Bechoros 38
Summary
- The text resumes the Gemara’s analysis of how a hole the size of a *karshina* renders a *bechor* a *ba’al mum*, adopts Rashi’s framing that the measure depends on whether the bean enters and exits easily, and supports this with a parallel from *tum’as ohel* where “*melo mikdach*” means a drilled hole with enough clearance for movement. It then digresses into a difficult *beraisa* attributed to חזקיה אבי עקש about vessels without a “*toch*,” resolves it through the rules of *tum’as mashkin* *derabbanan* and the need for a visible *heker* to prevent burning *terumah* and *kodshim* improperly, and returns to refine the sizes of drills and coins in the Beis Shammai–Beis Hillel dispute. The text proceeds to a new Mishnah on eye blemishes, defines terms like *haris*, distinguishes black and white eye films by whether they are sunken or floating, raises Tosafos’s point about a curable *barka* still being treated as a fixed *mum*, and brings stories and rules about a תלמיד חכם issuing a ruling that affects himself and about whether *chilazon* and *nachash* are the same. It ends with the Tannaim’s dispute over whether whiteness entering blackness (or the reverse) counts as a *mum*, and with time-based criteria and feeding tests for fixed eye conditions like חברבור and מים הקבועין, attributing the Mishnah’s positions to specific Tannaim.
- The Gemara asks Rav Kahana whether *karshina* means a hole in the ear that the bean enters and exits easily or a hole that only holds the bean without easy movement, and the text follows Rashi that the issue is “*hanichneses v’yotzeis*” versus “*ha’omedes*.” Rav Kahana answers that he does not have this exact tradition but has heard a comparable halachic structure elsewhere. The comparison becomes the basis for reading “*melo mikdach*” as requiring space for the drill and its movement, and the text applies that model back to the *karshina* standard.
- The Mishnah in *Ohalos* states that a deficient spine or skull no longer conveys *tum’as ohel*, with Beis Shammai setting spine deficiency at two vertebrae and Beis Hillel at one. The Mishnah sets skull deficiency as *melo mikdach* according to Beis Shammai and as “*kedei she’yintal min ha’chai v’yamus*” according to Beis Hillel, and Rav Tahlifa cites Shmuel that this measure is “*k’sela*,” with an attribution note that Rav Safra treats it as an Amoraic report while Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah calls it a *beraisa*, and “תני רב שמואל בר יהודה” serves as the mnemonic. Rav Chisda challenges that equating Beis Hillel’s measure to a *sela* collapses the dispute because another Mishnah equates a man-made drill-sized opening with coin measures including “*k’sela nironis*,” and Rav Tahlifa is silent until Rav Chisda proposes “מקדח וחיסומו,” meaning the drill plus clearance for movement. Rav Tahlifa affirms that this is not merely possible but certain, and the text treats this as the key that “*melo mikdach*” implies “in-and-out” room rather than a tight fit.
- The text introduces a *beraisa* presented as the testimony of חזקיה אבי עקש before Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh בשם רבן גמליאל הזקן that “כל שאין לו תוך בכלי חרס אין לו אחוריים לטמא,” and it records the reciprocal phrases “נטמא תוכו נטמא גבו” and “נטמא גבו נטמא תוכו.” The Gemara objects that the Torah ties *klei cheres* *tum’ah* to “*tocho*,” and explains via Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avin that the statement actually teaches that for the corresponding case in *klei shetef* there is “אין לו אחוריים לחלוקה,” so a flat wooden vessel does not have an inside/outside division. The Gemara then asks why *klei cheres* is invoked at all, answers that a wooden vessel with a *toch* is treated like *klei cheres* for this rabbinic framework, and immediately rejects this as a Torah-level model because wooden vessels can contract *tum’ah* from the outside. The resolution limits the entire division to *tum’as mashkin derabbanan*, citing the Mishnah that when the outside of a vessel becomes tamei from liquids only the outside is tamei while the inside, rim, handles, and base remain tahor, but if the inside becomes tamei the entire vessel becomes tamei. The text grounds the decree in the Torah case of משקה זב וזבה as an *av hatum’ah*, explains that the rabbis imposed a *heker* by modeling the rules on *klei cheres* to prevent people from burning *terumah* and *kodshim* that are tahor מדאורייתא, and answers that no extra *heker* is needed for a flat wooden vessel because “ידיעה דאינו תוך דרבנן.” The Gemara then asks how a flat wooden vessel could be *mekabel tum’ah* at all given “דומיא דשק בעינן,” and answers that it can be *mekabel tum’ah* מדאורייתא through מדרס because it is fit to be sat or lain upon, while rejecting the parallel for earthenware with “אין מדרס בכלי חרס.”
