1)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah - declares a B'chor that has ...

1. ... no Beitzim, or that has ...

2. ... only one Beitzah - a Ba'al-Mum.

(b)Rebbi Yishmael disagrees. He will declare a B'chor with only one (visible) Beitzah a Tam - if it has two bags (because every bag contains one Beitzah).

(c)In the event that a B'chor has only one Beitzah, Rebbi Akiva advises - that one sits the animal on one of its buttocks and squeezes the bag until the Beitzah appears.

2)

(a)It once happened that this method proved ineffective. After they Shechted the animal, they found - the missing Beitzah stuck to one of the flanks.

(b)Rebbi Akiva considered it to be a blemish. Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri - forbade Shechting it.

(c)The problem with the opening ruling of our Mishnah 'Ein lo Beitzim O Ein lo Ela Beitzah Achas' is - that if one missing Beitzah renders it a Ba'al-Mum, then how much more so, two (so why does the Tana mention it?)

(d)We therefore amend the Mishnah to read - 'Ein lo Beitzim bi'Shenei Kisim Ela be'Kis Echad; I Nami Sh'nei Kisin u'Beitzah Achas.'

3)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael argues with the Tana Kama - in the latter case, because, he says, if there are two bags, there are also two Beitzim ...

(b)Whereas Rebbi Akiva maintains that - we do not take this for granted, but must first examine the animal (in the prescribed manner).

(c)The Beraisa cites the episode (that took place in Piruz) mentioned in our Mishnah, in more detail. Following Rebbi Akiva's ruling Lehachmir, Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri asked him how long he would continue to finish off Yisrael's money (causing them to lose their B'chorim). Rebbi Akiva responded - by asking him how long he would continue to permit T'reifos.

(d)Both Neveilos and T'reifos are inappropriate. What Rebbi Akiva really meant to say was - how long he would continue to permit Kodshim ba'Chutz.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a B'chor with ...

1. ... three or five legs - is a Ba'al-Mum, and so is one with ...

2. ... hooves that are round like a donkey's.

(b)The Tana includes among the Mumin ha'Shechol, which means that the thigh moved out of place, and which is only a Ba'al-Mum and not a T'reifah - provided its nerve has not rotted (even if it is severed).

(c)ha'Kesol (which also means a flank) is - an animal whose one thigh goes into the flank (K'sol and the other, goes above it.

5)

(a)Rav Huna comments that the opening ruling in our Mishnah - refers to the forelegs, because an animal that has three or five hind legs is T'reifah.

(b)An animal with five hind legs is T'reifah - because whatever is excessive is considered as if it was missing (and an animal with a hand leg missing is T'reifah).

(c)Rav Papa rules that a B'chor with round feet like a donkey is a Ba'al-Mum - even if they are split.

(d)The Beraisa includes Saru'a ve'Kalut. Saru'a is - where one limb (in this case a thigh) is bigger than the other.

6)

(a)Ayla in Yavneh added to the above Mumin a B'chor with a broken bone in its foreleg or in its hind-leg (even though it is not visible) - and the Chachamim ...

1. ... agreed, though they did not agree ...

2. ... with the other three cases that he added, and that we are about to discuss.

(b)Ayla considers a blemish if ...

1. ... the pupil of its eyes - are round like those of a human being.

2. ... the shape of its mouth - resembles that of a pig.

3. ... its tongue - (the part that is not attached to the mouth) has been removed.

(c)The Halachah like Ayla in these three cases, despite the fact that the Chachamim disagreed with him - because a latter-day Beis-Din ruled like him.

7)

(a)Even though a broken leg-bone is not visible, the Chachamim agree with Ayla that it is a blemish - because it is discernible when it walks.

(b)Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in Nidah, rules that a woman who gives birth to any kind of animal, beast or bird - is Tamei Leidah (for a male, if it is a male, for a female, if it is a female and as a Safek, if it is a Safek).

(c)The reason that Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan ascribes to this is - because its eyeball is round like that of a human being.

(d)Rav Yosef reconciles this with our Mishnah (which describes the eyeball of an animal as not round like that of a human) - by establishing Rabah bar bar Chanah to the black (the pupil [which resembles that of a human-being]), and our Mishnah, with regard to the white of the eye (the section that surrounds it [which does not]).

8)

(a)The mouth of a pig has two features: 1. that it is round, 2. that its upper-lip and jaw protrude and become narrower like a spit-rod. Rav Papa says that Ayla's ruling, that a mouth like a pig is a blemish - pertains to one of the two, and does not require both (the commentaries argue over which of the two is required).

(b)The Tana who describes Rov ha'Lashon as the majority of the part of the tongue that speaks (that is not attached to the mouth, as we explained according to Ayla in our Mishnah) - is Rebbi Yehudah (in a Beraisa).

(c)Our Mishnah cites a case of a B'chor whose lower jaw protruded. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel asked the Chachamim for a ruling, they replied that - it is a blemish.

(d)Rebbi inserts this Mishnah here - following the Chachamim in the previous Mishnah, who disagreed with Ayla regarding the same blemish on the upper-lip. And Rebbi is teaching us here that - they concede to Ayla regarding the lower-lip.

