Bekhorot 36b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

There it is different,

exact page location

for he has a way to evade, saying

“This is the one whom I bought from,”

and he relied on me.

And since he can justify himself, he lies even concerning something that will eventually be revealed.

The latter clause

of the Mishna there,

certainly supports him.

For we learned: If the sender said to him, “Take

it from a certain person, he is deemed reliable,

for since he mentioned his name to him, he is afraid to take it from elsewhere.

And we reject this:

there, since he has a claimant, he is afraid,

and it is also impossible to prove from the latter clause, for there it is not comparable: since he mentioned a name to him, that person will certainly claim from him if the agency was fulfilled; whereas here, the koen thinks that they will not ask the Israelite whether he gave it to him with its blemish.

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: From where did Judah have

this ruling that the koen is deemed reliable to say, “An Israelite gave me this firstborn with its blemish”? But

this—

it is mine!

For

I established it before Giddul.

I am the one who taught it to the sage whose name was Giddul [another explanation: to a great sage]],

and Giddul established it in his own name,

and he taught it to Rav Judah.

And this is what they said to him: An Israelite is deemed reliable to say, “I gave this firstborn to the koen with its blemish.”

And we inquire about it:

An Israelite—

is it obvious

that he is deemed reliable? For he does not eat it himself, and he is a single witness who is fit to testify concerning the blemish!?

And we explain: It is necessary [to state this] concerning a small one,

for the Israelite gave him the firstborn while the firstborn was still small,

and it grew

the firstborn.

Lest you say that he does not recognize it,

and does not know it, and perhaps this is not the one that he gave him but another one, and the koen inflicted the blemish upon it,

it teaches us

that the Israelite is deemed reliable.

In Sura they taught in accordance with the latter formulation,

that the Israelite is deemed reliable to say.

In Pumbedita

they taught

in accordance with the first formulation,

that a koen is deemed reliable to say.

And the halakha is even in accordance with the first formulation,

that a koen is deemed reliable, for people do not lie concerning a matter destined to be revealed.

Rafram of Pumbedita had a firstborn, and he gave it to a koen without a blemish. One day Rafram’s

Rafram

eye hurt. He brought it

this koen, the firstborn

before him,

and he thought that since his eye hurt, he would not notice that this was the firstborn that he had given him.

The koen said to him

the koen, to Rafram:

“An Israelite gave me this firstborn with its blemish.”

He forced open his eye,

Rafram opened his eye by force.

He saw him in his falsehood

and recognized that this was the firstborn that he had given him without a blemish.

Rafram said to him

Rafram:

“Was it not I who gave it to you?”

And it had been whole, without a blemish.

And even so, he did not take the matter into consideration

to say that a koen should not be deemed reliable.

And the reason is:

This

koen

is brazen.

For he both inflicted a blemish upon it and showed it to the one who had given it to him. But

everyone else is not brazen,

but are deemed reliable to say that they gave it to them with its blemish.

That

firstborn that was

disproportioned,

for one of its eyes was large and one was small,

which came before Rav Ashi,

and he did not know whether the one who brought it was a koen or an Israelite.

Rav Ashi

Rav Ashi

said: “Why should we suspect him?”

For whether

he is a koen

or

he is an Israelite, here is a firstborn and its blemish is with it,

and there is no suspicion here, for it certainly was born with this blemish.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps he is an Israelite, and Rav Judah said: One does not inspect a firstborn

that belongs to

an Israelite

as long as he has not yet given it

unless

there comes

a koen with him,

for perhaps, when they point it out to him that it is blemished, the Israelite will not be concerned about robbing a koen and will eat it. If so, why did you say that since this blemish was born with it, it makes no difference to us whether this man is a koen or an Israelite?

He said to him: “Is that comparable!?

There,

with blemishes that are not unmistakable,

although he does not eat consecrated animals outside,

because it is a prohibition punishable by karet, and therefore he shows it to a sage to examine its blemish, nevertheless

the koen’s property

yes

he is suspected

of robbing it, since it is only a prohibition of a negative commandment. And therefore Rav Judah said that one must show it together with a koen.

But

here,

with this firstborn that was “disproportioned,”

since

after all

this man knew

this man

that this is an unmistakable blemish,

and

for what reason did he bring it before the Sages?

Necessarily,

because of the honor of the sage

he brought it to show it to him. And if so, we have to say: Now,

he did not transgress concerning the honor of a sage—

would he commit a prohibition?

And therefore I did not suspect him, and it is not necessary to show its blemish together with a koen.

Mishna:

Everyone is deemed reliable concerning the blemishes of tithe

of animals.

Gemara:

What is the reason

that they are deemed reliable?

And we explain:

For if he wished,

this man

could inflict a blemish upon it

on the tithe

from the outset.

And we object: But

who knew which one would emerge

as the tenth, so that he could inflict a blemish upon it?

And if you would say:

he inflicts a blemish upon it, and

brings it out as the first of ten,

so that it will be the tenth.

It is impossible to say so, for

the Merciful One said: “He shall not inspect whether it is good or bad,”

and it is forbidden for him to arrange that a blemished one should be the tenth.

Rather,

this is what we are saying:

For if he wished, he could inflict a blemish upon his entire herd from the outset.

And they are still not consecrated, and he can inflict a blemish upon them; and afterward he can tithe them.

Mishna:

A firstborn whose eye was blinded, and whose

front leg

was severed, and whose hind leg was broken

the rear one. And all these are unmistakable blemishes—

this one may be slaughtered on the basis of [the ruling of] three members of the synagogue,

who are not sages.

Rabbi Yose says: Even if there is there

a Sanhedrin of

twenty-three

and there is not among them even one who received authorization to permit the blemishes of a firstborn,

it may be slaughtered only on the basis of [the ruling of] an expert.

Gemara:

Rabbi Simlai and Rabbi Judah Nesia, both of them

said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. And some say: Rabbi Simlai and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, both of them, said in the name of Rabbi Judah Nesia: The permitting of a firstborn outside the Land of Israel,

which is not fit to be offered even during the time of the Temple,

is [done] on the basis of [the ruling of] three members of the synagogue.

Rava said: And [this is] with unmistakable blemishes,

such as its leg was severed.

And we ask:

What does he teach us?

But

we learned: “A firstborn whose eye was blinded, whose hand was severed, and whose leg was broken—this one may be slaughtered on the basis of [the ruling of] three members of the synagogue” [and the Mishna is speaking of outside the Land of Israel and in the present time].

and the Mishna is speaking of outside the Land of Israel and in the present time.

And we answer:

If [we had only] the Mishna, I would say that outside the Land of Israel even blemishes that are not unmistakable

may also be shown to members of the synagogue.

And the fact that it teaches “unmistakable” is to make known the force of Rabbi Yose,

for he says that even with unmistakable blemishes it may be slaughtered only on the basis of [the ruling of] an expert.

It teaches us

that even outside the Land of Israel it is slaughtered only with unmistakable blemishes.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, uncertain whether in the name of Rav or uncertain whether in the name of Shmuel: Three

laymen

permit a firstborn in a place where there is no expert.

And we ask:

What does he teach us?

But

we learned: “This one may be slaughtered on the basis of [the ruling of] three members of the synagogue.”

And we answer:

If [we had learned it] from the Mishna, I would say even in a place

where there is

an expert. It teaches us

Rav Judah that

in a place where there is no expert, yes; in a place where there is an expert, no.

Rav Hiyya bar Amram said: Three permit

the firstborn in a place where there is no expert. Three permit a vow in a place where there is no sage.