More on Bechor
Rabbi Kaganoff
Last week, we discussed the mitzvos of bechor. Parshas Bamidbar also discusses these mitzvos extensively.
More on Bechor
By Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff
Question #1: How Many?
How many gifts does a kohein receive?
Question #2: Petter rechem
Is there a difference between something being firstborn and being a petter rechem?
Question #3: Uncertain Bechor
What is the status of someone (or something) about whom there is an uncertainty whether he meets the halachic qualifications of a bechor?
Foreword:
After Korach challenges the rights of the kohanim, the Torah reinforces the rights that Hashem provides them by providing an extensive list of 24 gifts to Kohanim (Bamidbar 18:8-19, 26-28). These can be divided into the following categories (see Bava Kama 110b; Chullin 133b):
1. Those that may be eaten only in the Beis Hamikdash, including various korbanos (kodashei kodashim), the twelve loaves of the lechem hapanim that were eaten on Shabbos, the korban omer brought on the second day of Pesach, the two loaves brought on Shavuos (shetei halechem), the leftovers of the mincha offerings and the leftovers of the oil brought by the recuperated metzora. All the items on this list may be eaten only by male kohanim.
2. Those that must be consumed within the walls of the halachic city of Yerushalayim: The bikkurim (annual first fruit of the seven species), the firstborn kosher animals (bechor), the designated portions from the various types of korbanos shelamim. Some of these may be eaten only by kohanim and their families, whereas others may be eaten by anyone.
3. Those with sanctity that may be consumed anywhere: Terumah, terumas maaser and challah. These may be eaten only by the kohanim and their families.
4. Those for consumption that have no sanctity: the maw, jaw and paw of non-kodashim animals. These are the property of the kohein, but he may give or sell them to anyone to eat. Since the tongue is included, this would provide kohanim with a predominant market in selling pickled tongue, although I know of no sources that say that the kosher deli business was exclusively the domain of kohanim.
5. Non-foods: The money of pidyon haben, the redemption of the firstborn male donkey (pidyon petter chamor), the hides of the kodashei kodashim, the first of the wool shearing (reishis hageiz), certain consecrated properties that the kohanim received at the time that there was yoveil, and a rarely-received gift called gezel hageir.
Since the members of Kelal Yisrael were required to presents these gifts to the kohein, this caused the “common” Jew to interact with kohanim on a regular basis. It seems clear that this was so that the kohein could provide regular spiritual instruction and direction, perhaps as the rebbi or admor of the people.
Introduction – More on Bechor
Last week, we studied some of the laws of bechor; this article will continue the discussion of those mitzvos.
Parshas Korach teaches that “Every petter rechem (literally, that which opens the womb) among all flesh that is brought close to Hashem, whether human or animal, shall be yours (i.e., to Aharon and his descendants). The firstborn among humans should be redeemed as well as the firstborn of the non-kosher animals. The redemption (of the firstborn child): from when he is a month old, you should redeem his value at five shekalim of silver, using the shekel of holy items – whose value is twenty geirah. However, the firstborn calf, lamb or kid shall not be redeemed because it is holy; you shall throw its blood onto the altar and you shall burn its fat as a fire offering as a pleasant fragrance for Hashem. But its meat will be yours” (Bamidbar 18:15-18). At this point, the Torah teaches that the flesh of the bechor animal has the halachic status of kodashim kalim that belong to the kohein and can be eaten within Yerushalayim, not only by the kohein but also by his family members.
The pasuk first states that these laws apply to a petter rechem, that which “opens the womb,” and then states that they apply to a bechor, a “firstborn.” Are these two terms identical?
Indeed, they are not. A petter rechem is born through natural delivery, which excludes birth via caesarian section. In other words, the mitzvos of pidyon haben, pidyon petter chamor and bechor of kosher animals do not apply to a firstborn who was surgically removed from his mother or born as the result of an unfortunate rupture. There is halachic discussion as to whether a bechor removed via vacuum suction or forceps delivery has the status of a petter rechem, but the halachic background for this topic is beyond the scope of this article (see Chullin 70a; Bechoros 9b).
