Bekhorot 71

Chapter 71

א אימר דא"ר מאיר לחששא לאחזוקינהו מי אמר

1 R'Meir1

ב איבעיא להו עד מפי עד מהו לעדות בכור רב אסי אסר ורב אשי שרי א"ל רב אסי לרב אשי והא תנא דבי מנשה אין עד מפי עד כשר אלא לעדות האשה

2 meant that we have fear,2 but did he actually presume [that he is to be suspected]?3 The following query was put: Is the testimony of a witness reporting another witness considered as evidence in connection with a firstling4 - R'Ammi forbids, whereas R'Assi permits. Said R'Assi to R'Ammi: Did not the Tanna of the school of Manasseh teach: Only in connection with a woman5

ג תני אלא לעדות שהאשה כשרה לה בלבד

3 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.6 R'Yemar permitted the evidence of a witness reporting an eye-witness to be valid in connection with a firstling.

ד רב יימר אכשר עד מפי עד בבכור קרי עליה מרימר יימר שרי בוכרא והלכתא עד מפי עד כשר לעדות בכור

4 Meremar designated to him the expression.' Yemar, the one who permits firstlings'.7 And the law is that the evidence of a witness reporting an eye-witness in connection with a firstling is valid. Said R'Elai: If an animal was not thought to be a firstling and its owner [a priest] came and declared that was a firstling with a blemish on it, he is believed.

ה א"ר אילעא לא היו מוחזקין בו שהוא בכור ובא אחד ואמר שהוא בכור ומומו עמו נאמן

5 What does he teach us? 'The mouth that bound is the mouth that loosens'.8 But have we not learnt this: A woman who said, 'I was a married woman,9

ו מאי קמ"ל שהפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר תנינא האשה שאמרה אשת איש הייתי וגרושה אני נאמנת שהפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר

6 but now I am divorced' is believed,10 for 'the mouth which bound is the mouth which loosens'?11 - You might be under the impression that there12

ז מהו דתימא התם הוא דאי בעיא לא אמרה אבל הכא דלא סגיא דלא אמרה דקדשים בחוץ לא אכיל

7 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.');">13 but here,14 since it is impossible that he should not inform [the expert]15

ח אימא לא הפה שאסר הוא קמ"ל דאי משום הכי הוה שדי ביה מומא דניכר ואכיל ליה

8 - for [the priest] would not eat consecrated [unblemished] animals without the Temple walls16

ט מתקיף לה מר בר רב אשי מאי שנא מההוא גברא דאוגר ליה חמרא לחבריה וא"ל לא תיזיל באורחא דנהר פקוד דאיכא מיא זיל באורחא דנרש דליכא מיא אזל באורחא דנהר פקוד ומית חמרא ואתא וא"ל באורחא דנהר פקוד אזלי ומיהו מיא לא הוו

9 - I might not have applied [the principle] 'the mouth which bound is the mouth which loosens'. He therefore informs us [that he is believed]. For, if this were really so,17 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,');">18 and have eaten it then.

י ואמר רבא מה לו לשקר אי בעי אמר באורחא דנרש אזלי ואמר אביי מה לו לשקר במקום עדים לא אמרינן

10 Mar B'Rab Ashi demurred to this ruling. Why should this be different from the following case? Once, someone hired out an ass to a person and he said to him: 'Do not go the way of Nehar Pekod, where there is water; go the way of Naresh where there is no water'. But he went the way of Nehar Pekod and the ass died. He then came before Raba and said to him: 'Indeed I went the way of Nehar Pekod, but there was no water [and still the ass died]. Said Raba: Why should he lie?

יא הכי השתא התם ודאי איכא מיא התם ודאי שדי ביה מומא חששא הוא ובמקום חששא אמרינן מה לו לשקר יתיב רבינא וקאמר להאי שמעתא בלא גברא א"ל רבא זוטי לרבינא אנן משמיה דר' אילעא מתנינן לה

11 If he wished he could say 'I went the way of Naresh'.19 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'?');">20 - But is the analogy correct? There [we are witnesses that] there certainly was water [on the way of Nehar pekod], but here, [in connection with the firstling], is it certain that he caused the blemish?

יב רבי צדוק הוה ליה בוכרא רמא ליה שערי בסלי בהדי דקאכיל איבזע שיפתיה אתא לקמיה דרבי יהושע אמר ליה כלום חילקנו בין חבר לעם הארץ אמר לו רבי יהושע הן

12 It is only a fear,21 and where there is only a question of a fear we do say 'why should he lie'. Rabina sat [lecturing] and reported this tradition22 without mentioning the authority. Said Raba junior to Rabina: We learnt this in the name of R'Ela.

