## Bekhorot Daf 38b

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

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


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

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.

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


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

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

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


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

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.

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


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

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

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


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

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.

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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!

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,