Bekhorot 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

They said to him: You have gone too far!

More than necessary. Rather,

even though

it does not

sink so deeply that

he can apply blue eye makeup to both his eyes at once,

he is deemed “harum” and unfit.

We learned in the Mishna:

His two eyes are above,

or

his two eyes are below:

And we discussed 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

that he sees above,

his eyes remain in their proper places, but he constantly looks upward. And likewise,

“his two eyes are below”

means

that he sees

constantly

below,

but his eyes remain in their proper places.

But concerning that which the tanna taught:

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

this means

that one eye sees below and one eye sees above.

If so, this is difficult, for

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

is counted in the Mishna as two separate defects, namely, one eye above and one eye below, and seeing the room and the upper story at once. Yet these are identical!

And we answer:

Rather,

this is the explanation of the Mishna:

“His two eyes are above”

means

that they are positioned above,

standing at the height of the forehead, unlike those of other people.

“His two eyes are below, meaning that they are positioned below,”

relative to their position in other people.

“One eye is above and one eye is below,” meaning that one eye is positioned above and one eye is positioned below.

Both are not in their proper places: one is directed upward and the other downward.

And they may also be positioned in their proper order,

that is, even when they remain in their proper places,

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

because one eye sees upward and the other downward, he is likewise disqualified.

And we discussed it:

From where are these matters derived,

that all these conditions disqualify?

And we answer:

As the Sages taught:

It is written: “Or has a blemish

in his eye,”

and the expression “in his eye” is superfluous, since we know by inference that “a blemish” applies only to the eye. And we interpret it: to include

everything that is in his eye!

Every alteration found in the eye.

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

appearing as though he is looking at someone else’s face—all of these are a defect.

The Sages taught:

It is written: “A man

who is blind,” whether

he is

blind in both his eyes, or whether

he is

blind in one of his eyes.

Horuvar,

an eye ailment in which there are small white spots.

And watery eyes,

whose eyes constantly discharge water,

that are permanent [between horuvar and watery eyes, as explained above, on 38b in the Mishna]—

from where

is it derived that they too are disqualified on account of “blind”?

The verse states: “A man who is blind,”

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

Rava said: Why do I need the Merciful One to write: “A man who is blind,” “a film,” and “a blemish in his eye”?

And we answer:

All

of them are necessary.

For if the Merciful One had written only “blind,”

I might have said that he is disqualified

because they are absent

from his eyes

entirely. But in the case of horuvar and permanent watery eyes, which are present in him,

for he has eyes and merely suffers from an ailment that prevents him from seeing,

he would not

be disqualified for this reason. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

man

who is blind,” to include these cases.

And if the Merciful One had written only “a man

who is blind,” I might have said that specifically horuvar and watery eyes disqualify

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

where his vision is weakened but he can see somewhat, such as a “film,”

he would not

be disqualified. Therefore

the Merciful One

wrote “a film.”

And if the Merciful One had written only “a film,”

I might have said that the reason he is disqualified is

because he is deficient,

as his vision is diminished because of the membrane over his eye.

But in the case of mevalbelita,

“a blemish,” a white strand extending from the white part of the eye into the black part,

it would not

be a defect, since his vision has not been impaired.

The Merciful One therefore wrote “a blemish,”

teaching that this condition also disqualifies.

And if the Merciful One had written only “a blemish,”

I might have said that only this condition disqualifies

because it confuses

him. But because of meshinyuta,

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

it would not

disqualify him. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “in his eye.”

Rava said: Therefore, every

defect that is

due to dimness of vision,

where he cannot see at all,

is derived from “man.”

Maḥsoriyyata,

where his vision is weakened but he sees somewhat, is derived from

“a film.”

Mevalbelita,

a white strand that enters the black part of the eye, is derived from

“a blemish.”

Meshinyuta,

where their position differs, as they are located above or below, is derived

from “in his eye.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Sun-shy eyes.

Rav Yosef taught: Eyes that hate the sun,

meaning that he cannot look toward a place where the sun is shining.

“Zagdiyyin,”

which is taught in the Mishna—what does it mean?

Rav Huna demonstrated

by pointing with his finger:

one of them from his side and one from our side,

meaning that one of the man’s eyes resembled the eye of the person sitting opposite him [who was Rabbi Yehuda, whose eyes were different from each other], while the other resembled Rav Huna’s eye.

And Rav Yehuda took offense!

Meytivi:

As it is taught in a beraita, “zagdiyyin” is another defect:

Shakhvana—

whose eyebrows lie down,

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

Zagdom—

whose eyebrows are one black and one white.

And we answer:

The tanna teaches: Any pair that is not identical to the other

is called zagdom!

Every pair whose members are not equal is called zagdom . That is, both a pair of eyes and a pair of eyebrows, which ordinarily ought to be equal, are called “zagdiyyin” [“zagdom”] when they differ from each other.

And concerning that which we learned:

Haẓiran—what does it mean?

The tanna teaches: His eyes are terutot,

round.

And ẓirniyyot,

rounder than terutot.

Watery,

slightly.

Discharging,

shedding even more tears.

Streaming,

shedding more than discharging.

