## Bekhorot Daf 3b

###### Bekhorot 3b:1
[Bekhorot 3b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:1)

הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ מוּם קַל. וְהָדִתְנַן: רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז וְעֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין רָחֵל — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — חַיָּיב. מוּם קָבוּעַ הָוֵי לִשְׁחוֹט עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** is what **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even** if only **a slight blemish** would result from the removal of the portion of the animal owned by the gentile, the animal still does not have firstborn status. **And** in addition, Rabbi Yoḥanan also commented on **that which we learned** in a mishna (16b): **A ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts are exempt** from the mitzva of the **firstborn. And if** the offspring **has some of the characteristics** of its mother, it is **obligated,** i.e., subject to the obligations of firstborn status. Rabbi Yoḥanan commented: Nevertheless, it may not be sacrificed on the altar because this **is a permanent blemish.** Therefore, a priest is permitted **to slaughter it** outside of the Temple.


###### Bekhorot 3b:2
[Bekhorot 3b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:2)

בִּשְׁלָמָא מוּם קַל — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְרַב הוּנָא, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted** that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s first statement that the animal does not have firstborn status even if it has **a slight blemish** is necessary, as he **teaches us** that he holds **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Huna,** who said previously (2b) that even if the gentile owns only the ear of the firstborn it does not have firstborn status, **and** his statement is **to the exclusion of** the opinions of **Rav Ḥisda and Rava,** who said the gentile must own a portion of the fetus that would render it a carcass or a *tereifa* if it were removed.


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

אֶלָּא מוּם קָבוּעַ — מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי הָוֵה לֵיהּ מוּמָא? תְּנֵינָא: וּפִיו דּוֹמֶה כְּשֶׁל חֲזִיר — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s second statement that a goat of sorts that was born to a ewe but has some characteristics of the mother is considered to have **a permanent blemish, what is** it **teaching us?** Is it teaching **that since it** looks **different** from the normal appearance of a sheep this appearance **is** considered **a blemish? We** already **learned** this in the mishna (40a): **Or** with regard to a lamb **whose mouth is similar to that of a pig, that is a blemish** that enables slaughter of the firstborn.


###### Bekhorot 3b:4
[Bekhorot 3b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:4)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָתָם נִשְׁתַּנָּה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, הָכָא נִשְׁתַּנָּה בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: עֵינוֹ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **there,** where the animal’s mouth is similar to that of a pig, its appearance **was altered into a being in whose species there is no sanctity of the firstborn,** while **here,** where it looks like a goat, its appearance **was altered into a being in whose species** there is **sanctity of the firstborn,** and Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that this animal too is considered to be blemished, **we** already **learned this, too,** in the subsequent mishna (40b): An animal with **one of its eyes large and one** small is also considered blemished.


###### Bekhorot 3b:5
[Bekhorot 3b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:5)

וְתַנָּא גְּדוֹלָה — גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל, וּקְטַנָּה — קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז. בִּשְׁלָמָא קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּוז, אֵין בְּמִינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, אֶלָּא גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל — יֵשׁ בְּמִינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה! אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי הָוֵה לֵיהּ מוּמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** a *tanna* **taught** in explanation of the mishna: **A large** eye is referring to one as **large as that of a calf, and a small** eye is referring to one as **small as that of a goose. Granted,** in the case of an eye as **small as that of a goose** the reason it is considered a blemish is that **there is no sanctity of the firstborn among its species,** i.e., that of a bird. **But** in the case of an eye that is as **large as that of a calf there is sanctity of a firstborn among its species. Rather,** is it **not** considered blemished **because we say** that **since it has changed** from the appearance of a sheep **it is** considered **a blemish?** Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement has still not introduced any novelty.


