Firstlings Chapter 2

כָּל הַמּוּמִים הַקְּבוּעִים הַפּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַקֳדָשִׁים וְנִפְדִּים עֲלֵיהֶן. אִם נָפַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בִּבְכוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁחָט עָלָיו בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ אוֹתָן הַמּוּמִין בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהָרָאוּי מֵהֶן לִהְיוֹת בְּזָכָר שִׁשִּׁים וְשִׁבְעָה:

If any of the permanent blemishes which disqualify consecrated animals and require them to be redeemed is contracted by a firstborn animal, it may be slaughtered for this reason in any place. We have already explained those blemishes in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach. Those that are appropriate to apply to a male animal number 67.

וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁמָּנִינוּ שָׁם שֶׁאֵין הַקָּרְבָּן מִן הַמֻּבְחָר וְאֵין הַקָּדָשִׁים קְרֵבִין בָּהֶן וְלֹא נִפְדִּין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּךְ אֵין הַבְּכוֹר נִשְׁחָט עֲלֵיהֶן וְלֹא קָרֵב אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה עוֹמֵד עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד לוֹ מוּם קָבוּעַ. וְכֵן אִם נוֹלָד בִּבְכוֹר מוּם עוֹבֵר הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ נִשְׁחָט בְּכָל מָקוֹם וְלֹא קָרֵב אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה רוֹעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם קָבוּעַ וְיִשָּׁחֵט עָלָיו:

All of the conditions mentioned there which cause a sacrifice to be considered as less than desirable and hence, due to them, a consecrated animal is not offered, but also is not redeemed cause a firstborn not to be slaughtered due to them, nor offered. Instead, the animal remains until it contracts a permanent blemish. Similarly, if a firstborn contracts a temporary blemish, it should not be slaughtered in any place, nor should it be offered. Instead, it should pasture until it contracts a permanent blemish and is slaughtered because of it.

וְכֵן אִם נֶעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵרָה. אוֹ שֶׁהָרַג בְּעֵד אֶחָד. אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים. אוֹ שֶׁהֻקְצָה אוֹ נֶעֱבָד. יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ:

Similarly, if a transgression was performed with it or it killed a human according to the testimony of only one witness or the owner, it was set aside to be worshiped as a false deity or it was worshiped, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish, as explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach.

יוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן וְהַבָּא אַחֲרָיו שְׁנֵיהֶן אֵינָן בְּכוֹר. הָרִאשׁוֹן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם וְהָאַחֲרוֹן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדָמוֹ אַחֵר. אֲפִלּוּ יָצְאָה נְקֵבָה דֶּרֶךְ דֹּפֶן וְזָכָר דֶּרֶךְ רֶחֶם אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר:

Neither an animal born through Cesarean section, nor one born afterwards are considered as firstborn animals. The first is not, because it is not the first issue of the womb. And the second is not, because the first preceded it. Even if a female was born through Cesarean section and a male later emerged from the womb, it is not a firstborn.

בְּכוֹר שֶׁהוּא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵין בּוֹ קְדֻשָּׁה כְּלָל. וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּנְקֵבָה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. וְעוֹבְדִים בּוֹ וְגוֹזְזִים אוֹתוֹ כִּשְׁאָר הַחֻלִּין. נוֹלַד טֻמְטוּם הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק בְּכוֹר וְיֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ לִבְעָלָיו. בֵּין שֶׁהֵטִיל מַיִם מִמְּקוֹם זִכְרוּת בֵּין שֶׁהֵטִיל מִמְּקוֹם נַקְבוּת:

When a firstborn animal is an androgynus, it does not have any sacred quality associated with it. It is like a female, concerning which the priest has no claim at all. One may perform labor with it and shear it like other ordinary animals. When an animal is born as a tumtum, it is considered as a firstborn of doubtful status. It may be eaten by its owner after it contracts a blemish. This applies whether it urinates from a place that appears to indicate that it is male or it urinates from a place that appears to indicate that it is female.

רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין עֵז. אוֹ עֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין רָחֵל פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח יז) "אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר. וְאִם הָיָה בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנֵי אִמּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּכוֹר וְהוּא בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִשִּׁנּוּי בְּרִיָּתוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין חֲמוֹר וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנֵי פָּרָה הֲרֵי זֶה בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן הוֹאִיל וּמִין הַחֲמוֹר יֵשׁ בּוֹ דִּין בְּכוֹר. אֲבָל אִם יָלְדָה מִין סוּס אוֹ גָּמָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנֵי פָּרָה הֲרֵי הוּא סְפֵק בְּכוֹר לְפִיכָךְ יֵאָכֵל לַבְּעָלִים. וְאִם תְּפָסוֹ כֹּהֵן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ:

A sheep that gave birth to offspring similar to a goat, or a goat that gave birth to offspring similar to a sheep, it is exempt from firstborn laws, as it says (Numbers 18, 17): "Just the firstborn of an ox", only when it is an ox and its eldest son is an ox. And if it had some signs of its mother it is a firstborn and it is permanently blemished for there is no blemish greater than change of its species. Even a cow that gave birth to offspring similar to a donkey, and it has some signs of a cow, it is a firstborn for the priest because the laws of firstborn apply to donkeys. But if it gave birth to [offspring similar to] a horse or a camel, even if it has some signs of a cow, it is a doubtful firstborn and therefore may be eaten by the owners. And if the priest seized it, we don't take it from him [the priest].

הַמַּטִּיל מוּם בִּבְכוֹר הוֹאִיל וְעָשָׂה עֲבֵרָה קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁחָט עַל מוּם זֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם אַחֵר מֵאֵלָיו. וְאִם מֵת זֶה הַחוֹטֵא מֻתָּר לִבְנוֹ לְשָׁחֳטוֹ עַל מוּם שֶׁעָשָׂה אָבִיו שֶׁלֹּא קָנְסוּ בְּנוֹ אַחֲרָיו:

When a person imparts a blemish to a firstborn animal, since he performed a transgression, he is penalized. License is not granted to slaughter the firstborn because of this blemish until it contracts another blemish on its own accord. If, however, this transgressor dies, his son may slaughter the animal because of the blemish inflicted by his father, for his son was not penalized after him.

הִרְגִּיל לַבְּכוֹר שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּתַן דְּבֵלָה עַל אָזְנוֹ עַד שֶׁבָּא כֶּלֶב וּנְטָלָהּ וְחָתַךְ אָזְנוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁהָלַךְ בֵּין בַּרְזֶל וַעֲשָׁשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁל זְכוּכִית כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּקָּטַע יָדוֹ וְנִקְטְעָה. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לְנָכְרִי לְהַטִּיל בּוֹ מוּם. הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁחֹט עָלָיו. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל מוּם שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה לְדַעְתּוֹ אָסוּר לוֹ לִשְׁחֹט עָלָיו וְאִם נַעֲשָׂה שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט עָלָיו:

If one indirectly caused a firstborn to contract a physical blemish, e.g., one placed a fig on its ear, leaving it there until a dog came and took it and cut off its ear, he caused it to pass through jagged iron and pieces of glass so that its forefoot would be cut off and it was cut off, or he told a gentile to blemish it, the animal should not be slaughtered because of this blemish. This is the general principle: Whenever a blemish was brought about with a person's knowledge, it is forbidden for him to slaughter it because of this blemish. If it was brought about without his knowledge, it is permitted for him to slaughter it because of this blemish.

אָמַר אִלּוּ נָפַל בִּבְכוֹר זֶה מוּם הָיִיתִי שׁוֹחֲטוֹ וְשָׁמַע הַנָּכְרִי וְעָשָׂה בּוֹ מוּם הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט עָלָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נַעֲשָׂה בְּדַעְתּוֹ:

If one said: "If this firstborn animal would contract a blemish, I would slaughter it" and a gentile heard and caused it to become blemished, he may slaughter it, because it was not brought about with his knowledge.