יג אתא לקמיה דרבן גמליאל אמר ליה חילקנו בין חבר לעם הארץ אמר ליה רבן גמליאל לא אמר ליה והא רבי יהושע אמר לי הן אמר לו המתן עד שיעלו בעלי תריסין לבית המדרש

13 R'Zadok had a firstling. He set down barley for it in wicker baskets of peeled willow twigs. As it was eating, its lip was slit. He23 came before R'Joshua.24 He25 said to him: 'Have we made any difference between [a priest] who is a haber and [a priest] who is an 'am ha-arez'? R'Joshua replied 'Yes'.26

יד כיון שנכנסו לבית המדרש עמד השואל ושאל כלום חילקנו בין חבר לעם הארץ א"ל רבי יהושע לאו א"ל רבן גמליאל והלא משמך אמרו לי הן

14 He thereupon came before Rabban Gamaliel. He said to him.' Have we made any difference between [a priest] who is a haber and a priest who is an 'am ha-arez'? Rabban Gamaliel replied 'No'.27 R'Zadok said to him: 'But R'Joshua told me "Yes"'! He said: 'Wait until the great debaters28 enter the Beth Hamidrash'.

טו יהושע עמוד על רגליך ויעידו בך עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר היאך אעשה אילמלי אני חי והוא מת יכול החי להכחיש את המת עכשיו שאני חי והוא חי היאך חי יכול להכחיש את החי

15 When they entered the Beth Hamidrash, the questioner29 arose and asked: 'Have we made any difference between [a priest] who is a haber and one who is an 'am ha-arez'? R'Joshua replied 'No'.30

טז והיה ר"ג עומד ודורש ור' יהושע עומד על רגליו עד שריננו כל העם ואמרו לחוצפית המתורגמן עמוד ועמד:

16 Thereupon Rabban Gamaliel said: 'Was not the answer "Yes" reported to me in your name? Joshua, stand on your feet31

יז <big>מתני׳</big> נאמן הכהן לומר הראיתי בכור זה ובעל מום הוא:

17 and let them testify against you'.32

יח <big>גמ׳</big> אמר רב יהודה אמר רב נאמן הכהן לומר בכור זה נתן לי ישראל במומו מאי טעמא כל מילתא דעבידא לאיגלויי לא משקרי בה אינשי אמר רב אשי אף אנן נמי תנינא נאמן הכהן לומר הראיתי בכור זה ובעל מום הוא מאי טעמא לאו משום דאמרינן מילתא דעבידא לאיגלויי לא משקרי בה אינשי

18 R'Joshua stood up on his feet and said: 'How shall I act? If indeed I were alive and he were dead, the living can contradict the dead. But since both he and I are alive, how can the living contradict the living'?33 And Rabban Gamaliel was sitting and discoursing while R'Joshua stood on his feet, until all the people murmured34 and said to Huzspith the interpreter.35 'Silence'.36 And he was silent. <big>MISHNAH: </big>A PRIEST'S WORD IS TAKEN IF HE SAYS 'I HAVE SHOWN THIS FIRSTLING37 AND IT IS BLEMISHED'.38 <big>GEMARA: </big>Rab Judah said that Rab said: A priest's word is taken if he says [to an expert].'

יט התם הוא דקדשים בחוץ לא אכיל אבל הכא כיון דחשידי חשידי

19 an Israelite gave me this firstling with a blemish on it'.39 What is the reason? 'People are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out'.40

כ מתיב רב שיזבי האומר למי שאין נאמן על המעשר קח לי ממי שהוא נאמן או ממי שהוא מעשר אינו נאמן אמאי נימא כל מילתא דעבידא לאיגלויי לא משקרי בה אינשי

20 Said Raba: We have also learnt this: A PRIEST'S WORD IS TAKEN IF HE SAYS 'I HAVE SHOWN THIS FIRSTLING AND IT IS BLEMISHED'. Now, what is the reason? Is it not because we say 'people are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out'!41 - [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.');">42 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.');">43 but here, since priests are suspected,44 they are suspected.45

כא שאני התם

21 R'Shizbi raised an objection: He who says to one who is not trustworthy with reference to tithing.46 'Purchase on my behalf produce from one who is trustworthy47 or from one who tithes', he is not believed.48 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,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter