Bekhorot 6

הכי אמר רבי יוחנן

Thus did R'Johanan say: Even if [the heathen's share in the firstling was only something constituting] a slight blemish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like the ear of the animal which is not a vital part, in which case the Israelite is exempt from the duty of the firstling.');">¹</span>

אפי' מום קל

And as to what we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 16b.');">²</span>

והדתנן

'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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Scripture says: Or the firstling of a goat. Num. XVIII, 17. Both the firstling and the mother must belong to the same species and class i.e. a goat.');">³</span>

רחל שילדה מין עז ועז שילדה מין רחל פטורה מן הבכורה ואם יש בו מקצת סימנין חייב מום קבוע הוי לשחוט עליו

But if [the offspring] possessed some features [similar to the mother] it is subject to the [law of the firstling].

בשלמא מום קל קא משמע לן כדרב הונא ולאפוקי מדרב חסדא ורבא

[Thereon R'Johanan commented that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that it is subject to the law of the firstling.');">⁴</span>

אלא מום קבוע מאי קא משמע לן דכיון דאישתני הוה ליה מומא

means that] it is [like a firstling with] a permanent blemish, on account of which it is slaughtered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., outside the Temple. And eaten like any other firstling which possesses a blemish. It is, however, not suitable for 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.');">⁵</span>

תנינא ופיו דומה כשל חזיר הרי זה מום

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.

וכי תימא התם נשתנה בדבר שאין במינו קדוש בבכורה הכא נשתנה בדבר שבמינו קדוש בבכורה הא נמי תנינא

But his ruling regarding a permanent blemish - what new thing does he teach us therewith?

עינו אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה

Is it to inform us that since it [the animal] is abnormal this is regarded as a blemish?

ותנא גדולה גדולה כשל עגל וקטנה קטנה כשל אווז

[Surely] we have [already] learnt [this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a change in the animal renders it blemished.');">⁶</span>

בשלמא קטנה כשל אווז אין במינו קדוש בבכורה אלא גדולה כשל עגל יש במינו קדוש בבכורה

in a Mishnah]: Or if the firstling's mouth is like a pig, it is a blemish!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 402.');">⁷</span>

אלא לאו משום דאמרינן

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 exist<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of a pig.');">⁸</span>

כיון דאישתני הוה ליה מומא

but here the firstling has changed into a species [of animal] in which the sanctity of the firstling does exist,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore this would be the novelty in the ruling of R. Johanan, that even in such an instance it is regarded as a blemish.');">⁹</span>

לא משום דהוה ליה שרוע

this too we have learnt: If one of its eyes is large and one is small [it is a blemish].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 40b.');">¹⁰</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא דתנן

And a Tanna taught that 'large' means large like a calf's and 'small', small like that of a goose.

מומין אלו בין קבועין בין עוברין פוסלין

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 species<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Birds being exempt from the law of the firstling.');">¹¹</span>

יתר עליהן אדם עיניו שתיהן גדולות שתיהן קטנות

in which the sanctity [of the firstling] does not exist.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is need therefore for R. Johanan to inform us that even in this case it is a blemish since there is a change in the animal.');">¹²</span>

גבי אדם הוא דכתיב

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even so it is regarded as blemished.');">¹³</span>

(ויקרא כב, ד) איש איש מזרע אהרן דבעינן איש שוה בזרעו של אהרן אבל בהמה שתיהן גדולות שתיהן קטנות נמי לא הוי מומא

Must you not therefore admit that [the reason is] that we say since [the animal] is abnormal, it is regarded as a blemish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What new thing consequently does R. Johanan tell us in his ruling that a change renders it blemished, since this may be inferred from the Mishnah?');">¹⁴</span>

אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה מאי טעמא

- No.

אי משום שינוי אפילו שתיהן גדולות שתיהן קטנות נמי

The reason is because it is a sarua'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An animal whose one limb is larger than the other is called a sarua'. Therefore were it not stated in the House of 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.');">¹⁵</span>

אלא לאו משום דהוה ליה שרוע

This really also stands to reason.

לא לעולם אימא לך משום שינוי שינוי הוי מומא

For we have learnt: The above mentioned blemishes, whether permanent or transitory, make also human beings unfit for the Priesthood.

ודקא קשיא לך

To these must be added in the case of blemishes of human beings, two large eyes or two small eyes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 43a.');">¹⁶</span>

אפילו שתיהן גדולות שתיהן קטנות

[Because] with reference only to human beings it is written: Whatsoever man of the seed of Aaron<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4.');">¹⁷</span>

התם אי מחמת בריותא יתירא תרווייהו בעי למיברא אי מחמת כחישותא יתירא תרווייהו בעי מיכחש

requiring 'man' among the seed of Aaron to be with normal [human features].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 289, n. 8.');">¹⁸</span>

ההיא גיורתא דהוו מסרין לה אחי חיותא לפטומה

But the case of an animal, two large or two small eyes is not also regarded as a blemish.

אתאי לקמיה דרבא אמר לה

Now in the case of an animal with one large or one small eye what is the reason [why it is a blemish]?

לית דחש לה להא דרבי יהודה דאמר

If because of the abnormality, then the same should apply to an animal with two large eyes or two small eyes?

שותפות עובד כוכבים חייבת בבכורה

Then must you not admit that the reason [in the former case] is because of sarua'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is not because of the change that an animal with one long and one short eye is regarded as blemished and therefore there is need for R. Johanan to inform us that elsewhere a change in the animal constitutes a blemish.');">¹⁹</span>

רב מרי בר רחל הויא ליה ההיא חיותא הוה מקנה לאודנייהו לעובד כוכבים ואסר להו בגיזה ועבודה ויהיב להו לכהנים וכלאי חיותא דרב מרי בר רחל

- No.

וכי מאחר דאסר להו בגיזה ועבודה ויהיב להו לכהנים אמאי מקנה להו לאודנייהו לעובד כוכבים

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.

דלמא אתי בהו לידי תקלה

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that two large or small eyes constitute no change. Now since we can after all deduce from the Mishnah that a change renders the animal blemished, one can still raise the question, what is there novel in R. Johanan's ruling? (R. Gershom) .');">²⁰</span>

אי הכי מאי טעמא כלו חיותא דרב מרי

There was a woman proselyte to whom the Achii<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certain heathens.');">²¹</span>

משום דמפקע להו מקדושתייהו

gave an animal to fatten.

והאמר רב יהודה

She came before Raba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enquire whether the duty of the firstling applies.');">²²</span>

מותר לאדם להטיל מום בבכור קודם שיצא לאויר העולם

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.

התם מקדושת מזבח קא מפקע ליה מקדושת כהן לא מפקע ליה

R'Mari B'Rahel possessed a herd of animals.

הכא אפי' מקדושת כהן קא מפקע ליה

He used to transfer [to a heathen] possession of the ears [of the firstlings while still in the womb].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be exempt from the law of the firstling.');">²³</span>

ואיבעית אימא

He [nevertheless] forbade the shearing and the working of the animals and gave them to the Priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As if they were actually firstlings and holy.');">²⁴</span>

רב מרי בר רחל ידע לאקנויי קנין גמור וחזי ליה איניש אחרינא ואזיל ועביד וסבר

The herd of R'Mari B'Rahel died.

רב מרי מילתא הוא דעבד ואתי בה לידי תקלה:

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? ]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in this manner he carried out the prohibitions in connection with the firstling.');">²⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כהנים ולוים פטורין מק"ו

- [It was] lest he should be led to commit an offence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case he should shear and work the animal. And therefore he rendered himself exempt by transferring a part of the embryo to a heathen.');">²⁶</span>

אם פטרו את של ישראל במדבר דין הוא שיפטרו את של עצמן:

If so, why did the herd of R'Mari die?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since his motives were good.');">²⁷</span> - Because he deprived them of their holiness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By transferring a share of them to heathens.');">²⁸</span> But has not Rab Judah said: One is permitted to make a blemish in a firstling before it comes into the world?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the sanctity of a firstling only begins after its birth.');">²⁹</span> - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like a firstling with a blemish whose shearing is forbidden and work with which is prohibited, still possessing a certain degree of holiness.');">³⁰</span> But in the former case, he even deprives it of the holiness [of belonging to] the Priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although he actually observes all the prohibitions with reference to a blemished firstling, it is really rendered, owing to the share of the heathens, an unconsecrated animal.');">³¹</span> Or, if you prefer, I may say that R'Mari B'Rahel knew how to make a valid transfer to a heathen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To accept money from a heathen which is the valid method whereby a selling transaction is concluded with a gentile.');">³²</span> But we are afraid that another man may see this and go and do [likewise], thinking that R'Mari did nothing significant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'did a mere word'.');">³³</span> [when transferring to a heathen].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of words only the transference was effected and no money was paid i.e., he simply informed the heathen that he had given him possession.');">³⁴</span> And thus he will be lead to commit an offence. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>PRIESTS AND LEVITES ARE EXEMPT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably from the first-born of an ass.');">³⁵</span> A FORTIORI: IF THEY EXEMPTED THE FIRST-BORN BELONGING TO THE ISRAELITES IN THE WILDERNESS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This at present understood as meaning that since the Levites themselves exempted the asses of the Israelites in the wilderness, how much more should they exempt their own asses.');">³⁶</span> IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT THEY SHOULD EXEMPT THEIR OWN.