רְאִינוּהוּ שֶׁעָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה הַמַּרְגִּיל לְהַטִּיל בּוֹ מוּם וְנָפַל בּוֹ מוּם וְאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לְמוּם זֶה אוֹ לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן. הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁחֹט עָלָיו. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ שְׂעוֹרִים בְּמָקוֹם דָּחוּק מְסֹרָג בְּקוֹצִים וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאָכַל נֶחְלַק שְׂפָתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חָבֵר הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁחֹט עָלָיו. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

If we saw a person perform a deed that would indirectly cause a firstborn to contract a blemish, it contracted a blemish, but we do not know whether he intended that this blemish be caused, he should not slaughter the firstborn, because of it. What is implied? He placed barley in a narrow place where the walls were studded with thorns, when the firstborn ate the barley, its lip became split. Even if the owner was a Torah sage, he should not slaughter the firstborn because of it. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

הָיָה בְּכוֹר רוֹדֵף אֶת הָאָדָם וּבָעֲטוֹ כְּדֵי לְטָרְדוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ בָּעַט בּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרְדָפוֹ מִקֹּדֶם וְנַעֲשָׂה בּוֹ מוּם בִּבְעִיטָה זוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה יִשְׁחַט עָלָיו:

If a firstborn animal was pursuing a person and he kicked it to divert it, or even if he kicked it because it pursued once before, should he have caused a blemish when he kicked it, he may slaughter the firstborn because of it.

קְטַנִּים שֶׁהִטִּילוּ מוּם בִּבְכוֹר דֶּרֶךְ שְׂחוֹק וְכֵן הַנָּכְרִי שֶׁעָשָׂה לְדַעְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה יִשְׁחֹט עָלָיו. וְאִם עָשׂוּ כְּדֵי לְהַתִּירוֹ לֹא יִשְׁחֹט עָלָיו:

When children caused a firstborn to become blemished through sport and similarly, if a gentile caused a blemish intentionally, the firstborn may be slaughtered because of it. If they did so in order to cause it to be permitted, it may not be slaughtered because of it.

בְּכוֹר שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ דָּם יַקִּיז. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּן לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מוּם. וְאִם נַעֲשָׂה בּוֹ מוּם בְּהַקָּזָה זוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁחַט עָלָיו:

When the blood of a firstborn ceased flowing freely, its blood may be let, provided one does not intentionally cause a blemish. If a blemish was caused through the bloodletting, the animal may be slaughtered because of it.

מֻתָּר לְהַטִּיל מוּם בִּבְכוֹר קֹדֶם שֶׁיֵּצֵא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם וְיִשְׁחַט עָלָיו. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁאֵין שָׁם בַּיִת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְהֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּם אָסוּר:

It is permitted to cause a firstborn animal to become blemished before it emerges into the world and the firstborn may be slaughtered as a consequence. When does this apply? When the Temple is not standing. Then leniency is granted, because ultimately the animal will be eaten after it becomes blemished. When, however, the Temple is standing, this is forbidden.

עֵד שֶׁהֵעִיד מִפִּי עֵד אַחַר שֶׁמּוּם זֶה נָפַל שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת נֶאֱמָן. אֲפִלּוּ אִשָּׁה נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נָפַל מוּם זֶה מֵאֵלָיו וְיִשְׁחַט עָלָיו:

When one witness testifies in the name of another witness that a blemish was not brought about knowingly, his word is accepted. Even a woman's word is accepted if she says: "This blemish was caused on its own accord in my presence," and the animal may be slaughtered.

כָּל הַמּוּמִין הָרְאוּיִין לָבוֹא בִּידֵי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן הָרוֹעֶה עֲלֵיהֶן לוֹמַר מֵאֲלֵיהֶן נָפְלוּ וְלֹא נַעֲשׂוּ בְּכַוָּנָה וְיִשְׁחַט עֲלֵיהֶן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הָרוֹעֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַבְּכוֹר בְּיַד הַכֹּהֵן. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הָרוֹעֶה כֹּהֵן וְהַבְּכוֹר עֲדַיִן הוּא בְּיַד בְּעָלָיו הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי. הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וְחוֹשְׁדִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמָּא הוּא הִטִּיל בּוֹ מוּם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְּנֶנּוּ לוֹ:

A shepherd's word is accepted when he states that any blemish that could have been caused by human activity came about on its own accord. The animal may be slaughtered because of such blemishes. When does the above apply? When the shepherd was an Israelite and the firstborn animal is in the possession of a priest. If, however, the shepherd was a priest and the firstborn was still in the possession of its Israelite owner, the shepherd's word is not accepted and we suspect that perhaps he caused it to become blemished so that it would be given to him.

