Midrash for Bekhorot 36:29
ומשל דרבי עקיבא למה הדבר דומה לאחד שהפקיד אצל בעל הבית שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
That of two men who gave [two animals] in charge of a shepherd and [one died], where the shepherd leaves the living one between them and departs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And similarly the Mishnah is dealing with a case where the surviving animal, a doubtful first-born, was given in charge of a shepherd, and both the owner and priest claim it. Here we cannot say that the claimant must produce the evidence, since the animal is in the possession of neither of them.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Sifrei Devarim
(Devarim 15:20) "And if there be in it a blemish": This tells me only of an animal that was born unblemished and became blemished. Whence do I derive (the same for) one that was born blemished! From "every blemish." Whence do we derive (the same for animals that are) scrofulous, warty, scabbied, old, sick, or malodorous? From "every." I might think that they could be slaughtered (and eaten) outside Jerusalem; it is, therefore, written "lame or blind': "lame" and "blind" were in the category (of blemished animals). Why did they leave that category (for special mention)? To make them the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as "lame" and "blind" are distinct in being external blemishes, which do not heal, so, all (blemishes which render a bechor subject to slaughtering and eating outside Jerusalem) must be of that kind.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy