כל פסולי המוקדשין (all consecrated animals that are disqualified) – Holy Things that had a blemish befall them, if we sell them at a high price, it is a benefit of discretion to Temple property. Therefore, they are sold in the bazaar/shop, that is the marketplace where they sell in the rest of the unconsecrated meat and there it is sold at a high price.

ונשקלין בליטרא – to be sold in the manner that the butchers sell unconsecrated meat, for since they are able to sell it at a high price, they add to its worth when they redeem them from Temple property.

חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר – that if they are sold at a high price their benefit is to owners. The firstling, its benefit is to the Kohen, for the meat of a firstling is consumed by everyone, but the Kohen sells it and takes its monetary worth, for the Kohen is called the owners of the firstling. But because of the benefit of the regular individual/commoner, we do not treat lightly Holy Things to treat them with the custom of unconsecrated things to sell them in a bazaar/shop, but rather in his house, and even though people will not cut the meat so much. But they are not measured with a litra but rather by estimation, and if he loses [a bit], it does not matter.

ושוקלין מנה כנגד מנה – that if he has a piece of unconsecrated meat that is weighted in the litra, he can weigh the meat of a firstling against it. But tithes we don’t weigh a Maneh against a Maneh, for at it appears as if he sells it, and the tithe of cattle it is prohibited to sell it at all because it is not written regarding it (see Numbers 18:17): “[But the firstlings of cattle, sheep, or goats] may not be redeemed,” in the manner that it is written regarding a firstling but rather (Leviticus 27:33): “[If he does make substitution for it, then it and its substitute shall both be holy:] it cannot be redeemed/לא יגאל,” and we taught in Sifrei [B’midbar] that regarding a firstling where it states “it cannot be ransomed,” tithes, where it states concerning it, “it shall not be redeemed”, is no sold, neither living nor slaughtered, and not pure and not with a blemish.

לא ימנה ישראל עם הכהן – to eat with him in an association from the meat of a firstling with a blemish, for they not numbered regarding the firstling other than in an association that is entirely Kohanim [alone], as it is written (Numbers 18:18): “But their meat shall be yours: it shall be yours like the breast of elevation offering and like the right thigh,” for just as the breast and the thigh are for the Kohanim [only], and not for the Israelite, even the firstling, whether pure or with a blemish, are for the Kohanim [only] and not for the Israelite.

ובית הלל מתירין ואפילו נכרי – as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:15): “[The impure and the pure alike may partake of it,] as of the gazelle and the deer,” just as the gazelle and the deer, even a heathen [may partake of it], even to the firstling also. And Scripture [teaches] as it is written (Numbers 18:18): “But their meat shall be yours:…like the breast of elevation offering and like the right thigh,” and it is speaking specifically about the pure firstling.

שאחזו דם – a sick [animal] who is danger from excess blood [letting].

אין מקיזין לו דם – and even in a place where he does not make in it a blemish. For since a person is pressed (see Tractate Pesahim 11a) when his money is at stake, if you permitted him in a place where he does not make a blemish, he would come to make it in a place where one makes in it a blemish.

ובלבד שלא יעשה בו מום – that he will not tear apart the top of his ear or the top of its lips in the place where it is not able to return and be healed, the Rabbis hold all the more so that if you did not permit him in a place where there is no blemish, he will come to make it even in a place where it has a blemish.

לא ישחוט עליו – for since and he placed in it [a blemish] until another blemish befalls it.

יקיז – [he should draw blood] even in the place where he makes a blemish in it, even he needs to let blood from the same limb and not leave it until it dies. But even though he made a blemish with his hands, he should slaughter it. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

הצורם (he who makes a slit) – he mutilates/disqualifies. And we are speaking of a Kohen, who slits the ear of the firstling in order that it will be unconsecrated in his hand.

הרי זה לא ישחט עולמית – and even if another blemish befell it, because of a fine, because he transgressed and placed a blemish on Holy Things. For a person who places a blemish on Holy Things is flogged forty times (i.e., minus one), and even if he made a blemish upon a blemish. As it is written (Leviticus 22:21): “there must be no defect in it,” it reads, “will not be in it,” that he will not place in it a defect. For it could have been written, “a defect,” but it is written, "כל מום"/”there must be no defect,” to include even a defect that he did not place upon it.

כשיולד לו מום אחר ישחט עליו – and even on the same defect itself. If it person who placed the defect on it died, his son slaughters it after him on that defect, but the Rabbis fined him (i.e., the original person who placed he defect on the animal) but the Rabbis did not fine his son. And such is the Halakha.

ושערו מדולדל – that it was never sheared.

קסדור (quaestor) – appointed by the king.

מה טיבו של זה- that he left it to be wounded/damaged so much.

פגיון – a knife that has two mouths is called a dagger.

והתירוהו – even though that the heathen intended to place upon it a blemish. Since that it was without the knowledge of an Israelite/Jew that he did it, he didn’t intend to do something beneficial to a Jew.

ראה שהתירוהו והלך וצרם באזני בכורות אחרים – in order to do something beneficial to a Jew, it was done as if the Jew had said to him that he should do it and it is prohibited.

היו תינוקות משחקות – and it is necessary to inform us about a heathen quaestor and young children. For if it had taught [only] the quaestor, I might think that it was a heathen that was permitted for one cannot make a decree for perhaps he comes to hand it over to you and to learn how to make a blemish in Holy Things, for we do not care that it is the habit of heathens for it is their custom in forbidden thigs, but a minor, if he permitted him, he would come to hand it over to you, I would say no. But if we taught only regarding young children, I would think that it was a young child that the Rabbis permitted, for one that is appropriate would not come to state also that an adult who cast upon it a blemish would be permitted, for a minor and an adult are not confused/interchangeable, but an adult heathen who comes to switch with an adult Israelite, I would say no. Both are necessary.

כל שהוא לדעתו אסור – to include an indirect effect. As for example, that he would cause the animal to walk in a place where there is iron in order that it would trip upon it and a blemish would befall it.

ושלא לדעתו מותר – to include that if the Israelite/Jew was making a statement incidentally (i.e., in ignorance of its legal bearing), and states in the presence of the heathen that this firstling if a blemish befell it, that is that we consume it. And the heathen heard and placed upon it a blemish, it is permitted.

היה בכור רודפו כו' הרי זה ישחט עליו – but the law only applies when he kicked it (i.e., the animal) at the time that of the chase [by the animal of the person], but not when it was not at the time of the chase.

הראויין לבוא בידי אדם – that one can say that a person make them (i.e., the blemishes) in it (i.e., the animal), such blinding its eye, cutting off his hand, or slitting its ear.

רועים ישראל נאמנים – a Jew who is shepherd of the cattle belonging to a Kohen is believed to state o the blemishes that befell the Kohen’s cattle that they happened on its own, and the Kohen, its owner can consume it with its blemish. But we do not suspect him that perhaps through a person this blemish came intentionally and that this shepherd is lying and he comes to permit it in order that his master the Kohen will slaughter it and feed him from it, for an Israelite/Jew is permitted to eat from the firstling with a blemish when the Kohen gives him [food] from it, for in this we do not suspect him, for a small amount of quaffing like this, we do not suspect that the shepherd would lie and transgress the sin in order for this small quaffing alone (see Talmud Bekhorot 35a – that they are so dependent upon their employers for their bread and butter).

רועים כהנים – shepherds who are Kohanim, are not believed when they shepherd the cattle of Israelites/Jews. For this Kohen is suspected that he himself placed a blemish in it, that this shepherd would say, My master did not leave it to me and I will give it to an other Kohen. And the same law applies that the Kohen shepherd is not believed to testify on a firstling of another Kohen, for we are suspicious of doing good to each other, for he held that I will testify for him now and he will do do me a favor when an Israelite gives me a pure firstling, and I will place a blemish in it and this Kohen will testify on my behalf that the blemish befell it on its own.

רבן גמליאל אומר נאמן הוא על של חבירו ואינו נאמן של עצמו – Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with the first Tanna/teacher, for he holds that the Kohanim were not suspected other than on the firstling itself for was already given to him by an Israelite, but on that of his fried, whether, his Master/teacher or another, they were not suspected concerning them.

רבי מאיר אומר כל החשוד בדבר לא דנו ולא מעידו – and there is a [difference] between the first Tanna/teacher and Rabbi Meir, for according to Rabbi Meir, a firstling belonging to a Kohen that blemish befell it, two from the marketplace have to testify upon it, but one witness, even one who is not a Kohen, does not help. But according to the first Tanna/teacher, especially a Kohen is not believed to testify on the firstling of a Kohen, for we are concerned for doing good to one another, but one who is not a Kohen, even one who testifies is believed to permit it. But Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that even the children and the members of the household of a Kohen are believed, for specifically, only on what is his he is not believed. And his wife is also not believed because she is like is body. And the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

הראיתי בכור זה – to a Sage. And he said to me that this is a permanent blemish and he slaughters it, as long as he has witnesses that he [himself] did not make the blemish. For the Kohanim are suspected of placing a blemish in a firstling in order to sell it or to consume it as unconsecrated meat, but they are not suspected of consuming pure Holy Things outside [of the Temple courtyard] or to state about a temporary blemish that it is permanent. And a Kohen who is a specialist/expert is believed to adjudicate about the blemish of a firstling that it is permanent and/or to permit it. And similarly, a Kohen is believed to state that an Israelite/Jew gave me this firstling with a blemish and he is supposed to reveal if the Israelite/Jew gave it to him with a blemish or not, and it is a matter of business to reveal that people are not lying.

הכל נאמנים על מומי המעשר – Kohanim are obligated to separate the tithe for cattle like an Israelite/Jew. And everyone is believed to stated regarding a blemish that was made on the cattle that was tithed that it was not intentional, and even its owners. For since that if he needs to, he would place of blemish in his entire flock prior to to tithing, and it would be found that the tithe has a blemish.

שנסמית עינו שנקטעה ידו – that is a prominent blemish.

בני הכנסת – that is to say, that they are not Sages. And these words [apply] when there is no individual specialist/expert, but in a place where there is an individual expert/specialist, it is not slaughtered other than by the word of the expert, and even with a prominent blemish. This is similar to the renunciation of vows that in a place where there is an individual expert/specialist, three commoners [on a Jewish court] do not help.

אפילו היו שם עשרים ושלשה – even if there was a Sanhedrin in the place, if there isn’t one individual that received permission to permit the blemishes of a firstling, it is not slaughtered by their word, even with a prominent blemish, until there will be a specialist/expert there. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

השוחט את הבכור – and sold from its flesh and it became known to us that he had not shown it to a Sage.

מה שאכלו – those who purchase its food.

ויחזיר להם את הדמים – because of a fine. That he fed them forbidden flesh/meat.

מכרוהו – those who purchase it for a heathen, since he did not cause them the prohibition, they will pay him the cost of the torn animal, like it is sold cheaply, and he will return to them the remainder. But regarding a firstling, it is not taught, “they sold it to heathens,” for from a pure firstling is prohibited to derive benefit.