1)

(a)Our Mishnah tells the story of a (Nochri) officer who was surprised to see an old sheep with long hair. They told him that - it was a B'chor whose wool it was forbidden to shear, and which could not be Shechted until it obtained a blemish.

(b)The officer ...

1. ... subsequently - took a short sword and made a minimal cut (see Shitah Mekubetzes) in its ear.

2. ... when he saw that the Chachamim permitted the sheep - he did the same to a few more firstborn animals.

(c)The Chachamim permitted the first sheep - because the officer did not yet know that his wounding the sheep would permit it, but not the subsequent ones - because at that stage he did.

(d)The Mishnah relates a similar story - regarding children who, playing with some firstborn lambs, tied their tails together, and one of the tails came off. There too, the Chachamim permitted the tails of the first time, but not when they repeated their game.

(e)The rule that determines the Mishnah's rulings is - whenever the person who creates the Mum is aware of what he will achieve, it is forbidden, whereas whenever he is not, it is permitted.

2)

(a)The Mishnah finds it necessary to present both cases. Having taught us the case of ...

1. ... the officer, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to insert that of the children - because if he did not, we might have thought that by the latter who are destined to become grown-up Jews (who are likely to continue doing then what they did when they were children), even the first time is forbidden, whereas by a Nochri, we are not worried about that.

2. ... the children, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to insert that of the officer - because otherwise, we might have thought that whereas nobody will confuse a grown-up for a child, they will confuse one grown-up for another and permit the B'chor even if a Yisrael makes the blemish.

(b)Rav Chisda Amar Rav Ketina qualified our Mishnah - by restricting it to where they said to the officer ' ... unless it had a blemish'; but had they said ' ... unless a blemish is made', the officer's action would have been rejected even the first time (because it implies that a deliberate action is just as acceptable as one that occurs by itself).

(c)Rava objects to that however - because he maintains, the one Lashon is as passive as the other.

(d)Rava therefore ruled that - either way, the B'chor would have been permitted.

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if someone who is being chased by a firstborn ram, gave it a kick and wounded it - the ram becomes permitted.

(b)Rav Papa confines this to a kick that is administered at the time of the chase, but not afterwards, which is not obvious - because one might have thought that even a subsequent kick is still the result of his pain (and not in order to create a blemish).

(c)In the second Lashon - Rav Papa permits a subsequent kick,

4)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - permits making a blemish on a B'chor before it is born.

(b)Rava adds 'a kid goat on its ear and a lamb on its lip' - because bearing in mind that the former has long ears, they are what emerge before the bulk of the animal's head, in which case it is not yet considered born. The latter, on the other hand, is considered born by the time its ears emerge.

(c)Others say a lamb on its ear, too - because they maintain that the temple (which is next to the ear) emerges before the face.

5)

(a)Rav Papa holds that a blemish inside the B'chor's mouth that can be seen when it bleats, but not when it eats - is considered a blemish and that one is permitted to Shecht a B'chor on account of it.

(b)The Mishnah in the sixth Perek considers the middle gums that have a little missing, or that are cut but still intact, a blemish - because they are visible when the animal bleats (even though they are not visible when it eats.

(c)And Rav Papa repeats it - in order to teach us - that this is the reason for the Tana's ruling.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah draws a distinction between blemishes that could be man-made - in which case a Ro'eh (a shepherd) who is a Yisrael is believed, but not a Ro'eh Kohen; and those that could not (since the B'chor was born with them) - in which case even a Ro'eh Kohen is believed, too.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is more lenient. He confines the Tana Kama's ruling concerning man-made blemishes - to where the owner asks the Kohen about his own B'chor, but not where he asks about somebody else's.

(c)Whereas Rebbi Meir holds that someone who is suspect on something - is neither believed to testify on it nor to judge it.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar argue over the meaning of Ro'ei Yisrael in our Mishnah (who are believed) and Ro'ei Kohanim (who are not). According to one of them, Ro'eh Yisrael refers to the Yisrael shepherd of a Kohen, whom we do not suspect of lying because of Legimah - the small portion of the B'chor that he expects the Kohen to give him ...

(b)... for which it is not worthwhile lying.

(c)And Ro'eh Kohen means a Kohen shepherd, irrespective of the owner's status. He is not believed if he works for ...

1. ... a Yisrael - because we are afraid that he will lie in the hope that the Yisrael will give him the B'chor.

2. ... a Kohen - because of Gomlin (he has testified for the current owner [that the blemish came by itself], in return for the same service, when a Yisrael looks after his B'chor and he makes a blemish on it).

(d)When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel believes a Kohen who testifies on somebody else's B'chor - he means irrespective of whether that somebody else is his employer or another person.

8)

(a)The other one interprets Ro'eh Yisrael as the shepherd of a Yisrael who is a Kohen and Ro'eh Kohen as the shepherd of a Kohen whether he himself is a Yisrael or a Kohen. We believe the shepherd of a Yisrael who is a Kohen - because (seeing as shepherds are generally Amei ha'Aretz), he doesn't expect the owner to bypass Kohanim Talmidei-Chachamim, in order to give him the B'chor.

