Bekhorot

R. Meir1 meant that we have fear,2 but did he actually presume [that he is to be suspected]? 3 The following query was put: Is the testimony of a witness reporting another witness considered as evidence in connection with a firstling4 — R. Ammi forbids, whereas R. Assi permits. Said R. Assi to R. Ammi: Did not the Tanna of the school of Manasseh teach: Only in connection with a woman5 is the evidence of a witness reporting an eye-witness valid? — Explain this [as follows]: It is valid only in respect of testimony which a woman is allowed to give.6 R. Yemar permitted the evidence of a witness reporting an eye-witness to be valid in connection with a firstling. Meremar designated to him the expression. ‘Yemar, the one who permits firstlings’.7 And the law is that the evidence of a witness reporting an eye-witness in connection with a firstling is valid. Said R. Elai: If an animal was not thought to be a firstling and its owner [a priest] came and declared that it was a firstling with a blemish on it, he is believed. What does he teach us? ‘The mouth that bound is the mouth that loosens’.8 But have we not learnt this: A woman who said, ‘I was a married woman,9 but now I am divorced’ is believed,10 for ‘the mouth which bound is the mouth which loosens’?11 — You might be under the impression that there12 she is believed because if she wished she need not have said anything;13 but here,14 since it is impossible that he should not inform [the expert]15 — for [the priest] would not eat consecrated [unblemished] animals without the Temple walls16 — I might not have applied [the principle] ‘the mouth which bound is the mouth which loosens’. He therefore informs us [that he is believed]. For, if this were really so,17 he would have inflicted on it a recognizable blemish18 and have eaten it then. Mar b. Rab Ashi demurred to this ruling. Why should this be different from the following case? Once, someone hired out an ass to a person and he said to him: ‘Do not go the way of Nehar Pekod, where there is water; go the way of Naresh where there is no water’. But he went the way of Nehar Pekod and the ass died. He then came before Raba and said to him: ‘Indeed I went the way of Nehar Pekod, but there was no water [and still the ass died]. Said Raba: Why should he lie? If he wished he could say ‘I went the way of Naresh’.19 And Abaye explained: We do not apply the principle ‘why should he lie’ where there are witnesses!20 — But is the analogy correct? There [we are witnesses that] there certainly was water [on the way of Nehar pekod], but here, [in connection with the firstling], is it certain that he caused the blemish? It is only a fear,21 and where there is only a question of a fear we do say ‘why should he lie’. Rabina sat [lecturing] and reported this tradition22 without mentioning the authority. Said Raba junior to Rabina: We learnt this in the name of R. Ela. R. Zadok had a firstling. He set down barley for it in wicker baskets of peeled willow twigs. As it was eating, its lip was slit. He23 came before R. Joshua.24 He25 said to him: ‘Have we made any difference between [a priest] who is a haber and [a priest] who is an ‘am ha-arez’? R. Joshua replied ‘Yes’.26 He thereupon came before Rabban Gamaliel. He said to him. ‘Have we made any difference between [a priest] who is a haber and a priest who is an ‘am ha-arez’? Rabban Gamaliel replied ‘No’ .27 R. Zadok said to him: ‘But R. Joshua told me "Yes"’! He said: ‘Wait until the great debaters28 enter the Beth Hamidrash’. When they entered the Beth Hamidrash, the questioner29 arose and asked: ‘Have we made any difference between [a priest] who is a haber and one who is an ‘am ha-arez’? R. Joshua replied ‘No’.30 Thereupon Rabban Gamaliel said: ‘Was not the answer "Yes" reported to me in your name? Joshua, stand on your feet31 and let them testify against you’.32 R. Joshua stood up on his feet and said: ‘How shall I act? If indeed I were alive and he were dead, the living can contradict the dead. But since both he and I are alive, how can the living contradict the living’?33 And Rabban Gamaliel was sitting and discoursing while R. Joshua stood on his feet, until all the people murmured34 and said to Huzspith the interpreter.35 ‘Silence’.36 And he was silent. MISHNAH. A PRIEST'S WORD IS TAKEN IF HE SAYS ‘I HAVE SHOWN THIS FIRSTLING37 AND IT IS BLEMISHED’.38 GEMARA. Rab Judah said that Rab said: A priest's word is taken if he says [to an expert]. ‘an Israelite gave me this firstling with a blemish on it’.39 What is the reason? ‘People are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out’.40 Said Raba: We have also learnt this: A PRIEST'S WORD IS TAKEN IF HE SAYS ‘I HAVE SHOWN THIS FIRSTLING AND IT IS BLEMISHED’. Now, what is the reason? Is it not because we say ‘people are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out’!41 — [No].42 There, where it is a case of consecrated animals without [the Temple precincts], he will not eat43 but here, since priests are suspected, 44 they are suspected.45 R. Shizbi raised an objection: He who says to one who is not trustworthy with reference to tithing.46 ‘Purchase on my behalf produce from one who is trustworthy47 or from one who tithes’, he is not believed.48 Now why [is this so]? Let us adopt the principle that ‘people are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out’? — The case is different there, whole Torah. about deliberately. which he shows to the medical expert. her husband's lifetime without a divorce, she could have remained silent. transitory one. bring the animal before us for the expert to declare that it was a permanent blemish, for no other person knew that he had a firstling. But where we are aware that the animal is a firstling, we do not believe him when he declares that the blemish was not caused by himself on the ground that he need not have come before us at all, for if he had slaughtered the animal without the expert's instructions, as everybody knew that he had a firstling, he would have been suspected of maiming the animal, suspected concerning blemishes, we should not say ‘why should he lie’? ha-arez. said but I am unable to do so now. caused intentionally. and the reason why he is believed is as follows. witnesses, he would not have declared that the firstling was permitted to be slaughtered by him.