Another difference in halacha between the term petter rechem and the term bechor is that a petter rechem means that he/it was not preceded by a miscarriage. In this instance, the miscarriage is considered the petter rechem. Of course, since the miscarried offspring did not survive, there is no mitzvah to sanctify or redeem it; nevertheless, the halachic result is that the father or owner is exempt from redeeming the first liveborn since he/it is not a petter rechem.
Three types of kedusha
The three types of sanctified petter rechem are: 1. petter chamor, donkeys; 2. beheimah tehorah, kosher animals: and 3. pidyon haben, humans. These three mitzvos have different sets of rules. Allow me to explain this very briefly; I will follow the order of meseches Bechoros in doing so.
1. Petter chamor
Petter rechem donkeys have sanctity that must be removed by redemption. This mitzvah is called pidyon petter chamor. As is the rule regarding most of the 24 gifts of the kohein, the owner has the right to decide to which kohein he gives the redemption (see Rambam, Hilchos Bechoros 1:15), just as the father of a firstborn son has the right to decide to which kohein he provides the five sela’im of pidyon haben.
As the Gemara (Bechoros 12b; 51b) derives hermeneutically, there is an interesting halachic difference between pidyon haben and the redemption of a petter chamor. Pidyon haben involves only one step – the father recites a bracha on the mitzvah and then gives the kohein the five silver sela’im or their equivalent value. Until the father gives the money to the kohein, he has not fulfilled any mitzvah by setting aside the money for this purpose.
On the other hand, there are actually two stages in performing the mitzvah of petter chamor, (a) the redeeming and (b) the giving, as I explained in last week’s article. In the redeeming step, the owner takes a lamb or kid (or other item worth as much as the donkey) and states that he is redeeming the donkey in exchange for the lamb, kid, or other item of value. Prior to making this statement, the owner recites a bracha, Asher ki’deshanu bemitz’vosav vetzivanu al pidyon petter chamor (Tosafos, Bechoros 11a; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 321:6). The owner then declares that he is exchanging the seh or the other item for the kedusha of the donkey. As soon as he performs this exchange, the sanctity is removed from the petter chamor and it becomes permitted to use the donkey (Mishnah, Bechoros 12b). The donkey is redeemed at this point, notwithstanding that the kohein has not yet received the gift.
In the giving step, the owner gives the seh (or the item exchanged for the donkey) to the kohein as a gift. No bracha is recited on this step of the mitzvah, and there is much discussion among halachic authorities regarding why not (Taz, Yoreh Deah 321:7).
Although there are two different parts of this mitzvah -- redeeming the kedusha from the firstborn and giving the gift to the kohein -- both parts of this mitzvah can be performed simultaneously, by giving the seh (or item of value) to the kohein and telling him that this is redemption for the donkey.
Safek
In the instance that there is an irresolvable question as to whether a donkey was a firstborn male, the owner sets aside a seh, either a sheep or a goat, to redeem the newborn male, but has no obligation to give the seh to a kohein. Since the newborn donkey (called a foal) may have sanctity, we redeem him, but since there is no proof that there is an obligation to give the seh to a kohein, the owner may keep the seh (Mishnah, Bechoros 9a). This is referred to in halacha as hamotzi meichaveiro alav harayah, he who wants to collect has the burden of proof. This principle, which the Gemara (Bava Kama 46a) refers to as “the major rule in adjudicating civil law,” means that one can insist on payment only when proof of the obligation is established without doubt. In our particular instance, the kohein can insist on payment only if he can prove that the animal is a petter rechem.
A practical case where this might happen is when a jenny’s first births are twins, one male and the other female, and the birth was unattended by a human. Assuming that no camera was focusing on the birth, we have no way of knowing which twin was born first and whether there is a bechor.
2. Bechor beheimah tehorah
Petter rechem kosher animals have the sanctity of korbanos and are the property of the kohein. Should their sanctity be damaged by their becoming permanently blemished, they remain the property of a kohein, who is to have them shechted and eaten. (It may not be used for work, nor may it be shorn.) Unlike other korbanos that are redeemed when they become permanently blemished, a bechor is never redeemed, as stated in the pasuk that I quoted above: “However, the firstborn calf, lamb or kid shall not be redeemed because it is holy” (Bamidbar 18:17).
Mum oveir
There are two types of blemishes that affect a korban. One is a temporary blemish, a mum oveir, that will eventually heal. An animal with a mum oveir cannot be offered as a korban until its blemish heals. The other type of blemish is a mum kavua, a permanent blemish. Once an animal has such a blemish, it may never be offered as a korban.
How do we know whether a blemish is permanent or temporary?
Some blemishes are obviously permanent and do not require expertise for their determination. However, it is often difficult to ascertain whether a blemish is permanent or temporary. Therefore, the decision of an expert is required to ascertain that the animal has a permanent mum and may be shechted. As we see from the Gemara (Sanhedrin 5a), this expertise was regarded as the highest level of semicha, called yatir bechoros, and was granted only to rare individuals, even at the time of the Gemara.
There is a fundamental and fascinating passage of Gemara (Sanhedrin 5a-b). regarding the licensing of poskim in general, and specifically to authorizing slaughtering a bechor on the basis that its blemish is permanent. In this era, most of the Jewish population lived in Bavel, but the yeshivos were all in Eretz Yisrael. The level of Torah knowledge in Bavel was weak, and rabbonim moving to Bavel would be engaged heavily in teaching Torah and kiruv work. Prior to leaving for Bavel, there was a need to establish to what extent they could rule (pasken) on halacha. As the head of the Sanhedrin, only Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, usually called simply Rebbi, the teacher of all of Kelal Yisrael, could render this decision and grant a license to pasken.
“Rabbah bar Chonah (who was a nephew of Rav Chiya) was leaving for Bavel. Rav Chiya told Rebbi: ‘My nephew is going to Bavel. Does he have permission to pasken on kashrus matters?’ Rebbi permitted him.” The wording used by Rav Chiya to phrase his question was “Yoreh?”, “Does he (Rabbah bar Chonah) have permission to pasken on kashrus matters?” Rebbi responded, ”Yoreh!”, an affirmative statement. Ever since, the phrase “yoreh, yoreh” has become the terminology used to license someone who has sufficient halachic knowledge to interpret kashrus laws reliably and correctly. Most people are surprised to discover that the doubling of the words yoreh yoreh was originally a question and answer: Yoreh? Yoreh! “Is he authorized to rule?” “Yes, he is!”
Continuing the passage of Gemara: After Rebbi authorized Rabbah bar Chonah to rule on kashrus issues, Rav Chiya asked “Yadin?,” i.e., “Is he authorized to judge financial matters?” and Rebbi answered, “Yadin! Yes, he is.” At this point, Rav Chiya asked “yatir bechoros?,” “Is he authorized to permit the slaughter of a bechor because its blemish is permanent?” and Rebbi authorized this, also.
The Gemara continues: When Rav left for Bavel, Rav Chiya asked Rebbi, “Yoreh?” and Rebbi answered affirmatively “Yoreh!” Rav Chiya asked “Yadin?” and Rebbe answered “Yadin!”
