## Bekhorot Daf 37b

###### Bekhorot 37b:1
[Bekhorot 37b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:1)

נֶעְקְרוּ אִין, נִפְגְּמוּ וְנִגְמְמוּ לָא? בָּעֵינָא ״מוּם רָע״, וְלֵיכָּא! אִי הָכִי, מוּם עוֹבֵר נָמֵי! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: וְלֹא מִן הָעוֹר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It can be inferred that if the internal gums **were extracted** then **yes,** one may slaughter the firstborn, but if they **were** merely **damaged or** they **were scratched,** one may **not,** since it is a hidden blemish. The Gemara answers: **I require** that it be **an “ill blemish,”** which must be exposed and degrading, **and** a hidden blemish **is not** considered such an “ill blemish.” The Gemara asks: **If so,** that all blemishes are included by the words: “Any ill blemish,” aside from hidden blemishes, **a temporary blemish** should **also** render it permitted for the firstborn to be slaughtered. **Why** then **did we learn** in the mishna: If the firstborn’s ear was damaged and lacking from the cartilage it may be slaughtered, **but not** if it is damaged and lacking **from the skin,** since it is a temporary blemish?


###### Bekhorot 37b:2
[Bekhorot 37b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:2)

מוּם עוֹבֵר סְבָרָא הוּא, הַשְׁתָּא מִיפְרָק לָא פָּרְקִינַן עִלָּוֵיהּ, מִשְׁחָט שָׁחֲטִינַן עִלָּוֵיהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאִם כׇּל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״ — בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **A temporary blemish** is not excluded by the exegesis but **is** based on **logical reasoning: Now,** if **we do not** even **redeem** an offering **due to** a temporary blemish, **will we slaughter** a firstborn outside the Temple, for which redemption is not performed, **due to** a temporary blemish? The Gemara explains the source for this assertion that an offering is not redeemed because of a temporary blemish. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“And if it be any impure animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:11). **The verse is speaking of** ritually pure animals with **blemishes.**


###### Bekhorot 37b:3
[Bekhorot 37b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:3)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מַמָּשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְאִם בִּבְהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה״, הֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה״? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Do you say that the verse is speaking of** animals with **blemishes that were redeemed, or** is it referring **only** to **an actual impure animal,** such as a donkey or a horse that was consecrated; but with regard to a kosher animal, perhaps its consecrated status cannot be removed by redemption even if it was blemished? **When** the verse **states: “And if it be of an impure animal”** (Leviticus 27:27), **a non-kosher animal is mentioned. So how do I realize** the meaning of: **“Of which they may not bring an offering”? You must say** that **this** is referring to **blemished** animals **that were redeemed,** indicating that redemption is permitted.


###### Bekhorot 37b:4
[Bekhorot 37b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:4)

יָכוֹל יִפָּדוּ עַל מוּם עוֹבֵר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״ — מִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה כׇּל עִיקָּר, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא לְמָחָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: One **might** have thought that offerings **may be redeemed due to a temporary blemish** that they sustained. Therefore, **the verse states: “Of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord”** (Leviticus 27:11). This teaches that an animal **that is not sacrificed at all** is redeemed, which **excludes this** animal that has a temporary blemish, **which is not sacrificed today,** but **rather** may be sacrificed **tomorrow.**


###### Bekhorot 37b:5
[Bekhorot 37b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:5)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִם כֵּן פִּסֵּחַ וְעִוֵּר לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **If you wish, say** a different explanation as to why a temporary blemish is not included in the amplification of the verse: “Any ill blemish”: **If so,** that even a temporary blemish permits its slaughter, **why do I** need the verse to mention **a lame** animal **and a blind** animal? It would have sufficed to state: “Any ill blemish.” Rather, the verse excludes a temporary blemish that is unlike these two blemishes, which are permanent.


###### Bekhorot 37b:6
[Bekhorot 37b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:6)

נִסְדְּקָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָסְרָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַסֶּדֶק — כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, הַפְּגִימָה — בֵּין בִּידֵי אָדָם בֵּין בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. מִכְּלָל דְּסֶדֶק בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the ear of the firstborn animal **was split, although it is not lacking,** one may slaughter the animal outside the Temple. With regard to this, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **The split** that permits the animal to be slaughtered is one of **any size.** With regard to **the damage, whether** it was done **by the hand of a person or by the hand of God,** it may be slaughtered. The Gemara asks: Should it be derived **by inference that** with regard to **a split,** if it was caused **by the hand of God** it is **not** considered a blemish? That also should be considered an obvious blemish and render the animal permitted for slaughter.


###### Bekhorot 37b:7
[Bekhorot 37b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:7)

אֶלָּא, סֶדֶק וּפְגִימָה — בֵּין בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם בֵּין בִּידֵי אָדָם. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּר פְּגִימָה? כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּחְגּוֹר בָּהּ צִיפּוֹרֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the *baraita* should be interpreted as follows: The animal may be slaughtered for a split of any size, and with regard to **a split and damage, whether** it was done **by the hand of God or by the hand of a person,** the animal may be slaughtered. **And what is the measure of the damage** that is considered a blemish? It must be large enough **that a fingernail will be retained [*shetaḥgor*] on it,** i.e., if one passes his fingernail over the ear of the animal it can enter the area of the damage.


###### Bekhorot 37b:8
[Bekhorot 37b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:8)

נִקְּבָה מְלֹא וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כַּמָּה נְקִיבַת הָאוֹזֶן? מְלֹא כַרְשִׁינָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא יְבֵשָׁה? שֶׁאִם תִּינָּקֵב וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה טִיפַּת דָּם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: יְבֵשָׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נִפְרֶכֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna stated that if the ear of a firstborn animal **was pierced** with a hole **the size of** a bitter vetch, the animal is slaughtered because of it. With regard to this, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **How large** must **the piercing of the ear** be? It must be **the size of a *karshina*. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Like** the size of **a lentil,** which is slightly smaller. **And what is a desiccated** ear that is considered a blemish? It is an ear **that if it is pierced, it does not discharge a drop of blood. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: Desiccated** means that the ear is **so** dry **that it will crumble** if one touches it.


###### Bekhorot 37b:9
[Bekhorot 37b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:9)

תָּנָא: קְרוֹבִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן לִהְיוֹת שָׁוִין. דִּבְרֵיהֶן דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם — טוּבָא אִיכָּא! אֶלָּא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A Sage **taught: Their statements are close to being identical** in practice. The Gemara asks: **The statements of whom** are close to being identical? **If we say** that he is referring to the statements **of the first *tanna* and Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam** with regard to a desiccated ear, **there is a significant** difference between these two opinions. One says it is determined by whether blood emerges, while the other holds it is based on whether it crumbles. **Rather,** he is referring to the statement **of the first *tanna* and** the statement of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** as a *karshina* and a lentil are almost identical in size.


###### Bekhorot 37b:10
[Bekhorot 37b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:10)

כַּעֲדָשָׁה — אִין, בְּצִיר מִכַּעֲדָשָׁה — לָא? וּרְמִינְהִי: ״מַרְצֵעַ״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַרְצֵעַ, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הַסּוֹל, וְהַסִּירָה, וְהַמַּחַט, וְהַמַּקְדֵּחַ, וְהַמַּכְתֵּב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: If the ear was pierced with a hole **like** the size of **a lentil,** then **yes,** it is considered a blemish, but if it was pierced with a hole **less than** the size **of a lentil,** then is it **not** considered a blemish? **And** one can **raise a contradiction** from a *baraita*: The Torah provides a description of the process by which a Hebrew slave who has already completed his six years of servitude may continue on as a slave of his master: “And you shall take the **awl** and put it through his ear and in the door” (Deuteronomy 15:17). From this verse, **I have** derived **only** that **an awl** can be used. **From where** do I know **to include the palm thorn [*hassol*], a thorn, a needle, and a gimlet, and a stylus** for writing on wax as valid tools for piercing his ear?


