Study Bekhorot folio 35A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
that if one rendered impure the ritually pure items of another and died before paying, the rabbis did not penalize his son after his death and require him to pay for the damage. What is the reason for this? The reason is that damage that is not evident, i.e., which does not involve any visible chan
Mishnah: 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
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 rabbis for a ruling and they deemed its slaughter permitted. The people who saw that they deemed its
Talmud: The Mishnah mentions that one time children were involved in a case in which they unintentionally blemished a firstborn offering whose subsequent slaughter the rabbis deemed permitted. The Talmud notes: And although the first clause of the Mishnah mentions a similar occurrence, the incident
And had the tanna taught us only the incident involving a minor, it might have been thought that the rabbis deemed the firstborn offering permitted only there, since there is no concern that people will come to confuse a minor with an adult. People would not erroneously conclude that it is permitt