Bejorot 38

כִּמְלֹא נֶקֶב שֶׁל עוֹל! אִישְׁתִּיק, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: שֶׁמָּא מַקְדֵּחַ וְחִיסּוּמוֹ שָׁנִינוּ.

like the size of the hole of a yoke of an animal. Evidently, the measure of the drilled hole stipulated by Beit Shammai with regard to a deficient skull equals the size of a sela coin stipulated by Beit Hillel according to the statement of Rav Taḥlifa. The Gemara relates: Rav Taḥlifa was silent. And Rav Ḥisda said to him: Perhaps we learned that Beit Shammai did not mean the size of a drilled hole alone, but rather the size of a drilled hole and its obstruction, i.e., a hole that allows for the drill to be inserted and removed. This is slightly larger than the sela mentioned by Beit Hillel.

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב תַּחְלִיפָא: לָא תֵּימָא שֶׁמָּא, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי מַקְדֵּחַ וְחִיסּוּמוֹ, צָרִיךְ לְהִתָּלוֹת עָלֶיהָ כְּחִזְקִיָּה אֲבִי עִקֵּשׁ.

And Rav Taḥlifa said to him: Do not say: Perhaps. Rather, say: Beit Shammai definitely was referring to the size of a drilled hole and its obstruction, and you can rely on this explanation since it is certainly correct, as certain as the testimony of Ḥizkiyya, the father of Ikkesh, which is uncontested. It can be derived from here that just as the phrase: Size of a drilled hole, is referring to the size of a hole into which the drill can be inserted and removed, so too, the size of a bitter vetch mentioned in the mishna is referring to a hole into which the bitter vetch can be inserted and removed.

דִּתְנַן: זוֹ עֵדוּת הֵעִיד חִזְקִיָּה אֲבִי עִקֵּשׁ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּיַבְנֶה, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס — אֵין לוֹ אֲחוֹרַיִם לַחֲלִיקָה. נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ — נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ.

§ The Gemara explains the reference to the testimony of Ḥizkiyya the father of Ikkesh. As we learned in a baraita that Ḥizkiyya, the father of Ikkesh, testified this testimony before Rabban Gamliel in Yavne, which he said in the name of Rabban Gamliel the Elder: With regard to earthenware vessels, any vessel that does not have a receptacle has no distinction with regard to the halakhic status of its sides. This is in contrast to the earthenware vessels mentioned in the Torah, where only the inside, and not the outside, is susceptible to ritual impurity. Rather, if its inside, i.e., the sides that are used, became impure, its outside also becomes impure. Likewise, if its outside became impure, its inside also becomes impure.

כְּלִי חֶרֶס, בְּתוֹכוֹ תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא — אִית לֵיהּ תּוֹךְ — אִיטַּמִּי לֵיהּ, לֵית לֵיהּ תּוֹךְ — לָא אִיטַּמִּי לֵיהּ!

The Gemara challenges: With regard to an earthenware vessel, the Merciful One rendered its susceptibility to impurity dependent on the presence of a receptacle, as it states: “And every earthen vessel into whose interior any of them falls” (Leviticus 11:33). Consequently, if there is a receptacle, it will become impure, but if there is no receptacle, it should not become impure.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אָבִין: הָכִי קָאָמַר, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס — כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בִּכְלִי שֶׁטֶף אֵין לוֹ אֲחוֹרַיִם לַחֲלִיקָה, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ — נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avin said in response: The testimony is not referring to earthenware vessels, but to vessels that are purified through immersion in a ritual bath, such as wooden vessels, which are susceptible to ritual impurity even if they lack a receptacle. Accordingly, this is what the tanna is saying: With regard to earthenware vessels, any vessel that does not have a receptacle never becomes impure. The halakha in the corresponding case with regard to a vessel that is purified though rinsing, i.e., immersion in a ritual bath, where it lacks a receptacle, is that there is no distinction with regard to the halakhic status of its sides. Therefore, if its inside, i.e., the side that is used, became impure, its outside also becomes impure. Likewise, if its outside became impure, its inside also becomes impure.

לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְלְיֵיהּ בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס? נֵימָא: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ בִּכְלִי שֶׁטֶף — אֵין לוֹ אֲחוֹרַיִם לַחֲלִיקָה!

The Gemara asks: Why do I need to render this halakha dependent on an earthenware vessel? Let us simply say: With regard to a vessel that is purified though rinsing, any vessel that does not have a receptacle has no distinction with regard to the halakhic status of its sides.

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ תּוֹךְ — הֲרֵי הוּא כִּכְלִי חֶרֶס; מָה כְּלִי חֶרֶס, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, לֹא נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — לֹא נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ; אַף כְּלִי שֶׁטֶף, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ, לֹא נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — לֹא נִטְמָא גַּבּוֹ.

The Gemara answers: This association teaches us that if the vessel that is purified through rinsing has a receptacle, it is like an earthenware vessel. Therefore, just as in the case of an earthenware vessel, if its inside became impure, its outside also becomes impure, but if its inside did not become impure, its outside does not become impure, so too, with regard to a vessel that is purified through rinsing, if its inside became impure, its outside becomes impure. But if its inside did not become impure, its outside does not become impure.

בִּשְׁלָמָא כְּלִי חֶרֶס, גַּלִּי בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא ״תּוֹכוֹ״, אֶלָּא כְּלִי שֶׁטֶף, מִי גַּלִּי בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא תּוֹכוֹ?

The Gemara asks: Granted that with regard to an earthenware vessel, the Merciful One revealed that it is rendered ritually impure only if the impure item fell into its “inside” (see Leviticus 11:33). But with regard to a vessel that is purified though rinsing, did the Merciful One reveal with regard to it that it becomes impure only through its inside? Therefore, even if the impure item touched the outside, it should become entirely impure.

אִי בְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — הָכִי נָמֵי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּטוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין דְּרַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: כְּלִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא אֲחוֹרָיו בְּמַשְׁקִין — אֲחוֹרָיו טְמֵאִין, תּוֹכוֹ אׇגְנוֹ אׇזְנוֹ וְיָדָיו טְהוֹרִין, נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — כּוּלּוֹ טָמֵא.

The Gemara answers: If it is referring to ritual impurity that is by Torah law, then indeed a vessel that is purified through rinsing can be become impure even through its outside. But here we are dealing with the ritual impurity of liquids, i.e., liquids that became impure and subsequently touched the vessel, which becomes impure only by rabbinic law. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 25:6): With regard to a vessel whose outside became ritually impure by contact with impure liquids, only its outside is impure, but its inside, its rim, its ear-shaped handle, and its straight handle are pure. If its inside became impure, it becomes impure in its entirety.

מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֵין אוֹכֶל מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי, וְאֵין מַשְׁקֶה מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי, וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזוּר מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֵה זָב וְזָבָה.

The Gemara explains the reason: By Torah law, food does not transmit impurity to a vessel, and a liquid does not transmit impurity to a vessel. And it was the Sages who decreed that an impure liquid transmits impurity to a vessel, because of the concern that people will be lenient with regard to the liquid of a zav and a zava, such as their urine or saliva, which are a primary source of impurity and impart impurity to vessels.

הִלְכָּךְ, שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן כְּטוּמְאָה דִּכְלִי חֶרֶס, וְלָא שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן כְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ.

Therefore, the Sages deemed the impurity of a vessel that is purified though rinsing whose outside became impure through liquid to be like the impurity of an earthenware vessel, and if its exterior became impure, its interior remains pure. But the Sages did not deem its impurity like the impurity of itself, i.e., a vessel that is purified through rinsing, by Torah law, that if its exterior became impure, the vessel becomes impure in its entirety.

עֲבַדוּ רַבָּנַן הֶיכֵּירָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִישְׂרוֹף עֲלֵיהּ תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים. אִי הָכִי, אֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ נָמֵי, לֶיעְבֵּיד נָמֵי הֶיכֵּירָא!

The reason for this is that through this ruling the Sages employed an indicator that it is impure only by rabbinic law so that people will not burn teruma and consecrated items due to having come into contact with those vessels, as by Torah law they are ritually pure and it is prohibited to burn them. The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the case under discussion, then with regard to a vessel that is purified through rinsing that has no receptacle as well, the Sages should employ an indicator. They should rule that the inside remains pure so that teruma and consecrated items will not be burned after coming in contact with it. Why then did Ḥizkiyya, the father of Ikkesh, testify that if its outside became impure, its inside becomes impure as well?

כֵּיוָן דַּעֲבַדוּ הֶיכֵּירָא בְּיֵשׁ לוֹ תּוֹךְ, יְדִיעַ דְּאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ דְּרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara answers: Since the Sages employed an indicator with regard to vessels that are purified through rinsing that have a receptacle, it is thereby known that the impurity of a vessel that does not have a receptacle that comes in contact with an impure liquid is by rabbinic law. Therefore, no one will burn teruma and consecrated items that came in contact with it.

