Bekhorot 36 – בכורות ל״ו | Daf Yomi with Rashi, Tosafot, the Rambam and halacha

What Bekhorot 36 teaches

Hearsay testimony is accepted to permit a blemished firstborn wherever a woman's testimony is deemed legally valid.
An owner is believed regarding animal tithe blemishes because he could have permissibly blemished his entire flock before tithing.
Three laymen may permit an obviously blemished firstborn animal only when no qualified expert is available in that town.

The sugyot

Abaye resolves Rav Pappa’s challenge by distinguishing between a preventive suspicion and establishing kohanim as definite transgressors across the Torah.
The Gemara asks whether hearsay testimony can permit a blemished firstborn, concluding through Rav Ashi's reinterpretation that hearsay is valid wherever women may testify.
A priest admitting an unestablished firstborn has an accidental blemish is believed, because his admission withstands generalized suspicion without witnesses.
The Gemara records how a dispute between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua over a scholarly priest's credibility led to a public confrontation.
A kohen is believed when claiming that an expert inspected his firstborn animal and certified its blemish for slaughter.
The Gemara establishes that a kohen is believed to claim an animal was received blemished, because people do not lie about discoverable matters.
Rav Yehuda's requirement to have a kohen present when inspecting an Israelite's firstborn does not apply to an obvious congenital blemish.
The Mishnah establishes that everyone is believed to testify that a blemish on an animal tithe occurred on its own.
The Gemara establishes that an owner is believed on animal tithe blemishes because he could have permittedly blemished his entire flock before tithing.
The Mishnah debates whether an obvious permanent blemish on a firstborn requires an expert or may be permitted by three ordinary laymen.
The Gemara establishes that three laymen may permit a firstborn animal in the Diaspora only if its blemish is clear-cut and obvious.
Three laymen may inspect an obviously blemished firstborn or dissolve a vow only when an expert or Sage is unavailable in that locale.

Halachot from the daf

Priestly suspicion of causing blemishes as suspicion versus presumption
Hearsay testimony regarding a natural blemish on a firstborn animal
Hearsay testimony confirming the death of a husband to permit remarriage
Credibility of a woman claiming she was married and divorced
Claiming mah li leshaker in a place where witnesses exist
Presumption of kohanim causing blemishes in a firstborn
Standing when asking a halachic question in the study hall
Credibility of a kohen claiming an expert permitted a blemished firstborn
Credibility of a priest claiming he received a blemished firstborn animal
Credibility of an untrusted agent instructed to purchase tithed produce
Examining an Israelite's firstborn animal without a priest present
Credibility regarding blemishes on an animal tithe offering
Credibility to testify on blemishes of מעשר בהמה
Authorizing slaughter of a בכור by non-experts
Permitting slaughter of a firstborn animal via three laymen
Permitting a blemished bekhor by three laymen when no expert is present
Dissolving vows by three laymen when no expert sage is available

Gems from the Daf

Learn Bekhorot 36 sugya by sugya on Super Daf: the Gemara in Hebrew and English with Rashi, Tosafot, the Rishonim, the Rambam and the Shulchan Arukh woven in. Free.