Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 22, 2019 | 讬状讝 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bekhorot 35

Who can be trusted and who cannot be trusted to testify about a blemish that it was not inflicted intentionally by someone but happened on its own?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讟讬诪讗 讟讛专讜转 讜诪转 诇讗 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 拽谞住讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉

that if one rendered impure the ritually pure items of another and died before paying, the Sages did not penalize his son after his death and require him to pay for the damage. What is the reason for this? The reason is that damage that is not evident, i.e., which does not involve any visible change, is not considered damage by Torah law. There is a penalty imposed by rabbinic law, as the injured party suffered a loss, but the Sages penalized only him; the Sages did not penalize his son.

诪转谞讬壮 诪注砖讛 讘讝讻专 砖诇 专讞诇讬诐 讝拽谉 讜砖注专讜 诪讚讜诇讚诇 讜专讗讛讜 拽住讟讜专 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 讝讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谞讜 谞砖讞讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 谞讟诇 驻讬讙讜诐 讜爪专诐 讗讝谞讜 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜 讜讗讞专 砖讛转讬专讜 讛诇讱 讜爪讬专诐 讘讗讝谞讬 讘讻讜专讜转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗住专讜

MISHNA: There was an incident involving an old ram whose hair was long and dangling, because it was a firstborn offering. And one Roman quaestor [kastor] saw it and said to its owner: What is the status [tivo] of this animal that you allowed it to grow old and you did not slaughter it? They said to him: It is a firstborn offering, and therefore it may be slaughtered only if it has a blemish. The quaestor took a dagger [pigom] and slit its ear. And the incident came before the Sages for a ruling, and they deemed its slaughter permitted. And after the Sages deemed its slaughter permitted, the quaestor went and slit the ears of other firstborn offerings, but in these cases the Sages deemed their slaughter prohibited, despite the fact that they were now blemished.

驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讬讜 转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪砖讞拽讬谉 讘砖讚讛 讜拽砖专讜 讝谞讘讬 讟诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜谞驻住拽讛 讝谞讘讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜 专讗讜 砖讛转讬专讜 讛诇讻讜 讜拽砖专讜 讝谞讘讜转 讘讻讜专讜转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗住专讜 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讚注转讜 讗住讜专 砖诇讗 诇讚注转讜 诪讜转专

One time children were playing in the field and they tied the tails of lambs to each other, and the tail of one of them was severed, and it was a firstborn offering. And the incident came before the Sages for a ruling and they deemed its slaughter permitted. The people who saw that they deemed its slaughter permitted went and tied the tails of other firstborn offerings, and the Sages deemed their slaughter prohibited. This is the principle: With regard to any blemish that is caused intentionally, the animal鈥檚 slaughter is prohibited; if the blemish is caused unintentionally, the animal鈥檚 slaughter is permitted.

讙诪壮 驻注诐 讗讞专转 讛讬讛 讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讜讬 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬住专讱 讗讘诇 拽讟谉 讚讗转讬 诇诪讬住专讱 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

GEMARA: The mishna mentions that one time children were involved in a case in which they unintentionally blemished a firstborn offering whose subsequent slaughter the Sages deemed permitted. The Gemara notes: And although the first clause of the mishna mentions a similar occurrence, the incident involving the children is necessary. As, had the tanna taught us only the incident involving the gentile, it might have been thought that the Sages permitted the slaughter of the firstborn offering only there, as it is not a problem if the gentile will acquire the habit of causing blemishes, because that prohibition does not apply to gentiles. But with regard to a Jewish minor, it is a concern that he is likely to acquire the habit of causing blemishes in firstborn offerings, and therefore one might say that even the first, unintentional time should not be permitted.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 拽讟谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讘诇 讙讜讬 讚讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the tanna taught us only the incident involving a minor, it might have been thought that the Sages deemed the firstborn offering permitted only there, since there is no concern that people will come to confuse a minor with an adult. People would not erroneously conclude that it is permitted to cause a blemish on a firstborn offering intentionally merely due to an incident involving a minor. But in the case of a gentile adult, where this is a concern that people would come to confuse him with a Jewish adult, one might say that even the first, unintentional time should not be permitted. It is therefore necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诐 谞注砖讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讚诪讬

搂 The Gemara analyzes the incident involving the Roman quaestor. Rav 岣sda says that Rav Ketina says: They taught that the firstborn offering is permitted only in a case where the bystanders said to the quaestor: A firstborn offering may not be slaughtered unless it has a blemish, as this is referring to a blemish that develops naturally. But if they said to him that a firstborn offering may be slaughtered only if a blemish was caused to form upon it, which indicates human intervention, it is considered as though they explicitly told him: Go and cause a blemish on it, in which case the animal is prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 谞注砖讛 讗诇讗 谞注砖讛 谞诪讬 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara cites a dissenting opinion. Rava said: Now consider, both expressions in fact indicate that the blemish occurred by itself, as both statements are in the passive. Accordingly, what difference is it to me whether the bystanders used the expression: If it had a blemish, or the expression: A blemish was caused in it? Rather, the expression: Was caused, also indicates that it occurred by itself, and there is no difference between the expressions. In both instances the firstborn offering would be permitted.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讚注转 讗住讜专 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讙专诪讗

The mishna teaches that this is the principle: In the case of any blemish that is caused with his intent, the animal鈥檚 slaughter is prohibited. The Gemara explains: What does this principle serve to add? It serves to add an indirect action, i.e., a blemish caused in this manner is also considered an intentional act and the animal may not be slaughtered on its account.

