Bekhorot 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raised this question:

What is haris?

Rav Pappa said: The outer covering of the eye,

that is, the outer membrane of the eye, namely, the eyelid that covers the eye .

We learned in the Mishna:

a dak or tablul:

The Sages taught: If the dak is sunken,

causing the eye to be depressed,

it is a blemish.

But if it is

protruding, it is not a blemish 13 .

And we objected:

But it was taught to the contrary,

that if it is protruding it is a blemish, whereas if it is sunken it is not a blemish.

And we answer:

This is not difficult: This one is referring to the black, and that one to the white.

We initially understood the answer to mean that the distinction is between a blemish in the black part of the eye and one in the white part of the eye.

And we consequently challenged it:

But is there not

any

blemish in the white part

as is explicitly stated in the latter clause of the Mishna?!

And we answer:

Rather, this one is referring to a white dak, and that one to a black dak.

And both are referring to the black part of the eye.

As Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Rabbi Yoshiyya of Usha related to me: A sunken black dak is not a blemish; if it is protruding, it is a blemish.

Thus, a distinction was made between a dak that is black and a dak that is white. In the case of the black one, if it is sunken it is a blemish, but not if it is protruding; whereas in the case of the white one, the opposite is true.

And your mnemonic is: barka —

it is the name of a blemish that is white and protruding; likewise, a dak that is white and protruding is a blemish .

We learned in the Mishna:

a halazon, a snake, and a grape:

They raised a dilemma:

Is this what the Mishna is saying —

“a halazon, which is a snake”?

Or perhaps —

“a halazon, or a snake”?

Come and hear: Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar related to me: An old man

who was a kohen

lived in our neighborhood, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben

Lekonya was his name. I had never passed before him,

because he was the leading sage of the generation.

Once I passed before him. He said to me: Sit, my son, sit.

He had a firstborn animal that had a halazon in its eyes.

He said to me:

“This halazon is a permanent blemish, for which it may be slaughtered. And this is the snake mentioned by the Sages.”

And although they said: A person may not examine blemishes in his own animals, nevertheless, he was teaching his students the halakha

concerning a permanent blemish,

and

the

students were to examine

it and permit the animal on the basis of his ruling. Therefore, he invited me to sit beside him so that he could permit the animal for him.

And we objected:

Is that so? But Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: Any Torah scholar who rules a halakha and comes

with a new ruling that he had not heard from anyone else,

if, before

the

case

came

before him, he had already stated it, we heed him

and act on his ruling.

But if not, we do not heed him,

when the ruling concerns him personally, lest, once the case came before him, he imagined that this was what he had received from his teacher. Why, then, did they heed this old man here?

And we answer:

He too,

Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei,

had already been issuing rulings previously.

On an earlier occasion, before the incident involving his firstborn, he had ruled that this was a permanent blemish.

We learned in the Mishna:

What is a tablul? A white spot that interrupts the iris:

And we say:

The Mishna,

which states that there is no blemish in the white part of the eye,

is according to whom —

it is according to Rabbi Yosei.

As it was taught in a beraita: If the white enters the black, or the black enters the white, it is a blemish. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: If the white enters the black, it is a blemish. If the black enters the white, it is not a blemish, because there are no blemishes

of the eye

in the white part

but only in the black part.

Rav said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei?

As it is written: “He went astray because of the milk of their eyes,”

meaning that a wicked person turned to a corrupt way because of the excessive fat in his eye. The fat of the eye is its white part; thus,

“the fat of the eye”

is

called

the white part, which is called only “the fat of the eye.” But

“their eyes”

is not ordinarily called

the white part, since an eye without qualification means the black part of it.

And as for Rabbi Meir,

who disqualifies the animal even when the black enters the white,

what is his reason?

Rava said: What

is the

meaning of the expression

“tablul”?

Something that confuses the eyes,

as it mixes the black and the white. And even when the black enters the white, they are mixed together.

Mishna:

Here the Mishna teaches additional blemishes of the eye.

A ḥorvar,

a disease of the eye resembling white drops.

And watery eyes,

when the eye constantly secretes fluid —

when they are permanent,

that is, when the ḥorvar or the watery condition remains permanently in the eye — it is a blemish.

What is a permanent ḥorvar?

Any case in which the ḥorvar remained in the eye for

eighty days.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: It is examined,

the firstborn animal that has a ḥorvar in its eye,

three times during the eighty days.

