Bekhorot 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: We have accepted the following ruling:

If one rendered his fellow’s pure items impure and died, his son was not penalized after him

to pay for the damage.

What is the reason?

It is damage that is not perceptible

to the eye, as it is not recognizable on the pure items that they have become impure, and

it is not called damage.

And since the obligation to pay for such damage is only

a rabbinic penalty,

therefore,

the Sages penalized him, but the Sages did not penalize his son!

Mishna:

There was an incident

that involved

a male sheep

a ram,

old, with its hair hanging down,

because it had never been shorn.

And one official saw it,

an appointee of the government.

And he said: What is the nature of this one?

Why had they allowed it to grow so old?

They said to him: It is a firstborn! And it may be slaughtered only if it has a blemish!

He took a pike,

a spear,

and pierced its ear,

thereby making it blemished.

And the incident came before the Sages, and they permitted

the firstborn, since he had not done this with the intention of permitting it. For he did not know that, by making this blemish in it, it would be slaughtered.

The official saw

that

they had permitted

the firstborn.

He went and pierced the ears of other firstborn animals, and they prohibited

the Sages from slaughtering them on account of that same blemish!

Once, children were playing in the field, and they tied the tails of lambs to one another. And the tail of one of them was severed, and it was a firstborn

and thereby became blemished.

And the incident came before the Sages, and they permitted it. The children saw

that

they had permitted it, and they went and tied the tails of other firstborn animals

so that their tails would be severed.

And they prohibited

the Sages from slaughtering them on account of that same blemish!

This is the general principle

in this law:

Anything done intentionally,

when he inflicted the blemish in order to permit it,

is prohibited

to slaughter it on account of that blemish.

If it was done unintentionally, it is permitted.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Once, there were

children playing.

And it is necessary

for the Mishna to teach us both the incident involving the official and the incident involving the children.

For had it taught us only the case of a gentile

who inflicted a blemish on a firstborn, and had it not taught us the case of the children, I would have said: We permit it only in the case of a gentile, when he did not intend this, because

he will not come to adopt the practice

as it does not concern us if the gentile thereby becomes accustomed to inflicting blemishes, since in any event he is accustomed to transgressing prohibitions, according to Rashi .

But in the case of a minor

Jewish

who may come to adopt the practice

and become accustomed to inflicting blemishes in consecrated animals,

I might say: No,

the firstborn should not be permitted on account of the blemish he inflicted in it.

And had it taught us only the case of a minor,

I would have said that they permit only a blemish made by a minor

because people will not come

to

confuse it with an adult

who inflicted a blemish, saying that it is also permitted in that case.

But in the case of a gentile,

if we permit the firstborn on his account,

people may come to confuse it with an adult

Jew who inflicted a blemish in order to permit the firstborn,

I might say

that the firstborn should not be permitted on account of the blemish he inflicted.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach both cases.

Rav Hisda said that Rav Ketina said: They taught

that the firstborn is permitted on account of a blemish inflicted by a gentile

only when they said to him

that the firstborn is not permitted

unless it had a blemish.

This implies a blemish that occurs on its own. In such wording, it does not mean that the gentile will understand that they want him to inflict a blemish in it.

But if they said to him

that the firstborn is not permitted

unless a blemish was inflicted in it,

it is

equivalent to their saying to him: Go and make a blemish in it.

For the expression “was inflicted” implies that it may even have been inflicted by a person.

Rava said: Since it occurs on its own,

for even when they said to the gentile, “unless a blemish was inflicted in it,” the gentile did not know that it would thereby become permitted, since he thought that if one makes a blemish in order to permit it, it is ineffective , and since he did not intend to permit it—

what difference is there whether they said ‘it had’ or ‘it was inflicted,’

as both expressions have the same meaning with regard to the gentile?

Rather,

even when they said to him, “unless

a blemish was inflicted

in it,”

it too occurs on its own,

as even then he thinks that it becomes permitted specifically if the blemish fell upon it by itself.

And there is no difference.

We learned in the Mishna:

This is the general principle: Anything done intentionally is prohibited.

“This is the general principle”—

what does it include?

And we explain:

It includes

a blemish caused by

indirect causation,

for example, when one placed dough in the ear of a firstborn so that a dog would come and remove it; this too is prohibited for slaughter on account of that blemish.

We learned in the Mishna: Anything

done unintentionally is permitted.

It includes: One who speaks innocently,

when the gentile had not asked about the firstborn, but the Jew casually told him that this firstborn would not be permitted until a blemish fell upon it. The gentile then went and inflicted a blemish in it. Even then it is permitted, since the Jew did not intend that the gentile inflict a blemish in it.

Mishna:

If a firstborn was pursuing

a person in order to gore him,

and the person kicked it

and

thereby made a blemish in it, he may slaughter it on account of that blemish.

Even if the one who made the blemish was a priest, it is permitted, since he intended not to permit it but to save himself.

Gemara:

Rav Pappa said: They taught this only when he kicked it while it was pursuing him. But

if he kicked it

after it had stopped pursuing him, he may not

slaughter it on account of that blemish.