砖诇讗 诇讚注转 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜

The Gemara further inquires: What is added by the phrase in the second part of the principle: If the blemish was caused without his intent, the animal鈥檚 slaughter is permitted? This serves to add an instance where a gentile did not inquire about the nature of the firstborn offering, but rather discovered it from one who speaks offhandedly. Although the gentile intentionally caused a blemish in the animal, since the Jew did not intentionally prompt him to cause it, the animal is permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 讘讻讜专 专讚驻讜 讘注讟讜 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 讛专讬 讝讛 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讜

MISHNA: If one鈥檚 firstborn offering was pursuing him, and he kicked the animal and caused a blemish in it, he may slaughter the animal on account of that blemish.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讘注讟讜 讘砖注转 专讚讬驻讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 专讚讬驻讛 诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗

GEMARA: Rav Pappa says: They taught that the firstborn offering may be slaughtered only in an instance where he kicked it at the time of its pursuit. But if the individual kicked the animal after its pursuit, it may not be slaughtered, as he intended to cause a blemish in order to render it permitted to be slaughtered. The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that it is not permitted to slaughter the animal in such a case.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 爪注专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讚讻专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say that it is in fact permitted to slaughter the firstborn offering since he kicked it after its pursuit only out of anger, as he recalls his distress caused by its pursuit of him, and not in order to render the animal permitted to be slaughtered. Rav Pappa therefore teaches us that it is assumed that he kicked the animal with the express intention of causing a blemish in it, not merely out of anger, and therefore it may not be slaughtered.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讘砖注转 专讚讬驻讛 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 专讚讬驻讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 专讚讬驻讛 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 爪注专讬讛 讚诪讚讻专

There are those who say the opposite version of this discussion. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that if the individual kicked the firstborn offering at the time of the pursuit, then yes, it is permitted to slaughter it, but if he kicked it not at the time of the pursuit, it is not permitted to slaughter it. Rather, even if he kicked it after its pursuit of him, it is also permitted. What is the reason? It is assumed that he kicked it after the pursuit not with the intention of causing a blemish, but because he recalls his distress caused by its pursuit of him.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专 诇讛讟讬诇 诪讜诐 讘讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 砖讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讚讬讗 讘讗讜讚谞讬讛 讗讬诪专讗 讘砖驻讜讜转讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬诪专讗 谞诪讬 讘讗讜讚谞讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 讚专讱 爪讚注讬讜 谞驻拽

Rav Yehuda says: It is permitted to cause a blemish in a firstborn fetus before it emerges into the air of the world, as it obtains its sacred status only when it is born. Applying this ruling, Rava said: In the case of a kid, it is practical to cause a blemish on its ear. Since a kid鈥檚 ears are long they emerge from the birth canal prior to the head. With regard to a lamb, whose ears are short and do not appear before the head, it is practical to cause a blemish only on its lip. There are those who say that there is a different version of this statement: In the case of a lamb as well, it is practical to cause a blemish on its ear, as one can say that it emerges from the birth canal through its temples, in which case its ears are visible first.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻诇 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讝讬 驻注讬 讜诪讬讞讝讬 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛讞讜讟讬谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 砖谞驻讙诪讜 讜砖谞讙诪诪讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 砖谞注拽专讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬 驻注讬 诪讬讞讝讬

Rava says: In a case where a firstborn has a blemish in its mouth, if, when it eats, the blemish is not visible, but when it opens its mouth wide and cries out, it is visible, this is considered a blemish, rendering the animal fit for slaughter. The Gemara asks: What is this teaching us? We learn this in the mishna (39a) with regard to blemishes that render a firstborn offering fit for slaughter: The external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched, and likewise, the internal gums that were entirely extracted, are considered blemished. What is the reason that if the internal gums were extracted it is considered a blemish? Is it not because when the animal opens its mouth wide and cries out, it is visible? If so, what is the novelty of Rava鈥檚 statement?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讗 谞诪讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪驻专砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 谞注拽专讜 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬 驻注讬 诪讬讞讝讬

Rav Pappa says in response: Rava is not in fact teaching a novel halakha. Rather, he is explaining the reason for the ruling of the mishna: What is the reason that if the internal gums were extracted it is considered a blemish? It is that when the animal opens its mouth wide and cries out, the blemish is visible.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘讗 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 专讜注讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讗诪谞讬谉 专讜注讬诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谉 讛讜讗 注诇 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 注诇 砖诇 注爪诪讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讚讘专 诇讗 讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪注讬讚讜

MISHNA: With regard to all the blemishes that are capable of being brought about by a person, Israelite shepherds are deemed credible to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally. But priest-shepherds are not deemed credible, as they are the beneficiaries if the firstborn is blemished. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A priest is deemed credible to testify about the firstborn of another, but is not deemed credible to testify about the firstborn belonging to him. Rabbi Meir says: A priest who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter, even on behalf of another.

讙诪壮 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 专讜注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇诇讙讬诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

GEMARA: Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar disagree with regard to the meaning of the mishna. One of them says that the case of Israelite shepherds is where the shepherds are in the house of priests, i.e., in the employ of a priest. These shepherds are deemed credible to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally, as we are not concerned they are lying for a swallow [lilegima] of the firstborn that their priest employer might give them in exchange.

专讜注讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 讟专讞谞讗 讘讬讛 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讚讬讚讬 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讗讞专讬谞讬

And the case of priest-shepherds is where the shepherds are in the house of an Israelite, i.e., in the latter鈥檚 employ. In such a case, the priest-shepherds are not deemed credible to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally, as the priest-shepherd can say: Since I have toiled with this firstborn offering, my Israelite employer will not forsake me and give it to another priest. The priest is assumed to be lying, as he has a motive to cause a blemish in the animal.

讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉

And the same is true in the case of a priest who testifies for the sake of another priest. Although the first priest would not derive benefit from his testimony immediately, he is nevertheless not deemed credible to testify, as we are concerned about reciprocal behavior, i.e., the other priest might later repay the favor and lie on his behalf.

讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 谞讗诪谉 讛讜讗 注诇 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 注诇 砖诇 注爪诪讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讬诪专 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讚讘专 诇讗 讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪注讬讚讜

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that the testimony of a priest in such a case, when he testifies about the firstborn of another priest, is deemed credible, as there is no concern about reciprocal behavior. But he is not deemed credible with regard to his own firstborn. And Rabbi Meir comes to say that a priest, who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish, may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter, even on behalf of another. The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Meir and that of the first tanna will be discussed further on.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 专讜注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛谉 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉

The Gemara cites the other explanation of the mishna: And the other one of the two amora鈥檌m says: The case of Israelite shepherds is where the shepherds are priests in the employ of an Israelite. The mishna is teaching that these shepherds are deemed credible to testify that the blemishes on their employer鈥檚 firstborn offering were not caused intentionally, as they are not suspected of lying in order to obtain its meat.

诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讚讬讚讬 专讜注讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛谉 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诇讙讬诪讗

The reason is that it is assumed that the priest-shepherd would say: My Israelite employer will not forsake a priest who is a Torah scholar and give the blemished animal to me, an unlearned shepherd. The case of priest-shepherds is where the shepherds are Israelites in the employ of a priest. These shepherds are not deemed credible to testify, as we are concerned that they might be lying for a swallow of the firstborn that their priest employer would give them in exchange.

讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 讜讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诇讙讬诪讗 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专 谞讗诪谉 注诇 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 注诇 砖诇 注爪诪讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讬诪专 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讚讘专 诇讗 讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪注讬讚讜

And all the more so the testimony of a priest for the sake of another priest is not deemed credible, as we are concerned that the two might engage in reciprocal behavior, and we are concerned that the priest-shepherd might be lying for a swallow of the firstborn offering. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that the priest-shepherd is deemed credible to testify with regard to the firstborn offering of another priest, but is not deemed credible to testify with regard to a firstborn belonging to himself. And Rabbi Meir comes to say that a priest who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter, even on behalf of another.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛谉 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗转讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讬诪专 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讚讘专 诇讗 讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪注讬讚讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, according to the second opinion, i.e., the one who says the first tanna maintains that the case of Israelite shepherds is where the shepherds are priests in the employ of an Israelite, and they are deemed credible to testify, this is the reason that Rabbi Meir comes to disagree and say that a priest who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish may neither adjudicate nor testify even for the sake of an Israelite employer.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜注讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗

But according to the first opinion, i.e., the one who says that the first tanna maintains that the case of priest-shepherds is where the shepherds are in an Israelite鈥檚 house, and they are not deemed credible to testify, what is Rabbi Meir coming to teach us? This is the same opinion as that of the first tanna himself.

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽驻讜住讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽驻讜住讗讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜专 讘讬 讻讛谉 爪专讬讱 砖谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诇讛注讬讚 注诇讬讜

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Meir with regard to a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai says: If a firstborn animal in the house of a priest developed a blemish, two people from the marketplace, i.e., not from the priest鈥檚 household, are required to testify about it that the blemish was not caused deliberately. This unqualified statement indicates that the two people can even be priests, provided that they are not household members.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 讜讛谉 讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even the priest鈥檚 son and even his daughter may testify about it. Rabbi Yosei says: Even in a case where there are ten people, if they are members of his household, they may not testify about it. The first tanna of the mishna maintains that only a priest who is a shepherd of the animal in question is not deemed credible to testify, but the testimony of an independent priest is credible. This accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai, who allows the testimony of any two independent people, including a priest. Conversely, Rabbi Meir does not deem credible even the testimony of an independent priest, as indicated by his general statement about suspect priests.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 住驻拽 讘讻讜专 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬 讬砖专讗诇 爪专讬讱 砖谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诇讛注讬讚 注诇讬讜

The Gemara discusses a related statement: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav 岣sda says that Rav Ketina says: In the case of an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain that was born in the house, i.e., in the possession, of an Israelite, e.g., it was uncertain whether the mother had previously given birth, in which case the animal remains in the possession of the Israelite and may be eaten upon developing a blemish, two people from the marketplace are required to testify about it?

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽驻讜住讗讬

In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai. Just as he requires two independent people to testify about a firstborn offering in the possession of a priest, as he is suspected of intentionally causing the blemish, so too, he requires two independent people to testify in the case of an uncertain status of a firstborn offering born in the possession of an Israelite.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘注诇讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诪注砖专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬 诪注讬讚 注诇讬讜

Rav Na岣an disagrees and says: The Israelite owners themselves may testify about it. As, if you do not say so, but instead maintain that any involved person is suspected of deliberately causing a blemish in his firstborn animal, this poses a difficulty with regard to the halakha of an animal tithe offering, which may also be eaten if it developed a blemish. According to Rabbi Meir, who can testify about it? Rabbi Meir maintains that anyone who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish on his own behalf may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter even on behalf of another. If so, how can anyone, even an Israelite, testify about any blemished animal-tithe offering? It must be that an Israelite is not suspected of deliberately causing blemishes.

诪注砖专 讜讚讗讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讘讻讜诇讬讛 注讚专讬讛 讗诇讗 住驻拽 讘讻讜专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬 诪注讬讚 注诇讬讜

The Gemara rejects this claim: With regard to the animal tithe offering, the owner is certainly deemed credible to testify that its blemish occurred naturally, because if he wants, he could legitimately cause a blemish in his entire flock before the obligation to separate tithes came into effect. Rather, this is what Rav Na岣an stated: If an Israelite is not deemed credible to testify about a blemish found on an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain, then according to Rabbi Meir, who can testify about it? Both Israelites and priests stand to gain if their animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain develops a blemish, and therefore no one should be deemed credible to testify about it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讜讛转谞谉 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞诇讬驻讬讜 讘讬讚 讻讛谉 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘

And if you would say that indeed, according to Rabbi Meir, an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain has no remedy that can render it fit for slaughter, as no one is deemed credible to testify about its blemish, this cannot be correct. But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (18b) that Rabbi Yosei would say: Any animal whose replacements are in the possession of a priest is exempt from, i.e., not subject to, the mitzva of giving the priestly gifts, and Rabbi Meir deems him obligated to give the gifts? Since Rabbi Meir permits the consumption of an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain, evidently he allows testimony about its blemish in such a case.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讞砖讬讚讬 讗诪讜诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讞砖讬讚讬 讗诪讜诪讬

Rather, learn from this that the Israelite owners may testify about their animals whose status as a firstborn are uncertain, despite the fact that priests may not. The reason is that it is only priests who are suspected of causing blemishes; Israelites are not suspected of causing blemishes.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

搂 It was stated: Rav Na岣an says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that a priest is deemed credible to testify about the blemished firstborn animal of another priest, even if he is a household member. Rava says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that one鈥檚 household members are not deemed credible to testify.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讘注诇讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 注诪谞讜 讘讞讜抓 谞讻谞住 砖诇诐 讜讬爪讗 讞讘讜诇 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讘注诇讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And does Rava actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: If the priestly owner of a firstborn animal was standing outside with us, and the animal entered the house whole and emerged injured, the household members may testify about it that the blemish was not caused by a person. Evidently, Rava maintains that the members of the priest鈥檚 household are deemed credible to testify about the priest鈥檚 firstborn. The Gemara answers: One can say that Rava is referring to a case where all the owners, i.e., the household members, are standing outside, while the shepherd alone remains inside. When the firstborn animal emerges injured, the shepherd is deemed credible to testify about the blemish and we are not concerned that he is lying.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讞砖讚讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讚讜拽讗 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讗讘诇 讗砖转讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖转讜 讻讙讜驻讜 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: If so, that all of the household members were outside, what is the purpose of stating that the shepherd is deemed credible? This ruling is obvious. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary lest you say that we should entertain a suspicion that the shepherd himself caused the blemish. Rava therefore teaches us that this is not so, and the shepherd is deemed credible. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that a priest鈥檚 household members may testify about his blemished firstborn offering. And this applies specifically to his son and daughter, but his wife may not testify. What is the reason? One鈥檚 wife is as oneself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讚讘专 诇讗 讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪注讬讚讜 讜拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讞砖讜讚 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讞砖讜讚 诇讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讚讬讬谞讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜注诇 驻讬讛诐 讬讛讬讛 讻诇 专讬讘 讜讻诇 谞讙注

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Rabbi Meir, who says that a priest who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter even on behalf of another, and in addition Rabbi Meir says that one who is suspected of transgressing one matter, i.e., who is known to have committed one transgression, is suspected of transgressing the entire Torah, it should follow that priests should also not be allowed to administer judgment at all. But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the priests: 鈥淎nd according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:5)?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 35

讟讬诪讗 讟讛专讜转 讜诪转 诇讗 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 拽谞住讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉

that if one rendered impure the ritually pure items of another and died before paying, the Sages did not penalize his son after his death and require him to pay for the damage. What is the reason for this? The reason is that damage that is not evident, i.e., which does not involve any visible change, is not considered damage by Torah law. There is a penalty imposed by rabbinic law, as the injured party suffered a loss, but the Sages penalized only him; the Sages did not penalize his son.