That is, every twenty-seven days. If on the twenty-seventh day the ḥorvar is no longer found in it, then even if it returns afterward, it is not a permanent blemish until it remains for twenty consecutive days. And if it was not examined three times, then even if it is found in the eye on the eightieth day, it is not a blemish, as perhaps it disappeared and returned in the interim.

And what is a permanent watery condition?

How do we know that the watery condition is permanent?

The animal is fed food [as will be explained] as a remedy, and it is examined; if it is not cured, it is a permanent blemish.

How so?

It ate

straw and fodder as a remedy,

fresh

that grows in the month of Nisan,

and dry

that grows in Tishrei —

rain-fed,

that is, the straw and fodder grew in a field supplied by rainwater, and the animal ate both of them together.

Or

it ate them together,

fresh and dry —

from an irrigated field,

that is, they grew in a field that requires irrigation.

If this did not cure it, it is a permanent blemish .

But if

it ate the dry food and afterward ate the fresh food,

and was not cured,

it is not a blemish.

That is, it is not certain that this is a permanent blemish, because this is not the manner of its cure,

until it eats the dry food after the fresh food

and is not cured.

Gemara:

The Mishna,

which states that a permanent ḥorvar is one that lasts eighty days,

is according to whom —

it is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

As it was taught in a beraita: A permanent ḥorvar lasts forty days, and a permanent watery condition lasts eighty days; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Yehuda says: A permanent ḥorvar lasts eighty days.

And what is a permanent watery condition?

It ate fresh and

afterward

dry food from a rain-fed field,

which is a field that does not require irrigation, and it was not cured; this is a permanent blemish.

But not fresh and dry food from an irrigated field,

or if it ate dry food and afterward ate the fresh food,

as in all these cases, even if it was not cured,

it is not a blemish until it eats the dry food after the fresh food.

And it remains in this condition for three months,

and it is examined in this manner for three months.

And we challenge this: How can the Mishna be established as following Rabbi Yehuda?

But did we not learn both cases!

For in the Mishna we learned that whether it ate

fresh and dry food

from a

rain-fed

field, or whether it ate

fresh and dry food from an irrigated field,

the cases are equivalent: If it ate them together, this is not a valid examination, whereas if it ate the dry food after the fresh food, it is a valid examination. Rabbi Yehuda, however, distinguishes between food from a rain-fed field, which is effective, and food from an irrigated field, which is not effective.

And we answer: The Mishna is

deficient, and this is what it teaches:

If it ate fresh and

afterward

dry food from

a

rain-fed field, it is a blemish.

But if it ate food from an

irrigated field, it is not a blemish.

And

if it ate food from a

rain-fed field as well,

if

it ate the dry food and afterward ate the fresh food, it is not a blemish.

Until it eats the dry food after the fresh food.

And concerning that which the beraita teaches,

“and it remains in this condition for three months,”

we raise the following question:

Is that so? But Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said:

That which grows in

Adar and

in

Nisan

is

fresh.

Whereas that which grows in

Elul and

in

Tishrei

is

dry.

And since the animal must eat both fresh and dry food, it follows that it is examined over four months, not three!?

And we answer:

Say instead: Adar and half of Nisan —

fresh.

Elul and half of Tishrei —

dry.

These amount to three months.

They raised a dilemma:

Concerning the statement in the Mishna that the animal is examined by feeding it fresh and dry food — when must it eat them?

Is it that

fresh

must be fed during the fresh season,

that is, fodder that grows in Adar and Nisan is fed to it in Adar and Nisan,

and dry

during the dry season,

that which grows in Elul and Tishrei is fed to it in Elul and Tishrei; and we do not slaughter it until the entire summer has passed over it and it has been examined with both types of food?

Or perhaps: Fresh and dry —

during the fresh season,

in that during the days of Nisan it eats also the dry food that grew in Tishrei, and this constitutes a valid examination. And the three months mentioned are the fruits that grow during a period of three months.

Come and hear: Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said: Adar and Nisan are fresh; Elul and Tishrei are dry.

This indicates that each type is eaten in its own season.

And we reject this:

Perhaps we feed it the produce of Elul and Tishrei in Adar and Nisan.

And in fact, it eats everything during a single period.

And we raise the question:

And how much do we feed it

each day?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Aruva: The measure of a dried fig.

Ulla said: In the West they raised the following question:

Does this statement that they give it

the measure of a dried fig

of the medicinal food

at the first meal

that it eats each day?