדַבֵּר בִּלְשׁוֹנוֹ. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אַחֲרֵיהֶן אָמְרוּ: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.

English Translation:

And Ila added three additional blemishes, and the Sages said to him: We did not hear about those. Ila added: An animal whose eye is round like that of a person, or whose mouth is similar to that of a pig, or where most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person was removed. The court that followed them said with regard to each of those three blemishes: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

Ila also added three blemishes the Sages had not received by tradition, and at first they declined to rule on them: an eye whose globe is round like a person’s, a mouth resembling a pig’s, and the removal of most of the part of the tongue that corresponds to the speaking part of a human tongue. The next generation’s court ruled that each is indeed a blemish. The episode shows the Sages’ caution in adding to the received list and the later court’s willingness to accept Ila’s expertise.

Key Terms:

• לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ = we have not heard (a tradition) about these
• גַּלְגַּל עֵינוֹ = the globe (round part) of its eye
• רוֹב הַמְדַבֵּר בִּלְשׁוֹנוֹ = most of the speaking part of its tongue
• בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אַחֲרֵיהֶן = the court that came after them

Segment 17

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

How can a hidden break be a blemish? Rav Pappa: invisible in itself, but evident from how the animal walks

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ אֵינוֹ נִיכָּר, מִי קָא הָוֵי מוּמָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֵינוֹ נִיכָּר מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל נִיכָּר מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה.

English Translation:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg was broken it is considered a blemish, despite the fact that it is not conspicuous. The Gemara asks: If it is not conspicuous, is it a blemish? A blemish must be on an exposed part of the body (see 37b). Rav Pappa says: The mishna means that it is not conspicuous on its own account, i.e., the shape of the leg is no different from the usual. But it is conspicuous on account of its work, i.e., the manner in which the animal walks.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges the mishna: the rule established on 37b is that a blemish must be visible, so how can an inconspicuous fracture count? Rav Pappa answers that the break is not visible in the leg itself, whose shape looks normal, but is evident in the animal’s work, namely its limping gait. A defect that shows itself in function is visible enough to qualify.

Key Terms:

• נִיכָּר מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ = visible on its own account (in its appearance)
• נִיכָּר מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה = visible on account of its work (its walking)

Segment 18

TYPE: קושיא (רמינהו)

Is a round eye abnormal for animals? Contradiction from the mishna in Nidda on miscarried animal-shaped fetuses

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מוּמִין אֵלּוּ מָנָה וְכוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּלָאו הַיְינוּ אוֹרְחֵיהּ? וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִין, אִם זָכָר תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches that with regard to these blemishes listed in this chapter, Ila enumerated them in Yavne, and he added three more, including an animal whose eye is round like that of a person. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that it is not the manner of animals to have eyes of this kind? And one can raise a contradiction from a mishna (Nidda 21a): With regard to a woman who miscarries a fetus in the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, whether it is a non-kosher animal or whether it is a kosher animal, if it is male, the woman observes the periods of impurity, i.e., seven days, and purity, i.e., thirty-three days, established in the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a male.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara questions Ila’s round eye: by calling it a blemish, the mishna implies that animals do not normally have round eyes. Against this it cites the mishna in Nidda 21a, which treats a woman who miscarries a fetus shaped like an animal, beast or bird as having given birth: if male, she observes the impurity and purity periods of a male birth, and if female, those of a female birth. The force of the contradiction emerges in the next two segments.

Key Terms:

• לְמֵימְרָא דְּלָאו הַיְינוּ אוֹרְחֵיהּ = is this to say that this is not its normal way?
• וּרְמִינְהוּ = and raise a contradiction
• הַמַּפֶּלֶת = a woman who miscarries
• תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר = she sits (observes the days) for a male

Segment 19

TYPE: משנה (המשך הציטוט)

Rabbi Meir: if the sex is unknown, she observes the stringencies of both a male and a female birth

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִם נְקֵבָה — תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה, אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ — תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

English Translation:

If it is female, the woman observes the periods of impurity, i.e., fourteen days, and purity, i.e., sixty-six days, established in the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a female. If its sex is unknown, the woman observes the more severe restrictions from the case of the birth of a male and the more severe restrictions from the case of the birth of a female: She is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure until only forty days after birth, like a woman who gave birth to a male. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Nidda mishna continues: when the sex of the animal-shaped fetus is unknown, she must observe the stringencies of both, fourteen days of impurity as for a female, but only forty days of purity as for a male. This is Rabbi Meir’s view. The underlying question, why Rabbi Meir treats such a fetus as a birth at all, is addressed in the next segment.

Key Terms:

• תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה = she observes (the stringencies) for both male and female
• דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר = the words of Rabbi Meir
• יְמֵי טֻמְאָה / יְמֵי טׇהֳרָה = the days of impurity / the days of purity after childbirth (Vayikra 12)

Segment 20

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Rabbi Yochanan: Rabbi Meir’s reason is that animals’ eyes are round like a person’s; Rav Yosef: black of the eye vs. white

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? הוֹאִיל וְגַלְגַּל עֵינוֹ עָגוֹל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם! אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּאוּכָּמָא, הָא בְּחִיוָּורָא.

English Translation:

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? Since the eye of these animals is round like that of a person, a woman who miscarries a fetus of this kind is impure. Rav Yosef said in resolution of this apparent contradiction: It is not difficult; this is referring to the black portion of the eye, whereas that is referring to the white portion of the eye.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yochanan explains that Rabbi Meir counts such a fetus as a birth because an animal’s eye is round like a human’s, giving it a measure of human form. That implies round eyes are normal for animals, contradicting Ila’s blemish. Rav Yosef resolves it by distinguishing parts of the eye: one statement refers to the black of the eye, the other to the white. In one part of the eye a human-like roundness is natural to animals and supplies Rabbi Meir’s resemblance, while in the other it is abnormal and constitutes Ila’s blemish, so the two rulings no longer collide.

Key Terms:

• גַּלְגַּל עֵינוֹ עָגוֹל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם = its eyeball is round like that of a person
• אוּכָּמָא = the black (of the eye)
• חִיוָּורָא = the white (of the eye)
• לָא קַשְׁיָא = it is not difficult, the two sources address different cases

Segment 21

TYPE: מימרא

Rav Pappa: a pig-like mouth requires only the overlapping upper lip, not the pointed snout

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּפִיו דּוֹמֶה כְּשֶׁל חֲזִיר. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא תֵּימָא דִּשְׁפִיד וּפְרִוס, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דִּפְרִוס אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא שְׁפִיד.

English Translation:

The mishna teaches: Or its mouth is similar to that of a pig. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that this is referring only to a case where the mouth is pointed and the upper lip overlaps the bottom lip, exactly like that of a pig. Rather, when it overlaps, even though it is not pointed, this is a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Pappa defines Ila’s second blemish. The mouth need not be both pointed and overlapping exactly like a pig’s snout. If the upper lip overlaps the lower lip, that alone is a blemish even though the mouth is not pointed. As with the hooves, he identifies the single essential feature that makes the deformity.

Key Terms:

• שְׁפִיד = pointed, sharp (like a snout)
• פְּרִוס = overlapping, with the upper lip covering the lower
• פִּיו דּוֹמֶה כְּשֶׁל חֲזִיר = its mouth resembles that of a pig

Segment 22

TYPE: שאלה ותשובה

Whose view is the tongue blemish? Rabbi Yehuda, who requires most of the ‘speaking’ part, not most of the whole tongue

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְשֶׁנִּיטַּל רוֹב הַמְדַבֵּר שֶׁבִּלְשׁוֹנוֹ. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: וְאֶת שֶׁנִּיטַּל רוֹב הַלָּשׁוֹן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רוֹב הַמְדַבֵּר שֶׁל לְשׁוֹנוֹ.

English Translation:

The mishna teaches: Or that most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person was removed. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Or that most of its tongue was removed; Rabbi Yehuda says: Most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person must be removed to be considered a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara identifies the author of Ila’s third blemish. A baraita lists the removal of most of the tongue as a blemish, and Rabbi Yehuda qualifies it to most of the part of the tongue corresponding to the speaking part of a person’s tongue. Since our mishna uses exactly Rabbi Yehuda’s formulation, it follows his opinion.

Key Terms:

• מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי = whose (opinion) is our mishna?
• רוֹב הַלָּשׁוֹן = most of the tongue
• הַמְדַבֵּר = the speaking part

Segment 23

TYPE: משנה

An incident: the lower jaw protruded past the upper; Rabban Gamliel asked the Sages, and they ruled it a blemish

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהַלְּחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן עוֹדֵף עַל הָעֶלְיוֹן, וְשָׁאַל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לַחֲכָמִים, וְאָמְרוּ: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.

English Translation:

MISHNA: And there was an incident where the lower jaw of the firstborn protruded beyond the upper jaw, and Rabban Gamliel asked the Sages for a ruling, and they said: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

A short mishna records a case in which a firstborn’s lower jaw extended beyond its upper jaw. Rabban Gamliel brought the question to the Sages, who ruled that it is a blemish permitting slaughter. The incident sits naturally beside Ila’s pig-like mouth, which also concerned a misaligned mouth.

Key Terms:

• לְחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן = the lower jaw
• עוֹדֵף = protrudes, exceeds
• שָׁאַל … לַחֲכָמִים = asked the Sages (for a ruling)

Segment 24

TYPE: שאלה ותשובה

Why the word ‘incident’? The Rabbis disputed only an overlapping upper lip; a protruding lower jaw is a blemish for all

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ מַאי תַּנָּא דְּקָתָנֵי ״וּמַעֲשֶׂה״? מִשּׁוּם דִּתְנַן ״פִּיו דּוֹמֶה לַחֲזִיר״, וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי, וְקָאָמְרִינַן: כִּי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי בִּשְׂפָתוֹ עֶלְיוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, אֲבָל שֶׁהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.

English Translation:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the ruling taught in the previous mishna that the tanna is referring to when he teaches here: And there was an incident? The Gemara answers: Since we learned in the list of blemishes in the previous mishna the case where its mouth is similar to that of a pig, and the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Ila in that case, we say here that when the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Ila, it is only in a case where its upper lip overlaps the lower lip. But in a case where the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper jaw, everyone agrees that this is a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks what earlier teaching the mishna’s ‘and there was an incident’ attaches to. It answers that it relates to the pig-like mouth in the previous mishna, where the Rabbis at first disagreed with Ila. The incident teaches that their hesitation applied only when the upper lip overlaps the lower; when the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper, everyone agrees that it is a blemish.

Key Terms:

• מַאי תַּנָּא דְּקָתָנֵי וּמַעֲשֶׂה = what did the tanna teach (earlier) that he now teaches ‘and an incident’?
• שְׂפָתוֹ עֶלְיוֹנָה = its upper lip
• פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ = the Rabbis disagree with him

Amud Bet (40b)

Segment 1

TYPE: משנה (נוסח מתוקן)

The same incident repeated before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and again ruled a blemish

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי שֶׁלְּחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן עוֹדֵף עַל הָעֶלְיוֹן, שָׁאַל רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לַחֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.

English Translation:

The Gemara continues this version of the mishna: And there was also an incident where the lower jaw of the firstborn protruded beyond the upper jaw, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asked the Sages for a ruling, and they said: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara’s reconstructed version of the mishna adds that the incident of a protruding lower jaw also came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who likewise asked the Sages and was told it is a blemish. The repetition reinforces that the ruling is settled across generations of the Nasi’s court.

Key Terms:

• וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי = and there was also an incident
• רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל = Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Nasi of the Sanhedrin
• הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם = this is a blemish

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא

But a protruding lip is a blemish for a kohen, based on ‘ish ish mizera Aharon’, which does not apply to animals

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָא גַּבֵּי אָדָם הוּא דִּתְנַן: שְׂפָתוֹ הָעֶלְיוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, אוֹ שֶׁתַּחְתּוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. גַּבֵּי אָדָם הוּא דִּכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן״, אִישׁ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אֲבָל בִּבְהֵמָה לָא!

English Translation:

The Gemara challenges: But it is with regard to the blemishes of a person that we learned in a mishna (44a): If his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower lip or his lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip, that is a blemish. And it is only with regard to a person that it is written: “Whatever man of the seed of Aaron” (Leviticus 22:4), which teaches that in order to be fit for the Temple service a priest must be a man who is equal to the seed of Aaron, i.e., he has an ordinary appearance like other priests. But this requirement is not stated with regard to an animal, and therefore an animal should not be considered blemished if its lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges the ruling from the mishna on 44a about blemishes of kohanim, which lists an upper lip protruding past the lower or the reverse. That blemish is derived from the doubled phrase ‘ish ish mizera Aharon’ (Vayikra 22:4), read as requiring a kohen to be equal in appearance to the seed of Aharon. Such an appearance-based standard applies only to people, so a protruding lip should not disqualify an animal.

Key Terms:

• אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן = any man of the seed of Aharon (Vayikra 22:4)
• שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן = who is equal to (looks like) the seed of Aharon
• מוּמֵי אָדָם = blemishes of a person (kohen)

Segment 3

TYPE: תירוץ

Rav Pappa: with a bone it is a blemish even in animals; without a bone, only in a kohen

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאִית בַּהּ עֶצֶם, הָא דְּלֵית בַּהּ עֶצֶם.

