Parallel
בכורות 28
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And [what says] the other [to this]? — From that text one could say that it refers to the wave-breast and the right thigh of a thanksgiving offering. And the other? — Scripture says: ‘Shall be thine’ thus adding another ‘being’ in connection with the first-born. And the other? — If we go by that text, we could say that it teaches concerning a blemished firstling that he gives it to the priest, as we do not find this stated [explicitly] in the whole of the Torah. And the other? — It says: ‘And the flesh of them’, intimating that an unblemished as well as a blemished firstling [may be eaten]. And the other? — The text: ‘And the flesh of them’ refers to the firstlings of all the Israelites. IF A BLEMISH APPEARED ON IT DURING ITS FIRST YEAR, HE IS PERMITTED TO KEEP IT ALL THE TWELVE MONTHS. The query was put forward. What does [the Mishnah exactly] mean? Does it mean that if a blemish appeared on it during its first year, he is allowed to keep it all the twelve months and thirty days besides? Or does [the Mishnah] mean that where a blemish appeared on it during its first year, he is allowed to keep it all the twelve months but no longer, and where a blemish appeared on it after its first year, he is not allowed to keep it except for thirty days? — Come and hear: It was taught: A firstling in our days, so long as it is not fit to show to a Sage, is allowed to be kept for two or three years. And when it is fit to show to a Sage, if a blemish appeared on it during its first year, he is allowed to keep it all the twelve months, whereas after its first year, he is not allowed to keep it even one day nor even one hour. On the ground, however, of restoring a lost object to the owners, [the Rabbis] said that he is allowed to keep it for thirty days! But I can still however raise the question [concerning the Baraitha itself]: Does it mean thirty days after its first year or before its first year? — Come and hear: If a blemish appeared on it fifteen days during its first year, we complete for it fifteen days after its first year. This proves it. This supports the views of R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: We give it thirty days from the time when the blemish appeared on it. Some there are who read: R. Eleazar said: Whence do we know that if a blemish appeared on a firstling in its first year we give it thirty days after its year? It is said: Thou shalt eat it before the Lord thy God year by year. Now, what is the number of days which is reckoned [by all authorities] as a year? You must admit that it is thirty days. An objection was raised: [It is taught]: If a blemish appeared on it fifteen days in its first year, we complete for it fifteen days after its year. We deduce from here that we complete thirty days, but we do not give it [thirty full days after its first year]. This is a refutation of R. Eleazar! It is indeed a refutation. MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED THE FIRSTLING AND SHOWED ITS BLEMISH [TO AN EXPERT], R. JUDAH PERMITS, WHEREAS R. MEIR SAYS: SINCE IT WAS NOT SLAUGHTERED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE EXPERT, IT IS FORBIDDEN. IF ONE WHO IS NOT AN EXPERT SEES THE FIRSTLING AND IT WAS SLAUGHTERED BY HIS INSTRUCTIONS, IN SUCH A CASE IT SHALL BE BURIED AND HE SHALL MAKE REPARATION OUT OF HIS OWN ESTATE. GEMARA. Said Rabba b. Bar Hana: In the case of a blemish of withered spots in the eye, all agree that it is forbidden, for they change. They only differ regarding blemishes of the body. R. Meir maintaining that we prohibit blemishes of the body on account of withered spots in the eye, whereas R. Judah maintains that we do not prohibit blemishes of the body on account of withered spots in the eye. It has also been taught to the same effect: If one slaughtered a firstling and showed [an expert] its blemish [after its slaughter], R. Judah says: If there are withered spots in the eye, it is forbidden, since they change, whereas if there are bodily blemishes, it is permitted because they do not change. But R. Meir says: Both in the one case as in the other it is forbidden, because they change. [You say] ‘Because they change’ — you cannot mean that? Do bodily blemishes change? — Rather what R. Meir means is on account of those [blemishes] that change. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac:
—
I can prove it from our Mishnah. R. MEIR SAYS: SINCE IT WAS NOT SLAUGHTERED ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF AN EXPERT IT IS FORBIDDEN. Deduce from here that R. Meir does indeed penalize him. This stands proved. The question was raised: Does [the statement above] ‘on account of those blemishes that change’, imply that all [the withered spots in the eye] change, or that some change and others do not change? What is the practical difference? — Whether we should declare the witnesses false or not. If you say that in all cases withered spots in the eye change, then they are false. But if you say that there are some that change and other do not, we rely on them. What is the ruling? — Come and hear. For Rabbah b. Bar Hana reported in the name of R. Johanan: R. Josiah of Usha told me: ‘Come and I will show you withered spots in the eye that change’. Now, since he said to him ‘Come and I will show you’, this implies that there are some that change and others which do not change. IF ONE WHO WAS NOT AN EXPERT SEES THE FIRSTLING AND IT WAS SLAUGHTERED BY HIS INSTRUCTIONS, IN SUCH A CASE IT SHALL BE BURIED. May we say that the Mishnah states anonymously that the ruling is in accordance with R. Meir? — Perhaps it refers to a case of withered spots in the eye, and thus it will be according to the view of all the authorities concerned. AND HE SHALL MAKE REPARATION OUT OF HIS OWN ESTATE. A Tanna taught: When he pays [the priest], he pays a quarter [of the loss] for [a firstling of] small cattle and a half for [a firstling of] large cattle. What is the reason [for this disparity in reparation]? In one case the loss is great, whereas in the other it is small. If this be a fact, let him pay [the priest] in proportion to the loss? — R. Huna b. Manoah reported in the name of R. Aha b. Ika: They inflicted on him only [a quarter of the loss] because of the trouble of raising small cattle. MISHNAH. IF A JUDGE IN GIVING JUDGMENT HAS DECLARED INNOCENT A PERSON WHO WAS REALLY LIABLE OR MADE LIABLE A PERSON WHO WAS REALLY INNOCENT, DECLARED DEFILED A THING WHICH WAS LEVITICALLY CLEAN OR DECLARED CLEAN A THING WHICH WAS REALLY DEFILED, HIS DECISION STANDS BUT HE HAS TO MAKE REPARATION OUT OF HIS OWN ESTATE. IF, HOWEVER, THE JUDGE WAS AN EXPERT FOR THE BETH DIN, HE IS ABSOLVED FROM MAKING REPARATION. GEMARA. May we say, the anonymous statement of the Mishnah is in accordance with R. Meir who is prepared to adjudicate liability for damage done indirectly? — R. Ela reported in the name of Rab: [We suppose that] he personally executed the judgment by his own hand. Now, this is quite intelligible where the judge made liable a person really innocent, [the explanation being] e.g., where he personally executed the judgment by his own hand; but where he declared innocent the person who was really liable, how are we to understand it? For if you say it means where he said to him: ‘You are innocent’, he does not personally execute the judgment by his own hand! — Said Rabina: The case deals here where e.g. [the creditor] had a pledge and [the judge] took it from him. The case also where he declared defiled a thing which was really clean, [can be explained], where he touched clean things with a [dead] reptile; and the case where he declared clean a thing which was really defiled, [can be explained] where he mixed them with his fruits. MISHNAH. IT HAPPENED ONCE THAT A COW'S WOMB WAS TAKEN AWAY AND R. TARFON GAVE IT TO THE DOGS TO EAT. THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SAGES AT JABNEH AND THEY PERMITTED THE ANIMAL [FOR] THEODOS THE PHYSICIAN HAD SAID: NO COW NOR SOW LEAVES ALEXANDRIA OF EGYPT BEFORE ITS WOMB IS CUT OUT IN ORDER THAT IT MAY NOT BREED. SAID R. TARFON: ‘YOUR ASS IS GONE, TARFON’. SAID R. AKIBA TO HIM: YOU ARE ABSOLVED, FOR YOU ARE AN EXPERT AND WHOEVER IS AN EXPERT FOR THE BETH DIN IS ABSOLVED FROM REPARATION. GEMARA. And why does not [R. Akiba] infer this from the fact that he had erred in a matter where the Mishnah is explicit, and one who errs in a matter where the Mishnah is explicit can reconsider his decision? — He gave him one reason and then another: One reason for absolving is because you gave a wrong decision against an explicit law in the Mishnah. And another is that even if your mistake was made against the common practice, you are an expert for the Beth din, and whoever is an expert for the Beth din is absolved from reparation. MISHNAH. IF ONE TAKES PAYMENT FOR SEEING THE FIRSTLINGS, THEY MUST NOT BE SLAUGHTERED BY HIS INSTRUCTIONS, UNLESS HE WAS AN EXPERT
—