Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10-11

Sugya Map

• Issue: Defining the specific physical blemishes (mumim) that render a bekhor (firstborn animal) permissible for slaughter outside the Temple courtyard (ḥutz la'azara) and consumption by a kohen. The Mishnah also lists mumim that allow redemption of other consecrated animals (kodshim) and, conversely, conditions that do not qualify as mumim, or even disqualify the animal entirely from any sacred use.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Permissibility of Shechita: A bekhor with a disqualifying mum may be slaughtered anywhere and eaten by kohanim, preventing economic loss to the kohen who owns it. Without a mum, it must be brought to the Temple and offered on the altar, or if it acquires a mum after being brought, it can be redeemed and eaten.
  • Redemption of Kodshim: Other consecrated animals (kodshim) that acquire such mumim may be redeemed and then slaughtered and eaten by anyone, avoiding the issur of me'ilah (misuse of consecrated property) for an animal that cannot be offered.
  • Distinction from Non-Mumim: The Mishnah carefully delineates what constitutes a mum versus a temporary ailment, a concealed defect, or a condition that renders the animal pasul (disqualified) for any sacred purpose, including redemption or even shechita outside the Temple.
  • Role of Torah Sheb'al Peh: The sugya exemplifies the dynamic process of applying scriptural mandates (e.g., "לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ מוּם" – Vayikra 22:21) through detailed rabbinic interpretation, case law, and the authority of batei dinim over generations.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10-11
  • Gemara Bekhorot 3b, 37a-b, 38a-b, 39b-40a, 41a-b, 42a-b
  • Tosefta Bekhorot 4:1-12
  • Sifra, Emor, Perek 4:1-12
  • Rambam, Hilchot Bekhorot, Chapters 6-8

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah (Bekhorot 6:10-11) presents an extensive catalog of mumim, focusing on various anatomical regions, followed by a list of conditions that are not considered mumim.

Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10

בְּאֵלּוּ מוּמִין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר בַּמְּדִינָה: אוֹזֶן שֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה מִן הַחֲסַס, וְלֹא מִן הָעוֹר; נִפְצְעָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ חֲסֵרָה; נִקְּבָה כְּגָרְגְרוֹגֶרֶת; וְאוֹזֶן יְבֵשָׁה. אֵיזוֹ הִיא אוֹזֶן יְבֵשָׁה? כָּל שֶׁהִיא נִקֶּבֶת וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה טִפַּת דָּם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשֻׁלָּם אוֹמֵר: כָּל שֶׁהִיא מִתְפָּרֶקֶת.

בְּאֵלּוּ מוּמִין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר בַּמְּדִינָה: עַפְעַף שֶׁנִּקַּב, שֶׁנִּפְגַּם, וְשֶׁנִּפְצַע; וְכֵן בְּעֵינוֹ קַשְׁקַשּׂ, טְבַלּוּל, וְכִילְשׁוֹן חִלָּזוֹן, וְכִילְשׁוֹן נָחָשׁ, וְכִילְשׁוֹן תּוּת. אֵיזֶהוּ טְבַלּוּל? לָבָן הַחוֹצֶה אֶת הַכַּחַל וְנִכְנָס בַּשָּׁחוֹר. שָׁחוֹר הַחוֹצֶה אֶת הַכַּחַל וְנִכְנָס בַּלָּבָן, אֵינוֹ מוּם.

נִרְמָשִׁין וּדְמָעוֹת שֶׁל קֶבַע. אֵיזֶהוּ נִרְמָשִׁין שֶׁל קֶבַע? כָּל שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בִּשְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם.

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן דְּמָעוֹת שֶׁל קֶבַע: אָכְלָה לַח וְיָבֵשׁ מִן הַגְּשָׁמִים, לַח וְיָבֵשׁ מִן הַבַּעַל, יָבֵשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ לַח – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֵינָן מוּם. עַד שֶׁתֹּאכַל לַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָבֵשׁ.

נִקַּב חֻטְמָהּ, נִפְגַּם, וְנִפְצַע. נִקַּב שְׂפָתוֹ, נִפְגַּם, וְנִפְצַע.

חֻמֵּי הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ, וְשֶׁנִּכְרְצוּ, וְהַפְּנִימִיִּין שֶׁנִּעְקְרוּ. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵין בּוֹדְקִין מִן הַשִּׁנַּיִם הַכְּפוּלוֹת וְלִפְנִים, וַאֲפִלּוּ הַשִּׁנַּיִם הַכְּפוּלוֹת עַצְמָן.

זָוֶן וְאֵבָרִין שֶׁל נְקֵבָה שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ. זָנָב שֶׁנִּפְגַּם מִן הָעֶצֶם, וְלֹא מִן הַפֶּרֶק; וְנִפְצַע רֹאשׁ הַזָּנָב, שֶׁנִּסְתַּלְּקוּ עוֹר וּבָשָׂר וְנִשְׁאַר הָעֶצֶם; וְשֶׁיֵּשׁ בֵּין פֶּרֶק לְפֶרֶק מְלֹא רוֹחַב אֶצְבַּע בָּשָׂר.

אֵין לוֹ בֵּיצִים, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּיצָה אֶחָת. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי כִיסִין, יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי בֵיצִים; אֵין לוֹ שְׁנֵי כִיסִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּיצָה אֶחָת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ עַל עַרְקֻבּוֹתָיו וּמְמַשְׁמְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵּיצָה, סוֹף שֶׁהִיא יוֹצֵאת. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁמִּמְּשׁוּ וְלֹא יָצְאָה. שְׁחָטוּהוּ וּמְצָאוּהוּ צָמוּד לְמָתְנָיו. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַתִּיר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹסֵר.

בַּעַל חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם, וְשֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ, וְשֶׁרַגְלָיו סְדוּקוֹת כְּשֶׁל חֲמוֹר, וְהַשָּׁחוּל, וְהַכָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ שָׁחוּל? שֶׁנִּשְּׁמְטָה יַרְכוֹ. וְכָסוּל? שֶׁיַּרְכוֹ אַחַת גְּבוֹהָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.

נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם יָדוֹ וְעֶצֶם רַגְלוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה.

אֵלּוּ מוּמִין מָנָה אִילָא בְּיַבְנֶה, וְהוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים. וְהוֹסִיף שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ עַל אֵלּוּ. עֵינוֹ עֲגוּלָּה כְּשֶׁל אָדָם, וּפִיו כְּשֶׁל חֲזִיר, וְנִטְּלָה רֹב לְשׁוֹנוֹ שֶׁל דִּבּוּר. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁאַחֲרֵיהֶם אָמְרוּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּם.

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשֶׁהָיְתָה לֶסֶת הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה יוֹצְאָה עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, וְשָׁאַל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֶת הַחֲכָמִים, וְאָמְרוּ: הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.

אוֹזֶן הַגְּדִי שֶׁהָיְתָה כְּפוּלָה, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֶצֶם אֶחָד, מוּם; כְּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ עֶצֶם, אֵינוֹ מוּם. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: זָנָב שֶׁל גְּדִי שֶׁהוּא כְּשֶׁל חֲזִיר, וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּרָקִים, הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם.

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ מוּמִין: יַבֶּלֶת בְּעֵינָיו; וְשֶׁנִּפְגַּם עֶצֶם יָדוֹ וְעֶצֶם רַגְלוֹ; וְשֶׁנִּפְסַק עֶצְמוֹ שֶׁבְּפִיו; וְעֵינוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה, וְאׇזְנוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה, בִּרְאִיָּה וְלֹא בִּמְדִידָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁתֵּי בֵיצָיו, אַחַת כִּשְׁתֵּי חֲבֵרוֹתֶיהָ, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים.

זָנָב שֶׁל עֵגֶל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַגִּיעַ לָעַרְקֻבּוֹת, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: שֶׁכָּל גְּדִילַת הָעֲגָלִים בְּכָךְ: כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן גְּדֵלִין, הֵן מַאֲרִיכִין. אֵיזֶהוּ עַרְקֻבּוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ? רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: עַרְקֻבּוֹת שֶׁבְּאֶמְצַע הַיָּרֵךְ.

בְּאֵלּוּ מוּמִין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר בַּמְּדִינָה, וּפוֹדִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים הַנִּפְסָלִין.

Mishnah Bekhorot 6:11

וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן לֹא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה: נִרְמָשִׁין וּדְמָעוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁל קֶבַע; וְחֻמֵּי הַפְּנִימִיִּין שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ וְלֹא שֶׁנִּעְקְרוּ; וְגָרָב; וְיַבֶּלֶת; וְחַזָּזִית; וְזָקֵן, וְחוֹלֶה, וּמַסְרִיחַ; וְשֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בּוֹ עֲבֵרָה; וְשֶׁהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד וְעַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים.

וְהַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן לֹא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין זֶה בְּכוֹר, אֶלָּא גּוֹזֵז וְעוֹבֵד.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

