פירוש על בכורות 5:3

הצורם (he who makes a slit) – he mutilates/disqualifies. And we are speaking of a Kohen, who slits the ear of the firstling in order that it will be unconsecrated in his hand.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with the status of first borns who were intentionally blemished by their owners. It contains two very interesting stories.

הרי זה לא ישחט עולמית – and even if another blemish befell it, because of a fine, because he transgressed and placed a blemish on Holy Things. For a person who places a blemish on Holy Things is flogged forty times (i.e., minus one), and even if he made a blemish upon a blemish. As it is written (Leviticus 22:21): “there must be no defect in it,” it reads, “will not be in it,” that he will not place in it a defect. For it could have been written, “a defect,” but it is written, "כל מום"/”there must be no defect,” to include even a defect that he did not place upon it.

If one makes a slit in the ear of a firstborn animal, he may never slaughter it, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: when another blemish appears, he may slaughter it on account of it. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if one intentionally blemishes a first born, he can never slaughter the animal. Even if it is subsequently blemished in another way, he is penalized and he still cannot slaughter it. The other sages adopt a more lenient position. The blemish that he put on the animal itself is not sufficient to allow him to slaughter it. However, he can slaughter and eat the animal when it is blemished in another way.

כשיולד לו מום אחר ישחט עליו – and even on the same defect itself. If it person who placed the defect on it died, his son slaughters it after him on that defect, but the Rabbis fined him (i.e., the original person who placed he defect on the animal) but the Rabbis did not fine his son. And such is the Halakha.

It happened that a quaestor (a Roman saw an old male lamb with its long wool hanging down and asked: what is the meaning of this? They replied: “It is a first born and is not to be slaughtered until it has a blemish,” [The quaestor] took a dagger and slit its ear. The matter came before the sages and they permitted it. After they had permitted, he went and sliced the ears of other [first borns]. The [sages] forbade them. It is forbidden to shear first born animals, so if they are not blemished and they can’t be sacrificed because the Temple is no longer standing, they will grow very long hair. Upon seeing one such strange beast, a Roman official asked the Jews what is going on with their goat. The Jews explained that they could not slaughter the animal until it became blemished. The Roman official, being a very helpful non-Jew, proceeded to intentionally blemish the animal. When the Jews brought the animal to the sages, the sages permitted it. Seeing that he had been so helpful to the Jews, the Roman official decided to be even more helpful and he went and blemished other first borns (I never knew Romans were so interested in helping Jews perhaps he just liked to slice the ears of goats?). This time the sages didn’t permit the first borns to be eaten. Once the Roman knew that by his blemishing them they could be eaten, his actions could no longer allow the first born to be eaten.

ושערו מדולדל – that it was never sheared.

Once children were once playing in a field. They tied the tails of sheep one to the other and one tail which belonged to a first born was severed. The matter came before the rabbis and they permitted [the first born]. When the children saw that they had permitted [the first born to be slaughtered], they proceeded to tie the tails of other first borns. The [sages] forbade [the other first borns]. A similar story is related concerning some children, who while playing a game, blemished a first born animal. Since they didn’t know that their actions would allow the animal to be eaten, the sages permitted it. However, when they began to intentionally blemish other animals, the sages did not permit them.

קסדור (quaestor) – appointed by the king.

This is the rule: wherever the blemish is caused with the knowledge and consent [of the owner] it is forbidden, but, if it is not with his knowledge and consent, it is permitted. The general rule is that if the blemish was done without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the animal, the first born may be eaten. But if the owner knew that what he was doing was going to permit the animal to be eaten, or if he consented to someone else blemishing the animal, it cannot be eaten, at least not based on that particular blemish.

מה טיבו של זה- that he left it to be wounded/damaged so much.

פגיון – a knife that has two mouths is called a dagger.

והתירוהו – even though that the heathen intended to place upon it a blemish. Since that it was without the knowledge of an Israelite/Jew that he did it, he didn’t intend to do something beneficial to a Jew.

ראה שהתירוהו והלך וצרם באזני בכורות אחרים – in order to do something beneficial to a Jew, it was done as if the Jew had said to him that he should do it and it is prohibited.

היו תינוקות משחקות – and it is necessary to inform us about a heathen quaestor and young children. For if it had taught [only] the quaestor, I might think that it was a heathen that was permitted for one cannot make a decree for perhaps he comes to hand it over to you and to learn how to make a blemish in Holy Things, for we do not care that it is the habit of heathens for it is their custom in forbidden thigs, but a minor, if he permitted him, he would come to hand it over to you, I would say no. But if we taught only regarding young children, I would think that it was a young child that the Rabbis permitted, for one that is appropriate would not come to state also that an adult who cast upon it a blemish would be permitted, for a minor and an adult are not confused/interchangeable, but an adult heathen who comes to switch with an adult Israelite, I would say no. Both are necessary.

כל שהוא לדעתו אסור – to include an indirect effect. As for example, that he would cause the animal to walk in a place where there is iron in order that it would trip upon it and a blemish would befall it.

ושלא לדעתו מותר – to include that if the Israelite/Jew was making a statement incidentally (i.e., in ignorance of its legal bearing), and states in the presence of the heathen that this firstling if a blemish befell it, that is that we consume it. And the heathen heard and placed upon it a blemish, it is permitted.