Bekhorot

this excludes the ruling of R. Jose [in the Mishnah]. ‘Three persons are required to annul vows in a place where there is no Sage’; this excludes the ruling of R. Judah. For it has been taught: The annulment of vows requires three persons; ‘R. Judah rules: One of them must be a Sage’. ‘In the place where there is no Sage’. Who, for example?1 — Said R. Nahman: for example, myself. ‘R. Judah rules: One of them must be a Sage’. Does this imply, therefore, that the rest can be people of any kind?2 — Said Rabina: They3 are explained to them and they understand. BUT R. JOSE SAYS: EVEN IF A HIGH PRIEST WERE PRESENT etc. R. Hananel reported in the name of Rab: The halachah is not in accordance with R. Jose. Surely this is obvious, for ‘where a single opinion is opposed to the opinion of more than one, the law follows the latter’!4 — You might have thought that we must adopt R. Jose's opinion, because he is known to have deep reasons [for his rulings]. He therefore informs us [that it is not so]. You may now infer from this5 that the former ruling6 was stated in the name of Samuel. For if it were in the name of Rab, what need is there for the repetition?7 — ‘One ruling was derived by implication’ from the other.8 MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A FIRSTLING9 AND IT BECAME KNOWN THAT HE HAD NOT SHOWN IT [TO A SCHOLAR]. AS REGARDS WHAT [THE PURCHASERS] HAVE EATEN, THERE IS NO REMEDY10 AND HE MUST RETURN THE MONEY TO THEM.11 AS REGARDS, HOWEVER, WHAT THEY HAVE NOT YET EATEN, THE FLESH MUST BE BURIED12 AND HE MUST RETURN THE MONEY TO THEM. AND LIKEWISE IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A COW AND SOLD IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN THAT IT WAS TREFAH, AS REGARDS WHAT [THE PURCHASERS] HAVE EATEN THERE IS NO REMEDY, AND AS REGARDS WHAT THEY HAVE NOT EATEN, THEY RETURN THE FLESH TO HIM AND HE MUST RETURN THE MONEY TO THEM. IF [THE PURCHASERS] [IN THEIR TURN] SOLD IT TO HEATHENS OR CAST IT TO DOGS, THEY MUST PAY HIM THE PRICE OF TREFAH.13 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If one sells flesh to another which turned out to be flesh of a firstling, or if one sells produce and it turns out to be untithed or if one sells wine and it turns out to be forbidden wine,14 what [the purchasers] have eaten cannot be remedied and he must return the money to them. R. Simeon b. Eleazar, however, says: In the case of objects for which a man has a loathing, he must return the money to them, [as there was no benefit to them after knowing], whereas in the case of objects for which a man has not a loathing, he deducts from the price [what had been eaten]. And the following are the objects for which a person has a loathing: Carcases, trefahs, forbidden animals and reptiles. And the following are objects for which a person has no loathing: Firstlings, untithed products and forbidden wine. [Do you therefore say that in the case of] a firstling [he deducts]? But why should not [the buyer] say to [the seller] ‘What loss have I caused you’?15 — No; the statement is required for the case where he sold him the flesh from the place where the blemish was, for he says to him: ‘Had you not eaten it, I would have shown it to [a scholar] and he might have permitted it, in accordance with the ruling of R. Judah.16 As regards untithed things,17 he can say: ‘I might have prepared them [ritually] and eaten them’. With reference to forbidden wine,18 [one can explain that he sold it to him] mixed [with permitted wine], [and had he not consumed it he would have been able to benefit by it] according to the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For we have learnt: If forbidden wine falls into a vat [of permitted wine], it is forbidden to profit from the whole of it. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says: He can sell the whole of it to a heathen, except for the value of the forbidden wine in it.19 MISHNAH. THESE ARE THE BLEMISHES IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH A FIRST-BORN ANIMAL MAY BE SLAUGHTERED;20 IF ITS EAR HAS BECOME DEFECTIVE, [BEING CUT OR BORED THROUGH] FROM THE CARTILAGES [INWARD] BUT NOT IF THE DEFECT IS IN THE EAR-LAP;21 IF IT IS SLIT ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO LOSS [OF SUBSTANCE]; IF IT IS PERFORATED WITH A HOLE AS LARGE AS A KARSHINAH22 OR IF [THE EAR] HAS BECOME DRY. WHAT IS CALLED ‘BECOMING DRY’? IF IT IS PERFORATED NO DROP OF BLOOD WOULD ISSUE. R. JOSE B. HA-MESHULLAM SAYS: [IT] IS CALLED DRY WHEN IT IS LIABLE TO CRUMBLE. GEMARA. Why is this so?23 Does not Scripture say ‘Lame or blind’?24 It also writes: And if there be any blemish therein.25 But why not argue that [the text] ‘And if there be any blemish therein’ is a general statement while ‘lame or blind’ is a specification; and where a general statement is followed by a specification the scope of the general statement is limited by the things specified, so that only lameness or blindness [in a firstling] are [legal blemishes], but other [defects] are not [legal blemishes]? — [The text]: ‘Any ill blemishes whatsoever’26 is another general statement. We have, therefore, a general statement followed by the enumeration of specifications which are in turn followed by a general statement and in such a case we include only such things as are similar to those specified. Hence, just as the specifications27 are exposed blemishes which cannot become sound again, so all [legal] blemishes must be exposed and unable to become sound again. But why not reason: As the specifications are exposed blemishes which render the animal incapable of carrying out its normal functions28 and cannot become sound again. so all [legal] blemishes must be exposed rendering the animal incapable of carrying out its normal functions and unable to become sound again? Why then have we learnt: IF THE EAR IS DEFECTIVE FROM THE CARTILAGES,29 BUT NOT IF THE DEFECT IS IN THE EAR-LAP? — [The text]: ‘Any30 ill blemish whatsoever’ is a widening of the scope of what constitutes a blemish. If this be so, why not also [slaughter a firstling] in consequence of hidden blemishes? Why then have we learnt: If the incisors are broken off or levelled [to the gum] or the molars are torn out [completely].31 three persons are required, and therefore, if the former statement had been reported in the name of Rab, there would be two similar rulings by the same authority. Hence we can solve the doubt whether R. Jeremiah reported in the name of Rab or Samuel; it must have been in the name of Samuel. no difficulty, for R. Hananel's statement here in the name of Rab may be only an inference from Rab Judah's earlier ruling and not an explicit statement on the part of Rab. as they paid the higher price for kosher flesh. state. the untithed produce. eat it within thy gates’. This implies that no other defects are considered legal blemishes. ruling as lameness and blindness.