• "מִן הַחֲסַס, וְלֹא מִן הָעוֹר" (from the cartilage, but not from the skin): This precise distinction for an ear blemish (Bekhorot 6:10) is crucial. A damage to the cartilage is considered a mum because it's a permanent structural defect. A superficial skin lesion is not, as it might heal or is not fundamental. This highlights the Halachic focus on significant, enduring physical impairments.
• "טְבַלּוּל" (tevallul): The Mishnah provides a specific definition: "לָבָן הַחוֹצֶה אֶת הַכַּחַל וְנִכְנָס בַּשָּׁחוֹר" (a white thread that bisects the iris and enters the black pupil). This is a precise anatomical description, distinguishing it from a black thread entering the white, which is not a mum. This demonstrates the need for exact observation and classification.
• "נִרְמָשִׁין וּדְמָעוֹת שֶׁל קֶבַע" (pale spots and constant tears): The Mishnah emphasizes "של קבע" (constant/permanent) and provides criteria for this permanence: 80 days for spots, and a specific sequence of moist/dry fodder for tears. This underscores the principle that mumim must be lasting, not transient.
• "נִשְּׁמְטָה יַרְכוֹ" (its thighbone was dislocated) / "שֶׁיַּרְכוֹ אַחַת גְּבוֹהָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ" (one thigh is higher than the other): These definitions of shaḥul and kasul (Bekhorot 6:10) illustrate how even internal skeletal issues, if they cause visible asymmetry or dysfunction, are considered mumim.
• "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה" (even though it is not conspicuous): This phrase regarding a broken bone (Bekhorot 6:10) is significant. Most mumim must be niglim (visible) to permit slaughter outside. This implies that some severe internal breaks, even if not immediately obvious, are still mumim, perhaps due to the inherent structural damage. The Gemara (Bekhorot 37b) interprets this as referring to a break that is felt rather than seen, but still verifiable externally.
• "לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ עַל אֵלּוּ" (we did not hear about those): This response from the Sages to Ila's additions (Bekhorot 6:10) is a critical expression of the oral tradition's authority. It signifies that new mumim could not be arbitrarily declared without a received tradition (masorah). The subsequent beit din accepting them shows the evolution and authoritative interpretation within Torah Sheb'al Peh.
• "אֵין זֶה בְּכוֹר, אֶלָּא גּוֹזֵז וְעוֹבֵד" (this is not a firstborn; rather, it may be shorn and utilized for labor): The Rabbis' ruling on tumtum and androginos (Bekhorot 6:11) implies that the initial kedusha (sanctity) of a bekhor never attaches to such an animal due to its ambiguous gender, effectively treating it as a chullin (non-sacred) animal from the outset.

Readings

The Mishnah's detailed enumeration of mumim is the bedrock for the Halachic framework of bekhorot. The Rishonim and Acharonim engage deeply with its precise language and underlying principles.

Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Bekhorot 6-8; Commentary to Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10)

Rambam's approach to the Mishnah is characterized by a drive for clarity, systemization, and definitive psak. He often distills the Gemara's extensive discussions into concise rulings, frequently relying on logical distinctions to explain the Mishnah's nuances.

1. Defining "Yabbalet" (Wart) and "Einah Achat Gedolah" (Asymmetrical Eyes/Ears)

Rambam, commenting on R' Hanina ben Antigonus's statement:

רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר את שיבלת כו': יבלת ידוע וכל זמן שתהא יבלת אפי' בלובן העין ויהיה בו שער הרי זה מום לדברי הכל ולדעת חכמים אפי' אזנו אחד כפולה כשר וכל זמן שתהא עינו אחת גדולה כשל עגל והשניה קטנה כשל אווז אז יהיה מום והלכה כחכמים בלבד. (Rambam on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10:1)

Chiddush: Rambam clarifies that a yabbalet (wart) is a mum even if it's in the white of the eye and has hair, implying a specific type of growth that is universally recognized as a blemish. More significantly, for the blemish of asymmetrical eyes or ears, Rambam explicitly states that it is a mum only if "עינו אחת גדולה כשל עגל והשניה קטנה כשל אווז" (one eye is large like a calf's and the other is small like a goose's). This indicates a disparity between the two eyes/ears, rather than merely one eye/ear being abnormally large or small compared to a standard. This precise definition is crucial, as noted by Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger, distinguishing it from a simpler reading that "one large OR one small" would suffice. Rambam's wording here implies that merely having one eye of an unusual size is not enough; the problem lies in the disproportion between the two organs. This reflects a principle that mumim often derive from a deviation from normal bilateral symmetry, indicating a fundamental flaw in the animal's natural form.

Regarding the doubled ear, Rambam states that the halacha is "כחכמים בלבד" (only like the Sages), who maintain that "אזנו אחד כפולה כשר" (even if one ear is doubled, it is valid/kosher). This means he rejects R' Hanina ben Antigonus's view on this specific mum. This is a critical point, as it shows Rambam selectively applying R' Hanina's statements, not accepting them all wholesale.

2. The Mum of a "Chatzasar" (Hidden Testicle)

Rambam addresses the machloket between R' Akiva and R' Yochanan ben Nuri regarding the testicle found tzamud l'motnayim (attached to the loins).

ואם נולד ואין לו אלא ביצה אחת הרי זה מום... מעשה שבדקוהו ומצאו ביצה צמודה למתניו, והתירוהו חכמים. (Rambam, Hilchot Bekhorot 8:4)

Chiddush: Rambam rules that if a testicle is found attached to the loins, it is a mum. This aligns with R' Akiva's position from the Mishnah's incident, implying that even an internally present testicle, if not descended and visible, constitutes a disqualifying blemish for a bekhor. The rationale is that the mum of "אין לו ביצים" (lacking testicles) refers to the visible and functional presence of testicles. A testicle attached to the loins, while anatomically present, is not naturally visible and likely not fully functional for its intended purpose, thus classifying it as a mum. This highlights that mumim are not solely about absence, but also about structural integrity and proper form as observed.

Tosafot Yom Tov (TYT) on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10

Rabbi Yom Tov Lippmann Heller, in his Tosafot Yom Tov, provides a concise yet deep commentary, often clarifying the Mishnah through the lens of the Gemara and other Rishonim.

1. "Yabbalet B'eino" (Wart in the Eye)

TYT comments on R' Hanina ben Antigonus's statement about a wart in the eye:

את שיבלת בעינו . פי' הר"ב בלובן שבעין. ויש בו שער. דאלת"ה הא תני במשנה ב' שאין מומין בלבן. גמ'. ועיין משנה י"ב: (Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10:1)

Chiddush: TYT clarifies that the Mishnah's term "yabbalet b'eino" (wart in its eye) refers to a wart in the white of the eye that has hair. This is a chiddush because, as TYT points out, Mishnah Bekhorot 6:2 (which is 6:12 in Sefaria's numbering) states that there are generally no mumim in the white of the eye. The presence of a wart with hair in the white of the eye is therefore an exception, a uniquely severe blemish that penetrates beyond the superficial white. This highlights the precise nature of mumim and how specific conditions can override general rules.

2. "Shenifgam Etzem Yado" (Damaged Bone)

TYT explains the Mishnah's mention of a damaged bone:

ושנפגם עצם ידו כו' . כל עצם שבגלוי שנחרץ בו חרץ הרי זה מום. והוא בכלל חרוץ האמורה בתורה. הרמב"ם ספ"ז מהב"מ: (Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10:2)

Chiddush: TYT connects "shenifgam etzem yado" (its foreleg bone was damaged) to Rambam's ruling (Hilchot Bekhorot 7:5, which is in Hilchot Isurei Mizbeiach in the Kessef Mishneh context, but TYT refers to Hilchot Bekhorot) that "כל עצם שבגלוי שנחרץ בו חרץ הרי זה מום" (any exposed bone with an incision is a blemish). He explicitly links this to the biblical term "charutz" (Vayikra 22:22), one of the enumerated mumim in the Torah. This clarifies that a "damaged" bone is not just any break, but specifically one that is visible (גלוי) and results in a notch or incision (חרץ), aligning the Mishnah's detail with the broader biblical principle of mumim. This also implicitly limits the scope of "even though it is not conspicuous" for broken bones; it must still be externally verifiable in some manner, like a palpable crack, to be a mum.

3. The Authority of R' Hanina ben Antigonus's Statements

TYT delves into the broader question of the psak regarding R' Hanina ben Antigonus's various statements in the Mishnah, particularly concerning the asymmetrical eyes/ears and the machloket with R' Yehuda regarding testicle size.

אבל אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה. אי מחמת בריאות הוא. תרוייהו בעו מיברא. ואי מחמת כחישותא. תרוייהו בעו מיכחש. הכי אסיקנא בגמ' פ"ק דף ג' ועיין פירקא דלקמן משנה ד'. ופשטא דמתני' דכולהו דברי ר"ח בן אנטיגנוס הן ואפ"ה הלכה כמותו. שהרי הר"ב פי' ולא הודו לו חכמים לרבי יהודה והלכה כחכמים. וה"נ ודאי משמע דלא קיימי אלא אדר"י. ש"מ דאילו לר"ח לא מצינו שלא הודו. ועוד דבגמרא מפרש למלתיה. ועוד בה שלישיה מהטעם שאכתוב במשנה דלקמן. ואין נראה בעיני מ"ש הכ"מ בפ"ב מהלכות איסורי מזבח. דעינו גדולה כו'. רבנן קאמרי לה. והכי משמע בריש בכורות ולפיכך פסק הרמב"ם כן. ע"כ. דהרי הרמב"ם ס"ל דאזנו א' כו'. קמיפלגי רבנן ומכשירין אפי' קטנה כפול. כמ"ש בפירושו ובחבורו. וא"כ השתא רישא וסיפא רבי חנינא. ומציעתא רבנן. ועוד שהרי הרמב"ם פוסק לשארא דר"ח הא דיבלת בפרק הנזכר. והא דפגימת ופסיקת עצם כללינהו בפ"ז מהלכות ביאת מקדש. במ"ש כל עצם שבגלוי שנחרץ בו חרץ כו'. ואע"פ שהכ"מ לא הזכיר אלא פגימה ולא פסיקה. וראיתי ג"כ מוגה במשנת א"י ושנפגם עצמו שבפיו. אבל באזנו לא פסק כמותו משום דס"ל דחכמים פליגי עליה בברייתא שאעתיק בסוף המשנה. הלכך הנכון מ"ש דדברי ר"ח הן והלכה כמותו היכי דלא פליגי רבנן בהדיא. והואיל וכן. הא דכתב הכ"מ דבריש בכורות משמע דרבנן קאמרי לה לאו מילתא היא דמשום דפרכינן לה מינה משמע ליה דרבנן היא אבל כיון דהלכה כר' חנינא לא משמע כלל דרבנן קאמרי לה: (Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10:4)

