Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8-9

Sugya Map

• Issue: Delineating the specific physical blemishes (mumin) in a firstborn animal (bechor) that permit its slaughter and consumption outside the Temple, thereby releasing it from its sanctity. Conversely, identifying conditions that do not qualify as mumin for this purpose, including those that render the animal utterly un-slaughterable.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Permitting the shechita (ritual slaughter) of a bechor ba-chutz (outside the Temple) and its consumption by a kohen and his household.
  • Enabling the redemption of other disqualified consecrated animals (kodshim pasulim) on account of these mumin (Mishnah Bekhorot 6:9).
  • Distinguishing between mumin that allow shechita ba-chutz and those that are either insufficient or entirely disqualify the animal from any use, even shechita.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8-9.
  • Vayikra 21:17-23 (general parameters of mumin in kodshim).
  • Devarim 15:21-22 (specific mention of bechor with mum).

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8-9 presents an extensive catalogue of mumin:

• "במומין אלו שוחטין את הבכור בחוץ: נשבר עצם ידו ועצם רגלו, אע"פ שאינו ניכר."^[Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8]
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "אע"פ שאינו ניכר" (even though it is not conspicuous) is critical. As Rambam notes, it requires definition; is it "not conspicuous" even when walking, or only when standing? This nuance determines the stringency of the mum.
• "אילא מנה אותן ביבנה והודו לו חכמים. והוסיף שלשה ואמרו לו לא שמענו אלו. את שגלגל עינו עגול כשל אדם, ופיו דומה לשל חזיר, ורוב לשון הדבור שלו חסר. בית דין של אחריהן אמרו זה מום."^[Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8]
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The tension between "לא שמענו אלו" (we did not hear about these) and the subsequent "בית דין של אחריהן אמרו זה מום" (the court that followed them said: That is a blemish) highlights a dynamic of halachic development and the authority of later Batei Din. Tosafot Yom Tov parses this carefully.
• "ואלו שאין שוחטין לא בבפנים ולא בבחוץ... טומטום ואנדרוגינוס, לא בבפנים ולא בבחוץ. ר' שמעון אומר: אין לך מום גדול מזה. וחכמים אומרים: אינו בכור אלא גוזזין ועושין מלאכה."^[Mishnah Bekhorot 6:9]
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The precise status of a tumtum (concealed genitals) and androgynos (hermaphrodite) is debated. R' Shimon views it as the ultimate mum, permitting shechita ba-chutz. The Rabbis, however, view it as fundamentally not a bechor, thereby removing it from the category of kodshim entirely, allowing ordinary non-sacred use (gozizin v'osin melacha). This isn't a mum that renders it chullin; it's that it was never kodash to begin with.

Readings

Rambam: Defining the "Inconspicuous" Blemish

Rambam, in his commentary to Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8, provides a crucial clarification on the phrase "נשבר עצם ידו ועצם רגלו, אע"פ שאינו ניכר." He states:

"אע"פ שאינו ניכר ר"ל אינו ניכר כשהוא עומד אלא כשהוא מהלך אבל כל זמן שלא יהיה ניכר אפי' בשעת הילוכו אינו מום והלכה כב"ד של אחריהם."^[Rambam Commentary to Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8:1] Rambam's chiddush here is to define the term "ניכר" (conspicuous). It's not about being visible when the animal is simply standing still. Rather, a broken bone in the leg or arm is considered a mum even if it's only "ניכר" – noticeable – when the animal is walking. If, however, the break is so subtle that it's not noticeable even when the animal walks, then it does not constitute a mum. This interpretation establishes a practical, observable threshold for determining the severity of such an injury. His concluding "והלכה כב"ד של אחריהם" ties into the subsequent discussion of Ila's additions, indicating a general principle of following later authorities.

Tosafot Yom Tov: Justifying the Acceptance of Ila's Additions

Tosafot Yom Tov, commenting on Ila's additions in Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8, delves into the halachic justification for the later Beit Din's acceptance of blemishes initially rejected by the Sages with "לא שמענו אלו." He explains:

"אילא. כתב הר"ב שם חכם והוא הנזכר לשבח שהוא מומחה לבכורות במשנה ה' פ"ד. ומש"ה הלכה כב"ד של אחריהם הואיל שהסכימו לדברי זה הבקי. והכ"מ בפ"ז מהל' ביאת מקדש. כתב עוד משום דבתראי נינהו. ועוד דחכמים לא א"ל אלא לא שמענו ואין לא שמענו ראיה. ע"כ. [*ועוד נ"ל מדתנן לקמן במשנה י"א. על אלו מומין כו'. וכללינהו להנהו. [ש"מ דהלכה נינהו]."]^[Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8:2] Tosafot Yom Tov presents a multi-layered chiddush to validate the later Beit Din's ruling. First, he cites the Rav (Obadiah of Bartenura) who identifies Ila as a recognized expert (mumcheh) in bechorot. The subsequent Beit Din thus deferred to his specialized knowledge. Second, drawing from the Kessef Mishneh (Hilchot Biat Mikdash 7), he notes the principle of Halakha k'Batra'ei (the law follows the later authorities) – "משום דבתראי נינהו." The later Beit Din superseded the earlier Sages. Third, the initial Sages' objection "לא שמענו אלו" is not a substantive refutation; it merely expresses unfamiliarity, not a counter-proof or argument – "ואין לא שמענו ראיה." Finally, Tosafot Yom Tov adds his own observation that Mishnah 6:11 later generalises "על אלו מומין" to include all blemishes in the chapter, implicitly validating Ila's additions as established halakha. This comprehensive analysis demonstrates how halachic authority and tradition can evolve through expertise, chronological precedence, and logical refutation.

Rashash: Challenging the Scope of Ila's Enumeration

Rashash, in his glosses to Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8, offers a critical perspective on the Rav's interpretation of "מומין אלו מנה אילא." He writes:

"פירש הרע"ב נשבר עצם ידו כו'. תמוה מדוע לא פירש כפשוטו דקאי אכל הני דחשיב בפרקין עד כאן. וגם לשון מנה אין נופל יפה על שנים לבד. גם לפירושו יהיה התוספות מרובה על העיקר."^[Rashash on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8:1] The Rav (Obadiah of Bartenura) interprets "מומין אלו מנה אילא" as referring only to the two immediately preceding blemishes: a broken foreleg and hind leg. The Rashash's chiddush is to challenge this narrow reading as "תמוה" (puzzling). He argues that the simple meaning of "מומין אלו" (these blemishes) should refer to all the various mumin enumerated in the chapter up to that point. He offers two reasons: first, the phrase "מנה" (enumerated) typically implies a larger list, not just two items. Second, if Ila only enumerated two items, then his subsequent addition of three blemishes would make the "addition" greater than the "principal" enumeration, which seems disproportionate ("התוספות מרובה על העיקר"). The Rashash thus pushes for a more expansive understanding of Ila's initial role as a compiler of the entire list of mumin, making his three additions truly supplemental, rather than merely adding to a tiny prior list. This re-contextualization subtly shifts the dynamics of the Beit Din's acceptance.

Friction

The Conundrum of "לא שמענו אלו" vs. "זה מום"

A potent kushya arises from the Mishnah's account of Ila's additions: The initial Sages' response to Ila's three new blemishes was a seemingly dismissive "לא שמענו אלו" (we did not hear about these). Yet, the very next phrase declares, "בית דין של אחריהן אמרו זה מום" (the court that followed them said: That is a blemish). How can a Beit Din overturn or disregard the explicit statement of their predecessors, especially when the initial Sages' response implies a lack of tradition or even acceptance? This appears to be a direct conflict between two Batei Din, with the later one seemingly acting unilaterally. Does "לא שמענו" imply a rejection, or merely unfamiliarity? If the latter, why did the Mishnah bother recording the initial Sages' hesitation at all?

The most compelling terutz is found in Tosafot Yom Tov's multi-pronged explanation, drawing from the Kessef Mishneh.

1. Expertise: Ila was a recognized mumcheh (expert) in bechorot. The later Beit Din likely gave significant weight to his specialized knowledge, even if the earlier Sages were unfamiliar with these specific mumin. Halacha often defers to expert testimony in technical matters.
2. Weakness of "לא שמענו": Crucially, "לא שמענו" is not a substantive refutation. It signifies a lack of personal tradition or knowledge, not a counter-proof (ein lo ra'ayah) or a definitive rejection based on opposing mesorah. Had the earlier Sages said, "שנינו לא מום הוא" (we learned it is not a blemish), that would be a stronger challenge. Mere unfamiliarity is insufficient to override a reasoned claim, especially from an expert.
3. Principle of Halakha k'Batra'ei: The Kessef Mishneh explicitly invokes the principle that the halakha generally follows the later Batei Din ("בתראי נינהו"). This overarching principle allows for the evolution and finalization of halacha by subsequent generations of scholars, especially when the earlier opinion is not a strong, definitive rejection. The later Beit Din had the authority to establish the halacha, particularly in light of Ila's expertise and the lack of a strong rebuttal.
4. Mishnah's Structure: Tosafot Yom Tov further points out that the Mishnah itself, in 6:11, later summarizes "על אלו מומין" (for these blemishes) as a general rule, implicitly including Ila's additions. This suggests that by the time the Mishnah was redacted, these mumin were indeed accepted halakha.

This terutz masterfully reconciles the apparent contradiction by contextualizing the statements within the framework of halachic development, the weight of expertise, and the principles of psak.

Intertext

Biblical Roots of Mumin

The entire discussion of mumin in kodshim (sacred offerings) and bechorot finds its foundational source in the Torah, primarily in Parshat Emor. Vayikra 21:17-23 enumerates a list of physical defects that disqualify a kohen from service and parallel blemishes that disqualify animals from being offered on the altar. Specifically, Vayikra 21:19 mentions "או [כו'] שבר רגל או שבר יד" (or a broken leg or a broken arm), which is directly referenced by Tosafot Yom Tov^[Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8:1] regarding the Mishnah's discussion of broken limbs. This establishes the Biblical basis for defining physical integrity in sacred contexts. For bechorot specifically, Devarim 15:21 states, "וכי יהיה בו מום, פסח או עור, כל מום רע, לא תזבחנו לה' אלהיך" (And if there be any blemish therein, lameness, or blindness, or any evil blemish, you shall not sacrifice it unto the Lord your God). This verse explicitly permits the slaughter of a blemished bechor outside the Temple, forming the very premise of our Mishnah.

The Liminal Status of Tumtum and Androgynos

The Mishnah's final ruling regarding tumtum and androgynos ("וחכמים אומרים: אינו בכור אלא גוזזין ועושין מלאכה") presents a fascinating intertextual parallel with the broader halachic discourse on their legal status. The Mishnah in Yevamot 8:6 discusses tumtum and androgynos in the context of marriage and levirate marriage, stating that an androgynos is "sometimes a man, sometimes a woman" and that the Sages did not rule definitively on its status. This ambiguity extends to many areas of halakha. In our Mishnah, the Rabbis argue that a tumtum or androgynos is not merely a bechor with a mum, but rather it fundamentally lacks the status of a bechor altogether. A bechor must be male, and these animals' sexual identity is either unclear (tumtum) or dual (androgynos), preventing them from being definitively classified as a bechor. This categorization is not a mum that disqualifies a bechor, but a condition that prevents it from ever acquiring the status of a bechor, much like a female animal. Therefore, it is treated as chullin (non-sacred) and can be shorn and used for labor, bypassing the entire framework of bechor halakhot. This reflects a profound jurisprudential distinction between a mum (defect in an otherwise valid category) and a fundamental lack of category membership.

Psak/Practice

The psak regarding mumin for a bechor generally follows the lenient interpretations, allowing for the shechita ba-chutz and consumption by kohanim for a wide array of blemishes. The Rambam, a cornerstone of halachic codification, explicitly affirms the psak of the "בית דין של אחריהן" regarding Ila's additions, stating "והלכה כב"ד של אחריהם."^[Rambam Commentary to Mishnah Bekhorot 6:8:1] This aligns with the meta-psak heuristic of Halakha k'Batra'ei, where the ruling of later authorities, particularly in cases of clarification or expansion, is accepted as normative.

In practical halakha, the principle is that any permanent physical defect that is visible and affects the animal's natural form or function, and is not easily healed, likely qualifies as a mum. The detailed lists in the Mishnah and subsequent Gemara and poskim serve as precedents and guidelines. The psak also emphasizes that the mum must be nikar (conspicuous) in some way, as Rambam defined for broken limbs – even if only upon movement. Concealed blemishes, like internal gums that were damaged but not extracted, are explicitly stated not to be mumin that permit slaughter (Mishnah 6:9), reflecting a concern for objective verification. The debate between R' Akiva and R' Yochanan ben Nuri regarding the testicle attached to the loins (Mishnah 6:8) also underscores the need for clear, observable signs of a mum for shechita ba-chutz.

As for tumtum and androgynos, the Rabbis' opinion that they are not bechorot at all is accepted, meaning they are treated as ordinary chullin animals, usable for labor and shearing, without any sanctity or bechor halakhot applying.

Takeaway

This Mishnah intricately details the physical parameters of sanctity and disqualification in bechorot, showcasing the halachic system's rigor in applying Biblical mandates. It further illustrates the dynamic nature of halachic development, where expert authority and the principle of Halakha k'Batra'ei can shape the final psak even in the face of initial scholarly hesitation.