Bekhorot 38b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we were occupied with it:

What is “haris”?

Rav Pappa said: The outer covering of the eye,

the outer row of the eye, that is, the eyelid covering the eye.

We learned in the Mishna:

a film and a spot:

The Sages taught: A sunken film,

which sinks the eye,

is a blemish.

But if it is

protruding, it is not a blemish 13 .

And we challenge this:

But it was taught oppositely,

that a protruding one is a blemish, whereas a sunken one is not a blemish.

And we answer:

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

And we initially understood that the answerer’s intention was to distinguish between the black in the eye and the white in the eye.

And we raised an objection to this:

But there are

no

blemishes in the white

at all, as is explicit in the final clause of our Mishna!?

And we answer:

Rather, this one refers to a white film, and that one to a black film.

And both of them are in the black of the eye.

For Rabba bar bar Hana said: Rabbi Josiah from Usha related to me: A sunken black film is not a blemish; a protruding one is a blemish.

Thus, they distinguished between a “film” that is black and a “film” that is white: with the black one, the sunken one is a blemish and not the protruding one; with the white one, it is the opposite.

And your mnemonic is: barka—

it is the name of a blemish that is white and protruding, and likewise a “film” that is white and protruding is a blemish.

We learned in the Mishna:

a snail, a snake, and a grape:

They raised a dilemma before them:

does this mean:

“A snail”—that is a snake?

Or perhaps it means:

“A snail, or a snake.”

Come and hear: For Rabba bar bar Hana said: Rabbi Jonathan ben Eleazar related to me: An old man

who was a kohen

was in our neighborhood, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben

Lekonia was his name. And never in my life had I passed before him,

for he was the great man of the generation.

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

And he had a firstborn animal that had a snail in its eyes.

He said to me:

“This snail is a permanent blemish, for which it may be slaughtered. And this is the snake that the Sages spoke of.”

And although they said: A person does not see blemishes in his own possession, nevertheless, he teaches a ruling to students

concerning a blemish that is permanent,

a

nd

the students see

it and permit it on the basis of his ruling; therefore, they invited him to sit beside him so that he would permit it for him.

And we challenge this:

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

with a new ruling that we have not heard from another—

if before

the

case

came

before him he stated it, we heed him

and act in accordance with his ruling.

But if not, we do not heed him,

when the ruling concerns him, lest now, when the case came before him, it seemed to him that he had received this from his teacher. And this is difficult: Why did they heed this old man here?

And we answer:

He too,

Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei,

had been teaching and issuing rulings from the outset.

For on another occasion, before a case occurred with his firstborn animal, he had ruled that it was a permanent blemish.

We learned in the Mishna:

What is a spot? A white [spot] interrupting the black:

And we say:

Our Mishna,

which teaches that there is no blemish in the white—

who is it?

It is Rabbi Yosei.

For it was taught: A white [spot] that enters the black, or a black [spot] that enters the white, is a blemish; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: A white [spot] that enters the black is a blemish; a black [spot] that enters the white is not a blemish. For there are no blemishes

of the eye

in the white

but only in the black.

Rav said: What is Rabbi Yosei’s reason?

As it is written: “It came forth from the fat of their eyes”—

the wicked person went forth into bad culture on account of the abundance of fat in his eye. And the fat of the eye is the white in it; thus,

“the fat of the eye”

is

called

the white, which is called only “the fat of the eye,” whereas

“their eyes”

is not called so without qualification,

for an eye without qualification means the black in it.

And Rabbi Meir,

who invalidates even when the black enters the white—

what is his reason?

Rava said: What

is

the wording

“a spot”?

Something that confuses the eyes,

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

Mishna:

And here the Mishna teaches additional blemishes in the eye.

A white spot,

a disease in the eye resembling white drops.

And watery discharge,

where his eye constantly lets out water—

when they are permanent,

when they are fixed in the eye—the white spot or the watery discharge—this is a blemish.

What is a permanent white spot?

Any case in which the white spot remains in the eye

for eighty days.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: They examine it,

the firstborn animal that has a white spot in its eye,

three times within eighty days.

That is, every twenty-seven days. If on the twenty-seventh day the white spot is not found in it, then even if it returns afterward, it is not a permanent blemish until it remains for twenty consecutive days. And if they did not examine it three times, then even if it is found in it on the eightieth day, it is not a blemish, for perhaps in the meantime it disappeared and returned.

And what are permanent watery discharges?

How do we know that the watery discharges are permanent?

They feed it food [as will be explained] for healing, and examine it: if it is not healed, this is a permanent blemish.

How?

If it ate

straw and fodder for healing,

moist

that grew in the month of Nisan,

and dry

that grew in Tishrei—

from rain,

for the straw and fodder grew in a field supplied by rainwater, and it ate from both of them together.

Or

it ate together

moist and dry—

from an irrigated field,

which grew in a field that requires irrigation.

If this did not benefit it by healing it, this is a permanent blemish.

But if

it ate the dry and afterward ate the moist,

and was not healed—

it is not a blemish.

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

until it eats the dry after the moist

and is not healed.

Gemara:

Our Mishna,

which teaches that a permanent white spot lasts eighty days—

who is it?

It is Rabbi Judah.

For it was taught: A permanent white spot lasts forty days, and permanent watery discharges last eighty days; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Judah says: A permanent white spot lasts eighty days.

And what are permanent watery discharges:

If it ate moist and

afterward

dry from a field dependent on rainfall,

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

But not moist and dry from an irrigated field,

or if it ate dry and afterward ate the moist,

for in all these cases, even if it was not healed,

it is not a blemish until it eats the dry after the moist.

And it remains so for three months,

and we examine it in this manner for three months.

And we challenge this: How can he establish our Mishna as following Rabbi Judah?

But we learned both of them!

For in our Mishna we learned that whether it ate

moist and dry

from a field

dependent on rainfall

or whether it ate

moist and dry from an irrigated field,

they are equal: if it ate them together, this is not an examination, but if it ate the dry after the moist, it is an examination; whereas Rabbi Judah distinguishes between a field dependent on rainfall, in which it is effective, and an irrigated field, in which it is not effective.

And we answer: Our Mishna

is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

If it ate moist and

afterward

dry from

a field of

rainfall, it is a blemish.

But if it ate from an

irrigated field, it is not a blemish.

And

if it ate from a field

of rainfall as well,

if

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

Until it eats the dry after the moist.

And concerning what is taught in the beraita,

“And it remains so for three months,”

we were occupied with it:

Is that so? But Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rav Isaac bar Ashian:

that which grows in

Adar and

in

Nisan

is

moist.

Whereas that which grows in

Elul and

in

Tishrei

is

dry.

And since it must eat both moist and dry, it follows that we examine it over four months, not three!?

And we answer:

Say: Adar and half of Nisan—

moist.

Elul and half of Tishrei—

dry.

For these are three months.

They raised a dilemma before them:

concerning that which we say in the Mishna, that they examine it by means of eating moist and dry—when must it eat them?

Is

moist—

during the time of the moist,

that is, fodder growing in Adar and Nisan, they feed it to it in Adar and Nisan;

and dry—

during the time of the dry,

which grows in Elul and Tishrei, they feed it to it in Elul and Tishrei, and they do not slaughter it until all the days of summer have passed over it and it has been examined with both.

Or perhaps: Moist and dry—

during the time of the moist,

for during the days of Nisan it eats also the dry that grew in Tishrei, and through this it is an examination. And that which is taught, “three months,” refers to produce growing during a period of three months.

Come and hear: For Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Isaac bar Ashian said: Adar and Nisan are moist; Elul and Tishrei are dry.

It indicates that each one is eaten in its own time.

And we reject this:

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

And in fact, it eats everything at one time.

And we were occupied with it:

And how much do they feed it

each day?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Phinehas ben Aruva: The measure of a dried fig.

Ulla said: They asked in the West:

Does that which they say, “the measure of a dried fig,” mean that they give it

the measure of a dried fig

of the remedy

at the first meal

that it eats each day?