Bekhorot 36b (לו:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

There it is different,

as he has an excuse, since he can say:

“The one from whom I purchased it,”

he would have been believed on my account.

And since he can offer an explanation for himself, he lies even concerning a matter that will eventually be revealed.

The latter clause

of the Mishna there

certainly supports him.

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

from a certain person, he is believed,

since, once he mentioned the person’s name, he is afraid to take it from someone else.

And we reject this:

There, since he has a claimant, he is apprehensive;

and one cannot prove anything from the latter clause either, for the case there is not comparable: Since he mentioned the person’s name, that person will certainly demand an accounting from him if the agency was carried out. Here, by contrast, the priest assumes 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 derive

the ruling that a priest is believed to say, “This firstborn was given to me by an Israelite with its blemish”? And behold,

this—

it is mine!

For

I established it through Giddul.

I am the one who taught it to a Sage named Giddul [another interpretation: to a great Sage],

and Giddul established it in his own name,

and he taught it to Rav Yehuda.

And this is what they said to him: An Israelite is believed to say, “This firstborn I gave to a priest with its blemish.”

We raise an objection to this:

An Israelite—

is it obvious

that he is believed? After all, he does not eat it himself, and he is a single witness who is qualified to testify concerning the blemish!?

And we explain: No, it is necessary to teach this in the case of a young animal,

where the Israelite gave him the firstborn while the firstborn was still young

and then it grew up,

the firstborn.

One might have said that he cannot identify it,

and does not recognize it, and perhaps it is not the one he gave him but another one, and the priest caused the blemish in it.

Therefore it teaches us

that the Israelite is believed.

In Sura they taught this according to the latter formulation,

that the Israelite is believed to say—

In Pumbedita

they taught

according to the first formulation,

that a priest is believed to say—

And the halakha is even according to the first formulation:

a priest is believed, since people do not lie about a matter destined to be revealed.

Rafram of Pumbedita had a firstborn animal, and he gave it to a priest without a blemish. One day Rafram’s eye became inflamed. He brought

Rafram

before him

this priest brought the firstborn

before

Rafram, assuming that since Rafram’s eye was inflamed, he would not realize that this was the firstborn he had given him.

The priest said

to Rafram:

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

He forced open his eye,

Rafram opened his eye by force.

He recognized his lie

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

He said to him

Rafram:

“Was I not the one who gave it to you?”

And it had been whole, without a blemish.

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

as grounds for saying that a priest should not be believed.

And the reason is:

This

priest

is simply brazen.

He both caused a blemish in it and showed it to the person who had given it to him. But

everyone else is not brazen

and is therefore believed to say that it was given to him with its blemish.

There was a certain

firstborn that was

disproportionate,

one of whose eyes was large and the other small,

which came before Rav Ashi,

and he did not know whether the person bringing it was a priest or an Israelite.

Rav Ashi said:

Rav Ashi:

“Why should we suspect him?

After all, whether

he is a priest

or

he is an Israelite, this is a firstborn whose blemish is with it;

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

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

belonging to

an Israelite

as long as he has not yet given it away,

unless

a

priest comes with him,

because perhaps, when he is told that it is blemished, the Israelite will disregard the priest’s ownership and eat it. If so, why did you say that since this blemish was born with it, we do not care whether this man is a priest or an Israelite?

He said to him: Is that so!?

There,

in the case of blemishes that are not unmistakable,

although he will not eat consecrated animals outside

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

the priest’s property

he is indeed

suspected

of stealing, because it involves only a prohibition of the Torah. Therefore Rav Yehuda said that he must show it together with a priest.

But

here,

in the case of this firstborn that was “disproportionate,”

since

he

knew

that this man

that this is an unmistakable blemish,

and

why did he bring it before the Sages?

Necessarily, he brought it to show it

out of respect for the Sage.

And if so, we must say: Now,

if he did not violate

a prohibition for the sake of the Sage’s honor, would he commit a prohibition?

Therefore, I did not suspect him, and there is no need to show the blemish together with a priest.

Mishna:

Everyone is believed concerning the blemishes of animal tithe

animals.

Gemara:

What is the reason

that they are believed?

And we explain:

For if he wished,

this man

could have caused a blemish in it

while it was still subject to animal tithe

from the outset.

And we challenge this: But

did he know which one would emerge

as the tenth, so that he could cause a blemish in it?

And if you would say:

He could cause a blemish in it and

bring it out first among the ten,

so that it would be the tenth—

That cannot be said, because

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

and it is forbidden for him to arrange for a blemished animal to be the tenth.

Rather,

this is what we are saying:

For if he wished, he could have caused a blemish in his entire herd from the outset.

They were not yet consecrated, and he could cause blemishes in them; afterward he could tithe them.

Mishna:

A firstborn whose eye was blinded, whose

front

leg was severed, or whose

hind leg was broken. All these are unmistakable blemishes—

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

who are not Sages.

Rabbi Yosei says: Even if there are

a Sanhedrin of

twenty-three

and none of them has 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 Yehuda Nesia, both

said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. And some say: Rabbi Simlai and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, both said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: The permitting of a firstborn outside Eretz Yisrael,

which is unfit to be offered even when the Temple stands,

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

Rava said: And this is with regard to unmistakable blemishes,

such as a severed leg.

And we challenge this:

What does this teach us?

But

we already learned: A firstborn whose eye was blinded, whose hand was severed, or whose leg was broken—it may be slaughtered on the basis of [the ruling of] three members of the synagogue [

and the Mishna is speaking of outside Eretz Yisrael and in the present time].

And we answer:

If it were only from the Mishna, I would say that outside Eretz Yisrael even blemishes that are not unmistakable

may also be shown to members of the synagogue.

And the fact that it teaches [the case of] unmistakable blemishes is to inform you of the force of Rabbi Yosei’s position,

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

It teaches us

that even outside Eretz Yisrael it may be slaughtered only in the case of unmistakable blemishes.

Rav Yehuda said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said, either in the name of Rav or in the name of Shmuel: Three

laymen

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

And we challenge this:

What does this teach us?

But

we already learned: It may be slaughtered on the basis of [the ruling of] three members of the synagogue.

And we answer:

If it were only from the Mishna, I would say [that this applies] even in a place

where there is

an expert. It teaches us

Rav Yehuda’s ruling 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 may permit

a firstborn in a place where there is no expert. Three may permit a vow in a place where there is no Sage.