Study Bekhorot folio 36A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud answers: One can say that R' Meir says that priests are suspect with regard to causing blemishes only to the extent that there is a concern that they might have caused a blemish. But did he say this ruling to establish them as those who definitely cause blemishes? Certainly not.
§ A dilemma was raised before the rabbis: With regard to testimony based on hearsay, where one repeats the testimony of another witness, what is the halakha in a case of such testimony about a blemished firstborn animal? Rav Asi deems prohibited the slaughter of the animal based on such testimony,
Rav Ashi responded: Emend the baraita and teach it like this: Testimony based on hearsay is valid only for that testimony for which the testimony of a woman is valid. According to Rav Ashi, the baraita is teaching that any case where the testimony of a woman is valid, hearsay testimony is valid as
The Talmud relates that Rav Yeimar deemed fit testimony based on hearsay with regard to a blemished firstborn animal. Mareimar condescendingly called him: Yeimar who permits firstborn animals. The Talmud concludes: And the halakha is that testimony based on hearsay is valid in the case of a firstbor
§ The Talmud discusses a related matter. R' Ile’a says: In a case where a blemished animal was not established as being a firstborn, and one priest came to an expert and said that it is a firstborn animal and yet its blemish is with it, i.e., it was unintentionally blemished, he is deemed credible