Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 37 for kids: How Big a Blemish?

בכורות ל״ז

🐑 This daf asks who may rule on a firstborn animal and what happens if its meat was sold without being checked. It also looks closely at ear blemishes: how big must a hole be?

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 37a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 37b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 37

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 37 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 37a, in English Tab translation (39)
  1. To exclude Rabbi Yosei — This excludes Rabbi Yosei’s opinion in the mishna.
  2. Where there is no Sage — If there is a Sage, he can dissolve the vow by himself.
  3. Such as whom — Who qualifies as that Sage?
  4. Does that mean the other two can be anyone — This is a question: Could the other two even be unlearned people? How could unlearned people be fit to join the group?
  5. To whom it can be explained — The Sage teaches the other two the reasoning behind the laws of vows, and they understand it.
  6. You might have thought — As we hold in tractate Gittin that Rabbi Yosei always has sound reasoning, perhaps the law should follow him.
  7. His reasoning — His rationale: He always gave a reason for his rulings.
  8. Resolve it from this — Rav Ḥananel said in Rav’s name that the law does not follow Rabbi Yosei. This would resolve the earlier uncertainty about whether Rav Yehuda’s report that three people may permit a firstborn animal was in Rav’s name or Shmuel’s: it must have been in Shmuel’s name. Otherwise, why would Rav need to say twice that three may permit a firstborn animal and that the law does not follow Rabbi Yosei?
  9. One who slaughters a firstborn animal — And sells some of its meat.
  10. And it became known that he had not shown it — To a Sage.
  11. What they ate — The buyers ate.
  12. And he must return their money — This is a penalty, because the meat’s prohibited status is uncertain.
  13. The meat must be buried — For an unblemished firstborn animal is forbidden for any benefit.
  14. If they sold it — If the buyers sold the meat to gentiles, they caused the seller no loss through a prohibited act. They must pay him the reduced value of tereifa meat, and he must refund them the rest.
  15. Repulsed — Disgusted, as in “I was repulsed by them” (Leviticus 20).
  16. He must return all their money — Once they learn what they ate, they derive no pleasure from it.
  17. He deducts — Can he really keep part of the money? This is a question.
  18. Let him say to him — The buyer can say to the priest who sold it: “What loss have I caused you? Had you kept the meat, it would have required burial, since you slaughtered the animal while it was unblemished.”
  19. Where he sold him — The priest who slaughtered the animal sold the buyer the meat from the site of the blemish.
  20. For he can say to him — The priest can say: “Had I still had it, I would have shown it to a Sage after slaughter.”
  21. In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda — Earlier, in the chapter “How Long,” Rabbi Yehuda permits an animal slaughtered before its blemish was shown to a Sage, if the blemish is shown afterward.
  22. Untithed produce — Why should the seller receive only part of the price? He can say to the buyer: “Had you not eaten it, I would have tithed it.”
  23. Wine used for an idolatrous libation — Why should the seller receive only part of the price? The case is one where he mixed such wine with permitted wine and sold the mixture. He can say: “Had you returned it to me, I could have sold it to gentiles, excluding the value of the wine used for the libation.”
  24. For these blemishes — A firstborn animal may be slaughtered on account of the blemishes the mishna lists.
  25. The cartilage — The projecting part of the ear, called tendrin.
  26. But not from the skin — it grows back and is not a blemish. Here “skin” means the soft lobe of the ear.
  27. A notch — requires some tissue to be missing; a crack can exist without any tissue missing.
  28. Crushed — when it is handled.
  29. Why? The verse says “lame or blind” — implying that one may slaughter a firstborn animal on account of those blemishes, but no others. The verse says, “If it has a blemish, lame or blind,” followed by “You may eat it within your gates,” meaning without offering it as a sacrifice.
  30. The answer is that the verse also says “if it has a blemish” — which includes other blemishes.
  31. And it is also unable to perform its function — a lame animal cannot walk, and a blind animal cannot see.
  32. Why, then, does the mishna teach that a notched ear is a blemish? — The animal can still hear.
  33. It is an inclusive expression — the verse says “any,” and we do not interpret it by the general-and-specific rule.
  34. If so — if it is an inclusive expression, should we also permit slaughter on account of hidden blemishes?
  35. Incisors — the front cutting teeth.
  36. Outer teeth — those in the middle of the mouth.
  37. Notched — a small part of them is missing.
  38. Cut down — cut across their width with a knife, removing only a slit-like amount.
  39. Inner teeth — molars.
Tosafot on Bechorot 37a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. They annul the vow — This uses the wording of the verse. When a Sage acts alone, the term is “release” from a vow, as in the heavenly voice’s question in Bava Batra 74a: “Now that I have sworn, who will release me?”
  2. Rabbi Yehuda says one of them must be a Sage; does that mean the others can be anyone? Ravina said they must understand when the laws are explained to them — This is the reading in most texts. Others place Rav Naḥman’s statement, “For example, someone like me,” here; Rashi appears to have that reading. But then why assume the other two can be anyone? They might simply be less learned than Rav Naḥman. Even on the first reading, why not say they must be less learned than an expert, but not wholly unqualified? The answer is that Rabbi Yehuda’s “Sage” here cannot mean the expert mentioned earlier: even Rabbi Yehuda agrees that an expert may release a vow alone. If he does not mean an expert, what standard could he require of the other two? Still, this raises a difficulty: how does Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s ruling exclude Rabbi Yehuda? He too might require one member to meet Rabbi Yehuda’s standard for a Sage. It is strained to say that “three annul the vow” implies all three have equal standing.
  3. And wine used for a libation — Although Horayot 11a treats a person’s ordinary attitude toward such wine like his attitude toward carcasses, it does not follow that eating it is repulsive to him. Moreover, the conclusion here concerns wine mixed into other wine.
  4. From the cartilage — The term *ḥasḥus* is used for the ear’s cartilage. Compare “the tips of the wings and the ḥasḥin” in Pesaḥim 84a; the phrase “a piece of the ear” in Amos 3:12 is also rendered “the ḥasḥus of the ear.”
  5. Just as the particular cases are visible blemishes that do not heal — A similar interpretation is given for a tooth and an eye in Kiddushin 24b. Why, then, is a lost tooth not a blemish in an animal? Bekhorot 44a disqualifies a priest whose teeth are gone only because of his appearance, not because tooth loss is itself a blemish; even in a person, losing one tooth does not disqualify him. The discussion below counts as animal blemishes only outer teeth that are chipped or worn down and inner teeth that are uprooted—not teeth that have fallen out. One answer is that Scripture specifically includes a slave’s tooth, whereas here teeth lost through aging do not resemble lameness or blindness. Yet that needs further explanation, since eyes too can fail with age. One might also ask why striking a slave’s ear and making him deaf counts as a visible, lasting blemish that frees him, while Bekhorot 45a says deafness disqualifies a person but not an animal. There, a deaf priest is disqualified only because his condition is not characteristic of Aaron’s descendants, whether his deafness was caused by a person or arose otherwise. The answer is that Scripture sets a lower threshold for freeing a slave: even the loss of a tooth frees him.
Rashi on Bechorot 37b, in English Tab translation (35)
  1. An ill blemish — It is called that only when it is visible and disfigures the animal.
  2. If so — If the word “any” includes every blemish.
  3. We do not redeem on their account — Consecrated animals disqualified by temporary blemishes.
  4. Shall we slaughter on their account — A firstborn outside the Temple.
  5. When it says — Another verse states, “And if it is of an impure animal, he shall redeem it according to your valuation.”
  6. If so — If animals with temporary blemishes may also be redeemed, what purpose do “lame” and “blind” serve? They indicate permanent blemishes, not temporary ones.
  7. By the hand of God — The animal was born with it.
  8. A fingernail catches — The damage stops a fingernail drawn across it, as when checking a slaughtering knife.
  9. Rather, the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei — A bitter vetch is only slightly larger than a lentil.
  10. The pointed stick — A sharp-tipped splinter called broka.
  11. A thorn — A thorn.
  12. A drill — A tool called tribla.
  13. A stylus — An iron pen.
  14. Any metal implement — In the first chapter of Kiddushin, their disagreement is explained: Rabbi interprets the verse through general and specific terms, while Rabbi Yosei interprets it through inclusions and exclusions.
  15. A distinguished man — A great person.
  16. The soft part — The earlobe.
  17. How does this make him blemished? — The ear heals afterward.
  18. But one does not pierce — This is a statement, not a question: piercing is done only in the upper, cartilaginous part of the ear. The difficulty remains, however: this passage says piercing makes him blemished, while Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda allows piercing with a needle, which leaves a hole smaller than a lentil.
  19. Here for slaughter, there for disqualification — Some blemishes disqualify a firstborn from being offered on the altar but do not permit it to be slaughtered. As the mishna teaches, some blemishes permit slaughter neither in the Temple nor outside it.
  20. Hinda — This was their name for it; in the vernacular, vetch.
  21. A bitter vetch — Is a snug hole sufficient, even if the vetch cannot pass in and out, or must the hole be wide enough for it to pass through?
