Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 38 for kids: A Closer Look

בכורות ל״ח

👁️ The daf begins by asking how to measure a hole in a skull. Then it looks closely at eye blemishes in a firstborn animal.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 38a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 38b 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 38

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 38 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 38a, in English Tab translation (40)
  1. The size of a yoke-hole — A hole is made in the yoke, and a peg is inserted to attach its straps. This suggests that the drill-sized hole equals a sela coin. If so, what is the difference between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel?
  2. He was silent — Rav Taḥlifa was silent.
  3. Perhaps the drill — Rav Ḥisda suggested that Beit Shammai meant the drill-sized hole together with the material obstructing it. After making the hole, one moves the drill sideways to remove that material and widen the hole so the drill can enter and leave easily. This hole is larger than a sela coin.
  4. Rav Taḥlifa said to him — Rav Taḥlifa told Rav Ḥisda: Do not say “perhaps.” Say with certainty that we learned the drill-sized hole together with its obstruction.
  5. You should rely on it — That is, you can trust this explanation.
  6. Like Ḥizkiyya, the father of Ikkesh — His testimony was accepted because no student disputed it.
  7. It has no separate status for its back — We do not say that if its back becomes impure, only its back is impure while its inside remains pure. Rather, its inside also becomes impure. The side used is called its “inside” even though it has no receptacle.
  8. But the Torah made earthenware vessels depend on their interior — Such a vessel becomes impure only through its interior, as it says, “And any earthenware vessel into whose interior any of them falls.”
  9. The corresponding case with a vessel purified by rinsing — This means that such a vessel without a receptacle also has no separate status for its back, as explained below. A “vessel purified by rinsing” means a wooden vessel, as the verse says, “And every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water.” Some say it means a metal vessel, but that is mistaken: the later question about whether flat vessels can become impure would not be a question, since flat metal vessels certainly can.
  10. This is what it teaches us — It compares a vessel purified by rinsing to an earthenware vessel to teach that, when it has a receptacle, impurity of its inside also makes its back impure.
  11. If this concerns impurity under Torah law, that is indeed so — If the back becomes impure, the inside also becomes impure, whether or not the vessel has a receptacle. The distinction here concerns rabbinic impurity caused by impure liquids: when a vessel has a receptacle, its back can become impure while its inside remains pure. For a vessel without a receptacle, it needed to teach that impurity on either side makes the other side impure too.
  12. Its inside, its base — The “base” is the lower part on which the vessel rests. Another explanation is that it means its rim.
  13. Its ear-shaped handle — This is the handhold made on earthenware jars.
  14. Its straight handle — For example, a projection made on the back of an earthenware vessel.
  15. By Torah law, food and liquids do not make a vessel impure — This is explained in the first chapter of Pesaḥim.
  16. Because of the liquids of a zav or zava — For example, a zav’s saliva or discharge is a primary source of impurity and, by Torah law, makes vessels and even people impure, as the verse says, “If the zav spits ...”
  17. Therefore, the Sages treated it — That is, a vessel purified by rinsing that became impure through liquids.
  18. Like an earthenware vessel — By Torah law, if an earthenware vessel’s back becomes impure, its inside does not.
  19. But the Sages did not treat it like its own impurity under Torah law — Under Torah law, impurity on the back of a vessel purified by rinsing makes the whole vessel impure. The Sages made this distinction to mark the lighter status of impurity caused by liquids, so that people would not burn teruma or sacrificial food on its account, but only ordinary food. They did not decree impurity when liquids touch the back of an earthenware vessel because even the liquids of a zav or zava do not make it impure from the back, only from the inside. The verse about an earthenware vessel that a zav “touches” refers to moving it: that is the kind of contact that affects the whole vessel.
  20. Is a vessel purified by rinsing that has no receptacle susceptible to impurity under Torah law? — If not, why would the Sages need to decree impurity from liquids for it? Also, why would it have needed to be stated above that its back has no separate status under Torah law?
  21. It must be like a sack — The verse lists wooden vessels alongside sacks, so wooden vessels are compared to sacks.
  22. Full and empty — Like a sack, it has a receptacle that can hold contents whether full or empty.
  23. Those fit for sitting — For example, a chair or bench, which can become impure when someone whose impurity is transmitted by sitting sits on them.
  24. If so, the same should apply to earthenware vessels — Why not decree impurity for earthenware vessels without a receptacle when they are fit for sitting?
  25. Earthenware vessels do not become impure through being sat on — They would break if a person sat on them.
  26. Rav Pappa said — Your claim that this makes Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree is not a valid objection.
  27. We learned “a large drill” — The mishna about an opening made by a person means a large drill, whose hole is the size of a Neronian sela. An ordinary drill makes a hole smaller than a sela, and Beit Shammai mean an ordinary drill.
  28. Which drill did they mean? — Beit Shammai’s measure for a skull means the small drill physicians use to bore into the skull to treat a wound.
