1)

(a)Rav Asi and Rav Ami argue over whether Eid mi'Pi Eid - where the witness testifies, not what he saw, but what he heard from another witness by Eidus B'chor is believed.

(b)Rav Asi, who forbids it, queries Rav Ami from a Beraisa which confines Eid mi'Pi Eid to Eidus Ishah. To reconcile the Beraisa with his own ruling, Rav Ami interprets it to mean that - Eid mi'Pi Eid is believed with regard to any testimony that a woman is believed (including Eidus B'chor, as is evident from the Beraisa that we discussed on the previous Amud).

(c)When Rav Yeimar validated Eid mi'Pi Eid by B'chor, Mereimar called him - Yeimar who permits Bechorim (even when they are forbidden).

(d)Nevertheless, the Halachah is that - Eid mi'Pi Eid by B'chor is believed.

2)

(a)Rebbi Ila'a rule that a Kohen who informs the Chacham that a certain animal is a B'chor, and then asks him to examine a blemish, is believed when he claims that the blemish came by itself - because had he remained silent, we would not have known in the first place, that the animal was a B'chor ...

(b)... based on the principle ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir.

(c)The source for this is a Mishnah in Kesuvos, which rules that - a woman who testifies that she was previously married, but is now divorced - is believed (because of Peh she'Asar ... ).

3)

(a)Now that we have the Mishnah in Kesuvos, we ask - why we need Rebbi Ila'a.

(b)We answer that Rebbi Ala'i case is worse that that of the Mishnah there, and that we otherwise not have applied 'ha'Peh she'Asar He ha'Peh she'Hitir' by Kohen, even though by the woman we do - because whereas in the case there, there was no ulterior reason for the woman to say that she was previously married, whereas here, the Kohen has to admit that the animal was a B'chor and permit the blemish, since although he may well be suspected of blemishing a B'chor, he is not suspected of eating Kodshim ba'Chutz (as we have already learned).

(c)Rebbi Ila'a nevertheless believes him with a Peh she'Asar - because to rid himself of the problem of Kodshim ba'Chutz, he had the option of making a large blemish that was obvious even to an Am ha'Aretz, in which case he would not have had to show it to a Chacham. the fact that he now appears with a minor one that requires a Sha'alas Chacham indicates that he is telling the truth.

4)

(a)Mar bar Rav Ashi queried Rebbi Ila'a from the case of Reuven who rented Shimon a donkey, on the express condition that he takes the Neresh route, not the route of River Pakud, which meant crossing the River (or because there was water on the roads). Subsequently however - Shimon took the River Pakud route and the donkey died. He admitted that he had taken that route, but claimed that the river-bed was dry (or that there had been no water on the road).

(b)When Rava ruled Mah li le'Shaker he meant that - since Shimon volunteered the information that he had taken the Nahar Pakud route, we must also believe him when he claims there was no water.

(c)Abaye refuted Rava's ruling however - on the basis of Mah li Leshaker be'Makom Eidim, (meaning that Mah Li Leshaker is not believed when it clashes with witnesses, and the knowledge that there is always water there is akin to witnesses (Anan Sahadi)

(d)When Mar bar Rav Ashi asked, that in our case too, we should apply the same principle, he meant that - since we know for sure that Kohanim are suspect ('Anan Sahadi'), Mah Li Leshaker should not apply.

5)

(a)We resolve Rebbi Ila'a with Abaye however - by differentiating between Abaye's case, where there was certainly water, and ours, where the Kohen is only suspected of making a blemish, but it is not certain that he actually did.

(b)When Ravina quoted the above ruling ('Mah li Leshaker' regarding a B'chor) anonymously, Rava Zuti commented that - the author was Rebbi Ila'a.

(c)Rebbi Tzadok (who was a Kohen) had a B'chor. On one occasion, when he fed it some barley in a basket of peeled willow twigs - it damaged its lip on a sharp edge of the basket.

