Bekhorot 35b — the Talmud in English

And we explain the reason:

he says:

this shepherd

will not leave

the owner

a Torah scholar and give it to me.

For an ordinary shepherd is an ignoramus, and he says that his master will certainly give the firstborn to a priest who is a Torah scholar, and he will gain nothing by testifying about it that it is permitted; therefore he is trustworthy.

And that which it teaches, “The shepherds of priests are not trustworthy,” means

shepherds of

animals belonging to

priests, while they are Israelites,

and the shepherds are Israelites,

they are not trustworthy.

And the reason is:

for we are concerned about a mouthful.

For he wants him to feed him from it.

And all the more so,

a shepherd who is

a priest

to testify

for a priest

the owner, that he is not trustworthy for two reasons. Also because

we are concerned about reciprocal favors,

that they will reciprocate with one another, each one testifying about his fellow. And also because we are concerned

about a mouthful,

for he wants him to feed him from it.

And Rabban Shimon

ben Gamliel

came to say: he is trustworthy,

the priest

concerning his fellow’s, but he is not trustworthy concerning his own.

And even a priest concerning a priest is trustworthy. For we are concerned neither about reciprocal favors nor about a mouthful; and all the more so an Israelite concerning a priest, where there is only concern about a mouthful.

And Rabbi Meir came to say: one who is suspected concerning a matter may neither judge it nor testify concerning it.

Therefore, priests who are suspected concerning firstborns are not trustworthy, neither concerning a priest nor concerning an Israelite. And he disagrees with both of them: according to the first tanna, only a priest concerning a priest is not trustworthy, but a priest concerning an Israelite is trustworthy; and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, even a priest concerning a priest is trustworthy. Whereas according to Rabbi Meir, the priest is not trustworthy, neither concerning a priest nor concerning an Israelite.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to the one who says

that the first tanna holds that

Israelite shepherds who are priests are trustworthy.

[This is the second view].

This is why Rabbi Meir came to say: one who is suspected concerning a matter may neither judge it nor testify concerning it.

And he disagrees with the first tanna, for according to the first tanna a priestly shepherd concerning an Israelite is trustworthy, whereas according to Rabbi Meir he is not trustworthy.

But according to the one who says

that in the view of the first tanna

shepherds of priests among Israelites are not trustworthy—

what did

Rabbi Meir come to teach us?

But

this is the first tanna!

For concerning priestly shepherds, both of them hold that they are not trustworthy, neither concerning a priest nor concerning an Israelite.

And we answer:

The difference between them is the teaching of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kaposai.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kaposai says: concerning a firstborn belonging to a priest, two people from the marketplace are required to testify about it

to permit it through a blemish, and even if they are priests—provided that they are from the marketplace, and not from his household.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

two people from the marketplace are not required. Rather,

even his son, even his daughter.

And he follows his own reasoning, for he says that a priest is trustworthy concerning his fellow’s, even if he is his relative, and he is suspected only concerning his own.

Rabbi says: even ten, and they are members of his household, may not testify concerning it.

But one from the marketplace may testify, even a single witness, and he disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua, who requires specifically two from the marketplace. And in this the first tanna and Rabbi Meir disagree. The first tanna accepts the view of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kaposai, that priests from the marketplace are trustworthy even concerning the firstborns of priests, since the first tanna speaks only of a priest who is a shepherd, concerning whom there is concern about reciprocal favors when the owner is a priest, and when the owner is an Israelite there is concern that he thinks the owner will give him the firstborn. But a priest from the marketplace is trustworthy both concerning a priest and concerning an Israelite. And Rabbi Meir does not accept the view of Rabbi Yehoshua, and holds that priests are never trustworthy, even priests from the marketplace.

In accordance with whose view is that which Rav Hisda said in the name of Rav Ketina: concerning an uncertain firstborn that was born among an Israelite’s animals,

such as when two males were born together and we do not know which of them is the firstborn [and the law is that one is given to a priest, while the other is eaten by the owner with its blemish],

two are required

from the marketplace to testify concerning it,

and members of his household are not fit to testify?

In accordance with whose view? In accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kaposai.

For just as he holds that concerning a firstborn that is with a priest, two from the marketplace are required to testify concerning it, so too concerning an uncertain firstborn in an Israelite’s possession, for he is its owner.

Rav Nahman said:

concerning an uncertain firstborn in an Israelite’s possession, even

the owner may testify concerning it!

