Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 35 for kids: Who Made the Blemish?

בכורות ל״ה

🐏 A firstborn animal with a blemish may be slaughtered, but does it matter how the blemish happened? This daf also asks who can be trusted to say it was not made on purpose.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 35a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 35b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 35

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 35 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 35a, in English Tab translation (44)
  1. He rendered another person’s ritually pure items impure and died; they did not penalize his son after him — His son need not pay, even though the Sages penalized the father, as stated in Bava Kamma 4b.
  2. Damage that is not evident — The ritually pure items are still lying before him, with no visible damage to them.
  3. Is not considered damage — By Torah law, even the person who caused it is not liable to pay.
  4. Mishna: And its hair was dangling — Because it had never been shorn.
  5. Quaestor — An official.
  6. What is the status of this animal? — Why had they let it grow so old?
  7. Dagger — A spear.
  8. And they permitted it — One cannot say that this gentile intended to make the animal permissible: he did not know that a blemish he caused would permit its slaughter, rather than only one that arose on its own.
  9. Any blemish caused intentionally — He intended to cause a blemish to permit the animal’s slaughter.
  10. Gemara: Had it taught us only the gentile — The Sages permitted the first firstborn animal he blemished because there is no concern that this gentile would develop a habit of blemishing consecrated animals; his habit is not our concern, since he is not bound by the prohibition.
  11. And people would not confuse a minor with an adult — Someone who sees the Sages permit an animal blemished by children would not conclude that an animal blemished by an adult is permitted.
  12. They taught — That a firstborn animal blemished by a gentile is permitted.
  13. Only if they said to him — They told the quaestor, “It may be slaughtered only if it has a blemish.” This suggests a blemish arising on its own, so he could not infer from their words that they wanted him to cause one.
  14. Was caused — This suggests human action.
  15. On its own — The gentile did not know that his action would permit the animal’s slaughter, so he did not intend to permit it.
  16. Indirect action — For example, someone put dough or a dried fig on a firstborn animal’s ear so that a dog would come and take it.
  17. Speaking offhandedly — The quaestor did not ask about the animal. Rather, they said on their own, “Look, this animal can never be slaughtered unless it has a blemish,” without intending for him to cause one.
  18. Mishna: If a firstborn animal was pursuing him — A butting firstborn ram was chasing someone to gore him, and the person kicked it and caused a blemish.
  19. He may slaughter it on account of that blemish — Even if he is a priest, because he intended to save himself.
  20. Gemara: His distress — The distress the animal caused him by chasing him.
  21. Before it emerged into the world — A firstborn animal is not consecrated until it emerges from the womb.
  22. A kid by its ears — A kid has long ears that become visible before its entire head emerges. One can cause a blemish then, because it is not considered born until its whole head emerges.
  23. A lamb by its lips — Its lips appear first, while its ears are folded and remain hidden until its whole head emerges.
  24. Its temples — The sides of its head.
  25. It eats and is not visible — Even if a blemish inside a firstborn animal’s mouth is hidden while it eats, it is visible when the animal cries out. It therefore counts as a visible blemish, on account of which the animal may be slaughtered, as stated in Bekhorot 37a.
  26. Bleats — it cries out and opens its mouth wide.
  27. Outer gums — the gums of the teeth at the front, toward the animal’s snout; the blemish is that a little of them has been chipped away.
  28. Or were notched — they were cut across their width, downward from the top, without any part being removed. This is a blemish because those gums are visible.
  29. Inner gums — the gums in which the large teeth are set.
  30. Were uprooted — if uprooted completely, they are a blemish, as the Gemara goes on to explain, because they can be seen when the animal bleats. But a chip or notch in them is not visible, since they are hidden in the mouth.
  31. Why — are the inner gums considered a blemish even at their roots?
  32. Blemishes that a person could cause — blemishes that might have been inflicted by someone, such as a blinded eye, a severed leg, or a split ear.
  33. Jewish shepherds are believed — when they say the blemishes occurred on their own.
  34. Priestly shepherds are not believed — because they are suspected in this matter. The Gemara explains whom it calls Jewish shepherds and whom it calls priestly shepherds. The mishna specifies blemishes a person could cause because some cannot be caused by a person, such as five legs or an eye as large as a calf’s or as small as a goose’s. No one is suspected of causing such a blemish.
  35. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Meir — their views are explained in the Gemara.
  36. One said — when the mishna says Jewish shepherds are believed, it includes those staying in the home of the priest who owns the firstborn animal.
  37. We are not concerned about a meal — we do not suspect that the shepherd is lying that the blemish occurred naturally so his priestly master may slaughter the animal and share its meat with him.
  38. Priestly shepherds are not believed — this means that shepherds who are priests are not believed when the firstborn animal is in a Jew’s possession, because the priestly shepherd is suspected of having blemished it himself.
  39. For he thinks — the owner will not pass me over and give it to another priest.
  40. And the same applies to one priest concerning another priest — a priestly shepherd cannot testify about another priest’s firstborn animal. We are concerned they may exchange favors: he testifies now, expecting the other priest to testify for him later if a Jew gives him an unblemished firstborn animal and he blemishes it.
