Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 6, 2019 | 讗壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bekhorot 19

Is it considered a firstborn if it is only a firstborn from a particular aspect? One who purchases an animal from a non-Jew and doesn’t know if the animal has given birth yet, how does one treat its offspring? According to Rabbi Yishmael who says that past a certain age, it is treated as a firstborn out of doubt, wouldn’t we just follow the majority as most animals give birth within their first year of being able to conceive? In order to answer this question, the gemara discusses the differences between a majority that is actually there vs. a statistical majority.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讚讛讱 讚诇讗 讘讬讻专讛 砖讘讬讞 讟驻讬 爪专讬讻讗

that this offspring born to the ewe that had not previously given birth is superior. The Gemara concludes: Consequently, it was necessary to teach each case.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讛讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讘诪讜诪谉 诇讘注诇讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛谉 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讜专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 驻讟专 专讞诐 讜讛砖谞讬 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讚诪讜 讗讞专

MISHNA: With regard to an animal born by caesarean section and the offspring that follows it, since there is uncertainty whether each is a firstborn, neither is given to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: Both of them must graze until they become unfit, and they may be eaten in their blemished state by their owner. Rabbi Akiva says: Neither of them is firstborn; the first because it is not the one that opens the womb (see Exodus 13:12), as this animal did not itself open the womb, and the second because the other one preceded it.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讗讬 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon disagree? Rabbi Tarfon is uncertain with regard to an animal that is a firstborn in one aspect, e.g., first to be born or first to open the womb, whether it is considered a firstborn or whether it is not considered a firstborn. And conversely, it is obvious to Rabbi Akiva that an animal which is a firstborn in only one aspect is not considered a firstborn.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讻诇诇 讛爪专讬讱 诇驻专讟 讜诪驻专讟 讛爪专讬讱 诇讻诇诇 讻讬爪讚 拽讚砖 诇讬 讻诇 讘讻讜专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 谞拽讘讛 讘诪砖诪注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讻专

With regard to the definition of a firstborn, the Sages taught in a baraita: This halakha can be derived by means of the form of exegesis known as: From a generalization that requires a detail, and from a detail that requires a generalization. How so? The verse states: 鈥淪anctify to Me all the firstborn, that which opens any womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of animal, it is Mine鈥 (Exodus 13:2). Had the verse written only the generalization: 鈥淪anctify to Me all the firstborn,鈥 one might have thought that even a female animal is included in the category of a firstborn. Therefore, the verse states the detail: 鈥淓very firstborn male鈥ou shall sanctify to the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19).

讗讬 讝讻专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讬爪转讛 谞拽讘讛 诇驻谞讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 驻讟专 专讞诐 讗讬 驻讟专 专讞诐 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讬爪讗 讗讞专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻讜专

And had the verse stated only: 鈥淓very firstborn male,鈥 one might have thought that the first male offspring of an animal has firstborn status, even in a case where a female emerged from the womb before it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat which opens any womb,鈥 to teach that only an animal that itself opens its mother鈥檚 womb can be a firstborn. And had the verse stated only: 鈥淭hat which opens any womb,鈥 one might have thought that even an animal that emerged from the womb after its older sibling was born by caesarean section is considered firstborn. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎ll the firstborn,鈥 to teach that only the first offspring can be considered a firstborn.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 诇讗讘讬讬 专讬砖讗 诇讗 拽谞住讬讘 诇讛 转诇诪讜讚讗 讘讻讜专 讗诇诪讗 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 住讬驻讗 拽谞住讬讘 诇讛 转诇诪讜讚讗 讘讻讜专 讗诇诪讗 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. Rav Sherevya said to Abaye: In the first clause, the baraita does not cite proof from the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 that a male born after a female is not considered a firstborn. Apparently, an animal that is a firstborn in one aspect is called a firstborn, otherwise the baraita would not have had to derive the exclusion of a male born after a female from the phrase 鈥渢hat which opens any womb鈥; it could have cited the word 鈥渇irstborn.鈥 And in the last clause, the baraita does cite proof from the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 that an animal whose older sibling was born by caesarean section is not considered a firstborn, despite the fact that it is a firstborn in one aspect. Apparently, a firstborn in one aspect is not called a firstborn. If so, the baraita is self-contradictory.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 讜专讬砖讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讝讻专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 驻讟专 专讞诐

