כָּל פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין (הֲנָאָתָן לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ), נִמְכָּרִין בָּאִטְלִיז (וְנִשְׁחָטִין בָּאִטְלִיז) וְנִשְׁקָלִין בְּלִטְרָא, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁהֲנָיָתָן לַבְּעָלִים. פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין הֲנָיָתָן לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְשׁוֹקְלִין מָנֶה כְנֶגֶד מָנֶה בַּבְּכוֹר: With regard to all disqualified consecrated animals that were disqualified for sacrifice due to blemishes and were redeemed, all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the Temple treasury. In order to ensure that the Temple treasury will not suffer a loss, these animals are sold in the butchers’ market [ba’itliz] and slaughtered in the butchers’ market, where the demand is great and the price is consequently higher. And their meat is weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner that non-sacred meat is sold. This is the halakha with regard to all consecrated animals except for the firstborn offering and an animal tithe offering. When these become blemished and their slaughter is permitted, they are sold and slaughtered only in the owner’s house and are not weighed; rather, they are sold by estimate. The reason is that all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the owner, i.e., the priest in the case of the firstborn and the owner in the case of the animal tithe offering. It is not permitted to treat disqualified consecrated animals as one treats non-sacred animals merely to guarantee that the owner will receive the optimal price. This is in contrast to disqualified consecrated animals, where all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the Temple treasury, and therefore the animal is sold in the market to ensure that the optimal price is received. And although the meat of the firstborn is not weighed and sold by the litra, nevertheless, if one has non-sacred meat weighing one hundred dinars, one may weigh one portion of non-sacred meat against one portion of the meat of the firstborn, because that is unlike the manner in which non-sacred meat is weighed.
בֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, לֹא יִמָּנָה יִשְׂרָאֵל עִם הַכֹּהֵן עַל הַבְּכוֹר. בֵּית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין, וַאֲפִלּוּ נָכְרִי. בְּכוֹר שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ דָם, אֲפִלּוּ הוּא מֵת, אֵין מַקִּיזִין לוֹ דָם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, יַקִּיז, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ מוּם. וְאִם עָשָׂה בוֹ מוּם, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׁחֵט עָלָיו. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר יַקִּיז, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בוֹ מוּם: Beit Shammai say: An Israelite cannot be counted with the priest to partake of a blemished firstborn. And Beit Hillel deem it permitted for him to partake of it, and they deem it permitted even for a gentile to partake of a blemished firstborn. With regard to a firstborn animal that was congested with excess blood, even if the animal will die if one does not let the excess blood, one may not let its blood, as this might cause a blemish, and it is prohibited to cause a blemish on consecrated animals. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One may let the blood provided that he will not cause a blemish while doing so, and if he caused a blemish, the animal may not be slaughtered on account of that blemish. Since he was the cause of the blemish, he may not slaughter the animal until it develops a different, unrelated blemish. Rabbi Shimon says: One may let the blood even if he thereby causes a blemish in the animal.
הַצּוֹרֵם בְּאֹזֶן הַבְּכוֹר, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׁחֵט עוֹלָמִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כְּשֶׁיִּוָּלֵד לוֹ מוּם אַחֵר, יִשָּׁחֵט עָלָיו. מַעֲשֶׂה בְזָכָר שֶׁל רְחֵלִים זָקֵן וּשְׂעָרוֹ מְדֻלְדָּל, רָאָהוּ קַסְדּוֹר אֶחָד, אָמַר, מַה טִּיבוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, בְּכוֹר הוּא וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה בּוֹ מוּם. נָטַל פִּגְיוֹן וְצָרַם בְּאָזְנוֹ, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּהוּ. רָאָה שֶׁהִתִּירוּ, וְהָלַךְ וְצָרַם בְּאָזְנֵי בְכוֹרוֹת אֲחֵרִים, וְאָסָרוּ. פַּעַם אַחַת הָיוּ תִינוֹקוֹת מְשַׂחֲקִין בַּשָּׂדֶה וְקָשְׁרוּ זַנְבוֹת טְלָאִים זֶה לָזֶה, וְנִפְסְקָה זְנָבוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶם וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְכוֹר, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּהוּ. רָאוּ שֶׁהִתִּירוּ, וְהָלְכוּ וְקָשְׁרוּ זַנְבוֹת בְּכוֹרוֹת אֲחֵרִים, וְאָסָרוּ. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁהוּא לְדַעְתּוֹ, אָסוּר. וְשֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתּוֹ, מֻתָּר: In the case of one who slits [hatzorem] the ear of a firstborn offering, that person may never slaughter that animal. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: If another blemish later develops in the firstborn, he may slaughter the animal on account of that second blemish. There was an incident involving an old ram whose hair was long and dangling, because it was a firstborn offering. And one Roman quaestor [kastor] saw it and said to its owner: What is the status [tivo] of this animal that you allowed it to grow old and you did not slaughter it? They said to him: It is a firstborn offering, and therefore it may be slaughtered only if it has a blemish. The quaestor took a dagger [pigom] and slit its ear. And the incident came before the Sages for a ruling, and they deemed its slaughter permitted. And after the Sages deemed its slaughter permitted, the quaestor went and slit the ears of other firstborn offerings, but in these cases the Sages deemed their slaughter prohibited, despite the fact that they were now blemished. One time children were playing in the field and they tied the tails of lambs to each other, and the tail of one of them was severed, and it was a firstborn offering. And the incident came before the Sages for a ruling and they deemed its slaughter permitted. The people who saw that they deemed its slaughter permitted went and tied the tails of other firstborn offerings, and the Sages deemed their slaughter prohibited. This is the principle: With regard to any blemish that is caused intentionally, the animal’s slaughter is prohibited; if the blemish is caused unintentionally, the animal’s slaughter is permitted.
הָיָה בְכוֹר רוֹדְפוֹ, וּבְעָטוֹ וְעָשָׂה בוֹ מוּם, הֲרֵי זֶה יִשְׁחוֹט עָלָיו. כָּל הַמּוּמִין הָרְאוּיִין לָבוֹא בִידֵי אָדָם, רוֹעִים יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֱמָנִים, וְרוֹעִים כֹּהֲנִים אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, נֶאֱמָן הוּא עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, הֶחָשׁוּד עַל דָּבָר, לֹא דָנוֹ וְלֹא מְעִידוֹ: If one’s firstborn offering was pursuing him, and he kicked the animal and caused a blemish in it, he may slaughter the animal on account of that blemish. With regard to all the blemishes that are capable of being brought about by a person, Israelite shepherds are deemed credible to testify that the blemishes were not caused intentionally. But priest-shepherds are not deemed credible, as they are the beneficiaries if the firstborn is blemished. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A priest is deemed credible to testify about the firstborn of another, but is not deemed credible to testify about the firstborn belonging to him. Rabbi Meir says: A priest who is suspect about the matter of causing a blemish may neither adjudicate nor testify in cases involving that matter, even on behalf of another.
נֶאֱמָן הַכֹּהֵן לוֹמַר הֶרְאֵיתִי בְּכוֹר זֶה וּבַעַל מוּם הוּא. הַכּל נֶאֱמָנִים עַל מוּמֵי הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. בְּכוֹר שֶׁנִּסְמֵית עֵינוֹ, שֶׁנִּקְטְעָה יָדוֹ, שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה יִשָּׁחֵט עַל פִּי שְׁלשָׁה בְנֵי הַכְּנֶסֶת, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ יֵשׁ שָׁם עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלשָׁה, לֹא יִשָּׁחֵט אֶלָּא עַל פִּי מֻמְחֶה: A priest is deemed credible to say: I showed this firstborn animal to an expert and he ruled that it is blemished. Everyone is deemed credible to testify about the blemishes of an animal tithe offering, even the owner who is the beneficiary of a ruling that it is blemished. With regard to a firstborn animal whose eye was blinded or whose foreleg was severed or whose hind leg was broken, all of which obviously render the animal permanently blemished, that animal may be slaughtered on the basis of the ruling of three regular Jews who attend the synagogue, and it does not require a ruling by one of the Sages. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: Even if there is a court of twenty-three Sages there, it may be slaughtered only on the basis of the ruling of an expert in judging blemishes.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר (וּמְכָרוֹ) וְנוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא הֶּרְאָהוּ, מַה שֶּׁאָכְלוּ אָכְלוּ וְהוּא יַחֲזִיר לָהֶם אֶת הַדָּמִים. וּמַה שֶׁלֹּא אָכְלוּ, הַבָּשָׂר יִקָּבֵר וְהוּא יַחֲזִיר לָהֶם אֶת הַדָּמִים. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפָּרָה וּמְכָרָהּ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה, מַה שֶׁאָכְלוּ אָכְלוּ וְיַחֲזִיר לָהֶם אֶת הַדָּמִים. וּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא אָכְלוּ, הֵן יַחֲזִירוּ לוֹ אֶת הַבָּשָׂר וְהוּא יַחֲזִיר לָהֶם אֶת הַדָּמִים. מְכָרוּהוּ לַנָּכְרִים אוֹ הִטִּילוּהוּ לַכְּלָבִים, יְשַׁלְּמוּ לוֹ דְמֵי הַטְּרֵפָה: In the case of one who slaughters a firstborn animal and sells its meat, and it was discovered that he did not initially show it to one of the Sages, the halakha is that it was actually prohibited to derive any benefit from the meat. In that case, what the buyers ate, they ate, and the Sages penalized the seller in that he must return the money to them, which they paid for the meat that they ate. And with regard to that which they did not eat, that meat must be buried, and he must return the money that they paid for the meat that they did not eat. And likewise, in the case of one who slaughters a cow and sells it, and it was discovered that it is a tereifa, what the buyers ate, they ate, and what they did not eat, they must return the meat to the seller, who may sell it to a gentile or feed it to the dogs, and he must return the money to the buyers. If the buyers sold it to gentiles or cast it to the dogs, they pay the seller the value of a tereifa, which is less than the value of kosher meat, and the seller refunds the balance to the buyers.