9)

(a)The Mishnah (in the next Perek) learns from the Pasuk in Emor "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon" - that if either lip of a Kohen protrudes, he is a Ba'al-Mum.

(b)The problem that this creates with our Mishnah is that - the fact that we have a Pasuk for B'chor Adam precludes B'chor Beheimah from this blemish.

(c)Rav Papa answers that ...

1. ... the Pasuk precludes Beheimah - in a case where only the lip protrudes ...

2. ... whereas our Mishnah is speaking where the jaw-bone protrudes as well.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah considers a kid-goat with one ear within the other, a blemish - provided they both share the same cartilage (see also Shitah Mekubetzes).

(b)If they do not, it is not considered a blemish, (even though an extra leg is) - because it is not as stark as the extra leg.

(c)Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel - considers a Ba'al-Mum a kid-goat with a curly tail like that of a pig, or if it does not have at least three vertebrae (though we will amend this statement in the Sugya).

11)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if a Beheimah has a mouth or legs that are entirely short (Im Machmas ha'Revach) - it is not considered a blemish, whereas if it is just the bone in either case - then it is.

(b)Alternatively, we might interpret Piv Balum to mean that - the mouth is swollen ...

(c)... in which case we will replace 'Im Machmas ha'Revach' - with 'Im Machmas ha'Ru'ach' (because of the wind) ...

(d)... Which is not considered a blemish - because it stands to heal.

(e)The Tana, discussing the blemish of a double-ear (like our Mishnah), states 'ba'Chasasis Achas, harei Zeh Mum'. Chasasis is - synonymous with Etzem ha'Ozen (the cartilage of the ear) in our Mishnah.

12)

(a)With reference to Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel in our Mishnah, Rav Papa rules that - if the tail of a kid-goat is curly like the tail of a pig but not thin, it is nevertheless a blemish.

(b)Rav Huna rules that the tail of a kid-goat which has only two vertebrae is a Ba'al-Mum - as is a lamb with only three.

(c)We disprove Rav Huna however, from a Beraisa, which states that - one (and not two) vertebra is a blemish on a kid-goat and two (and not three), on a lamb.

(d)Rav Huna's error - was based on our Mishnah, which (following the Din of a kid-goat with the tail of a pig) concludes that if its tail doesn't have at least three vertebrae, it is a Mum, without clarifying that it has switched to a lamb.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah cites Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, who lists among the Mumin, a wart (Yabeles) in the eye, and a notch in the bone of the fore or the hind leg (which is visible), or if part of the bone containing the teeth is broken off. This last case differs from the gums - in that a notch or a cut is considered a blemish there, but not here.

(b)He consider one eye or ear that is bigger than the other, a blemish - provided one can tell without having to measure it.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah adds one Beitzah that is larger than the other - the Chachamim disagree.

(d)The problem with Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos' insertion of a wart in the eye is that - the Mishnah later does not consider a wart a blemish with regard to Shechting a B'chor and eating it ...

(e)... even though it is disqualified from being brought on the Mizbe'ach.

14)

(a)Bearing in mind that the Torah itself includes a wart among the blemishes, we query the suggestion that the Mishnah later is speaking about a wart on the body and not in the eye on the grounds that - the Torah makes no such distinction.

(b)We try to get round that by establishing the Pasuk by a wart with a bone - and the two Mishnah's by warts without a bone, our Mishnah by a wart on the eye, and the Mishnah later by a wart on the body (as we suggested).

(c)We refute this suggestion however, with a statement by Rebbi Eliezer in a Mishnah in the next Perek - who considers Ba'alei Tiltulin (people or animals with boneless warts) a blemish with regard to people, but not with regard to animals.

15)

(a)So we establish the Mishnahs too, by warts with bones. Initially, we refute the suggestion that Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel is referring to a wart in the black of the eye, whereas the following Mishnah is speaking about one in the white on the basis of what we have already learned, that - a blemish in the white of the eye is not considered a Mum at all (in which case there would be no reason not to Shecht the animal, even to go on the Mizbe'ach).

(b)Resh Lakish nevertheless accepts the suggestion - because the following Mishnah is speaking about a wart with a hair, in which case even a wart in the white of the eye disqualifies the B'chor from being brought on the Mizbe'ach (not because it is really a blemish, but) because it is ugly (See also Tosfos DH 'Ela').

(c)Our Mishnah must be speaking about a wart without a bone - because if it had a bone, it would not have been necessary to mention be'Eino.

16)

(a)Our Mishnah lists the tail of a calf that does not reach the Arkov - the inner part of the joint between the thigh and the calf [although there are two such joints, as we will see shortly]) as a blemish.

(b)Even though the tail of a cow generally reaches further than that, the Chachamim gave that as the Shi'ur - because it is common among growing calves to find tails that have not yet grown longer.

(c)Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel explains that this refers to the joint between the thigh and the calf (as we just explained). Otherwise, the Tana might have been referring to - the equivalent joint between the knee and the ankle-bones (see Tif'eres Yisrael).

(d)We cite the camel as an example of this - either because the Arkov of a camel protrudes, so that it can be clearly seen, or because that is the regular size of its tail.