Bekhorot

Thus did R. Johanan say: Even if [the heathen's share in the firstling was only something constituting] a slight blemish,1 And as to what we have learnt:2 ‘A ewe which gave birth to a species of a goat or a goat which gave birth to a species of a ewe, is exempt from the duty of the firstling’.3 But if [the offspring] possessed some features [similar to the mother] it is subject to the [law of the firstling]. [Thereon R. Johanan commented that this4 means that] it is [like a firstling with] a permanent blemish, on account of which it is slaughtered.5 We well understand R. Johanan laying down a ruling with reference to a slight blemish, for this informs us that [the law] is according to R. Huna and excludes the rulings of R. Hisda and Raba. But his ruling regarding a permanent blemish — what new thing does he teach us therewith? Is it to inform us that since it [the animal] is abnormal this is regarded as a blemish? [Surely] we have [already] learnt [this ruling6 in a Mishnah]: Or if the firstling's mouth is like a pig, it is a blemish!7 And should you argue that [in the Mishnah just cited] the firstling has changed into a species [of animal] in which the sanctity of the firstling does not exist8 but here the firstling has changed into a species [of animal] in which the sanctity of the firstling does exist,9 this too we have learnt: If one of its eyes is large and one is small [it is a blemish].10 And a Tanna taught that ‘large’ means large like a calf's and ‘small’, small like that of a goose. Now, we may giant your argument as far as [the case of a firstling] with a small eye like a goose is concerned, this being a species11 in which the sanctity [of the firstling] does not exist.12 But in the case of a large eye like a calf's — this is a species in which the sanctity of the firstling does exist.13 Must you not therefore admit that [the reason is] that we say since [the animal] is abnormal, it is regarded as a blemish?14 — No. The reason is because it is a sarua’.15 This really also stands to reason. For we have learnt: The above mentioned blemishes, whether permanent or transitory, make also human beings unfit for the Priesthood. To these must be added in the case of blemishes of human beings, two large eyes or two small eyes.16 [Because] with reference only to human beings it is written: Whatsoever man of the seed of Aaron17 requiring ‘man’ among the seed of Aaron to be with normal [human features].18 But the case of an animal, two large or two small eyes is not also regarded as a blemish. Now in the case of an animal with one large or one small eye what is the reason [why it is a blemish]? If because of the abnormality, then the same should apply to an animal with two large eyes or two small eyes? Then must you not admit that the reason [in the former case] is because of sarua’?19 — No. I can indeed still say that [the reason why an animal with one large and one small eye is blemished] is because of the abnormality. And as for your question that the [same ruling] should apply to the case of an animal with two large and two small eyes, [the answer is that] there [in the latter instance] if [the change is] because of the animal's extra obesity, the two eyes need to be large, and if because of its unusual leanness, then both [eyes] have to be lean [small].20 There was a woman proselyte to whom the Achii21 gave an animal to fatten. She came before Raba.22 He said to her: There is no authority that pays any attention to the ruling of R. Judah who said: The partnership of a heathen [in an animal] is subject to the law of the firstling. R. Mari b. Rahel possessed a herd of animals. He used to transfer [to a heathen] possession of the ears [of the firstlings while still in the womb].23 He [nevertheless] forbade the shearing and the working of the animals and gave them to the Priests.24 The herd of R. Mari b. Rahel died. Now, since he forbade the shearing and the working of the animals and gave them to the Priests, why did he give [a heathen] possession of the ears [of the firstlings?]25 — [It was] lest he should be led to commit an offence.26 If so, why did the herd of R. Mari die?27 — Because he deprived them of their holiness.28 But has not Rab Judah said: One is permitted to make a blemish in a firstling before it comes into the world?29 — There, [in the latter case] he deprives the animal of the holiness of being sacrificed on the altar but he does not deprive it of the holiness [of belonging to] the Priests.30 But in the former case, he even deprives it of the holiness [of belonging to] the Priests.31 Or, if you prefer, I may say that R. Mari b. Rahel knew how to make a valid transfer to a heathen.32 But we are afraid that another man may see this and go and do [likewise], thinking that R. Mari did nothing significant33 [when transferring to a heathen].34 And thus he will be lead to commit an offence. MISHNAH. PRIESTS AND LEVITES ARE EXEMPT35 A FORTIORI: IF THEY EXEMPTED THE FIRST-BORN BELONGING TO THE ISRAELITES IN THE WILDERNESS,36 IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT THEY SHOULD EXEMPT THEIR OWN. same species and class i.e. a goat. sacrifice on the altar. This was R. Johanan's novel ruling emanating also from the House of Study, i.e., that a change in the animal renders it blemished. blemish. the animal. be inferred from the Mishnah? Study that a change in the offspring e.g., where its wool resembles that of a goat, renders it blemished, I should not have been in a position to infer this from the Mishnah, as sarua’ is a permanent blemish explicitly mentioned in the Scripture. therefore there is need for R. Johanan to inform us that elsewhere a change in the animal constitutes a blemish. change renders the animal blemished, one can still raise the question, what is there novel in R. Johanan's ruling? (R. Gershom). embryo to a heathen. certain degree of holiness. owing to the share of the heathens, an unconsecrated animal. gentile. that he had given him possession. wilderness, how much more should they exempt their own asses.