בכורות 28:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:Which can only be eaten for one day and a night. Therefore the school of Rabbi infers this from the text ‘Thou shalt eat it’ etc.
^ᵇnote:Which shows that it is to be eaten for two days and a night, unlike some sacrifices,
^ᶜnote:Therefore the school of Rabbi cannot derive the period of eating for a firstling from ‘Shall be thine’, as Rab maintains.
^ᵈnote:Tosaf. however explains that this means that we do not find elsewhere that the priest should benefit from a sacrifice which became blemished, as is the case with regard to a firstling.
^ᵉnote:Rab who deduces the period of two days and a night from ‘Shall be thine’ whence does he infer that a blemished firstling may be eaten?
^ᶠnote:The text ‘And the flesh of them’ only refers to unblemished firstlings, and the plural ‘them’ alludes to the Israelites.
^ᵍnote:When an unblemished firstling is not fit for anything.
^ʰnote:I.e., before a blemish appears on it so that he can show it to a Sage in order to decide whether it is a transitory or permanent blemish. Tosaf. explains the expression as meaning where a Sage is not at hand, for the Israelite is not compelled to go to distant parts to have the blemish examined.
^ⁱnote:Now it is assumed that the Baraitha deals here with a case where the blemish appeared in its first year.
^ʲnote:I.e., the priest, for if the firstling must not be kept for any period in the possession of the Israelite, he may not find a priest to whom to give it, and if he kills it, it will become putrid, thus making a loss for the priest. Therefore the Israelite must keep it for thirty days, after which period he is allowed to kill and salt it keeping it until he finds a priest. The comment of Tosaf., however, is that we are dealing where the firstling is in the possession of the priest, giving the latter a period of thirty days to hold it, in case he had no need for the flesh at the moment. But the Israelite must always wait until he finds a priest to receive the firstling.
^ᵏnote:We consequently see that the thirty days of the Mishnah refers to a blemish in its first year.
^ˡnote:I.e., that the blemish appeared after its first year.
^ᵐnote:The blemish appeared before the first year ended, and he keeps it for thirty days after its first year. The words ‘whereas after its first year’ can bear either interpretation.
^ⁿnote:We give the animal thirty days from the time when a blemish appears on it, and if a blemish appeared after the year or a little while before the expiration of the year, we give it thirty days from the time of the blemish for the Israelite to keep it. And we also infer that if the blemish appeared a month or three months in its first year, the Israelite waits until the end of its year.
^ᵒnote:That the thirty days of the Mishnah refers to where a blemish appears after its year, for if the blemish appeared in its first year even a day before its expiration, we do not give the animal thirty full days but only complete the period of thirty days.
^ᵖnote:Deut. XV, 20. Which implies that it is not eaten in the year of its blemish.
^ᵠnote:After its killing, and the expert discovered that it was a permanent blemish.
^ʳnote:Since the animal was after all seen by an expert.
^ˢnote:We punish him because he did not show it to an expert before its killing:
^ᵗnote:If he showed it after its killing.
^ᵘnote:Owing to its death agony the eye is liable to change and therefore although at the moment the blemish seems to be a permanent one, it is possible that if he had examined it when the animal was still alive, the blemish might have been found to be a transitory one.
^ᵛnote:E.g., a slit in the ear.
^ʷnote:I.e., withered spots in the eye, we penalize the Israelite even in cases of bodily blemishes.