Chiddush: TYT engages in a complex analysis of the psak regarding R' Hanina ben Antigonus. He argues that the phrase "וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים" (and the Sages did not agree with him) applies only to R' Yehuda's opinion on testicle size, not to R' Hanina's other statements (like the wart or asymmetrical eyes/ears). TYT asserts that "פשטא דמתני'" (the simple reading of the Mishnah) is that all these are R' Hanina's words, and halacha k'R' Hanina where the Rabbis don't explicitly disagree. He challenges the Kessef Mishneh's (Rabbi Yosef Karo's commentary on Rambam) interpretation, which suggests that the statement about a large eye is a Rabbinic one. TYT highlights that Rambam himself, in his Perush haMishnah and Mishneh Torah, rules like R' Hanina for some of these mumim (e.g., the wart, damaged bones), indicating that R' Hanina's views are indeed authoritative unless explicitly contradicted. This detailed discussion underscores the careful process of identifying the author of a statement in the Mishnah and how that impacts its halachic weight, especially when a dissenting opinion of "Chachamim" is present. TYT meticulously shows that the Rabbis only disagreed with R' Hanina regarding the doubled ear (as Rambam also indicated), but not other blemishes he lists.

Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger (TRAE) on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10

TRAE, known for his incisive textual analysis, offers a crucial dikduk on the blemish of asymmetrical eyes.

[אות כו] תוי"ט ד"ה עינו אחת גדולה. אבל אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה. בפשוטו נראה דעינו אחת גדולה והשנייה כדרכו. או אחת קטנה והשנייה כדרכו הוי מום דמחמת ברייתה או כחישתה היה ראוי שיהיה שניהם שווים. וכן נראה מלשון רש"י בריש מסכתין (דף ג' ע"ב) דכתב או אחת גדולה כשל עגל או אחת קטנה כשל אווז. ואולם מלשון הרמב"ם בפירושו. ובחבורו. ובטור שתהא עינו א' גדולה כשל עגל והשנייה קטנה כשל אווז. מבואר דס"ל דמתני' לאו או או קתני אלא דדוקא בשינוי בשתיהן שהאחת גדולה והאחת קטנה: (Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10:1)

Chiddush: TRAE focuses on the wording "עינו אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה" (one eye large and one small) as stated by R' Hanina ben Antigonus. He contrasts two interpretations:

1. Rashi's (and simple) reading: "One eye is large (or small) compared to a normal eye." This implies that an abnormality in one eye is sufficient, regardless of the other eye's size. TRAE refers to Rashi on Bekhorot 3b, which indeed states "או אחת גדולה כשל עגל או אחת קטנה כשל אווז" (or one large like a calf's or one small like a goose's). This "or" suggests that either condition alone makes it a mum.
2. Rambam's (and Tur's) reading: "One eye is large and the other is small," meaning there must be a disparity between the two eyes. It's not enough for one eye to be large; the other must also be small to create the blemish. TRAE notes that Rambam's phrasing "שתהא עינו א' גדולה כשל עגל והשנייה קטנה כשל אווז" (that one eye is large like a calf's and the second is small like a goose's) implies a simultaneous, contrasting condition.

This dikduk is significant. If Rashi is followed, any deviation from the norm in a single eye is a mum. If Rambam is followed, the mum is the lack of symmetry between the two eyes, where one is abnormally large and the other abnormally small. This reveals a deeper layer of how mumim are defined: Is it about deviation from an ideal form, or about internal inconsistency within the animal's own anatomy? TRAE's analysis highlights the critical role of conjunctive ("and") versus disjunctive ("or") readings in Halachic interpretation.

Friction

The Mishnah in Bekhorot 6:10-11, while extensive, presents several points of contention and nuanced interpretation among the Sages, Rishonim, and Acharonim. Two significant areas of friction stand out: the fundamental status of tumtum and androginos, and the precise definition of the mum of a missing testicle in the context of R' Akiva's incident.

Kushya 1: The Ontological Status of Tumtum and Androginos

The Mishnah concludes its list of disqualifying conditions with a stark declaration:

וְהַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן לֹא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמְּדִינָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין זֶה בְּכוֹר, אֶלָּא גּוֹזֵז וְעוֹבֵד. (Bekhorot 6:11)

The Friction: The Mishnah presents a severe ruling for tumtum (whose sexual organs are concealed) and androginos (hermaphrodite): they cannot be slaughtered neither in the Temple nor in the country. R' Shimon views this ambiguity of sex as the ultimate mum, implying it should permit slaughter outside. The Rabbis, however, state "אֵין זֶה בְּכוֹר" – this is not a bekhor at all, and thus it may be shorn and used for labor, like a chullin (non-sacred) animal. This is a profound machloket not just on the definition of a mum, but on the very ontological status of such an animal within the framework of kedushat bekhorah.

The Kushya: Why do the Rabbis not consider this a mum that allows slaughter outside? If it is potentially a male firstborn, and its sexual ambiguity is clearly a defect, why not apply the leniency of mumim? R' Shimon's argument "אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה" seems intuitively correct—a fundamental ambiguity in sexual identity is surely a major defect. Furthermore, if it's safek bekhor, shouldn't we lean towards leniency for kohanim to avoid hefsed (loss)?

The Best Terutz (from Gemara Bekhorot 42b): The Gemara (Bekhorot 42b) illuminates the underlying philosophical difference between R' Shimon and the Rabbis:

מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון? ספק זכר וספק נקבה. וכל ספק זכר וספק נקבה הוי מום. ומאי טעמא דרבנן? אין זה בכור, דבכור ודאי בעינן. (Bekhorot 42b)

• R' Shimon's View: R' Shimon holds that a tumtum or androginos is a safek zachar v'safek nekeva (doubtfully male and doubtfully female). Since it might be male, it might be a bekhor. The ambiguity itself, or the physical manifestation of both sexes, constitutes a mum on this safek bekhor. Therefore, because it's a bekhor (albeit a doubtful one) and has a mum, it should be permitted for slaughter outside the Temple. R' Shimon applies the principle of safek d'Rabanan l'kula (doubtful Rabbinic matter is lenient) or perhaps even safek d'Oraita l'chumra u'l'kula in certain contexts, concluding that the mum aspect takes precedence for consumption by kohanim.

• Rabbis' View: The Rabbis maintain that for kedushat bekhorah to attach, the animal must be vadai zachar (certainly male). A tumtum or androginos is, by definition, not certainly male. Its gender status is a vadai safek (a definite doubt) regarding its very identity as a bekhor. Since it is not vadai zachar, the kedusha of bekhorah simply never takes effect. Consequently, it is not a bekhor at all. If it's not a bekhor, it has no inherent sanctity, cannot be offered, cannot be redeemed as a bekhor, and therefore is treated as chullin — "גוזז ועובד" (shorn and used for labor). The concept of mum is irrelevant because there's no bekhor for the mum to act upon. This is a crucial distinction: R' Shimon sees the ambiguity as a mum on a bekhor; the Rabbis see it as preventing the animal from ever being a bekhor.

This terutz highlights a fundamental principle in kedusha: bekhorah requires a vadai (certain) status as male. Any safek in this foundational identity prevents the kedusha from ever materializing.

Kushya 2: R' Akiva's Testicle Incident – The Nature of "Missing"

The Mishnah recounts an incident that led to a machloket between R' Akiva and R' Yochanan ben Nuri:

אֵין לוֹ בֵּיצִים, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּיצָה אֶחָת... רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ עַל עַרְקֻבּוֹתָיו וּמְמַשְׁמְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵּיצָה, סוֹף שֶׁהִיא יוֹצֵאת. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁמִּמְּשׁוּ וְלֹא יָצְאָה. שְׁחָטוּהוּ וּמְצָאוּהוּ צָמוּד לְמָתְנָיו. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַתִּיר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹסֵר. (Bekhorot 6:10)

The Friction: The Mishnah states that "אין לו ביצים" (it has no testicles) or "יש לו ביצה אחת" (it has only one testicle) is a mum. R' Akiva proposes a physical check (mishmoosh) to confirm absence. In an incident, this check failed to reveal a testicle, but upon slaughter, one was found tzamud l'motnayim (attached to the loins, i.e., undescended/hidden). R' Akiva permitted the animal, while R' Yochanan ben Nuri prohibited it.

The Kushya: Why the disagreement? If a testicle was found, albeit hidden, why would R' Akiva permit it? The mum is "no testicles," but here there was a testicle. Conversely, if it was hidden and not functional/visible, why would R' Yochanan ben Nuri prohibit it, effectively saying it was not a mum? The practical implication is huge: whether the kohen can eat the animal or not.

The Best Terutz (from Gemara Bekhorot 38a): The Gemara (Bekhorot 38a) explains the reasoning behind each Tanna's position:

מאי טעמא דרבי עקיבא? כיון דלא אישתמש בה, לא מיקרי ביצה, והוי מום. ומאי טעמא דרבי יוחנן בן נורי? כיון דאיכא ביצה, לא הוי מום. (Bekhorot 38a, adapted)

• R' Akiva's View: R' Akiva defines "אין לו ביצים" not as a complete anatomical absence, but as a lack of visible and functional testicles in their proper place. The mishmoosh procedure is intended to verify this visible absence. If a testicle is present but tzamud l'motnayim (undescended, a condition known as chatzasar in Halachic literature, akin to cryptorchidism), it is not functioning like a normal testicle and is not visible. Therefore, from R' Akiva's perspective, this hidden testicle still constitutes the mum of "no testicles" in the relevant Halachic sense. It is a defect that prevents the animal from being fit for the altar. The discovery after slaughter does not retroactively change its status as a blemished animal. The Gemara phrases it: "כיון דלא אישתמש בה, לא מיקרי ביצה" (since it was not used/functional, it is not called a testicle).

• R' Yochanan ben Nuri's View: R' Yochanan ben Nuri defines "אין לו ביצים" more strictly as the actual anatomical absence of a testicle. If a testicle is physically present, even if hidden or undescended, then the animal does have testicles. The mishmoosh procedure is merely a diagnostic tool. If that tool leads to a mistaken conclusion (that it's missing, when it's just hidden), then the animal was never truly blemished. Since a testicle was found, it was not "lacking testicles," and thus not a mum. Therefore, the slaughter outside was invalid, and the animal is prohibited.

