Bekhorot

for the shepherd might indeed say: ‘My employer will not pass over a priest who is a rabbinic student, to give it to me’.1 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,2 BUT HE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY AS REGARDS HIS OWN. And R. Meir comes and adds: HE WHO IS SUSPECTED OF DISREGARDING A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS MATTER3 MUST NOT PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT ON IT NOR GIVE HIS TESTIMONY CONCERNING IT.4 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 independent5 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.6 Rabbi says: Even the evidence of ten people is not accepted if they are members of his household.7 According to which authority will be the ruling which R. Hisda reported in the name of R. Kattina, [who said]: An uncertain firstling8 born in the possession of an Israelite requires two independent persons to give evidence?9 [You ask] according to which authority? — It is, of course, according to that of R. Joshua the son of Kapusai.10 R. Nahman says: The owners are permitted to give evidence [in respect to an uncertain firstling].11 For if you will not say so, [but that an Israelite is suspected], how according to the view of R. Meir12 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?13 Rather question [as follows]: In a case of an uncertain firstling.14 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.15 the Israelite is exempt from the priests’ gifts. whereas R. Meir declares him liable?16 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.17 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?18 — Read: All its owners19 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.20 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 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. themselves. to another but not his own, and his father's is also not his own. 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. remains in the possession of the Israelite as a doubtful firstling which is left to pasture until it is blemished and is then eaten. similarly two independent persons are required to give evidence with reference to a doubtful firstling in the possession of an Israelite. reference to others, as according to R. Meir, even independent priests are not trustworthy (Rashi). not maim the animal? certainly priests who possess an uncertain firstling in their herd would be suspected. hullin. that only the priestly owner of a firstling is suspected and not the other members of the household. with reference to the blemish. 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.