Bekhorot 6

Chapter 6

א הכי אמר רבי יוחנן אפי' מום קל והדתנן רחל שילדה מין עז ועז שילדה מין רחל פטורה מן הבכורה ואם יש בו מקצת סימנין חייב מום קבוע הוי לשחוט עליו

1 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].

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

2 [Thereon R'Johanan commented that this4

ג אלא מום קבוע מאי קא משמע לן דכיון דאישתני הוה ליה מומא תנינא ופיו דומה כשל חזיר הרי זה מום

3 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 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.

ד וכי תימא התם נשתנה בדבר שאין במינו קדוש בבכורה הכא נשתנה בדבר שבמינו קדוש בבכורה הא נמי תנינא עינו אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה

4 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?

ה ותנא גדולה גדולה כשל עגל וקטנה קטנה כשל אווז בשלמא קטנה כשל אווז אין במינו קדוש בבכורה אלא גדולה כשל עגל יש במינו קדוש בבכורה אלא לאו משום דאמרינן כיון דאישתני הוה ליה מומא

5 [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

ו לא משום דהוה ליה שרוע הכי נמי מסתברא דתנן מומין אלו בין קבועין בין עוברין פוסלין יתר עליהן אדם עיניו שתיהן גדולות שתיהן קטנות

6 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

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

7 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

ח אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה מאי טעמא אי משום שינוי אפילו שתיהן גדולות שתיהן קטנות נמי אלא לאו משום דהוה ליה שרוע

8 - No. 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 This really also stands to reason.

ט לא לעולם אימא לך משום שינוי שינוי הוי מומא ודקא קשיא לך אפילו שתיהן גדולות שתיהן קטנות התם אי מחמת בריותא יתירא תרווייהו בעי למיברא אי מחמת כחישותא יתירא תרווייהו בעי מיכחש

9 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

י ההיא גיורתא דהוו מסרין לה אחי חיותא לפטומה אתאי לקמיה דרבא אמר לה לית דחש לה להא דרבי יהודה דאמר שותפות עובד כוכבים חייבת בבכורה

10 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'?<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

יא 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

11 - No.

יב וכי מאחר דאסר להו בגיזה ועבודה ויהיב להו לכהנים אמאי מקנה להו לאודנייהו לעובד כוכבים דלמא אתי בהו לידי תקלה אי הכי מאי טעמא כלו חיותא דרב מרי משום דמפקע להו מקדושתייהו

12 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].<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 There was a woman proselyte to whom the Achii21 gave an animal to fatten.

יג והאמר רב יהודה מותר לאדם להטיל מום בבכור קודם שיצא לאויר העולם התם מקדושת מזבח קא מפקע ליה מקדושת כהן לא מפקע ליה הכא אפי' מקדושת כהן קא מפקע ליה

13 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

יד ואיבעית אימא רב מרי בר רחל ידע לאקנויי קנין גמור וחזי ליה איניש אחרינא ואזיל ועביד וסבר רב מרי מילתא הוא דעבד ואתי בה לידי תקלה:

14 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

טו <big>מתני׳</big> כהנים ולוים פטורין מק"ו אם פטרו את של ישראל במדבר דין הוא שיפטרו את של עצמן:

15 - [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.<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 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. <big>MISHNAH: </big>PRIESTS AND LEVITES ARE EXEMPT35 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 IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT THEY SHOULD EXEMPT THEIR OWN.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter