Bekhorot 28a — the Talmud in English

And the other one,

the school of Rabbi, what is the reason that they do not learn from the juxtaposition? They will say to you:

If from there, it may be said

that the time of eating the firstborn was juxtaposed to the time of 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 learns from “and their flesh shall be yours,” holds:

The verse says “

and like the right thigh

shall be

yours.” The verse added for you another status with regard to the firstborn,

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

And the other one,

the school of Rabbi:

If from there, it may be said, this “shall be yours” teaches about a blemished firstborn, which one gives to a priest, for which we do not find

another source

in the entire Torah

except here, and the verse was not superfluous with regard to the eating of a firstborn.

And the other one,

Rav, who holds that from here we learn the time of its eating, from where does he know that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest?

The verse says:

“And their flesh”

is in the plural.

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

And the other one,

the school of Rabbi does not understand that the verse “and their flesh” comes to include one, an unblemished one, and one, a blemished one. Rather, it understands it as follows:

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

We learned in the Mishna:

If a blemish occurred in it within its year, he is permitted to keep it for the entire twelve months.

After its year, he is not permitted to keep it except for thirty days.

They raised a dilemma before them:

this which the tannai taught, “After its year he is not permitted to keep it except for thirty days,”

how is he saying it?

Is this what he is saying:

If a blemish occurred in it within its year—

he is permitted to keep it for the entire twelve months. And after its year as well

he is permitted to keep it for another

thirty days.

And it refers back to the first clause, to a blemish that occurred in it within its year, and he is stating one matter.

Or perhaps

they are two matters, and this is what he is saying:

Where a blemish occurred in it within its year—

he is permitted to keep it

only

for twelve months, and no more.

And where a blemish occurred in it after its year—

he is not permitted to keep it except for thirty

days.

Come and hear: for it was taught in a beraita: A firstborn at the present time—

Until it becomes fit to be shown to a Sage,

when no blemish has yet occurred in it,

he is permitted to keep it.

That is, he is obligated to keep it and even

two and three years.

And once it becomes fit to be shown to a Sage,

that is, once a blemish has occurred in it, if

a blemish occurred in it within its year—

he is permitted to keep it for twelve months. After its year—

he is not permitted to keep it even one day, and even one hour.

But because of returning a lost object to the owners [namely, its priest-owner, for if he slaughtered it immediately it would spoil],

the Sages said

—

he is permitted to keep it for thirty days

additional.

And if he does not find a priest, he slaughters it and salts it until he finds a priest

. And it was initially understood that this matter—that he may keep it for thirty days because of returning a lost object—speaks of a blemish that occurred in it within its year, and our dilemma was resolved: that the tannai in our Mishna also intends to say that even if the blemish occurred in it within its year, they give him another thirty days after its year.

And we say:

And still, I have a dilemma!

For even in the beraita itself it is necessary to be uncertain about what the tannai intended to say:

Does this

thirty days

refer specifically to a blemish that occurred in it

after its year, but if it occurred within its year, he is not permitted to delay it after its year?

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

Or perhaps,

even when a blemish occurred in it

before its year,

he is permitted to keep it for thirty days after its year?

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

they complete fifteen days for it after its year.

Conclude from it

that if a blemish occurred in it within its year, they do not give it thirty days after its year. For he says, “They complete fifteen days for it,” and because the blemish occurred fifteen days before the end of its year, if the blemish occurred in it thirty days before the end of its year, they give it nothing after its year. And only when a blemish occurred in it after its year do they give it thirty days.

And this

supports Rabbi Elazar. For Rabbi Elazar said:

a firstborn in which a blemish occurred after its year—

they give it thirty days from the time that the blemish occurred in it,

but if it occurred within its year, they give it nothing after its year.

Some say: Rabbi Elazar said: From where

do we know

that even a firstborn in which a blemish occurred 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 is implied that they give it two years.

What are the “days” that are considered a “year”?

You must say: These are thirty days,

as is explained in tractate Rosh Hashana. Therefore, they give it a year, and in addition a month that is equivalent to a year.

And this wording disagrees with the above. It holds that even when a blemish occurred in it within its year, they give it thirty days after its year.

An objection was raised: If a blemish occurred in it fifteen days within its year—

they complete fifteen days for it after its year.

And we analyze:

Completion

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

yes!

But

giving

thirty complete days after its year [to one in which a blemish occurred within its year—

no!

And we conclude:

A refutation of Rabbi Elazar; a refutation.

Mishna:

a.

One who slaughters a firstborn

not according to the instruction of a Sage,

and shows its blemish

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

Rabbi Yehuda permits

the firstborn to be eaten.

Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered not according to the instruction of

an

expert, it is forbidden.

b.

One who is not an expert,

to whom the president in the Land of Israel did not grant permission to issue rulings concerning the laws of firstborns, and nevertheless he was

examining the firstborn,

and permitted it despite not having received permission,

and it was slaughtered on his word—

this

firstborn

must be buried.

And he shall pay,

the one who issued the ruling and caused the loss,

from his house.

Gemara:

Rabba bar bar Hana said: In a blemish that is

With regard to a blemish that is

in the membranes of the eye,

and it 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.

And the reason is:

because they change

on account of the pain of the slaughter. For although now it appears to be a permanent blemish, it is possible that if the Sage had seen it before the slaughter, he would not have permitted it.

And

they disagreed

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir

only concerning blemishes of the body.

For Rabbi Meir holds: We decree concerning blemishes of the body

that do not change

on account of the membranes of the eye,

which can change.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not decree concerning blemishes of the body on account of

a blemish in the

membranes of the eye.

It was taught likewise

that they disagree concerning blemishes of the body:

One who slaughters a firstborn and shows its blemish

after the slaughter.

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the membranes of the eye it is forbidden, because they change,

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

With blemishes of the body it is permitted, because they do not change.

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

And we inquire concerning the words of Rabbi Meir, who said that even blemishes of the body change after the slaughter: “

Because they change”—could it enter your mind!?

But

blemishes of the body—

do they change?

Rather,

this is its explanation:

Because of

blemishes

that change [

in the membranes of the eye],,

we decree even concerning blemishes that do not change.