1)

(a)Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos in our Mishnah requires the eye with Churvar to be inspected three times during the eighty-day period. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains this as - on the twenty-seventh, the fifty-third and the eightieth days ...

(b)... because that is when the eye tends to temporarily heal.

2)

(a)Pinchas asked Shmuel - his brother, what the Din will be if one administers the animal hay as prescribed, but the Mayim does not heal.

(b)His She'eilah was - whether the Mum is considered a Mum from then on, or retroactively.

(c)The ramifications of this She'eilah concern the money with which the owner redeemed the animal at the beginning of the three months. In the event that he subsequently used the money still during the three months, assuming that ...

1. ... it is considered a Mum Kavu'a retroactively - then the Pidyon is valid, the money is Hekdesh, and it is subject to Me'ilah.

2. ... it is considered a Mum Kavu'a only from then on - the money is not Hekdesh, and the animal is not subject to Me'ilah.

(d)This She'eilah only affects other Kodshim she'Nifdu, but not B'chor - which cannot be redeemed.

3)

(a)Shmuel - was unable to resolve Pinchas' She'eilah.

(b)The Pasuk in Yeshayah "Pischim Bazezu Baz" means that - one does not expect lame people to take spoil.

(c)Shmuel cited this Pasuk - because (like a lame person taking spoil) he was most surprised to hear such a good She'eilah from his brother Pinchas, who was not normally that sharp.

4)

(a)The three blemishes listed by our Mishnah with regard to both the B'chor's nose and its lip are - holed, notched and split.

(b)According to the Beraisa, a hole from one nostril to the other is considered a blemish - if it is visible from the outside, but not if it is entirely inside the nose.

(c)Rav Papa qualifies the Mishnah's rulings with regard to the blemishes on the lip - by confining them to the outer part of the lip, but not to the inner part.

5)

(a)We already discussed our Mishnah, which considers a blemish, gums (see also Bartenura) that are notched or that are horizontally cut. Rebbi Chananya ben Antignos rules that the gums from the wide teeth (the molars) and inwards - do not require examination (because they are considered internal blemishes, and that incorporates ...

(b)... the gums of the molars themselves.

(c)The Beraisa discusses three opinions regarding the gums. The Tana begins with the Tiyomes - with reference to the molar teeth (whose double shape resemble twins).

(d)'Eizehu Tiyomes, min ha'Tiyomes ve'Lifnim' is meaningless. The additional problem with the continuation of the Beraisa 've'Tiyomes Atzmah ... . Rebbi Yehoshua ben Kefusa'i Omer, Ein Shochtin Ela al ha'Chitzonos Bilevad' is that - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Kefusa'i seems merely to be echoing the opinion of the Tana Kama.

6)

(a)We therefore amend the Beraisa so that the Tana Kama is describing the inside of the mouth, which in fact begins from the molars. And he confines that difference to notched and cut gums - but gums, even those on the inside of the mouth, are considered a blemish, and one may Shecht a B'chor on them.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Kefusa'i has reservations about the gums from the molar teeth and inwards. So he makes a compromise - forbidding Shechting a B'chor on them, but he declares a B'chor with such a blemish, Pasul ...

(c)... until such time as they obtain a real blemish which permits their Shechitah.

(d)Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos now holds that - we do not consider them a blemish at all, and one may even bring them on the Mizbe'ach.

7)

(a)Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami asked whether a missing limb inside an animal is considered a Mum. Based on the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Re'ei "Pise'ach O Iver" that - one may only eat a B'chor on a blemish that is externally visible (in which case, the She'eilah cannot pertain to a B'chor).

2. ... in Emor "Averes O Shavur" that - one is only permitted to redeem Pesulei ha'Mulkdashin on a blemish that is externally visible.

(b)And the She'eilah pertains (not to eating a B'chor or redeeming Kodshim but) - to a Korban becoming Pasul from going on the Mizbe'ach (whether a missing internal limb is a P'sul or not).

(c)We might learn from the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with Kodshim) ...

1. ... "Tamim Yih'yeh le'Ratzon" that - any animal that renders the animal incomplete is Pasul.

2. ... "Tamim Yih'yeh le'Ratzon Kol Mum Lo Yih'yeh bo" that - it is only a Mum that is externally visible (like that of a B'chor) that can render it Pasul.

