Commento su Bekhorot 5:8

כל פסולי המוקדשין (all consecrated animals that are disqualified) – Holy Things that had a blemish befall them, if we sell them at a high price, it is a benefit of discretion to Temple property. Therefore, they are sold in the bazaar/shop, that is the marketplace where they sell in the rest of the unconsecrated meat and there it is sold at a high price.

Introduction Animals that have been dedicated to the Temple and then became blemished can be sold, the profit going to the Temple. Our mishnah teaches that this works a bit differently for blemished first borns.

ונשקלין בליטרא – to be sold in the manner that the butchers sell unconsecrated meat, for since they are able to sell it at a high price, they add to its worth when they redeem them from Temple property.

All dedicated animals which became unfit [for the altar] are sold in a market, slaughtered in a market and weighed by the liter, except for a first born or a tithed animal, as their profit goes to the owners, [whereas] the profit on dedicated objects which became unfit goes to the Temple. It is considered somewhat disgraceful that a once holy animal should be slaughtered and sold in the marketplace like common meat. However, this is also the most profitable way to sell the animal’s meat. Normal dedicated animals may be slaughtered and sold in the market, and weighed using weights because we want to maximize the profit that goes to the Temple. In contrast, the profit from selling a blemished first born or tithed animal goes to the priests (or in certain cases the original owners), therefore, we are not concerned with maximizing the profit. In such a case, we want to minimize the disgrace to the animal and its meat. The animal should be slaughtered and sold privately, at one’s home. The meat should not be weighed on scales using known weights, but rather its weight should be estimated.

חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר – that if they are sold at a high price their benefit is to owners. The firstling, its benefit is to the Kohen, for the meat of a firstling is consumed by everyone, but the Kohen sells it and takes its monetary worth, for the Kohen is called the owners of the firstling. But because of the benefit of the regular individual/commoner, we do not treat lightly Holy Things to treat them with the custom of unconsecrated things to sell them in a bazaar/shop, but rather in his house, and even though people will not cut the meat so much. But they are not measured with a litra but rather by estimation, and if he loses [a bit], it does not matter.

One can weigh one piece of meat of the first-born against another piece of ordinary meat. While one cannot weigh the meat of the first born on a scale using set weights, it is permitted to weigh it on a scale using another piece of meat of known weight. This is not considered to be as disgraceful.

ושוקלין מנה כנגד מנה – that if he has a piece of unconsecrated meat that is weighted in the litra, he can weigh the meat of a firstling against it. But tithes we don’t weigh a Maneh against a Maneh, for at it appears as if he sells it, and the tithe of cattle it is prohibited to sell it at all because it is not written regarding it (see Numbers 18:17): “[But the firstlings of cattle, sheep, or goats] may not be redeemed,” in the manner that it is written regarding a firstling but rather (Leviticus 27:33): “[If he does make substitution for it, then it and its substitute shall both be holy:] it cannot be redeemed/לא יגאל,” and we taught in Sifrei [B’midbar] that regarding a firstling where it states “it cannot be ransomed,” tithes, where it states concerning it, “it shall not be redeemed”, is no sold, neither living nor slaughtered, and not pure and not with a blemish.

לא ימנה ישראל עם הכהן – to eat with him in an association from the meat of a firstling with a blemish, for they not numbered regarding the firstling other than in an association that is entirely Kohanim [alone], as it is written (Numbers 18:18): “But their meat shall be yours: it shall be yours like the breast of elevation offering and like the right thigh,” for just as the breast and the thigh are for the Kohanim [only], and not for the Israelite, even the firstling, whether pure or with a blemish, are for the Kohanim [only] and not for the Israelite.

Introduction There are two topics in our mishnah. The first section deals with a Jew sharing a blemished first born with a priest. The second section deals with blood letting a first born in order to heal it.

ובית הלל מתירין ואפילו נכרי – as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:15): “[The impure and the pure alike may partake of it,] as of the gazelle and the deer,” just as the gazelle and the deer, even a heathen [may partake of it], even to the firstling also. And Scripture [teaches] as it is written (Numbers 18:18): “But their meat shall be yours:…like the breast of elevation offering and like the right thigh,” and it is speaking specifically about the pure firstling.

