Bekhorot 72

Chapter 72

א דאית ליה לאשתמוטי
1 for<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When inquiries are made and it is discovered that he bought the produce from an untrustworthy person.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב סיפא ודאי מסייעא ליה מאיש פלוני הרי זה נאמן
2 he can excuse himself by some subterfuge, [saying, 'As far as I am concerned, his word is taken'].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That although the seller may not be trustworthy in the sender's opinion, he is regarded as trustworthy by his agent. Therefore the agent has no fear of being found out. The bracketed words are inserted from Sh. Mek.');"><sup>2</sup></span> The second clause however [of the Mishnah just cited] certainly supports [Rab Judah's view], for it says: From that man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose name the sender explicitly mentioned.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג התם כיון דאית ליה תובע מירתת
3 then he is believed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there is the fear here that the sender might make investigations as to whether his instructions were carried out. There is therefore here a confirmation of Rab Judah's view.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד אמר ר' ירמיה בר אבא מנא ליה ליהודה הא אנא בגידול קבעתיה וגידול קבע בדידיה והכי א"ל נאמן ישראל לומר בכור זה נתתי לכהן במומו
4 - There [again] since there is an inquirer, he is afraid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he sees that the sender is particular, having mentioned a specific name, he is aware that the sender will certainly make inquiries, and therefore the agent is believed, but not for the reason which Rab Judah states. In the case, however, of the firstling, the priest is not afraid, thinking that nobody will trouble to ascertain whether his statement is correct.');"><sup>5</sup></span> Said R'Jeremiah B'Abba: Whence does R'Judah know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a priest is trustworthy to declare that an Israelite etc. kusd');"><sup>6</sup></span> [It is my own ruling]. I taught it to Giddul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The name of a rabbinic teacher. Another explanation of the word Giddul is 'a great' man, from the word .');"><sup>7</sup></span> and Giddul taught it to [R'Judah].
ה ישראל פשיטא לא צריך בקטן והגדיל מהו דתימא לא קים ליה קמ"ל
5 And this is how I imparted it to him: An Israelite's word is taken when he says: 'This firstling I gave to a priest with a blemish on it'. [If it refers to] an Israelite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not to a priest who said 'this firstling an Israelite gave to me with its blemish'.');"><sup>8</sup></span> surely this is obvious! - No. The statement is required for the case where [the animal] was small [when he gave it to the priest] and it grew up.
ו בסורא מתנו כלשנא בתרא בפומבדיתא כלשנא קמא והלכתא אפילו כלשנא קמא
6 You might have the impression that the Israelite cannot now establish the identity [of the animal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal having grown up. And therefore it might not be the same one which the Priest gave him, and thus it is possible that the Israelite iye actually caused the blemish. Rabbenu Gershom explains that refers to an Israelite who was young when he gave the animal to the priest, and now when grown up he testifies that he gave the animal with a blemish on it. We are therefore informed that we trust the Israelite and we do not fear that he may not recollect whether or not it had a blemish when he received it.');"><sup>9</sup></span> He therefore teaches us [that it is not so].
ז רפרם בפומבדיתא הוה ליה בוכרא ויהביה ליה לכהן בלא מומא אזל שדא ביה מומא יומא חד חלש בעיניה אייתיה לקמיה א"ל בכור זה נתן לי ישראל במומו ארפסיניה לעיניה חזייה בשקריה א"ל לאו אנא דיהיבתיה לך
7 In Sura they reported this in the last version,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an Israelite is trustworthy to say 'this firstling etc.'');"><sup>10</sup></span> whereas in Pumbeditha [they reported this] in the former version. The law is decided in accordance even with the first version. Rafram of Pumbeditha possessed a firstling which he gave to a priest without a blemish. The latter made it blemished.
ח ואפ"ה לא חש לה למילתא האי הוא דחציף כ"ע לא חציפי
8 One day his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rafram's.');"><sup>11</sup></span> eyes were affected.
ט ההוא שרוע דאתא לקמיה דרב אשי אמר למאי ניחוש ליה אי כהן הוא אי ישראל הוא הרי בכור ומומו עמו
9 [The priest] brought the [same] animal before him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Rafram to decide whether the blemish was of a permanent character, the priest thinking that now that Rafram's eyes were bad, he would not recognize the animal.');"><sup>12</sup></span> and said to him, 'This firstling an Israelite gave to me with a blemish on it'! He [forcefully] opened his eyes [wide] and perceived his fraud.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Recognizing that it was the firstling he had given him and that the priest was responsible for the blemish.');"><sup>13</sup></span> He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rafram.');"><sup>14</sup></span> said to him: 'Was it not I who gave it to you'?