诪转谞讬壮 诪注砖讛 讘讝讻专 砖诇 专讞诇讬诐 讝拽谉 讜砖注专讜 诪讚讜诇讚诇 讜专讗讛讜 拽住讟讜专 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 讝讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谞讜 谞砖讞讟 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 谞讟诇 驻讬讙讜诐 讜爪专诐 讗讝谞讜 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜 讜讗讞专 砖讛转讬专讜 讛诇讱 讜爪讬专诐 讘讗讝谞讬 讘讻讜专讜转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗住专讜

MISHNA: There was an incident involving an old ram whose hair was long and dangling, because it was a firstborn offering. And one Roman quaestor [kastor] saw it and said to its owner: What is the status [tivo] of this animal that you allowed it to grow old and you did not slaughter it? They said to him: It is a firstborn offering, and therefore it may be slaughtered only if it has a blemish. The quaestor took a dagger [pigom] and slit its ear. And the incident came before the Sages for a ruling, and they deemed its slaughter permitted. And after the Sages deemed its slaughter permitted, the quaestor went and slit the ears of other firstborn offerings, but in these cases the Sages deemed their slaughter prohibited, despite the fact that they were now blemished.

驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讬讜 转讬谞讜拽讜转 诪砖讞拽讬谉 讘砖讚讛 讜拽砖专讜 讝谞讘讬 讟诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜谞驻住拽讛 讝谞讘讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜 专讗讜 砖讛转讬专讜 讛诇讻讜 讜拽砖专讜 讝谞讘讜转 讘讻讜专讜转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗住专讜 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讚注转讜 讗住讜专 砖诇讗 诇讚注转讜 诪讜转专

One time children were playing in the field and they tied the tails of lambs to each other, and the tail of one of them was severed, and it was a firstborn offering. And the incident came before the Sages for a ruling and they deemed its slaughter permitted. The people who saw that they deemed its slaughter permitted went and tied the tails of other firstborn offerings, and the Sages deemed their slaughter prohibited. This is the principle: With regard to any blemish that is caused intentionally, the animal鈥檚 slaughter is prohibited; if the blemish is caused unintentionally, the animal鈥檚 slaughter is permitted.

讙诪壮 驻注诐 讗讞专转 讛讬讛 讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讜讬 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬住专讱 讗讘诇 拽讟谉 讚讗转讬 诇诪讬住专讱 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

GEMARA: The mishna mentions that one time children were involved in a case in which they unintentionally blemished a firstborn offering whose subsequent slaughter the Sages deemed permitted. The Gemara notes: And although the first clause of the mishna mentions a similar occurrence, the incident involving the children is necessary. As, had the tanna taught us only the incident involving the gentile, it might have been thought that the Sages permitted the slaughter of the firstborn offering only there, as it is not a problem if the gentile will acquire the habit of causing blemishes, because that prohibition does not apply to gentiles. But with regard to a Jewish minor, it is a concern that he is likely to acquire the habit of causing blemishes in firstborn offerings, and therefore one might say that even the first, unintentional time should not be permitted.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 拽讟谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讘诇 讙讜讬 讚讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the tanna taught us only the incident involving a minor, it might have been thought that the Sages deemed the firstborn offering permitted only there, since there is no concern that people will come to confuse a minor with an adult. People would not erroneously conclude that it is permitted to cause a blemish on a firstborn offering intentionally merely due to an incident involving a minor. But in the case of a gentile adult, where this is a concern that people would come to confuse him with a Jewish adult, one might say that even the first, unintentional time should not be permitted. It is therefore necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诐 谞注砖讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讚诪讬

搂 The Gemara analyzes the incident involving the Roman quaestor. Rav 岣sda says that Rav Ketina says: They taught that the firstborn offering is permitted only in a case where the bystanders said to the quaestor: A firstborn offering may not be slaughtered unless it has a blemish, as this is referring to a blemish that develops naturally. But if they said to him that a firstborn offering may be slaughtered only if a blemish was caused to form upon it, which indicates human intervention, it is considered as though they explicitly told him: Go and cause a blemish on it, in which case the animal is prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 谞注砖讛 讗诇讗 谞注砖讛 谞诪讬 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara cites a dissenting opinion. Rava said: Now consider, both expressions in fact indicate that the blemish occurred by itself, as both statements are in the passive. Accordingly, what difference is it to me whether the bystanders used the expression: If it had a blemish, or the expression: A blemish was caused in it? Rather, the expression: Was caused, also indicates that it occurred by itself, and there is no difference between the expressions. In both instances the firstborn offering would be permitted.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讚注转 讗住讜专 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讙专诪讗

The mishna teaches that this is the principle: In the case of any blemish that is caused with his intent, the animal鈥檚 slaughter is prohibited. The Gemara explains: What does this principle serve to add? It serves to add an indirect action, i.e., a blemish caused in this manner is also considered an intentional act and the animal may not be slaughtered on its account.

砖诇讗 诇讚注转 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜

The Gemara further inquires: What is added by the phrase in the second part of the principle: If the blemish was caused without his intent, the animal鈥檚 slaughter is permitted? This serves to add an instance where a gentile did not inquire about the nature of the firstborn offering, but rather discovered it from one who speaks offhandedly. Although the gentile intentionally caused a blemish in the animal, since the Jew did not intentionally prompt him to cause it, the animal is permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 讘讻讜专 专讚驻讜 讘注讟讜 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪讜诐 讛专讬 讝讛 砖讜讞讟讬谉 注诇讬讜

MISHNA: If one鈥檚 firstborn offering was pursuing him, and he kicked the animal and caused a blemish in it, he may slaughter the animal on account of that blemish.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讘注讟讜 讘砖注转 专讚讬驻讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 专讚讬驻讛 诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗

GEMARA: Rav Pappa says: They taught that the firstborn offering may be slaughtered only in an instance where he kicked it at the time of its pursuit. But if the individual kicked the animal after its pursuit, it may not be slaughtered, as he intended to cause a blemish in order to render it permitted to be slaughtered. The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that it is not permitted to slaughter the animal in such a case.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 爪注专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讚讻专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say that it is in fact permitted to slaughter the firstborn offering since he kicked it after its pursuit only out of anger, as he recalls his distress caused by its pursuit of him, and not in order to render the animal permitted to be slaughtered. Rav Pappa therefore teaches us that it is assumed that he kicked the animal with the express intention of causing a blemish in it, not merely out of anger, and therefore it may not be slaughtered.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讘砖注转 专讚讬驻讛 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 专讚讬驻讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 专讚讬驻讛 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 爪注专讬讛 讚诪讚讻专

There are those who say the opposite version of this discussion. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that if the individual kicked the firstborn offering at the time of the pursuit, then yes, it is permitted to slaughter it, but if he kicked it not at the time of the pursuit, it is not permitted to slaughter it. Rather, even if he kicked it after its pursuit of him, it is also permitted. What is the reason? It is assumed that he kicked it after the pursuit not with the intention of causing a blemish, but because he recalls his distress caused by its pursuit of him.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专 诇讛讟讬诇 诪讜诐 讘讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 砖讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讚讬讗 讘讗讜讚谞讬讛 讗讬诪专讗 讘砖驻讜讜转讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬诪专讗 谞诪讬 讘讗讜讚谞讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 讚专讱 爪讚注讬讜 谞驻拽

Rav Yehuda says: It is permitted to cause a blemish in a firstborn fetus before it emerges into the air of the world, as it obtains its sacred status only when it is born. Applying this ruling, Rava said: In the case of a kid, it is practical to cause a blemish on its ear. Since a kid鈥檚 ears are long they emerge from the birth canal prior to the head. With regard to a lamb, whose ears are short and do not appear before the head, it is practical to cause a blemish only on its lip. There are those who say that there is a different version of this statement: In the case of a lamb as well, it is practical to cause a blemish on its ear, as one can say that it emerges from the birth canal through its temples, in which case its ears are visible first.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻诇 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讝讬 驻注讬 讜诪讬讞讝讬 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛讞讜讟讬谉 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 砖谞驻讙诪讜 讜砖谞讙诪诪讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 砖谞注拽专讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬 驻注讬 诪讬讞讝讬

Rava says: In a case where a firstborn has a blemish in its mouth, if, when it eats, the blemish is not visible, but when it opens its mouth wide and cries out, it is visible, this is considered a blemish, rendering the animal fit for slaughter. The Gemara asks: What is this teaching us? We learn this in the mishna (39a) with regard to blemishes that render a firstborn offering fit for slaughter: The external gums that were damaged and lacking or that were scratched, and likewise, the internal gums that were entirely extracted, are considered blemished. What is the reason that if the internal gums were extracted it is considered a blemish? Is it not because when the animal opens its mouth wide and cries out, it is visible? If so, what is the novelty of Rava鈥檚 statement?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘讗 谞诪讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪驻专砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 谞注拽专讜 讛讜讬 诪讜诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬 驻注讬 诪讬讞讝讬

Rav Pappa says in response: Rava is not in fact teaching a novel halakha. Rather, he is explaining the reason for the ruling of the mishna: What is the reason that if the internal gums were extracted it is considered a blemish? It is that when the animal opens its mouth wide and cries out, the blemish is visible.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘讗 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 专讜注讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讗诪谞讬谉 专讜注讬诐 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谉 讛讜讗 注诇 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 注诇 砖诇 注爪诪讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讚讘专 诇讗 讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪注讬讚讜

MISHNA: With regard to all the blemishes that are capable of being brought about by a person, Israelite shepherds are deemed credible to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally. But priest-shepherds are not deemed credible, as they are the beneficiaries if the firstborn is blemished. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A priest is deemed credible to testify about the firstborn of another, but is not deemed credible to testify about the firstborn belonging to him. Rabbi Meir says: A priest who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter, even on behalf of another.

讙诪壮 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 专讜注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇诇讙讬诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

GEMARA: Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar disagree with regard to the meaning of the mishna. One of them says that the case of Israelite shepherds is where the shepherds are in the house of priests, i.e., in the employ of a priest. These shepherds are deemed credible to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally, as we are not concerned they are lying for a swallow [lilegima] of the firstborn that their priest employer might give them in exchange.

专讜注讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 讟专讞谞讗 讘讬讛 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讚讬讚讬 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讗讞专讬谞讬

And the case of priest-shepherds is where the shepherds are in the house of an Israelite, i.e., in the latter鈥檚 employ. In such a case, the priest-shepherds are not deemed credible to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally, as the priest-shepherd can say: Since I have toiled with this firstborn offering, my Israelite employer will not forsake me and give it to another priest. The priest is assumed to be lying, as he has a motive to cause a blemish in the animal.

讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉

And the same is true in the case of a priest who testifies for the sake of another priest. Although the first priest would not derive benefit from his testimony immediately, he is nevertheless not deemed credible to testify, as we are concerned about reciprocal behavior, i.e., the other priest might later repay the favor and lie on his behalf.

讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 谞讗诪谉 讛讜讗 注诇 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 注诇 砖诇 注爪诪讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讬诪专 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讚讘专 诇讗 讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪注讬讚讜

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that the testimony of a priest in such a case, when he testifies about the firstborn of another priest, is deemed credible, as there is no concern about reciprocal behavior. But he is not deemed credible with regard to his own firstborn. And Rabbi Meir comes to say that a priest, who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish, may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter, even on behalf of another. The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Meir and that of the first tanna will be discussed further on.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 专讜注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛谉 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉

The Gemara cites the other explanation of the mishna: And the other one of the two amora鈥檌m says: The case of Israelite shepherds is where the shepherds are priests in the employ of an Israelite. The mishna is teaching that these shepherds are deemed credible to testify that the blemishes on their employer鈥檚 firstborn offering were not caused intentionally, as they are not suspected of lying in order to obtain its meat.

诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讚讬讚讬 专讜注讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛谉 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诇讙讬诪讗

The reason is that it is assumed that the priest-shepherd would say: My Israelite employer will not forsake a priest who is a Torah scholar and give the blemished animal to me, an unlearned shepherd. The case of priest-shepherds is where the shepherds are Israelites in the employ of a priest. These shepherds are not deemed credible to testify, as we are concerned that they might be lying for a swallow of the firstborn that their priest employer would give them in exchange.

讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 讜讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诇讙讬诪讗 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专 谞讗诪谉 注诇 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 注诇 砖诇 注爪诪讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讬诪专 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讚讘专 诇讗 讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪注讬讚讜

And all the more so the testimony of a priest for the sake of another priest is not deemed credible, as we are concerned that the two might engage in reciprocal behavior, and we are concerned that the priest-shepherd might be lying for a swallow of the firstborn offering. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that the priest-shepherd is deemed credible to testify with regard to the firstborn offering of another priest, but is not deemed credible to testify with regard to a firstborn belonging to himself. And Rabbi Meir comes to say that a priest who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter, even on behalf of another.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛谉 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗转讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讬诪专 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讚讘专 诇讗 讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪注讬讚讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, according to the second opinion, i.e., the one who says the first tanna maintains that the case of Israelite shepherds is where the shepherds are priests in the employ of an Israelite, and they are deemed credible to testify, this is the reason that Rabbi Meir comes to disagree and say that a priest who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish may neither adjudicate nor testify even for the sake of an Israelite employer.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜注讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗

But according to the first opinion, i.e., the one who says that the first tanna maintains that the case of priest-shepherds is where the shepherds are in an Israelite鈥檚 house, and they are not deemed credible to testify, what is Rabbi Meir coming to teach us? This is the same opinion as that of the first tanna himself.

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽驻讜住讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽驻讜住讗讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜专 讘讬 讻讛谉 爪专讬讱 砖谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诇讛注讬讚 注诇讬讜

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Meir with regard to a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai says: If a firstborn animal in the house of a priest developed a blemish, two people from the marketplace, i.e., not from the priest鈥檚 household, are required to testify about it that the blemish was not caused deliberately. This unqualified statement indicates that the two people can even be priests, provided that they are not household members.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 讜讛谉 讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even the priest鈥檚 son and even his daughter may testify about it. Rabbi Yosei says: Even in a case where there are ten people, if they are members of his household, they may not testify about it. The first tanna of the mishna maintains that only a priest who is a shepherd of the animal in question is not deemed credible to testify, but the testimony of an independent priest is credible. This accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai, who allows the testimony of any two independent people, including a priest. Conversely, Rabbi Meir does not deem credible even the testimony of an independent priest, as indicated by his general statement about suspect priests.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 住驻拽 讘讻讜专 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬 讬砖专讗诇 爪专讬讱 砖谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诇讛注讬讚 注诇讬讜

The Gemara discusses a related statement: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav 岣sda says that Rav Ketina says: In the case of an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain that was born in the house, i.e., in the possession, of an Israelite, e.g., it was uncertain whether the mother had previously given birth, in which case the animal remains in the possession of the Israelite and may be eaten upon developing a blemish, two people from the marketplace are required to testify about it?

