Bekhorot 40a (מ.) — the Talmud in English

As we learned: Two cubits,

two rods, each one cubit long.

were in the Shushan the capital,

a gallery constructed over the eastern gate, which was called Shushan the capital. One cubit

one

was

at the northeastern corner. And one

was

at the southeastern corner.

And the cubit

at the northeastern corner was larger than

the cubit

of Moses,

which was six handbreadths,

by half a fingerbreadth. And

the cubit

at the southeastern corner

was larger than it by half a fingerbreadth. It follows that

the second one

was larger than

that of

Moses by a fingerbreadth.

And why were one large and one small?

Why did they not suffice with the cubit of Moses, which was smaller than both of them? [Rashi, Pesahim 86a]

Because

the artisans would take

material from consecrated property

with

the

smaller cubit and return it with

the

larger cubit,

in order

that they should not come to misuse consecrated property.

Why do I need

two large cubits that were there

?

One

for work

with silver and gold,

which was enlarged by half a fingerbreadth so that the artisans would not suffer a considerable loss

. And one

which was enlarged by a full fingerbreadth for work

in construction.

And concerning that fingerbreadth of additional measure for the construction of consecrated property, they said that its measure is one-fourth of a person’s handbreadth.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and some say Rav Huna bar Natan, said:

the measure of a fingerbreadth was stated with reference

to that which we learned

here with regard to blemishes:

or there is flesh between one vertebra and another measuring a full fingerbreadth:

Mishna:

If it has no testicles, or if it has only one testicle,

it is a blemish.

Rabbi Yishmael says: If it has two scrotums, [one scrotum divided into two, with its division discernible from the outside,]

it is certain that it

has two testicles

and this is not a blemish.

But if

it has only one scrotum—

it has only one testicle

and it is a blemish.

Rabbi Akiva says: If it has two scrotums, it cannot be said that it is certain that it has two testicles. Rather,

he

they seat it

the firstborn animal

on its haunches,

on its hindquarters,

and press

and palpate the scrotum and the flanks.

If there is a testicle

additional to the one already apparent,

it will eventually emerge.

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

An incident occurred in which they pressed it but it did not emerge, and it was slaughtered, and it was found that

the testicle

was attached to the flanks—

and Rabbi Akiva permitted it,

as it was nevertheless a blemish, since it did not emerge through pressing, it follows that the testicle was not in its proper place.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited it,

since the testicle was found.

Gemara:

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

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

And we explain:

The Mishna is incomplete, and this is what it teaches: If it does not have two testicles in two scrotums, but rather in one scrotum. Alternatively,

if it has

two scrotums and one testicle, this is a blemish.

Rabbi Yishmael says: If it has two scrotums, it is certain that it has two testicles.

And Rabbi Yishmael concedes that if

it has only one scrotum, it is considered as one that has only one testicle.

And Rabbi Akiva came to say: “

It is certain

that it has two testicles”

cannot be said. Rather, seat it on its haunches and press it,

palpating it;

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 they pressed it but it did not emerge.

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

the name of the village,

which belonged to the house of Menaḥem, in which they pressed it but it did not emerge. It was slaughtered, and it was found attached to the flanks. And Rabbi Akiva permitted it,

because it was not found in its proper place.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited it,

since it was found.

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: How long will you continue to destroy the property of the Jewish people?

For once you prohibit them from eating it outside, it has no remedy other than burial.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: How long will you continue to feed carcasses to the Jewish people?

And we wonder:

Carcasses?

Is it not the case that

it was slaughtered by proper slaughter?

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the reference is to

animals with a fatal defect.

But

this is not a prohibition involving a fatal defect.

Rather,

this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Akiva:

How long will you feed the Jewish people sacrificial animals outside

when this firstborn animal does not have a blemish and remains in its state of sanctity?

Mishna:

A firstborn animal that is

the possessor of five legs, or that has only three

legs,

or whose legs are cloven-hoofed

rounded

like those of a donkey. And one that is shaḥul or kasul.

What is shaḥul?

One whose thigh has become dislocated

from its place of attachment, provided that the tendon has not decayed—that is, the tendon attached at its head has not rotted.

For if the tendon has decayed, the animal has a fatal defect.

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

And what is kasul,

what is it?

One of whose thighs is higher than the other,

meaning that the place where the thigh is attached, called “the head of the thighbone,” is raised higher on the back than the corresponding place on the other thigh.

And this is what is stated in the Torah: “And an ox or a sheep that has a limb longer than the other or has cloven hooves.” “A limb longer than the other” means that one limb is larger than its counterpart. “And has cloven hooves” means that its hooves are cloven. Rashi, Leviticus 22:23.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said: They taught

that an animal with five or three legs is merely a blemish and does not have a fatal defect

only when the deficiency or addition is in the foreleg,

that is, in its front legs.

But

if the change is

in a hind leg, it also has a fatal defect.

And this is so even in the case of an additional hind leg.

And the reason is:

Every additional limb

every limb in excess of what it should have

is considered as though it were missing.

It follows that the additional leg is as though it caused one of the two legs to be missing. [In an animal whose thigh and its cavity were removed, it is a carcass. And if the entire leg became detached from its place of attachment, it has a fatal defect.]

Rav Pappa said:

This statement that we learned in the Mishna, “and whose legs are cloven-hoofed like those of a donkey,” indicates that it is a blemish.

Do not say that this is so only when they are rounded and not split,

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

Rather, once they are rounded,

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

even though they are split 26.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one that is shaḥul or kasul, etc.

The Sages taught: What is kasul, and what is shaḥul?

Shaḥul is one whose thigh has become dislocated.

Kasul is one whose one leg is inside the flank, and whose other leg is on top of the flank.

An animal’s normal anatomy is that the thigh is attached to the tail near the flanks, and not above the flanks. In this case, the thigh is on top of the flank.

The tanna taught: “The one with a limb longer than the other, and the cloven-hoofed one.”

The one with a limb longer than the other is one whose thigh protrudes.

One of whose thighs is larger than its counterpart.

The cloven-hoofed one is one whose legs are cloven,

rounded,

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

Mishna:

If the bone of its foreleg is broken,

its front leg,

or the bone of its hind leg,

then

even though

the fracture

is not discernible,

it is not a blemish.

These blemishes—

a broken bone of its foreleg or a broken bone of its hind leg—

Ayla listed at Yavneh, and the Sages acknowledged his ruling 27.

And he added three more

blemishes

.

They said to him: We have heard only of these,

the blemishes mentioned in this chapter.

And these are the blemishes that Ayla added:

That the globe of its eye is round like that of a human being,

as it is not usual for the globe of an animal’s eye to be round like that of a human being.

And that its mouth resembles that of a pig,

as its upper lip projects beyond the lower one.

And that most of the speaking part of its tongue has been removed,

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

The court that followed them said: This is a blemish. [In the Mishna as it appears in the standard editions: “These are blemishes,” referring to all those added by Ayla. See Ḥazon 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: “If the bone of its foreleg is broken, or the bone of its hind leg, even though it is not discernible.”

And we challenge this:

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

Rav Pappa said: It is not discernible by itself,

as the fracture cannot be seen.

But it is discernible through its function.

It limps when it walks. And it calls the walking “a function,” because this is its function.

We learned in the Mishna:

These blemishes Ayla listed

at Yavneh: that the globe of its eye is round like that of a human being.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this: Since it is a blemish,

does that mean that it is not its normal condition

for an animal’s eye to be round like that of a human being?

And we juxtapose it with the following:

A woman

who miscarries

a fetus whose form is that of a species of

animal, wild beast, or bird, whether non-kosher or kosher,

then

if it is male,

the fetus,

she observes the period prescribed for a male,

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

if it is female,

the fetus,

she observes

the period prescribed

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 observes the periods for both a male and a female,

as, due to the uncertainty, she acts stringently: she observes fourteen days of impurity as a female, and two weeks of purity as a male,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 though she had given birth to a fully formed child?

Since its eye is round like that of a human being.

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

And this presents a difficulty against what Ayla said in our Mishna.

Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult.

This statement is referring to the black part of the eye,

the part that is normally like that of a human being.

That statement is referring to the eye socket,

the entire place in which the eye is set, which is not normally like that of a human being.

We learned in the Mishna:

And that its mouth resembles that of a pig.

Rav Pappa said: Do not say

that we require it to resemble a pig completely,

both rounded

with a rounded mouth

and spread out,

with its upper lip and upper jaw extending beyond the lower ones.

Rather, once it is spread out,

it is a blemish

even though it is not rounded 28.

We learned in the Mishna:

And that most of the speaking part of its tongue has been removed.

Whose opinion is this Mishna?

It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

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

is a blemish.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

This expression, “the majority of the tongue,”

means the majority of the speaking part of its tongue:

Mishna:

An incident occurred in which

the

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

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

What does it teach?

And we answer:

Because we learned

in the preceding Mishna

“Its mouth resembles that of a pig,”

and the Sages disagree with Ayla

who says that it is a blemish.

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

saying, “We have heard only of these,”

it is when its upper lip projects beyond the lower one. But

when

the lower one projects beyond the upper one,

the Sages concede that

this is indeed a blemish.