But when Rav Chiya asked “Yatir bechoros?,” Rebbi surprised everyone by answering “Al yatir bechoros,” “I do not authorize him to permit the slaughter of firstborn animals.” The Gemara inquires why, since Rav was known to be a greater scholar and, furthermore, he had extensive training in checking blemishes. The Gemara concludes that precisely because Rav was such an expert, Rebbi did not authorize him. Rebbi was concerned that when Rav would permit blemishes, people would think that they understood why he had done so, and, in the future, they would decide for themselves without consulting Rav. In reality, they would not realize that the injury on which they were ruling was dissimilar from the case that Rav had permitted. This would result in people permitting temporary blemishes with the mistaken impression that Rav had permitted those same blemishes.
Today we do not consider anyone sufficiently expert to rule on these laws. However, when there is a mum that is very obviously permanent, such as a broken leg or a blind eye, three shul attending people may rule together that the blemish is permanent and the animal may be slaughtered.
In this context, we find an interesting dispute in a Mishnah dating back to the era when there was a semicha allowing its recipient to rule whether a bechor had a permanent blemish. An animal falls into a pit, and in order to rule whether it has a blemish or not, we need to raise it from the pit. The tanna’im Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon disagree as to whether this is permitted on Yom Tov (Beitzah 25b-26a). The Gemara then devotes a discussion to clarify under which circumstances this would be permitted. Since we no longer allow an ordained expert to rule this law on his own, this case is not applicable (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 498:9).
Non-Jewish ownership
The tanna’im dispute whether partial ownership of a non-Jew of either the mother or the fetus exempts the offspring from the sanctity of bechor, either of a kosher animal or of petter chamor (Bechoros 2b-3a). The anonymous author of the Mishnah (Bechoros 2a, 13a, 16a) exempts from the rule of bechor an animal that is partially owned by a non-Jew, whereas Rabbi Yehudah holds that the rule of bechor applies when the non-Jew owns only a small part. The halachic conclusion follows the Mishnah that these animals are exempt (Tosafos, Bechoros 3b).
As I mentioned in last week’s article, there is an additional dispute among early amora’im (Bechoros 3a) concerning how much of the mother must be possessed by the non-Jew to create this exemption. Rav Chisda and Rava rule that the non-Jew must own enough that, were his part to be removed, the animal would be unable to live, whereas Rav Huna exempts the animal even if the non-Jew’s portion is as small as the animal’s ear, such that removing the part owned by the non-Jew would render the animal into a ba’al mum, a blemished animal inappropriate as a korban. The halacha follows the lenient opinion (Tosafos 3b s. v. Deka).
Since a bechor animal has sanctity that cannot be removed, having one around can potentially cause many halachic problems. People might use the animal in ways that violate its sanctity, which is a Torah violation. To avoid these potential sins, the accepted practice is to carry out a sale of the pregnant mother before birthing so that the firstborn is not halachically a bechor. This can be done because the firstborn’s sanctity begins only at the moment of its birth.
3. Pidyon haben
As I mentioned above, there are three types of petter rechem, and we have already discussed the firstborn donkey and the firstborn kosher animal. The third type is redeeming the firstborn son.
Safek pidyon haben
In the instance that there is an irresolvable question as to whether a baby boy was firstborn, there is no obligation altogether for the father to perform a pidyon haben because of the rule hamotzi meichaveiro alav harayah. Since no sanctity is being removed through the pidyon, it is simply a gift to the kohein, and, in the case of a doubt, Dad is under no obligation to give the pidyon.
Conclusion
We see from the stories of Yaakov and Eisav, Reuvein, and Efrayim and Menashe that even before makkas bechoros firstborn males had a special role in serving Hashem. At the time of makkas bechoros, firstborn male animals owned by Jews became sanctified. That moment also elevated the sanctity of the bechorim of Kelal Yisrael, particularly regarding the service to be performed in the Mishkan and Beis Hamikdash. However, the bechorim lost their special status when they worshipped the eigel hazahav, and the Levi’im replaced them. The pidyon haben is to redeem the bechor from the “even higher level” of holiness that he received as a result of makkas bechoros (see Seforno on Bamidbar 3:13). As a result, the bechor must undergo a redemption ceremony to make amends – this is to both compensate the kohein and to serve as a means of “redeeming” the kedusha. We see the everlasting benefits kept by the tribe of Levi for remaining faithful to Hashem at the time of the eigel hazahav.
Rabbi Kaganoff
Last week, we discussed the mitzvos of bechor. Parshas Bamidbar also discusses these mitzvos extensively.
More on Bechor
By Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff
Question #1: How Many?
How many gifts does a kohein receive?
Question #2: Petter rechem
Is there a difference between something being firstborn and being a petter rechem?
Question #3: Uncertain Bechor
What is the status of someone (or something) who is uncertain if he meets the halachic qualifications of a bechor?
Foreword:
After Korach challenges the rights of the kohanim, the Torah reinforces the rights that Hashem provides them by providing an extensive list of 24 gifts (Bamidbar 18:8-19, 26-28). These can be divided into the following categories (see Bava Kama 110b; Chullin 133b):
1. Those that may be eaten only in the Beis Hamikdash, of which there are ten, including various korbanos (kodashei kodashim), the twelve loaves of the lechem hapanim that were eaten on Shabbos, the korban omer brought on the second day of Pesach, the two loaves brought on Shavuos (shetei halechem), the leftovers of the mincha offerings and the leftovers of the oil brought by the recuperated metzora. All the items on this list may be eaten only by male kohanim.
2. Those that must be consumed within the walls of the halachic city of Yerushalayim: The bikkurim (annual first fruit of the seven species), the firstborn kosher animals (bechor), the designated portions from the various types of korbanos shelamim. Some of these may be eaten only by kohanim and their families, whereas others may be eaten by anyone.
3. Those with sanctity that may be consumed anywhere: Terumah, terumas maaser and challah. These may be eaten only by the kohanim and their families.
4. Those for consumption that have no sanctity: the maw, jaw and paw of non-kodashim animals. These are the property of the kohein but he may give or sell them to anyone to eat. Since the tongue is included, this would provide kohanim with a predominant market in selling pickled tongue, although I know of no sources that say that the kosher deli business was exclusively kohanim’s domain.
5. Non-foods: The money of pidyon haben; the redemption of the firstborn male donkey (pidyon petter chamor), the hides of the kodashei kodashim, the first of the wool shearing (reishis hageiz); certain consecrated properties that the kohanim received at the time that there was yoveil, and a rarely-received gift called gezel hageir.
Since the members of Kelal Yisrael were required to presents these gifts to the kohein, this caused the “common” Jew to interact with kohanim on a regular basis. It seems clear that this was so that the kohein provide regular spiritual instruction and direction, perhaps as the rebbi or admor of the people.
Introduction – More on Bechor
Last week, we studied some of the laws of bechor; this will continue the discussion of those mitzvos.
Parshas Korach teaches that “Every petter rechem (literally, that which opens the womb), among all flesh that is brought close to Hashem, whether human or animal, shall be yours (i.e., to Aharon and his descendants). The firstborn among humans should be redeemed as well as the firstborn of the non-kosher animals. The redemption (of the firstborn child): from when he is a month old, you should redeem his value at five shekalim of silver, using the shekel of holy items – whose value is twenty geirah. However, the firstborn calf, lamb or kid shall not be redeemed because it is holy; you shall throw its blood onto the altar and you shall burn its fat as a fire offering as a pleasant fragrance for Hashem. But its meat will be yours (Bamidbar 18:15-18).” At this point, the Torah teaches that the flesh of the bechor animal has the halachic status of kodashim kalim that belong to the kohein and can be eaten within Yerushalayim, not only by the kohein, but even by his family members.
The pasuk first states that these laws apply to a petter rechem, that which “opens the womb,” and then states that they apply to a bechor, a “firstborn.” Are these two terms identical?
