Bekhorot 73

לאפוקי מדרבי יוסי

this excludes the ruling of R'Jose [in the Mishnah].'

שלשה מפירין את הנדר במקום שאין חכם לאפוקי מדרבי יהודה דתניא

Three persons are required to annul vows in a place where there is no Sage'; this excludes the ruling of R'Judah.

הפרת נדרים בג' ר' יהודה אומר

For it has been taught: The annulment of vows requires three persons; R'Judah rules: One of them must be a Sage'.'

אחד מהם חכם

In the place where there is no Sage'.

במקום שאין חכם כגון מאן

Who, for example?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is meant by the term Sage?');">¹</span>

אמר רב נחמן

- Said R'Nahman: for example, myself.

כגון אנא

R'Judah rules: One of them must be a Sage'.

ר' יהודה אומר

Does this imply, therefore, that the rest can be people of any kind?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even ignorant people. But how can we take their views into consideration?');">²</span>

אחד מהן חכם מכלל דהנך כל דהו

- Said Rabina: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rules and regulations appertaining to vows.');">³</span>

אמר רבינא

are explained to them and they understand.

דמסתברי ליה וסבר:

BUT R'JOSE SAYS: EVEN IF A HIGH PRIEST WERE PRESENT etc. R'Hananel reported in the name of Rab: The halachah is not in accordance with R'Jose.

רבי יוסי אומר אפילו יש שם כ"ג כו':

Surely this is obvious, for 'where a single opinion is opposed to the opinion of more than one, the law follows the latter'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ber. 9a.');">⁴</span>

אמר רב חננאל אמר רב

- You might have thought that we must adopt R'Jose's opinion, because he is known to have deep reasons [for his rulings].

אין הלכה כרבי יוסי

He therefore informs us [that it is not so].

פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים

You may now infer from this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling of R. Hananel.');">⁵</span>

מהו דתימא

that the former ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which Rab Judah reported that R. Jeremiah gave. viz., that three Persons are required to permit a firstling.');">⁶</span>

נמוקו עמו קמ"ל

was stated in the name of Samuel.

תפשוט מהא דהך קמייתא משמיה דשמואל איתמר דאי משמיה דרב תרתי למה לי

For if it were in the name of Rab, what need is there for the repetition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By declaring in the name of Rab that the law is not in accordance with the ruling of R. Jose, R. Hananel indicates that three persons are required, and therefore, if the former statement had been reported in the name of Rab, there would be two similar rulings by the same authority. Hence we can solve the doubt whether R. Jeremiah reported in the name of Rab or Samuel; it must have been in the name of Samuel.');">⁷</span>

חדא מכלל דחבירתה איתמר:

- 'One ruling was derived by implication' from the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The above ruling of Rab Judah may still have been reported to him by R. Jeremiah in the name of Rab, and there is no difficulty, for R. Hananel's statement here in the name of Rab may be only an inference from Rab Judah's earlier ruling and not an explicit statement on the part of Rab.');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט את הבכור ונודע שלא הראהו מה שאכלו אכלו ויחזיר להם הדמים

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A FIRSTLING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And sold of its flesh.');">⁹</span>

ומה שלא אכלו הבשר יקבר ויחזיר את הדמים

AND IT BECAME KNOWN THAT HE HAD NOT SHOWN IT [TO A SCHOLAR].

וכן השוחט את הפרה ומכרה ונודע שהיא טרפה מה שאכלו אכלו ומה שלא אכלו הם יחזירו לו את הבשר והוא יחזיר להם את הדמים

AS REGARDS WHAT [THE PURCHASERS] HAVE EATEN, THERE IS NO REMEDY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what they have eaten they have eaten'.');">¹⁰</span>

מכרוהו לעובד כוכבים או הטילוהו לכלבים ישלמו דמי טרפה:

AND HE MUST RETURN THE MONEY TO THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For being instrumental in causing them to eat forbidden food he is penalized.');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר

AS REGARDS, HOWEVER, WHAT THEY HAVE NOT YET EATEN, THE FLESH MUST BE BURIED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is forbidden to benefit from an unblemished firstling.');">¹²</span>

המוכר בשר לחבירו ונמצא בשר בכור פירות ונמצא טבלים יין ונמצא יין נסך מה שאכלו אכלו ויחזיר להם את הדמים

AND HE MUST RETURN THE MONEY TO THEM.

ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר

AND LIKEWISE IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A COW AND SOLD IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN THAT IT WAS TREFAH, AS REGARDS WHAT [THE PURCHASERS] HAVE EATEN THERE IS NO REMEDY, AND AS REGARDS WHAT THEY HAVE NOT EATEN, THEY RETURN THE FLESH TO HIM AND HE MUST RETURN THE MONEY TO THEM.

דברים שהנפש קצה בהן יחזיר להן את הדמים ושאין הנפש קצה בהם ינכה להם את הדמים

IF [THE PURCHASERS] [IN THEIR TURN] SOLD IT TO HEATHENS OR CAST IT TO DOGS, THEY MUST PAY HIM THE PRICE OF TREFAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they did not eat the trefah, they must pay him the cheap price of trefah and he compensates them for the rest, as they paid the higher price for kosher flesh.');">¹³</span>

ואלו הן דברים שהנפש קצה בהן

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: If one sells flesh to another which turned out to be flesh of a firstling, or if one sells produce and it turns out to be untithed or if one sells wine and it turns out to be forbidden wine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wine of idolatrous libation.');">¹⁴</span>

נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים

what [the purchasers] have eaten cannot be remedied and he must return the money to them.

ואלו הן דברים שאין הנפש קצה בהן

R'Simeon B'Eleazar, however, says: In the case of objects for which a man has a loathing, he must return the money to them, [as there was no benefit to them after knowing], whereas in the case of objects for which a man has not a loathing, he deducts from the price [what had been eaten].

בכורות טבלים ויין נסך

And the following are the objects for which a person has a loathing: Carcases, trefahs, forbidden animals and reptiles.

בכור ולימא ליה

And the following are objects for which a person has no loathing: Firstlings, untithed products and forbidden wine.

מאי אפסדתך

[Do you therefore say that in the case of] a firstling [he deducts]?

לא צריכא כגון דזבין ליה ממקום מומא דא"ל

But why should not [the buyer] say to [the seller] 'What loss have I caused you'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even if it were in your possession. it would have required burial, having been slaughtered in an unblemished state.');">¹⁵</span>

אי לאו דאכלת הוה מחזינא ליה ושרי ניהליה כרבי יהודה

- No; the statement is required for the case where he sold him the flesh from the place where the blemish was, for he says to him: 'Had you not eaten it, I would have shown it to [a scholar] and he might have permitted it, in accordance with the ruling of R'Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 28a.');">¹⁶</span>

טבלים הוה מתקיננא להו ואכלנא להו

As regards untithed things,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question also arises, why should the seller take a part of the money, since in any case he could not have used the untithed produce.');">¹⁷</span>

יין נסך על ידי תערובת וכרשב"ג

he can say: 'I might have prepared them [ritually] and eaten them'.

דתנן

With reference to forbidden wine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis.');">¹⁸</span>

יין נסך שנפל לבור כולו אסור בהנאה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר

[one can explain that he sold it to him] mixed [with permitted wine], [and had he not consumed it he would have been able to benefit by it] according to the ruling of R'Simeon B'Gamaliel.

ימכר כולו לעובדי כוכבים חוץ מדמי יי"נ שבו:

For we have learnt: If forbidden wine falls into a vat [of permitted wine], it is forbidden to profit from the whole of it.

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כל פסולי המוקדשין</strong></big><br><br>

R'Simeon B'Gamaliel however, says: He can sell the whole of it to a heathen, except for the value of the forbidden wine in it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he deducts the value from the price, so as not to benefit from the forbidden wine.');">¹⁹</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>על</strong></big> אלו מומין שוחטין את הבכור

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THESE ARE THE BLEMISHES IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH A FIRST-BORN ANIMAL MAY BE SLAUGHTERED;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the destruction of the Temple.');">²⁰</span>

נפגמה אזנו מן החסחוס אבל לא העור

IF ITS EAR HAS BECOME DEFECTIVE, [BEING CUT OR BORED THROUGH] FROM THE CARTILAGES [INWARD] BUT NOT IF THE DEFECT IS IN THE EAR-LAP;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the skin', because a blemish at this spot can become sound again.');">²¹</span>

נסדקה אעפ"י שלא חסרה

IF IT IS SLIT ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO LOSS [OF SUBSTANCE]; IF IT IS PERFORATED WITH A HOLE AS LARGE AS A KARSHINAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A species of vetch, probably horse-bean.');">²²</span>

ניקבה מלא כרשינה או שיבשה

OR IF [THE EAR] HAS BECOME DRY.

איזהו יבשה

WHAT IS CALLED 'BECOMING DRY'?

כל שתנקב ואינה מוציאה טיפת דם

IF IT IS PERFORATED NO DROP OF BLOOD WOULD ISSUE.

ר' יוסי בן המשולם אומר

R'JOSE B. HA-MESHULLAM SAYS: [IT] IS CALLED DRY WHEN IT IS LIABLE TO CRUMBLE.

יבשה שתהא נפרכת:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why is this so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should the defects enumerated in the Mishnah be regarded as legal blemishes in connection with a firstling?');">²³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמאי

Does not Scripture say 'Lame or blind'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 21. As being blemishes in consequence of which a firstling may be killed, the text continuing 'Thou shalt eat it within thy gates'. This implies that no other defects are considered legal blemishes.');">²⁴</span>

{דברים טו } פסח ועור כתיב

It also writes: And if there be any blemish therein.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The opening passage of the text just cited; from this we deduce that there are other blemishes which have the same ruling as lameness and blindness.');">²⁵</span>

כתיב נמי

But why not argue that [the text] 'And if there be any blemish therein' is a general statement while 'lame or blind' is a specification; and where a general statement is followed by a specification the scope of the general statement is limited by the things specified, so that only lameness or blindness [in a firstling] are [legal blemishes], but other [defects] are not [legal blemishes]? - [The text]: 'Any ill blemishes whatsoever'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A continuation of the above text.');">²⁶</span>

(דברים טו, כא) כי יהיה בו מום

is another general statement.

ואימא

We have, therefore, a general statement followed by the enumeration of specifications which are in turn followed by a general statement and in such a case we include only such things as are similar to those specified.

כי יהיה בו מום כלל פסח או עור פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט

Hence, just as the specifications<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lameness and blindness.');">²⁷</span>

פסח ועור אין מידי אחרינא לא

are exposed blemishes which cannot become sound again, so all [legal] blemishes must be exposed and unable to become sound again.

(דברים טו, כא) כל מום רע חזר וכלל

But why not reason: As the specifications are exposed blemishes which render the animal incapable of carrying out its normal functions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lame not being able to walk and the blind to see. Lit., 'idle from its work'.');">²⁸</span>

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין אף כל מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין

and cannot become sound again.

ואימא

so all [legal] blemishes must be exposed rendering the animal incapable of carrying out its normal functions and unable to become sound again?

מה הפרט מפורש מומין שבגלוי ובוטל ממלאכתו ואינו חוזר אף כל מומין שבגלוי ובוטל ממלאכתו ואינו חוזר

Why then have we learnt: IF THE EAR IS DEFECTIVE FROM THE CARTILAGES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should this be considered a blemish, since the animal is not in consequence deprived of hearing. kf');">²⁹</span>

אלמה תנן

BUT NOT IF THE DEFECT IS IN THE EAR-LAP? - [The text]: 'Any<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word is a comprehensive term which includes other defects as blemishes.');">³⁰</span>

נפגמה אזנו מן החסחוס ולא מן העור

ill blemish whatsoever' is a widening of the scope of what constitutes a blemish.

כל מום רע ריבויא הוא

If this be so, why not also [slaughter a firstling] in consequence o hidden blemishes?

אי הכי מומין שבסתר נמי

Why then have we learnt: If the incisors are broken off or levelled [to the gum] or the molars are torn out [completely].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 39a.');">³¹</span>

אלמה תנן

חוטין החיצונות שנפגמו ושנגממו והפנימיות שנעקרו