Question: Is Ed mi'Pi Ed (one who testifies about what he heard from someone else) acceptable for Bechor (to say that a Mum was not made intentionally)?

Answer #1 (Rav Asi): It is Pasul.

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It is Kosher.

Question (Rav Asi against Rav Ashi - Beraisa - Tana d'Vei Menasheh): Ed mi'Pi Ed is Kosher only for Edus Ishah (to testify that a man died to permit his wife to remarry).

Answer (Rav Ashi): It means, it is Kosher only for Edus (testimony) that an Ishah may give. (Women may testify about Bechoros.)

Rav Yemar was Machshir Ed mi'Pi Ed for Edus Bechor. Mereimar derided him for this.

The Halachahis that Ed mi'Pi Ed is acceptable for Bechor.

(R. Ila'a): (Normally, when a Kohen asks a Chacham to inspect a Mum, he must bring someone else to testify that the Mum came by itself.) If a Kohen says that an animal is a Bechor, and we would not have known this otherwise, he is believed to say that the Mum came by itself.

Question: He teaches that ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir (if Ploni said that something was forbidden, and we have no other source for this, he is believed to say things that (totally or partially) permit it). We already learn this from a Mishnah!

(Mishnah): If a woman said, "I was married, then I was divorced" (and we had not known that she was ever married), she is believed, for ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir.

Answer: One might have thought that there she is believed, for she could have kept quiet, but a Kohen cannot be quiet about a Bechor, for he needs a Chacham to (inspect the Mum and) permit it, since he does not want to (slaughter it and) eat Kodshim outside the Mikdash;

R. Ila'a teaches that he is believed. One who would intentionally blemish a Bechor would make an overt blemish (he transgresses a Lav, but then mid'Oraisa it is permitted to slaughter and eat it). He would not need to ask a Chacham about it.

Question (Mar bar Rav Ashi): Why is this unlike the following?

Reuven rented his donkey to Shimon, warning him not to go near the Pekod river, for it is wet there. Shimon went there, and the donkey died. Shimon said that it was dry there.

Rava: We believe him. If he wanted to lie, he could have said that he did not go there!

Objection (Abaye): We do not apply Migo (to believe someone because if he wanted to lie, he could have said a better lie) against witnesses. (We all know that it is wet by the river, it is as if we are witnesses! Similarly, we know that the Kohen is suspected of making the Mum!)

Answer: There, we are sure that it is wet near the river. Here, we merely suspect that he made the Mum;

A Migo suffices to quell our suspicion.

(Ravina): If a Kohen says that an animal is a Bechor, and we did not know this, he is believed about the Mum.

(Rava Zuti): We learned this in the name of R. Ila'a.

R. Tzadok had a Bechor. He put barley for it in a basket of peeled willow branches (with sharp edges). Its lip became cut through eating.

Question (R. Tzadok): (A regular Kohen is suspected of making a Mum.) Is the law of a Chaver different?

Answer #1 (R. Yehoshua): Yes. (We believe that you did not intend for this.)

Answer #2 (R. Gamliel): No (you are not believed).

R. Tzadok: R. Yehoshua said yes!

R. Gamliel: Wait until the shield-bearers (Rashi - Chachamim; Aruch - soldiers) enter the Beis Medrash.

The shield-bearers entered. R. Tzadok asked his question, and R. Yehoshua answered "no."

R. Gamliel: I heard that you answered "yes"! Stand up, (others will testify about what you said (before) - Tosfos deletes this from the text).

R. Yehoshua: I cannot deny it. (Rashi - I retract from what I had said; Tosfos - he did not retract. R Gershom - he did not want to rule in front of R. Gamliel.)

R. Gamliel was expounding, R. Yehoshua was standing; people were murmuring (about the mistreatment of R. Yehoshua). They told Chutzpis (who was broadcasting the Shi'ur) to stop. He stopped.

(Mishnah): A Kohen is believed to say "a Chacham ruled that this Bechor is a Ba'al Mum."

(Gemara - Rav Yehudah): A Kohen is believed to say "a Yisrael gave this Bechor to me. It already had a Mum."

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: People do not lie about a Milsa d'Avida l'Igluyei (something that is prone to become known).

Support (Rav Ashi - Mishnah): A Kohen is believed to say "a Chacham ruled that this Bechor is a Ba'al Mum."

Suggestion: This is because people do not lie about a Milsa d'Avida l'Igluyei.

Rejection: No. He is believed that it is a proper Mum because we do not suspect lest he (slaughter it and) eat Kodshim outside the Mikdash;

We do suspect lest he himself blemish a Bechor.

Question (Rav Shizbi - Mishnah): If Reuven is not believed about Ma'aser, and Shimon sent him to buy produce from someone who is believed about or takes Ma'aser, Reuven is not trusted about this.

We do not say that this (whom he bought from) is Avida l'Igluyei, and Reuven would not lie about it!

Answer: There is different, Reuven can say (about anyone) "I consider him trustworthy."

Support (for Rav Yehudah - Seifa of that Mishnah): If Shimon said, "buy from Ploni," Reuven may be trusted.

Note: He is believed because this (from whom he bought) is Avida l'Igluyei!

Answer: That case is different, for Reuven fears lest ask Ploni.

(R. Yirmeyah bar Aba): Rav Yehudah heard his teaching from Gidul (a Chacham), who heard it from me;

I taught that a Yisrael is believed to say "I gave this Bechor to a Kohen. It already had a Mum."

Question: This is obvious! (There is no reason for the Yisrael to lie about this.)

Version #1 - Rashi - Answer: The case is, the Bechor was small when he gave it, and now it is old;

Version #2 - R Gershom - Answer: The case is, the Yisrael was a minor when he gave it, and now he is an adult; (end of Version #2)

One might have thought that he does not recognize (or remember) the Bechor now. R. Yirmeyah teaches that this is not so.

In Sura, they taught the latter (R. Yirmeyah's) version. In Pumbadisa, they taught the first (Rav Yehudah's) version.

The Halachah is even like the first version. (Even a Kohen is believed.)

Rafram had a Bechor. He gave it to a Kohen (Reuven) without a Mum. Reuven put a Mum in it. One day, Rafram's eyes were hurting. Reuven brought the Bechor to him, and said "a Yisrael gave it to me with this Mum." Rafram opened his eyes wide, and recognized that it was the same animal that he gave to him!

Rafram: I gave this to you (unblemished)!

Rafram: Even though Reuven is very brazen (to make a Mum, lie, and show it to me), other Kohanim are not. They are believed to say that a Yisrael gave to them a Bechor with a Mum.

Ploni showed a (Bechor) Sharu'a (one eye was bigger than the other) to Rav Ashi.

Rav Ashi: Is there anything we must be concerned for?

Obviously, the Mum came by itself. Whether Ploni is a Yisrael or a Kohen, he is believed!

Question (Ravina): Perhaps he is a Yisrael. Rav Yehudah taught that we do not permit a Bechor to a Yisrael unless a Kohen is with him (lest the Yisrael keep the Bechor for himself)!

Answer (Rav Ashi): Rav Yehudah's law applies to a Mum that is not obvious. Even a Yisrael suspected to keep the Bechor for himself (which is theft) would show it to a Chacham, for he does not want to (slaughter it and) eat Kodshim outside the Mikdash. (One who does so is Chayav Kares);

Sharu'a is an obvious Mum. Ploni showed it to me (to fulfill Chachamim's decree) to honor the Chacham. One who is concerned for the honor of Chachamim is not suspected of theft!

(Mishnah): Everyone is believed about a Mum in Ma'aser Behemah.

(Gemara) Question: What is the reason?

Answer #1: If one wanted to blemish an animal of Ma'aser, he could have put a Mum in it before making it Ma'aser. (This was permitted, for it was Chulin.)

Objection: He does not know which will come out the tenth!

Suggestion: He will cause the blemished one to come out tenth.

Rejection: "Lo Yevaker" forbids causing a Ba'al Mum (or Tam) to come out tenth!

Answer #2: He could have blemished his entire herd before tithing.

(Mishnah): If a Bechor's eye was blinded, its foreleg was cut off, or its hind leg was broken, three commoners can permit it (to be slaughtered);

R. Yosi says even a Sanhedrin of 23 cannot permit it. Only an expert can.

(Gemara - R. Simlai, R. Yehudah Nesi'ah and R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Three commoners can permit a Bechor in Chutz la'Aretz.

(Rava): They refer to a clearcut Mum.

Question: We already learn this from our Mishnah. It allows three commoners only for clearcut Mumim!

Answer: One might have thought that in Chutz la'Aretz, three commoners suffice even for questionable Mumim, and the Mishnah discusses clearcut Mumim to show the extremity of R. Yosi's opinion. (He requires an expert even for them);

Rava teaches that this is not so.

(R. Yirmeyah bar Aba, citing Rav or Shmuel): Three commoners can permit a Mum in a place where there is no expert.

Question: We already learn this from our Mishnah. It allows three commoners to permit a Mum!

Answer: One might have thought that this is even in a place where there is an expert. R. Yirmeyah teaches that this is only where there is no expert.