י א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ודלמא ישראל הוא ואמר רב יהודה אין רואין בכור ישראל אלא א"כ כהן עמו
10 Nevertheless, the incident did not make Rafram anxious,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To decree that a priest in no circumstances should be believed when he declares that an Israelite gave him a blemished firstling.');"><sup>15</sup></span> [because he held that] this priest happened to be impudent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he exhibited inordinate impudence, in the first place in causing the blemish, and secondly in showing the firstling to the person who gave him the animal instead of to another expert.');"><sup>16</sup></span> but everybody was not impudent.
יא א"ל הכי השתא התם נהי דקדשים בחוץ לא אכיל אממוניה דכהן חשיד
11 Once a case of sarua'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An animal with one eye abnormally small and the other large.');"><sup>17</sup></span> came before R'Ashi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give a decision on the animal.');"><sup>18</sup></span> He said: What can we fear in connection [with the animal]?
יב הכא מכדי ידע דהאי מום מובהק הוא מ"ט אתיוה קמיה רבנן משום כבודו דחכם על כבודו דחכם לא עביד איסורא עבד:
12 For whether [the owner be] a priest or Israelite, here is a firstling with a blemish on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in either case there can be no suspicion. since it was born with this defect.');"><sup>19</sup></span> Said Rabina to R'Ashi: But perhaps [the animal] belongs to an Israelite and Rab Judah ruled: A firstling of an Israelite must not be examined unless a priest is present?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'with him'. The reason is because we fear that when the blemish is pronounced a permanent one, he will eat it himself and deprive the priest of his due.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יג <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הכל נאמנין על מומי מעשר.
13 - He replied to him: But is the analogy correct?
יד <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט דאי בעי שדי ביה מומא מעיקרא מי ידע הי נפיק
14 There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to Rab Judah's ruling.');"><sup>21</sup></span> granted that he will not eat consecrated animals without [the Temple precincts],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As we see that he would not slaughter the animal before he showed it to the expert.');"><sup>22</sup></span> he is nevertheless suspected as regards the priest's property;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the penalty is not as severe as for eating consecrated animals outside the Temple, which involves kareth, and therefore the priest must be present when the examination takes place.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
טו וכי תימא מפיק ליה בריש עשרה (ויקרא כז, לג) לא יבקר בין טוב לרע אמר רחמנא אלא דאי בעי שדי ביה מומא בכולי עדריה:
15 but here, well, he knew that this blemish was a well-marked one, and why did he bring it before the Rabbis? Out of respect for the Sage. Now, if he did not neglect showing respect to the Sage, will he actually commit an offence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of stealing, which is a much more serious thing than not showing respect to the expert by not showing him the animal in the case under discussion.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
טז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בכור שנסמית עינו ושנקטעה ידו ושנשברה רגלו הרי זה ישחט על פי ג' בני הכנסת רבי יוסי אומר אפילו יש שם כ"ג אינו נשחט אלא על פי מומחה:
16 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ALL ARE TRUST WORTHY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To testify that the blemish was not caused deliberately. The Mishnah refers to a doubtful tithing animal, e.g., where he called the ninth animal, when counting the tenth, the law being that it is not eaten unless blemished, v. infra 59a.');"><sup>25</sup></span> AS REGARDS THE BLEMISHES OF A TITHING ANIMAL. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is the reason? - Because if he wished he could cause a blemish originally [before the tithing].
