Super Daf › Bekhorot 35 › Gems from the Daf
Machloket · Bekhorot 35 · בכורות ל״ה
Words That Hint and Kicks That Linger
The Gemara on Bekhorot 35 debates when an unintended blemish permits a firstborn animal, exploring subtle wording to gentiles and kicks delivered in anger.
A Careless Question to a Roman Officer
A male בכור (firstborn offering) is consecrated from birth and cannot be slaughtered or eaten unless it develops a permanent מום (blemish). A Jew is strictly forbidden from directly or indirectly causing such an injury.
The Mishnah relates an incident where a Roman quaestor saw an aged ram with long wool and asked why it had not been slaughtered. The bystanders answered that a firstborn may only be slaughtered if a blemish exists. The official immediately slit its ear with a dagger. Yet the Sages permitted the ram because the gentile acted without Jewish solicitation,.
Was It an Implicit Instruction?
Rav Ḥisda citing Rav Ketina narrows this leniency. He asserts that the bystanders permitted the animal only because they said the ram "had a blemish" (היה בו מום). This phrase implies a naturally occurring injury. If they had said "unless a blemish was caused" (נעשה בו מום), the phrasing would suggest human agency,. That phrasing serves as an implicit instruction to wound the animal, rendering the animal forbidden.
Rava disputes this grammatical distinction. He argues that both formulations represent passive descriptions of an event occurring on its own. Therefore, passive language does not prompt the gentile and leaves the animal permitted in either scenario,.
אֲבָל אִם אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ ״אִם נַעֲשָׂה בּוֹ מוּם״ — כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ ״זִיל עֲבֵיד בֵּיהּ מוּמָא״ דָּמֵי.But if they said to him that a firstborn offering may be slaughtered only if a blemish was caused to form upon it, it is considered as though they told him: Go and cause a blemish on it. (Bekhorot 35a:6)
Kicking a Pursuing Ram
The next Mishnah examines bodily injury caused during self-defense. If an aggressive בכור pursues a person to gore him and the person kicks it, causing a מום, the animal may be slaughtered,.
Because the person acted solely to save himself from harm, the injury is considered שלא לדעתו (unintentional),. The general rule permits any blemish caused without the intent to enable slaughter,.
Two Versions of Rav Pappa
Rav Pappa investigates the limits of self-defense. In the first version of his ruling, he restricts the Mishnah strictly to a kick delivered while the animal was actively chasing him. If he kicked after the pursuit ended, the blemish is forbidden because we suspect he deliberately exploited the opportunity to blemish the animal.
In the second version, Rav Pappa permits the animal even if kicked after the pursuit ceased. We do not suspect illicit intent to permit the meat. Rather, we assume the person struck solely out of anger because צעריה הוא דמדכר (he recalls his distress),.
אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר רְדִיפָה נָמֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא? צַעֲרֵיהּ [הוּא] דְּמִדְּכַר.Rather, even if he kicked it after its pursuit of him, it is also permitted. What is the reason? It is assumed that he recalls his distress. (Bekhorot 35a:13)
Biblical Safeguard or Rabbinic Penalty
The Rambam and the Ramban rule in accordance with the second, lenient version of Rav Pappa,. Even if an individual delivers a kick after the pursuit has ended, one may slaughter the firstborn on account of the resulting blemish.
The Rosh raises a powerful objection against this leniency. Since intentionally injuring a firstborn involves a biblical prohibition against causing blemishes, why do we resolve our doubt leniently? The Kessef Mishneh explains that while causing the blemish violates Torah law, disqualifying the animal from consumption is strictly a rabbinic sanction. Therefore, the Sages could rule leniently when the blow stemmed from instinctive anger.
דאיסור דהטלת מום הוי דאורייתא מה שאינו נאכל באותו מום הוי מדרבנןInflicting a blemish is from the Torah, but the fact that it may not be eaten on account of that blemish is rabbinic. (Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 2:11:2)
A blemish invalidates a firstborn for slaughter only when intended to permit the animal, allowing leniency for offhanded speech and retaliatory anger.