(d)He subsequently asked Rebbi Yehoshua - whether the suspicion that a Kohen caused the blemish on his B'chor extends to a Chaver, to which the latter replied in the negative.

6)

(a)When Rebbi Tzadok came before Rabban Gamliel, who ruled contrary to Rebbi Yehoshua, and told him of Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling, the latter reacted - by telling him to wait until the Talmidei-Chachamim entered the Beis-Hamedrash (see Ya'avatz).

(b)Rabban Gamliel was surprised at Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling in the Beis-Hamedrash - because he had now changed his view (not differentiating between a Kohen who is an Am-ha'Aretz and one who is a Talmid-Chacham, regarding the current issue.

(c)When Rabban Gamliel asked Rebbi Yehoshua to rise and explain his original ruling, he replied that - had he been alive and Rabban Gamliel dead, he might have been able to deny having said it, but now that Rabban Gamliel was alive just like he was, what could he say?

(d)Rebbi Yehoshua was forced to stand whilst Rabban Gamliel Darshened - until the (incensed) Talmidei-Chachamim took his part and ordered Rebbi Chutzpis ha'Meturgeman (Rabban Gamliel's translator) to stop.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a Kohen who claims that a Chacham inspected his B'chor and declared it to be a permanent blemish - he is believed ...

(b)... provided he can prove that it is not the Shochet who subsequently Shechts it, who created the blemish.

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav believes a Kohen who claims that when the Yisrael gave him the B'chor it was already blemished - based on the principle that a witness will not give false testimony if his lie is bound to become revealed (Kol Milsa de'Avidi le'Igluyi Lo Meshakri bah).

(d)We refute Rava's support for that ruling from our Mishnah ('Ne'eman ha'Kohen Lomar ... ') in that - perhaps the Kohen is believed there (not become of Rav Nachman's principle, but) because he is not suspect of eating Kodshim ba'Chutz (as we already learned).

8)

(a)Rav Shizbi queries Rav Nachman however, from a Beraisa, which rules that if Reuven asks Shimon (who is not believed on Ma'asros) to purchase food from someone who is - he is not believed when he returns with the food and claims that the person from whom he purchased is indeed believed (even though his lie will eventually be discovered).

(b)By a person who is believed on Terumos and Ma'asros, we mean - someone who does not generally purchase food from an Am-ha'Aretz, and if he does, he always Ma'asers it before selling it.

(c)We reject Rav Shizbi's query - by pointing out that in this case, his lie will not necessarily come to light, because he can always claim that even if the owner considers the person from whom he bought, dishonest, he thought he was honest.

(d)In a case where Reuven actually mentions the potential seller's name, the Seifa of the Beraisa rules - that the Shali'ach is believed.

(e)We counter the obvious presumption that the Seifa supports Rav Nachman inasmuch as - here too, he will be afraid to lie (not due to the principle, but) - because having mentioned the name of the seller, the owner is likely to follow it up afterwards (unlike Rav Nachman's case, where the Kohen sees no reason for the Chacham to check the name of the Yisrael from whom he claims he bought it).

9)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba queried Rav Yehudah's statement ('Amar Rav; Ne'eman Kohen Lomar B'chor Zeh Nasan li Yisrael be'Mumo'), claiming that he taught it to Gidul (which is either the name of a Chacham, or simply means a grown-up Chacham) - who taught it to Rav Yehudah, but not in the way that the latter taught it.

(b)He claims to have taught Gidul - that it is the Yisrael who is believed, and not the Kohen.

(c)Even though we are talking about a Yisrael (who is not suspect to begin with), the Chidush is that - even though when the animal was still small (see Rabeinu Gershom) when the Yisrael gave it to the Kohen and in the meantime it grew up, we are not afraid that perhaps the Yisrael confused the original animal for another one (which was in fact, blemished by the Kohen).

(d)In Sura they learned like the second Lashon (like Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba) - in Pumbedisa, like the first Lashon (like Rav Yehudah).

