Bekhorot — Daf 31a

תנו רבנן וכולן שחזרו בהן אין מקבלין אותן עולמית דברי ר' מאיר רבי יהודה אומר חזרו במטמוניות אין מקבלין אותן בפרהסיא מקבלין אותן

איכא דאמרי אם עשו דבריהן במטמוניות מקבלין אותן בפרהסיא אין מקבלין אותן

ר"ש ור' יהושע בן קרחה אומרים בין כך ובין כך מקבלין אותן משום שנאמר (ירמיהו ג, יד) שובו בנים שובבים א"ר יצחק איש כפר עכו אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כאותו הזוג

ת"ר בראשונה היו אומרים חבר ונעשה גבאי דוחין אותו מחבירתו פירש אין מקבלין אותו חזרו לומר פירש הרי הוא ככל אדם

רב הונא בר חייא איצטריכא ליה שעתא הוה עייל גביה רבה ורב יוסף וארבע מאה זוגא דרבנן שמע דאתו קטיר להו ארבע מאה תכתקי לסוף שמעו דנעשה גבאי שלחו ליה זיל לחשיבותיה זיל לקדמותיה שלח להו הדרי בי רב יוסף לא אזל רבה אזל

רב יוסף אמר תנינא פירש אין מקבלין אותו רבה אמר תנינא חזרו לומר פירש הרי הוא ככל אדם:

תנו רבנן כל הבכורות אדם רואה חוץ משל עצמו ורואה את קדשיו ואת מעשרותיו ונשאל על טהרותיו

אמר מר כל הבכורות אדם רואה חוץ משל עצמו במאי עסקינן אילימא בחד מי מהימן אלא בתלתא ומי חשידי והתנן מיאנה או שחלצה בפניו ישאנה מפני שהוא בית דין

לעולם בחד וכדאמר רב חסדא א"ר יוחנן ביחיד מומחה הכא נמי ביחיד מומחה

ורואה את קדשיו דאי בעי מיתשיל עלייהו

ומעשרותיו דאי בעי שדי ביה מומא בכוליה עדריה

ונשאל על טהרותיו דהא חזא ליה בימי טומאתו:

הדרן עלך עד כמה ישראל חייבין

מתני׳ כל פסולי המוקדשין הנאתן להקדש נמכרין באיטליז ונשחטין באיטליז ונשקלין בליטרא

חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר שהנייתן לבעלים פסולי המוקדשין הנייתן להקדש

ושוקלין מנה כנגד מנה בבכור:

Our Rabbis taught: And all of these1 if they repented must never be received. [These are] the words of R. Meir. R. Judah Says: If they repented only in secrecy, we must not receive them, but if publicly, they may be received. Some there are who say: If what they did2 was in secrecy, they may be received, but if publicly, they must not be received. But R. Simeon and R. Joshua b. Karha say: Both in the first case as in the other, they may be received because of what is said, Turn, O backsliding children.3 R. Isaac of Kefar Acco4 reported in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is in accordance with the view of that pair.5 Our Rabbis taught: At first [the Sages] said: If a haber became a tax-collector he is expelled from the order.6 If he withdrew,7 he is not received [as a haber]. They subsequently declared: If he withdrew, he is regarded like any other person. The scholars required the teaching of R. Huna b. Hiyya.8 Rabbah and R. Joseph went in to him together with four hundred pairs of scholars. When he learnt that they were coming, he wreathed9 four hundred stools for them. Eventually they heard that he had become a tax-collector. Thereupon they sent him a message that he should adhere to his office.10 He went back to his former position,11 and sent back to them: ‘I have withdrawn’.12 R. Joseph did not go, but Rabbah went. R. Joseph said:13 We have learnt: If he withdrew from the office, he must not be received [as a haber]. Rabbah however says: We have learnt: They subsequently decided that if he withdrew, he is regarded like any other person. Our Rabbis taught: A man may examine all firstlings, except his own;14 he may examine his holy sacrifices15 and his animal tithes.16 He also allows himself to be asked with reference to his levitically prepared food.17 The master said: ‘A man may examine all firstlings except his own’. What are the circumstances? Shall I say that only one person [examines]? But is one person believed?18 Then we must suppose that three persons [examine]. But are three persons suspected [on his account]? Have we not learnt: If a woman made a declaration of protest19 or performed halizah20 before him [a scholar], the latter may marry her because he is of the Beth din?21 — I may still say it refers to one person and as R. Hisda reported in the name of R. Johanan elsewhere that it was a case of an individual expert, so also here it is the case of an individual expert [who examined the firstling]. ‘He may examine his holy sacrifices’, [the reason being] because if he wished, he could ask for their release [from a scholar].22 And as regards ‘his [animal] tithes’, [the reason is] because if he wished, he could cast a blemish in the entire herd [of animals].23 ‘He also allows himself to be asked with reference to his levitically prepared food’, [the reason being] because they are fit to eat during the period of his uncleanness. 24 MISHNAH. THE PROFIT ON ALL DEDICATED OBJECTS WHICH BECAME UNFIT [FOR THE ALTAR] GOES TO THE SANCTUARY.25 THEY ARE SOLD IN A MARKET,26 SLAUGHTERED IN A MARKET AND WEIGHED BY THE POUND,27 EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A FIRSTLING OR A TITHING ANIMAL, AS THEIR PROFIT GOES TO THE OWNERS.28 THE PROFIT ON DEDICATED OBJECTS WHICH BECAME UNFIT [FOR THE PURPOSE CONSECRATED] GOES TO THE SANCTUARY. YOU MUST WEIGH ONE PIECE OF MEAT OF THE FIRST-BORN AGAINST ANOTHER PIECE OF ORDINARY MEAT OF ASCERTAINED WEIGHT. a haber except one religious law, a priest who accepts all priestly obligation except one, and similarly a Levite. Tosaf explains that it refers to an earlier clause in the Tosef. with reference to an ‘am ha-arez accepting the obligations of a haber, a heathen who accepts the teachings of the Torah and a priest who accepts the full obligations of the priesthood. Now, if any of these retracted, i.e., returned to their former habits, they are never received again, since they have shown their weakness, whereas R. Judah maintains that if this relapse was in secrecy, they must not be received because they are merely deceiving people and doing it for show, but if their relapse was both privately and publicly, then if they retracted, we accept them again as genuine penitents. beginning, prior to their lapse, that they observed the obligations of a haber even privately, then we receive them when they return. But where we saw them keeping those obligations only in public but not privately, they must not be received back by us, as we suspect them merely of deceiving people. imposing iniquitous burdens on the people; consequently they were considered robbers in Jewish law. ill and it was necessary for them to visit him. visit him. message, viz., that he should adhere ‘to his (new position) before him’. them as hullin. for the purpose of marrying her. therefore do not entertain the suspicion that he would declare the blemish to be a permanent one when it is transitory. This method, however, of releasing the animal from its holiness does not apply to a firstling which is hallowed from birth, and consequently there is room for suspicion here. released them from their holiness in the matter of eating them within the walls of Jerusalem. of unclean food. This of course only refers to hullin, but unclean terumah is not suitable for him to eat even when he is levitically unclean, as it requires to be burnt. private people, it was not permitted to sell the meat and treat it lightly like hullin by selling it in the market etc., in order to gain more profit.