(d)And we try to resolve the She'eilah from two Beraisos. One Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Tzav ...

1. ... "ve'es Sh'tei ha'Kelayos" that - only an animal with two kidneys is eligible to be brought as a Korban, but not one that possesses only one.

2. ... "Al ha'Kelayos Yesirenah" that - even an animal that possesses only one kidney is eligible.

8)

(a)Assuming that no animal is born with only one kidney, we initially explain that - the first Beraisa, which disqualifies a Korban with one kidney, considers an internal Chesaron a Chesaron, whereas the second Beraisa, which permits it, does not.

(b)Rav Chiya bar Yosef rejects this explanation. Initially, he holds that both Tana'im consider an internal Chesaron a Chesaron (Chesaron mi'bi'Fenim Sh'meih Chesaron) and some animals are born with only one kidney. Consequently ...

1. ... the first Beraisa speaks where the B'chor was born with two kidneys but is now missing one, whereas ...

2. ... the second Beraisa speaks where it was born with only one kidney.

(c)We reject this explanation however - on the grounds that the P'sul of one kidney, like that of three kidneys (Dumyah di'Sheloshah Katani), must speak where it was born like that.

9)

(a)He therefore establishes the Machlokes between the two Beraisos - by whether there are animals that are born with one kidney (Yesh Beryah be'Achas [the latter Beraisa]) or not (the former one).

(b)And the reason that the first Beraisa invalidates a Korban with one kidney is - because, seeing as the animal must have been born with two kidneys, we hold Chesaron mi'bi'Fenim Sh'meih Chesaron.

(c)Granted, we just said Dumyah di'Sheloshah Katani - but that was when we thought that everyone holds Yesh Beryah be'Achas. But now that everyone holds Ein Beryah be'Achas, the P'sul of Achas can only be because it was born with two kidneys and the Tana holds Chesaron mi'bi'Fenim Sh'meih Chesaron (even though it is not similar to one that is born with three).

10)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan holds that no animal is born with one kidney, Chesaron mi'bi'Fenim is considered a Chesaron, and initially suggests that - the Beraisa which validates a Korban with one kidney speaks when it became Chaser after the Shechitah.

(b)We reject this suggestion however, on the basis of a ruling of Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav. Based on the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par", Rebbi Zeira rules that the ear of a Par Kohen Mashi'ach that was chipped before the Kabalas ha'Dam - is Pasul (ha'Par she'Hayah K'var).

(c)And the Beraisa learns from the word "Yih'yeh" (in the Pasuk in Bo "Seh Tamim Zachar ben Shanah Yih'yeh Lachem") that - a Korban must also remain unblemished during the Holachah and the Zerikah.

11)

(a)Nevertheless we conclude, Rebbi Yochanan is speaking where the kidney became Chaser after the Kabalas ha'Dam - because the D'rashah of "Yih'yeh" pertains (not to Tamim, but) to "ben Shanah" (that it may not turn one year old in the interim).

(b)And we prove this from a ruling of Rebbi Yehoshua, who rules in a Beraisa that - one may sprinkle the blood of a Korban of which only a k'Zayis of Cheilev remains (even though it became Chaser in thr middle).

(c)It is possible for an animal to be still in its first year at the time of Shechitah and in its second, at the time of Kabalah and Holachah - if, in the realm of Kodshim, we reckon the year from the time of the animal's birth, and not from nightfall, as Rava extrapolates from here.

12)

(a)The Beraisa discusses the Pasuk in Emor "u'Ma'uch, ve'Chasus, ve'Nasuk ve'Charus". "u'Ma'uch ve'Chasus" mean squashed and crushed, "ve'Nasuk ve'Charus" - severed by hand and cut with a knife, though the sequence is first cut with a knife (but still connected) and then severed by hand.

(b)We object to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, who confines this Pasuk to the Beitzim - because surely a blemish on the Gid, which is externally visible, is no less a Mum than one on the Beitzim, which are hidden from view.

(c)We therefore amend it - to 'Af be'Beitzim'.

(d)According to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - the Pasuk is referring to the Gid and not to the Beitzim,

(e)Rebbi Yossi makes a compromise - "u'Ma'uch ve'Chasus" refer to the Beitzim as well, whereas "ve'Nasuk ve'Charus" refers to the Gid exclusively.