(e)The Halachah is - like both opinions (and we believe both the Yisrael and the Kohen).

10)

(a)A certain Kohen to whom Rafram had given a B'chor - created a blemish and then had the gall to take it to Rafram for inspection.

(b)The Kohen thought he might get away with the claim ...

1. ... that a Yisrael had given him the B'chor already blemished (despite the fact that whether we believe him or not is a Machlokes Amora'im, as we just learned) - because he was from Pumbedisa, where they believed him.

2. ... despite the fact that Rafram was the one who had given it to him in the first place - because at that time, Rafram was suffering from his eyes (which he had difficulty in opening), a fact that the Kohen was exploiting.

(c)Rafram managed to discover the swindle - by forcing his eyes open.

(d)Rafram's reacted to this episode - negatively. He figured that it was not because one Kohen cheated in this way, that all of them did. So he did not change the ruling le'Chumra, as might have been expected.

11)

(a)Rav Ashi intended to rule leniently in the case of the B'chor that was brought before him which was a Saru'a (one eye bigger than the other) - because whether the owner was a Kohen or a Yisrael, this was a blemish from birth, and there was no room for suspicion.

(b)Ravina asked him why he did not suspect that perhaps the owner was a Yisrael - who intended to eat it without giving it to the Kohen (so unless he brought a Kohen with him, to whom he would then have to give it), he ought not to be believed.

(c)On the one hand, a Yisrael would not dream of eating Kodshim ba'Chutz (which is why he asks the Kohen to inspect it) - because it carries with it a Chiyuv Kareis; whilst on the other, we would suspect him of stealing from the Kohen, which is only a plain La'av (presumably, this is in addition to the fact that it is not real Gezel, only Gezel ha'Sheivet, since there is no specific owner).

(d)Rav Ashi nevertheless believed him - because the only reason that the Yisrael brought such an obvious blemish as Saru'a to Rav Ashi to inspect, was in deference to Rav Ashi (Kavod Chachamim), and such a person would be most unlikely to transgress the La'av of Gezel.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that everybody is trusted (not to create a blemish) with regard to the Mumin of Ma'aser - because (unlike B'chor) it is possible to create a blemish on the Ma'aser before it is declared Hekdesh.

(b)The initial answer 'de'I Ba'i, Shadi bei Muma Me'ikara' is incorrect - because how does the owner know in advance which animal is going to be declared Ma'aser?

(c)Neither can the Mishnah be speaking where the owner created a lemish on the animal that he intends to subsequently lead through the corridor as number ten - because based on the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Lo Yevaker bein Tov la'Ra ... ", one is not permitted to pick the animal that one wishes to designate as Ma'aser.

(d)We therefore amend the answer to read 'de'I Ba'i, Shadi Muma be'Kuleih Edreih Me'ikara'.

13)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that a B'chor that lost an eye, whose foreleg was severed or whose hind leg was broken - may be examined by three people.

(b)The significance of the three Mumin that the Tana mentions is that - they are all clear-cut Mumin (and the outcome of the inspection is a foregone conclusion) though we will question this shortly.

(c)According to Rebbi Yossi - even if there are twenty-three Chachamim (a Sanhedrin) examining it, one of them must be an expert.

14)

(a)Rebbi Simla'i and Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah in the name of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (or Rebbi Simla'i and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah) - permit a B'chor in Chutz la'Aretz to be examined by any three people.

(b)We query Rava (who restricts this ruling to Mumin that are clear-cut) - from the Tana Kama of our Mishnah (see Rabeinu Gershom), who seems to have already taught us that.

(c)And we answer that without Rava - we might have thought that the Tana only mentions these Mumin to teach us the extent of Rebbi Yossi's ruling (but the Tana Kama does not differentiate between these Mumin and any others).

(d)Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba rules in the name of Rav (or Shmuel) that three people may examine a B'chor, provided there is no expert. This too, is not inherent in the opinion of the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, because if not for Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba - we would have established the Tana Kama even when there is an expert available.