## Bekhorot Daf 38a

###### Bekhorot 38a:1
[Bekhorot 38a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:2
[Bekhorot 38a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:3
[Bekhorot 38a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:3)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Bekhorot 38a:4
[Bekhorot 38a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 38a:5
[Bekhorot 38a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bekhorot 38a:6
[Bekhorot 38a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 38a:7
[Bekhorot 38a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:7)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 38a:8
[Bekhorot 38a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:9
[Bekhorot 38a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:9)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 38a:10
[Bekhorot 38a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:11
[Bekhorot 38a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:11)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:12
[Bekhorot 38a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bekhorot 38a:13
[Bekhorot 38a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:14
[Bekhorot 38a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:14)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:15
[Bekhorot 38a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:15)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 38a:16
[Bekhorot 38a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:16)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מַקְדֵּחַ גָּדוֹל שָׁנִינוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:17
[Bekhorot 38a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:17)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Bekhorot 38a:18
[Bekhorot 38a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:18)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:19
[Bekhorot 38a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:19)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:20
[Bekhorot 38a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:20)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 38a:21
[Bekhorot 38a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/38a:21)

**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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**