Bekhorot 40a — the Talmud in English

As we learned: two cubits,

two sticks whose length was a cubit.

were in the Shushan the capital,

a platform made over the eastern gate that was called Shushan the capital . One cubit

one

was

on the northeastern corner. And one

was

on the southeastern corner.

And the cubit

that was on the northeastern corner was greater than

the cubit

of Moses,

which was six handbreadths,

by half a finger.

And

the cubit

that was on the southeastern corner was greater than it by half a finger. It follows that

the second

was greater than

that of

Moses by a finger.

And why were one large and one small?

And would it not have sufficed for them to use Moses’ cubit, which was smaller than both? [Rashi, Pesahim 86a]?

Because

craftsmen would take

material from consecrated property

with

the

small cubit and return it with

the

large cubit,

so that

they would not come to sacrilege.

Why do I need

two large cubits that were there

?

One

for work

of silver and gold,

which had an addition of half a finger, so that the craftsmen would not suffer a great loss

. And one

which had an addition of a finger for the work

of building.

And concerning that additional finger of the true building-measure of consecrated property, they said that its measure is one-fourth of a person’s handbreadth.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak, and some say Rav Huna bar Natan, said:

the measure of a finger was stated in relation

to that which we learned

here concerning blemishes:

or there is flesh between one vertebra and another filling a finger:

Mishna:

He has no testicles, or he has only one testicle

is a blemish.

Rabbi Ishmael says: If he has two scrotums [one scrotum divided in two, with its division discernible from outside], it is known that he

one scrotum divided into two, with the division visible from the outside], it is known that

has two testicles

and there is no blemish here.

But if

he has only one scrotum—

he has only one testicle

and it is a blemish.

Rabbi Akiva says:

When he has two scrotums, we do not say that it is known that he has two testicles. Rather,

they seat him

the firstborn

on his buttocks,

on his rear,

and press,

and feel the scrotum and the flanks.

If there is a testicle there

additional,

it will eventually emerge.

And if it does not emerge, it is a blemish.

An incident occurred: He pressed it and it did not emerge, and he was slaughtered, and it was found

the testicle

attached to the flanks—

and Rabbi Akiva permitted it,

for in any event it is a blemish, since it did not emerge through pressing, the testicle was not in its place.

And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited it,

since the testicle was found.

Gemara:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: Why was it necessary to teach, “He has no testicles”? Let it teach only the law of “he has only one testicle,” and I would reason:

Now, if when he has only one testicle you say that it is a blemish, when he has none, is it necessary to say so?!

And we explain:

Something is missing, and this is what it teaches: He does not have two testicles in two scrotums, but rather in one scrotum. Alternatively,

he has

two scrotums and one testicle; this is a blemish.

Rabbi Ishmael says: If he has two scrotums, it is known that he has two testicles.

And Rabbi Ishmael concedes that if

he has only one scrotum, it is considered as though he has only one testicle.

And Rabbi Akiva came to say: “

It is known

that he has two testicles”

we do not say. Rather, he is seated on his buttocks, and he is pressed,

felt,

and if there is a testicle there, it will eventually emerge.

And if it does not emerge, it is a blemish.

We learned in the Mishna:

And an incident occurred in which he pressed it and it did not emerge.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yose said: An incident occurred in Piran

the name of the village

of the house of Menahem, in which he pressed it and it did not emerge. And it was slaughtered, and it was found attached to the flanks. And Rabbi Akiva permitted it,

because it was not found in its place.

And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri prohibited it,

since it was found.

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: Until when will you destroy the property of Israel?

For since you prohibit it from being eaten outside, it has no remedy other than burial.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: Until when will you feed Israelites carrion?

And we wondered:

Carrion?

But

did they not slaughter it?

Rather,

perhaps you will say

animals with fatal defects.

But

this is not the prohibition of animals with fatal defects.

Rather,

this is what Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Akiva:

Until when will you feed Israelites consecrated animals outside

when there is no blemish in this firstborn, and it retains its sanctity?

Mishna:

A firstborn that is

the possessor of five legs, or that has only three

legs.

And whose legs are cloven-hoofless

round

like those of a donkey. And the shakul and the kisul.

What is a shakul?

One whose thigh has become dislocated

from its place of attachment,

and this is when its tendon has not decayed, meaning that the sinew attached at its end has not rotted . For if its tendon has decayed, it is an animal with a fatal defect.

For if the tendon has decayed, it is an animal with a fatal defect.

And what is a kisul,

what is it?

One of whose thighs is higher than the other,

for the place of attachment of the thigh, called “buka de-atma,” has risen higher toward the back than the corresponding place of the other thigh.

And this is what is stated in the Torah: “And an ox or a sheep that is sarua and kalut.” “Sarua” is a limb larger than its fellow. “And kalut” means that its hooves are cloven-hoofless. Rashi, Leviticus 22:23.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said: They taught

that one who possesses five or three legs is only a blemish and is not an animal with a fatal defect

when the deficiency or excess is in the hand,

that is, in its front legs.

But

if the change is

in the leg, it is also an animal with a fatal defect.

And even when it is an extra leg.

And the reason is:

For every extra limb

every limb that is additional to what it ought to be

is considered like one that has been removed.

And it follows that the extra leg is as though it had caused one of the two legs to be missing. [And in an animal whose thigh and its cavity were removed, it is carrion. And if the entire leg came out of its place of attachment, it is an animal with a fatal defect].

Rav Pappa said:

This that we learned: “And whose legs are cloven-hoofless like those of a donkey” is a blemish—

Do not say that they are round and not split,

its hooves, in which case they resemble a donkey’s legs in every respect.

Rather, once they are round,

and in this respect resemble a donkey, it is a blemish,

even though they are split 26.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the shakul and the kisul, etc.

The Sages taught: What is a kisul? And what is a shakul?

A shakul: one whose thigh has become dislocated.

A kisul: one of whose legs is inside the flank, and one of whose legs is upon the flank.

It is the way of an animal that the thigh is attached to the tail near the flanks, and not above the flanks. And this thigh is upon the flank.

A tannay taught: The sarua and the kalut.

The sarua: one whose thigh has been stretched out.

One of whose thighs is larger than its fellow.

The kalut: one whose legs are cloven-hoofless,

round,

like those of a donkey and like those of a horse.

Mishna:

The bone of his hand was broken,

his front leg,

and the bone of his leg

the rear one;

even though

the fracture

is not discernible,

it is not a blemish.

These blemishes,

the bone of his hand was broken and the bone of his leg,

Ila counted at Yavne, and the Sages agreed with him 27.

And he added three more

blemishes

.

They said to him: We have heard only these

the blemishes mentioned in this chapter.

And these are the blemishes that Ila added:

One whose eyeball is round like that of a human,

for it is not usual for an animal’s eyeball to be round like a human’s.

And whose mouth resembles that of a pig,

for its upper lip projects beyond the lower one.

And one whose majority of the speaking part of his tongue has been removed,

the majority of the portion of the tongue that is not attached to its palate, which in a human is called “the speaking part.”

The court after them said: This is a blemish. [In the Mishna in the editions of the Mishnayot the reading is: “These are blemishes,” referring to all those that Ila added. See Hazon Ish].

In the version found in the printed Mishna, the wording is: “These are blemishes,” referring to all those added by Ayla. See Ḥazon Ish.]

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The bone of his hand and the bone of his leg were broken, even though it is not discernible.

And we objected:

If it is not discernible, can it be a blemish?

Rav Pappa said: It is not discernible on account of itself,

for the fracture is not visible.

But it is discernible on account of its function.

For he limps in his walking. And it calls the walking a function, for this is its function.

We learned in the Mishna:

These blemishes Ila counted

at Yavne: one whose eyeball is round like that of a human.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: Since it is a blemish,

does this mean that it is not its ordinary manner

for an animal’s eyeball to be round like a human’s?

And we raise a contradiction:

A woman

who miscarries

a fetus whose form is like a

species of animal, wild beast, or bird, whether impure or pure,

if

it is male

the fetus,

she shall sit for a male,

as though she had given birth to a male human fetus: seven days of impurity and thirty-three days of purity. And

if it is female

the fetus,

she shall sit

for

a female,

fourteen days of impurity and sixty-six days of purity.

And if

it is not known

whether it is male or female,

she shall sit for a male and for a female,

for because of the doubt she shall act stringently: she shall sit fourteen days of impurity as for a female, and two weeks of days of purity as for a male,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir

who says that a woman who gives birth to a species of animal, wild beast, or bird is impure with the impurity of childbirth as with a proper fetus?

Since its eyeball is round like that of a human.

And since it resembles a human, she is impure with the impurity of childbirth. And it is thereby proven that it is usual for an animal’s eyeball to be like a human’s.

And this is difficult with what Ila said in our Mishna.

Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult.

This one concerns the black part,

the black part of the eye, which is ordinarily like a human’s.

That one concerns the socket,

the entire place in which the eye is set, which is not ordinarily like a human’s.

We learned in the Mishna:

And whose mouth resembles that of a pig.

Rav Pappa said: Do not say

that we require it to resemble a pig completely,

that is pointed

whose mouth is round

and spread,

whose upper lip and upper cheeks project beyond the lower ones.

Rather, once it is spread,

it is a blemish

even though it is not pointed 28.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one whose majority of the speaking part of his tongue has been removed.

Whose Mishna is this?—

It is Rabbi Judah’s.

For it was taught in a beraita: And one whose majority of the tongue has been removed

is a blemish.

Rabbi Judah says:

This “majority of the tongue”—

the majority of the speaking part of his tongue:

Mishna:

An incident in which

there was

the lower jaw projecting beyond the upper one. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asked the Sages. And they said: This is a blemish.

Gemara:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What was the teaching?

And we answer:

Because we learned

in the preceding Mishna

“whose mouth resembles that of a pig”

and the Sages disagree with Ila

who said that it is a blemish.

And we say: When the Sages disagree with Rabbi Ila,

who say, “We have heard only these,”

when his upper lip projects beyond the lower one. But

when the

lower one projects beyond the upper one

the Sages agree that

this is indeed a blemish.