Study Bekhorot folio 35B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The reason is that it is assumed that the priest-shepherd would say: My Israelite employer will not forsake a priest who is a Torah scholar and give the blemished animal to me, an unlearned shepherd. The case of priest-shepherds is where the shepherds are Israelites in the employ of a priest. Thes
And all the more so the testimony of a priest for the sake of another priest is not deemed credible, as we are concerned that the two might engage in reciprocal behavior, and we are concerned that the priest-shepherd might be lying for a swallow of the firstborn offering. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamli
The Talmud raises a difficulty: Granted, according to the second opinion, i.e., the one who says the first tanna maintains that the case of Israelite shepherds is where the shepherds are priests in the employ of an Israelite, and they are deemed credible to testify, this is the reason that R' Meir c
But according to the first opinion, i.e., the one who says that the first tanna maintains that the case of priest-shepherds is where the shepherds are in an Israelite’s house, and they are not deemed credible to testify, what is R' Meir coming to teach us? This is the same opinion as that of the fi
The Talmud answers: There is a difference between the opinions of the first tanna and R' Meir with regard to a statement of R' Yehoshua ben Kefusai. As it is taught in a baraita that R' Yehoshua ben Kefusai says: If a firstborn animal in the house of a priest developed a blemish, two people from th