English Translation:

Rav Pappa said in response: That is not difficult; this mishna is referring to a case where the lower jaw contains a bone that is longer than the upper jaw, in which case it is a blemish even for an animal, whereas that mishna is referring to a case where the lower jaw does not contain a bone, and therefore it is a blemish only in the case of a person.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Pappa resolves the contradiction by distinguishing the nature of the protrusion. Our mishna refers to a lower jaw that protrudes with bone, a true structural deformity that blemishes an animal. The mishna about kohanim refers to a protrusion of soft tissue only, without bone, which is a blemish only for a person because of the special requirement that a kohen look like his brethren.

Key Terms:

• דְּאִית בַּהּ עֶצֶם = that has bone in it
• דְּלֵית בַּהּ עֶצֶם = that does not have bone in it

Segment 4

TYPE: משנה

A doubled ear is a blemish only if it is one bone; Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel: a kid’s pig-like tail or one with fewer than three vertebrae

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ אוֹזֶן הַגְּדִי הָיְתָה כְּפוּלָה, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא עֶצֶם אֶחָד — מוּם, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם — אֵינוֹ מוּם. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: זְנַב הַגְּדִי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר, וְשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שְׁלֹשׁ חוּלְיוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.

English Translation:

MISHNA: With regard to the ear of the kid that was doubled and appeared like two ears, the Sages said: When the additional ear is one bone, i.e., it has its own cartilage, it is a blemish; when it does not have its own bone it is not a blemish. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel says: In the case of the tail of a kid that is similar to that of a pig or one that is so short that it does not have three joints, that is a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna treats a kid with a doubled ear: if the doubled ear is a single piece of cartilage it is a blemish, but if each part has its own cartilage it is not. Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel adds that a kid’s tail resembling a pig’s, or one with fewer than three vertebrae, is a blemish. Both rulings continue the perek’s focus on the shape of the ears and tail.

Key Terms:

• אוֹזֶן כְּפוּלָה = a doubled ear
• עֶצֶם אֶחָד = one bone (here, one cartilage)
• זְנַב הַגְּדִי = the tail of a kid (young goat)
• חוּלְיוֹת = vertebrae, joints

Segment 5

TYPE: ברייתא

Swollen mouth or legs: from air no blemish, from bone a blemish; doubled ears: one cartilage a blemish, two cartilages not

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פִּיו בָּלוּם וְרַגְלָיו מְבוּלָּמוֹת, מֵחֲמַת הָרוּחַ — אֵינוֹ מוּם, מֵחֲמַת הָעֶצֶם — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. אׇזְנָיו כְּפוּלוֹת, בְּחַסְחֲסוּת אַחַת — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, בִּשְׁתֵּי חַסְחֲסֻיוֹת — אֵינוֹ מוּם.

English Translation:

GEMARA: The Sages taught: In a case where the mouth of a firstborn animal is swollen, and likewise, if its legs are swollen, the following distinction applies: If it is swollen due to the wind, i.e., it simply swelled up, it is not a blemish. If it is swollen due to a particularly large bone, this is a blemish. If its ears are doubled, in a case where it has one cartilage, this is a blemish; in a case where it has two cartilages, this is not a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

A baraita distinguishes between a swelling caused by air, which is a temporary or superficial condition and not a blemish, and one caused by enlarged bone, which is a permanent structural blemish. It then clarifies the mishna’s doubled ear: a doubled ear with one cartilage is a blemish, while two separate cartilages are not. The common principle is that genuine skeletal change creates a blemish.

Key Terms:

• בָּלוּם / מְבוּלָּמוֹת = swollen
• מֵחֲמַת הָרוּחַ = because of air, wind
• חַסְחֲסוּת = cartilage
• מֵחֲמַת הָעֶצֶם = because of the bone

Segment 6

TYPE: מימרא

Rav Pappa: a pig-like tail means curled, even if thick, not merely thin

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: זְנַב הַגְּדִי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא תֵּימָא דְּקַטִּינָא, אֶלָּא דִּכְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲלִימָא.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to the tail of a kid that is similar to that of a pig, that is a blemish. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that it is a blemish only where its tail is thin like that of a pig; rather, if it is round, i.e., curly like a pig’s tail, even though it is thick, like the tail of a goat, this is considered a blemish.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Pappa defines the pig-like tail. It does not mean a tail that is thin like a pig’s, but one that is curled like a pig’s, even if it is thick like an ordinary goat’s tail. As with the hooves and mouth, he isolates the defining trait of the comparison.

Key Terms:

• קַטִּינָא = thin
• כְּרִיכָא = curled, wound
• אֲלִימָא = thick

Segment 7

TYPE: מימרא ותיובתא

Rav Huna: a kid with two vertebrae and a lamb with three are blemished; a baraita says one and two, refuting Rav Huna

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אוֹ שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שָׁלֹשׁ חוּלְיוֹת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בַּגְּדִי — שְׁתַּיִם הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, שָׁלֹשׁ אֵינוֹ מוּם. בַּטָּלֶה — שָׁלֹשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, אַרְבַּע אֵינוֹ מוּם. מֵיתִיבִי: בַּגְּדִי — אַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, שְׁתַּיִם אֵינוֹ מוּם. בַּטָּלֶה — שְׁתַּיִם הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, שָׁלֹשׁ אֵינוֹ מוּם. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרַב הוּנָא.

English Translation:

§ The mishna stated: Or if the tail of a kid is so short that it does not have three joints, that is a blemish. Rav Huna says: In the case of the tail of a kid, if it has two joints, that is a blemish; if it has three joints, it is not a blemish. With regard to a lamb, if it has three joints, that is a blemish; if it has four joints, it is not a blemish. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a kid, if its tail has one joint, that is a blemish; if it has two joints, it is not a blemish. With regard to a lamb, if it has two joints, that is a blemish; if it has three joints, it is not a blemish. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Huna counts tail vertebrae: a kid’s tail with only two is blemished, while three is normal; a lamb’s tail with three is blemished, while four is normal. A baraita sets each threshold one lower: a kid with one vertebra is blemished but two is fine, and a lamb with two is blemished but three is fine. The Gemara concludes with a conclusive refutation (teyuvta) of Rav Huna.

Key Terms:

• גְּדִי = a kid, young goat
• טָלֶה = a lamb
• מֵיתִיבִי = they raised an objection
• תְּיוּבְתָּא = a conclusive refutation

Segment 8

TYPE: גמרא — ביאור הטעות

Rav Huna was misled: he read the mishna’s ‘three vertebrae’ clause as about a kid, but it refers to a lamb

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְרַב הוּנָא, מַתְנִיתִין אַטְעִיתֵיהּ; אִיהוּ סָבַר: מִדְּרֵישָׁא בִּגְדִי — סֵיפָא נָמֵי בִּגְדִי, וְלָא הִיא — רֵישָׁא בִּגְדִי, וְסֵיפָא בְּטָלֶה.

English Translation:

The Gemara comments: And Rav Huna issued his statement because the mishna misled him. He thought that from the fact that the first clause is referring to a kid, whose tail is similar to that of a pig, it can be inferred that the latter clause, with its mention of three joints, is also referring to a kid. But it is not so. Rather, the first clause is referring to a kid, but the latter clause is referring to a lamb, as explained in the baraita.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara explains how Rav Huna erred. Because the first clause of Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel’s statement speaks of a kid, he assumed the clause about three vertebrae also referred to a kid. In fact, the latter clause refers to a lamb, matching the baraita: a lamb with fewer than three vertebrae is blemished. The mishna thus aligns with the baraita once its clauses are correctly assigned.

Key Terms:

• מַתְנִיתִין אַטְעִיתֵיהּ = the mishna misled him
• רֵישָׁא / סֵיפָא = the first clause / the latter clause

Segment 9

TYPE: משנה

Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus: wart in the eye, damaged leg bone, dislocated jaw, unequal eyes or ears by sight; Rabbi Yehuda on unequal testicles, rejected

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֶת שֶׁיַּבֶּלֶת בְּעֵינָיו, וְשֶׁנִּפְגַּם עֶצֶם יָדוֹ וְרַגְלוֹ, וְשֶׁנִּפְרַק עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל פִּיו, עֵינוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה, אׇזְנוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה, בַּמַּרְאֶה אֲבָל לֹא בַּמִּדָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁתֵּי בֵּיצָיו, אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה כִּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁבַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים.

English Translation:

MISHNA: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says that these are blemished animals: One that has a wart in its eyes; and one where the bone of its foreleg or hind leg was damaged; and one where the bone of its mouth, i.e., its jaw, was dislocated; and an animal with one of its eyes large and one small, or one of its ears large and one small where the difference in size is detectable by sight, but not if it is detectable only by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal is blemished if with regard to its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his opinion.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus adds a list of blemishes: a wart in the eye, a damaged bone of the leg, a dislocated jawbone, and one eye or ear larger than the other if the difference is visible to the eye, not merely measurable. Rabbi Yehuda adds that a testicle twice the size of the other is a blemish, but the Sages did not agree. The Gemara will next examine the wart and the size differences.

Key Terms:

• יַבֶּלֶת = a wart
• נִפְגַּם = was damaged, chipped
• נִפְרַק עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל פִּיו = its jawbone was dislocated
• בַּמַּרְאֶה אֲבָל לֹא בַּמִּדָּה = by sight, but not by measurement

Segment 10

TYPE: קושיא (רמינהו)

Is a wart a blemish? Contradiction from the mishna on 41a listing wart among blemishes that do not permit slaughter

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ לְמֵימְרָא דְּיַבֶּלֶת הָוֵי מוּמָא? וּרְמִינְהוּ: וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן לֹא בְּמִקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה — בַּעַל גָּרָב וּבַעַל יַבֶּלֶת!

English Translation:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if an animal has a wart in its eyes, it is blemished. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a wart is considered a blemish? And one can raise a contradiction from the mishna (41a): And these are the blemishes that one does not slaughter the firstborn due to them, neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country, as these are not considered full-fledged blemishes…an animal with boils that are moist inside and out, and one with warts.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus’s ruling that a wart is a blemish permitting slaughter. The mishna on 41a lists a wart among the conditions that do not permit slaughter of a firstborn, neither in the Temple nor outside, being disqualifications for the altar but not full blemishes. The two rulings seem to conflict.

Key Terms:

• אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן = one does not slaughter (a firstborn) because of them
• לֹא בְּמִקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה = neither in the Temple nor in the provinces
• בַּעַל גָּרָב = an animal with gerav, a moist skin disease

Segment 11

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Yet the Torah lists ‘yabelet’ as a blemish; answer: on the body it is not a blemish, in the eye it is

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְתִסְבְּרָא? הָא כְּתִיבָא ״יַבֶּלֶת״ בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! אֶלָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּגוּפוֹ, הָא — בְּעֵינוֹ.

English Translation:

The Gemara responds: And how can you understand that a wart is not a blemish? After all, a wart is written in the Torah in its list of blemishes (see Leviticus 22:22). Rather, it is not difficult, as that mishna, which states that a wart is not a full-fledged blemish, is referring to a blemish on the animal’s body, whereas this mention of a wart in the Torah and the mishna here is referring to a wart in its eye.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges the premise that a wart is not a blemish, since ‘yabelet’ is listed explicitly in the Torah’s catalogue of blemishes (Vayikra 22:22). It proposes that the mishna on 41a refers to a wart on the body, which is not a blemish, while our mishna and the verse refer to a wart in the eye, which is.

Key Terms:

• וְתִסְבְּרָא = and can you understand (it so)?
• כְּתִיבָא בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = it is written in the Torah
• בְּגוּפוֹ / בְּעֵינוֹ = on its body / in its eye

Segment 12

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

The verse is unqualified, so body vs. eye cannot be derived; rather, a wart with bone vs. one without

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מִכְּדֵי קְרָא סְתָמָא, מָה לִי בְּגוּפוֹ וּמָה לִי בְּעֵינוֹ? אֶלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאִית בַּהּ עֶצֶם, הָא דְּלֵית בַּהּ עֶצֶם.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: Now consider that the verse is written in an unspecified manner. What difference is it to me if the wart is on its body, and what difference is it to me if the wart is in its eye? How is this distinction derived from the verse? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, it is not difficult, as this is referring to a wart that has a bone,and that is referring to a wart that does not have a bone.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara rejects the body versus eye distinction because the verse makes no such qualification. It proposes instead that the difference depends on whether the wart contains bone. A wart with bone is a blemish, while one without bone is not.

Key Terms:

• מִכְּדֵי = now consider
• קְרָא סְתָמָא = the verse is unqualified
• מָה לִי … וּמָה לִי = what difference to me … and what difference to me

Segment 13

TYPE: גמרא (פירוש התירוץ)

The verse speaks of a wart with bone; the 41a mishna of one without: in the eye it is a blemish, on the body only a disqualification

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דִּקְרָא — דְּאִית בַּהּ עֶצֶם, מַתְנִיתִין — דְּלֵית בַּהּ עֶצֶם; בְּעֵינוֹ — הָוֵי מוּמָא, בְּגוּפָא — לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara elaborates: The wart mentioned in the verse and the mishna here is one that has a bone, whereas the wart addressed by the mishna there is one that does not have a bone. Consequently, if the wart is in its eye, it is a blemish, as stated in the verse and the mishna here, but if it is on its body, it is not a blemish, although the animal is disqualified from being sacrificed, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna there.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara elaborates on the distinction. The verse refers to a wart with bone, a true blemish. The mishna on 41a refers to a wart without bone. Such a wart in the eye is still a blemish, while on the body it disqualifies the animal from the altar but does not permit slaughter of a firstborn.

Key Terms:

• דִּקְרָא = that of the verse
• הָוֵי מוּמָא = it is a blemish
• לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא = it is not a blemish

Segment 14

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

A boneless wart on the body is mere hanging flesh, fit per Rabbi Eliezer; rather both are in the eye: the black vs. the white

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלֵית לַהּ עֶצֶם בְּגוּפָא פְּסוּלָה? הֲרֵי תִּלְתּוּל בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בַּעֲלֵי הַתִּילּוּלִין פְּסוּלִין בָּאָדָם וּכְשֵׁירִין בַּבְּהֵמָה! אֶלָּא, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּעֵינוֹ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בַּשָּׁחוֹר, הָא — בַּלָּבָן.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And with regard to a wart that does not have a bone and is on the body, is the animal disqualified from being sacrificed? It is merely hanging flesh, as we learned in a mishna (45b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to those with flesh or skin that hangs from their body, such a blemish disqualifies a person, but with regard to such an animal, it is fit. Rather, both this mishna here and that mishna there are referring to a wart in the animal’s eye, and it is not difficult, as this mishna is referring to a wart in the black of the eye, the pupil, whereas that mishna is referring to a wart in the white of the eye.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges the claim that a boneless wart on the body disqualifies an animal at all. It would merely be loose hanging flesh, and the mishna on 45b cites Rabbi Eliezer that such growths disqualify a kohen but leave an animal fit. The Gemara therefore places both rulings in the eye: our mishna refers to a wart on the black of the eye, a full blemish, and the 41a mishna to one on the white of the eye, a lesser defect.

Key Terms:

• תִּלְתּוּל = hanging flesh, a dangling growth
• בַּעֲלֵי הַתִּילּוּלִין = those with hanging growths
• שָׁחוֹר / לָבָן = the black (pupil) / the white (of the eye)

Segment 15

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

But there are no blemishes in the white of the eye; Reish Lakish: a wart with hair disqualifies, without hair it does not

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָא אֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן! אֶלָּא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּלָּבָן, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — דְּאִית בַּהּ שֵׂעָר, הָא — דְּלֵית בַּהּ שֵׂעָר.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: But it has been established that there are no blemishes in the white part of the eye, which indicates that the animal is not even disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar. Rather, both this statement that there are no blemishes in the white of the eye and that ruling of the mishna that a wart disqualifies the animal from being sacrificed are referring to a wart in the white part of the eye. And Reish Lakish says: It is not difficult; this is referring to a wart that has a hair, and therefore the animal is unfit for the altar, whereas that statement is referring to a case where the wart does not have a hair. As for the mishna here, which rules that a wart is a full-fledged blemish, it is referring to a wart in the pupil of the eye, as explained.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara objects that an accepted principle states there are no blemishes in the white of the eye at all, so how could a wart there disqualify the animal? It answers that both statements refer to the white of the eye, and Reish Lakish distinguishes: a wart with hair growing from it disqualifies the animal from the altar, while one without hair does not. The mishna here, which makes a wart a full blemish, refers to the pupil, as already established.

Key Terms:

• אֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן = there are no blemishes in the white (of the eye)
• שֵׂעָר = hair
• אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי = both this and that

Segment 16

TYPE: ברייתא

Unequal eyes: ‘large’ means like a calf’s eye, ‘small’ like a goose’s

Hebrew/Aramaic:

עֵינוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל, קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches with regard to an animal where one of its eyes is large and one is small that this is a blemish. In this regard, it is taught in a baraita: When the mishna states the term large, it means the eye is as large as the eye of a calf, and when it states the term small, it means it is as small as that of a goose.

קלאוד על הדף:

A baraita defines the mishna’s ‘one eye large and one small’ so that a visible difference is not left vague. A large eye means one the size of a calf’s eye, and a small eye means one the size of a goose’s eye. Such a stark disproportion is plainly visible and is a blemish.

Key Terms:

• עֵגֶל = a calf
• אַוָּוז = a goose
• תָּנָא = it was taught (in a baraita)

Segment 17

TYPE: שאלה ותשובה (ברייתא)

According to the Rabbis who reject Rabbi Yehuda, how large a disparity in testicles is allowed? Acherim: even if one is only the size of a bean, it is fit

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אׇזְנוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְכוּ׳. וְרַבָּנַן עַד כַּמָּה? תַּנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ אֵינָהּ לַשְּׁנִיָּה אֶלָּא כְּפוֹל — כְּשֵׁירָה.

English Translation:

The mishna teaches: Or one of its ears is large and one is small, which is detectable by sight, but not if it is detectable only by being measured. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal is blemished if with regard to its two testicles, one is as large as two of the other, but the Rabbis did not agree with his opinion. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, how large can the difference between the two testicles be without this discrepancy being considered a blemish? The Gemara answers that it is taught in a baraita that Aḥerim say: Even if the second, smaller testicle is no bigger than a bean, the animal is fit.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks: according to the Rabbis who reject Rabbi Yehuda’s view, how great a difference between the two testicles is still not a blemish? A baraita cites Acherim, who hold that even if the smaller testicle is only the size of a bean, the animal remains fit. Size disparity, however great, is not a blemish once both testicles exist.

Key Terms:

• עַד כַּמָּה = up to how much?
• אֲחֵרִים = Acherim, an anonymous tannaitic group (traditionally identified with Rabbi Meir)
• פּוֹל = a bean
• כְּשֵׁירָה = fit (unblemished)

Segment 18

TYPE: משנה

A calf’s tail that does not reach the arkov: the Sages say it is not a blemish, as calves’ tails lengthen as they grow; Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus defines the arkov

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ זְנַב הָעֵגֶל — שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַגַּעַת לָעַרְקוֹב, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: כֹּל מַרְבִּית עֲגָלִים כֵּן, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיְּהוּ מְגַדְּלִין — הֵן נִמְתָּחוֹת. אֵיזֶהוּ עַרְקוֹב שֶׁאָמְרוּ? רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: בְּעַרְקוֹב שֶׁבְּאֶמְצַע הַיָּרֵךְ.

English Translation:

MISHNA: In the case of the tail of a calf that does not reach the leg joint [la’arkov], the Sages said: It is a blemish, because all growth of calves is in this manner:As long as they grow, their tails are extended beneath the leg joint. Which is the leg joint about which the Sages spoke? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They are referring to the leg joint that is in the middle of the thigh.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna addresses a calf whose tail does not reach the arkov, the leg joint. The Sages say this is normal for calves, whose tails lengthen as they grow, and so it is not a blemish. The stated reason, that all calves grow this way, signals that a short tail in a young calf is expected rather than defective. Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus specifies that the arkov meant is the joint in the middle of the thigh. The discussion continues on 41a.

Key Terms:

• עַרְקוֹב = arkov, the leg joint (hock)
• מַרְבִּית עֲגָלִים = the growth of calves
• נִמְתָּחוֹת = are extended, stretch
• אֶמְצַע הַיָּרֵךְ = the middle of the thigh

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 40 continues Perek 6, על אלו מומין, the perek’s catalogue of the blemishes that allow a firstborn to be slaughtered outside the Temple. The daf opens by finishing a measurement question from 39b. A baraita fixed the “fingerbreadth” as one-fourth of an average person’s handbreadth, and the amoraim dispute which mishna that definition was written for. Rabba said tzitzit. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua points to the two oversized cubit-rods kept in Shushan HaBira. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak points to the fingerbreadth of flesh between the tail vertebrae in our own perek. The daf then works through a run of mishnayot. The first covers testicle blemishes, with the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva over how to tell what the sacs contain, and the sharp exchange between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri over the firstborn at Piran of Beit Menachem. Next come leg blemishes (five or three legs, donkey-like hooves, the shachul and the kasul) and Ila’s testimony at Yavne, including his three further blemishes that a later court accepted. A case about a protruding lower jaw came before Rabban Gamliel and again before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Amud bet covers doubled ears and short or curled tails, where Rav Huna is refuted on counting vertebrae. Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus adds his list (a wart in the eye, unequal eyes or ears), and a long sugya on the wart (יבלת) moves from body versus eye, to bone versus no bone, to black versus white of the eye, to Reish Lakish’s hair test. The daf ends with the mishna of the calf whose tail does not reach the arkov, which continues on 41a.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• The Shushan HaBira cubits (Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua): the mishna in Kelim 17:9 describes two cubit-rods in the chamber of Shushan HaBira, over the eastern gate of the Temple Mount. One was half a fingerbreadth longer than the cubit of Moses and the other a full fingerbreadth longer. Craftsmen were paid by the smaller cubit and delivered their work by the larger, so that they would never take more than they earned and so commit me’ila (מעילה), the misuse of consecrated property. Because the rods are defined in fractions of a fingerbreadth, the baraita’s exact measure matters here.
• Why two oversized rods? One was used for gold and silver work, where a margin of only half a fingerbreadth was set because the material is costly. The other was used for building in wood and stone, where a full fingerbreadth margin costs the craftsman little.
• A third view: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (or Rav Huna bar Natan) says the baraita refers to our own mishna (39a), which treats a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one tail vertebra and the next as a blemish. All three amoraim agree on the size of the fingerbreadth. They differ only on which mishna it was stated for.
• Testicle blemishes: the mishna rules that an animal with no testicles or only one is blemished. The Gemara objects that if one testicle is a blemish, none obviously is. It answers with chasurei mechsera (חסורי מחסרא): the mishna is incomplete, and its real cases are two testicles in one sac and two sacs holding only one testicle.
• Rabbi Yishmael vs. Rabbi Akiva: for Rabbi Yishmael, two sacs establish (בידוע) that there are two testicles, and one sac is treated as one testicle. Rabbi Akiva rejects “it is known”. The animal is seated on its rump and the sac pressed, and only if no testicle comes down is the animal blemished.
• The incident at Piran of Beit Menachem: a baraita in the name of Rabbi Yosei reports a firstborn that was pressed, showed no testicle and was slaughtered, after which the testicle was found attached to the loins. Rabbi Akiva permitted the meat, and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri forbade it. Rabbi Akiva asked, “How long will you waste the money of Israel?” Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri answered, “How long will you feed Israel neveilot?”
• Emending the rebuke: the Gemara objects that the animal was properly slaughtered, so it is neither a nevela nor a tereifa. The correct wording is “you feed Israel kodashim outside”. In Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s view the firstborn was never blemished, so eating it in the provinces is eating sacrificial meat outside its place.
• Leg blemishes: a five-legged or three-legged animal, hooves closed like a donkey’s, the shachul (thighbone dislocated) and the kasul (thighs at unequal heights) are all blemishes.
• Rav Huna: the mishna’s extra or missing leg is only a blemish when it is a foreleg. On a hind leg the animal is also a tereifa, because “every extra limb is like a missing one” (כל יתר כנטול דמי).
• Rav Pappa on hooves: a rounded hoof is a blemish even if it is still split.
• The baraita’s definitions: the shachul has its thigh out of its socket, and the kasul has one leg in place and the other displaced above it. The Torah’s saru’a (Vayikra 22:23) is an animal with one thigh longer than the other, and the kalut has closed hooves like a donkey’s or a horse’s.
• Ila at Yavne: the mishna adds that a broken leg bone is a blemish even if the break is not visible. Ila listed these blemishes in Yavne and the Sages accepted them. He added three more that the Sages had not received by tradition: a round, human-like eye, a pig-like mouth, and loss of most of the “speaking” part of the tongue. The Sages at first gave no ruling on them, and the next court declared all three blemishes.
• The hidden fracture: the Gemara asks how a break that is not visible can count, given the rule (37b) that a blemish must be visible. Rav Pappa answers that it is invisible in the leg itself but shows in the animal’s work, its limp.
• The round eye vs. Nidda: the mishna in Nidda 21a treats an animal-shaped miscarriage as a birth, and when its sex is unknown Rabbi Meir requires the stringencies of both a male and a female birth. Rabbi Yochanan explains Rabbi Meir’s reason: an animal’s eye is round like a human’s. That seems to make round eyes normal in animals. Rav Yosef answers that one statement refers to the black of the eye and the other to the white.
• Rav Pappa on the pig-like mouth: an upper lip that overlaps the lower lip is enough, even if the mouth is not pointed.
• The tongue: the Gemara identifies the blemish of losing most of the speaking part as following Rabbi Yehuda, who qualified a baraita’s “most of the tongue” in exactly these words.
• The protruding lower jaw: a firstborn’s lower jaw extended past its upper jaw, Rabban Gamliel asked the Sages, and they ruled it a blemish. The Gemara explains the word “and there was an incident”: the Rabbis disputed Ila’s pig-like mouth only where the upper lip overlaps. Where the lower jaw protrudes, everyone agrees it is a blemish.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: in the Gemara’s reconstruction of the mishna, the same case later came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who also asked the Sages and was told it is a blemish.
• A kohen’s lip: the mishna on 44a counts a protruding lip as a blemish in a kohen, derived from “ish ish mizera Aharon” (Vayikra 22:4): a kohen must look like the rest of Aharon’s offspring. That reasoning should not apply to animals. Rav Pappa answers that a protrusion with bone is a blemish even in an animal, and one without bone is a blemish only in a kohen.
• Doubled ears and tails: a kid’s doubled ear is a blemish only if it is a single cartilage. Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel adds a pig-like tail and a tail with fewer than three vertebrae. A baraita adds that a swollen mouth or leg is a blemish if the cause is bone, and not if the cause is air.
• Rav Pappa on the pig-like tail: the blemish is a tail curled like a pig’s, even if it is thick, not merely a thin one.
• Rav Huna refuted: Rav Huna says a kid with two tail vertebrae, or a lamb with three, is blemished. A baraita sets each threshold one lower: a kid with one, a lamb with two. The Gemara records a conclusive refutation (תיובתא). Rav Huna had read the mishna’s “fewer than three vertebrae” as speaking of a kid, but that clause refers to a lamb.
• Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus’s list: a wart in the eye, a damaged leg bone, a dislocated jaw, and one eye or ear larger than the other when the difference is visible and not merely measurable. Rabbi Yehuda adds a testicle twice the size of the other, and the Sages disagree.
• The wart (יבלת): the mishna on 41a lists a wart among the defects that do not permit slaughtering a firstborn, yet the Torah lists יבלת among the blemishes (Vayikra 22:22). The Gemara tries several answers in turn:
  • Body vs. eye: rejected, because the verse makes no such distinction.
  • With bone vs. without bone: a boneless wart in the eye is a blemish, and on the body it only disqualifies from the altar.
  • That fails as well. A boneless growth on the body is mere hanging flesh, which per Rabbi Eliezer (45b) disqualifies a person but not an animal. So both cases must be in the eye: black versus white.
  • Then a teaching says there are no blemishes in the white of the eye. Reish Lakish settles it: in the white, a wart with a hair disqualifies the animal from the altar, and one without a hair does not. Our mishna’s full blemish is a wart in the pupil.
• Unequal eyes: a baraita defines “large” as the size of a calf’s eye and “small” as the size of a goose’s.
• Unequal testicles for the Rabbis: Acherim teach that even if the smaller testicle is only the size of a bean, the animal remains fit.
• The calf’s tail: a calf whose tail does not reach the arkov is not blemished. The Sages explain that all calves grow this way and their tails lengthen as they grow. The English translation reads “It is a blemish”, but the Hebrew (כל מרבית עגלים כן) gives the reason a short tail is normal. Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus defines the arkov as the joint in the middle of the thigh. The discussion continues on 41a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

The fingerbreadth is one-fourth of an average person’s handbreadth, and the amoraim differ only on which mishna it was stated for. Two testicles in one sac, or two sacs with one testicle, are blemishes. Rabbi Akiva demands a physical test, while Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s objection in the Piran case is reread as “feeding Israel kodashim outside”. An extra or missing foreleg is a blemish, while on a hind leg the animal is also a tereifa (Rav Huna). A rounded hoof, an overlapping upper lip and a curled tail are each blemishes on their own (Rav Pappa). A hidden fracture qualifies because it shows in the animal’s gait. Ila’s three additional blemishes were accepted by the later court. A protruding lower jaw is a blemish by all opinions, and in an animal only when it involves bone. Rav Huna’s count of tail vertebrae is refuted in favour of the baraita. The wart sugya ends with Reish Lakish’s distinction: a wart in the pupil is a full blemish, while in the white of the eye a wart with a hair only disqualifies from the altar. Rabbi Yehuda’s view on unequal testicles is rejected. A calf’s short tail is not a blemish, because calves’ tails grow longer, and the definition of the arkov carries over to 41a.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, Rabbi Yosei, Ila, Rabban Gamliel, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel, Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, Rabbi Eliezer, Acherim

Amoraim: Rabba, Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rav Huna bar Natan, Rav Huna, Rav Pappa, Rabbi Yochanan, Rav Yosef, Reish Lakish

One-Line Takeaway

A blemish has to be real and lasting: the daf keeps separating true structural defects (bone, a curled tail, a limp that shows in the walk) from appearances that mislead or pass with time (an empty-looking sac, a swelling of air, a calf’s tail that is still growing), and it relies on tested expertise like Ila’s to tell them apart.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf is like a giant checklist at the animal doctor. We keep walking through the firstborn animal’s body, from its legs and hooves to its eyes, mouth, tongue, ears and tail, and asking: “Is this a real blemish?” Along the way we visit two special measuring sticks in the Temple, hear a sharp argument between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, and meet Ila, an animal expert whose knowledge the Sages trusted.

Quick Reminder: Why Are We Checking? 🐑🔍

The first boy a cow, sheep or goat gives birth to is a בכור (bechor, “firstborn”). It belongs to the kohen (the priest). Today, with no Temple, the kohen may only slaughter and eat it if it has a מום (mum, a “blemish,” a real, lasting flaw in its body).

So the Sages made a big list of which flaws count. This whole perek (chapter) is that list, and today we keep going through it, body part by body part.

Think of it like… a car inspection. The mechanic doesn’t just glance and say “Looks fine!” He has a checklist: brakes, lights, tires, mirrors. Each item has a clear rule for “pass” or “fail.”

The Simple Idea 💡: A firstborn may be eaten outside the Temple only with a real blemish, so the Sages carefully list exactly what counts.

Two Measuring Sticks in the Temple 📏🏛️

Yesterday’s daf ended with a question: how big is an אצבע (etzba, a “fingerbreadth,” the width of one finger)? A teaching said it’s one quarter of a handbreadth of an average person. But which rule was that measurement made for?

• 🧵 Rabba said: for tzitzit (the strings on a four-cornered garment).
• 📏 Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: for the two measuring sticks in the Temple.
• 🐄 Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: for our perek, the rule about a firstborn’s tail that has a fingerbreadth of flesh between its bones.

Everyone agrees on the size. They only disagree about which rule it was written for.

Now, those measuring sticks! Above the eastern gate of the Temple Mount was a room called שושן הבירה (Shushan HaBira), and in it were two measuring sticks. The normal cubit, called the cubit of Moshe, is six handbreadths long. But:

• One stick was half a finger longer than Moshe’s cubit.
• The other stick was a whole finger longer.

Why make sticks that are too long? Because of מעילה (me’ila, using holy Temple property for yourself, which is a serious sin). Workers who built things for the Temple were paid by the shorter, normal cubit, but they had to deliver their work by the longer cubit. That way they always gave a tiny bit extra, and never, ever got paid for more than they made!

And why two extra-long sticks? One was for gold and silver work (only half a finger extra, because gold is so expensive!), and the other was for building with wood and stone (a whole finger extra, because those are cheap).

Think of it like… a bakery that sells cookies “by the dozen,” but always tosses in one extra cookie, just to be sure the customer never gets cheated. The workers wanted to be extra sure they never took even a crumb that belonged to the Temple!

The Simple Idea 💡: When it comes to holy things, the Sages built in a little extra to stay safely on the right side of the line.

Counting Testicles: Look or Press? 🐂🤔

Now back to the checklist. The mishna says: a male animal that has no testicles, or only one testicle, is blemished. (Testicles are the two body parts in a male animal that help it have babies. They sit in a little pouch, or “sac,” under the body.)

But how can you tell how many there are without opening the animal up?

• 👀 Rabbi Yishmael says: look at the sacs. If there are two sacs, there are two testicles. If there’s only one sac, there’s only one.
• 🤲 Rabbi Akiva says: looking isn’t enough! You sit the animal down on its rump and gently press. If a testicle is hiding up inside, sooner or later it will come out.

But wait! The Gemara asks: if having one testicle is a blemish, of course having none is a blemish too! Why say both? So the Gemara explains that the mishna is really talking about trickier cases: two testicles squeezed into one sac, or two sacs with only one testicle inside. Rabbi Yishmael trusts the outside, and Rabbi Akiva says, “You can’t be sure from the outside. Check!”

Think of it like… a pea pod. Rabbi Yishmael says, “Two bumps on the outside means two peas inside.” Rabbi Akiva says, “Bumps can fool you. Gently squeeze it and see what’s really there.”

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Yishmael trusts how the outside looks; Rabbi Akiva wants a hands-on test.

The Surprise After Slaughter 😮⚔️

Then the mishna tells a true story. Rabbi Yosei says it happened in a place called Piran of Beit Menachem. Someone pressed the sac, and the second testicle didn’t come out. So the firstborn was judged blemished and was slaughtered. But then, surprise! The missing testicle was found stuck up inside, attached to the animal’s loins. So the animal really had two all along!

Now what?

• ✅ Rabbi Akiva said: the meat is permitted. We did the test properly, and the test said “blemished.” That’s the rule.
• ❌ Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said: the meat is forbidden. The animal was never really blemished!

And they got into a sharp argument:

• Rabbi Akiva: “How long will you keep wasting the money of the Jewish people?” (by forbidding animals that passed the test)
• Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri: “How long will you keep feeding the Jewish people neveilot?”

A נבלה (nevela) is an animal that died without proper kosher slaughter. But wait! The Gemara asks: this animal was slaughtered properly! So it’s not a nevela. Maybe he said טרפה (tereifa, an animal with a deadly injury)? No, nothing like that happened either.

So the Gemara figures out what he really meant: “You are feeding the Jewish people holy offerings outside the Temple!” If the animal was never blemished, it was still a holy, perfect firstborn that should only have been eaten in Jerusalem by kohanim after a Temple service. Eating it anywhere else is a big sin.

Think of it like… two referees arguing about a goal. One says, “The video replay was checked by the rules, and it said ‘goal’. That counts!” The other says, “But now we can see the ball never crossed the line!” Both care a lot about being fair, just in different ways.

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Akiva follows the test that was done; Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri follows what turned out to be true.

Legs and Hooves 🦵🐴

Next on the checklist: legs! These are blemishes:

• An animal with five legs (one extra) or three legs (one missing).
• Hooves that are closed and round like a donkey’s, instead of split in two like a cow’s.
• The שחול (shachul): its thighbone has popped out of its socket.
• The כסול (kasul): one hip sits higher than the other, so it stands lopsided.

Rav Huna adds an important warning: this is only about the front legs. If the extra or missing leg is a back leg, the animal is also a tereifa (so badly hurt it’s not kosher at all)! He uses a rule: an extra limb is like a missing limb. Having too much is treated like having too little.

Rav Pappa explains the donkey hooves: the hoof doesn’t have to be totally closed. If it’s round like a donkey’s, it’s a blemish, even if there’s still a split in it.

A teaching also ties these to words in the Torah: a שרוע (saru’a) is an animal with one thigh longer than the other, and a קלוט (kalut) is one whose hooves are closed like a donkey’s or a horse’s.

Think of it like… a table. A table with three legs wobbles, and a table with five legs is just plain strange. Either way, something isn’t built the way it’s supposed to be.

The Simple Idea 💡: A leg too many, a leg too few, a round hoof, or a crooked hip all count as blemishes.

The Hidden Broken Leg 🦴🚶

The mishna says a broken leg bone is a blemish even if you can’t see the break.

But wait! Didn’t we learn that a blemish has to be something you can see? How can a hidden break count?

Rav Pappa answers: you can’t see the break in the leg itself, but you can see it in how the animal walks. It limps!

Think of it like… a friend with a sprained ankle under a sock. You can’t see the ankle, but you can tell right away from the way he’s hopping down the hall.

The Simple Idea 💡: If a hidden injury shows in how the animal moves, it still counts as “seen.”

Ila, the Animal Expert 🎓🐄

Here’s a lovely part. The mishna says that much of this list came from a man named Ila, an expert on animal blemishes. He told the list to the Sages in Yavne, and they accepted it.

Then Ila said there were three more blemishes. The Sages said, “We never heard of these.” They weren’t ready to decide yet. The three were:

1. 👁️ An eye that is round like a person’s.
2. 🐷 A mouth that looks like a pig’s.
3. 👅 When most of the “talking part” of the tongue is cut off. (That’s the part of an animal’s tongue that matches the part a person uses to speak.)

Later, the next generation’s court said: “Yes! These are blemishes.”

Think of it like… a new kid joins the class and says, “In my old school, we learned three more science facts!” The teacher says, “Hmm, I haven’t seen those in our book yet.” Later, after checking carefully, the school adds them to the textbook.

The Simple Idea 💡: The Sages were careful about adding new rules, but they respected real experts and accepted their knowledge after checking.

Are Animal Eyes Round or Not? 👁️🤔

The Gemara asks about Ila’s round eye. Calling it a blemish means animals’ eyes are usually not round. But another mishna seems to say the opposite!

Rabbi Yochanan explains a teaching of Rabbi Meir: animals’ eyes are round, like people’s. So which is it?

Rav Yosef solves it: the eye has a black part in the middle and a white part around it. In one of those parts, roundness is normal for an animal. In the other part, roundness is unusual, and that’s Ila’s blemish.

Think of it like… a soccer ball and a football. Both are “balls,” but if your soccer ball suddenly turned football-shaped, something would be wrong! What’s normal depends on which part you’re looking at.

The Simple Idea 💡: Two teachings that seem to clash can both be right when they talk about different parts.

Pig Mouths, Tongues and Jaws 🐷👄

Rav Pappa explains Ila’s pig-like mouth: it doesn’t need to be pointy like a pig’s snout. If the top lip sticks out over the bottom lip, that’s enough to be a blemish.

The tongue blemish follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said it’s about most of the “talking part” of the tongue, not most of the whole tongue.

Then a story: once, a firstborn’s bottom jaw stuck out farther than its top jaw. Rabban Gamliel asked the Sages, and they said: “It’s a blemish!” The same thing later came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and again the Sages said: “It’s a blemish!”

Why tell this story? To teach that the Sages’ doubts about Ila’s pig mouth were only about a top lip sticking out. When the bottom jaw sticks out, everyone agrees it’s a blemish.

The Simple Idea 💡: A top lip that sticks out was debated, but a bottom jaw that sticks out is a blemish for sure.

Kohen Rules vs. Animal Rules 🧑‍🦰🐄

But wait! The Gemara asks: there’s a list of blemishes for kohanim too, and it includes a lip that sticks out. That rule comes from the Torah’s words “ish ish mizera Aharon” (“any man of the seed of Aharon”), which teach that a kohen should look like his fellow kohanim. That’s a rule about people, not animals! So why is a jutting jaw a blemish for an animal?

Rav Pappa answers: it depends on whether bone is involved.

A kohen has a special rule about looking like the other kohanim, so even a soft lip counts for him. An animal only has a blemish when the bone itself is out of place.

Think of it like… a school uniform rule. For students in the school play, even a messy hair day matters, because they have to look alike on stage. For everyone else, only a real problem, like a broken arm, needs attention.

The Simple Idea 💡: For animals, a blemish needs a real bone-deep change; a kohen has extra “looks” rules.

Ears, Swelling and Bones 👂🎈

Now the checklist reaches the ears. A young goat with a doubled ear (an ear folded over into two):

• If it’s all one piece of cartilage (the bendy stuff inside your ear), it’s a blemish.
• If each part has its own cartilage, it’s not a blemish.

A teaching also talks about a swollen mouth or swollen legs:

• 🎈 Swollen from air (puffy): not a blemish. It will go down.
• 🦴 Swollen because of bone: a blemish. That’s permanent.

Think of it like… the difference between a balloon and a rock. A balloon puffs up and goes flat again. A rock stays a rock!

The Simple Idea 💡: Puffy swelling isn’t a blemish, but a bony change is.

Tails: Curly and Counting Bones 🐷🦴

Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel says a young goat with a tail like a pig’s is blemished. Rav Pappa explains: “like a pig’s” means curly, not thin. Even a thick tail is a blemish if it’s curled up like a pig’s.

He also says a tail with too few little bones (vertebrae) is blemished. How many is too few?

Rav Huna gave his numbers, but a teaching (a baraita) said differently:

The Gemara says the baraita wins, and Rav Huna’s view is refuted. How did he get mixed up? He read the mishna’s words “fewer than three bones” as talking about a goat, because the sentence started with a goat. But those words were really about a lamb!

Think of it like… reading a recipe where the first line is about cookies and the next line is about cake, and you accidentally put the cake’s baking time on your cookies. Oops!

The Simple Idea 💡: Read carefully to see which animal each part of a teaching is talking about.

Warts in the Eye 👁️🔍

Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus adds more blemishes: a wart in the eye, a damaged leg bone, a dislocated jaw, and one eye or one ear bigger than the other.

But wait! Another mishna (on the next daf) says a wart doesn’t let you slaughter a firstborn. So is a wart a blemish or not? The Gemara tries several answers, like a detective testing clues:

1. 🤔 “A wart in the eye is a blemish, on the body it isn’t.” But the Torah lists יבלת (yabelet, a “wart”) as a blemish with no “only in the eye” note. Rejected!
2. 🤔 “A wart with bone is a blemish, without bone it isn’t.” Then the Gemara asks: a boneless wart on the body is just a flap of skin, and Rabbi Eliezer says that’s fine for an animal.
3. ✅ So both teachings are about the eye. A wart on the black part (the pupil) is a real blemish. A wart on the white part is less serious.
4. 🤔 But we learned there are no blemishes in the white of the eye! So Reish Lakish explains: a wart on the white with a hair growing from it makes the animal unfit for the altar, and one without a hair doesn’t.

Think of it like… a detective trying one suspect after another until all the clues fit. The Gemara keeps testing ideas until every teaching makes sense together.

The Simple Idea 💡: Where the wart is (black or white of the eye) and what it has (bone or hair) decide how serious it is.

Big Eye, Little Eye 👀

What does “one eye big and one eye small” mean? Just a tiny difference you need a ruler for? No! The mishna says it must be visible by looking, not only by measuring. And a teaching explains:

• Big means as big as a calf’s eye. 🐄
• Small means as small as a goose’s eye. 🪿

That’s a huge difference that anybody can see!

Rabbi Yehuda also said that if one testicle is twice the size of the other, that’s a blemish. But the Sages disagreed. How big a difference do they allow? A teaching from the Sages called Acherim says: even if the smaller one is only as big as a bean, the animal is still fine. As long as both are there, a size difference is not a blemish.

The Simple Idea 💡: A blemish has to be clearly visible, not something you only find with a measuring tape.

The Calf’s Short Tail 🐄📏

The last mishna of the daf: what if a calf’s tail doesn’t reach down to the ערקוב (arkov, a joint on the back leg)?

The Sages say: that’s not a blemish! Why? Because all calves are like that while they’re young. As they grow, their tails get longer and stretch down past the joint. (The English translation here says “It is a blemish,” but the Hebrew, and the reason the Sages give, show that it is not one.)

And which joint do they mean? Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus says: the joint in the middle of the thigh.

Think of it like… a little kid whose pants are rolled up because they’re still a bit long. Nobody says, “Something’s wrong with this kid’s legs!” He’s just still growing.

The Simple Idea 💡: Something that’s normal for a young, growing animal is not a blemish.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• A fingerbreadth is one quarter of a handbreadth. The Temple kept two extra-long measuring sticks so workers always gave a little extra and never took even a bit of holy money (half a finger extra for gold and silver, a whole finger extra for building).
• An animal with no testicles or only one is blemished. Rabbi Yishmael judges by the sacs; Rabbi Akiva says to press and check.
• When a hidden testicle was found after slaughter, Rabbi Akiva permitted the meat (the test was done properly) and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri forbade it (“you’re feeding people holy offerings outside the Temple!”).
• Leg blemishes: an extra or missing leg (a back leg also makes it a tereifa, says Rav Huna), round donkey-like hooves, a popped-out thighbone, or uneven hips. A hidden break counts if the animal limps.
• Ila the expert taught the Sages in Yavne, and the next court accepted his three extra blemishes: a round eye, a pig-like mouth, and a cut “talking part” of the tongue.
• A bottom jaw sticking out is a blemish for everyone. For animals, a blemish needs bone; kohanim have extra “looks” rules.
• Puffy swelling isn’t a blemish, but bony swelling is. A doubled ear with one cartilage is a blemish.
• A tail that’s curly like a pig’s, or has too few bones (1 for a goat, 2 for a lamb), is a blemish. Rav Huna got the numbers mixed up.
• A wart in the eye is a blemish on the black part; on the white part it depends on whether it has a hair.
• Eyes must be clearly different in size (calf-size vs. goose-size). Uneven testicles are not a blemish, say the Sages.
• A calf’s short tail is not a blemish, because all calves’ tails grow longer as they grow up!

⚖️ Halacha

The Two Cubits of Shushan HaBira: Paying Artisans Without Me’ila

Source in Daf: 40a, Segments 1-3 (the mishna of Kelim: two cubit-rods in the chamber of Shushan HaBira, one half a fingerbreadth and one a full fingerbreadth longer than the cubit of Moses; artisans “take by the small and return by the large, so that they do not come to me’ila”; the Gemara: one rod for silver and gold work, one for building)

Rambam — Hilchot Me’ila 8:5

Hebrew:

כְּשֶׁפּוֹסְקִין עִם הָאֻמָּנִין לִבְנוֹת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וּבָעֲזָרוֹת. פּוֹסְקִין עִמָּהֶן כָּךְ וְכָךְ אַמָּה בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ סֶלַע בְּאַמָּה בַּת עֶשְׂרִים אֶצְבַּע. וּכְשֶׁמּוֹשְׁחִין לָהֶן מַה שֶּׁבָּנוּ מוֹשְׁחִין וּמְחַשְּׁבִין לָהֶן בְּאַמָּה גְּדוֹלָה בַּת עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע אֶצְבָּעוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי מְעִילָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בִּמְשִׁיחָה:

English:

When an agreement is made with workers to build in the Temple and its courtyards, the agreement is made for so-and-so many selaim for so-and-so many cubits, considering a cubit as containing 20 thumbbreadths. When a measurement is made of what they built, it is measured and payment determined, considering a cubit as containing 24 thumbbreadths, so that the workers will not take unfair benefit from the Temple treasury, because they are not exact in measurement.

Connection: The Rambam codifies the mishna’s mechanism exactly: the contract is priced by the smaller cubit and the finished work is measured by the larger one, “so that they do not come to me’ila, because they are not exact in measurement.” The logic is the mishna’s: a craftsman paid from Temple funds who accepted even a little more than he earned would be benefiting from hekdesh, so the Sages built a margin in the Temple’s favour into the measuring rod itself. Two features of the Rambam’s formulation stand out. First, he gives a single pair of cubits (20 and 24 fingerbreadths in the printed text) rather than the mishna’s three rods differing by half a fingerbreadth each, and he omits the Gemara’s distinction in Segment 3 between the rod for silver and gold and the rod for building. The commentator Ma’aseh Rokeach on this halacha already registers surprise at both points: that the Rambam left out “one for silver and one for gold,” and that the printed numbers do not match the mishna’s half-fingerbreadth increments. The principle, however, is unaffected: whenever the Temple engages a worker, any rounding error must fall on the worker, not on hekdesh.

Rambam — Hilchot Beit HaBechira 2:6

Hebrew:

עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת שֶׁל גֹּבַהּ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מֵהֶן בְּאַמָּה בַּת חֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים וּמֵהֶן בְּאַמָּה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים. וּשְׁאָר כָּל אַמּוֹת הַבִּנְיָן בְּאַמָּה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים. וְגֹבַהּ כָּל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ נ”ח טְפָחִים:

English:

The 10 cubits of the Altar’s height [were not measured in a consistent manner.] Sometimes the measure of a “cubit” was six handbreadths, while in other cases, the cubit’s measure was five handbreadths. In all other cases, the cubits mentioned in the dimensions of the Temple are six handbreadths. The height of the entire Altar was 58 handbreadths.

Connection: The baseline from which the Shushan HaBira rods are measured is “the cubit of Moses,” the six-handbreadth cubit of the Mishkan. The Rambam confirms that, apart from certain measurements of the Altar, “all the other cubits of the building” are six-handbreadth cubits. The two oversized rods of our mishna are therefore deliberate surcharges on that standard cubit, used only for the commercial relationship with the craftsmen, not for the dimensions of the Temple itself. These are Temple-era laws, preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt; there is no parallel in the Shulchan Aruch.

A Firstborn With One Testicle: Rabbi Akiva Against Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri

Source in Daf: 40a, Segments 5-10 (the mishna: no testicles, or only one; Rabbi Yishmael judges by the number of sacs, Rabbi Akiva requires seating the animal on its rump and pressing; the incident at Piran of Beit Menachem, where the hidden testicle was found attached to the loins after slaughter; Rabbi Akiva permits, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri forbids; “until when will you feed Israel sacrificial animals outside”)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 3:5

Hebrew:

בְּכוֹר שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ בֵּיצָה אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי כִּיסִים. וּבְדָקוֹ הַמֻּמְחֶה וְהוֹשִׁיבוּהוּ עַל הַרְגּוֹזוֹ וּמִעֲכוּ וְלֹא יָצָאת בֵּיצָה שְׁנִיָּה וְהִתִּירוֹ הַמֻּמְחֶה וְנִשְׁחַט וְנִמְצָא הַשְּׁנִיָּה דְּבוּקָה בַּכְּסָלִים הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר הוֹאִיל וּמִעֲכוּ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא נִמְעַךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט עַל פִּי מֻמְחֶה הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר:

English:

When a firstborn had only one testicle, but two sacs, it was sat on its rear, and its genital area kneaded without finding the second testicle, an expert granted permission for its slaughter and it was slaughtered, it is permitted to be eaten even though the second testicle was found clinging to the flanks. Since its genital area was kneaded, the original ruling is not rescinded. If, however, its genital area was not kneaded, even though permission to slaughter it was granted by an expert, it must be buried.

