גמ׳ מַאי הָרִיס? אָמַר רַב פַּפָּא: תּוּרָא בָּרָא דְּעֵינָא. ״דַּק תְּבַלּוּל״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דַּק מְשׁוּקָּע – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, צָף – אֵינוֹ מוּם.

The mishna’s list of blemishes of the eye included an eyelid [ ris ] What is the meaning of: The ris ? Rav Pappa says: It means the outer line, or barrier, of the eye, i.e., the eyelid. The mishna further stated: A cataract, a tevallul . With regard to a cataract, the Sages taught: A sunken cataract, i.e., one that is in the eye itself, is a blemish, but a floating cataract, i.e., one that is floating above the eye, is not a blemish.

וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא? לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בַּשָּׁחוֹר, הָא בַּלָּבָן. וְהָא אֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן! אֶלָּא, הָא – בְּדוֹק לָבָן, הָא – בְּדוֹק שָׁחוֹר.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t the opposite taught in a baraita , that a sunken cataract is not a blemish whereas a floating one is a blemish? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult, as this first baraita is referring to a cataract in the black portion of the eye, whereas that second baraita is referring to one in the white portion of the eye. The Gemara challenges: But it was taught that there are no blemishes in the white portion of the eye. Rather, both baraitot are referring to the black portion of the eye, and this second baraita is referring to a white cataract, whereas that first baraita is referring to a black cataract.

דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, סָח לִי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא: דַּק שָׁחוֹר מְשׁוּקָּע – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, צָף – אֵינוֹ מוּם; דַּק לָבָן מְשׁוּקָּע – אֵינוֹ מוּם, צָף – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. וְסִימָנֵיךְ: בַּרְקָא.

This is as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Yoshiya from Usha told me that with regard to a black cataract, if it is sunken it is a blemish, but if it is floating it is not a blemish. Conversely, with regard to a white cataract, if it is sunken it is not a blemish, whereas if it is floating it is a blemish. And your mnemonic to remember this is barka , which is a disease in which white patches float above the eye, and it is considered a blemish.

״חִלָּזוֹן נָחָשׁ וְעָצָב״. אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: חִלָּזוֹן הוּא נָחָשׁ, אוֹ דִּלְמָא: חִלָּזוֹן אוֹ נָחָשׁ?

§ The mishna included in its list of blemishes of the eye a growth in the shape of a snail, a snake, or a berry that covers the pupil. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the snail mentioned in the mishna the same as the snake, or perhaps they are two distinct blemishes, and the mishna means a snail or a snake?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, סָח לִי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: זָקֵן אֶחָד הָיָה בִּשְׁכוּנָתֵינוּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹסֵי לָקוּנְיָא שְׁמוֹ, וּמִיָּמַי לֹא עָבַרְתִּי לְפָנָיו. פַּעַם אַחַת עָבַרְתִּי לְפָנָיו, אָמַר לִי: שֵׁב בְּנִי, שֵׁב! חִלָּזוֹן זֶה – מוּם קָבוּעַ לִשְׁחוֹט עָלָיו, וְזֶהוּ נָחָשׁ שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים.

The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Elazar told me: There was a certain elder in our neighborhood, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya was his name, and in all my days I did not pass before him. But once I did pass before him, and he said to me: Sit, my son, sit, and I will teach you one matter: This snail that you see in the eye of a firstborn is a permanent blemish, and it is permitted to slaughter the animal on its account. And this is also the snake mentioned by the Sages as a blemish.

וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: אֵין אָדָם רוֹאֶה מוּמִין לְעַצְמוֹ – אֲבָל מוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה לְתַלְמִידִים, וְתַלְמִידִים מוֹרִין לוֹ.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya adds: And even though the Sages said that a person cannot see blemishes for himself, and therefore I cannot permit this firstborn to myself, even so a halakhic authority may issue a halakhic ruling to his students, and the students may then issue a halakhic ruling for him based on what he taught them. Consequently, once I have taught you this halakha , you may permit my firstborn to me due to this blemish.

