Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2-3

Sugya Map

• Issue: The legal status and permissible disposition of blemished bekhorot (firstborn animals) and ma'aser behemah (animal tithe) compared to other kodshim pesulim (disqualified consecrated animals). Central to this is the tension between their inherent sanctity and their diminished status post-blemish, impacting their sale, consumption, and the parameters for causing blemishes.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Market & Sale: Whether they are sold in the butchers' market (ba'itliz) by litra (weight) or in the owner's home by estimate. This hinges on whether the benefit accrues to the Temple treasury or the owner/priest.
  • Consumption: Who is permitted to eat the meat of a blemished bekhor—only priests, or also Israelites and even gentiles. This reflects varying understandings of the bekhor's post-blemish kedusha.
  • Blemish Causation: The permissibility of intentionally or unintentionally causing a blemish, particularly in life-threatening situations (e.g., bloodletting), and the halakhic implications for slaughter.
  • Credibility of Witnesses: Who is deemed credible to testify about the origin of a blemish (intentional vs. unintentional), especially regarding priests who benefit from the blemish.
  • Certification: The required authority for certifying a blemish for slaughter (three laymen vs. an expert).
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2-3
  • Devarim 12:22 ("כצבי וכאיל")
  • Devarim 18:3 ("חזה התנופה ושוק הימין")
  • Vayikra 27:32-33 (laws of ma'aser behemah)
  • Mishnah Beitzah 2:8 (R' Yehuda on kirud/kerutzuf)
  • Mishnah Shabbat 23:2 (on goral for kodshim)
  • Tosefta Bekhorot 3:14-16

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah opens with a crucial distinction:

"כל הקדשים הפסולין שמכרן, ההנאה להקדש. נמכרין באטליז ונשחטין באטליז, ונשקלין בליטרא. חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר, שההנאה לבעלים." (Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2) This establishes the foundational difference based on ha'ana'ah (benefit)—Temple vs. owner—which dictates the manner of sale. The phrase "נשקלין בליטרא" (weighed by the litra) signifies a commercial, chol (mundane) transaction, contrasted with the more restricted "נמכרין באומדנא" (sold by estimate) for bekhor and ma'aser.

A core machloket follows:

"בית שמאי אומרים: לא ימנה ישראל עם הכהן על הבכור. ובית הלל מתירין, ואפילו נכרי." (Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2) Beit Shammai's "לא ימנה" implies a prohibition on communal sharing or "counting oneself" with a priest, rooted in the bekhor's residual sanctity. Beit Hillel's "מתירין, ואפילו נכרי" represents a more expansive view, equating the blemished bekhor to chol for consumption purposes. The addition of "אפילו נכרי" underscores the radical nature of Beit Hillel's leniency.

The Mishnah then delves into the delicate issue of causing blemishes:

"בכור שאחזו דם, אפילו הוא מת - אין מקיזין לו דם. דברי רבי יהודה. וחכמים אומרים: מקיזין לו, ובלבד שלא יעשה בו מום. ואם עשה בו מום, אינו נשחט על ידו. רבי שמעון אומר: מקיזין לו, אפילו הוא עושה בו מום." (Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2) Here, the dikduk of "אין מקיזין" (one may not let blood) vs. "מקיזין" (one may let blood) is pivotal. R' Yehuda's absolute prohibition highlights concern for eved kedusha (servitude to sanctity), fearing any intentional action that might create a blemish, even to save the animal. The Rabbis allow it conditionally ("ובלבד שלא יעשה בו מום"), while R' Shimon offers the broadest leniency, allowing bloodletting even if it causes a blemish, a classic application of davar she'eino mitkaven (an unintended consequence).

Later, the Mishnah states a crucial principle:

"זה הכלל: כל מום שאפשר לבוא ע"י אדם - במזיד אסור, בשוגג מותר." (Mishnah Bekhorot 5:3) This "כלל" (principle) distinguishes between intentional (mizid) and unintentional (shogeg) causation of a blemish, laying the groundwork for many halakhot. The nuance is that any blemish that could be human-caused requires this distinction; naturally occurring blemishes are always permitted.

Readings

Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Bekhorot 5:2:1

Rambam elucidates the machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding consumption of blemished bekhor meat. Beit Shammai, he explains, derives their position from the verse "ובשרם יהיה לך" (Devarim 18:3), which speaks of the priest's portion. Since the bekhor is a priestly gift, they argue it should be eaten exclusively by priests, even when blemished, akin to how kodshim kalim are restricted. Beit Hillel, however, interprets this verse as referring only to an unblemished bekhor. For a blemished bekhor, they invoke the verse "כצבי וכאיל" (Devarim 12:22), which permits even the tamei (ritually impure) to eat non-sacred meat. This hekesh (analogy) to tzvi v'ayal effectively demotes the blemished bekhor to the status of chol concerning who may eat it, thereby allowing even a gentile to partake¹. Rambam further clarifies R' Shimon's position on bloodletting. He states that the Gemara rules according to R' Shimon, whose principle is that davar she'eino mitkaven (an unintended outcome) is permitted. Rambam emphasizes that R' Shimon's allowance "אע"פ שהוא עושה בו מום" (even if he causes a blemish) does not apply to a p'sik reisha (an inevitable outcome) where the blemish is a guaranteed result of the action, as R' Shimon himself would forbid such an act. Rather, R' Shimon allows bloodletting even if a blemish might occur, as it's not a p'sik reisha and thus falls under davar she'eino mitkaven². He concludes that R' Shimon permits immediate slaughter on this blemish.

Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 5:2:1-3

Tosafot Yom Tov expands on Beit Hillel's radical permissiveness, allowing even a gentile to partake of the blemished bekhor. He references the Gemara's kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) for this leniency: if a tamei (ritually impure person), who is generally excluded from kodshim kalim, may eat a blemished bekhor (based on "הטמא והטהור יחדיו יאכלנו" from Devarim 12:22), then a zar (non-priest, but not impure), who can eat kodshim kalim (albeit with restrictions), certainly should be able to eat a blemished bekhor. The argument is that since the hekesh of chazeh v'shok (Devarim 18:3) to bekhor tam is established, the hekesh of tzvi v'ayal (Devarim 12:22) for bekhor ba'al mum must apply broadly, even to gentiles, as the kal vachomer would already cover Israelites³. Regarding R' Yehuda's prohibition of bloodletting, Tosafot Yom Tov challenges the implied reason given by some Mefarshim (commentators) that "אדם בהול על ממונו" (a person is hasty concerning their money), leading them to cause a blemish. He points to Mishnah Beitzah 2:8, where R' Yehuda permits kerutzuf (scraping an animal) but prohibits kirud (currying) on Yom Tov, even though one might argue that permitting kerutzuf could lead to kirud due to haste. Tosafot Yom Tov resolves this by distinguishing the two cases: in the bekhor case, if blood is not let, the animal dies. This extreme financial loss creates a truly pressing "בהול על ממונו" situation, justifying the gezeirah. In Beitzah, however, it's merely tza'ara be'alma (mere discomfort) for the animal, not a life-threatening situation, thus the same gezeirah doesn't apply⁴. He reiterates Rambam's explanation of R' Shimon, affirming that R' Shimon's permission to let blood "אפילו הוא עושה בו מום" is not a p'sik reisha, but rather refers to the possibility of an unintended blemish occurring, thus falling under davar she'eino mitkaven⁵.

Friction

One of the most engaging kushyot arises from R' Yehuda's stance on hakazah (bloodletting) of a bekhor. The Mishnah states his view: "בכור שאחזו דם, אפילו הוא מת - אין מקיזין לו דם. דברי רבי יהודה"⁶. This seemingly absolute prohibition, even to save the animal's life, implies a profound concern that any attempt to intervene might lead to an intentional blemish, or that the bekhor's sanctity precludes such intervention. The standard explanation for R' Yehuda's position in such cases is the principle of "אדם בהול על ממונו" – a person, anxious over their property (here, the bekhor), might act hastily and intentionally cause a blemish to allow its slaughter, thereby violating the kedusha of the bekhor and the prohibition of causing a blemish b'meizid (intentionally).

However, this explanation runs into a significant kushya raised by Tosafot Yom Tov⁷, building on a Gemara in Pesachim 11a. In Mishnah Beitzah 2:8, R' Yehuda states: "אין מקרדין את הבהמה ביום טוב, אבל מקרצפים" – one may not curry an animal on Yom Tov, but one may scrape it. The kushya is: If R' Yehuda is so concerned about "אדם בהול על ממונו" in the bekhor case, leading him to forbid hakazah entirely, why does he permit kerutzuf in Beitzah? One could argue that allowing kerutzuf might lead a person, in their haste or desire for thoroughness, to proceed to kirud, which is prohibited on Yom Tov due to its resemblance to tikkun mana (preparing a utensil) or uvdin d'chol (weekday activities). If the gezeirah of "אדם בהול על ממונו" is so potent, why isn't it applied equally in Beitzah to forbid kerutzuf as a preventative measure?