Abaye said to Rav Sherevya: Actually, a firstborn in one aspect is not called a firstborn, and this is what the first clause is saying: Had the verse stated only: 鈥淓very firstborn male,鈥 one might have thought that even an animal born by caesarean section is itself considered a firstborn. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat which opens any womb,鈥 to teach that an animal must itself open the womb to be considered a firstborn. The word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 cannot be cited as proof that an animal born by caesarean section is not a firstborn, as such an animal was in fact born first. Therefore, the tanna cites the phrase 鈥渢hat which opens any womb.鈥 Once this phrase is cited, then a male born after a female is excluded as well, despite the fact that this halakha could have been derived from the word 鈥渇irstborn.鈥

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 讜住讬驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬爪讗 讗讞专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 拽讚讜砖 讘讻讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

Ravina said that there is a different explanation: Actually, a firstborn in one aspect is called a firstborn, and the halakha is not derived from the meaning of the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 itself, but from the fact that it is superfluous. And this is what the last clause is saying: If it enters your mind that an animal which emerged from the womb after its older sibling was born by caesarean section is sanctified, why do I need the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 that the Merciful One wrote?

讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讬爪转讛 谞拽讘讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诪驻讟专 专讞诐 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讻讜专 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讜爪讗 讗讞专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉

If it serves to exclude a case where a female emerged from the womb before it, that is derived from the phrase 鈥渢hat which opens any womb.鈥 Rather, conclude from it that 鈥渇irstborn鈥 serves to exclude a case where an animal emerged from the womb after its older sibling was born by caesarean section. According to Ravina, the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 is referring to an animal that is a firstborn even in only one aspect, but as it is extraneous it serves to exclude an animal whose older sibling was born by caesarean section.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讬爪讗 讝讻专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讝讻专 讚专讱 专讞诐 讚诇讗 拽讚讜砖 讚讗讬诪注讜讟 诇讬讚讛 诪讘讻讜专 讚讘讻讜专 诇专讞诪讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 诇讝讻专讬诐 诇讬讻讗

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: If it enters your mind that a firstborn in one aspect is called a firstborn and the derivation is based on the fact that the term 鈥渇irstborn鈥 is superfluous, that works out well in a case where a male emerged by caesarean section and then another male emerged through the womb. It stands to reason that it is not sanctified, as this birth is excluded by the word 鈥渇irstborn,鈥 as it is the firstborn of the womb, but it is not the firstborn of the males.

讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讬爪转讛 谞拽讘讛 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讜讝讻专 讚专讱 专讞诐 诇讬拽讚砖 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 诇讝讻专讬诐 讜讘讻讜专 诇专讞诐 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚讗讘讬讬

But in a case where a female emerged by caesarean section and afterward a male was born through the womb, let it be sanctified, as it is the firstborn of the males and the firstborn of the womb. One cannot derive the exclusions of both of these cases from the word 鈥渇irstborn,鈥 and yet the baraita indicates that even if a female was born first by caesarean section, the male born afterward is not considered the firstborn. The Gemara concludes: Rather, it is clear that the baraita must be interpreted in accordance with the explanation of Abaye, that a firstborn in one aspect is not called a firstborn.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诇讜拽讞 注讜讘专 驻专转讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诇讜拽讞 讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讘讬讻专讛 讗诐 诇讗 讘讬讻专讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 注讝 讘转 砖谞转讛 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽 专讞诇 讘转 砖转讬诐 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽 驻专讛 讜讞诪讜专 讘谞讜转 砖诇砖 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽

MISHNA: In the case of one who purchases a female animal from a gentile and does not know whether it had previously given birth or whether it had not previously given birth, and after the purchase the animal gave birth to a male, Rabbi Yishmael says: If the mother was a goat within its first year the male offspring certainly is given to the priest, as it definitely never gave birth previously. From that point forward, i.e., if the mother is older than that, its offspring鈥檚 status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a ewe within its second year the male offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring鈥檚 status is uncertain. If it was a cow or a donkey within its third year the male offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward the offspring鈥檚 status is uncertain.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬诇讜 讘讜讜诇讚 讘诇讘讚 讛讘讛诪讛 谞驻讟专转 讻讚讘专讬讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专讜 住讬诪谉 讛讜讜诇讚 讘讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讟讬谞讜祝 讜讘讙住讛 砖讬诇讬讗 讜讘讗砖讛 砖驻讬专 讜砖讬诇讬讗

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Were an animal exempted only by giving birth to an offspring and in no other manner the halakha would be in accordance with your statement. But the Sages said: An indication of the offspring in a small animal is a murky discharge from the womb, which indicates the animal had been pregnant, and therefore exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn. The indication in a large animal is the emergence of an afterbirth, and the indication in a woman is a fetal sac or an afterbirth. Since these can be produced even within a year, it cannot be assumed that an animal in its first year is definitely subject to the mitzva of the firstborn.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬讚讜注 砖讘讬讻专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讬讻专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讻讛谉 讜讗诐 住驻拽 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讜诪讜 诇讘注诇讬诐

Rabbi Akiva continues: Rather, this is the principle: In any case where it is known that the animal had previously given birth, the priest has nothing here. And in any case where it is known that the animal had not previously given birth, that is given to the priest. And if it is uncertain, it may be eaten in its blemished state by the owner.

讙诪壮 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗诪讗讬 住驻拽 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讜专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 诪转注讘专讜转 讜讬讜诇讚讜转 讘转讜讱 砖谞转谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讬诇讚 讗讜诇讬讚 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yishmael, the firstborn status of the offspring of a goat acquired from a gentile when it was more than one year old is uncertain. The Gemara asks: From that point forward, i.e., if it was bought after its first year, why is it in a state of uncertainty? One should follow the majority of animals, and as the majority of animals are impregnated and give birth within their first year, it can be assumed this animal certainly gave birth. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says one must be concerned for the minority, i.e., he must take the minority of cases into account?

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讗讝诇讬 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讘专讜讘讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 拽诪谉 讻讙讜谉 转砖注 讞谞讜讬讜转 讜住谞讛讚专讬谉 讗讘诇 专讜讘讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 拽诪谉 诇讗 讗讝诇讬 专讘谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗

The Gemara responds: You may even say Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. When the Rabbis follow the majority, this is in a case of an evident majority, which is extant and can be examined. For example, in a situation where a piece of meat is found in front of nine stores selling kosher meat and one store selling non-kosher meat, and it is not known from which store it came, it may be assumed that it came from one of the stores that sells kosher meat. And similarly, the Sanhedrin reaches its decisions by a majority vote of its judges. But with regard to a non-evident majority, which is based solely upon statistical information such as the assertion that most animals become pregnant and give birth within their first year, even the Rabbis do not follow the majority.

讜讛讗 拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 讚专讜讘讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 拽诪谉 讜拽讗讝诇讬 专讘谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚转谞谉 拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讬驻讛 讗诪专转 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗讬砖 讻转讜讘 讘驻专砖讛 讜诪拽砖讬谞谉 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the case of levirate marriage of a male minor or a female minor is dependent upon a non-evident majority, and yet the Rabbis follow the majority in their ruling. As we learned in a baraita: A male minor or a female minor may not perform the ritual through which a yavam frees a yevama of her levirate bonds [岣litza], nor enter into levirate marriage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: You have aptly stated that they may not perform 岣litza, since 鈥渕an,鈥 indicating an adult male, is written in the section of the Torah addressing 岣litza (see Deuteronomy 25:7). Although an adult female is not mentioned explicitly, we juxtapose the halakha of the woman to that of the man and require that the female involved in 岣litza must be an adult as well.

诪讛 讟注诐 讗讬谉 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 拽讟谉 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转诪爪讗 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讜谞诪爪讗讜 驻讜讙注讬谉 讘注专讜讛

But what is the reason they may not enter into levirate marriage, with regard to which the Torah鈥檚 wording does not specifically indicate adults? Rabbi Meir said to them: In the case of a male minor I am concerned lest he is found to be a eunuch, i.e., one who is incapable of fathering children, when he grows up. Similarly, a female minor may not enter into levirate marriage lest when she grows up she is found to be a sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit], who is incapable of bearing children. In either case the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply, and they would be found to have encountered a forbidden relative and entered into a forbidden relationship where no mitzva applies, as the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to have children for the brother who died childless.

