## Bekhorot Daf 28a

###### Bekhorot 28a:1
[Bekhorot 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:1)

וְאִידַּךְ, אִי מֵהָתָם אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל תּוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** ones, i.e., the Sages from the school of Rav, why don’t they derive the *halakha* that a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night from that verse? The Gemara answers that **if** it were derived **from there, it** would **be** possible **to say** that the verse is comparing the *halakha* of a firstborn to the **breast and thigh of a thanks offering,** which are eaten for only one day and night.


###### Bekhorot 28a:2
[Bekhorot 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:2)

וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְךָ יִהְיֶה״ — הוֹסִיף לְךָ הַכָּתוּב הֲוָיָה אַחֶרֶת בִּבְכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the other** one, Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, how does he respond to this? **The verse states:** “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, **it shall be yours”** (Numbers 18:18). **The verse adds another** mention of a form of the term **being** in the second phrase: “It shall be yours,” to teach **that** the priest has an additional day to eat **a firstborn** animal, i.e., that it is compared to the breast and thigh of a peace offering, not to that of a thanks offering.


###### Bekhorot 28a:3
[Bekhorot 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:3)

וְאִידַּךְ, הָא מֵהָתָם אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: הַאי ״יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״ — לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנּוֹתְנוֹ לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לוֹ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the other** ones, the Sages from the school of Rav, how do they respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: With regard to the inference **from there, it is** possible **to say** that **this** phrase: **“It shall be yours,” teaches with regard to a blemished firstborn that** the owner must **give it to the priest.** This derivation is necessary, **as we have not found this** *halakha* that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest stated explicitly **anywhere in the entire Torah.**


###### Bekhorot 28a:4
[Bekhorot 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:4)

וְאִידַּךְ, אָמַר ״וּבְשָׂרָם״ — אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד בַּעַל מוּם, וְאִידַּךְ — ״וּבְשָׂרָם״ דְּהָנֵי בְּכוֹרוֹת דְּכוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the other** one, Rav Yehuda, citing Rav, from where does he derive that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest? The verse **states: “And their flesh** shall be yours,” in the plural, i.e., **both an unblemished** firstborn **and a blemished** firstborn. The Gemara asks: **And the other** ones, the Sages from the school of Rav, how do they respond? The Gemara answers that they would claim that the term **“and their flesh”** is written in the plural not because it is referring to blemished animals, but because it **is said** in reference **to those firstborn** animals **of all the Israelites.**


###### Bekhorot 28a:5
[Bekhorot 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:5)

נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר? נוֹלַד לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וּלְאַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ נָמֵי שְׁלֹשִׁים? אוֹ דִלְמָא: הֵיכָא דְּנוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְתוּ לָא, וְהֵיכָא דְּנוֹלַד לוֹ אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ, אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשִׁים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **a blemish developed within its** first **year,** it is **permitted** for the owner **to maintain** the animal **for the entire twelve months;** if a blemish developed after twelve months have passed, it is permitted for the owner to maintain the animal for only thirty days. **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **what** case **is** the mishna **speaking?** Does the mishna mean that if **a blemish developed within** the animal’s first **year,** the owner is **permitted to maintain** the animal **for the entire twelve months, and after** the animal’s first **year also** for another **thirty** days? **Or perhaps** the mishna is referring to two different situations, i.e., in a case **where the blemish developed within** the animal’s first **year** the owner is **permitted to maintain** the animal **for the entire twelve months, but nothing more; and** in a case **where it developed** a blemish **after** one **year, he is permitted to maintain it for only thirty** days.


###### Bekhorot 28a:6
[Bekhorot 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּכוֹר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לֶחָכָם — רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וּמִשֶּׁנִּרְאָה לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לֶחָכָם, נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ — רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a firstborn in the present** time, when there is no Temple and the animal cannot be brought as an offering, **until** it has developed a blemish that **can be shown to an expert,** it is **permitted** for the owner **to maintain** the animal **for two or three years. But once** the animal develops a blemish **that can be shown to an expert,** if **the blemish developed within its** first **year,** it is **permitted** for the owner **to maintain it for the entire twelve months.**


###### Bekhorot 28a:7
[Bekhorot 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:7)

אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ אֲפִילּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד, וַאֲפִילּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת. אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי הֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה לַבְּעָלִים, אָמְרוּ: רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **After** the animal’s first **year,** the owner **does not have permission to maintain it even** for **one day, or even one hour. But due to** the mitzva of **returning a lost item to the owners,** i.e., to give the owner time to find a priest and give him the animal, the Sages **said:** The owner **is permitted to maintain** the animal for **thirty days.** The Gemara assumes that in its latter clause the *baraita* is still addressing a blemish that developed in the first year. If so, the thirty days evidently apply in such a case.


###### Bekhorot 28a:8
[Bekhorot 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:8)

וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי לִי: שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא קוֹדֶם שְׁנָתוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still, let the dilemma be raised** with regard to that *baraita* itself: Are the **thirty days** granted in a case where the animal develops a blemish **after its** first **year? Or perhaps** these thirty days are granted if it develops a blemish **before** the end of **its** first **year.** In other words, when the *baraita* states: After its first year, this can be interpreted as referring to an animal whose blemish developed only then, or to one that had a blemish earlier and subsequently reached the end of its first year.


###### Bekhorot 28a:9
[Bekhorot 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ, מַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מְסַיַּיע לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: If the animal **developed a blemish on the fifteenth day within its** first **year,** i.e., fifteen days before the end of its year, **one completes for it fifteen days after its year. Conclude from** this *baraita* that the owner may maintain a firstborn for an additional thirty days if it develops the blemish during its first year. The Gemara adds that **this supports** the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says:** With regard to an animal that developed a blemish toward the end of its year, **one gives** the owner **thirty days from the time that** the animal **developed a blemish.**


###### Bekhorot 28a:10
[Bekhorot 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:10)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לִבְכוֹר שֶׁנּוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תֹאכְלֶנּוּ שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה״, (אֵיזוֹ) [אֵילּוּ] הֵן יָמִים הַחֲשׁוּבִין שָׁנָה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that **Rabbi Elazar says: From where** is it derived with regard **to a firstborn** animal **that developed a blemish during its** first **year that one gives** the owner **thirty days after its year?** It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated: “You shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year** in the place that the Lord shall choose, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 15:20). It is derived from here that it may be eaten for one year and for another year. **Which are** the **days that are considered** to be a significant part of **a year? You must say these are thirty days,** which in certain respects are considered a complete year. This indicates that such a firstborn may be eaten for up to thirty days beyond the first twelve months.


###### Bekhorot 28a:11
[Bekhorot 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:11)

מֵיתִיבִי: נוֹלַד לוֹ מוּם בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ — מַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם אַחַר שְׁנָתוֹ. הַשְׁלָמָה — אִין, מֵיהֲבָא — לָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to this version of the discussion, the Gemara **raises an objection:** It is taught in a *baraita* that if the animal **developed a blemish on the fifteenth day within its year,** i.e., fifteen days before the end of its year, **one completes for it fifteen days after its year.** This indicates that with regard to **completing** a total of thirty days from the time the animal developed the blemish, **yes,** the owner may continue to maintain the animal in such a case. But if the blemish developed earlier, the *baraita* does **not give him** an extra thirty days beyond the conclusion of the year. The Gemara concludes: **The refutation of** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar** is indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Bekhorot 28a:12
[Bekhorot 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וּמַרְאֶה אֶת מוּמוֹ — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנִשְׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּי מוּמְחֶה — אָסוּר. מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּמְחֶה וְרוֹאֶה אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, וְנִשְׁחַט עַל פִּיו — הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who slaughters the firstborn** animal **and** only then **shows its blemish** to an expert to determine whether it is a blemish, and it was established by the expert that it is in fact a blemish that renders its slaughter permitted, **Rabbi Yehuda deems** it **permitted** for a priest to derive benefit from the firstborn. **Rabbi Meir says: Since it was slaughtered not according to** the ruling of **an expert,** it is **prohibited.** In a case involving **one who is not an expert, and he examined the firstborn** animal **and it was slaughtered on the basis of his** ruling, **that** animal **must be buried,** and the non-expert **must pay** compensation to the priest **from his property.**


###### Bekhorot 28a:13
[Bekhorot 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף אַטּוּ דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף אַטּוּ דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says:** The dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda does not apply in the case of a blemish **on the cornea of the eye.** In that situation **everyone agrees that** the animal **is prohibited, because** such blemishes in the eye **change** after the animal’s death, which means that there is no way of determining at that late stage whether it had been a permanent blemish or a temporary one. **They disagree only with regard to blemishes that** are **on the** animal’s **body,** which do not change after death. **As Rabbi Meir holds** that **we issue a decree** prohibiting the animal in the case of **blemishes that** are **on the** animal’s **body due to** the case of blemishes **on the cornea, and Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **we do not issue a decree** with regard to **blemishes that** are **on the** animal’s **body due to** the case of blemishes **on the cornea.**


###### Bekhorot 28a:14
[Bekhorot 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:14)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וּמַרְאֶה אֶת מוּמָיו — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבְּעַיִן אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין, בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף מוּתָּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּנִּין. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגּוּף מִי מִשְׁתַּנִּין?! אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַמִּשְׁתַּנִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is also taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who slaughters a firstborn** animal **and** afterward **shows its blemishes** to an expert, **Rabbi Yehuda says:** If the blemish is **on the cornea of the eye** the animal is **prohibited, because** such blemishes **change.** But **in** the case of **blemishes on its body** the animal is **permitted, because** these blemishes **do not change. Rabbi Meir says: Both this,** blemishes on the eye, **and that,** blemishes on the body, **are prohibited because they change.** The Gemara inquires: Could it **enter your mind** that blemishes on the body are prohibited **because they change? Do blemishes on the body change** after the death of the animal? **Rather,** the blemishes on the body are prohibited **due to** a decree based on the case of blemishes on the cornea, **which change.**


###### Bekhorot 28a:15
[Bekhorot 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/28a:15)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says:**