## Bekhorot Daf 35a

###### Bekhorot 35a:1
[Bekhorot 35a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:1)

טִימֵּא טְהָרוֹת וָמֵת — לֹא קָנְסוּ בְּנוֹ אַחֲרָיו. מַאי טַעְמָא? הֶיזֵּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר לָא שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק, קְנָסָא דְּרַבָּנַן — לְדִידֵיהּ קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן, לִבְרֵיהּ לָא קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that if **one rendered impure** the **ritually pure items** of another **and died** before paying, the Sages **did not penalize his son after his** death and require him to pay for the damage. **What is the reason** for this? The reason is that **damage that is not evident,** i.e., which does not involve any visible change, **is not considered damage** by Torah law. There is **a penalty** imposed **by rabbinic law,** as the injured party suffered a loss, but **the Sages penalized** only **him; the Sages did not penalize his son.**


###### Bekhorot 35a:2
[Bekhorot 35a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** מַעֲשֶׂה בְּזָכָר שֶׁל רְחֵלִים זָקֵן, וּשְׂעָרוֹ מְדוּלְדָּל, וְרָאָהוּ קַסְטוֹר אֶחָד וְאָמַר: מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל זֶה? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: בְּכוֹר הוּא, וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה בּוֹ מוּם. נָטַל (פיגום) [פִּיגְיוֹם] וְצָרַם אׇזְנוֹ, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּ, וְאַחַר שֶׁהִתִּירוּ הָלַךְ וְצֵירֵם בְּאׇזְנֵי בְכוֹרוֹת אֲחֵרִים וְאָסְרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There was **an incident involving an old ram whose hair was** long and **dangling,** because it was a firstborn offering. **And one** Roman **quaestor [*kastor*] saw it and said** to its owner: **What is the status [*tivo*] of this** animal that you allowed it to grow old and you did not slaughter it? **They said to him:** It **is a firstborn** offering, **and** therefore **it may be slaughtered only if it has a blemish.** The quaestor **took a dagger [*pigom*] and slit its ear. And the incident came before** the **Sages** for a ruling, **and they deemed** its slaughter **permitted. And after** the Sages **deemed** its slaughter **permitted,** the quaestor **went and slit the ears of other firstborn** offerings, **but** in these cases the Sages **deemed** their slaughter **prohibited,** despite the fact that they were now blemished.


###### Bekhorot 35a:3
[Bekhorot 35a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:3)

פַּעַם אַחַת הָיוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת מְשַׂחֲקִין בַּשָּׂדֶה, וְקָשְׁרוּ זַנְבֵי טְלָאִים זֶה בָּזֶה, וְנִפְסְקָה זְנָבוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶם, וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּכוֹר, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּ. רָאוּ שֶׁהִתִּירוּ, הָלְכוּ וְקָשְׁרוּ זַנְבוֹת בְּכוֹרוֹת אֲחֵרִים, וְאָסְרוּ. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא לְדַעְתּוֹ — אָסוּר, שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתּוֹ — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One time children were playing in the field and they tied the tails of lambs to each other, and the tail of one of them was severed, and it was a firstborn** offering. **And the incident came before the Sages** for a ruling **and they deemed** its slaughter **permitted.** The people who **saw that they deemed** its slaughter **permitted went and tied the tails of other firstborn** offerings, **and** the Sages **deemed** their slaughter **prohibited. This** is **the principle:** With regard to **any** blemish **that is** caused **intentionally,** the animal’s slaughter is **prohibited;** if the blemish is caused **unintentionally,** the animal’s slaughter is **permitted.**


###### Bekhorot 35a:4
[Bekhorot 35a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת הָיָה כּוּ׳. וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גּוֹי — דְּלָא אָתֵי לְמִיסְרַךְ, אֲבָל קָטָן דְּאָתֵי לְמִיסְרַךְ — אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna mentions that **one time** children **were** involved in a case in which they unintentionally blemished a firstborn offering whose subsequent slaughter the Sages deemed permitted. The Gemara notes: **And** although the first clause of the mishna mentions a similar occurrence, the incident involving the children is **necessary. As, had** the *tanna* **taught us** only the incident involving the **gentile,** it might have been thought that the Sages permitted the slaughter of the firstborn offering only there, **as** it is **not** a problem if the gentile **will acquire the habit** of causing blemishes, because that prohibition does not apply to gentiles. **But** with regard to a Jewish **minor,** it is a concern **that he** is likely **to acquire the habit** of causing blemishes in firstborn offerings, and therefore one might **say** that even the first, unintentional time should **not** be permitted.


