Commentary for Bekhorot 5:5
נֶאֱמָן הַכֹּהֵן לוֹמַר הֶרְאֵיתִי בְּכוֹר זֶה וּבַעַל מוּם הוּא. הַכּל נֶאֱמָנִים עַל מוּמֵי הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. בְּכוֹר שֶׁנִּסְמֵית עֵינוֹ, שֶׁנִּקְטְעָה יָדוֹ, שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה יִשָּׁחֵט עַל פִּי שְׁלשָׁה בְנֵי הַכְּנֶסֶת, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ יֵשׁ שָׁם עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלשָׁה, לֹא יִשָּׁחֵט אֶלָּא עַל פִּי מֻמְחֶה:
A priest is trusted to say: "I examined this firstborn and it is blemished." Everyone is trusted regarding the blemishes of tithed animals. A firstborn that was blinded, or whose leg was cut off or leg was broken may be slaughtered by the word of three [regular attendees] of the synagogue. Rabbi Yossi says: Even if there are twenty-three people it can only be slaughtered by the word of an expert.
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
הראיתי בכור זה – to a Sage. And he said to me that this is a permanent blemish and he slaughters it, as long as he has witnesses that he [himself] did not make the blemish. For the Kohanim are suspected of placing a blemish in a firstling in order to sell it or to consume it as unconsecrated meat, but they are not suspected of consuming pure Holy Things outside [of the Temple courtyard] or to state about a temporary blemish that it is permanent. And a Kohen who is a specialist/expert is believed to adjudicate about the blemish of a firstling that it is permanent and/or to permit it. And similarly, a Kohen is believed to state that an Israelite/Jew gave me this firstling with a blemish and he is supposed to reveal if the Israelite/Jew gave it to him with a blemish or not, and it is a matter of business to reveal that people are not lying.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
A priest is trusted to say, “I have shown this first born [to an expert] and it is blemished.” In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that priests were suspected of blemishing their first born animals so that they could eat them. Today’s mishnah teaches that they are not suspected of completely lying and saying that they showed a first born to an expert who declared it blemished, when in reality they did not. This is actually a very interesting insight as to the mentality of the priests. They will not eat an unblemished first born, because the Torah clearly states that an unblemished first born must be sacrificed. However, they might intentionally blemish a first born, because all this amounts to is “cheating the system.” It does not seem to be a direct violation of the prohibition of eating an unblemished first born.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
הכל נאמנים על מומי המעשר – Kohanim are obligated to separate the tithe for cattle like an Israelite/Jew. And everyone is believed to stated regarding a blemish that was made on the cattle that was tithed that it was not intentional, and even its owners. For since that if he needs to, he would place of blemish in his entire flock prior to to tithing, and it would be found that the tithe has a blemish.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
All are trust worthy with regard to the blemishes of a tithed animal. A tithed animal is brought to Jerusalem, its innards are sacrificed and the remainder of its meat is eaten by its owners. In contrast, a tithed animal that becomes blemished after it has been set aside as tithe is not sacrificed and can simply be eaten by its owners. An Israelite is not suspected of intentionally blemishing his tithed animals because had he wanted to lie, he could have blemished the entire herd before he set aside one of them as a tithe, and then the whole herd could have been exempt. Whenever a person could have achieved his goals without lying, he is trusted to not lie.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
שנסמית עינו שנקטעה ידו – that is a prominent blemish.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
A first born 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. But Rabbi Yose says: even if twenty-three were present, it must not be slaughtered except with the approval of an expert. Generally, a person must bring his first born to a qualified rabbinic expert for him to determine whether the blemish renders the animal unfit for sacrifice. However, if the blemish is completely obvious, such as the loss of an eye or a limb, then there is a leniency, according to the first opinion in the mishnah. He can bring the animal to three “people of the synagogue.” These are people who are generally cautious in their performance of mitzvoth, they are not “amei haaretz,” but they are not experts in the laws of blemishes. It seems that their function is to certify that he brought the animal to them, but not actually have to render a ruling whether or not the animal was blemished. Rabbi Yose demands that a rabbi who is an expert in what blemishes disqualify a person must be present. Even if there are twenty-three judges, the number necessary to constitute a small Sanhedrin, the animal cannot be slaughtered unless there is an expert.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
בני הכנסת – that is to say, that they are not Sages. And these words [apply] when there is no individual specialist/expert, but in a place where there is an individual expert/specialist, it is not slaughtered other than by the word of the expert, and even with a prominent blemish. This is similar to the renunciation of vows that in a place where there is an individual expert/specialist, three commoners [on a Jewish court] do not help.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
אפילו היו שם עשרים ושלשה – even if there was a Sanhedrin in the place, if there isn’t one individual that received permission to permit the blemishes of a firstling, it is not slaughtered by their word, even with a prominent blemish, until there will be a specialist/expert there. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy