Blemishing, Testimony, and the Integrity of Priests

Tosafot analyzes when a firstborn animal can be blemished before birth, which witnesses may verify its blemishes, and how suspicion impacts priestly judges.

Blemishing a Fetus Prior to Birth

A male firstborn animal possesses inherent holiness from the moment of birth. Rav Yehuda teaches that one may intentionally inflict a blemish upon a בכור (firstborn offering) before it emerges into the world. As Rashi explains, the animal does not attain sacred status until the womb sanctifies it upon birth.

Rava clarifies how this is practically done as the fetus begins to emerge. For a kid, whose long ears emerge before the rest of the head, one may blemish the ear. Rashi notes that until the entire head exits the birth canal, the animal is not considered born.

Retroactive Sanctity and Emerging Fetuses

Tosafot raises a serious objection against Rava's permission to blemish an emerging ear. In tractate Chullin, Rav Huna rules that when an animal emerges partially and the rest exits later, it is retroactively sanctified from the very start. If so, once the majority of the fetus emerges, the blemish was placed on an animal that was retroactively consecrated!

Tosafot answers that Rava follows Rav Chisda, who disagrees with Rav Huna. Under Rav Chisda's view, prior to the emergence of the majority, one can prevent the sanctity from ever taking effect retroactively. Alternatively, Tosafot suggests that Rav Yehuda's ruling applies only before any part of the fetus has emerged at all.

כיון דנפק לבסוף רובא דאיתגלי מילתא דלמפרע קדוש א"כ הכא נמי שיצא רוב אחרי כן איגלאי מילתא דהוה קדוש מעיקרא

Since in the end the majority emerged, so the matter was revealed that it was sanctified retroactively, if so here too, once the majority emerges afterward, the matter is revealed that it was sanctified from the beginning. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 35a:14:2)

Witnesses for an Animal's Blemish

A firstborn animal may be slaughtered and eaten outside the Temple only if it developed a blemish naturally. The Gemara asks what practical machloket exists between the first tanna and Rabbi Meir regarding who may testify that the blemish was not deliberately caused. The Gemara answers that they argue over the ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai, who requires two witnesses from the marketplace.

Tosafot explains that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai required two witnesses specifically when the witnesses are priests. For an ordinary Israelite, even a single witness is trusted. The first tanna permits שני כהנים מן השוק (two priests from the marketplace) because unrelated priests have no personal interest in the animal. Rabbi Meir disqualifies even two independent priests, because anyone suspect regarding an issue cannot testify about it.

ושנים מן השוק דקאמר ר' יהושע בן קפוסאי בכהנים איירי דישראל אפילו חד מהימן

And when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai spoke of 'two from the marketplace,' he was referring to priests, for regarding Israelites even a single witness is believed. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 35b:5:1)

Priestly Suspicions and the Courtroom

Rabbi Meir holds that anyone suspected of transgressing one matter is suspected regarding the entire Torah. Rav Pappa asks Abaye: if priests are suspected of causing blemishes, how can they ever serve as judges in court? The Torah explicitly states that every controversy and dispute shall be decided by priests.

Tosafot notes a difficulty: in tractate Sanhedrin, Rava rules that one who violates sins against Heaven does not suspect against man. Why would a suspicion about sacrificial blemishes disqualify a priest from judging monetary disputes between people?

Tosafot answers that Rav Pappa questions Abaye according to Abaye's own position in Sanhedrin. Alternatively, even according to Rava, the verse demands that priests must be fit for every judgment in the world without exception. Tosafot adds that the Gemara could have also questioned how we trust priests for ordinary שחיטה (slaughter) or sacrificial services.

Sanctity can be prevented before full birth, and disqualification depends on whether a person's specific suspicion undermines their trustworthiness across Torah law.

Learn Bekhorot 35 on Super Daf