For an Israelite is never suspected concerning blemishes.

For if you do not say this,

then

animal tithe

according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that one who is suspected concerning a matter may neither judge it nor testify concerning it—

who may testify concerning it?

For animal tithe is eaten by its owners. And all Israelites, with regard to tithe, are like priests with regard to a firstborn: each one has animals and tithes them. And since he is suspected concerning himself, he cannot testify concerning his fellow. Rather, certainly an Israelite is not suspected concerning blemishes.

And we wonder:

A definite tithe is trustworthy!

Even its owner, since he can cause the blemish permissibly,

for if he wishes, he may place a blemish in his entire flock

before he tithes them, while they are not yet consecrated. Therefore, he is not suspected concerning the matter. And there is no proof from animal tithe concerning an uncertain firstborn.

Rather,

this is how Rav Nahman reasons:

Concerning an uncertain firstborn, according to Rabbi Meir, who may testify about it?

For if the owners are suspected concerning it, it follows that all Israelites are suspected concerning an uncertain firstborn if one should occur in their flock; and anyone suspected concerning a matter is not trustworthy concerning his fellow. If so, who will testify concerning it?

And if you would say, indeed, it has no remedy

for an uncertain firstborn according to Rabbi Meir—

And is it possible to say so?

But did we not learn

earlier, in the second chapter [18b],

that Rabbi Yose used to say: anyone whose exchange is in the hand of a priest,

such as when there are two uncertain firstborns, one of which remains in the owners’ possession, while its exchange—that is, the other one—is given to a priest, then even this one that remains in the Israelite’s possession

is exempt from the gifts

of the foreleg, the cheeks, and the stomach. And there we explain Rabbi Yose’s reason: “Treat that which does not acquire as though it acquired.” And it is considered as though the priest acquired both of them and sold one of them to the owners. And an Israelite who purchases an animal from a priest is exempt from the gifts.

And Rabbi Meir obligates

with regard to the gifts.

We see that according to Rabbi Meir an uncertain firstborn is fit to be eaten, and it is impossible to say that indeed it has no remedy .

Rather, infer from this:

that concerning an uncertain firstborn

the owners may testify about it.

What is the reason?

It is priests who are suspected concerning blemishes! Israelites are not suspected concerning blemishes!

It was stated: Rav Nahman said: the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

that even his son and his daughter are trustworthy to testify.

Rava said: the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi,

who says: even ten, and they are members of his household, are not trustworthy.

And we raise an objection:

And did Rava say this?

But Rava said:

if the

owners

of the firstborn—that is, the priest—are standing

outside with us,

and the firstborn

enters whole

into his house,

and emerges injured, his household may testify concerning it

the members of his household who were inside the house, that the blemish that befell it came about by itself.

It follows that Rava holds in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that even members of his household are trustworthy. And how did Rava rule in accordance with Rabbi, that even ten, and they are members of his household, are not trustworthy?

And we answer: do not say that “its owners” were standing outside.

Rather, say

“all its owners” were standing

with us—that even his sons and the members of his household were outside, and the shepherd who was in the house testifies concerning it.

And we refute:

If so, what is it coming to teach?

And we answer:

You might have said that we should be concerned about suspicion.

And perhaps the shepherd inflicted the blemish.

It teaches us:

that we do not suspect him .

And we raise an objection:

If so, what is it coming to teach?

And we answer:

You might have said that we should be concerned about suspicion

that perhaps the owners caused the blemish by placing a fig in its ear, so that the dog bit it inside, or by making a pit inside, so that it would fall into it; and an animal with a blemish caused through indirect action may not be slaughtered on account of it.

It teaches us

that we are not concerned.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And specifically his son and his daughter

are trustworthy.

But his wife is not

trustworthy.

What is the reason?

His wife is considered like his own body!

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: according to Rabbi Meir, who says

in our Mishna:

one who is suspected concerning a matter may neither judge it nor testify concerning it—and Rabbi Meir says

earlier [30a],

one who is suspected concerning one matter is suspected concerning the entire Torah.

And do

priests,

who are suspected concerning firstborns,

likewise not judge legal cases?

For since they are suspected concerning firstborns, they should be considered suspected concerning the entire Torah. And one who is suspected concerning a matter does not judge others concerning that same matter.

But it is written:

“And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall draw near”...

“and according to their word shall be every dispute and every affliction.”