Bet Shammai says: An Israelite must not be invited to share [a blemished first born] with a priest. But Bet Hillel permits this, even in the case of a non-Jew. According to Bet Shammai, if a priest owns a blemished first born which he can eat, he should not invite an Israelite to share it with him. The mishnah does not explain why Bet Shammai prohibits this and the Talmud gives a midrashic reasoning. Perhaps Bet Shammai fear that the priest may be bribing the Israelite to give him the blemished first born. To prevent bribes, Bet Shammai prohibits this. Bet Hillel permits, and they even allow a non-Jew to share in eating the first born. The reason to mention that a non-Jew can share in eating the first born is to teach that the priest can do with it as he pleases, as long as he doesn’t shear it or sell its meat in the market (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah).

שאחזו דם – a sick [animal] who is danger from excess blood [letting].

If a first born has a blood attack, even if it is going to die, its blood may not be let, the words of Rabbi Judah. It is prohibited to blemish a first born animal so that it can be eaten (see tomorrow’s mishnah). According to Rabbi Judah, even if the blemish is done through blood letting with the intention of saving the animal’s life, it is still prohibited.

אין מקיזין לו דם – and even in a place where he does not make in it a blemish. For since a person is pressed (see Tractate Pesahim 11a) when his money is at stake, if you permitted him in a place where he does not make a blemish, he would come to make it in a place where one makes in it a blemish.

But the sages say: he may let its blood, as long as he does not make a blemish. And if he made a blemish, he must not slaughter it on account of this. The sages permit the animal’s blood to be let, as long as he does it in a way that the animal will not be halakhically considered blemished. And if it does become halakhically blemished, he can’t count this blemish as grounds to slaughter the animal. Rather he would have to wait until the animal becomes blemished in another way and only then can he slaughter it. Note that he cannot sacrifice it after the first blemish because one can never slaughter a blemished animal.

ובלבד שלא יעשה בו מום – that he will not tear apart the top of his ear or the top of its lips in the place where it is not able to return and be healed, the Rabbis hold all the more so that if you did not permit him in a place where there is no blemish, he will come to make it even in a place where it has a blemish.

Rabbi Shimon says: he may let blood, even though he makes a blemish. Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient and allows one to let the blood of an animal, even if he does it in such a way that it will cause a blemish. According to the Talmud, Rabbi Shimon would also let him slaughter the animal based on this blemish. Since his intention was to save the animal’s life (so he could properly slaughter it and eat it) this is not considered intentionally blemishing an animal, a topic to be discussed in tomorrow’s mishnah.

לא ישחוט עליו – for since and he placed in it [a blemish] until another blemish befalls it.

יקיז – [he should draw blood] even in the place where he makes a blemish in it, even he needs to let blood from the same limb and not leave it until it dies. But even though he made a blemish with his hands, he should slaughter it. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

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.

היה בכור רודפו כו' הרי זה ישחט עליו – but the law only applies when he kicked it (i.e., the animal) at the time that of the chase [by the animal of the person], but not when it was not at the time of the chase.

If a first born was running after him and he kicked it and thereby blemished it, he may slaughter it on account of this. Since this person did not intentionally blemish the first born in order to slaughter it and eat it, it can be slaughtered on account of this blemish.

הראויין לבוא בידי אדם – that one can say that a person make them (i.e., the blemishes) in it (i.e., the animal), such blinding its eye, cutting off his hand, or slitting its ear.

Any blemish which might have been made by a person, Israelite shepherds are trustworthy whereas shepherds who are priests are not trustworthy. The mishnah now returns to the issue of trustworthiness. An Israelite shepherd is trusted if he says that a blemish that could have been done by a person happened naturally, because the Israelite does not get to eat the animal himself. The assumption is that a person won’t lie in order to provide benefit to another person. However, the priest shepherd is not trusted because he himself could benefit from his lie.

רועים ישראל נאמנים – a Jew who is shepherd of the cattle belonging to a Kohen is believed to state o the blemishes that befell the Kohen’s cattle that they happened on its own, and the Kohen, its owner can consume it with its blemish. But we do not suspect him that perhaps through a person this blemish came intentionally and that this shepherd is lying and he comes to permit it in order that his master the Kohen will slaughter it and feed him from it, for an Israelite/Jew is permitted to eat from the firstling with a blemish when the Kohen gives him [food] from it, for in this we do not suspect him, for a small amount of quaffing like this, we do not suspect that the shepherd would lie and transgress the sin in order for this small quaffing alone (see Talmud Bekhorot 35a – that they are so dependent upon their employers for their bread and butter).