13)

(a)Initially, we suggest that the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - is synonymous with Rav Achdevu'i's She'eilah, whether Chesaron mi'bi'Fenim is a Chesaron (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov).

(b)The problem with that is - what Rebbi Yossi will then hold. If he holds that it is a Chesaron, then "Nasuk ve'Charus" ought to pertain to the Beitzim too, whereas if he holds that it is not, then why do even "u'Ma'uch, ve'Chasus" pertain to them?

(c)We therefore conclude that everyone agrees that Chesaron she'bi'Fenim is not considered a Chesaron, and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether these four blemishes are considered Galuy (externally visible) or not, bearing in mind that, although one cannot see the actual Beitzim, they do protrude from the body in a way that their presence is visible.

14)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah considers Ma'uch ve'Nasus a Mum on the Beitzim, because they appear shriveled from the outside, and Nasuk ve'Charus - because they can be seen hanging loosely.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - holds that both of these phenomena sometimes occur even when the Beitzim are not blemished at all, in which case they remain a Chesaron mi'bi'Fenim.

(c)Rebbi Yossi agrees with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov regarding "Nasuk ve'Charus", but not regarding "Ma'uch ve'Chasus".

15)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that - if the bag that covers the Gid of a B'chor or the genitals of a female Kodshim animal is notched, it is a Mum.

(b)A notch on the tail is considered a blemish - if it is next to the bone, but not if it notched between the joints (where it will heal).

(c)Still in connection with the tail, the Tana considers a blemish ...

1. ... at its lower end - if the skin and flesh have been peeled off, revealing the bone (see also Bartenura).

2. ... on its vertebrae - if there is a finger-breadth of bone between one and the next.

(d)Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) considers ...

1. ... a notched bag a blemish - but not one that has been removed (because it will re-grow).

2. ... a notched bag a blemish - but not if the Gid itself is notched.

(e)And we cite a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Elazar, where Rebbi Yossi ben ha'Meshulam related how a wolf in Inbal once removed the entire bag of a sheep - and it re-grew.

16)

(a)The Beraisa defines a finger-breadth as - a quarter of a Tefach (a thumb-breadth).

(b)A Tefach is equivalent to four thumb-breadths, six pinky-breadths - or five fore-finger breadths (see Mesores ha'Shas).

(c)Rabah explains that the Tana is speaking about Tzitzis. According to Beis-Shamai in a Beraisa ...

1. ... the Mitzvah of Tzitzis comprises four threads. Beis Hillel say - three.

2. ... the Tzitzis hang down from the corner of the Talis (Meshuleshes) four Tefachim (see Tosfos DH 'Kamah'). Beis Hillel say - three.

(d)Meshuleshes might also refer to - the G'dil (the loose strands) over and above the Anaf (the section with the thread wound round it).

17)

(a)The hole through which the Tzitzis are suspended - is no more than three finger-breadths (see Tosfos DH 'Kamah').

(b)We measure the above Tefachim - by the fingers of a normal-size person.

(c)According to Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, the Tana mentions the finger-breadth in connection with the two Amos - which were placed in the Shushan ha'Birah (a room above the eastern gate of the Azarah, one in the north-eastern corner, the other, in the south-eastern corner).

18)

(a)The Amah in the north-eastern corner was half a finger-breadth more than that of Moshe Rabeinu, the one in the south-east - was a half a finger-breadth more than that.

(b)They were used - to measure the work performed by the workers who did repairs in the Beis-ha'Mikdash (because they were paid by the Amah).

(c)These two Amos were larger than that of Moshe - to prevent the workers from being Chayav Me'ilah (by mistakenly doing less work than they were being paid for). This they achieved by measuring the work that they had done with the Amah that was slightly larger than that of Moshe (though they were handed the quota of work according to Moshe's Amah).

(d)The smaller of the two was used to measure silver and gold (to minimize the workers' losses) - the larger, to measure less precious commodities.

(e)Some have just established the Beraisa regarding Etzba in connection with Tzitzis, others, with the two Amos. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (or Rav Huna bar Nasan) - established it in connection with the flesh between the vertebrae of the tail in our Mishnah.