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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 23, 2019 | 讬状讞 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 36

On which issues relating to firstborns are priests suspected of lying? Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel debate whether priests that are “chaverim” are trusted or not – the debate led to a public humiliation of Rabbi Yehoshua.


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

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讞砖砖讗 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬谞讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara answers: One can say that Rabbi Meir says that priests are suspect with regard to causing blemishes only to the extent that there is a concern that they might have caused a blemish. But did he say this ruling to establish them as those who definitely cause blemishes? Certainly not.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 诪讛讜 诇注讚讜转 讘讻讜专 专讘 讗住讬 讗住专 讜专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讗讬谉 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讻砖专 讗诇讗 诇注讚讜转 讛讗砖讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to testimony based on hearsay, where one repeats the testimony of another witness, what is the halakha in a case of such testimony about a blemished firstborn animal? Rav Asi deems prohibited the slaughter of the animal based on such testimony, and Rav Ashi deems it permitted. Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in the school of Menashe that hearsay testimony is valid only for the testimony of a woman, where one testifies that her husband is dead? This indicates that such testimony is not accepted in all other instances.

转谞讬 讗诇讗 诇注讚讜转 砖讛讗砖讛 讻砖专讛 诇讛 讘诇讘讚

Rav Ashi responded: Emend the baraita and teach it like this: Testimony based on hearsay is valid only for that testimony for which the testimony of a woman is valid. According to Rav Ashi, the baraita is teaching that any case where the testimony of a woman is valid, hearsay testimony is valid as well, and this includes testimony concerning a blemished firstborn animal.

专讘 讬讬诪专 讗讻砖专 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讘讘讻讜专 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 诪专讬诪专 讬讬诪专 砖专讬 讘讜讻专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讻砖专 诇注讚讜转 讘讻讜专

The Gemara relates that Rav Yeimar deemed fit testimony based on hearsay with regard to a blemished firstborn animal. Mareimar condescendingly called him: Yeimar who permits firstborn animals. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that testimony based on hearsay is valid in the case of a firstborn animal.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬谉 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 谞讗诪谉

搂 The Gemara discusses a related matter. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says: In a case where a blemished animal was not established as being a firstborn, and one priest came to an expert and said that it is a firstborn animal and yet its blemish is with it, i.e., it was unintentionally blemished, he is deemed credible, and the expert may deem the animal fit for slaughter based on the priest鈥檚 testimony.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讛驻讛 砖讗住专 讛讜讗 讛驻讛 砖讛转讬专 转谞讬谞讗 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讬讬转讬 讜讙专讜砖讛 讗谞讬 谞讗诪谞转 砖讛驻讛 砖讗住专 讛讜讗 讛驻讛 砖讛转讬专

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ile鈥檃 teaching us? Is he teaching us the principle that the mouth that prohibited it is the mouth that permitted it, i.e., when the only source that an item was prohibited is the statement of one who says that it is now permitted, his claim is accepted? But we learn this in a mishna (Ketubot 22a): With regard to a woman who said: I was a married woman and now I am a divorc茅e, she is deemed credible and permitted to remarry, as the mouth that prohibited her by establishing that she was married is the mouth that permitted her by establishing that she was divorced.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讗讻讬诇

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ile鈥檃鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say it is only there, in the case of the mishna, that the woman鈥檚 testimony is accepted, as, if she wants to remarry illegally, she does not need to say anything at all about previously being married. But here, with regard to the firstborn animal, it is different, as, if the priest wishes to eat the meat of the animal, it not sufficient for him not to bring the animal to an expert, i.e., he has no recourse other than to say that it is a firstborn animal which has a blemish requiring examination, as he cannot determine on his own whether this blemish permanently disqualifies the firstborn animal from sacrifice, and he would not eat sacrificial meat outside the Temple courtyard, which is punishable by karet.

讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讛驻讛 砖讗住专 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讚谞讬讻专 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛

Since the priest must admit that this is a firstborn animal, I might say that this is not a case of: The mouth that prohibited it is the mouth that permitted it, and therefore the priest is not deemed credible. To dispel this possibility, Rabbi Ile鈥檃 teaches us that he is deemed credible, because if it due to that reason, that the priest is suspected of causing the blemish, he would have caused a blemish that is obvious to all. In such a case, he would violate a mere prohibition, not one that is punishable by karet, since he would not be eating sacrificial meat outside the Temple courtyard, as the animal is blemished.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讜讙专 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讗讝诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讜诪讬转 讞诪专讗 讜讗转讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讗讝诇讬 讜诪讬讛讜 诪讬讗 诇讗 讛讜讜

Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: What is different between this case and that incident involving a certain man who rented a donkey to another? The owner said to the renter: Look, do not go on the path of Nehar Pekod, where there is water and the donkey is likely to drown. Instead, go on the path of Neresh, where there is no water. The renter went on the path of Nehar Pekod and the donkey died. When he came back, he said: Yes, I went on the path of Nehar Pekod, but there was no water there, and therefore the donkey鈥檚 death was caused by other factors.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讗讝诇讬 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讘诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

And Rava said: The renter鈥檚 claim is accepted, due to the reasoning of: Why would he lie and state this claim? In other words, if this man wanted to lie, he could have told the donkey鈥檚 owner: I went on the path of Neresh, as the owner instructed. And Abaye said to Rava: We do not say the principle of: Why would he lie, in a place where there are witnesses. Since witnesses can be summoned to establish conclusively whether there was water along the path of Nehar Pekod, the reasoning that the renter could have stated a different claim is not employed. Similarly, the priest鈥檚 contention that the blemish occurred inadvertently should not be deemed credible, as it is known that priests are suspected of causing blemishes.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讞砖砖讗 讛讜讗 讜讘诪拽讜诐 讞砖砖讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讬转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗讬 砖诪注转讗 讘诇讗 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讝讜讟讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the path of Nehar Pekod, there is certainly water there, but here, the possibility that the priest caused a blemish in the firstborn animal is only a concern, and in a place of mere concern we do say the reasoning of: Why would he lie? The Gemara relates that Ravina was sitting and saying this halakha of Rabbi Ile鈥檃 anonymously. Rava Zuti said to Ravina: We learned this halakha in the name of Rabbi Ile鈥檃.

专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘讜讻专讗 专诪讗 诇讬讛 砖注专讬 讘住诇讬 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗讻讬诇 讗讬讘讝注 砖讬驻转讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讞讬诇拽谞讜 讘讬谉 讞讘专 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛谉

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tzadok, an erudite priest, had a firstborn animal. He placed barley in wicker baskets for it, and while it was eating, its lip split, rendering the animal blemished. Rabbi Tzadok came before Rabbi Yehoshua, to ask whether or not he is suspected of intentionally causing a blemish in his firstborn animal offering. Rabbi Tzadok said to him: Didn鈥檛 we differentiate between a priest who is a 岣ver, i.e., learned, and a priest who is an ignoramus, with regard to their credibility about blemishes found on a firstborn animal? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Yes, we did. Since you are a learned priest, you are deemed credible to testify that this blemish was caused inadvertently.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬诇拽谞讜 讘讬谉 讞讘专 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬 讛谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪转谉 注讚 砖讬注诇讜 讘注诇讬 转专讬住讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖

Rabbi Tzadok then came before Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi and head of the academy of Yavne at the time. Rabbi Tzadok said to him: Didn鈥檛 we differentiate between a priest who is a 岣ver and a priest who is an ignoramus with regard to credibility about blemishes found on a firstborn animal? Rabban Gamliel said to him: No, we did not. Rabbi Tzadok said to him: But Rabbi Yehoshua said to me that yes, we did differentiate in this manner. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Tzadok: Wait until the masters of the shields [ba鈥檃lei terisin], a reference to the Torah scholars who battle in the war of Torah, enter the study hall, at which point we will discuss this issue.

讻讬讜谉 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 注诪讚 讛砖讜讗诇 讜砖讗诇 讻诇讜诐 讞讬诇拽谞讜 讘讬谉 讞讘专 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛诇讗 诪砖诪讱 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讛谉

When the Torah scholars entered the study hall, the questioner stood before everyone present and asked: With regard to blemishes found on a firstborn animal, didn鈥檛 we differentiate between a priest who is a 岣ver and a priest who is an ignoramus? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, we did not. Rabban Gamliel said to him: But they said to me in your name that yes, we did differentiate.

讬讛讜砖注 注诪讜讚 注诇 专讙诇讬讱 讜讬注讬讚讜 讘讱 注诪讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 讛讬讗讱 讗注砖讛 讗讬诇诪诇讬 讗谞讬 讞讬 讜讛讜讗 诪转 讬讻讜诇 讛讞讬 诇讛讻讞讬砖 讗转 讛诪转 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗谞讬 讞讬 讜讛讜讗 讞讬 讛讬讗讱 讞讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讻讞讬砖 讗转 讛讞讬

Rabban Gamliel continued: Yehoshua, stand on your feet and they will testify against you that you did, in fact, say that we differentiated in such a case. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: How should I act in this situation? If I were alive and Rabbi Tzadok were dead, the living can contradict the dead, and I could deny issuing that ruling. Now that I am alive and he is alive, how can the living contradict the living? I have no choice but to admit that I said it.

讜讛讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讜诪讚 讜讚讜专砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注讜诪讚 注诇 专讙诇讬讜 注讚 砖专讬谞谞讜 讻诇 讛注诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讞讜爪驻讬转 讛诪转讜专讙诪谉 注诪讜讚 讜注诪讚

In the meantime, Rabban Gamliel was standing and lecturing, and Rabbi Yehoshua all the while was standing on his feet, as Rabban Gamliel did not instruct him to sit. He remained standing in deference to the Nasi. This continued for some time, until it aroused great resentment against Rabban Gamliel, and all of the people assembled began murmuring and said to 岣tzpit the disseminator: Stop conveying Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 lecture, and he stopped.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讗诪谉 讛讻讛谉 诇讜诪专 讛专讗讬转讬 讘讻讜专 讝讛 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗

MISHNA: A priest is deemed credible to say: I showed this firstborn animal to an expert and he ruled that it is blemished.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讗诪谉 讛讻讛谉 诇讜诪专 讘讻讜专 讝讛 谞转谉 诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讜诪讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 诇讗 诪砖拽专讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 谞讗诪谉 讛讻讛谉 诇讜诪专 讛专讗讬转讬 讘讻讜专 讝讛 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 诇讗 诪砖拽专讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A priest is deemed credible to say: An Israelite gave me this firstborn animal with its blemish already inflicted upon it. What is the reason? With regard to any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it. Since the Israelite can be questioned with regard to the veracity of the priest鈥檚 claim, it is assumed that the priest will not risk lying. Rav Ashi said: We learn a similar principle in the mishna as well: A priest is deemed credible to say: I showed this firstborn animal to an expert and he ruled that it is blemished. What is the reason the priest鈥檚 claim is deemed credible? Is it not because we say that with regard to any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it?

讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞砖讬讚讬 讞砖讬讚讬

The Gemara rejects the claim that the mishna鈥檚 ruling is based on the principle that people do not lie about a matter that is likely to be revealed: Perhaps there, in the case of the mishna, the reason the priest鈥檚 claim is accepted is that he would not eat sacrificial meat outside the Temple courtyard. If an expert had not permitted the meat, the priest would not eat it. But here, in Rav鈥檚 case, where the priest claims an Israelite gave him an already blemished animal, since priests are suspected of causing blemishes and claiming that it was inadvertent, they are also suspected of causing a blemish and claiming it was given to them in that state by an Israelite.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇诪讬 砖讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 注诇 讛诪注砖专 拽讞 诇讬 诪诪讬 砖讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉 讗讜 诪诪讬 砖讛讜讗 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 诇讗 诪砖拽专讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬

Rav Sheizevi raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 ruling from a mishna (Demai 4:5): In the case of one who says to someone who is not trusted with regard to tithe: Purchase produce for me from someone who is trusted with regard to tithes, i.e., one who does not purchase produce from an ignoramus, who generally does not separate tithes; or if he says: Purchase produce for me from someone who tithes, i.e., even from one who purchases produce from an ignoramus but is careful to set aside tithes upon purchasing the produce, the agent is not deemed credible to claim that he fulfilled the condition of the one who appointed him. According to Rav, why isn鈥檛 the agent deemed credible? Say the principle that with regard to any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐

The Gemara answers: It is different there,

讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗砖转诪讜讟讬

as he has the easy option of extricating himself from the accusation that he did not fulfill the condition of the one who appointed him, by claiming that in his opinion the individual from whom he purchased the produce was to be trusted. Since the issue of the third party鈥檚 trustworthiness is subjective, the agent is not afraid to lie.

住讬驻讗 讜讚讗讬 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara suggests: The latter clause of this mishna certainly supports the ruling of Rav, that people do not lie with regard to any matter that will be revealed. How so? The latter clause states that if the one instructed the agent to purchase produce specifically from so-and-so, who is reliable with regard to tithes, then this agent is deemed credible to claim that he adhered to the instructions. Since the one who appointed him mentioned a specific individual, the agent is not suspected of lying, as that individual can be subsequently questioned.

讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转讜讘注 诪讬专转转

The Gemara rejects this proof: There, in the mishna, since the agent has a claimant, he is afraid to lie. In other words, since the one who appointed him specified an individual, the agent presumes that he intends to verify the matter, and therefore he will not risk lying. By contrast, in Rav鈥檚 case, since it was the priest who volunteered the information that a specific Israelite gave him an already blemished firstborn animal, he is not concerned that the examiner might seek out the Israelite to confirm the actual facts.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗谞讗 讘讙讬讚讜诇 拽讘注转讬讛 讜讙讬讚讜诇 拽讘注 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讜讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 谞讗诪谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讜诪专 讘讻讜专 讝讛 谞转转讬 诇讻讛谉 讘诪讜诪讜

Upon hearing Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement in the name of Rav, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: From where does Yehuda know this halakha? Actually, I taught this halakha to Giddul in Rav鈥檚 name and Giddul, in turn, taught it to Rabbi Yehuda. But Giddul corrupted my statement, as this is how I said it to him: An Israelite is deemed credible to say: I gave this firstborn animal to a priest with its blemish already inflicted upon it, and it may be slaughtered and eaten.

讬砖专讗诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讘拽讟谉 讜讛讙讚讬诇 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: An Israelite? It is obvious that he is deemed credible to issue this claim, as he has no use for the firstborn animal. The Gemara answers: No, this ruling is necessary, as it is referring to an animal that was young when the Israelite gave it to the priest and it grew older by the time of his testimony. This ruling is necessary, lest you say that as the animal grew older in the interim, perhaps the Israelite does not recognize it and mistakenly assumes that it was the animal he gave the priest, when in fact it is a different firstborn animal upon which the priest intentionally caused a blemish. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba therefore teaches us that the Israelite is trusted to recognize the animal he gave the priest.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讻诇砖谞讗 讘转专讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讻诇砖谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇砖谞讗 拽诪讗

The Gemara notes: In Sura, they teach the halakha in accordance with the latter version, as stated by Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, that an Israelite is deemed credible to testify. In Pumbedita, they teach the halakha in accordance with the first version, as taught by Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, that even a priest is deemed credible if he claims that an Israelite gave him an already blemished firstborn animal. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with even the first version.

专驻专诐 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘讜讻专讗 讜讬讛讘讬讛 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讘诇讗 诪讜诪讗 讗讝诇 砖讚讗 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讞诇砖 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讬讬转讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讻讜专 讝讛 谞转谉 诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讜诪讜 讗专驻住讬谞讬讛 诇注讬谞讬讛 讞讝讬讬讛 讘砖拽专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗谞讗 讚讬讛讬讘转讬讛 诇讱

In this regard, the Gemara relates that Rafram, who resided in Pumbedita, had a firstborn animal and he gave it to a priest in an unblemished state. The priest went and caused a blemish in it. One day, Rafram had an affliction in his eyes, which rendered it difficult for him to open them. The priest to whom Rafram had given the firstborn animal brought it before him, as an expert examiner, for him to deem the animal permitted. The priest said to him: An Israelite gave me this firstborn animal with its blemish upon it. Rafram forced his eyes open and saw the animal and recognized it [bashkerei] as the one he himself had given the priest. Rafram said to the priest: Is it not I who gave this firstborn animal to you?

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讞砖 诇讛 诇诪讬诇转讗 讛讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讞爪讬祝 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞爪讬驻讬

The Gemara notes: And even so, Rafram was unconcerned by the matter of the priest鈥檚 attempted chicanery, as he maintained that it is only this priest who is impudent, but all other priests are not impudent. This scenario did not cause Rafram to discredit any other priest鈥檚 claim that he received a blemished firstborn animal from an Israelite, as this was an exceptional case. This priest demonstrated extreme impudence by bringing it to be examined by Rafram himself, and therefore one cannot draw conclusions about the behavior of other priests from this incident.

讛讛讜讗 砖专讜注 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讛专讬 讘讻讜专 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜

搂 The Gemara relates that there was a certain firstborn animal, one of whose eyes was larger than the other, whose owner came before Rav Ashi to have it deemed fit for slaughter on account of its blemish. Uncertain as to who brought the animal for examination, Rav Ashi said: For what should we be concerned with regard to this animal? In a case of such a blemish, whether it is a priest who brought it for examination, or whether it is an Israelite, there is no concern that the blemish might have been intentionally caused, as this is clearly a firstborn animal whose blemish was already with it naturally.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讚诇诪讗 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讻讛谉 注诪讜

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps it is an Israelite who brought the firstborn animal, and Rav Yehuda says that one may not examine the firstborn animal of an Israelite unless a priest is present with him in order to receive the animal if it is established as fit for slaughter. Rav Yehuda is concerned that if the Israelite鈥檚 firstborn animal is deemed fit for slaughter when no priest is present, the Israelite might improperly use the animal for his own purposes. If so, how can you, Rav Ashi, say that there is no problem if this animal was brought by an Israelite?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 谞讛讬 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗诪诪讜谞讬讛 讚讻讛谉 讞砖讬讚

Rav Ashi said to Ravina in response: How can these cases be compared? There, where the presence of a priest is required, it is referring to a case where the halakhic status of the blemish has yet to be determined. Now, granted an Israelite will not risk eating sacrificial meat outside the Temple courtyard, as that incurs a penalty of karet, and he therefore would have the blemish鈥檚 status determined by an expert. But he is suspected with regard to the property of a priest. Although the Israelite will have the status of the animal confirmed before risking a prohibition that entails karet, he might steal the firstborn offering if it is established as fit for consumption.

讛讻讗 诪讻讚讬 讬讚注 讚讛讗讬 诪讜诐 诪讜讘讛拽 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗转讬讜讛 拽诪讬讛 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚讞讻诐 注诇 讻讘讜讚讜 讚讞讻诐 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 注讘讚

Conversely, here, in the case of the animal that had one eye larger than the other, since even an Israelite knows that this is a clear-cut blemish and the animal is clearly fit for slaughter, what is the reason he brought the animal before the Sages for examination? He brought it out of respect for the Sage. Now, if this Israelite does not neglect the respect due a Sage, would he commit a transgression and steal the possession of the priest? Certainly not. Therefore, in our case an Israelite would be trustworthy, and the presence of a priest is unnecessary.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 诪讜诪讬 诪注砖专

MISHNA: Everyone is deemed credible to testify about the blemishes of an animal tithe offering, even the owner who is the beneficiary of a ruling that it is blemished.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬 讬讚注 讛讬 谞驻讬拽

GEMARA: What is the reason that even the owner is deemed credible to testify? The reason is that had he wanted, he could have caused a blemish in it initially, in a permitted manner, before tithing his animals. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But when he leads his animals out of the gate in order to tithe them, does he know which of them will emerge as the tenth, that you say he could have initially blemished that specific animal before it assumed the tithe status?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讘专讬砖 注砖专讛 诇讗 讬讘拽专 讘讬谉 讟讜讘 诇专注 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讘讻讜诇讬 注讚专讬讛

And if you would say that he intentionally leads an animal out as the head of the ten, i.e., so that it is the last of ten to emerge, one may not do so, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e shall not search whether it be good or bad鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), which teaches that the animal tithe may not be led out intentionally but must exit of its own accord. Rather, this is the meaning of the Gemara鈥檚 initial answer: The reason is that had he wanted, he could have caused a blemish in his entire flock, in a permitted manner, before leading them through the gate in order to tithe them.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讻讜专 砖谞住诪讬转 注讬谞讜 讜砖谞拽讟注讛 讬讚讜 讜砖谞砖讘专讛 专讙诇讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讛讻谞住转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讞讟 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 诪讜诪讞讛

MISHNA: With regard to a firstborn animal whose eye was blinded or whose foreleg was severed or whose hind leg was broken, all of which obviously render the animal permanently blemished, that animal may be slaughtered on the basis of the ruling of three regular Jews who attend the synagogue, and it does not require a ruling by one of the Sages. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: Even if there is a court of twenty-three Sages there, it may be slaughtered only on the basis of the ruling of an expert in judging blemishes.

讙诪壮 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讗诪专讬 讛转专转 讘讻讜专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讛讻谞住转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘诪讜诪讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara relates that Rabbi Simlai and Rabbi Yehuda Nesia both say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and some say that Rabbi Simlai and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi both say in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: The permitting of the slaughter of a firstborn animal outside of Eretz Yisrael, where a firstborn offering is unfit for sacrifice even when the Temple is standing, may be performed on the basis of the ruling of three regular Jews who attend the synagogue. Rava said: And this ruling applies specifically in a case of clear-cut blemishes, i.e., those blemishes which clearly permit the slaughter of the firstborn animal.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讘讻讜专 砖谞住诪讬转 注讬谞讜 讜砖谞拽讟注讛 讬讚讜 讜砖谞砖转讘专讛 专讙诇讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讛讻谞住转

The Gemara asks: What is Rava teaching us by this statement? We already learn this in the mishna: With regard to a firstborn animal whose eye was blinded or whose foreleg was severed or whose hind leg was broken, that animal may be slaughtered on the basis of the ruling of three regular Jews who attend the synagogue. The mishna is referring to clear-cut blemishes in contemporary times, in the absence of the Temple, when a firstborn animal is unfit to be brought as an offering. What, then, is the novelty of Rava鈥檚 statement?

讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: If the halakha that three regular Jews may permit the slaughter of a firstborn animal is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that according to the mishna, the power invested in three regular Jews to permit the slaughter of a firstborn animal in the absence of the Temple nowadays, or outside of Eretz Yisrael during Temple times, applies even to a firstborn animal that has blemishes that are not clear-cut. And the reason that the mishna specifically teaches a case of clear-cut blemishes is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who requires the examination of an expert even in such a case. Rava therefore teaches us that this is not so; rather, the mishna鈥檚 ruling is referring specifically to a case of clear-cut blemishes.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 住驻拽 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 住驻拽 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇砖讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讬砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讛讻谞住转

Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says the following halakha, but he was uncertain whether Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said it in the name of Rav and uncertain whether he said it in the name of Shmuel: Three regular Jews may permit a firstborn animal with clear-cut blemishes in a place where there is no expert. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us by this statement? We already learn this in the mishna: That animal may be slaughtered on the basis of the ruling of three regular Jews who attend the synagogue.

讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讜诪讞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛 讗讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讗

The Gemara answers: If the halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that three laymen may permit a firstborn animal with clear-cut blemishes even in a place where there is an expert. Rav Yehuda therefore teaches us that in a place where there is no expert, yes, three laymen may permit it. But in a place where there is an expert, three laymen are not invested with this power.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 注诪专诐 砖诇砖讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛 砖诇砖讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讗转 讛谞讚专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讻诐 砖诇砖讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛

Rav 岣yya bar Amram says: A group of three laymen may permit a blemished firstborn animal in a place where there is no expert to consult, and likewise a group of three laymen may dissolve a vow in a place where there is no Sage. The Gemara explains: The ruling that a group of three laymen may permit a blemished firstborn animal in a place where there is no expert to consult

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 36

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讞砖砖讗 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬谞讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara answers: One can say that Rabbi Meir says that priests are suspect with regard to causing blemishes only to the extent that there is a concern that they might have caused a blemish. But did he say this ruling to establish them as those who definitely cause blemishes? Certainly not.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 诪讛讜 诇注讚讜转 讘讻讜专 专讘 讗住讬 讗住专 讜专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讗讬谉 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讻砖专 讗诇讗 诇注讚讜转 讛讗砖讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to testimony based on hearsay, where one repeats the testimony of another witness, what is the halakha in a case of such testimony about a blemished firstborn animal? Rav Asi deems prohibited the slaughter of the animal based on such testimony, and Rav Ashi deems it permitted. Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in the school of Menashe that hearsay testimony is valid only for the testimony of a woman, where one testifies that her husband is dead? This indicates that such testimony is not accepted in all other instances.

转谞讬 讗诇讗 诇注讚讜转 砖讛讗砖讛 讻砖专讛 诇讛 讘诇讘讚

Rav Ashi responded: Emend the baraita and teach it like this: Testimony based on hearsay is valid only for that testimony for which the testimony of a woman is valid. According to Rav Ashi, the baraita is teaching that any case where the testimony of a woman is valid, hearsay testimony is valid as well, and this includes testimony concerning a blemished firstborn animal.

专讘 讬讬诪专 讗讻砖专 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讘讘讻讜专 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 诪专讬诪专 讬讬诪专 砖专讬 讘讜讻专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讻砖专 诇注讚讜转 讘讻讜专

The Gemara relates that Rav Yeimar deemed fit testimony based on hearsay with regard to a blemished firstborn animal. Mareimar condescendingly called him: Yeimar who permits firstborn animals. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that testimony based on hearsay is valid in the case of a firstborn animal.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬谉 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 谞讗诪谉

搂 The Gemara discusses a related matter. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says: In a case where a blemished animal was not established as being a firstborn, and one priest came to an expert and said that it is a firstborn animal and yet its blemish is with it, i.e., it was unintentionally blemished, he is deemed credible, and the expert may deem the animal fit for slaughter based on the priest鈥檚 testimony.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讛驻讛 砖讗住专 讛讜讗 讛驻讛 砖讛转讬专 转谞讬谞讗 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讬讬转讬 讜讙专讜砖讛 讗谞讬 谞讗诪谞转 砖讛驻讛 砖讗住专 讛讜讗 讛驻讛 砖讛转讬专

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ile鈥檃 teaching us? Is he teaching us the principle that the mouth that prohibited it is the mouth that permitted it, i.e., when the only source that an item was prohibited is the statement of one who says that it is now permitted, his claim is accepted? But we learn this in a mishna (Ketubot 22a): With regard to a woman who said: I was a married woman and now I am a divorc茅e, she is deemed credible and permitted to remarry, as the mouth that prohibited her by establishing that she was married is the mouth that permitted her by establishing that she was divorced.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讗讻讬诇

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ile鈥檃鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say it is only there, in the case of the mishna, that the woman鈥檚 testimony is accepted, as, if she wants to remarry illegally, she does not need to say anything at all about previously being married. But here, with regard to the firstborn animal, it is different, as, if the priest wishes to eat the meat of the animal, it not sufficient for him not to bring the animal to an expert, i.e., he has no recourse other than to say that it is a firstborn animal which has a blemish requiring examination, as he cannot determine on his own whether this blemish permanently disqualifies the firstborn animal from sacrifice, and he would not eat sacrificial meat outside the Temple courtyard, which is punishable by karet.

讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讛驻讛 砖讗住专 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讚谞讬讻专 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛

Since the priest must admit that this is a firstborn animal, I might say that this is not a case of: The mouth that prohibited it is the mouth that permitted it, and therefore the priest is not deemed credible. To dispel this possibility, Rabbi Ile鈥檃 teaches us that he is deemed credible, because if it due to that reason, that the priest is suspected of causing the blemish, he would have caused a blemish that is obvious to all. In such a case, he would violate a mere prohibition, not one that is punishable by karet, since he would not be eating sacrificial meat outside the Temple courtyard, as the animal is blemished.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讜讙专 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讝讬诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讗讝诇 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讜诪讬转 讞诪专讗 讜讗转讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 讗讝诇讬 讜诪讬讛讜 诪讬讗 诇讗 讛讜讜

Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: What is different between this case and that incident involving a certain man who rented a donkey to another? The owner said to the renter: Look, do not go on the path of Nehar Pekod, where there is water and the donkey is likely to drown. Instead, go on the path of Neresh, where there is no water. The renter went on the path of Nehar Pekod and the donkey died. When he came back, he said: Yes, I went on the path of Nehar Pekod, but there was no water there, and therefore the donkey鈥檚 death was caused by other factors.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 讘讗讜专讞讗 讚谞专砖 讗讝诇讬 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讘诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

And Rava said: The renter鈥檚 claim is accepted, due to the reasoning of: Why would he lie and state this claim? In other words, if this man wanted to lie, he could have told the donkey鈥檚 owner: I went on the path of Neresh, as the owner instructed. And Abaye said to Rava: We do not say the principle of: Why would he lie, in a place where there are witnesses. Since witnesses can be summoned to establish conclusively whether there was water along the path of Nehar Pekod, the reasoning that the renter could have stated a different claim is not employed. Similarly, the priest鈥檚 contention that the blemish occurred inadvertently should not be deemed credible, as it is known that priests are suspected of causing blemishes.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讞砖砖讗 讛讜讗 讜讘诪拽讜诐 讞砖砖讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讬转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗讬 砖诪注转讗 讘诇讗 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讝讜讟讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the path of Nehar Pekod, there is certainly water there, but here, the possibility that the priest caused a blemish in the firstborn animal is only a concern, and in a place of mere concern we do say the reasoning of: Why would he lie? The Gemara relates that Ravina was sitting and saying this halakha of Rabbi Ile鈥檃 anonymously. Rava Zuti said to Ravina: We learned this halakha in the name of Rabbi Ile鈥檃.

专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘讜讻专讗 专诪讗 诇讬讛 砖注专讬 讘住诇讬 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗讻讬诇 讗讬讘讝注 砖讬驻转讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讜诐 讞讬诇拽谞讜 讘讬谉 讞讘专 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛谉

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tzadok, an erudite priest, had a firstborn animal. He placed barley in wicker baskets for it, and while it was eating, its lip split, rendering the animal blemished. Rabbi Tzadok came before Rabbi Yehoshua, to ask whether or not he is suspected of intentionally causing a blemish in his firstborn animal offering. Rabbi Tzadok said to him: Didn鈥檛 we differentiate between a priest who is a 岣ver, i.e., learned, and a priest who is an ignoramus, with regard to their credibility about blemishes found on a firstborn animal? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Yes, we did. Since you are a learned priest, you are deemed credible to testify that this blemish was caused inadvertently.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬诇拽谞讜 讘讬谉 讞讘专 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬 讛谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪转谉 注讚 砖讬注诇讜 讘注诇讬 转专讬住讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖

Rabbi Tzadok then came before Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi and head of the academy of Yavne at the time. Rabbi Tzadok said to him: Didn鈥檛 we differentiate between a priest who is a 岣ver and a priest who is an ignoramus with regard to credibility about blemishes found on a firstborn animal? Rabban Gamliel said to him: No, we did not. Rabbi Tzadok said to him: But Rabbi Yehoshua said to me that yes, we did differentiate in this manner. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Tzadok: Wait until the masters of the shields [ba鈥檃lei terisin], a reference to the Torah scholars who battle in the war of Torah, enter the study hall, at which point we will discuss this issue.

讻讬讜谉 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 注诪讚 讛砖讜讗诇 讜砖讗诇 讻诇讜诐 讞讬诇拽谞讜 讘讬谉 讞讘专 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛诇讗 诪砖诪讱 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讛谉

When the Torah scholars entered the study hall, the questioner stood before everyone present and asked: With regard to blemishes found on a firstborn animal, didn鈥檛 we differentiate between a priest who is a 岣ver and a priest who is an ignoramus? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, we did not. Rabban Gamliel said to him: But they said to me in your name that yes, we did differentiate.

讬讛讜砖注 注诪讜讚 注诇 专讙诇讬讱 讜讬注讬讚讜 讘讱 注诪讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 专讙诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 讛讬讗讱 讗注砖讛 讗讬诇诪诇讬 讗谞讬 讞讬 讜讛讜讗 诪转 讬讻讜诇 讛讞讬 诇讛讻讞讬砖 讗转 讛诪转 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗谞讬 讞讬 讜讛讜讗 讞讬 讛讬讗讱 讞讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讻讞讬砖 讗转 讛讞讬

Rabban Gamliel continued: Yehoshua, stand on your feet and they will testify against you that you did, in fact, say that we differentiated in such a case. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: How should I act in this situation? If I were alive and Rabbi Tzadok were dead, the living can contradict the dead, and I could deny issuing that ruling. Now that I am alive and he is alive, how can the living contradict the living? I have no choice but to admit that I said it.

讜讛讬讛 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讜诪讚 讜讚讜专砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注讜诪讚 注诇 专讙诇讬讜 注讚 砖专讬谞谞讜 讻诇 讛注诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讞讜爪驻讬转 讛诪转讜专讙诪谉 注诪讜讚 讜注诪讚

In the meantime, Rabban Gamliel was standing and lecturing, and Rabbi Yehoshua all the while was standing on his feet, as Rabban Gamliel did not instruct him to sit. He remained standing in deference to the Nasi. This continued for some time, until it aroused great resentment against Rabban Gamliel, and all of the people assembled began murmuring and said to 岣tzpit the disseminator: Stop conveying Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 lecture, and he stopped.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讗诪谉 讛讻讛谉 诇讜诪专 讛专讗讬转讬 讘讻讜专 讝讛 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗

MISHNA: A priest is deemed credible to say: I showed this firstborn animal to an expert and he ruled that it is blemished.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讗诪谉 讛讻讛谉 诇讜诪专 讘讻讜专 讝讛 谞转谉 诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讜诪讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 诇讗 诪砖拽专讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 谞讗诪谉 讛讻讛谉 诇讜诪专 讛专讗讬转讬 讘讻讜专 讝讛 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 诇讗 诪砖拽专讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A priest is deemed credible to say: An Israelite gave me this firstborn animal with its blemish already inflicted upon it. What is the reason? With regard to any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it. Since the Israelite can be questioned with regard to the veracity of the priest鈥檚 claim, it is assumed that the priest will not risk lying. Rav Ashi said: We learn a similar principle in the mishna as well: A priest is deemed credible to say: I showed this firstborn animal to an expert and he ruled that it is blemished. What is the reason the priest鈥檚 claim is deemed credible? Is it not because we say that with regard to any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it?

讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞砖讬讚讬 讞砖讬讚讬

The Gemara rejects the claim that the mishna鈥檚 ruling is based on the principle that people do not lie about a matter that is likely to be revealed: Perhaps there, in the case of the mishna, the reason the priest鈥檚 claim is accepted is that he would not eat sacrificial meat outside the Temple courtyard. If an expert had not permitted the meat, the priest would not eat it. But here, in Rav鈥檚 case, where the priest claims an Israelite gave him an already blemished animal, since priests are suspected of causing blemishes and claiming that it was inadvertent, they are also suspected of causing a blemish and claiming it was given to them in that state by an Israelite.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇诪讬 砖讗讬谉 谞讗诪谉 注诇 讛诪注砖专 拽讞 诇讬 诪诪讬 砖讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉 讗讜 诪诪讬 砖讛讜讗 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬讙诇讜讬讬 诇讗 诪砖拽专讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬

Rav Sheizevi raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 ruling from a mishna (Demai 4:5): In the case of one who says to someone who is not trusted with regard to tithe: Purchase produce for me from someone who is trusted with regard to tithes, i.e., one who does not purchase produce from an ignoramus, who generally does not separate tithes; or if he says: Purchase produce for me from someone who tithes, i.e., even from one who purchases produce from an ignoramus but is careful to set aside tithes upon purchasing the produce, the agent is not deemed credible to claim that he fulfilled the condition of the one who appointed him. According to Rav, why isn鈥檛 the agent deemed credible? Say the principle that with regard to any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐

The Gemara answers: It is different there,

讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗砖转诪讜讟讬

as he has the easy option of extricating himself from the accusation that he did not fulfill the condition of the one who appointed him, by claiming that in his opinion the individual from whom he purchased the produce was to be trusted. Since the issue of the third party鈥檚 trustworthiness is subjective, the agent is not afraid to lie.

住讬驻讗 讜讚讗讬 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara suggests: The latter clause of this mishna certainly supports the ruling of Rav, that people do not lie with regard to any matter that will be revealed. How so? The latter clause states that if the one instructed the agent to purchase produce specifically from so-and-so, who is reliable with regard to tithes, then this agent is deemed credible to claim that he adhered to the instructions. Since the one who appointed him mentioned a specific individual, the agent is not suspected of lying, as that individual can be subsequently questioned.

讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转讜讘注 诪讬专转转

The Gemara rejects this proof: There, in the mishna, since the agent has a claimant, he is afraid to lie. In other words, since the one who appointed him specified an individual, the agent presumes that he intends to verify the matter, and therefore he will not risk lying. By contrast, in Rav鈥檚 case, since it was the priest who volunteered the information that a specific Israelite gave him an already blemished firstborn animal, he is not concerned that the examiner might seek out the Israelite to confirm the actual facts.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗谞讗 讘讙讬讚讜诇 拽讘注转讬讛 讜讙讬讚讜诇 拽讘注 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讜讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 谞讗诪谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讜诪专 讘讻讜专 讝讛 谞转转讬 诇讻讛谉 讘诪讜诪讜

Upon hearing Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement in the name of Rav, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: From where does Yehuda know this halakha? Actually, I taught this halakha to Giddul in Rav鈥檚 name and Giddul, in turn, taught it to Rabbi Yehuda. But Giddul corrupted my statement, as this is how I said it to him: An Israelite is deemed credible to say: I gave this firstborn animal to a priest with its blemish already inflicted upon it, and it may be slaughtered and eaten.

讬砖专讗诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讘拽讟谉 讜讛讙讚讬诇 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: An Israelite? It is obvious that he is deemed credible to issue this claim, as he has no use for the firstborn animal. The Gemara answers: No, this ruling is necessary, as it is referring to an animal that was young when the Israelite gave it to the priest and it grew older by the time of his testimony. This ruling is necessary, lest you say that as the animal grew older in the interim, perhaps the Israelite does not recognize it and mistakenly assumes that it was the animal he gave the priest, when in fact it is a different firstborn animal upon which the priest intentionally caused a blemish. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba therefore teaches us that the Israelite is trusted to recognize the animal he gave the priest.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讻诇砖谞讗 讘转专讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讻诇砖谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇砖谞讗 拽诪讗

The Gemara notes: In Sura, they teach the halakha in accordance with the latter version, as stated by Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, that an Israelite is deemed credible to testify. In Pumbedita, they teach the halakha in accordance with the first version, as taught by Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, that even a priest is deemed credible if he claims that an Israelite gave him an already blemished firstborn animal. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with even the first version.

专驻专诐 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘讜讻专讗 讜讬讛讘讬讛 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讘诇讗 诪讜诪讗 讗讝诇 砖讚讗 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讞诇砖 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讬讬转讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讻讜专 讝讛 谞转谉 诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讜诪讜 讗专驻住讬谞讬讛 诇注讬谞讬讛 讞讝讬讬讛 讘砖拽专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗谞讗 讚讬讛讬讘转讬讛 诇讱

In this regard, the Gemara relates that Rafram, who resided in Pumbedita, had a firstborn animal and he gave it to a priest in an unblemished state. The priest went and caused a blemish in it. One day, Rafram had an affliction in his eyes, which rendered it difficult for him to open them. The priest to whom Rafram had given the firstborn animal brought it before him, as an expert examiner, for him to deem the animal permitted. The priest said to him: An Israelite gave me this firstborn animal with its blemish upon it. Rafram forced his eyes open and saw the animal and recognized it [bashkerei] as the one he himself had given the priest. Rafram said to the priest: Is it not I who gave this firstborn animal to you?

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讞砖 诇讛 诇诪讬诇转讗 讛讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讞爪讬祝 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞爪讬驻讬

The Gemara notes: And even so, Rafram was unconcerned by the matter of the priest鈥檚 attempted chicanery, as he maintained that it is only this priest who is impudent, but all other priests are not impudent. This scenario did not cause Rafram to discredit any other priest鈥檚 claim that he received a blemished firstborn animal from an Israelite, as this was an exceptional case. This priest demonstrated extreme impudence by bringing it to be examined by Rafram himself, and therefore one cannot draw conclusions about the behavior of other priests from this incident.

讛讛讜讗 砖专讜注 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讛专讬 讘讻讜专 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜

搂 The Gemara relates that there was a certain firstborn animal, one of whose eyes was larger than the other, whose owner came before Rav Ashi to have it deemed fit for slaughter on account of its blemish. Uncertain as to who brought the animal for examination, Rav Ashi said: For what should we be concerned with regard to this animal? In a case of such a blemish, whether it is a priest who brought it for examination, or whether it is an Israelite, there is no concern that the blemish might have been intentionally caused, as this is clearly a firstborn animal whose blemish was already with it naturally.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讚诇诪讗 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讻讛谉 注诪讜

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps it is an Israelite who brought the firstborn animal, and Rav Yehuda says that one may not examine the firstborn animal of an Israelite unless a priest is present with him in order to receive the animal if it is established as fit for slaughter. Rav Yehuda is concerned that if the Israelite鈥檚 firstborn animal is deemed fit for slaughter when no priest is present, the Israelite might improperly use the animal for his own purposes. If so, how can you, Rav Ashi, say that there is no problem if this animal was brought by an Israelite?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 谞讛讬 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗诪诪讜谞讬讛 讚讻讛谉 讞砖讬讚

Rav Ashi said to Ravina in response: How can these cases be compared? There, where the presence of a priest is required, it is referring to a case where the halakhic status of the blemish has yet to be determined. Now, granted an Israelite will not risk eating sacrificial meat outside the Temple courtyard, as that incurs a penalty of karet, and he therefore would have the blemish鈥檚 status determined by an expert. But he is suspected with regard to the property of a priest. Although the Israelite will have the status of the animal confirmed before risking a prohibition that entails karet, he might steal the firstborn offering if it is established as fit for consumption.