###### Bekhorot 3b:6
[Bekhorot 3b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:6)

לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ ״שָׂרוּעַ״. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דִּתְנַן: מוּמִין אֵלּוּ, בֵּין קְבוּעִין בֵּין עוֹבְרִין — פּוֹסְלִין. יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אָדָם: עֵינָיו שְׁתֵּיהֶן גְּדוֹלוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן קְטַנּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** an eye as large as that of a calf is considered a blemish **because** the animal **is one that has a limb that is too large [*sarua*],** which is listed in the Torah as one of the blemished animals (see Leviticus 22:23). The Gemara comments: **This, too, stands to reason, as we learned** in a mishna (43a): Concerning **these blemishes** that were taught with regard to an animal, **whether** they are **permanent or transient,** they also disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service. And the subsequent mishna (44a) adds: **Beyond those are** additional blemishes that apply exclusively to **a person,** i.e., a priest: If **both of his eyes are large,** or **both of them are small.**


###### Bekhorot 3b:7
[Bekhorot 3b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:7)

גַּבֵּי אָדָם הוּא דִּכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן״, דְּבָעֵינַן אִישׁ שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה, שְׁתֵּיהֶן גְּדוֹלוֹת שְׁתֵּיהֶן קְטַנּוֹת — נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי מוּמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason for the latter *halakha* is that **it is with regard to a person that it is written: “Any man from the offspring of Aaron”** (Leviticus 22:4), which indicates **that we require a man who is equal to the seed of Aaron,** i.e., he has an ordinary appearance like other priests; **but** with regard to **an animal,** if **both** eyes **are big** or **both** eyes **are small, it is also not a blemish.**


###### Bekhorot 3b:8
[Bekhorot 3b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:8)

אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה, מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי מִשּׁוּם שִׁינּוּי — אֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן גְּדוֹלוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן קְטַנּוֹת נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ ״שָׂרוּעַ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, if **one** of the animal’s eyes **is big or one is small, what is the reason** that it is considered a blemish? **If** it is **due to** the **deviation** in appearance, meaning it does not look like a sheep, then **even** if **both** eyes **are big** or **both are small** it should be considered a blemish. **Rather, is it not because it is** an animal **with a limb that is too large?**


###### Bekhorot 3b:9
[Bekhorot 3b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:9)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ מִשּׁוּם שִׁינּוּי, שִׁינּוּי הָוֵי מוּמָא. וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: אֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן גְּדוֹלוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן קְטַנּוֹת? הָתָם, אִי מֵחֲמַת בְּרִיּוּתָא יַתִּירָא — תַּרְוַויְיהוּ בָּעֵי לְמִיבְרָא, אִי מֵחֲמַת כְּחִישׁוּתָא יַתִּירָא — תַּרְוַויְיהוּ בָּעֵי מִיכְחַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No, actually I will say to you** that the reason an animal with one big eye and one small eye is considered blemished is **because** of its **deviation,** as **a deviation is** considered **a blemish. And** as for **that which is difficult for you,** that if it is due to an anomalous appearance then **even** if **both are big** or **both are small** it should be considered a blemish, **there** it is not considered a deviation. This is because a particularly healthy animal has large eyes, while a particularly weak animal has small eyes. Therefore, only an animal with one large eye and with one small eye is considered to be blemished, as **if** the large eye **is due to extreme health both should have been healthy,** and **if** the small eye **is due to extreme weakness both should have been weak.**


###### Bekhorot 3b:10
[Bekhorot 3b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:10)

הָהִיא גִּיּוֹרְתָּא דַּהֲווֹ מָסְרִין לַהּ אַחֵי חֵיוְתָא לְפַטּוֹמַהּ, אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לַהּ: לֵית דְּחַשׁ לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In connection with the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis whether an animal owned in partnership with a gentile has firstborn status, the Gemara relates the following incident: There was **a certain female convert whose** gentile **brothers would give her animals to fatten** and would then divide the profits with her. **She came before Rava** to ask whether firstborn status applies to the firstborn of these animals. Rava **said to her: There is no one who is concerned with this** ruling **of Rabbi Yehuda, who says** an animal owned in **partnership** with **a gentile is obligated,** i.e., subject to counting its first offspring **a firstborn.**


###### Bekhorot 3b:11
[Bekhorot 3b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:11)

רַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל הַוְיָא לֵיהּ הָהִיא חֵיוָתָא, הֲוָה מַקְנֶה לְאוּדְנַיְיהוּ לְגוֹי, וְאָסַר לְהוּ בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, וְיָהֵיב לְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים, וּכְלַאי חֵיוָתָא דְּרַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates another incident: **Rav Mari bar Raḥel had a certain** flock of **animals. He would transfer ownership of the ears of** the firstborn fetuses **to a gentile** in order to exempt them from the obligations of firstborn status. **But** nevertheless he **prohibited them from** being **sheared and** used for **labor, and gave them to the priests,** *halakhot* that apply to a standard firstborn animal. **And** ultimately, **the animals of Rav Mari bar Raḥel died.**


