What are considered blemishes in the eyes, nose, lips, testicles, penis, female genitalia? If there is an organ missing on the inside, is that a blemish? Are there situations where we distinguish and say this blemish forbids the animal to be sacrificed, but doesn’t permit it to be redeemed (if a sacrifice) or slaughtered (if a firstborn)?
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Bekhorot 39
אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּכׇל סְעוּדָה וּסְעוּדָה? אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר בִּסְעוּדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה — קוֹדֶם אֲכִילָה אוֹ לְאַחַר אֲכִילָה? קוֹדֶם אֲכִילָה וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ כְּסַמָּא, לְאַחַר אֲכִילָה מַאי? קוֹדֶם שְׁתִיָּה אוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁתִיָּה? וְקוֹדֶם שְׁתִיָּה וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ כִּשְׂעָרֵי, לְאַחַר שְׁתִיָּה מַאי?
or perhaps does it mean it is fed the amount of a fig-bulk at each and every meal? If you say that it is fed a fig-bulk only at the first meal, is it fed this fodder before its regularly scheduled eating or after eating? The Gemara elaborates: Before eating, it is certainly effective for it like a medicine, which people imbibe before their meals. With regard to after eating, what is the halakha? Is this an effective manner of examining the animal? The Gemara further inquires: Is the animal fed this fodder as a medicine before drinking or after drinking? Before drinking it is certainly effective for it, like barley, which is fed to an animal before it drinks. With regard to after drinking, what is the halakha?
קָשׁוּר אוֹ מוּתָּר? מוּתָּר — וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ, קָשׁוּר מַאי? לְבַדּוֹ אוֹ עִם חֲבֵירוֹ? עִם חֲבֵירוֹ — וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ, לְבַדּוֹ מַאי?
The Gemara continues to inquire: Is the animal given the fodder when it is tied or untied? The Gemara explains: When it is untied, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal. When it is tied, what is the halakha? Furthermore, is it fed the fodder when it is by itself, or with another animal? When it is with another animal, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is comfortable. When it is by itself, what is the halakha?
בָּעִיר (וּבַשָּׂדֶה) [אוֹ בַּשָּׂדֶה]? בַּשָּׂדֶה — וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ, בָּעִיר — מַאי? בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר בַּשָּׂדֶה — גִּינָּה הַסְּמוּכָה לָעִיר מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
Likewise, is the animal fed it in the city or in the field? When it is in the field, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is calm. When it is in the city, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a further dilemma: If you say that this treatment is effective only when it is in the field, not when it is the city, what is the halakha with regard to a garden adjacent to the city? No resolution is found for any of these inquiries, and with regard to each of them the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מְשׁוּלָּשִׁים.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to constant pale spots that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus says: One examines the animal three times within eighty days. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And this is the halakha provided that they are divided into equal thirds, i.e., there must be an even gap between each of these examinations.
בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ פִּנְחָס, אֲחוּהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, מִשְּׁמוּאֵל: אֲכַל וְלָא אִיתַּסִּי — לְמַפְרֵעַ הָוֵי מוּמָא, אוֹ מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא הָוֵי מוּמָא?
With regard to the statement of the mishna that constant tears are examined by feeding the animal moist and then dry fodder for a period of three months, Pineḥas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, raises a dilemma before Shmuel: If the animal ate the fodder in the required manner and was not healed, which means that it is blemished, is it a retroactive blemish from the day it was discovered, or is it a blemish from that point forward?
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִימְעַל בְּפִדְיוֹנוֹ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְמַפְרֵעַ הָוֵי מוּמָא — מָעֵיל,
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to whether one has violated the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property concerning its redemption money in a case where a consecrated animal was redeemed before the end of the three months of examination and someone derived benefit from the money paid for its redemption. If you say that it is a retroactive blemish, he thereby misuses consecrated property, as the redemption was effective and the money belongs to the Temple treasury.
וְאִי מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא הָוֵי מוּמָא — לָא מָעֵיל, מַאי? קָרֵי שְׁמוּאֵל עֲלֵיהּ: ״פִּסְחִים בָּזְזוּ בַז״.
But if it is a blemish from that point forward, then one who derived benefit from money paid before that point has not misused consecrated property, as an unblemished animal cannot be redeemed, and the money remains non-sacred. What, then, is the halakha? Shmuel read this verse with regard to his brother: “The lame take the prey” (Isaiah 33:23), i.e., one who is not learned in Torah has managed to ask a question for which I have no answer.
מַתְנִי׳ חוֹטְמוֹ שֶׁנִּיקַּב, וְשֶׁנִּפְגַּם, וְשֶׁנִּסְדַּק. שְׂפָמוֹ שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, שֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה, שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה.
MISHNA: For these additional blemishes, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple: Its nose that was pierced, or that was damaged and is lacking, or that was split. Likewise, its lip that was pierced, or that was damaged, or that was split is considered a blemish.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִיקְּבוּ חֳוטָמִין זֶה לְתוֹךְ זֶה — מִבַּחוּץ הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, מִבִּפְנִים אֵינוֹ מוּם. שְׂפָתוֹ שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה וְשֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה וְשֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תּוֹרָא בָּרָא דְּשִׂיפְתֵּיהּ.
GEMARA: With regard to the case of the nose that was pierced, the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where its nostrils were pierced one into the other, if the perforation is visible on the outside of the nostril, this is a blemish; if it is visible only on the inside of the nostril, it is not a blemish. With regard to the case of: Its lip that was pierced or that was damaged or that was split, Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the outer row, i.e., the front, protruding part of its lip.
מַתְנִי׳ חוּטִין הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ, וְשֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ, הַפְּנִימִיִּם שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין בּוֹדְקִין מִן הַתְּיוֹמֶת וְלִפְנִים, וְאַף לֹא אֶת הַתְּיוֹמֶת.
MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn: The external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched, and likewise, the internal gums that were extracted. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the double teeth, i.e., the large molars that appear like two teeth, and inward, and one does not examine even the place of the double teeth themselves. This is because even if they were extracted, it is a concealed blemish, and it does not permit the slaughter of the firstborn.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַתְּיוֹמֶת, אֵיזֶהוּ תְּיוֹמֶת? מִן הַתְּיוֹמֶת וְלִפְנִים, וּתְיוֹמֶת עַצְמָהּ כְּלִפְנִים. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹצַאי אוֹמֵר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶלָּא עַל הַחִיצוֹנוֹת בִּלְבַד. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הַתְּיוֹמֶת כׇּל עִיקָּר.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the mishna is referring to the double teeth, what are the double teeth? The area from the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves, are considered like the inward part, i.e., the location of a concealed blemish, for which one may not slaughter the animal. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth alone. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not consider the double teeth at all.
מַאי קָאָמַר? וְתוּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹצַאי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!
The Gemara notes that the baraita asks about the double teeth but does not answer the question: What is the tanna saying? And furthermore, the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai is the same as that of the first tanna, as they both maintain that a blemish to the double teeth is considered a concealed blemish.
חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵיזֶהוּ הַפְּנִימִית? מִן הַתְּיוֹמֶת וְלִפְנִים, וּתְיוֹמֶת עַצְמָהּ כְּלִפְנִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ וְשֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ, אֲבָל נֶעְקְרוּ — שׁוֹחֲטִין.
The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: What are the inner gums, for which a firstborn is not slaughtered if a blemish was found there? The inner gums are located from the place of the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves are considered like the inward part. In what case is this statement, that one does not slaughter the animal, said? It is said in a case where the inner gums were damaged or were scratched. But if they were extracted, one does slaughter the firstborn for this blemish.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹצַאי אוֹמֵר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶלָּא עַל הַחִיצוֹנוֹת, אֲבָל פְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ — מִישְׁחָט עֲלַיְיהוּ לָא שָׁחֲטִינַן, אֲבָל אִפְּסוֹלֵי מִיפְּסֵל. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הַתְּיוֹמֶת כׇּל עִיקָּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ אִיפְּסוֹלֵי לָא אִיפְּסִיל.
The Gemara continues its interpretation of the baraita. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth. But with regard to the inner gums that were extracted, one does not slaughter the animal for them, but it is disqualified as an offering. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not pay attention to the double teeth at all, and a blemish there does not even disqualify the firstborn from sacrifice.
בָּעֵי רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי: יֵשׁ מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר מִבִּפְנִים, אוֹ אֵין מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר מִבִּפְנִים? לְמַאי? אִי לִבְכוֹר — ״פִּסֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר״ כְּתִיב,
§ Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raises a dilemma: Is there halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal, or is there no halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal? The Gemara inquires: With regard to what issue did he raise this dilemma? If it was with regard to whether such a blemish renders permitted the slaughter of a firstborn outside the Temple, it is written: “Lameness or blindness” (Deuteronomy 15:21), which indicates that the blemish must be exposed.
אִי לְקָדָשִׁים, ״עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר״ כְּתִיב! לְאִישְּׁחוֹטֵי וּלְאִיפְּרוֹקֵי לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי מִיבַּעְיָא לַן לְאִיפְּסוֹלֵי — מַאי?
If the dilemma was raised with regard to whether other sacrificial animals with such a blemish are thereby disqualified from being sacrificed and may be redeemed, it is written: “Blind or broken” (Leviticus 22:22), which are also types of exposed blemishes. The Gemara explains that we do not raise this dilemma with regard to slaughtering the firstborn or redeeming other sacrificial animals, as it is clearly not considered a blemish to that extent. Rather, we raise the dilemma with regard to disqualifying the animal from sacrifice. What is the halakha?
״תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, תָּמִים — אִין, חֶסְרוֹן — לֹא. אוֹ דִלְמָא ״תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן״, ״כׇּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ״ — מָה מוּם מֵאַבָּרַאי, אַף חֶסְרוֹן מֵאַבָּרַאי.
The Gemara clarifies the dilemma. The Merciful One states: “It shall be complete to be accepted” (Leviticus 22:21), which indicates that a complete animal, yes, is fit as a sacrifice, but if it is lacking in any manner, even on the inside, it is not fit. Or perhaps one should interpret this phrase: “It shall be complete to be accepted,” in light of what is stated immediately afterward: “There shall be no blemish therein.” Just as a blemish is on the outside, as taught by the next verse, which says: “Blind or broken,” so too, the status of lacking a limb applies only if it is lacking on the outside.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְאֶת שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת״ — וְלֹא בַּעַל כּוּלְיָא אַחַת, וְלֹא בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ כּוּלְיוֹת. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״יְסִירֶנָּה״ — לְרַבּוֹת בַּעַל כּוּלְיָא אַחַת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that this matter is subject to a dispute. It is taught in one baraita: When it states with regard to the burning of the sacrificial portions of a peace offering: “And the two kidneys” (Leviticus 3:4), this teaches that one sacrifices only an animal that has two kidneys, but not an animal that has one kidney, nor one that has three kidneys. And it is taught in another baraita that when that verse states: “And the two kidneys…he shall take it away,” the singular form serves to include an animal that has one kidney, which may be sacrificed. Evidently, these tanna’im disagree as to whether an animal lacking a kidney is fit to be sacrificed.
סַבְרוּהָ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, דְּהָא מִיחְסָר חָסַר. לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר, חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר, חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן.
The Sages initially assumed that everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and only one kidney is found because this offering became lacking a kidney only after birth. If so, let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is not considered a lack.
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, וְחֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — כְּשֶׁנִּבְרְאָה בִּשְׁתַּיִם וְחָסְרוּ, כָּאן — כְּשֶׁנִּבְרְאָה בְּאַחַת מֵעִיקָּרָא.
Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: There is no dispute here, as everyone agrees that there is such an entity born with one kidney, and everyone also agrees that the lack of an internal limb is considered a lack that disqualifies the animal. And the contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult: Here, in the first baraita, where it was created with two kidneys and one is lacking, the animal is disqualified. Whereas there, where it was created with one kidney from the outset, it is not lacking and therefore it is fit.
וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דְּשָׁלֹשׁ קָתָנֵי, מָה שָׁלֹשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא, אַף אַחַת מֵעִיקָּרָא!
The Gemara asks: But the first baraita teaches the case of an animal that has one kidney as similar to that of an animal that has three kidneys. One can therefore infer: Just as these three kidneys were present from the outset, as an animal does not grow new limbs, so too, the animal with one kidney alone was like that from the outset.
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּיֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה מֵעִיקָּרָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: יֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת.
Rather, everyone agrees that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to the matter of whether there is an entity created with one kidney from the outset. One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that there is an entity created with one kidney, and it may be assumed that this is such an animal, and it is not lacking a limb. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that there is no entity created with one kidney, and this animal is lacking a limb and is disqualified for sacrifice.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, וְחֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן. וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה, כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. וּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה קוֹדֶם קַבָּלָה מִי שְׁרֵי?
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and yet it is not difficult. Here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before its slaughter. Whereas there, the second baraita is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after its slaughter, and therefore it is fit. The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after its slaughter but before the collection of the blood in a vessel for sprinkling, is it permitted to sacrifice it?
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: הַצּוֹרֵם אֹזֶן הַפָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ קִיבֵּל דָּמוֹ — פָּסוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר״ — הַפָּר שֶׁהָיָה כְּבָר! אֶלָּא: כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם קַבָּלָה, כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה לְאַחַר קַבָּלָה.
But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: In the case of one who slits the ear of the bull with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collects its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: “And the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull” (Leviticus 4:5). By using the term “the bull,” the verse indicates that the bull must be at the time of collection of the blood as it already was before slaughter, without a blemish. Rather, here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before the collection of the blood, whereas there, in the second baraita, it is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after the collection of the blood.
וּלְאַחַר קַבָּלָה קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה, מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״שֶׂה תָּמִים זָכָר בֶּן שָׁנָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״, שֶׁיְּהֵא תָּמִים בֶּן שָׁנָה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה.
The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after the collection of the blood but before the sprinkling of the blood, is it permitted to be sacrificed upon the altar? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male in its year” (Exodus 12:5), indicating that it shall be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter?
וּמִנַּיִן בְּקַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה וְהַזָּיָיה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִהְיֶה״, שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל הֲוָיוֹתָיו תָּם וּבֶן שָׁנָה.
The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that it must also be unblemished at the time of the collection of the blood, and at the time of conveying its blood to the altar, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood? The verse states: “Shall be,” emphasizing that all actions that are performed upon it shall be performed only when it is unblemished and in its first year. This teaches that the offering must be unblemished even at the time of the sprinkling of its blood.
תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַבֶּן שָׁנָה, הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר אוֹ כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב — זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara answers: Interpret this baraita as teaching that only the requirement that the animal must be in its first year is necessary at the time of sprinkling. Nevertheless, it need not be unblemished at this stage. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah that were slaughtered and their blood was collected, from which there remains either an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat, the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering. Learn from this baraita that even if most of the offering is lacking, it is not disqualified after the collection of the blood.
וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּבִשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה הָוֵי בֶּן שָׁנָה, וּבִשְׁעַת קַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה הָוֵי בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים? אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שָׁעוֹת פּוֹסְלוֹת בְּקָדָשִׁים.
The Gemara asks with regard to the interpretation of the baraita: But is there anything where at the time of its slaughter the animal is in its first year but at the time of the collection of the blood and conveying it to the altar it is in its second year? Rava says: That is to say that hours disqualify in the case of sacrificial animals, i.e., one measures the age of the offering from the exact time of its birth. Therefore, if the animal reaches its second year between the time when it is slaughtered and the collection of its blood it is disqualified.
לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וּמָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ — כּוּלָּן בַּבֵּיצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether the lack of an internal organ disqualifies an offering from being sacrificed. Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita discussing the verse that provides a list of animals disqualified from the altar: “And that whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut you shall not sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:24). All of these blemishes are found in the animal’s testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
בַּבֵּיצִים וְלֹא בַּגִּיד? אֵימָא: אַף בַּבֵּיצִים — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּן בַּגִּיד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ — אַף בַּבֵּיצִים, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ — בַּגִּיד אִין, בַּבֵּיצִים לָא.
The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that these blemishes are only in the testicles and not in the penis? There too these should be considered blemishes, as the penis is more exposed and visible than the testicles. Rather, say that all of them also apply to the testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: All of them are considered blemishes only when found on the penis. Rabbi Yosei says: The blemishes of “bruised, or crushed” apply also to the testicles, while with regard to the blemishes of “torn or cut,” on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles they are not considered a blemish.
מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן?
The Gemara explains the relevance of the dispute to the matter at hand: What, is it not that these tanna’im disagree about this: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack. Therefore, in cases where the testicles are damaged they are considered lacking, disqualifying the animal, despite the fact that the blemish is not exposed. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, holds that the lack of an internal limb is not called a lack.
וְתִסְבְּרָא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן — אֲפִילּוּ ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ נָמֵי! וְאִי קָסָבַר לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן — אֲפִילּוּ ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ נָמֵי לָא!
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? If so, what does Rabbi Yosei hold? If he holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack, then even “torn or cut” should be considered a lack, despite the fact that these blemishes are not visible. And if he holds that a lack of an internal limb is not called a lack, then even “bruised, or crushed,” should not be considered a lack, as they are not exposed.
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמוּמִים שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי קָמִיפַּלְגִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּמִיכַּוְוצָן, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּהָא תַּלְיָין. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי זִמְנִין דְּמִיכַּוְוצָן, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי זִימְנִין דְּתַלְיָין.
Rather, here they disagree with regard to exposed blemishes. Rabbi Yehuda holds that “bruised or crushed” testicles are considered blemished, as the testicles noticeably shrink due to the crushing. Likewise, testicles that are “torn or cut” are considered blemished, as the testicles appear to be hanging, i.e., dangling, to such an extent that they do not appear to be attached in the usual manner. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that testicles that are “bruised or crushed” are not considered noticeable blemishes, as initially, before they become damaged, there are times that the testicles also shrink. Furthermore, testicles that are “torn or cut” are not considered blemished either, as initially, prior to being torn or cut, there are times that the testicles also hang.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ הָוֵי מוּמָא — דְּהָא לֵיתַנְהוּ, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא — דְּהָא אִיתַנְהוּ.
And Rabbi Yosei holds that “bruised or crushed” testicles are considered blemished, as they are no longer present in their normal state, but are entirely broken. But he maintains that “torn or cut” testicles are not considered blemished, as they are still present in the pouch, despite the fact that they no longer function.
מַתְנִי׳ נִפְגַּם הַזּוֹבָן, הָעֶרְיָה שֶׁל נְקֵבָה בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, נִפְגַּם הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם, אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַפֶּרֶק, אוֹ שֶׁרֹאשׁ זָנָב מְפַצֵּל, נִקְלְפָה הָעוֹר וְהַבָּשָׂר וְהָעֶצֶם נִשְׁאַר, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּשָׂר מֵחוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע.
MISHNA: The mishna details additional blemishes that enable the slaughter of firstborn animals: If the pouch [hazoven] in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed, or if the genitalia of a female sacrificial animal, were damaged and lacking; if the tail was damaged from the tailbone, but not if it was damaged from the joint, i.e., one of the joints between the vertebrae, because it heals; or in a case where the end of the tail is split, i.e., the skin and the flesh were removed and the bone remained exposed; or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint; these are all blemishes.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נִפְגַּם וְלֹא נִיטַּל, כִּיס וְלֹא זַכְרוּת. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: נִפְגַּם וְלֹא נִיטַּל, כִּיס וְלֹא זַכְרוּת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעִינְבָּל אֶחָד שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ זְאֵב וְחָזַר לְאֵיתָנוֹ.
GEMARA: With regard to the case where the pouch in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed was damaged, Rabbi Elazar says: This applies only if the pouch was damaged, but not in a case where it was removed. Furthermore, it is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if the male sex organ was damaged. The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: It is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if it was removed, and only if the pouch was damaged, but not the male sex organ. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: An incident occurred involving one animal in Inbal, where a wolf removed its pouch and it later returned to its strength, i.e., it grew again.
נִפְגְּמָה הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: אֶצְבַּע שֶׁאָמְרוּ — אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעָה בְּטֶפַח שֶׁל כׇּל הָאָדָם. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַבָּה: לְעִנְיַן תְּכֵלֶת, דְּתַנְיָא: כַּמָּה חוּטִין הוּא נוֹתֵן? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַרְבָּעָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשָׁה.
§ The mishna stated: If the tail was damaged from the tailbone…or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. A tanna taught: The fingerbreadth of which the Sages spoke is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rabba says: It is stated with regard to tekhelet, i.e., ritual fringes. As it is taught in a baraita: How many strings does one place on a garment?Beit Shammai say: Four strings are inserted into the hole in the garment so that there are eight strings hanging down altogether, and Beit Hillel say: Three strings are inserted into the hole so that six are hanging down.
וְכַמָּה תְּהֵא מְשׁוּלֶּשֶׁת? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַרְבָּעָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשָׁה. וּשְׁלִישׁ שֶׁבֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים — אֶחָד מֵאַרְבַּע בְּטֶפַח שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם.
The baraita continues: And how much should be hanging beyond the knots and windings? Beit Shammai say: Four fingerbreadths, and Beit Hillel say: Three fingerbreadths. And the three fingerbreadths that Beit Hillel say should be hanging are each one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.
רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: לִשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת, דִּתְנַן: שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת הָיוּ
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says that this baraita discussing the fingerbreadth is referring to the two cubits mentioned in a different context, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:9): There were two rods for measuring cubits
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
Bekhorot 39
אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּכׇל סְעוּדָה וּסְעוּדָה? אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר בִּסְעוּדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה — קוֹדֶם אֲכִילָה אוֹ לְאַחַר אֲכִילָה? קוֹדֶם אֲכִילָה וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ כְּסַמָּא, לְאַחַר אֲכִילָה מַאי? קוֹדֶם שְׁתִיָּה אוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁתִיָּה? וְקוֹדֶם שְׁתִיָּה וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ כִּשְׂעָרֵי, לְאַחַר שְׁתִיָּה מַאי?
or perhaps does it mean it is fed the amount of a fig-bulk at each and every meal? If you say that it is fed a fig-bulk only at the first meal, is it fed this fodder before its regularly scheduled eating or after eating? The Gemara elaborates: Before eating, it is certainly effective for it like a medicine, which people imbibe before their meals. With regard to after eating, what is the halakha? Is this an effective manner of examining the animal? The Gemara further inquires: Is the animal fed this fodder as a medicine before drinking or after drinking? Before drinking it is certainly effective for it, like barley, which is fed to an animal before it drinks. With regard to after drinking, what is the halakha?
קָשׁוּר אוֹ מוּתָּר? מוּתָּר — וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ, קָשׁוּר מַאי? לְבַדּוֹ אוֹ עִם חֲבֵירוֹ? עִם חֲבֵירוֹ — וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ, לְבַדּוֹ מַאי?
The Gemara continues to inquire: Is the animal given the fodder when it is tied or untied? The Gemara explains: When it is untied, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal. When it is tied, what is the halakha? Furthermore, is it fed the fodder when it is by itself, or with another animal? When it is with another animal, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is comfortable. When it is by itself, what is the halakha?
בָּעִיר (וּבַשָּׂדֶה) [אוֹ בַּשָּׂדֶה]? בַּשָּׂדֶה — וַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ, בָּעִיר — מַאי? בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר בַּשָּׂדֶה — גִּינָּה הַסְּמוּכָה לָעִיר מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
Likewise, is the animal fed it in the city or in the field? When it is in the field, the fodder is certainly effective for this animal, as it is calm. When it is in the city, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a further dilemma: If you say that this treatment is effective only when it is in the field, not when it is the city, what is the halakha with regard to a garden adjacent to the city? No resolution is found for any of these inquiries, and with regard to each of them the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מְשׁוּלָּשִׁים.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to constant pale spots that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus says: One examines the animal three times within eighty days. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And this is the halakha provided that they are divided into equal thirds, i.e., there must be an even gap between each of these examinations.
בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ פִּנְחָס, אֲחוּהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, מִשְּׁמוּאֵל: אֲכַל וְלָא אִיתַּסִּי — לְמַפְרֵעַ הָוֵי מוּמָא, אוֹ מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא הָוֵי מוּמָא?
With regard to the statement of the mishna that constant tears are examined by feeding the animal moist and then dry fodder for a period of three months, Pineḥas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, raises a dilemma before Shmuel: If the animal ate the fodder in the required manner and was not healed, which means that it is blemished, is it a retroactive blemish from the day it was discovered, or is it a blemish from that point forward?
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִימְעַל בְּפִדְיוֹנוֹ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְמַפְרֵעַ הָוֵי מוּמָא — מָעֵיל,
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to whether one has violated the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property concerning its redemption money in a case where a consecrated animal was redeemed before the end of the three months of examination and someone derived benefit from the money paid for its redemption. If you say that it is a retroactive blemish, he thereby misuses consecrated property, as the redemption was effective and the money belongs to the Temple treasury.
וְאִי מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא הָוֵי מוּמָא — לָא מָעֵיל, מַאי? קָרֵי שְׁמוּאֵל עֲלֵיהּ: ״פִּסְחִים בָּזְזוּ בַז״.
But if it is a blemish from that point forward, then one who derived benefit from money paid before that point has not misused consecrated property, as an unblemished animal cannot be redeemed, and the money remains non-sacred. What, then, is the halakha? Shmuel read this verse with regard to his brother: “The lame take the prey” (Isaiah 33:23), i.e., one who is not learned in Torah has managed to ask a question for which I have no answer.
מַתְנִי׳ חוֹטְמוֹ שֶׁנִּיקַּב, וְשֶׁנִּפְגַּם, וְשֶׁנִּסְדַּק. שְׂפָמוֹ שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, שֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה, שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה.
MISHNA: For these additional blemishes, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple: Its nose that was pierced, or that was damaged and is lacking, or that was split. Likewise, its lip that was pierced, or that was damaged, or that was split is considered a blemish.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִיקְּבוּ חֳוטָמִין זֶה לְתוֹךְ זֶה — מִבַּחוּץ הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, מִבִּפְנִים אֵינוֹ מוּם. שְׂפָתוֹ שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה וְשֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה וְשֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תּוֹרָא בָּרָא דְּשִׂיפְתֵּיהּ.
GEMARA: With regard to the case of the nose that was pierced, the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where its nostrils were pierced one into the other, if the perforation is visible on the outside of the nostril, this is a blemish; if it is visible only on the inside of the nostril, it is not a blemish. With regard to the case of: Its lip that was pierced or that was damaged or that was split, Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the outer row, i.e., the front, protruding part of its lip.
מַתְנִי׳ חוּטִין הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ, וְשֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ, הַפְּנִימִיִּם שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין בּוֹדְקִין מִן הַתְּיוֹמֶת וְלִפְנִים, וְאַף לֹא אֶת הַתְּיוֹמֶת.
MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn: The external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched, and likewise, the internal gums that were extracted. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the double teeth, i.e., the large molars that appear like two teeth, and inward, and one does not examine even the place of the double teeth themselves. This is because even if they were extracted, it is a concealed blemish, and it does not permit the slaughter of the firstborn.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַתְּיוֹמֶת, אֵיזֶהוּ תְּיוֹמֶת? מִן הַתְּיוֹמֶת וְלִפְנִים, וּתְיוֹמֶת עַצְמָהּ כְּלִפְנִים. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹצַאי אוֹמֵר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶלָּא עַל הַחִיצוֹנוֹת בִּלְבַד. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הַתְּיוֹמֶת כׇּל עִיקָּר.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the mishna is referring to the double teeth, what are the double teeth? The area from the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves, are considered like the inward part, i.e., the location of a concealed blemish, for which one may not slaughter the animal. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth alone. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not consider the double teeth at all.
מַאי קָאָמַר? וְתוּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹצַאי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!
The Gemara notes that the baraita asks about the double teeth but does not answer the question: What is the tanna saying? And furthermore, the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai is the same as that of the first tanna, as they both maintain that a blemish to the double teeth is considered a concealed blemish.
חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵיזֶהוּ הַפְּנִימִית? מִן הַתְּיוֹמֶת וְלִפְנִים, וּתְיוֹמֶת עַצְמָהּ כְּלִפְנִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ וְשֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ, אֲבָל נֶעְקְרוּ — שׁוֹחֲטִין.
The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: What are the inner gums, for which a firstborn is not slaughtered if a blemish was found there? The inner gums are located from the place of the double teeth and inward, and the double teeth themselves are considered like the inward part. In what case is this statement, that one does not slaughter the animal, said? It is said in a case where the inner gums were damaged or were scratched. But if they were extracted, one does slaughter the firstborn for this blemish.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹצַאי אוֹמֵר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶלָּא עַל הַחִיצוֹנוֹת, אֲבָל פְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ — מִישְׁחָט עֲלַיְיהוּ לָא שָׁחֲטִינַן, אֲבָל אִפְּסוֹלֵי מִיפְּסֵל. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הַתְּיוֹמֶת כׇּל עִיקָּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ אִיפְּסוֹלֵי לָא אִיפְּסִיל.
The Gemara continues its interpretation of the baraita. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefutzai says: One slaughters the firstborn only for a blemish of the outer teeth. But with regard to the inner gums that were extracted, one does not slaughter the animal for them, but it is disqualified as an offering. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One does not pay attention to the double teeth at all, and a blemish there does not even disqualify the firstborn from sacrifice.
בָּעֵי רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי: יֵשׁ מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר מִבִּפְנִים, אוֹ אֵין מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר מִבִּפְנִים? לְמַאי? אִי לִבְכוֹר — ״פִּסֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר״ כְּתִיב,
§ Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raises a dilemma: Is there halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal, or is there no halakhic significance to the lack of a limb that is internal? The Gemara inquires: With regard to what issue did he raise this dilemma? If it was with regard to whether such a blemish renders permitted the slaughter of a firstborn outside the Temple, it is written: “Lameness or blindness” (Deuteronomy 15:21), which indicates that the blemish must be exposed.
אִי לְקָדָשִׁים, ״עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר״ כְּתִיב! לְאִישְּׁחוֹטֵי וּלְאִיפְּרוֹקֵי לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי מִיבַּעְיָא לַן לְאִיפְּסוֹלֵי — מַאי?
If the dilemma was raised with regard to whether other sacrificial animals with such a blemish are thereby disqualified from being sacrificed and may be redeemed, it is written: “Blind or broken” (Leviticus 22:22), which are also types of exposed blemishes. The Gemara explains that we do not raise this dilemma with regard to slaughtering the firstborn or redeeming other sacrificial animals, as it is clearly not considered a blemish to that extent. Rather, we raise the dilemma with regard to disqualifying the animal from sacrifice. What is the halakha?
״תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, תָּמִים — אִין, חֶסְרוֹן — לֹא. אוֹ דִלְמָא ״תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן״, ״כׇּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ״ — מָה מוּם מֵאַבָּרַאי, אַף חֶסְרוֹן מֵאַבָּרַאי.
The Gemara clarifies the dilemma. The Merciful One states: “It shall be complete to be accepted” (Leviticus 22:21), which indicates that a complete animal, yes, is fit as a sacrifice, but if it is lacking in any manner, even on the inside, it is not fit. Or perhaps one should interpret this phrase: “It shall be complete to be accepted,” in light of what is stated immediately afterward: “There shall be no blemish therein.” Just as a blemish is on the outside, as taught by the next verse, which says: “Blind or broken,” so too, the status of lacking a limb applies only if it is lacking on the outside.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְאֶת שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת״ — וְלֹא בַּעַל כּוּלְיָא אַחַת, וְלֹא בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ כּוּלְיוֹת. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״יְסִירֶנָּה״ — לְרַבּוֹת בַּעַל כּוּלְיָא אַחַת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that this matter is subject to a dispute. It is taught in one baraita: When it states with regard to the burning of the sacrificial portions of a peace offering: “And the two kidneys” (Leviticus 3:4), this teaches that one sacrifices only an animal that has two kidneys, but not an animal that has one kidney, nor one that has three kidneys. And it is taught in another baraita that when that verse states: “And the two kidneys…he shall take it away,” the singular form serves to include an animal that has one kidney, which may be sacrificed. Evidently, these tanna’im disagree as to whether an animal lacking a kidney is fit to be sacrificed.
סַבְרוּהָ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, דְּהָא מִיחְסָר חָסַר. לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר, חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר, חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן.