讜专讘谞谉 讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 拽讟谞讬诐 讜专讜讘 拽讟谞讬诐 诇讗讜 住专讬住讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讝讬诇 讘转专 拽讟谞讜转 讜专讜讘 拽讟谞讜转 诇讗讜 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 谞讬谞讛讜

And the Rabbis hold: Follow the majority of male minors, and most male minors are not eunuchs; and likewise, follow the majority of female minors, and most female minors are not sexually underdeveloped women. This indicates that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir even with regard to a non-evident majority.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗

Rather, Rava says:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 19

讚讛讱 讚诇讗 讘讬讻专讛 砖讘讬讞 讟驻讬 爪专讬讻讗

that this offspring born to the ewe that had not previously given birth is superior. The Gemara concludes: Consequently, it was necessary to teach each case.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讛讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讘诪讜诪谉 诇讘注诇讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛谉 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讜专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 驻讟专 专讞诐 讜讛砖谞讬 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讚诪讜 讗讞专

MISHNA: With regard to an animal born by caesarean section and the offspring that follows it, since there is uncertainty whether each is a firstborn, neither is given to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: Both of them must graze until they become unfit, and they may be eaten in their blemished state by their owner. Rabbi Akiva says: Neither of them is firstborn; the first because it is not the one that opens the womb (see Exodus 13:12), as this animal did not itself open the womb, and the second because the other one preceded it.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讗讬 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon disagree? Rabbi Tarfon is uncertain with regard to an animal that is a firstborn in one aspect, e.g., first to be born or first to open the womb, whether it is considered a firstborn or whether it is not considered a firstborn. And conversely, it is obvious to Rabbi Akiva that an animal which is a firstborn in only one aspect is not considered a firstborn.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讻诇诇 讛爪专讬讱 诇驻专讟 讜诪驻专讟 讛爪专讬讱 诇讻诇诇 讻讬爪讚 拽讚砖 诇讬 讻诇 讘讻讜专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 谞拽讘讛 讘诪砖诪注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讻专

With regard to the definition of a firstborn, the Sages taught in a baraita: This halakha can be derived by means of the form of exegesis known as: From a generalization that requires a detail, and from a detail that requires a generalization. How so? The verse states: 鈥淪anctify to Me all the firstborn, that which opens any womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of animal, it is Mine鈥 (Exodus 13:2). Had the verse written only the generalization: 鈥淪anctify to Me all the firstborn,鈥 one might have thought that even a female animal is included in the category of a firstborn. Therefore, the verse states the detail: 鈥淓very firstborn male鈥ou shall sanctify to the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19).

讗讬 讝讻专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讬爪转讛 谞拽讘讛 诇驻谞讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 驻讟专 专讞诐 讗讬 驻讟专 专讞诐 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讬爪讗 讗讞专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻讜专

And had the verse stated only: 鈥淓very firstborn male,鈥 one might have thought that the first male offspring of an animal has firstborn status, even in a case where a female emerged from the womb before it. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat which opens any womb,鈥 to teach that only an animal that itself opens its mother鈥檚 womb can be a firstborn. And had the verse stated only: 鈥淭hat which opens any womb,鈥 one might have thought that even an animal that emerged from the womb after its older sibling was born by caesarean section is considered firstborn. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎ll the firstborn,鈥 to teach that only the first offspring can be considered a firstborn.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 诇讗讘讬讬 专讬砖讗 诇讗 拽谞住讬讘 诇讛 转诇诪讜讚讗 讘讻讜专 讗诇诪讗 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 住讬驻讗 拽谞住讬讘 诇讛 转诇诪讜讚讗 讘讻讜专 讗诇诪讗 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. Rav Sherevya said to Abaye: In the first clause, the baraita does not cite proof from the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 that a male born after a female is not considered a firstborn. Apparently, an animal that is a firstborn in one aspect is called a firstborn, otherwise the baraita would not have had to derive the exclusion of a male born after a female from the phrase 鈥渢hat which opens any womb鈥; it could have cited the word 鈥渇irstborn.鈥 And in the last clause, the baraita does cite proof from the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 that an animal whose older sibling was born by caesarean section is not considered a firstborn, despite the fact that it is a firstborn in one aspect. Apparently, a firstborn in one aspect is not called a firstborn. If so, the baraita is self-contradictory.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 讜专讬砖讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讝讻专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 驻讟专 专讞诐