- The text raises a practical question from Hilchos Sukkah that *s’chach* must not be *mekabel tum’ah*, notes the common practice of making holes to hang נוי סוכה, and asks why that does not create a receptacle. The חזון איש defines *kli kibul* as storage capacity, and the text states that inserting a nail for hanging does not make the wood into a receptacle because it is not meant for storage.
- Rav Pappa says that Beis Shammai’s “*mikdach*” refers to the standard drill and that “*mikdach gadol*” is distinct, so only the large drill equals a *sela* while the ordinary drill is smaller. The Gemara says this works for Rabbi Meir, who identifies the drill as the small doctor’s drill, but not for the Chachamim, who say Beis Shammai refers to the large Temple drill, and it also challenges the Rabbi Meir reading because it would create “קולי בית שמאי וחומרי בית הלל” not recorded in *Eduyos*. The text cites the Ritva that the apparent leniency in *tum’ah* corresponds to a stringency in *treifos*, but it still treats the *tum’ah* framing as primary and rejects this as the Mishnah’s *pshat*. Rav Nachman answers that the text is about “סלע נירונית,” positing multiple tiers of drill sizes and coin sizes so that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel reference different measures without collapsing into agreement.
- The Mishnah shifts from ear blemishes to eye blemishes and lists defects of the *haris* that is punctured, chipped, or split and conditions in the eye including דק, תבלול, חלזון, and נחש. Rav Pappa defines *haris* as “תורבא דעינא,” meaning the eyelid. A *beraisa* distinguishes a sunken דק as a *mum* and a floating דק as not a *mum*, but another *beraisa* states the reverse, and the Gemara resolves this by distinguishing *duk shachor* from *duk lavan*. Rabbah bar bar Chanah reports from רבי יאשיה דמן אושא that for *duk shachor* sunken is a *mum* and floating is not, while for *duk lavan* floating is a *mum* and sunken is not, and it gives “ברקא” as the mnemonic for remembering the contrasting patterns.
- Tosafos asks how *barka* can be a *mum* if *Gittin* gives a remedy for *barka*, and answers first that the remedy is preventative and second that a *mum over* is only one that goes away on its own, while a condition that requires medical intervention remains a fixed *mum* even if curable. The text reports an Acharonim dispute about whether curing such a condition later removes the *ba’al mum* status, with the ראשית בכורים saying the animal is now fine and the חזון איש saying it was נדחה and remains disqualified. The text brings Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein’s practical question of whether a כהן with a *bechor* can sue a neighbor-doctor who cures the animal unasked and thereby removes the כהן’s ability to eat it as a *ba’al mum*.
- The Gemara asks whether חלזון and נחש are the same, and it brings a story where Rabbi Yochanan ben Elazar relates that an elder named רבי שמעון בן יוסי אלקוש identified *chilazon* as a fixed *mum* “לשחר” and said “וזהו נחש שאמרו חכמים.” The elder notes “אין אדם רואה מום לעצמו” but says “מורה הלכה לתלמידים,” allowing students to rule for him after learning the halacha. The Gemara challenges this with Rav Huna’s rule that a תלמיד חכם is believed only if he stated the ruling before the case arose, and it answers that he had already taught it earlier. The text explains the concern as human nature to defend one’s own view rather than fabrication, and it cites that showing the ruling in a ספר or quoting a verifiable authority changes the concern.
- The Mishnah defines a *tevlul* as “לבן הפוסק בסירא ונכנס בשחור” as a *mum* while “שחור ונכנס בלבן” is not a *mum*. The Gemara identifies the Mishnah as רבי יוסי, and a *beraisa* records Rabbi Meir holding that both directions are a *mum* while Rabbi Yosi holds only “לבן ונכנס בשחור” is a *mum* because “אין מום ללבן.” Rabbi Meir asks Rabbi Yosi’s reason and the text answers with a verse-based distinction that “תרבי דעינא” is called “ענמה” while the white is not, while Rabbi Meir’s rationale treats *tevlul* as “דבר המבלבל את העין,” anything that disrupts vision.
- The Mishnah lists חברבור and מים הקבועה and defines a fixed חרבא קבועה as one that remained eighty days. Rav Chanina ben Antignos says it is checked three times within eighty days, with the text noting Rashi’s view that these are remedies that can remove the *mum* while Tosafos treats them as diagnostic checks. The Mishnah defines מים הקבועין through sequences of eating moist and dry produce from certain fields and rules that various sequences do not establish a *mum* until the specified order is met. The Gemara attributes the Mishnah’s view to רבי יהודה by citing a *beraisa* where Rabbi Meir sets חברבור at forty days and מים הקבועין at eighty, while Rabbi Yehudah sets חברבור at eighty days and defines the מים הקבועין test with בית הבעל versus בית השלחים and with the required sequence “יבש אחר הלח.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions