Bekhorot 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

And the other one:

the school of Rabbi Judah HaNasi—what is the reason they do not derive it from the juxtaposition? They will say:

If you derive it from there, it can be said

that the time for eating the firstborn was juxtaposed to the time for eating

the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving-offering. Just as a thanksgiving-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so too a firstborn is eaten for one day and one night.

And the other one:

Rav, who derives it from “And their flesh shall be yours,” maintains:

The verse says: “And like the right thigh

shall be

yours;

it shall be yours.” The verse added another designation of possession for you with regard to a firstborn,

whose time for eating is one day longer than that of a thanksgiving-offering.

And the other one:

the school of Rabbi Judah HaNasi:

If you derive it from there, it can be said that this phrase, “it shall be yours,” teaches with regard to a blemished firstborn that it is given to a kohen, something for which we find no

other source

in the entire Torah

except here; therefore, the verse was not left superfluous for the eating of a firstborn.

And the other one:

Rav, who maintains that from here we derive the time for eating it—how does he know that a blemished firstborn is given to a kohen?

The verse says:

“And their flesh,”

in the plural.

One, an unblemished animal, and one, a blemished animal.

And the other one:

the school of Rabbi Judah HaNasi does not understand the verse “And their flesh” as coming to include both an unblemished animal and a blemished animal. Rather, it understands it as meaning:

“And their flesh” refers to these firstborn animals belonging to all of Israel.

We learned in the Mishna:

If a blemish developed in it within its year, he may keep it for the entire twelve months.

After its year, he may keep it only for thirty days.

They raised a dilemma:

with regard to that which the tanna taught: After its year, he may keep it only for thirty days,

what exactly is he saying?

Does he mean this:

If a blemish developed in it within its year—

he may keep it for the entire twelve months. And after its year as well,

he may keep it for an additional

thirty days.

And the latter clause refers back to the first clause, to a blemish that developed in it within its year; thus, it states one matter.

Or perhaps

these are two separate matters, and this is what he means:

Where a blemish developed in it within its year—

he may keep it

only

for twelve months, and no more.

And where a blemish developed in it after its year—

he may keep it only for thirty

days.

Come and hear: For it was taught in a beraita: A firstborn in the present era—

Until the time it is seen in order to show it to a Sage,

that is, before a blemish has yet developed in it,

he may keep it.

That is, he is required to keep it even

for two or three years.

Once the time has come to show it to a Sage,

that is, once a blemish has developed in it, then if

a blemish developed in it within its year—

he may keep it for the entire twelve months. After its year—

he may not keep it even for one day, or even for one hour.

But because of the prevention of a loss to the owners [that is, its kohen owner, since if he slaughters it immediately, the meat will spoil],

the Sages said

that he

may keep it for thirty days

additional.

And if he does not find a kohen, he should slaughter it and salt it until he finds a kohen .

And it initially entered our minds that this permission to keep it for thirty days because of preventing a loss to the owners refers to a case where a blemish developed in it within its year. The dilemma was therefore resolved: The tanna of our Mishna also intended to say that even if the blemish developed in it within its year, an additional thirty days are granted to him after its year.

And we say:

But the dilemma still remains for me!

For in the beraita itself there is still room to doubt what the tanna intended to say:

Does this

thirty days

refer specifically to a blemish that developed in it

after its year,

but if it developed within its year, he may not keep it after its year?

Or perhaps

even if a blemish developed in it

before its year,

he may keep it for thirty days after its year?

Come and hear: If a blemish developed in it fifteen days within its year—

the fifteen days are completed for it after its year.

Conclude from this

that if a blemish developed in it within its year, it is not given thirty days after its year. For it says, “the fifteen days are completed for it,” because the blemish developed fifteen days before the end of its year. Thus, if the blemish developed in it thirty days before the end of its year, it is given nothing after its year. Only when a blemish developed in it after its year is it given thirty days.

And this

supports Rabbi Elazar. For Rabbi Elazar said:

A firstborn in which a blemish developed after its year—

thirty days are granted to it from the time the blemish developed in it,

but if it developed within its year, it is granted nothing after its year.

Some say: Rabbi Elazar said: From where

do we know

that even a firstborn in which a blemish developed within its year is given thirty days after its year?

As it is stated: “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it year by year.”

For from the wording of the verse, “year by year,” it appears that two years are granted to it.

What is the number of “days” that is considered a “year”?

You must say that these are thirty days,

as explained in tractate Rosh HaShana. Therefore, it is given a year, and in addition a month that is equivalent to a year.

And this version disagrees with the earlier one. It maintains that even when a blemish developed in it within its year, thirty days are granted to it after its year.

The objection was raised: If a blemish developed in it fifteen days within its year—

the fifteen days are completed for it after its year.

And we infer:

Completion

of thirty days, for a firstborn in which a blemish developed within its year, close to the end of the year—

yes!

But

granting

thirty full days after its year [to one in which a blemish developed within its year]—

no!

And we conclude:

The refutation of Rabbi Elazar is a conclusive refutation.

Mishna:

a.

One who slaughters a firstborn

without the instruction of a Sage

and shows its blemish

to a Sage after the slaughter, and it is found to be a permanent blemish—

Rabbi Yehuda permits

the firstborn to be eaten.

Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered without the instruction of

an

expert, it is forbidden.

b.

One who is not an expert,

one to whom the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael had not granted permission to issue rulings concerning the laws of firstborn animals, nevertheless

examines the firstborn,

and permits it despite not having received permission,

and it is slaughtered on his authority—

this

firstborn

must be buried.

And he shall pay,

that is, the one who issued the ruling and caused the loss,

from his own property.

Gemara:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said:

With regard to a blemish that is

in the eye defects

and the animal was slaughtered without the instruction of a Sage, and only after the slaughter did a Sage issue a ruling concerning it—

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

The reason is:

Because they change

as a result of the pain of the slaughter. Although now it appears to be a permanent blemish, it is possible that had the Sage seen it before the slaughter, he would not have permitted it.

And

they did not disagree

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir

except with regard to bodily blemishes.

For Rabbi Meir maintains that we issue a decree concerning bodily blemishes

that do not change,

on account of eye defects

that can change.

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that we do not issue a decree concerning bodily blemishes on account of

a blemish in the

eye defects.

A beraita was also taught in this manner,

that they disagree with regard to bodily blemishes:

One who slaughters a firstborn and shows its blemish

after the slaughter.

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to eye defects, it is forbidden, because they change,

and perhaps before the slaughter it was not a permanent blemish.

With regard to bodily blemishes, it is permitted, because they do not change.

Rabbi Meir says: Both this and that are forbidden, because they change.

And we question Rabbi Meir’s statement, in which he says that even bodily blemishes change after slaughter:

Can it enter your mind that the reason is “because they change”?

For

bodily blemishes—

do they change?

Rather,

this is its meaning:

Because of

blemishes

that change

[in the eye defects], we issue a decree even with regard to blemishes that do not change.