כֹּהֵן שֶׁהֵעִיד לְכֹהֵן אַחֵר שֶׁמּוּם זֶה מֵאֵלָיו נָפַל נֶאֱמָן וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן שֶׁמָּא הֵם גּוֹמְלִים זֶה אֶת זֶה. שֶׁכָּל הַכֹּהֲנִים חֲשׁוּדִין לְהַטִּיל מוּם בִּבְכוֹר כְּדֵי לְאָכְלוֹ בַּחוּץ וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין עַל יְדֵי עַצְמָן. אֲבָל חֲבֵרוֹ מֵעִיד לוֹ, שֶׁאֵין אָדָם חוֹטֵא לְאַחֵר. אֲפִלּוּ בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן מְעִידִין לוֹ עַל הַבְּכוֹר אֲבָל לֹא אִשְׁתּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּגוּפוֹ:

The word of a priest who testifies on behalf of another priest that a firstborn became blemished on its own accord is accepted. We do not suspect that they are acting in collusion with each other. The rationale is that all of the priests are suspect to cause a blemish to a firstborn so that they can partake of it outside the Temple Courtyard. Therefore their own word is not accepted with regard to their own concerns. A colleague may, however, testify on his behalf, because a person will not transgress on behalf of another. Even a priest's children and the members of his household may testify with regard to a firstborn on his behalf. His wife may not, however, because she is considered as his own person.

בְּכוֹר שֶׁהָיָה בְּיַד כֹּהֵן וְנָפַל בּוֹ מוּם וְהֵעִיד עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁזֶּה הַמּוּם מֵאֵלָיו נָפַל וְאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים אִם מוּם זֶה שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו אֶת הַבְּכוֹר אוֹ אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁהוּא בְּיָדוֹ וְאָמַר הֶרְאֵיתִי מוּם זֶה לְמֻמְחֶה וְהִתִּירוֹ לִשְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא לֹא הֶרְאָהוּ וְשֶׁמָּא בְּכוֹר תָּם הוּא שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְשְׁדוּ לִשְׁחֹט קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עֲוֹן כָּרֵת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

Leniency is, however, shown in the following instance. A firstborn animal was in the possession of a priest and it became blemished. One witness testified that the blemish came as a matter of course, but we do not know whether the blemish is of the type that enables a firstborn to be slaughtered or not. If the priest who is in possession of the firstborn states that he showed this blemish to an expert and he permitted the firstborn to be slaughtered because of it, his word is accepted. We do not suspect that he did not show the animal to the expert and that the firstborn is considered as unblemished. For the priests were not suspected of slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple Courtyard, because this is a sin punishable by karet, as we explained.

וְכֵן נֶאֱמָן הַכֹּהֵן לוֹמַר עַל בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם בְּכוֹר זֶה נְתָנוֹ לִי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמוּמוֹ וְלֹא נָפַל בִּרְשׁוּתִי כְּדֵי לָחוּשׁ לוֹ שֶׁמָּא הוּא הִטִּילוֹ. שֶׁהַדָּבָר עָשׂוּי לְהִגָּלוֹת וְהוּא מִתְיָרֵא שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁאֲלוּ בְּעָלָיו וְיֹאמַר תָּמִים הָיָה בְּעֵת שֶׁנְּתָנוּהוּ לוֹ:

Similarly, a priest's word is accepted if he states concerning a blemished firstborn animal: "An Israelite gave me this firstborn animal after it was blemished. It did not become blemished in my domain." As a result, we do not suspect that he caused the blemish. The rationale is that the matter will inevitably become revealed and the priest will be scared to lie, lest the Israelite owner be asked and state: "It was unblemished at the time it was given to him."