Talmud sobre Bechorot 5:11

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, If there were somebody who would vote with me, I would permit to sell firstling meat by the pound³⁶Mishnah Bekhorot 5:1. and I would permit to work on the intermediate days of the holiday³⁷The prohibition has no explicit biblical basis.. They only forbade to sell firstling meat by the pound so it should be sold cheaply³⁸This is clearly the thrust of the Mishnah. Even though the biblical text repeatedly declares the defective firstling as intrinsically profane, its meat is sold at premium prices because of its connection with sancta.; but they are tricky about it and selling it dearly. They only forbade to work on the intermediate days of the holiday so they should eat, and drink, and exert themselves in Torah; but they eat, and drink, and behave wantonly.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon²¹⁶Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2, quoted in the next paragraph. While a firstling calf or lamb has to be treated as a sacrifice, R. Simeon permits any surgical operation if the health of the animal requires it, even if it is clear that by the operation the animal will become unfit as a sacrifice. both said the same thing²¹⁷R. Joshua permits to bring impurity to heave in order to save some part in purity; R. Simeon permits to make a blemish on a firstling calf in order to save its life.. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other²¹⁸R. Joshua permits to bring impurity to heave in order to save food. In the case of Bekhorot, the Mishnah states that one may not slaughter the firstling because of the man-induced blemish; the animal cannot become food for anybody. Therefore, it is not necessary that R. Joshua agree with R. Simeon. On the other hand, R. Simeon holds that pure and impure heave cannot be burned together; it is forbidden to make heave impure even if it must be burned (Note 190). Therefore, R. Simeon cannot be shown to agree with R. Joshua in Terumot.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state¹⁹⁰Mishnah Pesaḥim 1:7, speaking of pure and impure heave. If this is the teaching of R. Simeon, he must hold that they disagree for suspended and impure heave and, therefore, these can be burned together since practice always follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer. But then suspended heave should be treated as impure, against Mishnah 7.: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.¹⁹¹Tosephta Pesaḥim 1:5, quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 20b. The Tosephta is Babylonian, unknown to the Yerushalmi.” Could one not burn the two together²¹⁹Since the pure heave also must be destroyed by biblical decree.? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it²²⁰By biblical decree, leavened matter is permitted on the 14th of Nisan until the time of the slaughter of the Passover lamb, which is shortly after noon (Note 210). However, by rabbinic decree no leavened matter may be eaten two hours before noontime and all leavened matter must be eliminated at least one hour before noon. Therefore, at the time of burning, the heave would still be good heave according to biblical law for another hour and could not be considered as being lost automatically.. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah²²¹Heave must be eaten in purity, which can be guaranteed only if the heave is guarded at all times or at least kept at a place locked away from possible impurities (cf. Šeqalim 7:2, fol. 50c; Babli Pesaḥim 34a). Since on the 14th of Nisan, leavened heave cannot be eaten after 10 a.m. local time, there is no need to watch it any longer and, by being released from supervision, it should become invalid immediately even by biblical standards.? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah²²²As just shown, the lack of attention makes everything impure for practical purposes., coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah²²³In the next paragraph, R. Simeon’s interpretation of the biblical text is given.! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]²²⁴Therefore, the argument of Note 221 is inapplicable in our situation.. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals²²⁵If one starts the fire to burn the heave, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we deal with the moment before the fire is started.? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua²²⁶The positions of R. Joshua in Pesaḥim 1:7 and Terumot 8:8–10 do not necessarily coincide, as explained by R. Ilaï.! He said to him, these are Tannaïm²²⁷It is impossible to fully reconstruct the original position of R. Joshua since the only knowledge we have of his statements is through the interpretations of the students of R. Aqiba.. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua²⁰³This shows that the origin of the text is in Pesaḥim. “There” means Terumot, where potentially an entire harvest may be lost in the winepress. “Here” means Pesaḥim, where the question is only whether different kinds of leavened matter may be burned together or have to be burned separately..

There²²⁹Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2. Since a firstling is a sacrifice by birth, it has to be treated according to the rules of sacrifices. The only difference is that a dedicated sacrifice which develops a blemish must be redeemed to become profane whereas a firstling in the hands of a Cohen which develops a blemish automatically becomes quasi profane and may be eaten by everybody and in impurity. Therefore, Cohanim are suspected to induce blemishes on the firstlings in their possession., we stated: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled even if this causes a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it should not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the Rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua²³⁰In Mishnah 7 (the “first amphora”). The Babli (Bekhorot 35b) identifies the position of the Sages with that of Rebbi Joshua (i. e., the operative opinion in Bekhorot with the operative opinion in Terumot.) The Yerushalmi implies that practice should follow Rebbi Simeon.. But we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he knows he will cause a blemish.” This parallels the later opinion of Rebbi Joshua²³¹His opinion about the “second amphora”, where he permits to induce impurity on most of the heave in order to save a small portion in purity.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah (Deut. 12:24): “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” I permitted you its blood only to spill it²³²One would have expected R. Jehudah to use Deut. 15:23, speaking of the firstling: “Only its blood you shall not eat; spill it onto the ground like water.” The verse used gives the rules for animals which develop blemishes after being dedicated. This also includes firstlings.. Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, objected: That is written about [blood of] invalid sacrifices: “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, you get from it for preparation²³³Blood is one of the fluids that prepare dry food to accept impurity (cf. Demay Chapter 2, Notes 136, 141). Since the rules for preparation are spelled out for water (Lev. 11:38), other fluids have this property of water only if there is a biblical verse which compares them to water.. Just as water prepares, so blood prepares. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them explained the same verse (Lev. 22:21): “Perfect it²³⁴Any sacrifice. shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it.” Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish²³⁵As Rashi explains in Bekhorot35b, the Sages hold that R. Simeon would be justified if the verse read “no blemish shall be on it.” But the involved language, any blemish, forbids the imposition of a new blemish on existing blemishes.
Here ends the parallel in Pesaḥim..

It was stated⁸⁹Tosephta Demay 5:4: “He who enters a town with heave in his hand, does not know anybody there, [or stands by a threshing floor with heave in his hand] {and wants to give the heave to a trustworthy Cohen,} and does not know anybody there, may ask either ḥaverim or amē haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one may only ask a ḥaver.” One has to interpret the baraita in the Yerushalmi similarly, that the question is about heave. But the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, given by R. Jonah, is the opposite, that the stranger wants to know whether he may take without worry, not to whom to give.
The phrase in brackets is not in the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta and R. S. Liebermann explains this as scribal omission. However, while the thrust of the Tosephta is not that of the Yerushalmi, a Yerushalmi version would not have the phrase, or does not have the phrase, as asserted by R. Jonah at the end of this paragraph. The Vienna scribe probably did not make an error here.: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there⁹⁰Mishnah Bekhorot 5:4. The firstborn of a cow, sheep, or goat must be given to a Cohen. If it is without blemish, it is dedicated as sacrifice from birth. If it develops a defect, the Cohen may slaughter and eat it at home (Deut. 15:19–23). Hence, the Cohen has a monetary interest in finding a defect in such a firstborn.: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect⁹¹And this includes absolutely all Cohanim in matters regarding firstborn animals. in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge⁹²Since a distribution of tithes is publicly announced, even the stranger would find enough information about the person who is making the distribution..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua²⁴⁷The order appearing in the text of Terumot, R. Joshua (first generation), R. Simeon (third generation) is preferable. both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot²⁴⁸Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2, quoted in the next paragraph. While a firstling calf or lamb has to be treated as a sacrifice, R. Simeon permits any surgical operation if the health of the animal requires it, even if it is clear that by the operation the animal will become disqualified as sacrifice. and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua²⁴⁹Talmudic style requires the addition found in Terumot: “But R. Joshua will not agree with R. Simeon”. R. Joshua (Terumot8:8–10) permits to cause impurity to heave in order to save food; R. Simeon permits to make a blemish on a firstling in order to save its life. But the Mishnah in Bekhorot states that a firstling with this intentionally induced blemish may not be slaughtered; it cannot become food for anybody. Therefore it is not necessary to conclude that R. Joshua agrees with R. Simeon. Babli Bekhorot 33b.. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]²⁵⁰This sentence is neither in the Mishnah nor in Terumot; the question is correct as objection of R. Eliezer to R. Joshua.? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua²⁵¹While the Mishnah states, “R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree”, the formulation here is more to the point. that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention²⁵²Heave must be eaten in purity, which can be guaranteed only if the heave is guarded at all times or at least kept at a place locked away from possible impurities (Babli 34a, Šeqalim 7:2). Since on the 14^th of Nisan heave cannot be eaten after 10 a.m., there is no need to watch it any longer and, by being released from supervision, it should become disqualified immediately even by biblical standards.? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so²⁵³Even if disqualified for other reasons, it still has to be watched; the prior objection is baseless.; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals²⁵⁴If one starts the fire to burn the leavened matter, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we are dealing with the time before the fire was started.. He told him, after it was put there²⁵⁴If one starts the fire to burn the leavened matter, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we are dealing with the time before the fire was started.. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua²⁵⁵The positions of R. Joshua in Pesaḥim1:7 and Terumot 8:8–10 do not necessarily coincide.. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua²⁵⁶It is impossible to fully reconstruct the original position of R. Joshua since the only knowledge we have of his statements is through the interpretation of third generation Amoraim..

There, we have stated²⁵⁷Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2 [Sifra Emor Parashah 7(10)]. Since a firstling is a sacrifice by birth, it has to be treated according to the rules of sacrifices. The only difference is that a dedicated sacrifice which develops a blemish must be redeemed to become profane whereas a firstling in the hands of a Cohen which develops a blemish automatically becomes profane and may be eaten by everybody and in impurity. Therefore, Cohanim are suspected to induce blemishes on the firstlings in their possession.: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled, only he should not intend to cause a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it may not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.”