## Bekhorot Daf 36a

###### Bekhorot 36a:1
[Bekhorot 36a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:1)

אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר לַחֲשָׁשָׁא, לְאַחְזוֹקִינְהוּ מִי אָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: One can **say that Rabbi Meir says** that priests are suspect with regard to causing blemishes only to the extent **that** there is **a concern** that they might have caused a blemish. But **did he say** this ruling **to establish them** as those who definitely cause blemishes? Certainly not.


###### Bekhorot 36a:2
[Bekhorot 36a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:2)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עֵד מִפִּי עֵד, מַהוּ לְעֵדוּת בְּכוֹר? רַב אַסִּי אָסַר, וְרַב אָשֵׁי שָׁרֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַסִּי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא תָּנָא דְבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: אֵין עֵד מִפִּי עֵד כָּשֵׁר אֶלָּא לְעֵדוּת הָאִשָּׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **testimony** based on **hearsay,** where one repeats the testimony of another witness, **what is** the *halakha* **in** a case of such **testimony** about a blemished **firstborn** animal? **Rav Asi deems prohibited** the slaughter of the animal based on such testimony, **and Rav Ashi deems** it **permitted. Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: But isn’t it taught in** a *baraita* in the **school of Menashe** that **hearsay testimony is valid only for** the **testimony of a woman,** where one testifies that her husband is dead? This indicates that such testimony is not accepted in all other instances.


###### Bekhorot 36a:3
[Bekhorot 36a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:3)

תְּנִי: אֶלָּא לְעֵדוּת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁרָה לָהּ בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi responded: Emend the *baraita* and **teach** it like this: Testimony based on hearsay is valid **only for** that **testimony for which** the testimony of **a woman is valid.** According to Rav Ashi, the *baraita* is teaching that any case where the testimony of a woman is valid, hearsay testimony is valid as well, and this includes testimony concerning a blemished firstborn animal.


###### Bekhorot 36a:4
[Bekhorot 36a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:4)

רַב יֵימַר אַכְשַׁר עֵד מִפִּי עֵד בִּבְכוֹר, קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ מָרִימָר: ״יֵימַר שָׁרֵי בּוּכְרָא״. וְהִלְכְתָא: עֵד מִפִּי עֵד כָּשֵׁר לְעֵדוּת בְּכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Yeimar deemed fit testimony** based on **hearsay with regard to** a blemished **firstborn** animal. **Mareimar** condescendingly **called him: Yeimar** who **permits firstborn** animals. The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is that **testimony** based on **hearsay is valid** in the case **of a firstborn** animal.


###### Bekhorot 36a:5
[Bekhorot 36a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: לֹא הָיוּ מוּחְזָקִין בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹר, וּבָא אֶחָד וְאָמַר שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹר וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ — נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses a related matter. **Rabbi Ile’a says:** In a case where a blemished animal **was not established as being a firstborn, and one** priest **came** to an expert **and said that it is a firstborn** animal **and** yet **its blemish is with it,** i.e., it was unintentionally blemished, **he is deemed credible,** and the expert may deem the animal fit for slaughter based on the priest’s testimony.


###### Bekhorot 36a:6
[Bekhorot 36a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:6)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר? תְּנֵינָא: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה ״אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיִיתִי וּגְרוּשָׁה אֲנִי״ נֶאֱמֶנֶת, שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** Rabbi Ile’a **teaching us?** Is he teaching us the principle **that the mouth that prohibited** it **is the mouth that permitted** it, i.e., when the only source that an item was prohibited is the statement of one who says that it is now permitted, his claim is accepted? But **we learn** this in a mishna (*Ketubot* 22a): With regard to **a woman who said: I was a married woman and** now **I am a divorcée, she is deemed credible** and permitted to remarry, **as the mouth that prohibited** her by establishing that she was married **is the mouth that permitted** her by establishing that she was divorced.


###### Bekhorot 36a:7
[Bekhorot 36a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:7)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִי בָּעֲיָא לָא אָמְרָה. אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא אָמְרָה, דְּקָדָשִׁים בְּחוּץ לָא אָכֵיל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ile’a’s statement is necessary, **lest you say it is** only **there,** in the case of the mishna, that the woman’s testimony is accepted, **as, if she wants** to remarry illegally, **she** does **not** need to **say** anything at all about previously being married. **But here,** with regard to the firstborn animal, it is different, **as,** if the priest wishes to eat the meat of the animal, **it not sufficient** for him **not to** bring the animal to an expert, i.e., he has no recourse other than to **say** that it is a firstborn animal which has a blemish requiring examination, **as** he cannot determine on his own whether this blemish permanently disqualifies the firstborn animal from sacrifice, and **he would not eat sacrificial** meat **outside** the Temple courtyard, which is punishable by *karet*.


###### Bekhorot 36a:8
[Bekhorot 36a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:8)

אֵימָא: לָא הַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאִי מִשּׁוּם הָכִי — הֲוָה שָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא דְּנִיכָּר וְאָכֵיל לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the priest must admit that this is a firstborn animal, **I** might **say** that **this is not** a case of: **The mouth that prohibited** it is the mouth that permitted it, and therefore the priest is not deemed credible. To dispel this possibility, Rabbi Ile’a **teaches us** that he is deemed credible, **because if it due to that** reason, that the priest is suspected of causing the blemish, **he would have caused a blemish that** is **obvious to all.** In such a case, he would violate a mere prohibition, not one that is punishable by *karet*, since he would not be eating sacrificial meat outside the Temple courtyard, as the animal is blemished.


###### Bekhorot 36a:9
[Bekhorot 36a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאוֹגַר לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא תֵּיזִיל בְּאוֹרְחָא דִּנְהַר פְּקוֹד דְּאִיכָּא מַיָּא, זִיל בְּאוֹרְחָא דְּנַרֶשׁ דְּלֵיכָּא מַיָּא. אֲזַל בְּאוֹרְחָא דִּנְהַר פְּקוֹד וּמִית חֲמָרָא, וַאֲתָא וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּאוֹרְחָא דִּנְהַר פְּקוֹד אָזְלִי, וּמִיהוּ מַיָּא לָא הֲווֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: What is different** between this case and **that** incident involving **a certain man who rented a donkey to another?** The owner **said to** the renter: **Look, do not go on the path of Nehar Pekod, where there is water** and the donkey is likely to drown. Instead, **go on the path of Neresh, where there is no water.** The renter **went on the path of Nehar Pekod and the donkey died. When he came** back, **he said:** Yes, **I went on the path of Nehar Pekod, but there was no water** there, and therefore the donkey’s death was caused by other factors.


###### Bekhorot 36a:10
[Bekhorot 36a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:10)

וַאֲמַר רָבָא: מָה לוֹ לְשַׁקֵּר, אִי בָּעֵי אָמַר: בְּאוֹרְחָא דְּנַרֶשׁ אֲזַלִי. וַאֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״מָה לוֹ לְשַׁקֵּר״ בִּמְקוֹם עֵדִים לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said:** The renter’s claim is accepted, due to the reasoning of: **Why would he lie** and state this claim? In other words, **if** this man **wanted** to lie, **he** could have **told** the donkey’s owner: **I went on the path of Neresh,** as the owner instructed. **And Abaye said to** Rava: **We do not say** the principle of: **Why would he lie, in a place** where there are **witnesses.** Since witnesses can be summoned to establish conclusively whether there was water along the path of Nehar Pekod, the reasoning that the renter could have stated a different claim is not employed. Similarly, the priest’s contention that the blemish occurred inadvertently should not be deemed credible, as it is known that priests are suspected of causing blemishes.


###### Bekhorot 36a:11
[Bekhorot 36a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:11)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם וַדַּאי אִיכָּא מַיָּא, הָכָא וַדַּאי שָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא — חֲשָׁשָׁא הוּא, וּבִמְקוֹם חֲשָׁשָׁא אָמְרִינַן ״מָה לוֹ לְשַׁקֵּר״. יָתֵיב רָבִינָא וְקָאָמַר לְהַאי שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּלָא גַּבְרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא זוּטֵי לְרָבִינָא: אֲנַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אִילְעָא מַתְנִינַן לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** with regard to the path of Nehar Pekod, **there is certainly water there, but** here, the possibility **that** the priest **caused a blemish in** the firstborn animal **is** only **a concern, and in a place of** mere **concern we** do **say** the reasoning of: **Why would he lie?** The Gemara relates that **Ravina was sitting and saying this *halakha*** of Rabbi Ile’a **anonymously. Rava Zuti said to Ravina: We learned this** *halakha* **in the name of Rabbi Ile’a.**


###### Bekhorot 36a:12
[Bekhorot 36a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:12)

רַבִּי צָדוֹק הֲוָה לֵיהּ בּוּכְרָא, רְמָא לֵיהּ שְׂעָרֵי בְּסַלֵּי, בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָאָכֵיל אִיבְּזַע שִׂיפְתֵּיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר לוֹ: כְּלוּם חִילַּקְנוּ בֵּין חָבֵר לְעַם הָאָרֶץ? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: **Rabbi Tzadok,** an erudite priest, **had a firstborn** animal. **He placed barley in** wicker **baskets for it,** and **while it was eating, its lip split,** rendering the animal blemished. Rabbi Tzadok **came before Rabbi Yehoshua,** to ask whether or not he is suspected of intentionally causing a blemish in his firstborn animal offering. Rabbi Tzadok **said to him: Didn’t we differentiate between** a priest who is **a *ḥaver*,** i.e., learned, **and** a priest who is **an ignoramus,** with regard to their credibility about blemishes found on a firstborn animal? **Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Yes,** we did. Since you are a learned priest, you are deemed credible to testify that this blemish was caused inadvertently.


###### Bekhorot 36a:13
[Bekhorot 36a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:13)

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אָמַר לוֹ: חִילַּקְנוּ בֵּין חָבֵר לְעַם הָאָרֶץ? אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: לָא. אָמַר לוֹ: (והא) [וַהֲלֹא] רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר לִי הֵן! אָמַר לוֹ: הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ בַּעֲלֵי תְרִיסִין לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Tzadok then **came before Rabban Gamliel,** the *Nasi* and head of the academy of Yavne at the time. Rabbi Tzadok **said to him:** Didn’t **we differentiate between** a priest who is **a *ḥaver* and** a priest who is **an ignoramus** with regard to credibility about blemishes found on a firstborn animal? **Rabban Gamliel said to him: No,** we did not. Rabbi Tzadok **said to him: But Rabbi Yehoshua said to me** that **yes,** we did differentiate in this manner. Rabban Gamliel **said to** Rabbi Tzadok: **Wait until the masters of the shields [*ba’alei terisin*],** a reference to the Torah scholars who battle in the war of Torah, **enter the study hall,** at which point we will discuss this issue.


###### Bekhorot 36a:14
[Bekhorot 36a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:14)

כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, עָמַד הַשּׁוֹאֵל וְשָׁאַל: כְּלוּם חִילַּקְנוּ בֵּין חָבֵר לְעַם הָאָרֶץ? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לָאו. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: וַהֲלֹא מִשִּׁמְךָ אָמְרוּ לִי הֵן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** the Torah scholars **entered the study hall, the questioner stood** before everyone present **and asked:** With regard to blemishes found on a firstborn animal, **didn’t we differentiate between** a priest who is **a *ḥaver* and** a priest who is **an ignoramus? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,** we did not. **Rabban Gamliel said to him: But they said to me in your name** that **yes,** we did differentiate.


###### Bekhorot 36a:15
[Bekhorot 36a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:15)

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, עֲמוֹד עַל רַגְלֶיךָ, וְיָעִידוּ בְּךָ. עָמַד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: הֵיאַךְ אֶעֱשֶׂה? אִילְמָלֵי אֲנִי חַי וְהוּא מֵת — יָכוֹל הַחַי לְהַכְחִישׁ אֶת הַמֵּת, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֲנִי חַי וְהוּא חַי — הֵיאַךְ חַי יָכוֹל לְהַכְחִישׁ אֶת הַחַי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabban Gamliel continued: **Yehoshua, stand on your feet and they will testify against you** that you did, in fact, say that we differentiated in such a case. **Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: How should I act** in this situation? **If I were alive and** Rabbi Tzadok **were dead, the living can contradict the dead,** and I could deny issuing that ruling. **Now that I am alive and he is alive, how can the living contradict the living?** I have no choice but to admit that I said it.


###### Bekhorot 36a:16
[Bekhorot 36a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:16)

וְהָיָה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עוֹמֵד וְדוֹרֵשׁ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עוֹמֵד עַל רַגְלָיו, עַד שֶׁרִינְּנוּ כׇּל הָעָם וְאָמְרוּ לְחוּצְפִּית הַמְתוּרְגְּמָן: עֲמוֹד! וְעָמַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the meantime, **Rabban Gamliel was standing and lecturing, and Rabbi Yehoshua** all the while **was standing on his feet,** as Rabban Gamliel did not instruct him to sit. He remained standing in deference to the *Nasi*. This continued for some time, **until** it aroused great resentment against Rabban Gamliel, and **all of the people** assembled began **murmuring and said to Ḥutzpit the disseminator: Stop** conveying Rabban Gamliel’s lecture, **and he stopped.**


###### Bekhorot 36a:17
[Bekhorot 36a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** נֶאֱמָן הַכֹּהֵן לוֹמַר: הֶרְאֵיתִי בְּכוֹר זֶה וּבַעַל מוּם הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A priest is deemed credible to say: I showed this firstborn** animal to an expert **and** he ruled that **it is blemished.**


###### Bekhorot 36a:18
[Bekhorot 36a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:18)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: נֶאֱמָן הַכֹּהֵן לוֹמַר ״בְּכוֹר זֶה נָתַן לִי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמוּמוֹ״. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֹּל מִילְּתָא דַּעֲבִידָא לְאִיגַּלּוֹיֵי לָא מְשַׁקְּרִי בַּהּ אִינָשֵׁי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, נֶאֱמָן הַכֹּהֵן לוֹמַר ״הֶרְאֵיתִי בְּכוֹר זֶה וּבַעַל מוּם הוּא״. מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן כֹּל מִילְּתָא דַּעֲבִידָא לְאִיגַּלּוֹיֵי לָא מְשַׁקְּרִי בַּהּ אִינָשֵׁי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: A priest is deemed credible to say: An Israelite gave me this firstborn** animal **with its blemish** already inflicted upon it. **What is the reason?** With regard to **any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it.** Since the Israelite can be questioned with regard to the veracity of the priest’s claim, it is assumed that the priest will not risk lying. **Rav Ashi said: We learn** a similar principle in the mishna **as well: A priest is deemed credible to say: I showed this firstborn** animal to an expert **and** he ruled that **it is blemished. What is the reason** the priest’s claim is deemed credible? **Is it not because we say** that with regard to **any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it?**


###### Bekhorot 36a:19
[Bekhorot 36a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:19)

הָתָם הוּא דְּקָדָשִׁים בְּחוּץ לָא אָכֵיל, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲשִׁידִי — חֲשִׁידִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the claim that the mishna’s ruling is based on the principle that people do not lie about a matter that is likely to be revealed: Perhaps **there,** in the case of the mishna, the reason the priest’s claim is accepted is that **he** would **not eat sacrificial** meat **outside** the Temple courtyard. If an expert had not permitted the meat, the priest would not eat it. **But here,** in Rav’s case, where the priest claims an Israelite gave him an already blemished animal, **since** priests **are suspected** of causing blemishes and claiming that it was inadvertent, **they are** also **suspected** of causing a blemish and claiming it was given to them in that state by an Israelite.


###### Bekhorot 36a:20
[Bekhorot 36a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:20)

מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: הָאוֹמֵר לְמִי שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר ״קַח לִי מִמִּי שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן״ אוֹ ״מִמִּי שֶׁהוּא מְעַשֵּׂר״ — אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אַמַּאי? נֵימָא: כֹּל מִילְּתָא דַּעֲבִידָא לְאִיגַּלּוֹיֵי לָא מְשַׁקְּרִי בַּהּ אִינָשֵׁי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheizevi raises an objection** to Rav’s ruling from a mishna (*Demai* 4:5): In the case of **one who says to someone who is not trusted with regard to tithe: Purchase** produce **for me from someone who is trusted** with regard to tithes, i.e., one who does not purchase produce from an ignoramus, who generally does not separate tithes; **or** if he says: Purchase produce for me **from someone who tithes,** i.e., even from one who purchases produce from an ignoramus but is careful to set aside tithes upon purchasing the produce, the agent **is not deemed credible** to claim that he fulfilled the condition of the one who appointed him. According to Rav, **why** isn’t the agent deemed credible? **Say** the principle that with regard to **any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it.**


###### Bekhorot 36a:21
[Bekhorot 36a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/36a:21)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is different there,**