  29. This works for Rabbi Meir—but does it? — If Beit Shammai’s measure is smaller, this would be one of their leniencies: even a small hole would end the skull’s impurity.
  30. But we learned six — Eduyot lists six leniencies of Beit Shammai, not seven.
  31. We learned “a Neronian sela” — That is the size of a large drill hole. But the ordinary sela mentioned by Beit Hillel is smaller even than the small drill used by physicians. Thus, even according to Rabbi Meir, Beit Shammai’s measure is larger.
  32. The eyelid — The Gemara explains this.
  33. He has a thin film in his eye — That is, a thin film called tayla.
  34. Tavlul — The Gemara explains what it is.
  35. Chilazon — An ailment called limon.
  36. Nachash — The Gemara explains this.
  37. And atzav — Called meil.
  38. White crossing the sira — The sira is the line around the dark part of the eye. The dark part, called prunella, is where sight comes from. If a white streak extends from the white, crosses that line, and enters the dark part, it is a blemish.
  39. Dark entering the white — This means a dark streak extending from the dark part, crossing the sira, and entering the white.
  40. It is not a blemish — There are no blemishes in the white part, for it is not the eye itself but the eye’s fatty tissue.
Tosafot on Bechorot 38a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. You must uphold it like the testimony of Ḥizkiyya, the father of Ikkesh — You must work to reconcile the statement rather than reject it because of a difficulty. Rav Taḥlifa is certain that Shmuel said it, just as Ḥizkiyya’s testimony was accepted despite its awkward wording. The Gemara resolves that wording shortly.
  2. The corresponding rule for a vessel that is rinsed — This term applies to wooden vessels, since Scripture says that wooden vessels are rinsed in water, as the commentary explains. Metal vessels may also be called this, since Scripture says they are scoured and rinsed in water. But when the Gemara later asks whether a vessel without a receptacle can become impure by Torah law, it clearly includes wooden vessels among those called “vessels that are rinsed”; otherwise it would have said “metal vessels.”
  3. Its back has no separate status for impurity — “Inside” means the side ordinarily used.
  4. It is like an earthenware vessel: if its inside becomes impure, its outside becomes impure — This must mean that the outside can transmit impurity to other things; the distinction matters for no other purpose. This challenges Rabbeinu Shmuel’s reading in Shabbat 16a, which implies that an earthenware vessel cannot transmit impurity from its outside at all. When Chullin 24a says that an earthenware vessel becomes impure through its interior but its outside remains pure, it means that the outside cannot receive impurity, not that it cannot transmit it. The Sifra states explicitly that its power to transmit impurity exceeds its power to receive it: it transmits impurity from its outside but does not receive impurity there. Also, Niddah 26a treats a stone protruding a handbreadth from an oven as a handle that can transmit impurity outward; it is no stronger than the oven’s outside. One cannot say that it is stronger and can even bring impurity into the oven, since the Tosefta says an earthenware vessel receives impurity only through its interior or by being moved. Moreover, the rule that a vessel with a tightly sealed lid remains pure applies even if it was designated for a wife who was menstruating. Although the beginning of the discussion in Chullin 118a appears to assume that every oven handle can both bring impurity in and transmit it out, making it stronger than the outside, its conclusion requires the distinction given here.
  5. Those suitable for sitting or lying on — Other flat wooden vessels are pure. I explained their laws in Bava Batra 66a and Eruvin 31a.
Rashi on Bechorot 38b, in English Tab translation (37)
  1. The outer border of the eye — the outer line of the eye, meaning the eyelid that covers it.
  2. A sunken film — a thin film that makes the eye appear sunken is a blemish.
  3. One in the black and one in the white — at this point, the Gemara assumes that one teaching concerns the black part of the eye and the other concerns the white part.
  4. And your reminder is barka — barka is white and floats above the eye, yet is a blemish. This reminds you that a white film that floats is a blemish.
  5. Barka — as in the case of someone who rents a donkey and it develops barka.
  6. A certain elder — he was a priest.
  7. I never passed before him — because he was the leading sage of his generation.
  8. This snail-like growth — that elder had a firstborn animal with such a growth in its eye.
  9. Who teaches a ruling — a new ruling that we have not heard from anyone else.
  10. Before the incident — before a case involving that ruling came before him.
  11. One listens to him — and acts on his ruling.
  12. One does not listen to him — because he may be saying it for the sake of his own case. Here, why would anyone accept his statement that it is a permanent blemish?
  13. The mishna — which says that there are no blemishes in the white of the eye, follows Rabbi Yosei.
  14. Their eyes stand forth from fatness — the wicked person turns to evil ways because of the abundance of fat in his eye; the eye’s fat is in its white part.
  15. A substance that mixes — it crosses the dividing line and mixes the black and white parts of the eye. Whichever way it crosses, it causes a mixing.
  16. Pale spots — a condition in which white spots appear in the eye.
  17. That are constant — this refers to both the pale spots and the streaming tears.
  18. One examines it three times within eighty days — if it was not examined, it is not considered a permanent blemish even if the condition is present on the eightieth day. It may have disappeared and returned in the meantime, as it tends to do.
  19. Tears — the animal’s eyes stream with tears.
  20. These are the constant tears — that is, how do we know whether they are permanent or temporary?
  21. It ate moist and dry fodder from a rain-fed field — they fed it straw and fodder, called pitza, as a treatment.
  22. Moist — fodder that grows in the month of Nisan; dry fodder grows in the month of Tishrei, as the Gemara explains. They fed it both together from a rain-fed field, which needs only rainfall.
  23. Or moist and dry fodder from an irrigated field — land that needs to be watered.
  24. Or it did not eat moist and dry fodder together, but ate dry fodder and then moist fodder as a treatment — that is not the proper treatment. Even if it was not cured, the condition is not a blemish until it eats dry fodder after moist fodder. That is the proper treatment, and if it is not cured, the condition is a blemish.
  25. The mishna — which says that pale spots become permanent after eighty days, follows Rabbi Yehuda.
  26. It ate moist and dry fodder from rain-fed land — Land that does not need irrigation. This counts as a treatment.
  27. But not moist and dry fodder from irrigated land — That is not a treatment, so we do not test the animal with it.
  28. Or it ate dry fodder — If it ate dry fodder from rain-fed land and then moist fodder, that is not a valid test, because it is not the proper way to treat it.
  29. And it lasts three months — We test the animal this way for three months.
  30. But we learned both — The mishna mentions fodder from both rain-fed and irrigated land. It also says that eating dry fodder after moist fodder can cure the condition and is a valid test. Yet we established the mishna as Rabbi Yehuda’s view.
  31. The mishna is missing words — Its wording must be completed.
  32. It is a blemish — If the animal is not cured by this treatment.
  33. Moist fodder in the moist season — Fodder that grows in Adar and Nisan is fed to the animal in Adar and Nisan.
  34. And dry fodder in the dry season — Fodder that grows in Elul and Tishrei is fed to the animal in Tishrei. The animal is not slaughtered until the whole summer has passed and it has been tested with both kinds of fodder.
  35. Come and hear — Moist fodder is fed in the moist season, and dry fodder in the dry season.
  36. And how much do they feed it — How much each day?
  37. At its first meal — At the animal’s first meal each day, we give it a dried fig’s volume of the treatment.
Tosafot on Bechorot 38b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. And your mnemonic is barka — This suggests that barka is a permanent blemish. But Gittin 69a gives treatments for it, and Shabbat 78a says it can be treated with eye paint. Those passages may concern a condition that is just developing, before it becomes permanent. Similarly, Shabbat 78a says that blood sufficient to treat one eye is a significant amount because it is used to treat yarod. The Tosefta in this tractate has a variant name for that condition, suggesting that it is the same as the pale spot later counted as a permanent blemish. Here too, Shabbat may concern a condition that is not yet permanent. Alternatively, a condition can count as a permanent blemish if it will not heal on its own, even if treatment can cure it. The later test for constant tears—feeding the animal moist and dry fodder—does not itself cure the condition; it determines whether the condition is permanent. As further evidence, the Gemara later says that a damaged tail is a blemish, but a severed tail grows back even better; one could therefore cut off a damaged tail. It may be, however, that a tail damaged first cannot be repaired that way. The Torah also lists yelefet, identified later as an Egyptian scab, as a blemish, yet Bava Kamma 80a speaks of calling for public prayer over that scab on Shabbat. Perhaps the prayer is meant only to stop it spreading, not to cure it: the Gemara says it spreads until death, and Scripture calls it incurable. A stronger question comes from a wart: the Torah lists it as a blemish, yet the mishnayot in Eruvin and Pesachim allow a wart to be cut off for Temple service or the Passover offering. It cannot simply be a boneless wart, which the Gemara later treats as a mere flap of skin. It may instead be a hairless wart on the eye, on account of which the animal may not be slaughtered either in the Temple or outside it. Eruvin’s distinctions between a moist and a dry wart and between removal by hand and with a tool can also apply to a wart on the eye.
  2. If he stated the ruling before the incident, one listens to him — Rabbeinu Tam says this restriction applies only when the scholar needs that particular ruling for himself, as here. Other examples are the cases of the sword worn like an Ishmaelite’s in Yevamot 76a and a convert marrying his maternal brother’s wife in Yevamot 98a. It also applies to Rav Yehuda’s statement in Kiddushin 70a that anyone claiming descent from the Hasmoneans is a slave, since it appeared that he said this because the man in question had provoked him.
  3. Their eyes stand forth from fatness — The interpretation calls the white of the eye ‘fat,’ as Rashi explains, because that is where the eye’s fat is. It takes the verse to mean that excessive fat in the eyes leads the wicked astray. The verse’s plain meaning, however, is that the eye protrudes because of the abundance of fat within it.

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 38.