Connection: This is the incident of Piran of Beit Menachem turned into a rule, and the Rambam rules like Rabbi Akiva. Three details track the Gemara closely. First, the case is “one testicle but two sacs,” which is precisely the case the emended mishna in Segments 6-7 places in dispute: Rabbi Yishmael would presume from the two sacs that both testicles are present, while Rabbi Akiva rejects the presumption and requires an examination. Second, the examination is Rabbi Akiva’s own procedure: seating the animal on its rump and pressing. Third, the decisive word is “since it was pressed” (הואיל ומעכו): once the expert followed the prescribed examination and permitted the animal, the later discovery does not retroactively turn the meat into sacrificial meat eaten outside the Temple, which was Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s objection in Segment 10. The Rambam then adds the converse that the Gemara implies: if the animal was not pressed, the expert’s permission is worthless, and the carcass “must be buried,” because it was in fact an unblemished firstborn slaughtered outside.

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:8

Hebrew:

שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר בְּאֵיבְרֵי הַזֶּרַע וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁנִּמְעַךְ הַגִּיד שֶׁלּוֹ. אוֹ נִכְתַּת. אוֹ נִתַּק. אוֹ נִכְרַת. מִי שֶׁנִּמְעֲכוּ הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁלּוֹ אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. אוֹ נִכְתְּתוּ אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. אוֹ נִתְּקוּ אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. אוֹ נִכְרְתוּ אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּיצָה אַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי כִּיסִין. מִי שֶׁשְּׁתֵּי בֵּיצָיו בְּכִיס אֶחָד. הַטֻּמְטוּם. הָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס:

English:

There are twelve involving the reproductive organs: a-d) one whose member is crushed, mashed, severed, or cut off; e-h) one whose testicles - or testicle - is crushed, mashed, severed, or cut off; i) one who has only one testicle even though he has two sacs; j) one whose two testicles are in one sac; k) a person whose sexual organ is covered by flesh and his gender cannot be determined; j) a hermaphrodite.

Connection: In his master list of the fifty blemishes common to priests and animals, the Rambam includes “one who has only one testicle, even though he has two sacs” (מי שאין לו אלא ביצה אחת אף על פי שיש לו שני כיסין). The phrase “even though he has two sacs” is a ruling against Rabbi Yishmael, who in Segment 7 would infer two testicles from two sacs. The blemish is defined by what is actually present, which is why an examination is required, exactly as Rabbi Akiva taught.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 309:2

Hebrew:

אפילו כשיפול בו מום בגלוי וניכר לכל כגון שנקטעה ידו או רגלו וכיוצא בו אינו רשאי לשחטו אלא על פי מומחה שיורה לו שהוא מום הראוי לישחט עליו ואם אין חכם מומחה ניתר על פי ג’ בני הכנסת דהיינו חכמים קצת ואינם בקיאים כל כך והאידנא דליכא מומחין אינו נשחט ע”פ ג’ בני הכנסת אלא במומין מובהקים כגון נסמית עינו ונקטעה ידו וכיוצא בהן וצרימת האזן הוא מום מובהק היכא דמינכר שפיר ונראה לעינים שהוא יותר מחגירת הצפורן וכיצד צרימת האזן שנפגמה בחסרון מן התנוך ולא העור שבשפת האזן בין שנפגמה בידי אדם בין שנפגמה בידי שמים: הגה נחתך הזנב למעלה מן החוליא הוי מום (פסקי מהרא”י סי’ רמ”ו) ועוד מנה בעל הטור כמה מומין ששוחטין עליהם בזמן הזה והרב שחבר ספר הזה נמשך אחר דברי הרמב”ם ולי נראה דהסומך על דברי הטור הבנויין על דעת הרא”ש לא הפסיד:

English (our translation; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

Even when a blemish befalls it openly and is recognizable to all, for example its foreleg or hind leg was cut off and the like, he may not slaughter it except on the word of an expert who instructs him that it is a blemish for which it is fit to be slaughtered. And if there is no expert sage, it is permitted by three members of the synagogue, that is, people who are somewhat learned but not so expert. And nowadays, when there are no experts, it is not slaughtered on the word of three members of the synagogue except for clear-cut blemishes, such as its eye was blinded, its foreleg was cut off, and the like. And a slit ear is a clear-cut blemish where it is well recognizable and visible to the eyes that it is more than a notch that would catch a fingernail. And what is a slit ear? That it was notched with a loss from the cartilage, and not the skin at the edge of the ear, whether it was notched by human hands or by the hand of Heaven. (Rema: If the tail was cut above the vertebra, it is a blemish. And the author of the Tur listed several more blemishes for which we slaughter nowadays; the author of this book followed the words of the Rambam, and it seems to me that one who relies on the words of the Tur, which are built on the view of the Rosh, has not lost.)

Connection: The Piran incident turns on the reliability of an expert’s examination, and this se’if shows where that question stands today. The firstborn of a kosher animal is still holy, and it may be slaughtered only on the strength of a recognized blemish ruled on by an expert. In our time, when the Shulchan Aruch states there are no authorized experts, three members of the synagogue may permit only “clear-cut blemishes.” A missing testicle that can only be confirmed by pressing is not the kind of obvious blemish the se’if gives as examples (a blinded eye, a severed foreleg), so it would seem to call for the expert examination that the Rambam describes in Bechorot 3:5. The Rema’s gloss, that a tail cut above a vertebra is a blemish, also bears on the tail rulings of 40b below.

Five Legs or Three: Blemish and Tereifa

Source in Daf: 40a, Segments 11-12 (the mishna: an animal with five legs or only three is blemished; Rav Huna: this was taught only of a foreleg, but an extra or missing hind leg also makes it a tereifa, “since any extra limb is like a removed one”)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:5

Hebrew:

בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם אוֹ אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ רַגְלַיִם. אִם הָיְתָה אַחַת מֵרַגְלָיו וְיָדָיו פַּרְסָתָהּ עֲגֻלָּה כְּשֶׁל חֲמוֹר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא סְדוּקָה וּפְרוּסָה. אִם הָיְתָה יָדוֹ אוֹ רַגְלוֹ קְלוּטָה כְּשֶׁל חֲמוֹר וְזֶהוּ “קָלוּט” הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. אִם נִגְמְמוּ טְלָפֶיהָ וְזִכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִזִּכְרוּתָן מְעַט קָרוֹב לַבָּשָׂר:

English:

A five-legged animal; t) a three-legged animal; u) the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was round like that of a donkey even if has split hooves; v) if the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was not split like that of a donkey. This is the meaning of the term kalut mentioned in the Torah; w) if its hoofs and the fibrous substance inside has shriveled, even though there remains some of that fibrous substance next to the flesh,

Connection: The Rambam opens this section of his list of blemishes unique to animals with the mishna’s own words: “an animal with five legs, or one that has only three.” He also includes the next clauses of the mishna (round hooves and closed hooves), discussed below. As a blemish, the extra or missing limb is unqualified: front or back, it disqualifies the animal from the Altar and permits a firstborn to be slaughtered.

Rambam — Hilchot Shechita 8:11

Hebrew:

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהָיְתָה חֲסֵרָה רֶגֶל בִּתְחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָהּ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה יְתֵרָה רֶגֶל. שֶׁכָּל הַיָּתֵר כְּחָסֵר הוּא. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ לָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ יָדַיִם אוֹ יָד אַחַת מֻתֶּרֶת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶחְתַּךְ הַיָּד שֶׁלָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. נֶחְתַּךְ הָרֶגֶל מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה טְרֵפָה. מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה מֻתֶּרֶת. בְּאֵי זוֹ אַרְכֻּבָּה אָמְרוּ בְּאַרְכֻּבָּה שֶׁהוּא סוֹף הַיָּרֵךְ הַסָּמוּךְ לַגּוּף:

English:

An animal that was lacking a foot from the time it came into being is trefe. The same ruling applies if it possesses an extra foot, for an extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking. If, however, it has three forefeet or only one forefoot, [the animal] is permitted. Accordingly, if [an animal’s] forefoot is cut off, [the animal] is permitted. If its leg is cut off from the joint and above, [the animal] is trefe. From the joint and below, it is permitted. Which joint are we speaking about? The joint that is at the end of the hip close to the body.

Connection: Here the Rambam codifies Rav Huna. A missing hind leg from birth is a tereifa, “and likewise if it had an extra leg, for any extra is like something missing” (שכל היתר כחסר הוא), which is Rav Huna’s דכל יתיר כנטול דמי in Hebrew dress. The foreleg is different: “three forelegs or one foreleg” leaves the animal permitted, exactly Rav Huna’s opening limitation, “the Sages taught this only of a foreleg.” The practical consequence for a firstborn is significant. A firstborn with a fifth hind leg is blemished, so it may be slaughtered outside the Temple, but it is also a tereifa, so its meat is forbidden even after slaughter. The blemish releases it from the Altar; it does not make it kosher.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 55:4

Hebrew:

אם יש לה ג’ רגלים טריפה דכל יתר כנטול דמי וכאלו חסר רגל א’ הוא והוא שיהי’ זה היתר מראש עצם התחתון ולמעלה: הגה ודוקא שזה היתרת יש לה תואר רגל ועומדת במקום הרגלים אבל בלאו הכי אינו מקרי יתרת ולא הוי רק דלדול וכשר (ב”י בשם מרדכי בשם ראב”ן ובשערים סימן פ”ט ואו”ה שם) ואם נבראת חסר רגל א’ טריפה (גמרא פא”ט דף נ”ח ובבכורות דף מ’ ורמב”ם פ”ח מה”ש ולא כב”י והכל תפסו עליו בזה):

English (our translation; the only English on Sefaria for this se’if is French):

If it has three hind legs, it is a tereifa, for any extra limb is considered as removed, and it is as if it were missing one leg; and this applies when the extra one is from the head of the lower bone and above. (Rema: And only where the extra one has the form of a leg and stands in the place of the legs; but otherwise it is not called an extra limb and is only a hanging growth, and it is kosher (Beit Yosef in the name of the Mordechai in the name of Ra’avan, and the Sha’arim siman 89, and Issur ve-Heter there). And if it was created missing one leg, it is a tereifa (Gemara, chapter Elu Tereifot, daf 58, and in Bechorot daf 40, and Rambam chapter 8 of Hilchot Shechita; not like the Beit Yosef, and all have taken issue with him on this).)

Connection: Rav Huna’s ruling is practical kashrut law today, entirely independent of the Temple. The Shulchan Aruch states the extra-leg half: an animal with three hind legs is a tereifa “for any extra limb is considered as removed,” Rav Huna’s very formula. The Rema completes it with the missing-leg half and cites our daf explicitly as one of his sources (ובבכורות דף מ’), together with the Rambam’s Hilchot Shechita chapter 8. He also limits the rule: the extra limb counts only if it has the form of a leg and stands where legs stand; a shapeless hanging growth is merely a dangling piece of flesh and does not render the animal tereifa.

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:12

Hebrew:

וְעוֹד יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה מוּמִין אֲחֵרִים וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. הַזָּקֵן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִהְיוֹת רוֹתֵת וְרוֹעֵד כְּשֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד. הַחוֹלֶה כְּשֶׁהוּא רוֹעֵד מִפְּנֵי חָלְיוֹ וְכִשְׁלוֹן כֹּחוֹ. אֲבָל הַטְּרֵפָה כָּשֵׁר בָּאָדָם וּפָסוּל בִּבְהֵמָה. וְכֵן יוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן כָּשֵׁר בָּאָדָם וּפָסוּל בִּבְהֵמָה:

English:

There are also three other types of blemishes: a) an elderly man who has reached the stage that he quivers and trembles when he stands; b) a person who is sick and trembles because of his illness and the weakening of his strength. A treifah is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals. Similarly, one born through Caesarian section is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals.

Connection: The Rambam’s closing line, “a tereifa is fit in a person but disqualified in an animal,” explains why Rav Huna’s addition matters in a chapter on blemishes. For a priest, a condition that would make an animal tereifa does not by itself disqualify him from service. For an animal, a tereifa is disqualified from the Altar in its own right, so the hind-leg case is doubly excluded: once as a blemish and once as a tereifa.

Round Hooves, Shachul and Kasul, Saru’a and Kalut

Source in Daf: 40a, Segments 11, 13-14 (the mishna: hooves closed like a donkey’s, the shachul and the kasul; Rav Pappa: round hooves are a blemish even if they are split; the baraita defining shachul as a dislocated thighbone and kasul as one leg inside the loin and one above it; saru’a as one thigh longer than the other, kalut as hooves closed like a donkey’s or a horse’s)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:5 (continued)

Connection: The same halacha quoted above codifies Rav Pappa in his own terms: “if the hoof of one of its hind legs or forelegs was round like a donkey’s, even though it is split and divided” (אף על פי שהיא סדוקה ופרוסה). This is Rav Pappa’s “once they are round, even though they are split,” stated as a separate blemish. The Rambam then lists the closed hoof as a second, distinct blemish and identifies it with the Torah’s kalut, as the baraita in Segment 14 did. Note too that the Rambam extends both to “one of its legs,” hind or fore: a single deformed hoof suffices.

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:9

Hebrew:

שִׁשָּׁה בַּיָּדַיִם וּבָרַגְלַיִם וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. הַפִּסֵּחַ. וּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁמְטָה יְרֵכוֹ הוּא “שָׂרוּעַ” הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. מִי שֶׁאַחַת מִיַּרְכוֹתָיו גְּבוֹהָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ. מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם יָדוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִכָּר. מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם רַגְלוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִכָּר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִכָּר כְּשֶׁעוֹמֵד אִם נִכָּר כְּשֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. מִי שֶׁרַגְלָיו מְבֻלָּמוֹת מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן וּבְרִיָּתָן. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְבֻלָּמוֹת מֵחֲמַת הָרוּחַ אֵינוֹ מוּם:

English:

There are six involving the hands and the feet: a) one who limps; b) one whose hip has been displaced. This is the meaning of the term serua used by the Torah; c) one who has one hip attached at a higher place than the other; d) one whose arm-bone is broken, provided it is apparent; e) one whose leg-bone is broken, provided it is apparent. Even if it is not apparent when he stands, if it is apparent when he walks, it is a blemish; f) one whose legs are swollen congenitally, as part of the structure of his body. If, however, they are swollen because of the wind, it is not considered a blemish.

Connection: The shachul and kasul of our mishna appear here among the blemishes common to priests and animals. “One whose thigh was dislocated” is the baraita’s shachul, and the Rambam identifies it as the Torah’s saru’a; “one whose thighs, one is higher than the other” is the kasul. The baraita in Segment 14 defined saru’a slightly differently (“whose thigh is longer than the other”), and the Rambam’s reading fuses the Mishnaic term with the Biblical one, so that the dislocated hip of the shachul is the saru’a of Vayikra 22:23. The same halacha also codifies two later rulings of the daf, discussed in the next sections: the broken leg bone that is visible only when the animal walks, and swollen legs caused by bone rather than air.

A Broken Leg Bone Visible Only in the Gait

Source in Daf: 40a, Segments 15 and 17 (the mishna: a broken leg bone is a blemish even if it is not visible; the Gemara: how can an invisible break be a blemish? Rav Pappa: it is not visible when the animal stands, but it is visible when it walks)

Connection: Bi’at HaMikdash 7:9, quoted above, rules in Rav Pappa’s words: “one whose leg-bone is broken, provided it is apparent. Even if it is not apparent when he stands, if it is apparent when he walks, it is a blemish” (אף על פי שאינו נכר כשעומד אם נכר כשיהלך הרי זה מום). The Rambam has absorbed the Gemara’s resolution into the definition of the blemish. A break that leaves no trace at all, standing or walking, is not a blemish; the mishna’s “not visible” means not visible at rest. For a firstborn today this is also not the kind of “clear-cut” blemish that Yoreh De’ah 309:2 allows three laymen to rule on, since it must be assessed by watching the gait.

Ila’s Three Blemishes: Round Eye, Pig’s Mouth, the Tongue

Source in Daf: 40a, Segments 15-16, 18-22 (Ila listed the blemishes in Yavne and added three the Sages had not known: an eyeball round like a person’s, a mouth like a pig’s, and removal of most of the “speaking” part of the tongue; the contradiction from Nidda on round eyes and Rabbi Yochanan’s reply; Rav Pappa: a pig’s mouth requires only the overlapping upper lip, not the pointed snout; whose view is the tongue blemish? Rabbi Yehuda’s, who requires most of the speaking part)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:2

Hebrew:

וְיֵשׁ מוּמִין אֲחֵרִים מְיֻחָדִין בַּבְּהֵמָה וְאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִהְיוֹת בְּאָדָם. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים הֵם וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אִם הָיָה גַּלְגַּל עֵינָהּ עָגל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם. עֵינָהּ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּז. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה אֹזֶן גְּדוֹלָה וְאֹזֶן קְטַנָּה אֲפִלּוּ קְטַנָּה עַד כְּפוֹל כָּשֵׁר. אִם יֵשׁ בְּלֹבֶן עֵינָהּ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שֵׂעָר. אִם נִקַּב הָעוֹר שֶׁבֵּין שְׁנֵי חֳטָמֶיהָ בַּמָּקוֹם הַנִּרְאֶה. פִּיהָ דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר פָּרוּס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻדָּד כְּשִׁפּוּד:

English:

There are other blemishes that are unique to animals and are not appropriate to be found in humans at all. There are 23 of these; they are: a) the animal’s eyeball’s are round like humans; b) one eye is large like a calf’s and the other is small like a duck’s; if, however, one ear is large and one ear is small, even if it is small as a bean, it is acceptable; c) if there is an eruption in the white of the eye that has a hair growing from it; d) if the cartilage between its two nostrils was perforated in a place which can be seen; e) its mouth resembles that of a swine; i.e., its upper jaw overlapped its lower jaw, even though it is not pointed like a spit.

Connection: Two of Ila’s three blemishes open the Rambam’s list of the twenty-three blemishes “unique to animals.” The first item is Ila’s own: “if its eyeball was round like a person’s” (אם היה גלגל עינה עגל כשל אדם). The Rambam places it among blemishes that are unusual in people, which fits the Gemara’s discussion in Segments 18-20: a round eye is a defect in an animal precisely because, in Rav Yosef’s resolution, the relevant part of the animal’s eye is normally not round as a person’s is. The second is the pig’s mouth, and here the Rambam codifies Rav Pappa from Segment 21: “its mouth resembles a pig’s, overlapping (פרוס), even though it is not pointed like a spit.” The overlapping upper lip is enough; the pointed snout is not required. The same halacha also contains three rulings from 40b (the unequal eyes, the wart with hair, and the ears of different size), discussed below.

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:7

Hebrew:

שִׁשָּׁה בַּפֶּה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁנִּקַּב שְׂפָתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת מֵהֶן. מִי שֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה שְׂפָתוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה שְׂפָתוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁנִּסְדַּק מִזֵּר שֶׁלָּהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּחָלֵק לִשְׁנֵי רָאשִׁים. מִי שֶׁעֶצֶם לֶחְיוֹ הַתַּחְתּוֹן עוֹדֵף עַל הָעֶלְיוֹן כָּל שֶׁהוּא. מִי שֶׁפִּיו נִבְלַם מֵחֲמַת גּוּפוֹ וּבְרִיָּתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם נִבְלַם מֵחֲמַת הָרוּחַ אֵינוֹ מוּם. מִי שֶׁנִּטַּל רֹב הַמְדַבֵּר שֶׁל לְשׁוֹנוֹ:

English:

There are six involving the mouth: a) One whose lip is perforated; this applies even if only one is perforated; b) one whose lip is blemished; c) one whose lip is cracked, provided the surface of the lip is split into two sides; d) one whose lower jawbone extends even the slightest measure further than his upper jawbone; e) one whose mouth is swollen congenitally, as part of the structure of his body. If, however, it is swollen because of the wind, it is not considered a blemish; f) one from whom the majority of the free portion of the tongue was removed.

Connection: Ila’s third blemish, the tongue, appears among the blemishes common to priests and animals: “one from whom the majority of the speaking part of his tongue was removed” (רוב המדבר של לשונו). The wording is exactly the measure that Segment 22 attributes to Rabbi Yehuda, who counts most of the free, “speaking” part of the tongue rather than most of the whole tongue. The Rambam thus rules like the opinion the Gemara identified as the source of Ila’s list. The same halacha codifies two further rulings of this daf: the lower jaw that protrudes beyond the upper (next section) and the mouth swollen from bone rather than from air (below).

The Protruding Lower Jaw and the Overlapping Lip

Source in Daf: 40a, Segments 23-24 and 40b, Segments 1-3 (the incident in which the lower jaw protruded beyond the upper, ruled a blemish by the Sages and again before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; the Gemara: the Rabbis disputed only an overlapping upper lip; the objection that a protruding lip is a blemish for a kohen from “ish ish mizera Aharon”; Rav Pappa: with a bone it is a blemish even in animals, without a bone only in a kohen)

Connection: Bi’at HaMikdash 7:7, quoted above, lists among the blemishes common to priests and animals “one whose lower jawbone protrudes beyond the upper, to any extent” (מי שעצם לחיו התחתון עודף על העליון כל שהוא). The Rambam’s addition of the word “bone” (עצם) is Rav Pappa’s distinction in 40b Segment 3: where the protrusion involves bone, it is a blemish in animals too, and so it belongs on the shared list. “To any extent” reflects the incident in our mishna, which the Sages ruled a blemish without any minimum.

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 8:8

Hebrew:

שְׁלֹשָׁה בַּשְּׂפָתַיִם וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁשְּׂפָתוֹ הָעֶלְיוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. מִי שֶׁשְּׂפָתוֹ הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. מִי שֶׁפִּיו רָפוּי וְרִירוֹ יוֹרֵד מִפִּיו:

English:

There are three involving the lips. They are: a) one whose upper lip extends beyond his lower lip; b) one whose lower lip extends beyond his upper lip; c) one whose mouth [hangs] loosely and [hence,] spittle is continually descending from his mouth.

Connection: Chapter 8 is the Rambam’s list of the ninety blemishes “unique to man,” and here he places the lip that overhangs, upper over lower or lower over upper. This is the other half of Rav Pappa’s answer: a protruding lip without bone is a blemish “only in a kohen,” derived from “ish ish mizera Aharon” (Segment 2), and so the Rambam puts it on the priests’ list alone. The two halachot together reproduce the structure of 40b Segment 3: bone (7:7) applies to both; lip without bone (8:8) applies only to people.

Doubled Ear, Swollen Mouth and Legs

Source in Daf: 40b, Segments 4-5 (the mishna: a kid’s doubled ear is a blemish when it is one bone and not when there is no bone; the baraita: a swollen mouth or swollen legs are no blemish from air and a blemish from bone; doubled ears with one cartilage are a blemish, with two cartilages not)

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:3

Hebrew:

מִי שֶׁנִּסְדַּק סְחוּס אָזְנוֹ בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָסֵר. מִי שֶׁנִּקַּב סְחוּס אָזְנוֹ כְּכַרְשִׁינָה בֵּין נֶקֶב עָגֹל בֵּין נֶקֶב אָרֹךְ אִם מִצְטָרֵף לְכַרְשִׁינָה הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. מִי שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה אָזְנוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּנָּקֵב וְלֹא תּוֹצִיא דָּם. מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה אָזְנוֹ כְּפוּלָה לִשְׁתַּיִם. אֲפִלּוּ הַגְּדִי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ אָזְנָיו לִהְיוֹתָן נוֹטוֹת וּכְפוּלוֹת וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי סְחוּסִין. אֲבָל אִם אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא סְחוּס אֶחָד וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּגוּף אֶחָד שֶׁנִּכְפַּל כָּשֵׁר:

English:

b) one whose ear has cracked to the slightest extent even though its substance has not diminished; c) one whose [ear] lobe has been perforated, [leaving a hole] the size of a carshinah bean. Whether the hole is round or long, if its area is the size of a carshinah bean, it is considered a blemish. d) one whose ear has dried to the extent that if it was perforated, it would not bleed; e) one whose ear was double. [This applies] even to a goat kid whose ears are often extended and appear double, provided it has two lobes. If, however, it has only one lobe and it appears like one entity that is double-sized, it is acceptable.

Connection: The Rambam counts the doubled ear among the blemishes of the ear and, like our mishna, specifically includes “even a kid, whose ears tend to droop and fold.” His criterion is the cartilage, as in the baraita of Segment 5, but his text reads in the opposite direction from the printed baraita: for him the doubled ear is a blemish “provided it has two cartilages,” while “one cartilage, like a single body that is folded” is fit. The printed Gemara before us reads “one cartilage, a blemish; two cartilages, not a blemish.” The Rambam’s text evidently followed a different reading of the baraita or understood “one cartilage” as describing the ordinary folding of a single ear. We record the divergence without resolving it; what both share is the principle of the mishna that a mere fold of soft tissue is not a blemish, while an independent structure is.

Swollen mouth and legs: Bi’at HaMikdash 7:7 and 7:9, quoted above, both codify the baraita’s distinction in Rambam’s own terms. A mouth or legs swollen “because of his body and his structure” (מחמת גופו ובריתו) is a blemish; swollen “because of the wind” (מחמת הרוח) is not. The baraita’s “from the bone” has become “from the body and its structure,” a congenital, skeletal swelling, as opposed to a temporary puffiness of air or fluid that may subside.