The tanna teaches:

Even

zevir and lufin

and

temin

are a defect.

And we explain:

Zevir: his eyes are restless,

as his eyes are constantly wandering and cannot remain still.

Lufin: his eyelashes are abundant,

meaning that his eyelashes are large.

Temin: his eyelashes have been destroyed,

meaning that he has no eyelashes at all.

And we challenge that which was taught, that temin is a defect:

And

is it because

these

temin

were taught among the defects?

But didn’t we learn: One whose eyelashes fell out is disqualified solely because of appearance,

but it is not a defect?

And we answer:

This is not difficult; this

case, in which it is taught that he is disqualified because of appearance, concerns one

whose stubs remained,

meaning that the roots remained.

This

case, in which it is a defect, concerns one

whose stubs did not remain,

as 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,

meaning that the size of his body is disproportionately large relative to his other limbs, such as his hands, feet, and legs.

Or

his body is

smaller than his limbs.

His nose is larger than his limbs. Or

his nose is

smaller than his limbs. [The Gemara explains how much larger or smaller it must be.]

Haẓamem and haẓame’a.

What is ẓame’a? Anyone whose ears are small.

And haẓamem,

what is it?

Anyone whose ears resemble a squeezed sponge,

with the ears contracted and closed.

His upper lip protrudes beyond his lower lip.

Or

his lower lip protrudes beyond his upper lip; this is a defect.

And one whose teeth have been removed is disqualified because of appearance.

Gemara:

Rav said: Moses our teacher was ten cubits tall

in height.

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 board.”

Since he spread the curtains at the height of the boards, which was ten cubits, it follows that his height was ten cubits.

It initially entered our minds that Moses’ height was measured by his own cubit—that is, that his cubit, or forearm, was of the ordinary size, and his height was ten times that measure.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said to Rav: If so, you have made Moses our teacher into one with a defect!

For we learned

concerning defects:

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

For in an ordinary person the ratio between his height and his cubit is three to one [a person’s height is three cubits], whereas in Moses it was ten to one.

He said to him: Shimi, you!

A scholar as great as you, and you do not know how to answer? [Rashi 43b]

Moses our teacher was ten cubits

according to the cubit of the Sanctuary, he said!

This was the ordinary cubit used to measure the boards, and he was ten times that cubit—not ten times his own cubit, which was much larger and proportionate to his height [one-third of his height].

We learned in the Mishna:

His nose is large

relative to his limbs, or smaller than his limbs:

The tanna teaches: Like the little finger,

if his nose is larger or smaller than his other limbs by the width of a little finger, it is a defect. Its size is assessed by comparing it with the nose of another person of equal height.

We learned in the Mishna:

Haẓamem and haẓame’a:

The tanna teaches: Also haẓemaḥ.

The Sages did not know what ẓemaḥ was.

They heard a certain Arab

—an Arab—

who was saying, “Who wants ẓemaḥ?” And it was discovered

that he

had a very long-eared kid,

meaning that he was holding a kid whose ears were exceedingly long.

Rav Ḥisda said: A goat that has no horns, and a ewe that has horns [the opposite of what is usual],

are fit for the altar

as this is not a defect.

This is also taught in a beraita: There are matters that resemble defects but are not defects, and one may slaughter animals with these conditions in the Temple,

as they are not defects,

but not in the rest of the country.

And these are they: A goat that has no horns, a ewe that has horns, and haẓemaḥ, haẓamem, and haẓame’a,

for these are defects only in a human being, as such a person is not comparable to the offspring of Aaron, but they are not defects in an animal.

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

the bone inside the horns,

it is disqualified

for sacrifice.

But it may not be redeemed on their account, [in the case of other offerings, but not in the case of a firstborn animal,]

as this is not a complete defect.

If the hooves were removed together with their cores,

meaning that the hoof was removed together with the bone inside it,

it is disqualified and may be redeemed on their account,

as this is a complete defect.

They raised an objection: If the horns and hooves were removed together with their cores, it is disqualified and may be redeemed on their account.

This is difficult for Rav Ḥisda, who said that if the horns were removed, it may not be redeemed on their account.

And we answer:

This is not difficult: This case concerns one in which they were uprooted,

where the horns and the roots of the cores—the bones—were uprooted, leaving a cavity where they had been uprooted. This is a complete defect, and the animal may be redeemed on their account.

This case,

where it may not be redeemed on their account, concerns one

whose horns were merely cut down,

meaning that they were cut from above while their roots remained.

And we challenge this:

But if they were merely cut down, does that disqualify it?

For you said that Rav Ḥisda’s statement—that it is disqualified but may not be redeemed—concerns a case in which they were merely cut down.

And we juxtapose this with another source: A red

cow

whose horns and hooves are black must have them cut off

—the black portions should be cut away, and it will then be fit. Infer from this that merely cutting them down does not disqualify it [for a red heifer must be “unblemished”].

And we answer:

Ze’iri explained:

The source that teaches that they should be cut off is speaking of cutting them

above their cores,

at a point where the core does not extend. [At the tip of the horn there is no bone inside; if the blackness does not extend as far as the bone, it may be cut off.]