Bekhorot 44a — the Talmud in English

They said to him: “You have gone too far!”

more than necessary; rather, ")

even though

it is not

sunk so deeply that

he applies eye-paint to both his eyes at once,

he is nevertheless a “harum” and is disqualified.

We learned in the Mishna:

his two eyes are above,

or

his two eyes are below:

And we raised the question about it:

What is meant by “his two eyes are above” and “his two eyes are below”? If you say that “his two eyes are above” means

this is

that he sees upward,

that his eyes stand in their proper places, but always look upward. And likewise,

“his two eyes are below”

means

that he sees

always

downward,

but they stand in their proper places.

And as for that which was taught:

“one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below,”

this means

that one of his eyes sees downward and one of his eyes sees upward.

If so, this is difficult, for

this is identical with “he sees the room and the upper story at once,”

and in the Mishna the case of one eye above and one eye below, and the case of seeing the room and the upper story, are counted as two blemishes, whereas they are in fact the same thing.

And we answer:

rather,

this is the explanation of the Mishna:

“his two eyes are above”

means

that they stand above,

that they stand at the height of the forehead, unlike those of other people.

“his two eyes are below,” that they stand below,

their place in relation to that of other people.

“One of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below”: one of his eyes stands above and one of his eyes stands below.

And both are not in their proper places, this one toward above and that one toward below.

And they also stand in their proper order,

and even when they stand in their proper places,

“and he sees the room and the upper story at once,”

since one eye sees above and the other below, he is likewise disqualified.

And we raised the question about it:

from where are these matters

that all these disqualify?

And we answer:

for the Sages taught:

It is written: “or it has a teवल

in its eye,”

and this “in its eye” is superfluous, for we know by itself that a teवल is only in the eye. And we expound it: to include

everything that is in his eye!

Every change that there is in the eye.

From here they said: “His two eyes are below; his two eyes are above; one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below; he sees the room and the upper story at once; or he speaks with his fellow, while another says, ‘He sees me,’”

so that he appears to be looking at another person’s face—all of these are a blemish.

The Sages taught:

It is written: “a man

blind,” whether

he is

blind in both his eyes, whether

he is

blind in one of his eyes.

A white spot,

an ailment of the eye, in which he has something like white drops.

And watery eyes,

that his eyes constantly discharge water,

which are fixed [בין החורוור ובין המים וכדלעיל לח, ב במשנה]between the white spot and the watery eyes, as above, 38b, in the Mishna—

[как хурувар, так и «вода», как объяснялось выше, в Мишне на листе 38б] —

from where

that they too are disqualified on account of “blind”

? The verse states: “a blind man”;

“man” is an amplification, to include all these.

Rava said: Why do I need the Merciful One to write: “a blind man,” “a membrane,” and “a teवल in its eye”?

And we answer:

They are necessary

for all of them.

For if the Merciful One had written “blind,”

I would have said that he is disqualified

because they are absent

from his eyes

entirely. But in the case of the white spot and the fixed watery eyes, they are present in him,

for he has eyes, and only has an ailment in them through which he cannot see,

he would not be

disqualified on this account. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

man

blind,” to include these.

And if the Merciful One had written “a man

blind,” I would have said that specifically the white spot and watery eyes disqualify

because he cannot see at all, but in the case of diminished sight,

whose sight has weakened but he sees somewhat, such as a “membrane,”

he would not be

disqualified.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “membrane.”

And if the Merciful One had written “membrane,”

I would have said that the reason he is disqualified is

because they are diminished,

for his sight is reduced on account of the membrane that he has over his eye.

But in the case of mevalbelita,

a teवल, in which a white line extends from the white of the eye into the black,

it would not

be a blemish, since his sight has not been impaired.

The Merciful One therefore wrote “teवल,”

for this too disqualifies.

And if the Merciful One had written “teवल,”

I would have said that only this disqualifies

because it confuses them.

But because of mishniyuta,

where the position of the eye differs, either upward or downward, or he sees the room and the upper story together, I would have said

it would not

disqualify him. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “in its eye.”

Rava said: Therefore, every

blemish that is

due to dimness,

so that he cannot see at all,

is derived from “man.”

Diminished sight,

where his sight has weakened but he sees somewhat, is derived from

“membrane.”

A mevalbelita,

a white line that enters into the black, is derived from

“teवल.”

A mishniyuta,

where their position differs, standing above or below, is derived

from “in its eye.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“He is unable to tolerate the sun.”

Rav Yosef taught: “He hates the sun,”

for he hates the sun and cannot look at a place where the sun shines.

“Zagdain,”

which is taught in the Mishna—what is it?

Rav Huna demonstrated,

he pointed with his finger,

“one of theirs and one of ours,”

that he had one eye like the eye of the one sitting opposite me [and this was Rabbi Yehuda, whose eyes were different], and one eye like mine

And Rabbi Yehuda took offense!

An objection was raised:

for it was taught that “zagdain” is another blemish:

“Shakhvana”—

that his eyebrows lie down,

that the hairs of his eyebrows are long and lie over his eyes.

“Zagdum”—

that one of his eyebrows is black and one is white.

And we answer:

It was taught: every pair that is not equal to one another—

is called zagdum!

Every pair whose two members are not equal is called zagdum that is, whether a pair of eyes or a pair of eyebrows, which ordinarily are equal, when they differ from one another, is called “zagdain” [“zagdum”]].

And as for that which we learned:

“Ha-tziran”

what is it?

It was taught: his eyes are terutot,

round.

And tzirniyot,

rounder than terutot.

“Tearful,”

slightly.

“Discharging,”

they shed tears still more.

“Flowing,”

they shed more than “discharging”

. It was taught:

also

the zavir and the lufin

and

and the tomin,

are a blemish.

And we explain:

“Zavir: his eye wanders,”

for his eyes are constantly wandering and cannot rest.

“Lufin: his lashes are abundant,”

for his eyelashes are large.

“Tomin: his lashes have ended,”

for he has no eyelashes at all.

And we challenge that which was taught, that tomin is a blemish:

But

is it because of

these

tomin

that they are taught among the blemishes?

But we learned in the Mishna: “If the eyelashes of his eyes fell out, he is disqualified because of appearance alone,”

but it is not a blemish?

And we answer:

It is not difficult; this

which teaches “because of appearance,” deals with

a case in which remnants remained,

for the roots remained.

This

which is a blemish,

is a case in which no remnants remained,

for they were uprooted entirely.

Mishna:

His eyes are as large as those of a calf, or as small as those of a goose.

His body is larger than his limbs,

the measure of his body is larger than appropriate in relation to his other limbs, such as his hands, feet, and legs.

Or

that his body is

smaller than his limbs.

His nose is larger than his limbs. Or

that his nose is

smaller than his limbs. [ובגמרא מפרש כמה רגיל להיות]And in the Gemara it explains how large it ordinarily is.

The tzamem and the tzama.

What is a tzama? Anyone whose ears are small.

And the tzamem,

what is it?

Anyone whose ears resemble a squeezed sponge,

which has been wrung out, with the ears contracted and closed.

His upper lip extends beyond the lower one.

Or

the lower one extends beyond the upper one—this is a blemish.

And if his teeth were removed, he is disqualified because of appearance alone.

Gemara:

Rav said: Moses our teacher was ten cubits

tall.

As it is stated: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle.” Who spread it? Moses our teacher spread it! And it is written: “Ten cubits was the length of the plank.”

And since he spread the curtains at the height of the ten cubits of the planks, by implication his height was ten cubits.

And it entered our minds that Moses’ height was ten of his own cubits—that is, that his cubit [forearm] was of the ordinary size, and his height was ten times as great as it.

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya said to Rav: If so, you have made Moses our teacher blemished!

For we learned

among the blemishes:

“His body is larger than his limbs, or smaller than his limbs.”

But in an ordinary person the ratio between the height of his body and his cubit is three times [a person’s height is three cubits], whereas in Moses it was ten times.

He said to him: “Shimi, you!”

A great sage like you, and you do not know how to answer [Rashi, 43b].

Moses our teacher was ten cubits,

he was speaking of the cubit of the Sanctuary!

For it was an ordinary cubit, with which the planks were measured, and he was ten times that cubit, not his own cubit, which was much larger and proportionate to the height of his body [one-third of his height].

We learned in the Mishna:

“His nose is large”

than his limbs, or small in relation to his limbs:

It was taught: like a small finger,

if his nose is larger or smaller in relation to his other limbs by the measure of the width of a small finger, it is a blemish. And we assess it by comparison with the nose of another person whose height is the same as his.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The tzamem and the tzama”:

It was taught: also the tzimah.

The Sages did not know what tzimah was.

They heard a certain Arab

—an Arab—

who was saying, “Who wants tzimah?” And it was found

that he had

a kid with very long ears,

for he had a kid whose ears were exceedingly long.

Rav Hisda said: A goat that has no horns, and a ewe that has horns [שהוא ההיפך מהרגיל]which is the opposite of what is usual,

[что противоположно обычному порядку]

are fit with regard to the altar,

for this is not a blemish.

It was taught likewise: There are things that are like blemishes but are not blemishes, and one slaughters animals with them in the Temple,

for they are not a blemish,

but not in the country.

And these are they: a goat that has no horns, and a ewe that has horns; and the tzimah, the tzamem, and the tzama,

for only in a person is it a blemish, since he is not equal among the descendants of Aaron, but in an animal it is not.

Rav Hisda said in the name of Avimi: If their horns were removed, together with their cores,

the bone inside the horns,

it is disqualified

for sacrifice.

And it may not be redeemed on account of them, [בשאר קרבנות ולא בבכור]with regard to other offerings and not with regard to a firstborn,

for it is not a complete blemish.

If the hooves were removed, together with their cores,

if the foot-hooves were removed together with the bone inside the hooves,

it is disqualified and may be redeemed on account of them,

for it is a complete blemish.

An objection was raised: “If the horns and hooves were removed, together with their cores, it is disqualified and may be redeemed on account of them.”

And this is difficult for Rav Hisda, who said that if its horns were removed, it may not be redeemed on account of them.

And we answer:

It is not difficult: this refers to a case where they were uprooted entirely,

where the horns and the roots of the cores—the bone—were uprooted, and a cavity was made in the place from which they were uprooted; this is a complete blemish, and it may be redeemed on account of them.

This

where it may not be redeemed on account of them,

refers to a case where they were cut off flush,

where they were cut off above and their roots remained.

And we challenge:

But does cutting them off flush disqualify it?

For you said that Rav Hisda’s statement—that it is disqualified and may not be redeemed—deals with a case of cutting them off flush.

And we raise a contradiction: A red

cow

whose horns and hooves are black—he must cut off

—he cuts off that black part, and it becomes fit. We may conclude from this that cutting them off flush does not disqualify [for a red cow must be “unblemished” ]].

And we answer:

Ze’iri explained it:

the statement that teaches “he cuts off” deals with a case

above their cores,

where he cuts at a place to which the core does not reach. [For at the tip of the horn there is no bone inside, and if the blackness does not reach as far as the place of the bone, he cuts it off.]