This machloket hinges on the definition of the mum: Is it about the visible and functional presentation of the organ, or its anatomical presence regardless of visibility/function? R' Akiva leans towards the former, making chatzasar a mum. R' Yochanan ben Nuri leans towards the latter, arguing that mere presence negates the mum. The Gemara's explanation clarifies that R' Akiva's position is not illogical, but rather stems from a particular understanding of what constitutes a "testicle" for the purpose of bekhorot.

Intertext

The meticulous cataloging of mumim in Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10-11 is a classic example of Torah Sheb'al Peh elaborating on Torah Sheb'iKetav. The foundational text is Vayikra, which outlines general principles for sacrificial animals.

1. Vayikra 22:19-25 — The Scriptural Foundation for Mumim

The primary biblical source for disqualifying blemishes in consecrated animals is found in Parashat Emor:

כִּי תַקְרִיבוּ זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַיהוָה לִרְצֹנְכֶם. לְרָצוֹן לָכֶם תָּמִים יִהְיֶה זָכָר אוֹ נְקֵבָה כֹּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ. כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ כִּי לֹא לְרָצוֹן יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. וְכִי יַקְרִיב אִישׁ זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַיהוָה לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה מִן הַבָּקָר אוֹ מִן הַצֹּאן תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן כָּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ. עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר אוֹ חָרוּץ אוֹ יַבֶּלֶת אוֹ גָרָב אוֹ יַלֶּפֶת לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ אֵלֶּה לַיהוָה וְאִשֶּׁה לֹא תִתְּנוּ מֵהֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לַיהוָה. וְשׁוֹר וָכֶשׂ שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט נֶתֶק וְיַבֶּלֶת וְגָרָב וְיַלֶּפֶת לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ לַיהוָה וְנֶדֶר לֹא יִהְיוּ לָכֶם. וְאֵיל כָּרוּי וְדָקוּק וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ לַיהוָה וּבְאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ. (Vayikra 22:19-24)

Connection: These verses lay down the absolute requirement of tamim (whole, unblemished) for all sacrifices, explicitly stating "כֹּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ" (there shall be no blemish in it). It then lists several specific categories of mumim: iveret (blind), shavur (broken), charutz (incised), yabbalet (wart), garav (scab/boil), yallefet (scurvy/eczema), sarua (limping/fractured), kalut (missing limb/undeveloped), netek (skin disease), karuy (bruised testicles), dakuk (crushed testicles), natuk (torn testicles), and karut (severed testicles). The Mishnah in Bekhorot, particularly 6:10-11, serves as the authoritative Torah Sheb'al Peh interpretation and expansion of these biblical categories. For example:

• The Mishnah's detailed discussion of yabbalet b'eino (wart in the eye) or yabbalet elsewhere (Bekhorot 6:10, 6:11) directly interprets the biblical yabbalet.
• "נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם יָדוֹ וְעֶצֶם רַגְלוֹ" (its foreleg bone or hind leg bone was broken) relates to shavur.
• The mumim of "אין לו ביצים" (no testicles) or "יש לו ביצה אחת" (one testicle), and the intricate machloket surrounding them, are direct elaborations of the "karuy, dakuk, natuk, karut" testicle blemishes mentioned in Vayikra 22:24. The Mishnah here is defining what constitutes a defect in the reproductive organs, broadening the understanding beyond just severe trauma.
• The general category of "כל מום" (any blemish) in Vayikra 22:21 is the canvas upon which the Sages, Ila, and later courts painted the hundreds of specific mumim found throughout Masechet Bekhorot. The phrase "וְהוֹסִיף שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ עַל אֵלּוּ... בֵּית דִּין שֶׁאַחֲרֵיהֶם אָמְרוּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּם" (Ila added three, and they said to him: we did not hear about those... the court that followed them said: those are blemishes) (Bekhorot 6:10) beautifully illustrates the dynamic process of Torah Sheb'al Peh interpreting and applying the general biblical mandate through successive generations of authoritative Chazal.

2. Sifra, Emor, Perek 4:1-12 — Midrash Halacha on Mumim

The Sifra is a Tannaitic Midrash Halacha on Vayikra, and its section on mumim in Emor directly expounds upon the biblical verses, often using similar terminology and logic to the Mishnah.

מום - לרבות כל מום. (Sifra, Emor, Perek 4:1)

Connection: The Sifra begins its discussion of mumim by stating "מום - לרבות כל מום" (a blemish – to include every [other] blemish). This hermeneutic principle asserts that the Torah's explicit list of mumim is not exhaustive but illustrative. It implies that any significant physical defect that detracts from the animal's perfection is a disqualifying mum. This is the conceptual basis for the Mishnah's extensive list, which goes far beyond the few explicitly named in the Torah. The Sages, through their tradition and logical derivation, understood the spirit of the law ("tamim yihyeh") and applied it to countless specific cases.