  22. I heard a similar case — We can infer it from the end of the teaching, which says, “We learned: the drill and its casing.” That means the drill can pass in and out.
  23. The spine and skull — When intact, they convey impurity under a shared roof; other bones do not. How much can be missing before they cease to do so?
  24. Read it this way — Rav Hisda was sitting and considering a question. Rav Safra stated a teaching, and Rav Tahlifa told Rav Hisda that Shmuel had taught it to him that way.
  25. Your mnemonic — To remember who stated the teaching and who recited the baraita, use the phrase “Rav Yehuda bar Shmuel taught.” In many places in the Talmud, Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda introduces a baraita with “Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught,” as in the discussion of remedies in Avodah Zarah 28b.
  26. And he said to him — Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Taḥlifa:
  27. If so — If Beit Hillel’s measure is the size of a sela, as you said, you have made Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree.
  28. An opening — A window not made by a person, formed when part of the wall between two houses fell on its own.
  29. Its required size — The size needed for ritual impurity to pass from one house to the other.
  30. The size of a large fist — Since no person made the opening, anything smaller is not significant.
  31. Ben Avtiaḥ — The name of a large-bodied man.
  32. And it exists — That fist can still be found.
  33. Of the chamber — Kept in the chamber for drilling what is needed for the Temple’s upkeep.
  34. Like an Italian pundion and a Neronian sela — That is, it resembles both coins.
  35. And they exist — That sela and that pundion can still be found.
Tosafot on Bechorot 37b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. Extracted, yes; damaged or worn down, no — The Gemara could have cited the later teaching that explicitly lists damaged or worn-down inner gums among blemishes for which one may not slaughter a firstborn, either in the Temple or outside it. Instead, it draws the point from the earlier ruling: even though such damage to the outer gums is a visible blemish, damage to the inner gums is not.
  2. Now, if we do not even redeem an offering for it, and so on — One might ask: According to this first answer, which excludes a temporary blemish by an a fortiori argument, what purpose do the words “lame or blind” serve? The answer is that without them, “any ill blemish” would include a temporary blemish despite that argument. We would then not use “any ill blemish” to exclude hidden blemishes either.
  3. To include anything that can be taken in the hand — Kiddushin explains this through inclusion and exclusion: “You shall take” includes, “the awl” excludes, and “put it through his ear” includes again. This includes every implement but excludes a drug. One might ask: If a drug does not count as something taken in the hand, why is this sequence needed? “You shall take” alone would include only things taken in the hand. The answer is that this limit is not derived from those words alone; the phrase summarizes the result of the inclusion-and-exclusion interpretation.
  4. Here, for slaughter; there, for disqualifying — Since the defect disqualifies a priest, it appears to be a blemish under Torah law. Perhaps a firstborn may not be slaughtered for it because it is not clearly visible, and the Sages prohibited it lest people permit slaughter for hidden blemishes. Alternatively, the priest is disqualified because he is not like the other descendants of Aaron. Or the defect may be temporary: even a brief disqualification matters, as indicated by “he shall return to his family,” which Kiddushin interprets as a return to the qualified members of his family.
  5. Enough to be removed from a living person and cause death — According to the House of Shammai, a hole the size of a drill bit would likewise cause death, as stated in Eruvin; the same applies to determining whether an animal is fatally injured. This appears to refer to both the spine and the skull. The House of Hillel, however, hold that a drill-bit-sized hole is larger than the amount whose removal would cause death. Rabbeinu Tam explains that the rule about a fatally injured animal does not apply to the skull: a puncture of the brain’s membrane would itself make the animal fatally injured, even without missing bone. He bases this on the opening discussion in Chullin, which challenges the list of fatal injuries from a missing part of the spine but not from a missing part of the skull. On his reading, Eruvin nevertheless calls the rulings on the spine and skull contradictory stringencies because they concern fatal injuries in humans, who may survive longer and are not deemed fatally injured by a punctured membrane unless bone is also missing. Even so, he must agree that each school’s stated measure is one that, in its view, would cause death. Rabbeinu Tam’s inference from the lack of a challenge about the skull is not conclusive: missing skull bone might make an animal fatally injured because the membrane will eventually be punctured, as with the lung cases discussed in Chullin. There is another difficulty with distinguishing humans from animals: Chullin challenges a rule about fatal injuries in animals from Job’s survival after his bile was spilled. Rabbeinu Tam could instead explain that the difference here is physical. If the outer membrane of the brain is punctured but the inner one is intact, an animal’s softer inner membrane does not protect its brain; a human’s tougher inner membrane does. Thus, in a human, missing bone would also be required. Where the conditions are alike, there is no basis for distinguishing humans from animals.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 37.