וְאֵין לוֹ תּוֹךְ בִּכְלִי שֶׁטֶף, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בַּר קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הוּא? דּוּמְיָא דְּשַׂק בָּעֵינַן, מָה שַׂק מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָן, אַף כֹּל מִיטַּלְטֵל מָלֵא וְרֵיקָן.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to a vessel that is purified through rinsing, is it susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law, so that the Sages found it necessary to decree that the exterior is susceptible to impurity of liquids? After all, in order for a vessel to be susceptible to impurity it is required to be similar to a sack, which is mentioned with regard to ritual impurity (see Leviticus 11:32): Just as a sack is carried both full and empty, so too, any object must be capable of being carried both full and empty in order to become ritually impure. This excludes a vessel that has no receptacle and cannot be carried full.

בְּהָנָךְ דַּחֲזוּ לְמִדְרָסוֹת. אִי הָכִי, חֶרֶס נָמֵי! אֵין מִדְרָס בִּכְלִי חֶרֶס.

The Gemara answers that it is referring to these vessels that are suited for sitting and are susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading, i.e., the ritual impurity imparted by a zav, zava, or a menstruating woman who sits or lies down on an item, even though it lacks a receptacle. The Gemara challenges: If so, with regard to an earthenware vessel that has no inside, the Rabbis should also decree that it is susceptible to the impurity of liquids if it is fit for sitting. The Gemara answers: There is no ritual impurity imparted by treading with regard to earthenware vessels.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מַקְדֵּחַ גָּדוֹל שָׁנִינוּ.

§ The Gemara returns to the matter of an incomplete skull. According to the opinion of Beit Shammai, if the skull is missing a piece of bone the size of a drilled hole, it does not impart impurity. According to Shmuel, Beit Hillel holds that it must be missing a piece the size of a sela coin. If so, there would be no disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as it was taught with regard to a window that imparts ritual impurity that a drilled hole is the same size as a sela coin. The Gemara now offers an additional answer: Rav Pappa says that it was with regard to a large drill that we learned that the minimum size of a window that imparts impurity equals the size of a sela coin.

מִכְּלָל דְּמַקְדֵּחַ סְתָם זוּטַרא נָמֵי מִכְּסֶלַע. הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

The Gemara comments that by inference, the unspecified drill mentioned in the statement of Beit Shammai with regard to an incomplete skull is also smaller than the size of a sela coin mentioned by Beit Hillel. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the explanation of Rabbi Meir for the opinion of Beit Shammai. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is there to say?

דִּתְנַן: בְּאֵיזֶה מַקְדֵּחַ אָמְרוּ? בְּקָטָן שֶׁל רוֹפְאִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּגָדוֹל שֶׁל לִשְׁכָּה.

As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 2:3): With regard to which drill did Beit Shammai state their opinion concerning an incomplete skull? It was with regard to a small drill of doctors, used for drilling bones. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It was with regard to a large drill, such as that used in the Temple chamber. According to the mishna concerning a window that imparts impurity, the size of this drill is like that of a sela coin, and the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel would still be identical.

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִי נִיחָא? הָוֵה לֵיהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. וַאֲנַן דִּתְנַן — תְּנַן, דְּלָא תְּנַן — לָא תְּנַן!

The Gemara asks further: And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, does it work out well? If the unspecified drill mentioned by Beit Shammai is smaller than a sela coin, then this is an instance of the leniencies of Beit Shammai and of the stringencies of Beit Hillel, as with regard to a skull that was missing a piece only the size of a drilled hole, Beit Shammai are lenient and hold that it does not impart impurity in a tent, while Beit Hillel do consider it impure. And we have a principle: That which we learned in the mishna in tractate Eduyyot pertaining to the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, we learned, and that which we did not learn there, we did not learn. Therefore, in all other cases, Beit Shammai are stringent and Beit Hillel are lenient.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: סֶלַע נִירוֹנִית שָׁנִינוּ, כְּמַקְדֵּחַ גָּדוֹל, סֶלַע סְתָם זוּטַרא מִמַּקְדֵּחַ סְתָם.

Rav Naḥman says: It is specifically with regard to a sela of the emperor Nero that we learned in the mishna concerning a window that imparts impurity that it is like the size of a large drilled hole. But with regard to the unspecified sela coin mentioned by Beit Hillel as the measure, it is even smaller than an unspecified drilled hole. Therefore, Beit Shammai are stringent even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

מַתְנִי׳ הָרִיס שֶׁל עַיִן שֶׁנִּיקַּב, שֶׁנִּפְגַּם, שֶׁנִּסְדַּק, הֲרֵי בְּעֵינוֹ דַּק, תְּבַלּוּל, חִלָּזוֹן, נָחָשׁ, עָצָב. אֵיזֶהוּ תְּבַלּוּל? לָבָן הַפּוֹסֵק בַּסִּירָא וְנִכְנָס בַּשָּׁחוֹר. שָׁחוֹר נִכְנַס בַּלָּבָן — אֵינוֹ מוּם.

MISHNA: For these blemishes of the eye, one may slaughter the firstborn animal outside the Temple: The eyelid that was pierced, an eyelid that was damaged and is lacking, or an eyelid that was split; and likewise, one may slaughter a firstborn animal outside the Temple if there was in his eye a cataract, a tevallul, or a growth in the shape of a snail, a snake, or a berry that covers the pupil. What is a tevallul? It is a white thread that bisects the iris and enters the black pupil. If it is a black thread that bisects the iris and enters the white of the eye it is not a blemish.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי הָרִיס? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תּוֹרָא בָּרָא דְּעֵינָא. דַּק תְּבַלּוּל, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דַּק מְשׁוּקָּע — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, צָף — אֵינוֹ מוּם.

GEMARA: The mishna’s list of blemishes of the eye included an eyelid [ris] that was pierced, damaged, or split. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The ris? Rav Pappa says: It means the outer line, or barrier, of the eye, i.e., the eyelid. The mishna further stated: A cataract, a tevallul. With regard to a cataract, the Sages taught: A sunken cataract, i.e., one that is in the eye itself, is a blemish, but a floating cataract, i.e., one that is floating above the eye, is not a blemish.

וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בַּשָּׁחוֹר הָא בַּלָּבָן. וְהָא: אֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן! אֶלָּא, הָא בְּדוּק לָבָן, הָא בְּדוּק שָׁחוֹר.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t the opposite taught in a baraita, that a sunken cataract is not a blemish whereas a floating one is a blemish? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult, as this first baraita is referring to a cataract in the black portion of the eye, whereas that second baraita is referring to one in the white portion of the eye. The Gemara challenges: But it was taught that there are no blemishes in the white portion of the eye. Rather, both baraitot are referring to the black portion of the eye, and this second baraita is referring to a white cataract, whereas that first baraita is referring to a black cataract.

דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: סָח לִי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא: דַּק שָׁחוֹר מְשׁוּקָּע — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, צָף — אֵינוֹ מוּם. דַּק לָבָן מְשׁוּקָּע — אֵינוֹ מוּם, צָף — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, וְסִימָנָיךְ: בַּרְקָא.

This is as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Yoshiya from Usha told me that with regard to a black cataract, if it is sunken it is a blemish, but if it is floating it is not a blemish. Conversely, with regard to a white cataract, if it is sunken it is not a blemish, whereas if it is floating it is a blemish. And your mnemonic to remember this is barka, which is a disease in which white patches float above the eye, and it is considered a blemish.

חִלָּזוֹן נָחָשׁ וְעָצָב. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: חִלָּזוֹן הוּא נָחָשׁ, אוֹ דִלְמָא חִלָּזוֹן אוֹ נָחָשׁ?

§ The mishna included in its list of blemishes of the eye a growth in the shape of a snail, a snake, or a berry that covers the pupil. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the snail mentioned in the mishna the same as the snake, or perhaps they are two distinct blemishes, and the mishna means a snail or a snake?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: סָח לִי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, זָקֵן אֶחָד הָיָה בִּשְׁכוּנָתֵינוּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹסֵי לָקוֹנְיָא שְׁמוֹ, וּמִיָּמַי לֹא עָבַרְתִּי לְפָנָיו. פַּעַם אַחַת עָבַרְתִּי לְפָנָיו, אָמַר לִי: שֵׁב בְּנִי, שֵׁב. חִלָּזוֹן זֶה מוּם קָבוּעַ לִשְׁחוֹט עָלָיו, וְזֶהוּ נָחָשׁ שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים.

The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Elazar told me: There was a certain elder in our neighborhood, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya was his name, and in all my days I did not pass before him. But once I did pass before him, and he said to me: Sit, my son, sit, and I will teach you one matter: This snail that you see in the eye of a firstborn is a permanent blemish, and it is permitted to slaughter the animal on its account. And this is also the snake mentioned by the Sages as a blemish.

וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: אֵין אָדָם רוֹאֶה מוּמִין לְעַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל מוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה לַתַּלְמִידִים, וְתַלְמִידִים מוֹרִין לוֹ.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya adds: And even though the Sages said that a person cannot see blemishes for himself, and therefore I cannot permit this firstborn to myself, even so a halakhic authority may issue a halakhic ruling to his students, and the students may then issue a halakhic ruling for him based on what he taught them. Consequently, once I have taught you this halakha, you may permit my firstborn to me due to this blemish.

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה וּבָא, אִם קוֹדֶם מַעֲשֶׂה אֲמָרָהּ — שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ! אִיהוּ נָמֵי מוֹרֶה וּבָא הֲוָה מֵעִיקָּרָא.

The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Elazar permit the firstborn in this manner? But doesn’t Rabbi Abba say that Rav Huna says: With regard to any Torah scholar who is engaged in issuing a ruling of halakha in a situation relevant to himself, if he already stated the ruling before the incident, i.e., before it was relevant to him, one listens to him; and if not, i.e., the ruling followed the incident, one does not listen to him? The Gemara answers that he too, Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya, was engaged in issuing this ruling of halakha at the outset, before it became relevant to him.

אֵיזֶהוּ תְּבַלּוּל? לָבָן הַפּוֹסֵק אֶת הַסִּירָא. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: לָבָן וְנִכְנָס בַּשָּׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וְנִכְנָס בַּלָּבָן — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לָבָן וְנִכְנָס בַּשָּׁחוֹר — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, שָׁחוֹר וְנִכְנָס בַּלָּבָן — אֵינוֹ מוּם, שֶׁאֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן.

§ The mishna further stated: What is a tevallul? It is a white thread that bisects the iris and enters the black pupil. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: If there is either a white thread that enters the black, or a black thread that enters the white, it is a blemish; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: If it is a white thread that enters the black, it is a blemish, but if it is a black thread that enters the white, it is not a blemish, as there are no blemishes in the white of the eye.

אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? דִּכְתִיב: ״יָצָא מֵחֵלֶב עֵינֵימוֹ״, תַּרְבָּא דְּעֵינָא — אִיקְּרִי, ״עֵינֵימוֹ״ סְתָמָא — לָא אִיקְּרִי. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ? מָה לְשׁוֹן ״תְּבַלּוּל״? דָּבָר הַמְבַלְבֵּל אֶת הָעֵינַיִם.

Rav says: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei? As it is written: “Their eyes stand forth from fatness” (Psalms 73:7), which is interpreted to mean that the wicked embark on an evil path due to the fatness in the eyes, which is in the white portion. This indicates that the white portion is called the fat of the eye, but it is not called simply: Their eyes. Conversely, a tevallul is considered a blemish only if it is in the eye itself, as it states: “Or tevallul in his eye” (Leviticus 21:20). The Gemara further asks: And with regard to Rabbi Meir, what is his reason? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir would explain as follows: What is the meaning of the expression tevallul? It is a substance that mixes [hamevalbel] within the eyes, i.e., which passes through the white and the black in any fashion.

מַתְנִי׳ חֲוַרְוָור וְהַמַּיִם הַקְּבוּעִין. אֵיזֶהוּ חֲוַרְוָור הַקָּבוּעַ? כֹּל שֶׁשָּׁהָה שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אֹמֵר: בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בְּתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם.

MISHNA: Pale spots on the eye and tears streaming from the eye that are constant are blemishes that enable the slaughter of the firstborn. Which are the pale spots that are constant? They are any spots that persisted for eighty days. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus said: One examines it three times within eighty days. Only if the spots are found during all three examinations are they considered constant.

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מַיִם הַקְּבוּעִין: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים, לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל שְׁלָחִים, אוֹ אָכַל הַיָּבֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַלַּח — אֵינוֹ מוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַלַּח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַיָּבֵשׁ.

And these are the constant tears, i.e., this is how it is known whether the blemish is temporary or permanent: In a case where the animal ate, for medicinal purposes, moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain, or if the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field, or even if the animal did not eat them together but ate the dry fodder and thereafter ate the moist fodder, and the condition of constant tears was not healed, it is not a blemish. It is not a blemish unless the animal eats the moist fodder and thereafter eats the dry fodder and is not thereby healed.

גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: חֲוַרְוָור קָבוּעַ — אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם, וּמַיִם הַקְּבוּעִים — שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חֲוַרְוָור — שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: A blemish of constant pale spots is a condition that persisted for forty days, and constant tears is a condition that persisted for eighty days; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda says: A blemish of constant pale spots is a condition that persisted for eighty days.

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מַיִם הַקְּבוּעִים: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין, אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל יָבֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל הַלַּח — אֵין מוּם עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל יָבֵשׁ אַחַר הַלַּח, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים.

The baraita continues: And these are the constant tears, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: In a case where the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field, or ate the dry fodder and thereafter ate the moist fodder, and the animal was not healed, its status as a blemish is not certain. It is not a blemish unless the animal eats the dry fodder after eating the moist fodder and is not thereby healed. And the duration of this period of eating moist and then dry fodder extends for three months.

וְהָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ תְּנַנְהִי: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים, לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין!

The Gemara asks: But how can the mishna be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? We learned about two types of fields in the mishna: A case where the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain and a case where the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field and was not healed. In either case, it is not a blemish. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda mentioned only moist fodder and dry fodder from a field that requires irrigation, from which it can be inferred that if the animal was fed moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain and it was not healed, its condition is a blemish.

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין — אֵינוֹ מוּם, וְהַגְּשָׁמִים נָמֵי, אָכַל יָבֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל לַח — אֵינוֹ מוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל יָבֵשׁ אַחַר הַלַּח.

The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching, in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita: If the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain, it is a blemish. If it ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field, it is not a blemish. And with regard to a field watered exclusively with rain as well, if it ate the dry fodder and thereafter ate the moist fodder it is not a blemish. It is a not blemish until the animal eats the dry fodder after the moist fodder.

וְיֶשְׁנוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. אִינִי? וְהָתַנְיָא — וְהָא רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָאן: אֲדָר וְנִיסָן — לַח, אֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרִי — יָבֵשׁ! אֵימָא: אֲדָר וַחֲצִי נִיסָן — לַח, אֱלוּל וַחֲצִי תִשְׁרֵי — יָבֵשׁ.

With regard to the statement of the baraita: And the duration of this period of eating moist and then dry fodder lasts for three months, the Gemara asks: Is that so? But isn’t it taught that Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashiyan says: The months of Adar and Nisan are the moist period mentioned in the mishna, as the fodder is still moist at that time of year; and the months of Elul and Tishrei are the dry period, as this is the end of summer? In total, there are four months, not three. The Gemara answers that one should say as follows: The months of Adar and half of Nisan are the moist period, and the months of Elul and half of Tishrei are the dry period, for a total of three months.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לַח בִּזְמַן לַח, וְיָבֵשׁ בִּזְמַן הַיָּבֵשׁ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: לַח וְיָבֵשׁ בִּזְמַן הַלַּח?

With regard to the ruling of the mishna that the animal must be given moist fodder and then dry fodder, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean it must be fed moist fodder at the time of moist fodder, i.e., at the end of the rainy season, and dry fodder at the time of dry fodder, at the conclusion of summer? Or perhaps it is fed moist fodder and then dry fodder leftover from the previous summer, both at the time of moist fodder.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָאן: אֲדָר וְנִיסָן — לַח, אֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרִי — יָבֵשׁ. דִּלְמָא פֵּירֵי דֶּאֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרִי מַאֲכִילִנַן לֵיהּ בַּאֲדָר וְנִיסָן!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashiyan said: The months of Adar and Nisan are the period of moist fodder; Elul and Tishrei are the period of dry fodder. This indicates that the animal is given the fodder that is available at that time. The Gemara refutes this proof: That statement is not necessarily referring to the time when it is fed, as perhaps one feeds it the produce of Elul and Tishrei in Adar and Nisan.

וְכַמָּה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן עָרוֹבָא: כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. אָמַר רָבָא: (בָּעֵי) [בָּעַן] בְּמַעְרְבָא: כִּגְרוֹגְרוֹת בִּסְעוּדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה,

The Gemara asks: And how much does one feed it? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Arova: One feeds it the amount of a fig-bulk. Rava says: They raise a dilemma in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Does this mean that it is fed the amount of a fig-bulk at its first meal each day,