The terutz offered by Tosafot Yom Tov, citing the Gemara, is razor-sharp and highlights a crucial nuance in the application of gezeirot. The difference lies in the severity of the potential loss. In the case of the bekhor whose blood is not let, the animal "אפילו הוא מת" – it dies. This represents a complete and irreversible loss of the animal, a significant financial blow to the priest. When facing such an extreme and imminent loss, a person's "בהילות" (haste/anxiety) is at its peak, making the likelihood of causing a blemish intentionally (to recover at least some value) a very real and severe concern. Thus, R' Yehuda enacts a sweeping gezeirah to forbid hakazah altogether.

In contrast, the machloket in Beitzah concerning kerutzuf vs. kirud does not involve a life-or-death situation for the animal. The animal is merely experiencing "צערא בעלמא" (mere discomfort) if not properly cleaned. While there might be some minor inconvenience or aesthetic concern, the failure to kirud does not lead to the animal's demise. Since the potential loss or harm is not as catastrophic, the "בהילות" of the owner is considerably less intense. Therefore, R' Yehuda does not extend the gezeirah of "אדם בהול על ממונו" to prohibit kerutzuf. This demonstrates that Chazal's gezeirot are not monolithic; their scope and application are carefully calibrated to the specific context and the magnitude of the potential violation or loss they aim to prevent. This terutz maintains R' Yehuda's consistency by demonstrating his sensitivity to the varying degrees of human anxiety and its potential impact on halakhic observance.

Intertext

The Mishnah's discussion is deeply rooted in foundational biblical texts and finds extensive elaboration throughout Chazal.

1. Biblical Foundation for Consumption: The core machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning who may eat the blemished bekhor directly hinges on the interpretation of two verses in Devarim.

   • Devarim 18:3: "וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים מאת העם... הזרע והלחיים והקיבה" (And this shall be the priests' due from the people... the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw). This verse, along with others (e.g., Devarim 15:19-20 "ובשרם יהיה לך"), establishes the bekhor as a priestly due. Beit Shammai, as explained by Rambam, interprets this to mean that the bekhor, even when blemished, retains a priestly character that restricts its consumption to kohanim alone⁸.
   • Devarim 12:22: "רק כאשר יאכל את הצבי ואת האיל כן תאכלנו הטמא והטהור יחדו יאכלנו" (Only as the gazelle and the deer are eaten, so may you eat it; the impure and the pure alike may eat it). This verse refers to eating basar ta'avah (meat eaten out of desire, not for sacrifice) which has no kedusha. Beit Hillel, per Rambam, derives from this hekesh that a blemished bekhor, no longer fit for the altar, loses its stricter kedusha regarding who may consume it, becoming akin to chol like a deer or gazelle⁹. This is why they permit even a gentile ("אפילו נכרי") to eat it, as highlighted by Tosafot Yom Tov and the Gemara¹⁰.

2. Tosefta's Elaboration and Meta-Psak: The Tosefta Bekhorot 3:14-16 offers valuable parallels and insights into the machloket.

   • Tosefta Bekhorot 3:15: "בית שמאי אומרים אין נמנים על הבכורות אלא הכהנים בלבד, ובית הלל אומרים אף ישראל, רבי עקיבא מתיר אפילו גוי, שנאמר כצבי וכאיל." This Tosefta closely mirrors our Mishnah, explicitly attributing the "אפילו גוי" to R' Akiva (who aligns with Beit Hillel's view) and grounding it in "כצבי וכאיל"¹¹. This demonstrates the Mishnah's alignment with R' Akiva/Beit Hillel's more expansive interpretation.
   • Tosefta Bekhorot 3:16: "בשר בכור בית שמאי אומרים אין מאכילין אותו לנדות, ובית הלל אומר מאכילין אותו לנדות." This parallel machloket regarding a nidda (a menstruant woman) reveals a deeper philosophical divide between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as noted by Mishnat Eretz Yisrael¹². While a blemished bekhor no longer requires ritual purity for consumption, Beit Shammai maintains a stricter, more intuitive sense of its residual sanctity, forbidding it to a nidda due to her tumah. Beit Hillel, conversely, adheres strictly to the legal framework: if taharah (purity) is not explicitly required, then tumah (impurity) is irrelevant. This highlights Beit Shammai's emphasis on "תחושת הנפש הדתית" (religious sentiment) versus Beit Hillel's focus on "המסגרת המשפטית" (legal framework), a recurring theme in their disputes¹³.

Psak/Practice

The halakha largely follows Beit Hillel in this sugya, reflecting a broader trend in Yad Ramah (the tradition of Jewish law).

1. Consumption and Sale: Maimonides rules in accordance with Beit Hillel: "בכור בעל מום מותר למכרו לגוי ולאוכלו בחוץ" (A blemished firstborn may be sold to a gentile and eaten outside [Jerusalem])¹⁴. This significantly liberalizes the disposition of the blemished bekhor, equating it to chol regarding its consumers and location of consumption. The practice therefore is that any person, Jew or gentile, may partake of a blemished bekhor, and it may be sold by weight in a market. This pragmatism allows for the maximization of its value, aligning with the principle that "ההנאה לבעלים" (the benefit belongs to the owner) in the case of bekhorot and ma'aser behemah.

2. Blemish Causation: The principle of davar she'eino mitkaven mutar (an unintended consequence is permitted), championed by R' Shimon, is a cornerstone of halakhic reasoning and is generally accepted as halakha¹⁵. Thus, bloodletting to save the animal's life is permitted, even if there's a risk of causing a blemish, provided it's not a p'sik reisha (an inevitable outcome). However, the Mishnah's overarching "כלל: כל מום שאפשר לבוא ע"י אדם - במזיד אסור, בשוגג מותר"¹⁶ remains a critical distinction. Intentionally causing a blemish to a bekhor remains strictly forbidden, and one who does so cannot slaughter that animal on account of that blemish. This underscores the bekhor's inherent sanctity, which, though diminished, still guards against intentional profanation.

3. Credibility and Certification: The halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that a priest is credible to testify about the blemishes of another's bekhor, but not his own, due to personal interest¹⁷. For obvious, severe blemishes, the ruling that "שלשה שומרי בתי כנסיות" (three synagogue attendees) are sufficient to permit slaughter, rather than an expert, is accepted, reflecting a practical leniency for clear-cut cases¹⁸. The penalty for slaughtering without prior showing (lo her'a) demonstrates the seriousness of the requirement for blemish certification: what was eaten is eaten, but the money must be returned, and the remaining meat buried, emphasizing the retroactive prohibition on benefit¹⁹.

Takeaway

The Mishnah meticulously balances the inherent sanctity of the bekhor with the practicalities of its disposition once blemished, establishing foundational principles for intent, credibility, and the complex interplay between kedusha and chol that continues to inform halakha today.

---

Footnotes:

1. Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Bekhorot 5:2:1 s.v. "ב"ש אומרים לא ימנה ישראל עם הכהן".
2. Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Bekhorot 5:2:1 s.v. "וכבר ידעת דעת ר' שמעון".
3. Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 5:2:1 s.v. "ואפילו נכרי".
4. Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 5:2:2 s.v. "אין מקיזין לו דם".
5. Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 5:2:3 s.v. "רבי שמעון אומר יקיז אע"פ שהוא עושה בו מום".
6. Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2.
7. Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 5:2:2 s.v. "אין מקיזין לו דם".
8. Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Bekhorot 5:2:1 s.v. "ב"ש אומרים לא ימנה ישראל עם הכהן".
9. Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Bekhorot 5:2:1 s.v. "וב"ה אומרים לא נאמר זה אלא בתמים בלבד".
10. Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 5:2:1 s.v. "ואפילו נכרי".
11. Tosefta Bekhorot 3:15, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 538.
12. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Bekhorot 5:2:6 s.v. "בית הלל מתירין".
13. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Bekhorot 5:2:6.
14. Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Bekhorot 3:13.
15. See Gemara Shabbat 120b, often cited for davar she'eino mitkaven, and Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim 316:3.
16. Mishnah Bekhorot 5:3.
17. Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Bekhorot 3:16.
18. Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Bekhorot 3:14.
19. Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Bekhorot 3:17.