Indeed, they are not. A petter rechem is born through natural delivery, which excludes birth via caesarian section or its equivalent for an animal. In other words, the mitzvos of pidyon haben, pidyon petter chamor and bechor for korban do not apply to a firstborn who was surgically removed from his mother or born as the result of an unfortunate rupture. There is halachic discussion as to whether or not a bechor removed via vacuum suction or forceps delivery has the status of a petter rechem, but the halachic background for this topic is beyond the scope of this article (see Chullin 70a; Bechoros 9b).
Another difference in halacha between the term petter rechem and the term bechor is that a petter rechem means that he/it was not preceded by a miscarriage. In this instance, the miscarriage is considered the petter rechem. Of course, since the miscarried offspring did not survive, there is no mitzvah to sanctify or redeem it, and therefore the halachic result is that the father or owner is exempt from redeeming the bechor.
Three types of kedusha
The three types of sanctified petter rechem: 1. petter chamor donkeys, 2. beheimah tehorah, kosher animals, and 3. pidyon haben, humans. These three mitzvos have three very different sets of rules. Allow me to explain this very briefly; I will follow the order of meseches Bechoros in doing so.
1. Petter chamor
Petter rechem donkeys have sanctity that must be removed by redemption. This mitzvah is called pidyon petter chamor. As is the rule regarding most of the 24 gifts of the kohein, the owner has the right to decide to which kohein he gives the redemption (see Rambam, Hilchos Bechoros 1:15), just as the father of a firstborn son has the right to decide to which kohein he provides the five sela’im of pidyon haben.
As the Gemara (Bechoros 12b; 51b) derives hermeneutically, there is an interesting halachic difference between pidyon haben and the redemption of a petter chamor. Pidyon haben involves only one step – the father recites a bracha on the mitzvah and then gives the kohein the five silver sela’im or their equivalent value. Until the father gives the money to the kohein, he has not fulfilled any mitzvah by setting aside the money for this purpose.
On the other hand, there are actually two stages in performing the mitzvah of petter chamor, (a) the redeeming and (b) the giving. In the redeeming step, the owner takes a lamb or kid (or other item worth as much as the donkey) and states that he is redeeming the donkey in exchange for the lamb, kid, or other item of value. Prior to making this statement, the owner recites a bracha, Asher ki’deshanu bemitz’vosav vetzivanu al pidyon petter chamor (Tosafos, Bechoros 11a; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 321:6). The owner then declares that he is exchanging the seh or the other item for the kedusha of the donkey. As soon as he performs this exchange, the sanctity is removed from the petter chamor and one may use the donkey (Mishnah, Bechoros 12b). The donkey is redeemed at this point, notwithstanding that the kohein has not yet received the gift.
In the giving step, the owner gives the seh (or the item exchanged for the donkey) to the kohein as a gift. No bracha is recited on this step of the mitzvah, and there is much discussion among halachic authorities regarding why not (Taz, Yoreh Deah 321:7).
Although there are two different parts of this mitzvah, redeeming the kedusha from the firstborn, and giving the gift to the kohein, both parts of this mitzvah can be performed simultaneously, by giving the seh (or item of value) to the kohein and telling him that this is redemption for the donkey.
Safek
In the instance that there is an irresolvable question as to whether a donkey was a firstborn male, the owner sets aside a seh, either a sheep or a goat, to redeem the newborn male, but has no obligation to give the seh to a kohein. Since the foal may have sanctity, we redeem him, but since there is no proof that there is an obligation to give it to a kohein, the owner may keep the seh (Mishnah, Bechoros 9a). This is referred to in halacha as hamotzi meichaveiro alav harayah, he who wants to collect has the burden of proof. This principle, which the Gemara (Bava Kama 46a) refers to as “the major rule in adjudicating civil law,” means that one can insist on payment only when proof of the obligation is established without doubt. In our particular instance, the kohein can insist on payment only if he can prove that the animal is a petter rechem.
A practical case where this might happen is when a jenny’s first births are twins, one male and the other female, and the birth was unattended by a human. Assuming that there was no camera focusing on the birth, we have no way of knowing which twin was born first and whether there is a bechor.
2. Bechor beheimah tehorah
Petter rechem kosher animals have the sanctity of korbanos and are the property of the kohein. Should their sanctity be damaged by their becoming permanently blemished, they remain the property of a kohein, who is to have them shechted and eaten. (It may not be used for work, nor may it be shorn.) Unlike other korbanos that are redeemed when they become permanently blemished, a bechor is never redeemed, as stated in the pasuk that I quoted above “However, the firstborn calf, lamb or kid shall not be redeemed because it is holy” (Bamidbar 18:15-18).
Mum oveir
There are two types of blemishes that affect a korban. One is a temporary blemish, a mum oveir, that will eventually heal. An animal with a mum oveir cannot be offered as a korban until its blemish heals. The other type of blemish is a mum kavua, a permanent blemish. Once an animal has such a blemish, it may never be offered as a korban.
How do we know whether a blemish is permanent or temporary?
Some blemishes are obviously permanent and do not require expertise for their determination. However, it is often difficult to ascertain whether a blemish is permanent or temporary and the decision of an expert is required to ascertain that the animal has a permanent mum and may be shechted. As we see from the Gemara (Sanhedrin 5a), this expertise was regarded as the highest level of semicha, called yatir bechoros, and was granted only to rare individuals, even at the time of the Gemara.
There is a fundamental and fascinating passage of Gemara (Sanhedrin 5a-b). regarding the licensing of poskim in general, and specifically to authorizing slaughtering a bechor on the basis that the blemish it possesses is permanent. In this era, most of the Jewish population lived in Bavel, but all the yeshivos were in Eretz Yisrael. The level of Torah knowledge in Bavel was weak, and rabbonim moving to Bavel would be engaged heavily in teaching Torah and kiruv work. Prior to leaving for Bavel, there was a need to establish to what extent they could rule (pasken) on halacha. As the head of the Sanhedrin, only Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, usually called simply Rebbi, the teacher of all of Kelal Yisrael, could render this decision and licensing.
“Rabbah bar Chonah (who was a nephew of Rav Chiya) was leaving for Bavel. Rav Chiya told Rebbi: ‘My nephew is going to Bavel. Does he have permission to pasken on kashrus matters?’ Rebbi permitted him.” The wording used by Rav Chiya to phrase his question, “Does he (Rabbah bar Chonah) have permission to pasken on kashrus matters?” [was yoreh?], was made with the tone voice of a question and not a statement. Rebbi responded -- yoreh!, an affirmative statement. Ever since, this has become the terminology used to license someone who has sufficient halachic knowledge to interpret kashrus laws reliably and correctly, yoreh yoreh. Most people are surprised to discover that the doubling of the words yoreh yoreh was originally a question and answer: yoreh? yoreh! “Is he authorized to rule?” “Yes, he is.”
Continuing the passage of Gemara: Once Rebbi authorized Rabbah bar Chonah to rule on kashrus issues, Rav Chiya asked “yadin?,” “Is he authorized to judge financial matters?” and Rebbi answered, “Yadin! Yes, he is.” At this point, Rav Chiya asked “yatir bechoros?,” “Is he authorized to permit the slaughter of a bechor because its blemish is permanent?” and Rebbi authorized this, also.
The Gemara continues: When Rav left for Bavel, Rav Chiya asked Rebbi “Yoreh?” and Rebbi answered affirmatively “Yoreh!” “Yadin?” “Yadin!”
“Yatir bechoros?,” Rebbi surprised everyone by answering “Al yatir bechoros,” “I do not authorize him to permit the slaughter of firstborn animals.” The Gemara inquires why, since Rav was known to be a greater scholar and, furthermore, he had extensive training in checking blemishes. The Gemara concludes that precisely because Rav was such an expert Rebbi did not authorize him. Rebbi was concerned that when Rav would permit blemishes, people would think that they understood why he had done so. In reality, they would not realize that the case in front of them was not similar to the case that Rav had permitted. This would result in people permitting temporary blemishes with the mistaken impression that Rav had permitted those same blemishes.