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he is trustworthy with regard to somebody else's first born, but he is not trustworthy with regard to his own. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel refines the previous section. The priest shepherd can be trusted if he is testifying concerning another priest’s first born. His lack of trustworthiness is limited to his own animals, where has a vested stake in their being deemed blemished.

רועים כהנים – shepherds who are Kohanim, are not believed when they shepherd the cattle of Israelites/Jews. For this Kohen is suspected that he himself placed a blemish in it, that this shepherd would say, My master did not leave it to me and I will give it to an other Kohen. And the same law applies that the Kohen shepherd is not believed to testify on a firstling of another Kohen, for we are suspicious of doing good to each other, for he held that I will testify for him now and he will do do me a favor when an Israelite gives me a pure firstling, and I will place a blemish in it and this Kohen will testify on my behalf that the blemish befell it on its own.

Rabbi Meir says: one who is suspected of neglecting a religious matter must not issue judgment on it or give evidence concerning it. Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and says that if a person is not trusted with regard to a certain matter, such as first born blemishes, then he is not trusted to testify with regard to any issue that is connected with that matter. Thus if a priest is not trusted with regard to his own first borns, then he can’t be trusted to testify with regard to other priest’s first borns.

רבן גמליאל אומר נאמן הוא על של חבירו ואינו נאמן של עצמו – Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with the first Tanna/teacher, for he holds that the Kohanim were not suspected other than on the firstling itself for was already given to him by an Israelite, but on that of his fried, whether, his Master/teacher or another, they were not suspected concerning them.

רבי מאיר אומר כל החשוד בדבר לא דנו ולא מעידו – and there is a [difference] between the first Tanna/teacher and Rabbi Meir, for according to Rabbi Meir, a firstling belonging to a Kohen that blemish befell it, two from the marketplace have to testify upon it, but one witness, even one who is not a Kohen, does not help. But according to the first Tanna/teacher, especially a Kohen is not believed to testify on the firstling of a Kohen, for we are concerned for doing good to one another, but one who is not a Kohen, even one who testifies is believed to permit it. But Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that even the children and the members of the household of a Kohen are believed, for specifically, only on what is his he is not believed. And his wife is also not believed because she is like is body. And the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

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.

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.

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.

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.

שנסמית עינו שנקטעה ידו – that is a prominent blemish.

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.

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.

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.

השוחט את הבכור – and sold from its flesh and it became known to us that he had not shown it to a Sage.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with a butcher who sells meat that comes from an animal that should not have been slaughtered.

מה שאכלו – those who purchase its food.

If one slaughtered a first born and it became known that he had not shown it [to an expert]: That which [the purchasers] have eaten, they ate, and he must return the money to them. That which they have not yet eaten, the flesh must be buried and he must return the money to them. If the butcher slaughters and then sells the meat of a first born without first showing it to an expert to determine whether it was blemished, the meat cannot be eaten. If they have already eaten some of the meat, there is nothing they can do about it. However, he still must pay them their money back, even though they ate the meat. This is a penalty for selling a first born without making sure it was first blemished. The meat that has not yet been eaten must be buried, as is the rule for a sacrifice that was slaughtered outside the Temple. Obviously, he must also pay them back for this meat.

ויחזיר להם את הדמים – because of a fine. That he fed them forbidden flesh/meat.

And likewise if one slaughtered a cow and sold it and it became known that it was terefah: That which [the purchasers] have eaten, they ate, and he must return the money to them. That which they have not eaten, they return the flesh to him and he must return the money to them. If [the purchasers], sold it to non-Jews or cast it to dogs, they must pay him the price of a terefah. The rule is similar for a butcher who sells the meat of an animal that was actually a terefah (an animal with a wound or illness that would have caused it to die such an animal cannot be eaten). The butcher must pay his customers back for the meat they ate because he is penalized for carelessly selling terefah meat. Meat that they have not eaten should be returned to him and he can either feed it to animals or sell it to non-Jews, since it is permitted to derive benefit (but not eat) a terefah. Obviously, he must pay them back for this meat. If they had already sold the meat to non-Jews or gave it to an animal, then they must pay him the amount that a terefah costs, which is much cheaper than a kosher animal. If they already paid him for kosher meat, he will have to return to them the difference.

מכרוהו – those who purchase it for a heathen, since he did not cause them the prohibition, they will pay him the cost of the torn animal, like it is sold cheaply, and he will return to them the remainder. But regarding a firstling, it is not taught, “they sold it to heathens,” for from a pure firstling is prohibited to derive benefit.