Bekhorot 71
רב אסי אסר ורב אשי שרי
The following query was put: Is the testimony of a witness reporting another witness considered as evidence in connection with a firstling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give evidence that the blemish was not caused intentionally.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אין עד מפי עד כשר אלא לעדות האשה
Said R'Assi to R'Ammi: Did not the Tanna of the school of Manasseh teach: Only in connection with a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That her husband had died abroad, so that she can remarry. V. Shab. 145b.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
תני
is the evidence of a witness reporting an eye-witness valid? - Explain this [as follows]: It is valid only in respect of testimony which a woman is allowed to give.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And with reference to a firstling, a woman's word is taken if she declares that a certain blemish was not brought about deliberately.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
א"ר אילעא
What does he teach us? 'The mouth that bound is the mouth that loosens'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same person who said it was a firstling also said that it had a blemish on it for which he was not responsible and which he shows to the medical expert.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
מהו דתימא
she is believed because if she wished she need not have said anything;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was presumed that she was unmarried; therefore if there was a suspicion that she proposed marrying during her husband's lifetime without a divorce, she could have remained silent.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
אבל הכא דלא סגיא דלא אמרה דקדשים בחוץ לא אכיל אימא
since it is impossible that he should not inform [the expert]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the animal is a first-born, in order that the expert might inform him whether the blemish was a permanent or transitory one.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
לא הפה שאסר הוא קמ"ל דאי משום הכי הוה שדי ביה מומא דניכר ואכיל ליה
- for [the priest] would not eat consecrated [unblemished] animals without the Temple walls<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the penalty for this is excision, whereas maiming a firstling is only violating a negative precept.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
אזל באורחא דנהר פקוד ומית חמרא ואתא וא"ל
he would have inflicted on it a recognizable blemish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which even an ignorant person would have recognized as such, and therefore, there would have been no need to bring the animal before us for the expert to declare that it was a permanent blemish, for no other person knew that he had a firstling. But where we are aware that the animal is a firstling, we do not believe him when he declares that the blemish was not caused by himself on the ground that he need not have come before us at all, for if he had slaughtered the animal without the expert's instructions, as everybody knew that he had a firstling, he would have been suspected of maiming the animal,');"><sup>18</sup></span>
התם ודאי איכא מיא התם ודאי שדי ביה מומא חששא הוא ובמקום חששא אמרינן מה לו לשקר
And Abaye explained: We do not apply the principle 'why should he lie' where there are witnesses!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we are witnesses that water is there all the time, and similarly here also, since we are witnesses that priests are suspected concerning blemishes, we should not say 'why should he lie'?');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אילמלי אני חי והוא מת יכול החי להכחיש את המת עכשיו שאני חי והוא חי היאך חי יכול להכחיש את החי
R'Joshua replied 'No'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not wishing to give a contrary decision in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נאמן הכהן לומר הראיתי בכור זה ובעל מום הוא:
and let them testify against you'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. omits the expression. 'Let them testify' etc as having no bearing in this connection.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
בכור זה נתן לי ישראל במומו מאי טעמא
But since both he and I are alive, how can the living contradict the living'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'I therefore certainly said it and withdraw' (Rashi) . Tosaf. explains however as follows: 'I meant to conceal what I said but I am unable to do so now.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
אבל הכא כיון דחשידי חשידי
What is the reason? 'People are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'likely to be revealed', And here the Israelite can be asked. V. R.H. 22b, Zeb. 93b.');"><sup>40</sup></span>
ממי שהוא מעשר אינו נאמן
- [No].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One may still say that we cannot deduce from the Mishnah the principle 'people are not presumed to tell a lie' etc., and the reason why he is believed is as follows.');"><sup>42</sup></span>
אמאי
There, where it is a case of consecrated animals without [the Temple precincts], he will not eat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unblemished consecrated animals. Consequently, unless the expert had permitted the firstling on the evidence of witnesses, he would not have declared that the firstling was permitted to be slaughtered by him.');"><sup>43</sup></span>
שאני התם
R'Shizbi raised an objection: He who says to one who is not trustworthy with reference to tithing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is known not to be observant as regards tithing.');"><sup>46</sup></span> 'Purchase on my behalf produce from one who is trustworthy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to purchase produce from an 'am ha-arez or, if he does so, to give dem'ai (v. Glos.) before selling it.');"><sup>47</sup></span> or from one who tithes', he is not believed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On saying that he bought from a person trustworthy in these matters (Dem'ai IV, 5) .');"><sup>48</sup></span> Now why [is this so]? Let us adopt the principle that 'people are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out'? - The case is different there,