## Bekhorot Daf 35b

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

מֵימָר אָמַר: לָא שָׁבֵיק צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְיָהֵיב לְדִידִי. ״רוֹעֵי כֹהֲנִים״ וְהֵן יִשְׂרָאֵל — אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין, דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לִלְגִימָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason is that it is assumed that the priest-shepherd would **say:** My Israelite employer **will not forsake** a priest who is **a Torah scholar and give** the blemished animal **to me,** an unlearned shepherd. The case of **priest-shepherds** is where the shepherds **are Israelites** in the employ of a priest. These shepherds are **not deemed credible** to testify, **as we are concerned** that they might be lying **for a swallow** of the firstborn that their priest employer would give them in exchange.


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

וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן, דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לְגוֹמְלִין, וְחָיְישִׁינַן לִלְגִימָא. וַאֲתָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן לְמֵימַר: נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְמֵימַר: הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַדָּבָר, לֹא דָּנוֹ וְלֹא מְעִידוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And all the more so** the testimony of **a priest for** the sake of another **priest** is not deemed credible, **as we are concerned that** the two might engage in **reciprocal** behavior, **and we are concerned** that the priest-shepherd might be lying **for a swallow** of the firstborn offering. **And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say** that the priest-shepherd **is deemed credible** to testify **with regard to** the firstborn offering **of another** priest, **but is not deemed credible** to testify **with regard to** a firstborn belonging to **himself. 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.


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: רוֹעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵן כֹּהֲנִים נֶאֱמָנִין — הַיְינוּ דַּאֲתָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְמֵימַר: הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַדָּבָר לֹא דָּנוֹ וְלֹא מְעִידוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Granted, according to** the second opinion, i.e., **the one who says** the first *tanna* maintains that the case of **Israelite shepherds** is where the shepherds **are priests** in the employ of an Israelite, and they **are deemed credible** to testify, **this is** the reason **that Rabbi Meir comes to** disagree and **say** that a priest **who is suspect about the matter** of causing a blemish may **neither adjudicate nor testify** even for the sake of an Israelite employer.


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

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: רוֹעֵי כֹהֲנִים בֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין — מַאי אֲתָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן? הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** the first opinion, i.e., **the one who says** that the first *tanna* maintains that the case of **priest-shepherds** is where the shepherds are in **an Israelite’s house,** and they **are not deemed credible** to testify, **what is Rabbi Meir coming to teach us? This is** the same opinion as that of the **first *tanna*** himself.


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

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹסַאי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹסַאי אוֹמֵר: בְּכוֹר בֵּי כֹהֵן צָרִיךְ שְׁנַיִם מִן הַשּׁוּק לְהָעִיד עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference **between** the opinions of the first *tanna* and Rabbi Meir **with regard to** a statement **of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai says:** If **a firstborn** animal **in the house of a priest** developed a blemish, **two** people **from the marketplace,** i.e., not from the priest’s household, are **required to testify about it** that the blemish was not caused deliberately. This unqualified statement indicates that the two people can even be priests, provided that they are not household members.


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

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּנוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ בִּתּוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה וְהֵן בְּנֵי בֵיתוֹ אֵין מְעִידִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even** the priest’s **son** and **even his daughter** may testify about it. **Rabbi Yosei says: Even** in a case where there are **ten** people, if **they are members of his household, they may not testify about it.** The first *tanna* of the mishna maintains that only a priest who is a shepherd of the animal in question is not deemed credible to testify, but the testimony of an independent priest is credible. This accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai, who allows the testimony of any two independent people, including a priest. Conversely, Rabbi Meir does not deem credible even the testimony of an independent priest, as indicated by his general statement about suspect priests.


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

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: סְפֵק בְּכוֹר שֶׁנּוֹלַד בֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל, צָרִיךְ שְׁנַיִם מִן הַשּׁוּק לְהָעִיד עָלָיו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses a related statement: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is that which Rav Ḥisda says** that **Rav Ketina says:** In the case of an animal whose status as a **firstborn** is **uncertain that was born** in the **house,** i.e., in the possession, **of an Israelite,** e.g., it was uncertain whether the mother had previously given birth, in which case the animal remains in the possession of the Israelite and may be eaten upon developing a blemish, **two** people **from the marketplace** are **required to testify about it?**


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

כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹסַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In accordance with whose** opinion is this statement? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai.** Just as he requires two independent people to testify about a firstborn offering in the possession of a priest, as he is suspected of intentionally causing the blemish, so too, he requires two independent people to testify in the case of an uncertain status of a firstborn offering born in the possession of an Israelite.


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

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: בְּעָלִים מְעִידִין עָלָיו, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, מַעֲשֵׂר לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִי מֵעִיד עָלָיו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman** disagrees and **says:** The Israelite **owners** themselves **may testify about it. As, if you do not say so,** but instead maintain that any involved person is suspected of deliberately causing a blemish in his firstborn animal, this poses a difficulty with regard to the *halakha* of an animal **tithe** offering, which may also be eaten if it developed a blemish. **According to Rabbi Meir, who can testify about it?** Rabbi Meir maintains that anyone who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish on his own behalf may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter even on behalf of another. If so, how can anyone, even an Israelite, testify about any blemished animal-tithe offering? It must be that an Israelite is not suspected of deliberately causing blemishes.


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

מַעֲשֵׂר וַדַּאי מְהֵימַן, דְּאִי בָּעֵי שָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ עֶדְרֵיהּ. אֶלָּא סְפֵק בְּכוֹר, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִי מֵעִיד עָלָיו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: With regard to the animal **tithe** offering, the owner is **certainly deemed credible** to testify that its blemish occurred naturally, **because if he wants,** he could legitimately **cause a blemish in his entire flock** before the obligation to separate tithes came into effect. **Rather,** this is what Rav Naḥman stated: If an Israelite is not deemed credible to testify about a blemish found on an animal whose status as a **firstborn** is **uncertain,** then **according to Rabbi Meir, who can testify about it?** Both Israelites and priests stand to gain if their animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain develops a blemish, and therefore no one should be deemed credible to testify about it.


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא, וְהָתְנַן, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחֲלִיפָיו בְּיַד כֹּהֵן פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **indeed,** according to Rabbi Meir, an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain **has no remedy** that can render it fit for slaughter, as no one is deemed credible to testify about its blemish, this cannot be correct. **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (18b) **that Rabbi Yosei would say: Any** animal **whose replacements** are **in the possession of a priest is exempt from,** i.e., not subject to, the mitzva of giving **the** priestly **gifts, and Rabbi Meir deems** him **obligated** to give the gifts? Since Rabbi Meir permits the consumption of an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain, evidently he allows testimony about its blemish in such a case.


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

אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בְּעָלִים מְעִידִין עָלָיו, כֹּהֲנִים הוּא דַּחֲשִׁידִי אַמּוּמֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא חֲשִׁידִי אַמּוּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, learn from this** that the Israelite **owners may testify about** their animals whose status as a firstborn are uncertain, despite the fact that priests may not. The reason is that **it is** only **priests who are suspected of** causing **blemishes; Israelites are not suspected of** causing **blemishes.**


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

אִיתְּמַר: רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רָבָא אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **was stated: Rav Naḥman says** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** that a priest is deemed credible to testify about the blemished firstborn animal of another priest, even if he is a household member. **Rava says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** that one’s household members are not deemed credible to testify.


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

וּמִי אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: בְּעָלִים עוֹמְדִים עִמָּנוּ בַּחוּץ, נִכְנַס שָׁלֵם וְיָצָא חָבוּל — מְעִידִין עָלָיו! אֵימָא: כׇּל בְּעָלִים עוֹמְדִים, וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Rava** actually **say this? But doesn’t Rava say:** If the priestly **owner** of a firstborn animal was **standing outside with us,** and the animal **entered** the house **whole and emerged injured,** the household members **may testify about it** that the blemish was not caused by a person. Evidently, Rava maintains that the members of the priest’s household are deemed credible to testify about the priest’s firstborn. The Gemara answers: One can **say** that Rava is referring to a case where **all the owners,** i.e., the household members, **are standing outside,** while the shepherd alone remains inside. When the firstborn animal emerges injured, the shepherd is deemed credible to testify about the blemish **and we are not concerned** that he is lying.


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

אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נֵיחוּשׁ לַחֲשָׁדָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְדַוְקָא בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ, אֲבָל אִשְׁתּוֹ לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** that all of the household members were outside, **what** is the purpose **of stating** that the shepherd is deemed credible? This ruling is obvious. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary **lest you say** that **we should entertain a suspicion** that the shepherd himself caused the blemish. Rava therefore **teaches us** that this is not so, and the shepherd is deemed credible. The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** that a priest’s household members may testify about his blemished firstborn offering. **And** this applies **specifically** to **his son and daughter, but his wife** may **not** testify. **What is the reason? One’s wife is as oneself.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַדָּבָר לֹא דָּנוֹ וְלֹא מְעִידוֹ, וְקָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הֶחָשׁוּד לְדָבָר אֶחָד חָשׁוּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, כֹּהֲנִים הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא דָּיְינִי דִּינָא? וְהָכְתִיב ״וְעַל פִּיהֶם יִהְיֶה כׇּל רִיב וְכׇל נָגַע״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Rabbi Meir, who says 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, **and** in addition **Rabbi Meir says** that **one who is suspected of** transgressing **one matter,** i.e., who is known to have committed one transgression, **is suspected of** transgressing **the entire Torah,** it should follow that **priests** should **also not** be allowed to **administer judgment** at all. **But isn’t it written** with regard to the priests: **“And according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be”** (Deuteronomy 21:5)?