###### Bekhorot 35a:5
[Bekhorot 35a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:5)

וְאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן קָטָן, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּגָדוֹל, אֲבָל גּוֹי דְּאָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּגָדוֹל — אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the *tanna* **taught us** only the incident involving **a minor,** it might have been thought that the Sages deemed the firstborn offering permitted only there, **since** there is **no** concern that people **will come to confuse** a minor **with an adult.** People would not erroneously conclude that it is permitted to cause a blemish on a firstborn offering intentionally merely due to an incident involving a minor. **But** in the case of **a gentile** adult, where this is a concern **that** people would **come to confuse** him **with** a Jewish **adult,** one might **say** that even the first, unintentional time should **not** be permitted. It is therefore **necessary** for the mishna to teach both cases.


###### Bekhorot 35a:6
[Bekhorot 35a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:6)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ ״אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה בּוֹ מוּם״, אֲבָל אִם אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ ״אִם נַעֲשָׂה בּוֹ מוּם״ — כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ ״זִיל עֲבֵיד בֵּיהּ מוּמָא״ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara analyzes the incident involving the Roman quaestor. **Rav Ḥisda says** that **Rav Ketina says: They taught** that the firstborn offering is permitted **only** in a case **where** the bystanders **said to** the quaestor: A firstborn offering may not be slaughtered **unless it has a blemish,** as this is referring to a blemish that develops naturally. **But if they said to him** that a firstborn offering may be slaughtered only **if a blemish was caused** to form **upon it,** which indicates human intervention, **it is considered as though they** explicitly **told him: Go and cause a blemish on it,** in which case the animal is prohibited.


###### Bekhorot 35a:7
[Bekhorot 35a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:7)

אָמַר רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי מִמֵּילָא הוּא, מָה לִי ״הָיָה״, מָה לִי ״נַעֲשָׂה״? אֶלָּא ״נַעֲשָׂה״ נָמֵי מִמֵּילָא הוּא, וְלָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a dissenting opinion. **Rava said: Now** consider, both expressions in fact indicate that the blemish occurred **by itself,** as both statements are in the passive. Accordingly, **what** difference is it **to me** whether the bystanders used the expression: If it **had** a blemish, or the expression: A blemish **was caused** in it? **Rather,** the expression: **Was caused, also** indicates that it occurred **by itself, and** there **is no difference** between the expressions. In both instances the firstborn offering would be permitted.


###### Bekhorot 35a:8
[Bekhorot 35a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:8)

זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא לְדַעַת — אָסוּר. לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי גְּרָמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that **this** is **the principle:** In the case of **any** blemish **that is** caused **with** his **intent,** the animal’s slaughter is **prohibited.** The Gemara explains: **What** does this principle serve **to add?** It serves **to add an indirect** action, i.e., a blemish caused in this manner is also considered an intentional act and the animal may not be slaughtered on its account.


###### Bekhorot 35a:9
[Bekhorot 35a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:9)

שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תוּמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further inquires: What is added by the phrase in the second part of the principle: If the blemish was caused **without** his **intent,** the animal’s slaughter is permitted? This serves **to add** an instance where a gentile did not inquire about the nature of the firstborn offering, but rather discovered it from one who **speaks offhandedly.** Although the gentile intentionally caused a blemish in the animal, since the Jew did not intentionally prompt him to cause it, the animal is permitted.


###### Bekhorot 35a:10
[Bekhorot 35a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיָה בְּכוֹר רֹדְפוֹ, בְּעָטוֹ, וְעָשָׂה בּוֹ מוּם — הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one’s **firstborn** offering **was pursuing him,** and **he kicked** the animal **and caused a blemish in it, he may slaughter** the animal **on** account of **that** blemish.


###### Bekhorot 35a:11
[Bekhorot 35a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּעָטוֹ בִּשְׁעַת רְדִיפָה, אֲבָל לְאַחַר רְדִיפָה — לָא. פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Pappa says: They taught** that the firstborn offering may be slaughtered **only** in an instance **where he kicked it at the time of its pursuit. But** if the individual kicked the animal **after** its **pursuit,** it may **not** be slaughtered, as he intended to cause a blemish in order to render it permitted to be slaughtered. The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is **obvious** that it is not permitted to slaughter the animal in such a case.


###### Bekhorot 35a:12
[Bekhorot 35a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:12)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: צַעְרֵיהּ הוּא דְּמִדְּכַר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa’s statement is necessary, **lest you say** that it is in fact permitted to slaughter the firstborn offering since he kicked it after its pursuit only out of anger, as **he recalls his distress** caused by its pursuit of him, and not in order to render the animal permitted to be slaughtered. Rav Pappa therefore **teaches us** that it is assumed that he kicked the animal with the express intention of causing a blemish in it, not merely out of anger, and therefore it may not be slaughtered.


###### Bekhorot 35a:13
[Bekhorot 35a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:13)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא תֵּימָא בִּשְׁעַת רְדִיפָה — אִין, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת רְדִיפָה — לָא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר רְדִיפָה נָמֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא? צַעֲרֵיהּ [הוּא] דְּמִדְּכַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** the opposite version of this discussion. **Rav Pappa says: Do not say** that if the individual kicked the firstborn offering **at the time of** the **pursuit,** then **yes,** it is permitted to slaughter it, **but** if he kicked it **not at the time of** the **pursuit,** it is **not** permitted to slaughter it. **Rather, even** if he kicked it **after** its **pursuit** of him, it is **also** permitted. **What is the reason?** It is assumed that he kicked it after the pursuit not with the intention of causing a blemish, but because **he recalls his distress** caused by its pursuit of him.


###### Bekhorot 35a:14
[Bekhorot 35a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:14)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מוּתָּר לְהַטִּיל מוּם בִּבְכוֹר קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם. אָמַר רָבָא: גַּדְיָא בְּאוּדְנֵיהּ, אִימְּרָא בְּשִׂפְוָותֵיהּ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אִימְּרָא נָמֵי בְּאוּדְנֵיהּ, אֵימוֹר דֶּרֶךְ צְדָעָיו נְפַק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says: It is permitted to cause a blemish in a firstborn** fetus **before it emerges into the air of the world,** as it obtains its sacred status only when it is born. Applying this ruling, **Rava said:** In the case of **a kid,** it is practical to cause a blemish **on its ear.** Since a kid’s ears are long they emerge from the birth canal prior to the head. With regard to **a lamb,** whose ears are short and do not appear before the head, it is practical to cause a blemish only **on its lip. There are** those **who say** that there is a different version of this statement: In the case of **a lamb as well,** it is practical to cause a blemish **on its ear,** as one can **say** that **it emerges** from the birth canal **through its temples,** in which case its ears are visible first.


###### Bekhorot 35a:15
[Bekhorot 35a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:15)

אָמַר רָבָא: אָכֵל וְלָא מִיחֲזֵי, פָּעֵי וּמִיחֲזֵי — הָוֵי מוּמָא. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: הַחוּטִין הַחִיצוֹנוֹת — שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ וְשֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ, הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת — שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּכִי פָּעֵי מִיחְזֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** In a case where a firstborn has a blemish in its mouth, if, when it **eats,** the blemish **is not visible,** but when it opens its mouth wide and **cries out, it is visible,** this **is** considered **a blemish,** rendering the animal fit for slaughter. The Gemara asks: **What is** this **teaching us? We learn** this in the mishna (39a) with regard to blemishes that render a firstborn offering fit for slaughter: **The external gums that were damaged** and lacking or **that were scratched,** and likewise, **the internal** gums **that were** entirely **extracted,** are considered blemished. **What is the reason** that if the internal gums were extracted it is considered a blemish? Is it **not because when** the animal opens its mouth wide and **cries out, it is visible?** If so, what is the novelty of Rava’s statement?


###### Bekhorot 35a:16
[Bekhorot 35a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:16)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: רָבָא נָמֵי טַעְמָא דְמַתְנִיתִין מְפָרֵשׁ, מַאי טַעְמָא נֶעְקְרוּ הָוֵי מוּמָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּכִי פָּעֵי מִיחְזֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says** in response: **Rava** is not in fact teaching a novel *halakha*. Rather, he **is explaining the reason** for the ruling **of the mishna: What is the reason** that if the internal gums **were extracted it is** considered **a blemish?** It is **that when** the animal opens its mouth wide and **cries out,** the blemish **is visible.**


###### Bekhorot 35a:17
[Bekhorot 35a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל הַמּוּמִין הָרְאוּיִין לָבֹא בִּידֵי אָדָם, רוֹעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֱמָנִין, רוֹעִים כֹּהֲנִים אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמָן הוּא עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֵין נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַדֶּבֶר, לֹא דָּנוֹ וְלֹא מְעִידוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **all the blemishes that are capable of being brought about by a person, Israelite shepherds are deemed credible** to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally. But **priest-shepherds are not deemed credible,** as they are the beneficiaries if the firstborn is blemished. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** A priest is **deemed credible** to testify **about** the firstborn **of another, but is not deemed credible** to testify **about** the firstborn belonging **to him. Rabbi Meir says:** A priest **who is suspect about the matter** of causing a blemish may **neither adjudicate nor testify** in cases involving that matter, even on behalf of another.


###### Bekhorot 35a:18
[Bekhorot 35a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:18)

**גְּמָ׳** רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, חַד אָמַר: ״רוֹעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ בֵּי כֹהֲנִים — נֶאֱמָנִין, לִלְגִימָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar** disagree with regard to the meaning of the mishna. **One** of them **says** that the case of **Israelite shepherds** is where the shepherds are in **the house of priests,** i.e., in the employ of a priest. These shepherds are **deemed credible** to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally, as **we are not concerned** they are lying **for a swallow [*lilegima*]** of the firstborn that their priest employer might give them in exchange.


###### Bekhorot 35a:19
[Bekhorot 35a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:19)

רוֹעֵי כֹּהֲנִים בֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל — אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין, מֵימָר אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּקָא טָרַחְנָא בֵּיהּ, לָא שָׁבֵיק לְדִידִי וְיָהֵיב לְאַחֲרִינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And the case of **priest-shepherds** is where the shepherds are in **the house of an Israelite,** i.e., in the latter’s employ. In such a case, the priest-shepherds **are not deemed credible** to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally, as the priest-shepherd **can say: Since I have toiled with** this firstborn offering, my Israelite employer **will not forsake me and give** it **to another** priest. The priest is assumed to be lying, as he has a motive to cause a blemish in the animal.


###### Bekhorot 35a:20
[Bekhorot 35a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:20)

וְהוּא הַדִּין כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן, דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לְגוֹמְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the same is true** in the case of **a priest** who testifies **for** the sake of another **priest.** Although the first priest would not derive benefit from his testimony immediately, he is nevertheless not deemed credible to testify, **as we are concerned about reciprocal** behavior, i.e., the other priest might later repay the favor and lie on his behalf.


###### Bekhorot 35a:21
[Bekhorot 35a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:21)

וַאֲתָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמֵימַר: נֶאֱמָן הוּא עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְמֵימַר: הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַדֶּבֶר לֹא דָּנוֹ וְלֹא מְעִידוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say** that the testimony of a priest in such a case, when he testifies **about** the firstborn **of another** priest, **is deemed credible,** as there is no concern about reciprocal behavior. But **he is not deemed** credible **with regard to his own** firstborn. **And Rabbi Meir comes to say** that a priest, **who is suspect about the matter** of causing a blemish, may **neither adjudicate nor testify** in cases involving that matter, even on behalf of another. The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Meir and that of the first *tanna* will be discussed further on.


###### Bekhorot 35a:22
[Bekhorot 35a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/35a:22)

וְחַד אָמַר: ״רוֹעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ וְהֵן כֹּהֲנִים — נֶאֱמָנִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the other explanation of the mishna: **And** the other **one** of the two *amora’im* **says:** The case of **Israelite shepherds** is where the shepherds **are priests** in the employ of an Israelite. The mishna is teaching that these shepherds **are deemed credible** to testify that the blemishes on their employer’s firstborn offering were not caused intentionally, as they are not suspected of lying in order to obtain its meat.