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כָּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה וּבָא, אִם קוֹדֶם מַעֲשֶׂה אֲמָרָהּ – שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ! אִיהוּ נַמִי, מוֹרֶה וּבָא הֲוָה מֵעִיקָּרָא.

The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Elazar permit the firstborn in this manner? But doesn’t Rabbi Abba say that Rav Huna says: With regard to any Torah scholar who is engaged in issuing a ruling of halakha in a situation relevant to himself, if he already stated the ruling before the incident, i.e., before it was relevant to him, one listens to him; and if not, i.e., the ruling followed the incident, one does not listen to him? The Gemara answers that he too, Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei Lakonya, was engaged in issuing this ruling of halakha at the outset, before it became relevant to him.

״אֵיזֶהוּ תְּבַלּוּל – לָבָן הַפּוֹסֵק אֶת הַסִּירָא״. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: לָבָן וְנִכְנָס בַּשָּׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וְנִכְנָס בַּלָּבָן – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לָבָן וְנִכְנָס בַּשָּׁחוֹר – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, שָׁחוֹר וְנִכְנָס בַּלָּבָן – אֵינוֹ מוּם, שֶׁאֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן.

§ The mishna further stated: What is a tevallul ? It is a white thread that bisects the iris and enters the black pupil. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita : If there is either a white thread that enters the black, or a black thread that enters the white, it is a blemish; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: If it is a white thread that enters the black, it is a blemish, but if it is a black thread that enters the white, it is not a blemish, as there are no blemishes in the white of the eye.

אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? דִּכְתִיב: ״יָצָא מֵחֵלֶב עֵינֵימוֹ״, תַּרְבָּא דְּעֵינָא אִיקְרֵי, עֵינֵימוֹ סְתָמָא לָא אִיקְרֵי. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ? מַה לְּשׁוֹן ״תְּבַלּוּל״ – דָּבָר הַמְבַלְבֵּל אֶת הָעֵינַיִם.

Rav says: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei? As it is written: “Their eyes stand forth from fatness” (Psalms 73:7), is called the fat of the eye, but it is not called simply: Their eyes. Conversely, a tevallul is considered a blemish only if it is in the eye itself, as it states: “Or tevallul in his eye” (Leviticus 21:20). The Gemara further asks: And with regard to Rabbi Meir, what is his reason? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir would explain as follows: What is the meaning of the expression tevallul ? It is a substance that mixes [ hamevalbel ] within the eyes, i.e., which passes through the white and the black in any fashion.

מתני׳ חֲוַרְוַור וְהַמַּיִם הַקְּבוּעִין. אֵיזֶהוּ חֲוַרְוַור הַקָּבוּעַ – כָּל שֶׁשָּׁהָה שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אָמַר: בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בְּתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם.

Pale spots on the eye and tears streaming from the eye that are constant are blemishes that enable the slaughter of the firstborn. Which are the pale spots that are constant? They are any spots that persisted for eighty days. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Antigonus said: One examines it three times within eighty days. Only if the spots are found during all three examinations are they considered constant.

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מַיִם הַקְּבוּעִין: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים, לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל שְׁלָחִים, אוֹ אָכַל הַיָּבֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַלַּח – אֵינוֹ מוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַלַּח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַיָּבֵשׁ.

And these are the constant tears, i.e., this is how it is known whether the blemish is temporary or permanent: In a case where the animal ate, for medicinal purposes, moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain, or if the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field, or even if the animal did not eat them together but ate the dry fodder and thereafter ate the moist fodder, and the condition of constant tears was not healed, it is not a blemish. It is not a blemish unless the animal eats the moist fodder and thereafter eats the dry fodder and is not thereby healed.

גמ׳ מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: חֲוַרְוַור קָבוּעַ – אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם, וּמַיִם הַקְּבוּעִים – שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חֲוַרְוַור – שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם.

The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita : A blemish of constant pale spots is a condition that persisted for forty days, and constant tears is a condition that persisted for eighty days; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda says: A blemish of constant pale spots is a condition that persisted for eighty days.

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מַיִם הַקְּבוּעִים: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין, אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל יָבֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל הַלַּח – אֵין מוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל יָבֵשׁ אַחַר הַלַּח. וְיֶשְׁנוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים.