Today we do not consider anyone expert to rule on these laws. However, when there is a mum that is very obviously permanent, such as a broken leg or a blind eye, three shul attending people may rule together that the blemish is permanent and the animal may be slaughtered.
In this context, we find an interesting dispute in a Mishnah dating back to the era when there was a semicha allowing its recipient to rule whether a bechor had a permanent blemish. An animal fell into a pit, and in order to rule whether it has a blemish or not, we need to raise it from the pit. The tanna’im Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon disagree as to whether this is permitted on Yom Tov (Beitzah 25b-26a). The Gemara then devotes a discussion regarding under which circumstances this would be permitted. Since we no longer allow an ordained expert to rule this law on his own, this case is not applicable (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 498:9).
Non-Jewish ownership
The tanna’im dispute whether partial ownership of a non-Jew of either the mother or the fetus exempts the offspring from the sanctity of bechor, either of a kosher animal or of petter chamor (Bechoros 2b-3a). The anonymous author of the Mishnah (Bechoros 2a, 13a, 16a) exempts these situations from the rule of bechor, whereas Rabbi Yehudah rules that the rule of bechor applies when the non-Jew owns only a small part. The halachic conclusion follows the Mishnah that these animals are exempt (Tosafos, Bechoros 3b).
There is an additional dispute among early amora’im (Bechoros 3a) how much of the mother must be possessed by the non-Jew to create this exemption. Rav Chisda and Rava rule that the non-Jew must own enough that, were his part to be removed, the animal would be unable to live, whereas Rav Huna exempts the animal even if the non-Jew’s portion is as small as the animal’s ear, whenever removing the part owned by the non-Jew would render the animal into a ba’al mum[K1] , a blemished animal inappropriate as a korban. The halacha follows the lenient opinion (Tosafos 3b s. v. Deka).
Since a bechor animal has sanctity that cannot be removed, having one around can potentially cause a lot of halachic problems. People might use the animal in ways that violate its sanctity, which is a Torah violation. To avoid these potential sins, the accepted practice is to carry out a sale of the pregnant mother before birthing so that the firstborn is not halachically a bechor. This can be done because the firstborn’s sanctity begins at the moment of its birth.
3. Pidyon haben
As I mentioned above, there are three types of petter chamor, and we have already discussed the firstborn donkey and the firstborn kosher animal. The third type is redeeming the firstborn son.
Safek pidyon haben
In the instance that there is an irresolvable question as to whether a baby boy was firstborn, there is no obligation altogether for the father to perform a pidyon haben because of the rule hamotzi meichaveiro alav harayah. Since no sanctity is being removed through the pidyon, it is simply a gift to the kohein, which Dad is under no obligation to do.
As we see from the stories of Yaakov and Eisav, Reuvein, and Efrayim and Menashe, that even before makas bechoros firstborn males had a special role in serving Hashem. At the time of makkas bechoros, firstborn male animals owned by Jews became sanctified. That moment also elevated the sanctity of the bechorim of Kelal Yisrael, particularly regarding the service to be performed in the Mishkan and the Beis Hamikdash. However, the bechorim lost their special status when they worshipped the eigel hazahav, and the Levi’im replaced them. The pidyon haben is to redeem the bechor from the "even higher level" of holiness that he received as a result of makas bechoros (see Seforno on Bamidbar 3:13). As a result, the bechor must undergo a redemption ceremony to make amends – this is both to compensate the kohein and to serve as a means of “redeeming” the kedusha. We see the everlasting benefits kept by the tribe of Levi for remaining faithful to Hashem at the time of the eigel hazahav.[K2]