בשושן הבירה אחת על קרן מזרחית צפונית ואחת על קרן מזרחית דרומית שעל קרן מזרחית צפונית היתה יתירה על של משה חצי אצבע ושעל קרן מזרחית דרומית היתה יתירה עליה חצי אצבע נמצאת יתירה על של משה אצבע in the chamber of Shushan the capital, which was located above the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, one in the northeast corner and one in the southeast corner. The one that was in the northeast corner was longer than the cubit used by Moses in the building of the Tabernacle, which was six handbreadths, by half a fingerbreadth, and the one that was in the southeast corner was longer than the other one by another half a fingerbreadth. One therefore finds it longer than Moses’ cubit by a full fingerbreadth.
ולמה היו אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה כשהיו אומנין נוטלין בקטנה ומחזירין בגדולה שלא יבואו לידי מעילה The mishna continues: And why did the Sages say that there should be two measures of a cubit, one large and one small? It was so that the artisans who were working in the Temple would take payment according the amount of work they did, as measured by the small cubit, and return it to the Temple through their work, as measured by the large cubit, so they would not come to misuse consecrated property. If they would accept any payment that they did not deserve, they would be misusing consecrated property. It was with regard to the fingerbreadth mentioned in this mishna that the baraita cited above teaches that it is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person.
תרתי למה לי חדא דכספא וזהבא וחדא דבניינא The Gemara asks: Why do I need two large cubits? The Gemara answers: One, the shorter of the two, was used to measure silver and gold. Since silver and gold were valuable, the difference between the two measurements was set at only half a fingerbreadth, so that the artisans would not suffer too great a loss. And the other one, which was longer than Moses’ cubit by a full fingerbreadth, was used in the construction of wood and stone structures.
רב נחמן בר יצחק ואי תימא רב הונא בר נתן לאותה ששנינו שיש בשר בין חוליא לחוליא מלא אצבע: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and some say Rav Huna bar Natan, said: This baraita, which states that a fingerbreadth is one-fourth of a handbreadth of any average person, is referring to that which we learned in the mishna here with regard to the blemishes of a firstborn animal: In a case where there is a full fingerbreadth of flesh between one joint and another joint. That measure of a full fingerbreadth is one-fourth of a handbreadth.
מתני׳ אין לו ביצים או אין לו אלא ביצה אחת ר' ישמעאל אומר אם יש לו שני כיסין יש לו ב' ביצים אין לו שני כיסין אין לו אלא ביצה אחת ר"ע אומר מושיבו על עכוזו וממעך אם יש ביצה סופו לצאת מעשה שמיעך ולא יצא נשחטה ונמצאת דבוקה בכסלים והתיר ר"ע ואסר רבי יוחנן בן נורי: MISHNA: The firstborn animal may be slaughtered if it has no testicles or if it has only one testicle. Rabbi Yishmael says: If the animal has two scrotal sacs, it can be assumed that it has two testicles; if the animal does not have two scrotal sacs, it can be assumed that it has only one testicle. Rabbi Akiva says: The matter can be ascertained: One seats the animal on its rump and mashes the sac; if there is a testicle, ultimately it is going to emerge. There was an incident where one mashed the sac and the testicle did not emerge. Then, the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted the consumption of its flesh, as the testicle had not previously emerged, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption.
גמ׳ השתא אין לו אלא ביצה אחת אמרת הוי מומא אין לו כלל מיבעיא חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אין לו שתי ביצים בשתי כיסין אלא בכיס אחד א"נ שתי כיסין וביצה אחת הרי זה מום GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a firstborn may be slaughtered if it has no testicles or if it has only one testicle. The Gemara asks: Now that with regard to a case where it has only one testicle you said that it is a blemish, is it necessary to state the same in a case where it has no testicles at all? The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: If it does not have two testicles in two scrotal sacs, but in one sac, or alternatively, if it has two sacs and one testicle, it is a blemish.
ר' ישמעאל אומר יש לו ב' כיסים בידוע שיש לו ב' ביצים אין לו אלא כיס אחד כמי שאין לו אלא ביצה אחת דמי ואתא ר"ע למימר בידוע לא אמרינן אלא מושיבו על עכוזו וממעך אם יש ביצה סופו לצאת: The Gemara continues this version of the mishna. Rabbi Yishmael says: If the animal has two scrotal sacs, it is known that it has two testicles, and therefore it is not blemished and may not be slaughtered; if the animal has only one scrotal sac it is considered like one that has only one testicle, even if it actually has two testicles. And Rabbi Akiva comes to say: If it has two sacs, we do not say the claim of: It is known. Rather, one seats the animal on its rump and mashes the sac; if there is a testicle, ultimately it is going to emerge. If the testicle does not emerge, clearly it has only one testicle and is blemished.
ומעשה שמיעך ולא יצא וכו': תניא א"ר יוסי מעשה בפירן של בית מנחם שמיעך ולא יצאת ונשחטה ונמצאת דבוקה בכסלים והתיר ר"ע ואסר רבי יוחנן בן נורי § The mishna teaches: And there was an incident where one mashed the sac and the testicle did not emerge. Then the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted the consumption of its flesh, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption. The Gemara elaborates on this incident: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident in Piran of Beit Menaḥem where a firstborn animal apparently had only one testicle, and someone mashed its sac and the other testicle did not emerge. And the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted its consumption, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption.
אמר לו ר"ע לר' יוחנן בן נורי עד מתי אתה מכלה ממונן של ישראל אמר לו רבי יוחנן בן נורי לר"ע עד מתי אתה מאכיל ישראל נבילות לאו מישחט שחטיה The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: Until when will you consume the property of the Jewish people by prohibiting animals in such cases? Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: Until when will you feed the Jewish people unslaughtered animal carcasses? The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri use the term animal carcasses here? After all, aren’t they properly slaughtered?
אלא טריפות לא איסור טריפות הוא אלא עד מתי אתה מאכיל ישראל קדשים בחוץ: The Gemara responds: Rather, Yoḥanan ben Nuri actually referred to animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. The Gemara challenges: But it is not a prohibition of tereifot. Rather, he said: Until when will you feed the Jewish people sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard? According to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri this is not a blemish, and therefore the animal is an unblemished offering, which may not be eaten outside the Temple.
מתני׳ בעל חמש רגלים או שאין לו אלא שלש ושרגליו שהוא קלוטות כשל חמור והשחול והכסול איזהו שחול שנשמטה יריכו וכסול שאחת מיריכים גבוהות: MISHNA: An animal with five legs, or one that has only three, or one whose hooves on its legs were closed like those of a donkey and not split, or the shaḥul, or the kasul may be slaughtered. What is a shaḥul? It is an animal with a thighbone that was dislocated. And what is a kasul? It is an animal whose build is asymmetrical in that one of its thighs is higher than the other.
גמ׳ א"ר הונא לא שנו אלא שחסר ויתר ביד אבל ברגל טרפה נמי הוי דכל יתיר כנטול דמי GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an animal with five legs or three legs is blemished. Rav Huna says: The Sages taught this only in a case where the animal was missing or had an additional foreleg. But if it was missing or had an additional hind leg, not only is it blemished, but it is also a tereifa. The reason is that any extra limb is like a removed limb, and an animal whose hind leg was removed is a tereifa.
אמר רב פפא לא תימא דעגילן ולא סדיקן אלא כיון דעגילן אע"ג דסדיקן: With regard to the ruling of the mishna that an animal whose hooves were closed like those of a donkey is blemished, Rav Pappa says: Do not say that it is a blemish only in a case where its hooves are entirely like those of a donkey, i.e., round and not split at all. Rather, when they are round, even though they are also split, it is still considered a blemish.
והשחול והכסול וכו': ת"ר איזהו כסול ואיזהו שחול שחול שנשמטה יריכו כסול שרגלו אחד בתוך הכסל ורגלו אחד ע"ג הכסל תנא השרוע והקלוט שרוע שנשתרבב לו יריכו קלוט שרגליו קלוטות כשל חמור וכשל סוס: The mishna teaches: Or the shaḥul, or the kasul may be slaughtered. In this regard, the Sages taught: What is the kasul and what is the shaḥul? The shaḥul is an animal with a thighbone that was dislocated. The kasul is an animal that is irregular in that one of its legs is inside the loin, i.e., in its proper place, and in one of its legs the bone is dislocated and is above the loin. It is taught in a baraita: What are the saru’a and kalut mentioned in the Torah (see Leviticus 22:23) among the animals disqualified from being sacrificed? The saru’a is one whose thigh is longer than the other; the kalut is one whose hooves on its legs are closed like those of a donkey and like those of a horse.
מתני׳ נשבר עצם ידו ועצם רגלו אע"פ שאינו ניכר מומין אלו מנה אילא ביבנה והודו לו חכמים MISHNA: Additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn include those where the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg was broken, even though it is not conspicuous. With regard to these blemishes listed in this chapter, Ila, who was expert in blemishes of the firstborn, enumerated them in Yavne, and the Sages deferred to his expertise.
ועוד ג' הוסיף אמרו לו לא שמענו את אלו שגלגל עינו עגול כשל אדם ופיו דומה כשל חזיר ושניטל רוב המדבר בלשונו ב"ד של אחריהן אמרו ה"ז מום: And Ila added three additional blemishes, and the Sages said to him: We did not hear about those. Ila added: An animal whose eye is round like that of a person, or whose mouth is similar to that of a pig, or where most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person was removed. The court that followed them said with regard to each of those three blemishes: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.
גמ׳ אינו ניכר מי קא הוי מומא אמר רב פפא אינו ניכר מחמת עצמו אבל ניכר מחמת מלאכה: GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg was broken it is considered a blemish, despite the fact that it is not conspicuous. The Gemara asks: If it is not conspicuous, is it a blemish? A blemish must be on an exposed part of the body (see 37b). Rav Pappa says: The mishna means that it is not conspicuous on its own account, i.e., the shape of the leg is no different from the usual. But it is conspicuous on account of its work, i.e., the manner in which the animal walks.
מומין אלו מנה וכו': למימרא דלאו היינו אורחיה ורמינהו המפלת מין בהמה וחיה ועוף בין טמאין בין טהורין אם זכר תשב לזכר § The mishna teaches that with regard to these blemishes listed in this chapter, Ila enumerated them in Yavne, and he added three more, including an animal whose eye is round like that of a person. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that it is not the manner of animals to have eyes of this kind? And one can raise a contradiction from a mishna (Nidda 21a): With regard to a woman who miscarries a fetus in the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, whether it is a non-kosher animal or whether it is a kosher animal, if it is male, the woman observes the periods of impurity, i.e., seven days, and purity, i.e., thirty-three days, established in the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a male.
אם נקבה תשב לנקבה אינו ידוע תשב לזכר ולנקבה דברי ר"מ If it is female, the woman observes the periods of impurity, i.e., fourteen days, and purity, i.e., sixty-six days, established in the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a female. If its sex is unknown, the woman observes the more severe restrictions from the case of the birth of a male and the more severe restrictions from the case of the birth of a female: She is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure until only forty days after birth, like a woman who gave birth to a male. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מ"ט דר"מ הואיל וגלגל עינו עגול כשל אדם אמר רב יוסף ל"ק הא באוכמא הא בחיוורא: And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? Since the eye of these animals is round like that of a person, a woman who miscarries a fetus of this kind is impure. Rav Yosef said in resolution of this apparent contradiction: It is not difficult; this is referring to the black portion of the eye, whereas that is referring to the white portion of the eye.
ופיו דומה כשל חזיר: אמר רב פפא לא תימא דשפיד ופרוס אלא כיון דפרוס אף על גב דלא שפיד: The mishna teaches: Or its mouth is similar to that of a pig. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that this is referring only to a case where the mouth is pointed and the upper lip overlaps the bottom lip, exactly like that of a pig. Rather, when it overlaps, even though it is not pointed, this is a blemish.
ושניטל רוב המדבר שבלשונו: מתני' מני רבי יהודה היא דתניא ואת שניטל רוב הלשון רבי יהודה אומר רוב המדבר של לשונו: The mishna teaches: Or that most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person was removed. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Or that most of its tongue was removed; Rabbi Yehuda says: Most of the segment of its tongue corresponding to the segment that facilitates speech in the tongue of a person must be removed to be considered a blemish.
מתני׳ ומעשה שהלחי התחתון עודף על העליון ושאל ר"ג לחכמים ואמרו הרי זה מום: MISHNA: And there was an incident where the lower jaw of the firstborn protruded beyond the upper jaw, and Rabban Gamliel asked the Sages for a ruling, and they said: That is a blemish that enables the slaughter of the firstborn.
גמ׳ מאי תנא דקתני ומעשה משום דתנן פיו דומה לחזיר ופליגי רבנן עליה דרבי וקאמרינן כי פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי בשפתו עליונה עודפת על התחתונה אבל שהתחתונה עודפת על העליונה הרי זה מום GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the ruling taught in the previous mishna that the tanna is referring to when he teaches here: And there was an incident? The Gemara answers: Since we learned in the list of blemishes in the previous mishna the case where its mouth is similar to that of a pig, and the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Ila in that case, we say here that when the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Ila, it is only in a case where its upper lip overlaps the lower lip. But in a case where the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper jaw, everyone agrees that this is a blemish.