(b)We do not however, believe a shepherd of a Kohen who is ...

1. ... a Yisrael - because we are afraid of Legimah.

2. ... a Kohen - because then both Legimah and Gomlin are applicable.

(c)And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel argues with the Tana Kama - in both points, not believing a Kohen only when he actually owns the B'chor.

(d)According to the second opinion, Rebbi Meir - who never believes the testimony of a Kohen (regarding B'chor), argues with the Tana Kama, who believes a Kohen shepherd of a Yisrael and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who believes him even if he is the shepherd of a Kohen.

(e)The problem with his statement, according to the first opinion, is that - the Tana Kama too, does not believe a Kohen shepherd under any circumstances, in which case, Rebbi Meir appears to concur with him.

9)

(a)So we establish the Tana Kama like Rebbi Yehoshua ben K'fusa'i, who rules in a Beraisa that - a B'chor in the house of a Kohen requires two witnesses from the street, to testify on it (even if they are Kohanim, but not members of his own household).

(b)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits even the Kohen's son or daughter (conforming with his previous ruling). Rebbi Yossi - forbids members of his household to testify (even if there are ten witnesses)

(c)Rebbi Yossi argues with the Tana Kama - in that he permits even one outsider from the street to testify that the blemish came by itself, whereas the Rebbi Yehoshua ben K'fusa'i requires two (and both are speaking about Kohanim).

(d)And Rebbi Meir disagrees with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Kefusa'i in that - he disqualifies Kohanim from testifying, even from the street.

10)

(a)When Rav Chisda Amar Rav Ketina rules that Safek B'chor she'Nolad bei Yisrael, Tzarich Shenayim min ha'Shuk, he is referring to the case that we already discussed - where a sheep gave birth for the first time to twins, and the owner, not knowing which one is the firstborn, gave one of them to the Kohen, and s waiting for the second one to obtain a blemish.

(b)He holds - like Rebbi Yehoshua ben K'fusa'i.

(c)When Rav Nachman says that the owner may testify on it, he means - the owner who is a Yisrael (because Chazal suspected Kohanim, but not Yisre'elim).

(d)And he tries to extrapolate this from Ma'aser Beheimah (which also becomes permitted through a blemish) according to Rebbi Meir (who rules that any area of Halachah on which a person is suspect, he is not believed). According to him then - if even a Yisrael was suspect, how would a blemish on Ma'aser ever be permitted (since nobody will be believed to testify on it).

11)

(a)We refute Rav Nachman's proof from Ma'aser, since there he will be believed anyway (even if he is not believed on B'chor) - due to the Migu that he could have blemished the whole herd before Ma'asering it.

(b)He nevertheless goes on to prove it from Safek B'chor, according to Rebbi Meir, with exactly the same argument, that - if a Yisrael was suspect too, how would the second twin ever become permitted with a blemish?

(c)And we know that the second twin does indeed become permitted from Rebbi Yossi in the second Perek, who says with regard to this very case Kol she'Chalipav be'Yad Kohen - Patur min ha'Matanos.

(d)We have now proved that - it is specifically Kohanim who are suspected of creating a blemish on their B'chor, but not Yisre'elim.

12)

(a)Rav Nachman rules like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('Afilu B'no u'Bito ... ') - whereas Rava rules like Rebbi Yossi, who permits only an outsider.

(b)Rava also rules, in a case where the members of the Kohen's household testify that the owner was standing outside together with them, when the B'chor emerged from the house wounded - that they are believed ...

(c)... which appears to clash with his previous ruling - where he does not believe members of the Kohen's family at all.

13)

(a)We solve the problem by amending Rava's latter statement to 'Kol Ba'alim Omdin ba'Chutz'. This solves the problem inasmuch as - the reason that Rava believes them is because they testified that the owner was not in the house, and could therefore not be suspected of having created the Mum.

(b)And Rava is coming to teach us that - we do not suspect the owner (or [if we assume that it was others who testified that all the members of his household were outside] that we do not suspect them) of having placed some dough on the B'chor's ear, or of having dug a pit for the animal to fall into, before leaving the house.

(c)Nevertheless, we finally rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The one exception to the rule is - the Kohen's wife, who is never believed, due to the principle Ishto ke'Gufo.

14)

(a)Rav Papa thought that, according to Rebbi Meir, who says that once someone is suspect on one thing, he is suspect on the entire Torah, a Kohen should never be able to judge - because he is initially suspect on blemishing his B'chor.

(b)He took for granted that he can however - because of the Pasuk in Shoftim (in connection with the Kohanim) "ve'al Pihem Yih'yeh Kol Tiv ve'Chol Nega".

(c)Abaye replied that even Rebbi Meir will concede that the Kohen does not become entirely invalidated from testifying and judging - since he only speaks about someone who is suspect based on his having actually transgressed, but not when he is merely suspect.