The Sages initially assumed that everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and only one kidney is found because this offering became lacking a kidney only after birth. If so, let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that a lack of an internal limb is not considered a lack.
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, וְחֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — כְּשֶׁנִּבְרְאָה בִּשְׁתַּיִם וְחָסְרוּ, כָּאן — כְּשֶׁנִּבְרְאָה בְּאַחַת מֵעִיקָּרָא.
Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: There is no dispute here, as everyone agrees that there is such an entity born with one kidney, and everyone also agrees that the lack of an internal limb is considered a lack that disqualifies the animal. And the contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult: Here, in the first baraita, where it was created with two kidneys and one is lacking, the animal is disqualified. Whereas there, where it was created with one kidney from the outset, it is not lacking and therefore it is fit.
וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דְּשָׁלֹשׁ קָתָנֵי, מָה שָׁלֹשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא, אַף אַחַת מֵעִיקָּרָא!
The Gemara asks: But the first baraita teaches the case of an animal that has one kidney as similar to that of an animal that has three kidneys. One can therefore infer: Just as these three kidneys were present from the outset, as an animal does not grow new limbs, so too, the animal with one kidney alone was like that from the outset.
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּיֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה מֵעִיקָּרָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: יֵשׁ בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת.
Rather, everyone agrees that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to the matter of whether there is an entity created with one kidney from the outset. One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that there is an entity created with one kidney, and it may be assumed that this is such an animal, and it is not lacking a limb. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that there is no entity created with one kidney, and this animal is lacking a limb and is disqualified for sacrifice.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין בְּרִיָּה בְּאַחַת, וְחֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן. וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה, כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. וּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה קוֹדֶם קַבָּלָה מִי שְׁרֵי?
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everyone agrees that there is no entity born with one kidney, and that a lack of an internal limb is considered a lack, and yet it is not difficult. Here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before its slaughter. Whereas there, the second baraita is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after its slaughter, and therefore it is fit. The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after its slaughter but before the collection of the blood in a vessel for sprinkling, is it permitted to sacrifice it?
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: הַצּוֹרֵם אֹזֶן הַפָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ קִיבֵּל דָּמוֹ — פָּסוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר״ — הַפָּר שֶׁהָיָה כְּבָר! אֶלָּא: כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה קוֹדֶם קַבָּלָה, כָּאן שֶׁחָסְרָה לְאַחַר קַבָּלָה.
But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: In the case of one who slits the ear of the bull with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collects its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: “And the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull” (Leviticus 4:5). By using the term “the bull,” the verse indicates that the bull must be at the time of collection of the blood as it already was before slaughter, without a blemish. Rather, here, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where it lacked a kidney before the collection of the blood, whereas there, in the second baraita, it is dealing with a case where it lacked a kidney only after the collection of the blood.
וּלְאַחַר קַבָּלָה קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה, מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״שֶׂה תָּמִים זָכָר בֶּן שָׁנָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״, שֶׁיְּהֵא תָּמִים בֶּן שָׁנָה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה.
The Gemara asks: And if the animal lacked a kidney after the collection of the blood but before the sprinkling of the blood, is it permitted to be sacrificed upon the altar? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male in its year” (Exodus 12:5), indicating that it shall be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter?
וּמִנַּיִן בְּקַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה וְהַזָּיָיה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִהְיֶה״, שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל הֲוָיוֹתָיו תָּם וּבֶן שָׁנָה.
The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that it must also be unblemished at the time of the collection of the blood, and at the time of conveying its blood to the altar, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood? The verse states: “Shall be,” emphasizing that all actions that are performed upon it shall be performed only when it is unblemished and in its first year. This teaches that the offering must be unblemished even at the time of the sprinkling of its blood.
תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַבֶּן שָׁנָה, הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר אוֹ כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב — זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara answers: Interpret this baraita as teaching that only the requirement that the animal must be in its first year is necessary at the time of sprinkling. Nevertheless, it need not be unblemished at this stage. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah that were slaughtered and their blood was collected, from which there remains either an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat, the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering. Learn from this baraita that even if most of the offering is lacking, it is not disqualified after the collection of the blood.
וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּבִשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה הָוֵי בֶּן שָׁנָה, וּבִשְׁעַת קַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה הָוֵי בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים? אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שָׁעוֹת פּוֹסְלוֹת בְּקָדָשִׁים.
The Gemara asks with regard to the interpretation of the baraita: But is there anything where at the time of its slaughter the animal is in its first year but at the time of the collection of the blood and conveying it to the altar it is in its second year? Rava says: That is to say that hours disqualify in the case of sacrificial animals, i.e., one measures the age of the offering from the exact time of its birth. Therefore, if the animal reaches its second year between the time when it is slaughtered and the collection of its blood it is disqualified.
לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וּמָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ — כּוּלָּן בַּבֵּיצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether the lack of an internal organ disqualifies an offering from being sacrificed. Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita discussing the verse that provides a list of animals disqualified from the altar: “And that whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut you shall not sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:24). All of these blemishes are found in the animal’s testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
בַּבֵּיצִים וְלֹא בַּגִּיד? אֵימָא: אַף בַּבֵּיצִים — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּן בַּגִּיד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ — אַף בַּבֵּיצִים, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ — בַּגִּיד אִין, בַּבֵּיצִים לָא.
The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that these blemishes are only in the testicles and not in the penis? There too these should be considered blemishes, as the penis is more exposed and visible than the testicles. Rather, say that all of them also apply to the testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: All of them are considered blemishes only when found on the penis. Rabbi Yosei says: The blemishes of “bruised, or crushed” apply also to the testicles, while with regard to the blemishes of “torn or cut,” on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles they are not considered a blemish.
מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן?
The Gemara explains the relevance of the dispute to the matter at hand: What, is it not that these tanna’im disagree about this: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack. Therefore, in cases where the testicles are damaged they are considered lacking, disqualifying the animal, despite the fact that the blemish is not exposed. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, holds that the lack of an internal limb is not called a lack.
וְתִסְבְּרָא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר חֶסְרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן — אֲפִילּוּ ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ נָמֵי! וְאִי קָסָבַר לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן — אֲפִילּוּ ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ נָמֵי לָא!
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? If so, what does Rabbi Yosei hold? If he holds that the lack of an internal limb is called a lack, then even “torn or cut” should be considered a lack, despite the fact that these blemishes are not visible. And if he holds that a lack of an internal limb is not called a lack, then even “bruised, or crushed,” should not be considered a lack, as they are not exposed.
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמוּמִים שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי קָמִיפַּלְגִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּמִיכַּוְוצָן, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּהָא תַּלְיָין. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סָבַר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי זִמְנִין דְּמִיכַּוְוצָן, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי זִימְנִין דְּתַלְיָין.
Rather, here they disagree with regard to exposed blemishes. Rabbi Yehuda holds that “bruised or crushed” testicles are considered blemished, as the testicles noticeably shrink due to the crushing. Likewise, testicles that are “torn or cut” are considered blemished, as the testicles appear to be hanging, i.e., dangling, to such an extent that they do not appear to be attached in the usual manner. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that testicles that are “bruised or crushed” are not considered noticeable blemishes, as initially, before they become damaged, there are times that the testicles also shrink. Furthermore, testicles that are “torn or cut” are not considered blemished either, as initially, prior to being torn or cut, there are times that the testicles also hang.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ הָוֵי מוּמָא — דְּהָא לֵיתַנְהוּ, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא — דְּהָא אִיתַנְהוּ.
And Rabbi Yosei holds that “bruised or crushed” testicles are considered blemished, as they are no longer present in their normal state, but are entirely broken. But he maintains that “torn or cut” testicles are not considered blemished, as they are still present in the pouch, despite the fact that they no longer function.
מַתְנִי׳ נִפְגַּם הַזּוֹבָן, הָעֶרְיָה שֶׁל נְקֵבָה בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, נִפְגַּם הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם, אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַפֶּרֶק, אוֹ שֶׁרֹאשׁ זָנָב מְפַצֵּל, נִקְלְפָה הָעוֹר וְהַבָּשָׂר וְהָעֶצֶם נִשְׁאַר, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּשָׂר מֵחוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע.
MISHNA: The mishna details additional blemishes that enable the slaughter of firstborn animals: If the pouch [hazoven] in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed, or if the genitalia of a female sacrificial animal, were damaged and lacking; if the tail was damaged from the tailbone, but not if it was damaged from the joint, i.e., one of the joints between the vertebrae, because it heals; or in a case where the end of the tail is split, i.e., the skin and the flesh were removed and the bone remained exposed; or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint; these are all blemishes.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נִפְגַּם וְלֹא נִיטַּל, כִּיס וְלֹא זַכְרוּת. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: נִפְגַּם וְלֹא נִיטַּל, כִּיס וְלֹא זַכְרוּת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעִינְבָּל אֶחָד שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ זְאֵב וְחָזַר לְאֵיתָנוֹ.
GEMARA: With regard to the case where the pouch in which the genitals of the firstborn are concealed was damaged, Rabbi Elazar says: This applies only if the pouch was damaged, but not in a case where it was removed. Furthermore, it is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if the male sex organ was damaged. The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: It is a blemish only if the pouch was damaged, but not if it was removed, and only if the pouch was damaged, but not the male sex organ. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: An incident occurred involving one animal in Inbal, where a wolf removed its pouch and it later returned to its strength, i.e., it grew again.
נִפְגְּמָה הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: אֶצְבַּע שֶׁאָמְרוּ — אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעָה בְּטֶפַח שֶׁל כׇּל הָאָדָם. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַבָּה: לְעִנְיַן תְּכֵלֶת, דְּתַנְיָא: כַּמָּה חוּטִין הוּא נוֹתֵן? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַרְבָּעָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשָׁה.
§ The mishna stated: If the tail was damaged from the tailbone…or in a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. A tanna taught: The fingerbreadth of which the Sages spoke is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rabba says: It is stated with regard to tekhelet, i.e., ritual fringes. As it is taught in a baraita: How many strings does one place on a garment?Beit Shammai say: Four strings are inserted into the hole in the garment so that there are eight strings hanging down altogether, and Beit Hillel say: Three strings are inserted into the hole so that six are hanging down.
וְכַמָּה תְּהֵא מְשׁוּלֶּשֶׁת? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַרְבָּעָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשָׁה. וּשְׁלִישׁ שֶׁבֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים — אֶחָד מֵאַרְבַּע בְּטֶפַח שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם.
The baraita continues: And how much should be hanging beyond the knots and windings? Beit Shammai say: Four fingerbreadths, and Beit Hillel say: Three fingerbreadths. And the three fingerbreadths that Beit Hillel say should be hanging are each one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.
רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: לִשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת, דִּתְנַן: שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת הָיוּ
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says that this baraita discussing the fingerbreadth is referring to the two cubits mentioned in a different context, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 17:9): There were two rods for measuring cubits
Follow