יז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> רבי שמלאי ור' יהודה נשיאה תרוייהו משמיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי אמרי ואמרי לה רבי שמלאי וריב"ל תרוייהו משום ר' יהודה נשיאה אמרי התרת בכור בחוצה לארץ על פי שלשה בני הכנסת אמר רבא ובמומין מובהקין
17 But how does he know which goes out [through the door]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the tenth, so that he might cause a blemish at the outset.');"><sup>26</sup></span> And if you will say that he brings out an animal as the tenth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the beginning of ten'.');"><sup>27</sup></span> and blemishes it, does not the Divine Law say: He shall not search whether it be good or bad?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII. 33. Implying that he must not bring out the animal but it must go out by itself.');"><sup>28</sup></span> - Rather explain thus: If he wished he could have caused a blemish to the whole herd [of animals before tithing].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the animals are all hullin, and this is permissible. He can then proceed to tithe, for tithing takes effect even with blemished animals, the text saying 'Good or bad', i.e., unblemished or blemished. Therefore we believe him when he declares that the blemish on the doubtfully tithed animal was not caused intentionally.');"><sup>29</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>A FIRSTLING WHOSE EYE WAS BLINDED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a prominent and visible blemish.');"><sup>30</sup></span> OR WHOSE FORE-FOOT WAS CUT OFF, OR WHOSE HIND-LEG WAS BROKEN, MAY BE SLAUGHTERED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THREE [PERSONS] OF THE SYNAGOGUE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are not necessarily experts.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
יח מאי קמ"ל תנינא בכור שנסמית עינו ושנקטעה ידו ושנשתברה רגלו הרי זה ישחט על פי ג' בני הכנסת
18 BUT R'JOSE SAYS: EVEN IF A HIGH PRIEST WERE PRESENT, A FIRSTLING MUST NOT BE SLAUGHTERED EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN EXPERT. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Both R'Simlai and R'Judah the Prince reported in the name of R'Joshua B'Levi, (another version is: R'Simlai and R'Joshua B'Levi both reported in the name of R'Judah the Prince) : The permitting of a firstling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be slaughtered in consequence of a blemish.');"><sup>32</sup></span> abroad<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'outside the Land' (of Palestine.) The reason is because even in Temple-times it was not fit to be sacrificed.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
יט אי ממתניתין הוה אמינא בח"ל אפי' מומין שאין מובהקין והאי דקתני מובהקין להודיעך כחו דר' יוסי קמ"ל
19 is by three persons of the Synagogue. Said Raba: This is so [even] in the case of prominent blemishes.
כ א"ר יהודה א"ר ירמיה בר אבא ספק משמיה דרב ספק משמי דשמואל ג' מתירין את הבכור במקום שאין מומחה מאי קמ"ל תנינא הרי זה ישחט על פי ג' בני הכנסת
20 What does he teach us? We have learnt this: A FIRSTLING WHOSE EYE WAS BLINDED OR WHOSE FORE-FOOT WAS CUT OFF OR WHOSE HIND LEG WAS BROKEN, MAY BE SLAUGHTERED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THREE [PERSONS] OF THE SYNAGOGUE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And these are prominent blemishes. The Mishnahs here also deal with a firstling abroad and nowadays, a previous Mishnah speaking of an old male firstling with long wool etc'. Now if it referred to Temple-times and in Palestine, why did not the Priest offer it up?');"><sup>34</sup></span> - From the Mishnah I might have thought that blemishes which are not prominent are also permitted abroad, and the reason why the Mishnah speaks of 'prominent' [blemishes] is for the purpose of showing to what a length R'Jose is prepared to go [insisting that even so an expert is required]. He therefore informs us [that it is not s Rab Judah said that he was in doubt whether R'Jeremiah reported in the name of Rab or in the name of Samuel [the following ruling]: Three [ordinary] persons are required to permit a firstling [to be slaughtered when blemished] in a place where there is no expert. What does it teach us?
כא אי ממתניתין הוה אמינא במקום מומחה קמ"ל במקום שאין מומחה אין במקום שיש מומחה לא
21 We have learnt this: THE ANIMAL MAY BE SLAUGHTERED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THREE [PERSONS] OF THE SYNAGOGUE? From the Mishnah I might have said that even where an expert is available, [three ordinary persons are required to permit it]. He therefore informs us that in a place where there is no expert it is [as t Mishnah states], but in a place where there is an expert, it is not so. R'Hiyya B'Abin reported that R'Amram said: Three persons are necessary to permit a firstling [to be slaughtered] in a place where there is no expert.
כב אמר רב חייא בר עמרם ג' מתירין את הבכור במקום שאין מומחה ג' מתירין את הנדר במקום שאין חכם ג' מתירין את הבכור במקום שאין מומחה
22 Three persons are required to annul vows, where there is no Sage.' Three persons are necessary to permit a firstling in a place where there is no expert';
Previous ChapterNext Chapter