###### Bekhorot 3b:12
[Bekhorot 3b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:12)

וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּאָסַר לְהוּ בְּגִיזָה וַעֲבוֹדָה, וְיָהֵיב לְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים, אַמַּאי מַקְנֶה לְהוּ לְאוּדְנַיְיהוּ לְגוֹי, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה? אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמָא כְּלוֹ חֵיוָתָא דְּרַב מָרִי? מִשּׁוּם דְּמַפְקַע לְהוּ מִקְּדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But since he prohibited them from** being **sheared and** used for **labor and** also **gave them to the priests, why did he** initially **transfer ownership of their ears to the gentile,** abrogating their firstborn status? The Gemara answers that he did so **lest** the priests **come to** experience **a mishap with them,** improperly shearing them or using them for labor. The Gemara asks: **If so, what is the reason** that **the animals of Rav Mari died** as a punishment? The Gemara answers: It was **because he abrogated their sanctity** by selling their ears.


###### Bekhorot 3b:13
[Bekhorot 3b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:13)

וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מוּתָּר לָאָדָם לְהַטִּיל מוּם בִּבְכוֹר קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם! הָתָם מִקְּדוּשַּׁת מִזְבֵּחַ קָא מַפְקַע לֵיהּ, מִקְּדוּשַּׁת כֹּהֵן לָא מַפְקַע לֵיהּ. הָכָא אֲפִילּוּ מִקְּדוּשַּׁת כֹּהֵן קָא מַפְקַע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say it is permitted for a person to inflict a blemish on a firstborn** animal fetus **before it emerges into the air of the world?** Here, too, Rav Mari abrogated his firstborn animals’ sanctity by selling their ears before their birth. The Gemara answers: **There,** when one inflicts a blemish on a firstborn animal, **he abrogates** the animal’s **sanctity of the altar,** as it is no longer fit for an offering, **but does not abrogate** its **sanctity of the priest,** as it is still given to the priest. **Here,** by contrast, when Rav Mari sold his animals’ ears to a gentile, **he abrogated even** their **sanctity of the priest,** as the partnership exempts the animals from the obligations of firstborn status entirely.


###### Bekhorot 3b:14
[Bekhorot 3b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:14)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל יָדַע לְאַקְנוֹיֵי קִנְיַן גָּמוּר, וְחָזֵי לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא, וְאָזֵיל וְעָבֵיד, וְסָבַר רַב מָרִי מִילְּתָא הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְאָתֵי בָּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the reason the animals of **Rav Mari bar Raḥel** died is that he himself **knew** that is was necessary **to transfer** ownership of the ears of the fetus to the gentile through **a complete transaction. And another person would see him** transferring ownership of the ears to a gentile **and would go and do** it himself but not perform a complete transaction, **and would think** that **Rav Mari performed the** same **matter** in abrogating its firstborn status, **and would come to** experience **a mishap with** his animal by not treating it with the sanctity of firstborn status. Due to this concern, Rav Mari should not have transferred ownership of the ears to a gentile, and consequently his animals died.


###### Bekhorot 3b:15
[Bekhorot 3b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/3b:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם פְּטוּרִין, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: אִם פָּטְרוּ אֶת שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ אֶת שֶׁל עַצְמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Priests and Levites are exempt** from the obligation to redeem a firstborn donkey; this is derived **from an *a fortiori*** inference: In the wilderness the firstborn were redeemed in exchange for the Levites, as it is stated: “Take the Levites in exchange for all the firstborn among the children of Israel and the animal of the Levites in exchange for their animals” (Numbers 3:45). **If** the priests and Levites **rendered exempt** the firstborn children and donkeys **of the Israelites in the wilderness** from being counted firstborns, **it is** only **logical that** the priests and the Levites **should render** the firstborn of **their own** donkeys **exempt** from being counted firstborns.