Talking Talmud

The case of hearsay testimony - and when it's acceptable (not often!). Also, the opinion of Rabbi Tzadok on a first-born that split its lip while eating. But does that smack of intentional blemishing? Plus, the famous and important showdown between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, which also appears on Berakhot 27b. Also, 3 mishnayot: more on kohanim and unblemished first-borns who get blemished. And the Pompedita practice of accepting the testimony of kohanim. Plus, blemishes in the eyes of the animals.

3 mishnayot! 1 - Beginning with a story about a Roman soldier intentionally blemishing a first-born ram, and how the sages approved that case as a blemish, but not when others attempted the same. Likewise, kids who tied the tails of lambs together, including first-borns, and one lost a tail, and that case was also permitted, but not as a general rule. Intent would ruin that. 2 - One who kicks a first-born and causes a blemish. 3 - Who can testify about the blemish to a first-born, when it's brought to an expert to adjudicate the blemish?

For a case of certainly pure terumah vs. uncertain terumah (whether it's pure or not) - in light of the plural of the word "terumotai" in the Torah. Or is it "terumati"?! Also, what if one DID make a blemish on a first-born animal, even though it's of course not allowed. The Gemara specifically looks for comparable cases to determine the penalties, if there are to be any.

The Gemara picks up on Beit Hillel's leniency from the previous day's mishnah, and Rabbi Akiva's opinion on "the gazelle and the hart" - which are permitted to a non-Jew to eat. And how that phrasing drives the interpretation, including explanations by Rishonim (the medieval commentators). Plus, the question whether menstruant woman could participate in such a meal. Also, a new mishnah! You can't actively intentionally make a blemish in an animal, but certain actions that might leave a blemish are allowed to prevent a more lasting blemish. Note the shift to issues of impurity and purity, in the case of wine where there's uncertainty as to whether it's impure.

A discussion here compares the first-born with tithed animals. For a firstborn, it cannot be redeemed, but it can be sold. And tithed animals are the reverse. What's the source? The Gemara explains that for the subjects of this group much be free. Thus, there are two steps here - establishing that a "maaser" item cannot be redeemed to begin. with. The details, for those who delve in, show many different appearances of non-Geulah. Also, a focus on the "gezarah shavah" as the methodological leading principle here. The phrase cannot be used for other inferences for that gezarah shavah to work at all. Also, a statement by Rava about how that which has been dedicated cannot be redeemed, at least when it's a first-born animal. Plus, it depends where the items are - whether in the kohen's possession or that of the owner. Also, a very small new mishnah (!), with a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as to whether those partaking of a blemished first born could sit together -- B"Sh says only kohanim; B"H says even a non-Jew!