Bekhorot 37b — the Talmud in English

And we infer precisely: that they

were uprooted—

yes; but if they were damaged or blunted, no.

Since it is not visible, why do we not include it from “any bad blemish”?

And we answer:

We require a “bad blemish,” and there is none.

For a bad blemish is called such only when it is visible, since he is disgraced through it.

And we further object:

If so, a passing blemish also

should be included from “any bad blemish.”

How, then, have we learned:

its ear was damaged in the cartilage

but not in the skin?

And we answer:

A passing blemish—it is logical

that it is not a blemish in the firstborn. For

now, if we do not redeem upon its account

consecrated disqualified animals, meaning other sacrifices in which a blemish occurred—

shall we slaughter upon its account

a firstborn outside [the Temple]?

For it was taught:

it is written,

“And if it is any impure animal from which they may not bring a sacrifice to Hashem,

he shall place the animal before the priest, and the priest shall assess it”—

the verse speaks of animals with blemishes that were redeemed.

For here the verse taught us that a sacrifice that became blemished is destined to be redeemed.

Do you say that it speaks of animals with blemishes that were redeemed, or does it speak only of an actually impure animal

the verse?

When it says:

in another verse [Leviticus 27:27],

“And if it is an impure animal

he shall redeem it according to your valuation”—

an impure animal has already been stated.

What, then, do I establish

“And if it is any impure animal

from which they may not bring a sacrifice to Hashem”?

You must say: this is an animal with a blemish that was redeemed.

Could they redeem

also

on account of a passing blemish?

The verse says: “From which they may not bring a sacrifice to Hashem.”

For this implies specifically one

that may not be offered at all. This one,

an animal with a passing blemish,

is not offered today, but tomorrow!

Therefore, since we do not redeem on account of a passing blemish, all the more so we do not slaughter a firstborn outside [the Temple] on its account.

Alternatively, if you wish,

what is the reason that we do not include a passing blemish?

If so—

“lame”

and

“blind,”

why do I need them?

Rather, infer from it that the Merciful One wrote it for this purpose: to say that it is slaughtered only on account of a permanent blemish, like “lame or blind.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“It was cracked, even though it was not missing”:

The Sages taught: The crack

its measure is

any amount. The damage, whether

it was caused

by human hands, or whether

it was caused

by Heaven,

that it was born with.

And we infer precisely: Since it teaches concerning damage, “whether by human hands or by Heaven”—

by inference, a crack caused by Heaven is not [included],

and what is the difference?

And we answer:

Rather, this is what it teaches: The crack [is a blemish] in any amount, and the crack and the damage, whether by Heaven or whether by human hands.

And what is the measure of damage? So that a fingernail catches on it.

For if one passes the fingernail over it, it is held up by the damage—as in the examination of a knife.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A hole the full size of a vetch”:

The Sages taught: What is the measure of piercing the ear? The full size of a vetch.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: Like a lentil.

And what is “dry”? When it is pierced and does not emit a drop of blood.

Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: Dry, until it crumbles.

A tanna taught: Their statements are close to being equal.

And we examine it:

Whose statements? If you say those of the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam,

who disagree concerning the measure of dryness—there is

a great deal

between them?

And we answer:

Rather, those of the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda.

One says the measure is a vetch, and one says the measure is a lentil. And a vetch is only slightly larger than a lentil.

And we examine it:

And

if

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda holds that a lentil is [the measure], yes, but less than a lentil, no?!

And we raise a contradiction:

for it was taught: It is written concerning a Hebrew slave who does not wish to leave after six years but rather to have his ear pierced: “And you shall take the awl and place it in his ear and in the door.” And we expound:

“The awl”—I have only [the awl]; from where [do I include] the stylus,

a sharpened wooden splinter,

and the thorn,

a thorn,

and the needle, the drill, and the writing tool,

an iron pen with which they pierce?

The verse says: “And you shall take”—

to include anything that is taken in the hand, the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi says: “The awl”—

just as an awl is distinct in being of metal, so too, everything [included] is of metal.

Rabbi expounds this verse as a general statement, a particular statement, and a general statement: just as the particular statement is of metal, so too, everything is of metal. And Rabbi Yosei expounds it by means of an inclusion, exclusion, and inclusion, and includes everything.