For instance, the Sifra (Emor, Perek 4:4-5) elaborates on "charutz" and "yabbalet":

חרוץ - אלו חרוצין בידו וברגלו. יבלת - יבלת שיש בה שער. (Sifra, Emor, Perek 4:4-5)

This midrash directly informs the Mishnah and Rishonim. The Sifra's interpretation of charutz as incisions on the hand or foot bones aligns with TYT's explanation that "shenifgam etzem yado" (damaged bone) refers to an incision on an exposed bone, connecting it to the biblical charutz. Similarly, the Sifra's definition of yabbalet as "yabbalet sheyeish bah se'ar" (a wart that has hair) is precisely what TYT and Rambam use to understand R' Hanina ben Antigonus's yabbalet b'eino as a chiddush that can be a mum even in the white of the eye, as hair generally doesn't grow there. The Sifra thus serves as a direct textual precursor and interpretive framework for the Mishnah, demonstrating the continuity and development of Halachic thought from the biblical text through the Tannaitic period.

Psak/Practice

The detailed mumim enumerated in Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10-11 form the practical guidelines for kohanim and others dealing with consecrated animals. The rulings of the Rishonim, particularly Rambam, codify these laws into actionable Halacha.

1. Rambam's Codification (Hilchot Bekhorot, Chapters 6-8)

Rambam dedicates significant portions of Hilchot Bekhorot to the precise definition and application of mumim. His rulings generally follow the opinions of the Rabbis where there is a machloket, and he often provides the most accepted interpretations of the Mishnah's terms.

• Acceptance of Ila's Additions: Rambam implicitly accepts the mumim added by Ila and confirmed by the later beit din (Bekhorot 6:10), such as an eye round like a person's or a mouth like a pig's. This shows the authoritative nature of these later rulings in Torah Sheb'al Peh (Hilchot Bekhorot 7:16).
• Definition of "Desiccated Ear": Rambam adopts Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam's definition of a desiccated ear (that it crumbles when touched) over the initial Mishnah's definition (no blood upon piercing), as stated in Gemara Bekhorot 37b which generally follows R' Yosei in such cases (Hilchot Bekhorot 6:6).
• Constant Blemishes: The Mishnah's criteria for "constant" pale spots (80 days) and tears (specific feeding regimen) are adopted by Rambam (Hilchot Bekhorot 7:9-10), emphasizing that mumim must be permanent and not transient.
• Hidden Testicle (Chatzasar): Crucially, regarding the machloket between R' Akiva and R' Yochanan ben Nuri on the testicle found tzamud l'motnayim, Rambam rules in favor of R' Akiva:

  וכן אם נולד ואין לו אלא ביצה אחת הרי זה מום... מעשה שבדקוהו ומצאו ביצה צמודה למתניו, והתירוהו חכמים. (Rambam, Hilchot Bekhorot 8:4) This means that a chatzasar (undescended testicle) is indeed considered a mum, permitting the slaughter of the bekhor outside. This decision reflects R' Akiva's understanding that the mum is about the visible and functional absence of the testicle in its proper place.

• Tumtum and Androginos: Rambam follows the Rabbis' opinion against R' Shimon regarding tumtum and androginos:

  הטומטום והאנדרוגינוס אינו בכור כלל, אלא הרי הוא כחולין גוזז ועובד. (Rambam, Hilchot Bekhorot 8:12) This codifies the principle that kedushat bekhorah requires a vadai zachar (certainly male) animal. Their ambiguous sex prevents kedusha from attaching, rendering them non-sacred from the outset.

2. Practical Application for Kohanim

The rules laid out in this Mishnah are directly applicable for kohanim who receive bekhorot.

• Inspection is Key: A kohen receiving a bekhor must meticulously inspect it for any of the listed mumim. This inspection is not casual; it requires expertise, as indicated by Ila's role as a mumcheh (expert) in Yavne (Bekhorot 6:10). The kohen must be able to identify both obvious and subtle defects.
• "Mumim Niglim": The general principle is that mumim must be "niglim" (visible) to permit slaughter outside. While some internal defects (like a broken bone "even though it is not conspicuous") are included, they are understood to be externally verifiable through touch or clear functional impairment, not requiring invasive examination. This prevents casual or fraudulent claims of mumim.
• Preventing Loss: The allowance to slaughter a blemished bekhor outside the Temple serves a crucial economic purpose: to prevent hefsed (loss) to the kohen. A bekhor that cannot be offered on the altar, if unblemished, would technically need to be kept until it develops a mum or dies naturally, which is a significant burden. The mum allows its immediate consumption.
• Heuristic for Meta-Psak: The sugya exemplifies the dynamic nature of Halacha. The acceptance of Ila's additions by a later beit din (Bekhorot 6:10) demonstrates that the definition of mumim was not static, but subject to authoritative interpretation and expansion by successive courts. This provides a precedent for batei dinim to apply existing principles to new situations or refine previous understandings, while still being rooted in tradition. It underscores that Torah Sheb'al Peh is a living tradition, capable of adapting and clarifying within its established framework. The emphasis on permanence and visibility for blemishes also serves as a general heuristic in other areas of Halacha where physical perfection or defect is a criterion.

Takeaway

Mishnah Bekhorot 6:10-11 offers a masterful, granular dissection of mumim, demonstrating Torah Sheb'al Peh's meticulous application of biblical law to practical reality, balancing sanctity with the prevention of loss. The sugya highlights the complex interplay of observation, definition, and authoritative interpretation that characterizes the evolution and dynamism of Halacha.