Bechoros, Chapter 5, Mishnah 2. In this section, we will discuss the nature of the gift of the firstborn to the kohen. Twenty-four priestly gifts were given in the Torah, and their laws are not uniform: there are gifts restricted to the kohen and his household only, such as Terumah, which only a kohen and his family may eat; and there are gifts that are merely an economic benefit to the kohen, which he is permitted to exchange for money or use as he wishes. This is the case with the first shearing (reishis hagez): the kohen is permitted to make a blanket from it, sell it to his friends, and even to a non-Jew, since all that he received is the monetary benefit within it.
The question before us concerns a firstborn animal that developed a blemish: is it permitted to be eaten only by the kohen and his household, or perhaps once it becomes blemished - unlike a sacrifice - the kohen is permitted to invite his friends who are not kohanim, and even non-Jews, to eat the animal?
A dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel:
"Lo yimaneh Yisrael im hakohen al habechor" - an Israelite may not be numbered with the kohen for the firstborn. According to Beis Shammai, even when the firstborn is eaten as a blemished animal and is slaughtered permissibly and not as a sacrifice, only the kohen and his household may eat it.
"U'Veis Hillel matirin" - and Beis Hillel permit it. In this case, the kohen is permitted to feed it to any person: not only one who is not a kohen, but even a non-Jew.
The basis of the dispute - two verses:
"U'vesaram yihyeh lach kechazeh hatenufah u'cheshok hayamin lach yihyeh" (Bamidbar, Parashas Korach) - the verse compares the meat of the firstborn to the breast and the thigh of the Shelamim offerings. The breast and the thigh are given to the kohanim, and only they and their families may eat them, and they are not permitted to give them to non-kohanim. From here, Beis Shammai learn that the firstborn as well, not only when it is offered as a sacrifice but even when it is eaten as a blemished animal, is restricted to the kohen and his family.
"Bisharecha tochalenu... katzvi vecha'ayal" (Devarim) - Beis Hillel learn from this verse, which also deals with the firstborn, that the firstborn may be eaten in any place and is not restricted to Jerusalem. Furthermore: a gazelle and a deer are never consecrated with the sanctity of a firstborn, and are not restricted at all, and certainly a kohen who has a gazelle or a deer in his possession is permitted to give some of it to his friends who are not kohanim and even to non-Jews. So too the firstborn, once it is eaten as a blemished animal - there is no restriction on it, and there is nothing preventing him from feeding it to someone who is not a kohen.
And what do Beis Hillel do with the comparison to the breast and thigh? In their opinion, the comparison comes to teach about the time frame for eating it, and as Rashi cites from the Gemara: from the repetition in the wording "yihyeh" (shall be), we learn that the time for eating the firstborn is two days and one night, in accordance with the law of eating Shelamim, the breast, and the thigh, and not just one day and the night following it.
The halachah, of course, follows Beis Hillel: once the firstborn becomes blemished, even one who is not a kohen may eat from it. Even nowadays, one who has a firstborn in his possession that develops a permanent blemish - he and his household may eat it, even though he is not a kohen.
Bloodletting in a firstborn:
The second part of the Mishnah deals with a new topic, and in the Babylonian Talmud it is even taught as a Mishnah in its own right. The Torah forbids causing a wound, blemish, or defect to a firstborn, as we will elaborate in the following Mishnayos. The question is, what is the law when there is a necessity to cause a wound in order to save the animal: is this permitted or forbidden?
The case of the Mishnah is a firstborn that became sick, and its owner brought it before an expert who determined that it is necessary to let its blood, since an excess of blood endangers it. In the days of the Mishnah, bloodletting was established as highly effective in certain cases. However, bloodletting requires making an incision in the body of the firstborn, and this incision is liable to cause a permanent blemish.
Three opinions were stated in the Mishnah:
Rabbi Yehudah: "Bechor she'achazo dam, afilu hu mes, ein makizin lo dam" - A bechor that suffers from a blood disease, even if it is dying, we may not let its blood. While it is true that this depends on where the cut is made: a cut on the animal's back heals and it remains unblemished, but a cut on the ear or lip does not heal, rendering the animal permanently blemished. However, a person who stands to lose a lot of money, with his animal dying in front of him, is under pressure and desperate, and therefore might cut in a prohibited spot. Because of this, Rabbi Yehudah forbids any cutting, even at the cost of the animal's death.
The Sages: "Yakiz, uvilvad shelo ya'aseh bo mum" - He may let its blood, provided he does not make a blemish in it. The bloodletting is permitted, provided he is careful to cut in a place that heals so no permanent blemish is caused. And if a blemish that does not heal is made, this does not permit him to slaughter the animal and eat it, since he himself caused the wound, and he must wait until another blemish occurs in it. The logic of the Sages is the opposite of Rabbi Yehudah's: precisely because the person is under pressure due to the potential loss of his expensive animal, if he is not taught what is permitted and what is forbidden, he will violate the prohibition in any case. The Torah forbade making a wound in it, and out of his pressure he will make a wound anyway, and if he does not know that he must do it in a place that heals, he will cut wherever he can - on the ear, in the eye, or on the lip, creating a permanent blemish. Therefore, the Sages rule that bloodletting is permitted, but in the right place.
Rabbi Shimon: Following his approach throughout the entire Torah, a davar she'eino miskaven (an unintentional act) is permitted, and therefore there is nothing to fear: he may let blood, and if a blemish is made - it is of no consequence, since that was not his intention. Furthermore, he is even permitted to slaughter the animal and eat it based on this blemish, since he did not intend for it.
The foundation of Rabbi Shimon's approach is: someone who performs an action intending to do something permitted, and as a byproduct of his action a prohibited thing might occur - the action is permitted. The classic example of this is a person who needs to bring an extra chair for Sheva Berachos, and in order to bring it he must drag it through the courtyard, and this dragging might create a furrow in the ground, a trench suitable for planting. Even though it is forbidden to make furrows in a garden, he is permitted to drag the chair, since his intention is to bring a chair and not to make a furrow. We do not disconnect a person's intention from the meaning and definition of his actions.
It is worth noting that Rabbi Shimon himself concedes that when dealing with a pesik reisha, meaning that the action will certainly cause the permanent blemish, the matter is forbidden. His words here apply to a case where a blemish might be made and might not, and in such a case he rules to let blood, and if a blemish is made - there is no flaw in that, and it is even permitted to eat the animal based on that blemish.
Practically, the Rishonim and the Poskim throughout the generations debated the exact question of whether an unintentional act is permitted or forbidden: the Rambam fundamentally ruled here like Rabbi Shimon, while the Rosh, and so brings the Taz, fundamentally ruled like the Sages. This topic is complex and broad.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned the dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding a blemished bechor, which is based on the juxtaposition of "And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of the wave-offering" against "In your gates you shall eat it, like the gazelle and the deer", and the halachah follows Beis Hillel that even a non-kohen may eat from it. We also learned the law of bloodletting for a sick bechor: Rabbi Yehudah forbids it entirely out of concern that he will make a permanent blemish, the Sages permit it in a place that heals and forbid slaughtering it due to a blemish made by his own hands, and Rabbi Shimon permits it based on the law of an unintentional act, provided it does not fall under the category of a pesik reisha.
In the coming Mishnayos we will deal extensively with the details of the prohibition against inflicting a blemish on a bechor.