And we raise an objection:

Is this not obvious?

And we answer:

Lest you say

that this man

is recalling his distress.

He remembered the pursuit and therefore kicked it, but did not intend to inflict a blemish.

It teaches us otherwise.

There are those who say: Rav Pappa said: Do not say that while it is pursuing him, yes, and when it is not pursuing him, no. Rather, even

if he kicked it

after it had stopped pursuing him as well,

it is permitted.

What is the reason? He is recalling his distress.

And when he kicked it, he did not intend to inflict a blemish in it.

Rav Yehuda said: It is permitted to inflict a blemish in a firstborn before it emerges into the air of the world,

as it does not become consecrated until it becomes consecrated upon emerging from the womb.

Rava said: In the case of a kid—

in its ears.

A kid’s ears are long and visible outside before its entire head emerges [and it is still not considered born], so one may then inflict a blemish in its ears.

In the case of a lamb—

in its lips.

A lamb’s lips emerge first. But its ears are small and are not visible until its entire head emerges.

There are those who say: In the case of a lamb too, it is in its ears.

For

perhaps it emerges through its temples,

so that the lamb’s temples emerge first, with its ears, and it follows that the ears emerge before the head. 25 .

Rav Pappa said: When it eats, it is not visible.

If a firstborn has a blemish inside its mouth, and when it eats the blemish is not visible, but when it

cries,

it screams,

it is visible,

because it opens its mouth wide,

it is a blemish,

and it is considered a visible blemish .

And we raise an objection:

What does this teach us?

But

we already learned

it below:

The outer strands,

the gums in which the front teeth are set,

that were chipped

and some of them are missing,

or that were blunted,

meaning that they were cut with a knife without any part being removed, but a crack-like mark was formed in them—this is a blemish, since they are visible to the eye.

And likewise,

the inner ones,

the gums in which the inner molars are set,

that were uprooted

entirely, are a blemish.

But if the inner ones were chipped or blunted, it is not a blemish, since the matter is not visible in them and it is not considered a visible blemish.

What is the reason

that the inner ones constitute a blemish when they are uprooted?

Is it not because when it cries, it is visible?

Since it becomes visible when it cries, it is therefore a blemish; and what, then, does Rav Pappa teach us?

And we answer:

Rava said: Rav Pappa is also explaining the reason for the Mishna

there,

what is the reason that when they are uprooted

in the inner gums

it is a blemish? Because when it cries, it is visible.

[Nevertheless, when they are chipped or blunted, they are not visible at all.]

Mishna:

With regard to all blemishes that could have been caused by a person,

meaning that it is possible that a person caused this blemish—for example, its eye was blinded, its hand was severed, or its ear was split [excluding blemishes that cannot be caused in this manner, such as an animal with five legs, which are not addressed by the Mishna]—

Jewish shepherds are trustworthy

to say that the blemishes occurred on their own. But

priests’ shepherds are not trustworthy,

as they are suspected of lying in this matter .

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: He is trustworthy regarding another person’s animal, but he is not trustworthy regarding his own.

Rabbi Meir says: One who is suspected regarding a matter may not judge it and may not testify regarding it.

And the Gemara explains their dispute.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar

disagree concerning the interpretation of the Mishna.

One said:

The statement in the Mishna, “Jewish shepherds are trustworthy,” means

Jewish shepherds,

and then even if the firstborn is standing

among priests

who own it,

the shepherds are trustworthy,

as we are not concerned that perhaps the blemish was intentionally caused by a person and the shepherd is lying, saying that it occurred on its own, so that his master will slaughter it and feed him from it, because

for a small portion

of food

we are not concerned

that he will lie.

And the statement, “Priests’ shepherds are not trustworthy,” means

shepherds

who are

priests,

while the firstborn is found

among Jews

and therefore

their testimony is not trusted,

because

he says

the priestly shepherd: I will inflict a blemish in it, and certainly the owner will give me the firstborn, because

since I toil on its behalf,

as I work for him,

he will not leave it for me and give it to someone else.

And the same law applies

to a

priestly

shepherd testifying

for a priest

who owns the animal: It is reasonable that he is not trustworthy, because

we are concerned about reciprocal favors.

Perhaps the shepherd thinks: Today I will testify for him that his firstborn is permitted, and tomorrow, when I receive an unblemished firstborn from a Jew, I will inflict a blemish in it, and he will repay me by testifying that the blemish occurred on its own.

These are the words of the first tanna.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel came to say: He is trustworthy

for the priest to testify

about

a firstborn

belonging to another person,

whether he is shepherding for him or not.

But he is not trustworthy regarding his own,

as he is suspected of inflicting a blemish only in his own firstborn, which he received from a Jew.

And Rabbi Meir came to say: One who is suspected regarding a matter,

that is, a priest suspected regarding firstborn animals,

may not judge it and may not testify regarding it,

as he is not trustworthy to testify even for another person [and this is the opinion of the first tanna].

And the other said

in explaining our Mishna: The statement in the Mishna, “Jewish shepherds are trustworthy,” means as follows:

Shepherds

of animals belonging to

Jews who are priests are trustworthy.