讛讻讗 诪讻讚讬 讬讚注 讚讛讗讬 诪讜诐 诪讜讘讛拽 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗转讬讜讛 拽诪讬讛 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讘讜讚讜 讚讞讻诐 注诇 讻讘讜讚讜 讚讞讻诐 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬住讜专讗 注讘讚

Conversely, here, in the case of the animal that had one eye larger than the other, since even an Israelite knows that this is a clear-cut blemish and the animal is clearly fit for slaughter, what is the reason he brought the animal before the Sages for examination? He brought it out of respect for the Sage. Now, if this Israelite does not neglect the respect due a Sage, would he commit a transgression and steal the possession of the priest? Certainly not. Therefore, in our case an Israelite would be trustworthy, and the presence of a priest is unnecessary.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇 诪讜诪讬 诪注砖专

MISHNA: Everyone is deemed credible to testify about the blemishes of an animal tithe offering, even the owner who is the beneficiary of a ruling that it is blemished.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬 讬讚注 讛讬 谞驻讬拽

GEMARA: What is the reason that even the owner is deemed credible to testify? The reason is that had he wanted, he could have caused a blemish in it initially, in a permitted manner, before tithing his animals. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But when he leads his animals out of the gate in order to tithe them, does he know which of them will emerge as the tenth, that you say he could have initially blemished that specific animal before it assumed the tithe status?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讘专讬砖 注砖专讛 诇讗 讬讘拽专 讘讬谉 讟讜讘 诇专注 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 砖讚讬 讘讬讛 诪讜诪讗 讘讻讜诇讬 注讚专讬讛

And if you would say that he intentionally leads an animal out as the head of the ten, i.e., so that it is the last of ten to emerge, one may not do so, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e shall not search whether it be good or bad鈥 (Leviticus 27:33), which teaches that the animal tithe may not be led out intentionally but must exit of its own accord. Rather, this is the meaning of the Gemara鈥檚 initial answer: The reason is that had he wanted, he could have caused a blemish in his entire flock, in a permitted manner, before leading them through the gate in order to tithe them.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讻讜专 砖谞住诪讬转 注讬谞讜 讜砖谞拽讟注讛 讬讚讜 讜砖谞砖讘专讛 专讙诇讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讛讻谞住转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞讜 谞砖讞讟 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 诪讜诪讞讛

MISHNA: With regard to a firstborn animal whose eye was blinded or whose foreleg was severed or whose hind leg was broken, all of which obviously render the animal permanently blemished, that animal may be slaughtered on the basis of the ruling of three regular Jews who attend the synagogue, and it does not require a ruling by one of the Sages. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: Even if there is a court of twenty-three Sages there, it may be slaughtered only on the basis of the ruling of an expert in judging blemishes.

讙诪壮 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讗诪专讬 讛转专转 讘讻讜专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讛讻谞住转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘诪讜诪讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara relates that Rabbi Simlai and Rabbi Yehuda Nesia both say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and some say that Rabbi Simlai and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi both say in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: The permitting of the slaughter of a firstborn animal outside of Eretz Yisrael, where a firstborn offering is unfit for sacrifice even when the Temple is standing, may be performed on the basis of the ruling of three regular Jews who attend the synagogue. Rava said: And this ruling applies specifically in a case of clear-cut blemishes, i.e., those blemishes which clearly permit the slaughter of the firstborn animal.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讘讻讜专 砖谞住诪讬转 注讬谞讜 讜砖谞拽讟注讛 讬讚讜 讜砖谞砖转讘专讛 专讙诇讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讛讻谞住转

The Gemara asks: What is Rava teaching us by this statement? We already learn this in the mishna: With regard to a firstborn animal whose eye was blinded or whose foreleg was severed or whose hind leg was broken, that animal may be slaughtered on the basis of the ruling of three regular Jews who attend the synagogue. The mishna is referring to clear-cut blemishes in contemporary times, in the absence of the Temple, when a firstborn animal is unfit to be brought as an offering. What, then, is the novelty of Rava鈥檚 statement?

讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: If the halakha that three regular Jews may permit the slaughter of a firstborn animal is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that according to the mishna, the power invested in three regular Jews to permit the slaughter of a firstborn animal in the absence of the Temple nowadays, or outside of Eretz Yisrael during Temple times, applies even to a firstborn animal that has blemishes that are not clear-cut. And the reason that the mishna specifically teaches a case of clear-cut blemishes is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who requires the examination of an expert even in such a case. Rava therefore teaches us that this is not so; rather, the mishna鈥檚 ruling is referring specifically to a case of clear-cut blemishes.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 住驻拽 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 住驻拽 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇砖讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讬砖讞讟 注诇 驻讬 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讛讻谞住转

Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says the following halakha, but he was uncertain whether Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said it in the name of Rav and uncertain whether he said it in the name of Shmuel: Three regular Jews may permit a firstborn animal with clear-cut blemishes in a place where there is no expert. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us by this statement? We already learn this in the mishna: That animal may be slaughtered on the basis of the ruling of three regular Jews who attend the synagogue.

讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讜诪讞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛 讗讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讜诪讞讛 诇讗

The Gemara answers: If the halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that three laymen may permit a firstborn animal with clear-cut blemishes even in a place where there is an expert. Rav Yehuda therefore teaches us that in a place where there is no expert, yes, three laymen may permit it. But in a place where there is an expert, three laymen are not invested with this power.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 注诪专诐 砖诇砖讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛 砖诇砖讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讗转 讛谞讚专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讻诐 砖诇砖讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛

Rav 岣yya bar Amram says: A group of three laymen may permit a blemished firstborn animal in a place where there is no expert to consult, and likewise a group of three laymen may dissolve a vow in a place where there is no Sage. The Gemara explains: The ruling that a group of three laymen may permit a blemished firstborn animal in a place where there is no expert to consult

Scroll To Top