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽驻讜住讗讬

In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai. Just as he requires two independent people to testify about a firstborn offering in the possession of a priest, as he is suspected of intentionally causing the blemish, so too, he requires two independent people to testify in the case of an uncertain status of a firstborn offering born in the possession of an Israelite.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘注诇讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诪注砖专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬 诪注讬讚 注诇讬讜

Rav Na岣an disagrees and says: The Israelite owners themselves may testify about it. As, if you do not say so, but instead maintain that any involved person is suspected of deliberately causing a blemish in his firstborn animal, this poses a difficulty with regard to the halakha of an animal tithe offering, which may also be eaten if it developed a blemish. According to Rabbi Meir, who can testify about it? Rabbi Meir maintains that anyone who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish on his own behalf may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter even on behalf of another. If so, how can anyone, even an Israelite, testify about any blemished animal-tithe offering? It must be that an Israelite is not suspected of deliberately causing blemishes.

诪注砖专 讜讚讗讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讘讻讜诇讬讛 注讚专讬讛 讗诇讗 住驻拽 讘讻讜专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬 诪注讬讚 注诇讬讜

The Gemara rejects this claim: With regard to the animal tithe offering, the owner is certainly deemed credible to testify that its blemish occurred naturally, because if he wants, he could legitimately cause a blemish in his entire flock before the obligation to separate tithes came into effect. Rather, this is what Rav Na岣an stated: If an Israelite is not deemed credible to testify about a blemish found on an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain, then according to Rabbi Meir, who can testify about it? Both Israelites and priests stand to gain if their animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain develops a blemish, and therefore no one should be deemed credible to testify about it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讜讛转谞谉 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞诇讬驻讬讜 讘讬讚 讻讛谉 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘

And if you would say that indeed, according to Rabbi Meir, an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain has no remedy that can render it fit for slaughter, as no one is deemed credible to testify about its blemish, this cannot be correct. But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (18b) that Rabbi Yosei would say: Any animal whose replacements are in the possession of a priest is exempt from, i.e., not subject to, the mitzva of giving the priestly gifts, and Rabbi Meir deems him obligated to give the gifts? Since Rabbi Meir permits the consumption of an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain, evidently he allows testimony about its blemish in such a case.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讞砖讬讚讬 讗诪讜诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讞砖讬讚讬 讗诪讜诪讬

Rather, learn from this that the Israelite owners may testify about their animals whose status as a firstborn are uncertain, despite the fact that priests may not. The reason is that it is only priests who are suspected of causing blemishes; Israelites are not suspected of causing blemishes.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

搂 It was stated: Rav Na岣an says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that a priest is deemed credible to testify about the blemished firstborn animal of another priest, even if he is a household member. Rava says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that one鈥檚 household members are not deemed credible to testify.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讘注诇讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 注诪谞讜 讘讞讜抓 谞讻谞住 砖诇诐 讜讬爪讗 讞讘讜诇 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讘注诇讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And does Rava actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: If the priestly owner of a firstborn animal was standing outside with us, and the animal entered the house whole and emerged injured, the household members may testify about it that the blemish was not caused by a person. Evidently, Rava maintains that the members of the priest鈥檚 household are deemed credible to testify about the priest鈥檚 firstborn. The Gemara answers: One can say that Rava is referring to a case where all the owners, i.e., the household members, are standing outside, while the shepherd alone remains inside. When the firstborn animal emerges injured, the shepherd is deemed credible to testify about the blemish and we are not concerned that he is lying.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讞砖讚讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讚讜拽讗 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讗讘诇 讗砖转讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖转讜 讻讙讜驻讜 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: If so, that all of the household members were outside, what is the purpose of stating that the shepherd is deemed credible? This ruling is obvious. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary lest you say that we should entertain a suspicion that the shepherd himself caused the blemish. Rava therefore teaches us that this is not so, and the shepherd is deemed credible. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that a priest鈥檚 household members may testify about his blemished firstborn offering. And this applies specifically to his son and daughter, but his wife may not testify. What is the reason? One鈥檚 wife is as oneself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讛讞砖讜讚 注诇 讛讚讘专 诇讗 讚谞讜 讜诇讗 诪注讬讚讜 讜拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讞砖讜讚 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讞砖讜讚 诇讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讚讬讬谞讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜注诇 驻讬讛诐 讬讛讬讛 讻诇 专讬讘 讜讻诇 谞讙注

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Rabbi Meir, who says that a priest who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter even on behalf of another, and in addition Rabbi Meir says that one who is suspected of transgressing one matter, i.e., who is known to have committed one transgression, is suspected of transgressing the entire Torah, it should follow that priests should also not be allowed to administer judgment at all. But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the priests: 鈥淎nd according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:5)?

Scroll To Top