Bekhorot 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

And we infer: That they were

uprooted

—yes; but if they were damaged or worn away, no.

Since this is not visible, why do we not include it by means of “any bad blemish”?

And we answer:

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

For a “bad blemish” applies only to a visible blemish, by which the animal is disgraced.

We further raise an objection:

If so, a transient blemish as well

should be included by means of “any bad blemish.”

Why, then, did we learn:

its ear was damaged in the cartilage,

but not in the skin?

And we answer:

A transient blemish—it is a logical inference

that it is not a blemish in a firstborn animal. For

now, we do not redeem upon its account

pesa’lei ha-mukdashin, consecrated animals that developed a blemish,

shall we slaughter upon its account

a firstborn animal outside the Temple?

As it was taught:

It is written,

“And if any impure animal, from which they may not offer a sacrifice to the Lord,

he shall present the animal before the priest, and the priest shall assess it”

the verse is speaking of consecrated animals with blemishes that were redeemed.

For here the verse teaches that a consecrated animal that developed a blemish is to be redeemed.

You say that it is speaking of consecrated animals with blemishes that were redeemed; but perhaps the verse is speaking only of an actually impure animal

the verse is speaking?

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 is already stated.

How, then, do I understand “And if any impure animal”

“And if it is any impure animal”

“from which they may not offer a sacrifice to the Lord”?

You must say: This is a consecrated animal with a blemish that was redeemed.

Could it be redeemed

also

because of a transient blemish?

The verse states: “from which they may not offer a sacrifice to the Lord.”

This implies specifically an animal

that may not be offered at all. This excludes this one,

an animal with a transient blemish,

which may not be offered today, but may be offered tomorrow!

Therefore, since we do not redeem an animal because of a transient blemish, all the more so we may not slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple because of it.

Alternatively, if you wish, say:

Why do we not include a transient blemish?

If so—

“lame

and

blind”

why do I need them?

Rather, infer from this that the Merciful One wrote them for this purpose: to teach that the animal may be slaughtered only because of a permanent blemish, like “lame or blind.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“It was split, even though nothing is missing”:

The Sages taught: The measure for a split

is

any amount. A damaged edge, whether

it was made

by human hands, or whether

it was made

by Heaven,

meaning that the animal was born with it.

And we infer: Since it teaches with regard to a damaged edge that it may be either by human hands or by Heaven,

by inference, a split caused by Heaven is not included.

And what is the difference?

And we answer:

Rather, this is what it teaches: The measure for a split is any amount, and a split or a damaged edge may be either by Heaven or by human hands.

And what is the measure of a damaged edge? Enough that a fingernail catches on it.

If one passes a fingernail over it, the fingernail is arrested by the damaged edge—like the examination of a knife.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If it was pierced to the size of a vetch”:

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

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The size of a lentil.

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

Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: It is dry only once it crumbles.

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

We inquire about this:

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

of difference between them.

And we answer:

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

One says the measure is that of a vetch, and the other says the measure is that of a lentil. A vetch is only slightly larger than a lentil.

We inquire about this:

And

if

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the size of a lentil disqualifies it, but anything smaller than the size of a lentil does not?!

And we raise a contradiction:

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

“The awl”—I have only the awl; from where do I include a pointed splinter

a sharpened wooden stick,

a thorn

a barb,

a needle, a drill, and a stylus

an iron implement with which one pierces?

The verse states: “You shall take”—

to include anything that can be taken in the hand; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi says: “The awl”—

just as an awl is specifically made of metal, so too, anything made of metal.

Rabbi expounds this verse by means of a generalization, specification, and generalization: just as the specification is of metal, so too, anything of metal. Rabbi Yosei expounds it by means of an amplification, limitation, and amplification, and thus includes everything.

And the latter clause teaches

of the beraita:

Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished

a great man named Yudan,

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

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

And the Sages say:

[They disagreed with Yudan the Distinguished, and their proof is that we have an established ruling:]

A Hebrew slave who is a kohen 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 status held by his family.

And if you say that they pierced the lobe, how could a Hebrew slave who is a kohen become blemished?

For he does not become blemished there; why, then, should the kohen not be pierced?

Here,

you may learn from this that they pierce

only at the height of the ear

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

This is difficult, for Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that the piercing is done with a needle, which makes a hole smaller than the size of a lentil, and the kohen becomes blemished through this hole, whereas here Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that it is a blemish only when it is the size of a lentil?

And we answer:

Rav Hana bar Ketina said: It is not difficult. Here,

where a measure the size of a lentil is required, it is

in order to slaughter

the firstborn animal outside the Temple.

Here,

with regard to the piercing, where a smaller measure suffices, it is

in order to disqualify

the kohen from service; and the same applies to disqualifying the firstborn animal from being offered on the altar, but it does not suffice for slaughtering it outside the Temple. There are many blemishes that disqualify an animal from being offered, yet one may not slaughter the animal because of them outside the Temple.

We explain:

What is a vetch? Rav Sheshet said: hinda

for in his locale they called a vetch “hinda.”

Rav Hoshaya asked Rav Huna the Great:

Regarding what we said, that the measure of “pierced” is the size of a vetch, does this refer to

a vetch that stands

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

or to a vetch that enters and emerges

and thus the hole is wider, and only a hole of this size constitutes a blemish?

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

The bones of a corpse do not impart ritual impurity through a tent unless they constitute the majority of the corpse’s structure, or the majority of its bones, or a quarter-kav. The exceptions are the spinal column and the skull, which, when intact, impart impurity through a tent independently. But if they are missing part, they impart impurity only through contact and carrying, like any bone that contains a measure the size of a barley-grain.

For we learned

in Oholot:

The spinal column and the skull that are missing

do not impart impurity through a tent.

And how much must be missing from the spinal column

so that it is no longer called an “intact spinal column” and no longer imparts impurity through a tent?

Beit Shammai say:

When

two vertebrae are missing.

And Beit Hillel say: One vertebra.

And with regard to the skull,

how much must be missing?

Beit Shammai say: The size of a drill,

and the Gemara will explain this below.

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

And Rav Hisda sat and posed the question:

Regarding what Beit Hillel said,

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

is this measure?

And Rav Taḥlifa bar Avudimi said to him: This is what Shmuel said:

Its measure is that an area the size of

a sela is missing.

And it was stated: Rav Safra said: He conveyed a

tradition

to him.

For Shmuel’s statement was an amoraic teaching.

And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: He conveyed a

baraita

to him.

For Shmuel’s statement was a beraita.

And your mnemonic,

so that you will know who used the expression “tradition” and who used the expression “baraita,” is:

“Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught.”

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda frequently used the expression “taught.” From this you know that here, too, he was the one who said in Shmuel’s name: “It is a baraita.”

And he said to him,

Rav Hisda to Rav Taḥlifa:

If so,

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

you have made the statements of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel identical

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

For we learned

in tractate Kelim:

An opening

a window

that was not made by human hands,

such as when part of the wall separating one house from another broke,

its measure,

for transmitting impurity from one house to the other if there is a corpse in one of them, is

the size of the large fist.

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

And this is the fist of Ben Battiaḥ.

He was a corpulent man, and his 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 opening was made

the opening

by human hands

in order to bring light into the house,

its measure is assessed as the size of a large chamber drill.

It was kept in the chamber for drilling whatever was needed for the repair of the Temple,

which is the size of a fundion,

the name of a coin,

the Italian coin, and the size of a Neronian sela

belonging to Nero Caesar. [All these measures are identical: the drill, the fundion, and the Neronian sela.]