###### Bekhorot 37b:11
[Bekhorot 37b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:11)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״ — כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּלְקָח בַּיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״מַרְצֵעַ״ — מָה מַרְצֵעַ מְיוּחָד שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, אַף כֹּל שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states: “And you shall take,”** which indicates that **anything that can be taken by hand** is a valid tool. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** Not all these items can be used. Rather, since the verse specifies **an “awl,”** only items similar to an awl can be used; **just as an awl is distinct** in that it is fashioned **of metal, so too, anything** fashioned **of metal** can be used.


###### Bekhorot 37b:12
[Bekhorot 37b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:12)

וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אָמַר רַבִּי, יוּדָן בְּרִבִּי הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ: כְּשֶׁהֵן רוֹצְעִין, אֵין רוֹצְעִין אֶלָּא בַּמִּילָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the latter clause** of the *baraita* **teaches: Rabbi** Elazar **said that Yudan the Distinguished would teach** as follows: **When they pierce** the ear of the slave, **they pierce only in the earlobe.**


###### Bekhorot 37b:13
[Bekhorot 37b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:13)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי כֹּהֵן נִרְצָע, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בַּעַל מוּם. וְאִם תֹּאמַר: בַּמִּילָת הָיוּ רוֹצְעִין, הֵיאַךְ עֶבֶד כֹּהֵן נַעֲשֶׂה בַּעַל מוּם? הָא אֵין רוֹצְעִין אֶלָּא בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁל אוֹזֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** The piercing is not performed on that part of the ear, since there is a tradition that the ear of **a Hebrew slave** who is **a priest is not pierced, because** the piercing **renders him blemished** and unfit to serve in the Temple. **And if you say** that **they pierced** the slave **in the earlobe, how does a Hebrew slave** who is **a priest become blemished** through piercing? A wound on this part of the ear heals. **This** indicates that **they pierce only on the upper part of the ear,** through the cartilage.


###### Bekhorot 37b:14
[Bekhorot 37b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:14)

אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר קַטִּינָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן לִשְׁחוֹט, כָּאן לִפְסוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In any event, it is clear from the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that the piercing of a needle is considered a blemish, despite the fact that it is definitely smaller than the size of a lentil. The Gemara answers: **Rav Ḥana bar Ketina said:** It is **not difficult,** as **here,** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that the hole must be the size of a lentil **with regard to slaughtering** an animal outside the Temple due to the blemish. **There, with regard to disqualifying** the animal from being sacrificed, even a tiny hole is considered a blemish, just as it renders the priest blemished.


###### Bekhorot 37b:15
[Bekhorot 37b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:15)

מַאי כַּרְשִׁינָה? אָמַר רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא: הִינְדָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ According to the first opinion cited in the *baraita*, the size of the hole that is considered a blemish in the ear of the firstborn animal is like that of a *karshina*. The Gemara asks: **What is a *karshina*? Rav Sherevya says:** It is a bitter vetch, called ***hinda*** in Aramaic.


###### Bekhorot 37b:16
[Bekhorot 37b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:16)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא מֵרַב הוּנָא רַבָּה: כַּרְשִׁינָה הַנִּכְנֶסֶת וְיוֹצְאָה, אוֹ כַרְשִׁינָה הָעוֹמֶדֶת? אָמַר לוֹ: זוֹ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי, כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שָׁמַעְתִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this *halakha*, **Rav Hoshaya asked Rav Huna the Great:** Is this measure referring to **a bitter vetch that** can **enter and exit** the hole in the ear, which means that the hole is slightly larger than the bitter vetch? **Or** is it referring to **a bitter vetch that is stationary** in the hole, meaning that the hole is precisely the size of a bitter vetch? Rav Huna the Great **said to him: I did not hear this** *halakha* specifically, but **I heard a similar** *halakha* **to it,** that the expression: The size of a bitter vetch [*melo karshina*], means that the bitter vetch can enter and exit the hole.


###### Bekhorot 37b:17
[Bekhorot 37b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:17)

דִּתְנַן: הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁחָסְרוּ, כַּמָּה חֶסְרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה וְלֹא יְהֵא מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי חוּלְיוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חוּלְיָא אַחַת. וּבַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כִּמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי וְיָמוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Oholot* 2:3): **The spine and the skull** of a corpse **that** are **incomplete** do not impart ritual impurity in a tent. This *halakha* was unanimously accepted, but the details were subject to dispute: **How much** is considered **a deficiency in the spine so that it will not impart impurity in a tent? Beit Shammai say:** If it is missing **two vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say:** Even if it is missing only **one vertebra,** it will not impart impurity. **And** likewise, they disagree concerning the deficiency **in the skull: Beit Shammai say** that it must be missing a piece **like the size of a drilled hole, and Beit Hillel say:** It must be missing **an amount that if removed from a living** person, **he would die.**


###### Bekhorot 37b:18
[Bekhorot 37b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:18)

וְיָתֵיב רַב חִסְדָּא וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: ״כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי״ — וְכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבוּדִימִי: הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל — כְּסֶלַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **And Rav Ḥisda was sitting, and he raised a dilemma:** That which was stated: **An amount that if removed from a living** person, **how much** is that? **Rav Taḥlifa bar Avudimi said to him: This is what Shmuel says:** It is **like** the size of **a *sela*** coin.


###### Bekhorot 37b:19
[Bekhorot 37b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:19)

וְאִיתְּמַר: רַב סָפְרָא אָמַר: שְׁמַעְתְּתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר: מַתְנִיתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וְסִימָנָיךְ: תָּנֵי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And it was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed with regard to whom Rabbi Taḥlifa cited when relating this *halakha* to Rav Ḥisda. **Rav Safra says** that **he told him a *halakha*** of the *amora’im* citing Shmuel. **And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says** that **he told him a *baraita*** that stipulated that the measure is like the size of a *sela* coin. **And your mnemonic** to remember what each one said is the common talmudic phrase: **Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda teaches [*tanei*],** generally indicating a source from a *tanna*, which hints that according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, Rav Taḥlifa cited a *baraita* to Rav Ḥisda, while according to Rav Safra, he related a tradition from Shmuel.


###### Bekhorot 37b:20
[Bekhorot 37b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:20)

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, עָשִׂיתָה דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל אֶחָד! דִּתְנַן: מָאוֹר שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה בִּידֵי אָדָם, שִׁיעוּרוֹ מְלֹא אֶגְרוֹף גָּדוֹל, וְזֶהוּ אֶגְרוֹפוֹ שֶׁל בֶּן אֲבַטִּיחַ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְיֶשְׁנוֹ כְּרֹאשׁ גָּדוֹל שֶׁל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rav Ḥisda **said to** Rav Taḥlifa: **If so,** that the measure of the deficiency according to the opinion of Beit Hillel is the size of a *sela* coin, **you have made the statement of Beit Shammai and the statement of Beit Hillel one** and the same, since the size of a *sela* coin and a drilled hole is identical. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Kelim* 17:12): With regard to **a window that was not fashioned by the hands of a person,** such as where a stone fell out of the wall by itself, **its measure** for which ritual impurity is transmitted from room to room is like **the size of a large fist. And this is** the size of **the fist of Ben Avatiaḥ,** who was known to be an exceptionally large man. **Rabbi Yosei said: And** the size of this fist **is like** the size of **a large human head.**


###### Bekhorot 37b:21
[Bekhorot 37b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/37b:21)

נַעֲשָׂה בִּידֵי אָדָם, שִׁיעֲרוּהוּ כִּמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ גָּדוֹל שֶׁל לִשְׁכָּה, שֶׁהוּא כְּפוּנְדְּיוֹן (שֶׁל) הָאִיטַלְקִי, וּכְסֶלַע נִירוֹנִית, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: But if the window **was made by the hand of a person, its measure** for which ritual impurity is transmitted is **like the size of the drilled hole** of the **large** drill **of the chamber** in the Temple, **which is like** the size of **the Italian *pundeyon* and like** the size of **a *sela* of** the emperor **Nero. And its** size **is**