  41. About another person’s animal — whether it belongs to his master or to someone else. Priests are suspected only concerning a firstborn animal that a Jew has already given them.
  42. One suspected in a matter — that is, priests, who are suspected concerning firstborn animals.
  43. May neither judge nor testify — the Gemara later asks how Rabbi Meir’s view differs from that of the first tanna.
  44. And one said — when the mishna says Jewish shepherds are believed, it means shepherds of Jews’ animals are believed even if the shepherds are priests, for what would they gain by lying?
Tosafot on Bechorot 35a, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. A kid by its ear — If a small part of its head is visible outside the womb, one may blemish its ear without fearing that most of the head had already emerged and then withdrawn. A kid’s large ears can emerge while only a small part of its head is out. With a lamb, this applies to its lips, but not its ear: if the ear is visible, one must fear that most of the head had already emerged and withdrawn.
  2. Some say: A lamb too, by its ear—perhaps it emerged at the side of its head — When only a small part of the ear is now visible, one need not suppose that its head and most of its body had already emerged and withdrawn. Here “perhaps” is treated as a certainty, as in the concerns that “perhaps they spent the night outside the city wall” (Shabbat 151a) and “perhaps they delayed him and recorded it” (Sanhedrin 32a). Rava here follows Rav Hisda in Hullin 69b. Rav Hisda disagrees there with Rav Huna, who says that if one-third of an animal emerged, its owner sold it to a gentile, and another third then emerged, the animal becomes sanctified: the sale never took effect, since the later emergence of a majority reveals that it was sanctified from the outset. On Rav Huna’s view, once most of the head emerges later, it likewise becomes clear that the animal was sanctified earlier, so blemishing it while only a small part had emerged would be forbidden. Rav Yehuda’s ruling could still be reconciled with Rav Huna by placing it before any part emerged. But the discussion in Temurah 24b also does not follow Rav Huna. It places Rav Yehuda’s ruling in the present day, when the offering cannot be sacrificed, and explains why the ruling is needed: one might have prohibited the practice lest most of the head emerge and someone blemish it. According to Rav Huna, even the emergence of a small part of the head would make blemishing it forbidden, so the discussion should not have specified most of the head. Likewise, Rav Amram asks Rav Sheshet whether an owner’s declaration, made as most of a firstborn animal emerges, that it should be a burnt offering takes effect or whether it remains a firstborn. That question, too, appears not to follow Rav Huna: it assumes that before most of the animal emerges, its owner can prevent firstborn sanctity—unless a distinction is made between a sale and these other cases.
Rashi on Bechorot 35b, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. He would say — My Israelite employer will not pass over a priest who is a Torah scholar and give the firstborn to me, an ordinary shepherd who is presumed unlearned.
  2. Shepherds of priests — Israelite shepherds tending a priest’s animals are not believed about their priest employer’s firstborn: they may lie to receive a mouthful of it. All the more so, priestly shepherds tending a priest’s animals are not believed, because they might exchange favors as well as seek a mouthful.
  3. About another’s animal — This refers to a priest testifying for another priest: the priestly shepherd is believed about his employer’s animal, without concern that they will exchange favors or that he hopes for a mouthful.
  4. One suspected in the matter — Priests are suspected of causing blemishes in firstborn animals.
  5. May neither judge nor testify about it — Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who permits even a priest to testify for another priest. He also disagrees with the first tanna, who accepts the testimony of shepherds tending an Israelite’s animals even if those shepherds are priests, but not the testimony of priestly shepherds in the other case.
  6. That is the first tanna’s view — The first tanna also says that a priest is not believed.
  7. They differ over Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai’s ruling — That ruling is the point of difference between them.
  8. Two people from the marketplace are required — Any two outsiders, even priests, may testify, but priests in the owner’s household may not. The first tanna agrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai: shepherds associated with the household are not believed, but independent priests are believed even about another priest’s firstborn. The concern that priests will exchange favors applies to a shepherd working for the owner, who might expect the owner to testify for him when he receives a firstborn from an Israelite. Rabbi Meir rejects Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling: since priests are suspected regarding firstborn animals, even an independent priest may neither judge nor testify, even when the firstborn belongs to an Israelite.
  9. Even his son and daughter — Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel follows his view that a priest is believed about another person’s animal. A father’s animal also counts as another person’s: a priest is suspected only about his own.
  10. Even ten household members may not testify — But one person from outside the household is believed; Rabbi Yehoshua requires two outsiders.
  11. An animal of uncertain firstborn status — For example, a ewe that had not previously given birth bears two males. One belongs to the Israelite and one to the priest, but it is uncertain whether the Israelite’s animal was born first. It grazes until it develops a blemish, and then the Israelite may eat it.
  12. Two people from the marketplace are required to testify about it — They must testify that the blemish was not deliberately caused.
  13. In accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua — Just as he requires two outsiders to testify about a firstborn in a priest’s possession, he requires them for an animal of uncertain firstborn status in an Israelite’s possession.
  14. Rav Naḥman said — Even the Israelite owner is believed about his animal of uncertain firstborn status. Priests, not Israelites, are suspected regarding firstborn animals, even when the Israelite may eat the animal.
  15. For if you do not say so — If owners are suspected regarding their own animals, Israelites too would be suspected of causing blemishes.
  16. An animal tithe according to Rabbi Meir — Who could testify about its blemish? Rabbi Meir says that someone suspected in a matter concerning himself cannot testify for others, as shown by his disqualification of even independent priests.
  17. An animal tithe? — Surely even its owner is believed. Before tithing, he could lawfully blemish his entire flock, since none of the animals has yet become sanctified.
  18. Rather — The question is this: If owners are suspected regarding animals of uncertain firstborn status, Israelites are suspected of causing blemishes in them, and priests certainly are too. A priest’s flock can also produce such an animal, which must wait until it develops a blemish; priests are not exempt from the law of firstborn kosher animals. According to Rabbi Meir, who could testify about it?
  19. It has no remedy — According to Rabbi Meir, there would be no way to permit the animal.
  20. Its counterpart is in the priest’s possession — The priest took the other animal from this pair of uncertain firstborns. The Israelite is therefore exempt from giving the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach, since one who is treated as having received the animal is treated as having acquired it. Rabbi Meir nevertheless requires those gifts; this shows that he permits the Israelite to eat this animal.
  21. The law follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel — Even the priest’s son or daughter may testify.
  22. The priest who owns it — If the firstborn entered a house uninjured and came out injured while its priestly owner stood outside with us, those inside may testify that it was injured on its own. This supports Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: only the priest who owns the firstborn is suspected.
  23. Say that all its owners were outside — The priest, his children, and his household were outside with us, while a shepherd inside the house testifies about the animal.
  24. That is obvious — If all its owners were with us, who could have caused the blemish?
  25. One might have thought we should suspect wrongdoing — Perhaps the shepherd inside caused the blemish. Alternatively, the case means that witnesses say the priest and his entire household were outside while the firstborn entered the house uninjured and came out injured. One might still suspect that they had arranged the injury beforehand, by placing a dried fig on its ear or digging a pit for it to fall into.
Tosafot on Bechorot 35b, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. He thinks: He will not pass over a Torah scholar and give it to me — Earlier, the Talmud says that when a priest is shepherding in an Israelite owner’s courtyard, Rabbi Tarfon holds that the owner grants him a place there; even Rabbi Akiva disagrees only because the owner would lose out and so grants him nothing. That case concerns a priest to whom the owner regularly gives priestly gifts, or one whom he likes and customarily gives gifts.
  2. The difference between them is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai’s ruling — The first tanna agrees with him: only priest-shepherds, whether employed by Israelites or by priests, are not believed, for the reason given; two independent priests are believed. Rabbi Meir does not accept even two independent priests, because he holds that someone suspected in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai’s requirement of two outsiders refers to priests, since even one Israelite is believed. For Rabbi Meir, where testimony is disallowed, even two witnesses are not believed, as the Talmud soon asks: Who, according to Rabbi Meir, can testify about an animal whose status as a firstborn is uncertain?
  3. And if you say it has no remedy — The Talmud could have answered by distinguishing a Torah scholar from an unlearned person, as Rabbi Yehoshua does below. It could give the same answer when it later asks whether priests, too, may not judge cases. Alternatively, Rabbi Yehoshua himself may have retracted: he tells Rabban Gamliel, ‘How can one living person contradict another?’ Rashi explains that he means, ‘I did say it, but I retract.’ More likely, he spoke that way out of respect for Rabban Gamliel, as he did in the dispute about evening prayer, though he did not retract his original ruling that it is optional. Rav rules there that the law follows the view that it is optional.
  4. Rather, must we conclude that owners may testify about it? — But Rav Ḥisda, who required two independent witnesses for an animal of uncertain firstborn status in an Israelite’s possession, should face the same question: According to Rabbi Meir, who can testify if Israelites, too, are suspect? He could answer, as explained above, by distinguishing a Torah scholar from an unlearned person. Alternatively, Rav Ḥisda could say that Rabbi Meir would not go so far as to disqualify two independent witnesses in a case of uncertain firstborn status.
  5. Let us be concerned about suspicion — People may suspect that someone from the household remained inside.
  6. Would priests, then, also be unable to judge cases? — This poses no difficulty for Rava, who says that someone who eats forbidden meat in defiance of God, though he sins against God, is not thereby suspected of wronging other people. But it is a valid question for Abaye. Alternatively, it can be read as a question even for Rava: Scripture indicates that priests should be qualified for every kind of judgment and legal ruling, saying, ‘every dispute and every affliction.’ The Talmud could also have asked how one may eat meat slaughtered by a priest and how priests remain qualified for all other offerings. Even without the issue of firstborn animals, it could have raised the question against Rabbi Meir because priests are suspected in matters of the sabbatical year, as stated in the chapter ‘This One May Select.’

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 35.