Bekhorot

If a man made unclean food levitically prepared and died, his son is not punished after him.1 What is the reason? A damage not discernible [in the object itself] is not regarded as a tangible damage.2 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.3 MISHNAH. IT HAPPENED THAT A QUAESTOR SAW AN OLD MALE LAMB WITH ITS LONG WOOL HANGING DOWN4 AND ASKED: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS?5 — 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.6 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].7 IT IS FORBIDDEN, BUT, IF IT IS NOT WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT, IT IS PERMITTED.8 GEMARA. CHILDREN WERE ONCE PLAYING etc. It is necessary [to state both these cases9 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],10 but in the case of a minor, where he might acquire the habit [of making blemishes],11 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,12 but in the case of the quaestor, where one might mistake this for the case of any adult,13 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: This14 was taught only when they replied to him [in the words]: ‘Until it has a blemish’,15 but if they reply to him in the words: ‘Until it was made blemished’,16 it is as if they had told him: ‘Go, make a blemish’. Said Raba: Now does not the permission come automatically?17 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.18 BUT IF IT IS NOT WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE. This includes the case where they casually mentioned the fact.19 MISHNAH. IF A FIRSTLING WAS RUNNING AFTER HIM AND HE KICKED IT AND THEREBY BLEMISHED IT. HE MAY SLAUGHTER IT20 ON ACCOUNT OF THIS. GEMARA. Said R. Papa: This21 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.22 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.23 Said Raba: [E.g.], a kid in its ears24 and a lamb in its lips.25 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.26 Said R. Papa:27 If when the animal eats, [the defect] is not visible,28 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],29 it is considered a blemish.30 Now, what is the reason in the latter case? Is it not because when the animal bleats [the defect is visible? — Said Raba: R. Papa31 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,32 LAY ISRAELITE SHEPHERDS ARE TRUSTWORTHY33 WHEREAS PRIESTS SHEPHERDS ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY.34 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.35 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’.36 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.37 And thereupon R. Simeon comes and says: HE IS TRUSTWORTHY AS REGARDS SOMEBODY ELSE'S FIRSTLING,38 BUT HE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY AS REGARDS HIS OWN.39 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. 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. to an adult. permitted in one case it is permitted in all adult cases. from their words that firstlings are rendered permitted when blemished by human action. permitted. old firstling was not permitted unless it was blemished. leaving the womb. them. when, of course, the animal becomes sanctified. Aliter: by the share they would have in the firstling when slaughtered. 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.