Bekhorot

for1 he can excuse himself by some subterfuge, [saying, ‘As far as I am concerned, his word is taken’].2 The second clause however [of the Mishnah just cited] certainly supports [Rab Judah's view], for it says: From that man,3 then he is believed!4 — There [again] since there is an inquirer, he is afraid.5 Said R. Jeremiah b. Abba: Whence does R. Judah know this?6 [It is my own ruling]. I taught it to Giddul7 and Giddul taught it to [R. Judah]. And this is how I imparted it to him: An Israelite's word is taken when he says: ‘This firstling I gave to a priest with a blemish on it’. [If it refers to] an Israelite,8 surely this is obvious! — No. The statement is required for the case where [the animal] was small [when he gave it to the priest] and it grew up. You might have the impression that the Israelite cannot now establish the identity [of the animal].9 He therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. In Sura they reported this in the last version,10 whereas in Pumbeditha [they reported this] in the former version. The law is decided in accordance even with the first version. Rafram of Pumbeditha possessed a firstling which he gave to a priest without a blemish. The latter made it blemished. One day his11 eyes were affected. [The priest] brought the [same] animal before him,12 and said to him, ‘This firstling an Israelite gave to me with a blemish on it’! He [forcefully] opened his eyes [wide] and perceived his fraud.13 He14 said to him: ‘Was it not I who gave it to you’? Nevertheless, the incident did not make Rafram anxious,15 [because he held that] this priest happened to be impudent16 but everybody was not impudent. Once a case of sarua’17 came before R. Ashi.18 He said: What can we fear in connection [with the animal]? For whether [the owner be] a priest or Israelite, here is a firstling with a blemish on it.19 Said Rabina to R. Ashi: But perhaps [the animal] belongs to an Israelite and Rab Judah ruled: A firstling of an Israelite must not be examined unless a priest is present?20 — He replied to him: But is the analogy correct? There,21 granted that he will not eat consecrated animals without [the Temple precincts],22 he is nevertheless suspected as regards the priest's property;23 but here, well, he knew that this blemish was a well-marked one, and why did he bring it before the Rabbis? Out of respect for the Sage. Now, if he did not neglect showing respect to the Sage, will he actually commit an offence?24 MISHNAH. ALL ARE TRUST WORTHY25 AS REGARDS THE BLEMISHES OF A TITHING ANIMAL. GEMARA. What is the reason? — Because if he wished he could cause a blemish originally [before the tithing]. But how does he know which goes out [through the door]?26 And if you will say that he brings out an animal as the tenth27 and blemishes it, does not the Divine Law say: He shall not search whether it be good or bad?28 — Rather explain thus: If he wished he could have caused a blemish to the whole herd [of animals before tithing].29 MISHNAH. A FIRSTLING WHOSE EYE WAS BLINDED30 OR WHOSE FORE-FOOT WAS CUT OFF, OR WHOSE HIND-LEG WAS BROKEN, MAY BE SLAUGHTERED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THREE [PERSONS] OF THE SYNAGOGUE.31 BUT R. JOSE SAYS: EVEN IF A HIGH PRIEST WERE PRESENT, A FIRSTLING MUST NOT BE SLAUGHTERED EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN EXPERT. GEMARA. Both R. Simlai and R. Judah the Prince reported in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, (another version is: R. Simlai and R. Joshua b. Levi both reported in the name of R. Judah the Prince): The permitting of a firstling32 abroad33 is by three persons of the Synagogue. Said Raba: This is so [even] in the case of prominent blemishes. What does he teach us? We have learnt this: A FIRSTLING WHOSE EYE WAS BLINDED OR WHOSE FORE-FOOT WAS CUT OFF OR WHOSE HIND LEG WAS BROKEN, MAY BE SLAUGHTERED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THREE [PERSONS] OF THE SYNAGOGUE?34 — From the Mishnah I might have thought that blemishes which are not prominent are also permitted abroad, and the reason why the Mishnah speaks of ‘prominent’ [blemishes] is for the purpose of showing to what a length R. Jose is prepared to go [insisting that even so an expert is required]. He therefore informs us [that it is not so]. Rab Judah said that he was in doubt whether R. Jeremiah reported in the name of Rab or in the name of Samuel [the following ruling]: Three [ordinary] persons are required to permit a firstling [to be slaughtered when blemished] in a place where there is no expert. What does it teach us? We have learnt this: THE ANIMAL MAY BE SLAUGHTERED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THREE [PERSONS] OF THE SYNAGOGUE? From the Mishnah I might have said that even where an expert is available, [three ordinary persons are required to permit it]. He therefore informs us that in a place where there is no expert it is [as the Mishnah states], but in a place where there is an expert, it is not so. R. Hiyya b. Abin reported that R. Amram said: Three persons are necessary to permit a firstling [to be slaughtered] in a place where there is no expert. Three persons are required to annul vows, where there is no Sage. ‘Three persons are necessary to permit a firstling in a place where there is no expert’; Therefore the agent has no fear of being found out. The bracketed words are inserted from Sh. Mek. There is therefore here a confirmation of Rab Judah's view. certainly make inquiries, and therefore the agent is believed, but not for the reason which Rab Judah states. In the case, however, of the firstling, the priest is not afraid, thinking that nobody will trouble to ascertain whether his statement is correct. possible that the Israelite actually caused the blemish. Rabbenu Gershom explains that iye refers to an Israelite who was young when he gave the animal to the priest, and now when grown up he testifies that he gave the animal with a blemish on it. We are therefore informed that we trust the Israelite and we do not fear that he may not recollect whether or not it had a blemish when he received it. eyes were bad, he would not recognize the animal. blemished firstling. firstling to the person who gave him the animal instead of to another expert. himself and deprive the priest of his due. therefore the priest must be present when the examination takes place. animal in the case under discussion. he called the ninth animal, when counting the tenth, the law being that it is not eaten unless blemished, v. infra 59a. with blemished animals, the text saying ‘Good or bad’, i.e., unblemished or blemished. Therefore we believe him when he declares that the blemish on the doubtfully tithed animal was not caused intentionally. Mishnah speaking of an old male firstling with long wool etc’. Now if it referred to Temple-times and in Palestine, why did not the Priest offer it up?