The Kid’s Pig-Like Tail and the Number of Tail Vertebrae

Source in Daf: 40b, Segments 4, 6-8 (Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel: a kid’s tail like a pig’s, or one with fewer than three vertebrae; Rav Pappa: “like a pig’s” means curled, even if thick; Rav Huna: a kid with two vertebrae and a lamb with three are blemished; the baraita: a kid with one, a lamb with two; the refutation of Rav Huna and the explanation of his error)

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:4

Hebrew:

אִם נִטְּלוּ קַרְנֶיהָ וְזִכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר מֵהֶן כְּלוּם. אֲבָל נְקֵבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קַרְנַיִם כְּשֵׁרָה. אִם נִפְגַּם הָעוֹר שֶׁחוֹפֶה אֶת גִּיד הַבְּהֵמָה. אִם נִפְגְּמָה הָעֶרְוָה שֶׁל נְקֵבָה. אִם נִפְגַּם הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַפֶּרֶק. אִם הָיְתָה רֹאשׁ הַזָּנָב מְפֻצָּל לִשְׁנַיִם בִּשְׁנֵי עֲצָמִים. אִם הָיָה בֵּין חֻלְיָא לְחֻלְיָא מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע בָּשָׂר. אִם הָיָה הַזָּנָב קָצָר. וְעַד כַּמָּה. בִּגְדִי חֻלְיָא אַחַת מוּם שְׁתַּיִם כָּשֵׁר. וּבְטָלֶה אֹרֶךְ שְׁתֵּי חֻלְיוֹת מוּם. הָיְתָה שָׁלֹשׁ כָּשֵׁר. זְנַב הַגְּדִי שֶׁהָיָה רַךְ וּמְדֻלְדָּל דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר. אִם נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם מִן הַזָּנָב. אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם מִצַּלְעוֹתָיו כָּשֵׁר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּגָלוּי:

English:

j) If its horns and their inner fibrous tissue was removed and nothing of it remained; a female animal that has horns is acceptable; k) if the substance of the skin which covers the male organ of an animal was blemished; l) if the substance of the female organ of an animal was blemished; m) if the substance of the tail is blemished from its bone; [if its substance is blemished] from its joint, it is not [a blemish]; n) if the tip of the tail was split into two with two separate bones; o) if there was a finger’s breadth of flesh between every joint on the tail; p) if the tail was [overly] short. To what extent? For a kid, one vertebra is a blemish, but two are not. For a lamb, a length of two vertebrae is a blemish, but three is acceptable. q) if the tail of a kid was soft and hanging loosely like that of a pig; r) if one of the tail bones was broken. If, however, one of the ribs are broken, it is acceptable, because [the blemish] is not visible.

Connection: The Rambam rules like the baraita that refuted Rav Huna in Segment 7: “for a kid, one vertebra is a blemish, two is fit; for a lamb, a length of two vertebrae is a blemish, three is fit.” Rav Huna’s higher numbers, which the Gemara in Segment 8 attributes to his misreading of the mishna’s “three vertebrae” as referring to a kid rather than a lamb, are not codified. The same halacha also lists “a finger’s breadth of flesh between vertebra and vertebra” (מלא אצבע בשר), the blemish to which the third view in 40a Segment 4 attached the baraita’s definition of a fingerbreadth. The Rambam’s description of the pig-like tail is “soft and dangling” (רך ומדלדל), which is a different formulation from Rav Pappa’s “curled, even if thick” in Segment 6; we note the difference without attempting to harmonize it. The Rema in Yoreh De’ah 309:2, quoted above, adds that a tail cut above a vertebra is a blemish for which a firstborn may be slaughtered nowadays.

A Wart in the Eye

Source in Daf: 40b, Segments 9-15 (Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus: a wart in the eye is a blemish; the contradiction from 41a, where a wart does not permit slaughter; the Torah lists yabelet; body vs. eye; with bone vs. without; the black of the eye vs. the white; “there are no blemishes in the white”; Reish Lakish: a wart in the white with a hair disqualifies, without a hair it does not)

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 7:10

Hebrew:

אַרְבָּעָה רְאוּיִין לִהְיוֹת בְּכָל הַגּוּף וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גָּרָב יָבֵשׁ כָּל שֶׁהוּא וְזֶהוּ הַ “גָּרָב” הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם וְזֶה הוּא “יַבֶּלֶת” הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲזָזִית מִצְרִית כָּל שֶׁהִיא וְהִיא חֲזָזִית קָשָׁה וּכְעוּרָה וְזוֹ הוּא “יַלֶּפֶת” הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה:

English:

There are four [types of blemishes] that may occur in any place in the body. They are: a) one who has a dry skin eruption of even the slightest size. This is the meaning of the term gerev mentioned in the Torah; b) a growth that has a bone. This is the meaning of the term yabelet mentioned in the Torah; c) one who has an Egyptian boil of the slightest size. It is a type of boil which is firm and of distasteful appearance. This is the meaning of the term yalefet mentioned in the Torah.

Connection: The Rambam defines the Torah’s yabelet as “a wart that has bone in it” (יבלת שיש בה עצם), the answer the Gemara gave in Segment 12. A wart with bone, anywhere on the body, is the blemish of Vayikra 22:22, and it applies to priests and animals alike.

The wart in the white of the eye: Issurei Mizbeach 2:2, quoted above, adds the specifically animal case: “if there is a wart with a hair in it in the white of its eye” (אם יש בלובן עינה יבלת שיש בה שער). This is Reish Lakish in Segment 15, who resolved “there are no blemishes in the white” by distinguishing a wart with a hair from one without. The Rambam places the hair-bearing wart among the full blemishes unique to animals.

Rambam — Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:8

Hebrew:

יֵשׁ שָׁם אַרְבָּעָה חֳלָיִים אֲחֵרִים אִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶם בִּבְהֵמָה אֵין מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָהּ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִן הַמֻּבְחָר וְהַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר “מִבְחַר נְדָרֶיךָ”. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁבְּלֹבֶן עֵינוֹ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׂעָר. אִם נִגְמְמוּ קַרְנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִזִּכְרוּתָן מְעַט סָמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר. אִם נִפְגְּמוּ חִטָּיו הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת. אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ בְּקָדָשִׁים לֹא קְרֵבִין וְלֹא נִפְדִּין. אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם. וְאִם הִקְרִיבָן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהֻרְצוּ:

English:

The are four other ailments that if found in an animal [prevent] it from being sacrificed. [The rationale is that such an animal] is not from the “choice,” and Scripture [Deuteronomy 12:11] states [that sacrifices must come] “from the chosen of your vows.” They are: a) an animal with an eruption in the white of its eye, but it does not have hair growing from it; b) the substance of the horns of an animal was reduced, but their inner fibrous tissue remained; c) the substance of its inner tonsils were reduced; or d) its inner tonsils shriveled. If a consecrated animal had one of these blemishes, it is neither sacrificed not redeemed. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a [disqualifying] blemish. If it was sacrificed, it appears to me that it is acceptable.

Connection: And here is the other half of Reish Lakish’s distinction: a wart in the white of the eye “that does not have hair” is not a blemish at all, yet the animal is not offered, because it is not “the choice of your vows.” Such an animal is in limbo: it is “neither offered nor redeemed,” but must graze until it acquires a real blemish. This is the category the mishna on 41a describes (Segment 10): conditions for which one does not slaughter a firstborn “neither in the Temple nor in the country.” The Rambam’s three halachot thus map the Gemara’s whole resolution: a wart with bone is the Torah’s yabelet (Bi’at HaMikdash 7:10); a wart with hair in the white of the eye is a blemish (Issurei Mizbeach 2:2); a wart without hair there neither permits nor allows sacrifice (2:8).

Unequal Eyes, Ears and Testicles

Source in Daf: 40b, Segments 9, 16-17 (Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus: one eye or ear large and the other small, by sight but not by measurement; the baraita: “large” like a calf’s eye, “small” like a goose’s; Rabbi Yehuda on one testicle twice the size of the other, rejected by the Sages; Acherim: even if the second is only the size of a bean, it is fit)

Connection: Issurei Mizbeach 2:2, quoted above, codifies the eyes in the baraita’s words: “one eye large like a calf’s and the other small like a goose’s.” It then adds: “but if one ear was large and one small, even if the small one is only the size of a bean (כפול), it is fit.” In other words, the Rambam does not count unequal ears as a blemish of an animal, and he applies Acherim’s measure of a bean to the ears. This matches the Hebrew heading of Segment 17, which cites the ear clause of the mishna (אזנו אחת גדולה) before quoting Acherim, while the English translation before us reads Acherim’s statement as referring to testicles. Rabbi Yehuda’s view on unequal testicles is not codified anywhere in the Rambam’s lists, consistent with “the Sages did not agree with him.”

Rambam — Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 8:6

Hebrew:

אַחַד עָשָׂר בָּעֵינַיִם וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַעְלָה מִן הַמָּקוֹם הָרָאוּי לָהֶם קְרוֹבוֹת מִפַּדַּחְתּוֹ. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו לְמַטָּה מִמָּקוֹם הָרָאוּי לָהֶם. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו עֲגוּלוֹת וְאֵינָם נִמְשָׁכוֹת בָּאֹרֶךְ מְעַט מִשְּׁאָר הָעֵינַיִם. מִי שֶׁעֵינָיו מוּזָרוֹת וְהֵן יוֹצְאוֹת כְּעֵינֵי הַנָּמֵר וּכְמִי שֶׁהוּא מִסְתַּכֵּל בְּעֵת שֶׁכּוֹעֵס כַּעַס הַרְבֵּה. מִי שֶׁעֵינָיו גְּדוֹלוֹת הַרְבֵּה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל. מִי שֶׁעֵינָיו קְטַנּוֹת כְּשֶׁל אַוָּז. מִי שֶׁדְּמָעָיו זוֹלְפוֹת תָּמִיד. מִי שֶׁלַּחְלוּחִית נִמְשֶׁכֶת מֵרֹאשׁ עֵינוֹ מִכְּנֶגֶד הַחֹטֶם אוֹ מִזְּנַב עֵינוֹ מִצַּד צְדָעָיו. מִי שֶׁמְּקַבֵּץ רִיסֵי עֵינָיו וְעוֹצְמָן מְעַט בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁרוֹאֶה אוֹר אוֹ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה לְדַקְדֵּק בִּרְאִיָּה. מִי שֶׁרְאִיַּת עֵינוֹ מְעֻרְבֶּבֶת עַד שֶׁרוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶדֶר וְאֶת הָעֲלִיָּה כְּאַחַת. וְיִוָּדַע דָּבָר זֶה בְּעֵת שֶׁיְּדַבֵּר עִם חֲבֵרוֹ וְנִרְאֶה כְּאִלּוּ הוּא מִסְתַּכֵּל בְּאִישׁ אַחֵר. מִי שֶׁאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו מְשֻׁנָּה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ בֵּין בִּמְקוֹמָהּ בֵּין בְּמַרְאֶהָ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה אַחַת שְׁחֹרָה וְאַחַת פְּתוּכָה אוֹ אַחַת קְטַנָּה וְאַחַת גְּדוֹלָה הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בֵּין שְׁתֵּיהֶן שִׁנּוּי מִכָּל מָקוֹם פָּסוּל:

English:

There are eleven involving the eyes. They are: a) one whose two eyes are positioned above their appropriate place, close to his forehead; b) one whose two eyes are positioned below their appropriate place; c) one whose two eyes are round and are not extended slightly as other eyes are; d) one whose eyes pop out like the eyes of a tiger and like the eyes of a person who looks at someone when he is very angry; e) one whose eyes are very large, like those of a calf; f) one whose eyes are small, like those of a duck; g) one who is continuously tearing; h) one who has fluid [continuously] dripping from the tip of his eyes near his nose or the ends of his eyes near his temples; i) one who contracts his eyelids and squints slightly when he sees light or when he wishes to look at something carefully; j) a person who is cross-eyed to the extent that he sees two storeys of the same building as one. This defect can be noticed when such a person is speaking with one person and it appears that he is speaking with another; k) one who has one eye that is different than the other, whether in place, in appearance, e.g., one is black and the other is of mixed color, or one is small and one is large. Since there is a difference between them, he is unacceptable.

Connection: For a priest, the Rambam’s standard is stricter and illuminates the animal rules by contrast. Round eyes, eyes as large as a calf’s or as small as a goose’s, and any difference between the two eyes “whether in place or in appearance” all disqualify a kohen. For an animal, round eyes count only in Ila’s specific sense, and the calf-and-goose disparity counts only as a visible difference between the two eyes, “by sight and not by measurement.” The same descriptive vocabulary (calf, goose, round) serves both lists, but the threshold for a blemish is set by what is normal for each kind of body.

A Calf’s Tail That Does Not Reach the Arkov

Source in Daf: 40b, Segment 18 (the mishna: a calf’s tail that does not reach the arkov, the leg joint; the Sages: all calves grow this way, their tails lengthen as they grow; Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus defines the arkov)

Connection: The Hebrew of the mishna is a ruling of leniency: a short tail in a growing calf is normal and therefore not a blemish, since calves’ tails lengthen as the animal matures. (The English translation before us renders the Sages’ words as “It is a blemish,” but the stated reason, that all calves grow this way, makes sense only as a ruling that it is not.) We searched all of Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach and Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash for any blemish of a calf’s tail measured against the arkov and found none; the Rambam’s only tail-length rule is the count of vertebrae for kids and lambs in Issurei Mizbeach 2:4. His silence fits the mishna’s conclusion: a condition that is normal for the animal is not a blemish and needs no entry in the list.

Summary of Rulings

The firstborn of a kosher animal remains holy today, so the requirement of a recognized blemish ruled on by an expert, or by three members of the synagogue for clear-cut blemishes (Yoreh De’ah 309:2), is practical law. Rav Huna’s extra and missing hind leg is practical kashrut law for every animal (Yoreh De’ah 55:4). The detailed catalogue of blemishes, and the laws of Temple artisans and me’ila, are Temple-era laws preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.