בכורות 35 — Soncino English Talmud

¹If a man made unclean food levitically prepared and died, his son is not punished after him. What is the reason? A damage not discernible [in the object itself] is not regarded as a tangible damage. It is therefore only a rabbinical penalty. Thus the Rabbis imposed a penalty upon the man himself, whereas the Rabbis did not impose a penalty upon his son. MISHNAH. IT HAPPENED THAT A QUAESTOR SAW AN OLD MALE LAMB WITH ITS LONG WOOL HANGING DOWN AND ASKED: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS? — THEY REPLIED: ‘IT IS A FIRSTLING AND IS NOT TO BE SLAUGHTERED UNTIL IT HAS A BLEMISH’. [THE ROMAN] TOOK A DAGGER AND SLIT ITS EAR. THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THE SAGES AND THEY PERMITTED IT. AFTER THEY HAD PERMITTED, HE WENT AND CUT INTO THE EARS OF OTHER [FIRSTLINGS]. THE SAGES THEREUPON FORBADE THEM. CHILDREN WERE ONCE PLAYING IN A FIELD. THEY TIED THE TAILS OF SHEEP ONE TO THE OTHER AND ONE TAIL WHICH BELONGED TO A FIRSTLING WAS SEVERED. THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THE RABBIS AND THEY PERMITTED [THE FIRSTLING]. WHEN THE CHILDREN SAW THAT THEY HAD PERMITTED, THEY PROCEEDED TO TIE THE TAILS OF OTHER FIRSTLINGS. THE SAGES THEREUPON FORBADE [THE OTHER FIRSTLINGS]. THIS IS THE RULE: WHEREVER THE BLEMISH IS CAUSED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT [OF THE OWNER]. IT IS FORBIDDEN, BUT, IF IT IS NOT WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT, IT IS PERMITTED. GEMARA. CHILDREN WERE ONCE PLAYING etc. It is necessary [to state both these cases in the Mishnah]. For if it had informed us only of the case of the heathen, I might have thought that the reason was because there can be no fear [if we permit] that he will acquire the habit [of making blemishes], but in the case of a minor, where he might acquire the habit [of making blemishes], I might have said that it was forbidden. And if it had informed us only of the case of a minor, I might have thought that the reason was because one would not mistake [the case of a minor] for an adult, but in the case of the quaestor, where one might mistake this for the case of any adult, I might have said that it was forbidden. There is need [therefore for the Mishnah to state both cases]. R. Hisda reported in the name of Kattina: This was taught only when they replied to him [in the words]: ‘Until it has a blemish’, but if they reply to him in the words: ‘Until it was made blemished’, it is as if they had told him: ‘Go, make a blemish’. Said Raba: Now does not the permission come automatically? What difference then is it whether they replied to him in the words: ‘Until it has a blemish’ or ‘Until it was made blemished’? Even if they replied to him in the words ‘Until it was made blemished’ the permission comes automatically and thus there is no difference. THIS IS THE RULE: WHEREVER THE BLEMISH IS CAUSED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT [OF THE OWNER]. IT IS FORBIDDEN. What does this include? — It includes the case where the blemish was caused indirectly. BUT IF IT IS NOT WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE. This includes the case where they casually mentioned the fact. MISHNAH. IF A FIRSTLING WAS RUNNING AFTER HIM AND HE KICKED IT AND THEREBY BLEMISHED IT. HE MAY SLAUGHTER IT ON ACCOUNT OF THIS. GEMARA. Said R. Papa: This was taught only when he kicked it while it was running, but if he kicked it after it had stopped running, it is not so. But is not this obvious? — I might have assumed that the reason why he kicked it was because he recalled his distress. He therefore teaches us [that this was not the reason]. Some there are who say: R. Papa said, Do not say that this applies only while it was running, but not after it had stopped running; for even after it had stopped running [the same law applies], for the reason that he recalled his distress. Said Rab Judah: It is permitted to cause a blemish to a firstling before it is born. Said Raba: [E.g.], a kid in its ears and a lamb in its lips. Some there are who say: A lamb even in its ears; for one can say that the animal came forth [from the womb] with its temples first. Said R. Papa: If when the animal eats, [the defect] is not visible, but when it bleats the defect is visible, it is considered a blemish. What does he wish to teach us? We have already learnt this [in a Mishnah]: If the incisors were broken off or levelled [with the gum] or if the molars were torn out [completely], it is considered a blemish. Now, what is the reason in the latter case? Is it not because when the animal bleats [the defect is visible? — Said Raba: R. Papa also merely explains the Mishnah [as follows]: Why is it that if they were torn out they are considered a blemish? Because when the animal beats, the defect is visible. MISHNAH. IN RESPECT OF ALL BLEMISHES WHICH MIGHT COME THROUGH THE AGENCY OF A MAN, LAY ISRAELITE SHEPHERDS ARE TRUSTWORTHY WHEREAS PRIESTS SHEPHERDS ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: HE IS TRUSTWORTHY AS REGARDS SOMEBODY ELSE'S FIRSTLING, BUT HE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY AS REGARDS HIS OWN. R. MEIR SAYS: ONE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF NEGLECTING ANY RELIGIOUS MATTER MUST NOT PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT ON IT NOR GIVE EVIDENCE CONCERNING IT. GEMARA. R. Johanan and R. Eleazar [differ as to the interpretation of the Mishnah]. One explains it [as follows]: The expression ‘LAY ISRAELITE SHEPHERDS’ means [lay Israelites] in the employ of priests are trustworthy, for we do not apprehend that their testimony may be influenced by their bread and butter. The expression ‘PRIESTS’ SHEPHERDS means: [shepherds who are priests] in the employ of Israelites are not trustworthy, since the shepherd might Say. ‘Since I work for him, he will not pass over me and give it to another’. And the same ruling [of the testimony being untrustworthy] applies to [a shepherd who was] a priest with reference to [the firstling of] another priest ‘for we suspect them of favouring each other. And thereupon R. Simeon comes and says: HE IS TRUSTWORTHY AS REGARDS SOMEBODY ELSE'S FIRSTLING, BUT HE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY AS REGARDS HIS OWN. And R. Meir then adds: HE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF DISREGARDING ANY RELIGIOUS MATTER MUST NOT PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT ON IT NOR GIVE EVIDENCE CONCERNING IT. But the other [teacher] explains it [as follows]: The expression ISRAELITE SHEPHERDS means: [Shepherds of Israelite sheep] even if priests, are trustworthy.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ᵃnote:By being condemned to make compensation, although the man himself is compelled to do so.
^ᵇnote:For the food lies before him and no visible damage is perceived.
^ᶜnote:On this whole passage v. Git. 44a-b.
^ᵈnote:Having never been shorn, because it was a firstling.
^ᵉnote:That the animal was allowed to grow so old?
^ᶠnote:For one cannot say that the heathen planned to make it permissible.
^ᵍnote:I.e., where the owner gave instructions.
^ʰnote:Therefore, in the cases of the quaestor and the children, the animals were permitted. When, however, other firstlings had their ears slit, the Sages forbade them, because the owners did not prevent this, and therefore it is as if this were done with their knowledge.
^ⁱnote:Of the quaestor and of the children.
^ʲnote:Since he is a heathen, and in any case he is in the habit of doing forbidden things.
^ᵏnote:Therefore if you permit the case of the first animal when he makes a blemish, he may go on repeating this.
^ˡnote:For it will not be said that because a blemish brought about by a minor is allowed, therefore the same ruling applies to an adult.
^ᵐnote:For an observer might mistake this gentile who causes the blemish for an Israelite, and might say that as it is permitted in one case it is permitted in all adult cases.
^ⁿnote:That the firstling is permitted through the heathen's action.
^ᵒnote:Implying that a blemish appeared automatically on the animal, for we cannot then say that the heathen will infer from their words that firstlings are rendered permitted when blemished by human action.
^ᵖnote:Implying, blemished by a man.
^ᵠnote:The heathen, not being aware that the animal is permitted on account of his action, did not intend to make it permitted.
^ʳnote:E.g., where he placed dough or pressed dates on its ear and a dog came and took it.
^ˢnote:Where the quaestor did not ask them anything, but they on their own accord innocently pointed out to him that the old firstling was not permitted unless it was blemished.
^ᵗnote:For he simply intended to save himself, and even in the case of a priest it is allowed
^ᵘnote:That the animal is permitted.
^ᵛnote:How the animal ran after him but his intention was not to cause a blemish.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘came-forth into the lighted space of the world’. The reason is because a first-born is only hallowed after leaving the womb.
^ˣnote:Its ears being long, they emerge before the whole head leaves the womb, and therefore it is allowed to blemish them.
^ʸnote:Its lips appearing before its head, whereas the ears being small do not appear until after the head has come forth, when, of course, the animal becomes sanctified.
^ᶻnote:The ears also coming forth before the other limbs.
^ᵃᵃnote:Sh. Mek. cur. edd. Raba.
^ᵃᵇnote:The cut in the lips. Firstlings may only he slaughtered on account of open blemishes or defects.
^ᵃᶜnote:But if they were merely broken or levelled, this is not considered a blemish.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. infra 39b.
^ᵃᵉnote:So Sh. Mek. cur. edd. R. Papa said: Raba also.
^ᵃᶠnote:That a man is capable of doing. e.g., blinding the eyes, slitting the ear, or breaking a leg.
^ᵃᵍnote:To declare that the blemished came of themselves.
^ᵃʰnote:For they are suspected of deliberately bringing about a blemish.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., by their dependence on their employers. tndk ; means lit., ‘quaffing’, and in general eating and drinking. Aliter: by the share they would have in the firstling when slaughtered.
^ᵃʲnote:And therefore we suspect them like the priest owners of causing a blemish.
^ᵃᵏnote:Thinking that by giving favourable evidence for his firstling now, he will on some future occasion be repaid when having obtained an unblemished firstling from an Israelite, he will make it blemished and this priest will testify that the blemish appeared of itself on the animal.
^ᵃˡnote:Whether his master's or belonging to another.
^ᵃᵐnote:Where an Israelite had already given him a firstling.

²for the shepherd might indeed say: ‘My employer will not pass over a priest who is a rabbinic student, to give it to me’. The expression PRIESTS’ ANIMALS means, [animals of priests], and even if the shepherds are Israelites, they are not trustworthy, for we fear lest their testimony may be influenced by their bread and butter. And how much more so is this the case with a [shepherd] priest working for [an employer] priest, that the former's testimony is untrustworthy, for we suspect them of favouring each other as well as being apprehensive of their bread and butter. Thereupon R. SIMEON SAYS: HE IS TRUSTWORTHY AS REGARDS SOMEBODY ELSE'S FIRSTLING, BUT HE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY AS REGARDS HIS OWN. And R. Meir comes and adds: HE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF DISREGARDING A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS MATTER MUST NOT PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT ON IT NOR GIVE HIS TESTIMONY CONCERNING IT. Now there is no difficulty according to him who says that the expression ‘ISRAELITE SHEPHERDS’ means shepherds of [Israelite animals] and, even if priests, they are trustworthy, it is for this reason that R. Meir thereupon says: HE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF IGNORING A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS MATTER MUST NOT PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT ON IT NOR GIVE EVIDENCE CONCERNING IT. But according to him who holds that the expression ‘PRIESTS’ SHEPHERDS’ means [that shepherds who are priests] in the employ of Israelites are not trustworthy, what does R. Meir teach us [here]? Is not his view identical with that of the first Tanna quoted above? — The difference between them is the ruling of R. Joshua the son of Kapusai. For it has been taught: R. Joshua the son of Kapusai says: Two independent witnesses are required to testify as regards a firstling in the possession of the priest. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Even his son or his daughter may give evidence. Rabbi says: Even the evidence of ten people is not accepted if they are members of his household. According to which authority will be the ruling which R. Hisda reported in the name of R. Kattina, [who said]: An uncertain firstling born in the possession of an Israelite requires two independent persons to give evidence? [You ask] according to which authority? — It is, of course, according to that of R. Joshua the son of Kapusai. R. Nahman says: The owners are permitted to give evidence [in respect to an uncertain firstling]. For if you will not say so, [but that an Israelite is suspected], how according to the view of R. Meir can he give evidence with reference to [the blemish of] a tithing animal? But surely with regard to a tithing animal [even the owner] is trustworthy, since if he wished he could have maimed the entire herd before tithing? Rather question [as follows]: In a case of an uncertain firstling. who can testify according to the view of R. Meir? And if you will say ‘indeed it is so that there is no remedy [in these circumstances], have we not learnt: For R. Jose used to say: Wherever there is another [animal] in its stead in the hands of the priest. the Israelite is exempt from the priests’ gifts. whereas R. Meir declares him liable? Hence, therefore, we can deduce that the owners are permitted to give evidence [with reference to a doubtful firstling], priests alone being suspected as regards blemishes, whereas Israelites are not suspected as regards blemishes. It has been stated: R. Nahman says: The halachah is like R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Raba says. however: The halachah is like Rabbi. But did Raba [actually] state this? Did not Raba say: If the owner [of a firstling] was with us outside the house, and the animal entered whole and emerged injured, they can testify concerning it? — Read: All its owners were with us we have no apprehension. If this be the case, what need is there to state it? — You might be under the impression that we entertain a suspicion. He therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. And the law is in agreement with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel; and only in the case of his son and his daughter is the testimony believed, but not in the case of his wife. What is the reason? — His wife is considered like himself. Said R. Papa to Abaye: According to the view of R. Meir who holds that one who is suspected of disregarding a religious matter must not pronounce judgment on it nor give evidence concerning it, and who also maintains that one who is suspected of disregarding one religious matter is suspected of disregarding the whole Torah, then a priest should not be able to act as a judge: But is it not written: And by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be? 21^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ

^ᵃⁿnote:As a rule, shepherds were ignorant people. We therefore trust him, for why should he lie since he will not benefit?
^ᵃᵒnote:In the case of a priestly shepherd with a master who is also a priest, the shepherd's testimony is believed.
^ᵃᵖnote:As priests are suspected with reference to firstlings of causing them blemishes.
^ᵃᵠnote:Differing with R. Simeon who permits even the testimony of a shepherd priest working for a priestly master, and also differing with the first Tanna above who holds that even a shepherd who is a priest looking after Israelite animals is trustworthy, whereas R. Meir holds that shepherds who are priests are always suspected.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘from the market’. Two persons who have no connection with the priest and who may even be priests themselves.
^ᵃˢnote:R. Simeon's view is in accordance with his ruling above that one is trustworthy with reference to a firstling belonging to another but not his own, and his father's is also not his own.
^ᵃᵗnote:Whereas even one independent person is trustworthy in these matters, or according to R. Joshua, two independent persons. Now the first Tanna mentioned above is in agreement with the view of R. Joshua. for the first Tanna holds that shepherds who are priests, whether with Israelite or priestly employers, are not trustworthy, but independent priests are trustworthy, even as regards firstlings of priests. R. Meir says that even an independent priest is suspected, a view which is opposed to that of R. Joshua. Rabbenu Gershom interprets this as follows: The first Tanna who says that Israelite shepherds even in the employ of priests are trustworthy does not agree with R. Joshua's view, for according to the latter only independent priests are trustworthy. But R. Meir agrees with R. Joshua that we only suspect the priest's testimony where there is dependence on others, but the evidence of two independent priests is accepted.
^ᵃᵘnote:E.g., a ewe which gave birth to two males, the Mishnah (17a) stating that one belongs to the priest and the other remains in the possession of the Israelite as a doubtful firstling which is left to pasture until it is blemished and is then eaten.
^ᵃᵛnote:That the blemish was not caused intentionally.
^ᵃʷnote:For just as he holds that two independent persons are necessary to give evidence where the master is a priest, similarly two independent persons are required to give evidence with reference to a doubtful firstling in the possession of an Israelite.
^ᵃˣnote:For only priests are suspected but not Israelites.
^ᵃʸnote:For R. Meir maintains that in a matter which one is suspected of disregarding, one is not believed even with reference to others, as according to R. Meir, even independent priests are not trustworthy (Rashi).
^ᵃᶻnote:And this could have been done legitimately, as the animals were hullin. Therefore, why not believe him that he did not maim the animal?
^ᵇᵃnote:If the owners are suspected, then Israelite owners are suspected in the case of a firstling of causing a blemish, and certainly priests who possess an uncertain firstling in their herd would be suspected.
^ᵇᵇnote:V. supra 18b for notes.
^ᵇᶜnote:We therefore see that according to R. Meir a doubtful firstling after becoming blemished is regarded as positive hullin.
^ᵇᵈnote:That even his son and daughter are trustworthy.
^ᵇᵉnote:That the blemish came of itself. This is assumed to refer to the other members of the household. We see, therefore, that only the priestly owner of a firstling is suspected and not the other members of the household.
^ᵇᶠnote:Who have any connection with the animal, i.e., all the members of the household; and the shepherd within testifies with reference to the blemish.
^ᵇᵍnote:That the shepherd himself caused the blemish, or that, after all, a member of the household remained within the house (Tosaf.). Another interpretation is: If witnesses testify that all the members of the household were outside when the ani mal emerged maimed, then their evidence is considered trustworthy and we do not suspect that the members of the household had been instrumental before leaving in bringing about the blemish by e.g., opening a pit or putting pressed dates on its ear so that a dog came and caused a blemish.
^ᵇʰnote:Deut. XXI, 5.