The baraita continues: And these are the constant tears, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: In a case where the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field, or ate the dry fodder and thereafter ate the moist fodder, and the animal was not healed, its status as a blemish is not certain. It is not a blemish unless the animal eats the dry fodder after eating the moist fodder and is not thereby healed. And the duration of this period of eating moist and then dry fodder extends for three months.

וְהָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ תְּנַנְהִי: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים, לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין!

The Gemara asks: But how can the mishna be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? We learned about two types of fields in the mishna: A case where the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain and a case where the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field and was not healed. In either case, it is not a blemish. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda mentioned only moist fodder and dry fodder from a field that requires irrigation, from which it can be inferred that if the animal was fed moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain and it was not healed, its condition is a blemish.

חַסּוּרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אָכַל לַח וְיָבֵשׁ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין – אֵינוֹ מוּם. וְהַגְּשָׁמִים נַמִי, אָכַל יָבֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל לַח – אֵינוֹ מוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל יָבֵשׁ אַחַר הַלַּח.

The Gemara answers that the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching, in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita : If the animal ate moist fodder and dry fodder from a field watered exclusively with rain, it is a blemish. If it ate moist fodder and dry fodder from an irrigated field, it is not a blemish. And with regard to a field watered exclusively with rain as well, if it ate the dry fodder and thereafter ate the moist fodder it is not a blemish. It is a not blemish until the animal eats the dry fodder after the moist fodder.

וְיֶשְׁנוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. אִינִי? וְהָתַנְיָא, וְהָא רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אָשִׁיָּאן: אֲדָר וְנִיסָן – לַח, אֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרֵי – יָבֵשׁ! אֵימָא: אֲדָר וַחֲצִי נִיסָן – לַח, אֱלוּל וַחֲצִי תִּשְׁרֵי – יָבֵשׁ.

With regard to the statement of the baraita : And the duration of this period of eating moist and then dry fodder lasts for three months, the Gemara asks: Is that so? But isn’t it taught that Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashiyan says: The months of Adar and Nisan are the moist period mentioned in the mishna, as the fodder is still moist at that time of year; and the months of Elul and Tishrei are the dry period, as this is the end of summer? In total, there are four months, not three. The Gemara answers that one should say as follows: The months of Adar and half of Nisan are the moist period, and the months of Elul and half of Tishrei are the dry period, for a total of three months.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: לַח בִּזְמַן לַח וְיָבֵשׁ בִּזְמַן הַיָּבֵשׁ, אוֹ דִּלְמָא: לַח וְיָבֵשׁ בִּזְמַן הַלַּח?

With regard to the ruling of the mishna that the animal must be given moist fodder and then dry fodder, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean it must be fed moist fodder at the time of moist fodder, i.e., at the end of the rainy season, and dry fodder at the time of dry fodder, at the conclusion of summer? Or perhaps it is fed moist fodder and then dry fodder leftover from the previous summer, both at the time of moist fodder.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אָשִׁיָּאן: אֲדָר וְנִיסָן – לַח, אֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרֵי – יָבֵשׁ. דִּלְמָא פֵּירֵי דֶּאֱלוּל וְתִשְׁרֵי מַאֲכֵילְנָא לֵיהּ בַּאֲדָר וְנִיסָן!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashiyan said: The months of Adar and Nisan are the period of moist fodder; Elul and Tishrei are the period of dry fodder. This indicates that the animal is given the fodder that is available at that time. The Gemara refutes this proof: That statement is not necessarily referring to the time when it is fed, as perhaps one feeds it the produce of Elul and Tishrei in Adar and Nisan.

וְכַמָּה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן עֲרוֹבָא: כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. אָמַר רָבָא, בָּעֵי בְּמַעַרְבָא: כִּגְרוֹגְרוֹת בִּסְעוּדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה,

The Gemara asks: And how much does one feed it? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Arova: One feeds it the amount of a fig-bulk. Rava says: They raise a dilemma in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Does this mean that it is fed the amount of a fig-bulk at its first meal each day,