And it teaches in the final clause

of the beraita:

Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan son of Rabbi

a great man, whose name was Yudan,

would expound: When they pierce, they pierce only in the lobe

in the fleshy part of the ear and not in the cartilage.

And the Sages say:

they disagreed with Yudan son of Rabbi, and their proof is: [we have established that]

a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced, because he thereby becomes blemished!

For when he leaves at the Jubilee, we require “and he shall return to his family”—to the established status of his family.

And if you say that they pierced in the lobe, how does a Hebrew slave who is a priest become blemished?

For he does not become blemished there, so why should the priest not be pierced?

Indeed,

you have to learn from here that they pierce

only in the height of the ear,

that is, in the cartilage, which is a blemish.

And it is difficult from what Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said, that the piercing is with a needle, which makes a hole smaller than a lentil, and the priest becomes blemished through this hole, whereas here Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said that it is specifically with a lentil that it is a blemish?

And we answer:

Rav Hana bar Ketina said: It is not difficult; here

where we require the measure of a lentil—

to slaughter

the firstborn outside the Temple.

Here

concerning piercing, where a smaller measure suffices—

to disqualify

the priest from service; and the same applies to disqualifying the firstborn from being offered upon the altar, but it is not sufficient for slaughtering it outside. For there are many blemishes that disqualify from offering, yet one does not slaughter on their account outside.

And we explain:

What is a vetch? Rav Sherevia said: Hinda

for in his place they called a vetch hinda.

Rav Hoshaya asked Rav Huna the Great:

This that we say, that the measure of “pierced” is the full size of a vetch—does it refer to

a vetch standing

in the hole with difficulty, even though it does not enter and emerge easily,

or to a vetch that enters and emerges

and this hole is wider, and only at this measure is it a blemish?

He said to him: I have not heard this, but I have heard a similar matter!

The bones of the dead do not impart impurity through a tent until they contain the majority of the structure of the dead person, or the majority of the number [of bones], or a quarter-kav, except for the spine or the skull, which, when whole, each of them imparts impurity through a tent on its own. But if they are missing, they impart impurity only through contact and carrying, like every bone that has a measure the size of a barley grain.

For we learned

in Tractate Oholot:

The spine and the skull that are missing

do not impart impurity through a tent.

And how much must be missing from the spine

so that it is no longer called “a complete spine” and no longer imparts impurity through a tent?

Beit Shammai say:

when

two vertebrae are missing.

And Beit Hillel say: One vertebra.

And concerning the skull,

how much is the deficiency?

Beit Shammai say: The full size of a drill,

and below it explains this.

And Beit Hillel say: Enough that it could be removed from a living person and he would die.

And Rav Hisda sat and was asking himself:

This that Beit Hillel said,

“enough that it could be removed from a living person and he would die”—how much

is this measure?

And Rav Tahlifa bar Avudimi said to him: Thus said Shmuel:

its measure is that there should be missing

the size of a sela.

And it was stated: Rav Safra said: “A shemUta”

statement

he told him.

For what Shmuel said is a statement.

And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: “A matnita”

teaching

he told him.

For what Shmuel [said] is a beraita.

And your mnemonic is,

so that you will know who said it in the language of a statement and who in the language of a teaching: “

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught.”

Many times Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda used the expression “taught.” From this you know that here too he said in the name of Shmuel, “a matnita.”

And he said to him

Rav Hisda to Rav Tahlifa:

If so,

since the measure according to Beit Hillel is the size of a sela,

you have made the words of Beit Shammai and the words of Beit Hillel one

since the full size of a drill is also the size of a sela?

For we learned

in Tractate Kelim:

A light-opening,

a window,

that was not made by human hands,

such as when a little of the wall between one house and another broke,

its measure,

to bring impurity from one house to another, if there is a dead person in one of them, is—

the full size of a large fist.

Since this window was not made by human hands, it has significance only at this measure.

And this is the fist of Ben Batiah.

A man who was fleshy and whose fist was large.

Rabbi Yosei said: And it is

that is, the measure of that fist is

like the large head of a person.

And if the window was

made

the window

by human hands

in order to bring light into the house—

they measure it as the full size of a large drill of the chamber.

For one was kept in the chamber with which they drilled what was needed for the repair of the Temple,

which is like a fundiyon,

the name of a coin,

the Italian one, and like a Neronian sela

of Nero the emperor. [And all these measures are one measure: the drill, the fundiyon, and the Neronian sela].