Abaye said to Rav Sherevya: Actually, a firstborn in one aspect is not called a firstborn, and this is what the first clause is saying: Had the verse stated only: 鈥淓very firstborn male,鈥 one might have thought that even an animal born by caesarean section is itself considered a firstborn. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat which opens any womb,鈥 to teach that an animal must itself open the womb to be considered a firstborn. The word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 cannot be cited as proof that an animal born by caesarean section is not a firstborn, as such an animal was in fact born first. Therefore, the tanna cites the phrase 鈥渢hat which opens any womb.鈥 Once this phrase is cited, then a male born after a female is excluded as well, despite the fact that this halakha could have been derived from the word 鈥渇irstborn.鈥

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 讜住讬驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬爪讗 讗讞专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 拽讚讜砖 讘讻讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

Ravina said that there is a different explanation: Actually, a firstborn in one aspect is called a firstborn, and the halakha is not derived from the meaning of the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 itself, but from the fact that it is superfluous. And this is what the last clause is saying: If it enters your mind that an animal which emerged from the womb after its older sibling was born by caesarean section is sanctified, why do I need the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 that the Merciful One wrote?

讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讬爪转讛 谞拽讘讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诪驻讟专 专讞诐 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讻讜专 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讬讜爪讗 讗讞专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉

If it serves to exclude a case where a female emerged from the womb before it, that is derived from the phrase 鈥渢hat which opens any womb.鈥 Rather, conclude from it that 鈥渇irstborn鈥 serves to exclude a case where an animal emerged from the womb after its older sibling was born by caesarean section. According to Ravina, the word 鈥渇irstborn鈥 is referring to an animal that is a firstborn even in only one aspect, but as it is extraneous it serves to exclude an animal whose older sibling was born by caesarean section.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讬爪讗 讝讻专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讝讻专 讚专讱 专讞诐 讚诇讗 拽讚讜砖 讚讗讬诪注讜讟 诇讬讚讛 诪讘讻讜专 讚讘讻讜专 诇专讞诪讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 诇讝讻专讬诐 诇讬讻讗

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: If it enters your mind that a firstborn in one aspect is called a firstborn and the derivation is based on the fact that the term 鈥渇irstborn鈥 is superfluous, that works out well in a case where a male emerged by caesarean section and then another male emerged through the womb. It stands to reason that it is not sanctified, as this birth is excluded by the word 鈥渇irstborn,鈥 as it is the firstborn of the womb, but it is not the firstborn of the males.

讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讬爪转讛 谞拽讘讛 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讜讝讻专 讚专讱 专讞诐 诇讬拽讚砖 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讻讜专 诇讝讻专讬诐 讜讘讻讜专 诇专讞诐 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚讗讘讬讬

But in a case where a female emerged by caesarean section and afterward a male was born through the womb, let it be sanctified, as it is the firstborn of the males and the firstborn of the womb. One cannot derive the exclusions of both of these cases from the word 鈥渇irstborn,鈥 and yet the baraita indicates that even if a female was born first by caesarean section, the male born afterward is not considered the firstborn. The Gemara concludes: Rather, it is clear that the baraita must be interpreted in accordance with the explanation of Abaye, that a firstborn in one aspect is not called a firstborn.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诇讜拽讞 注讜讘专 驻专转讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诇讜拽讞 讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讘讬讻专讛 讗诐 诇讗 讘讬讻专讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 注讝 讘转 砖谞转讛 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽 专讞诇 讘转 砖转讬诐 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽 驻专讛 讜讞诪讜专 讘谞讜转 砖诇砖 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽

MISHNA: In the case of one who purchases a female animal from a gentile and does not know whether it had previously given birth or whether it had not previously given birth, and after the purchase the animal gave birth to a male, Rabbi Yishmael says: If the mother was a goat within its first year the male offspring certainly is given to the priest, as it definitely never gave birth previously. From that point forward, i.e., if the mother is older than that, its offspring鈥檚 status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a ewe within its second year the male offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring鈥檚 status is uncertain. If it was a cow or a donkey within its third year the male offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward the offspring鈥檚 status is uncertain.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬诇讜 讘讜讜诇讚 讘诇讘讚 讛讘讛诪讛 谞驻讟专转 讻讚讘专讬讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专讜 住讬诪谉 讛讜讜诇讚 讘讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讟讬谞讜祝 讜讘讙住讛 砖讬诇讬讗 讜讘讗砖讛 砖驻讬专 讜砖讬诇讬讗

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Were an animal exempted only by giving birth to an offspring and in no other manner the halakha would be in accordance with your statement. But the Sages said: An indication of the offspring in a small animal is a murky discharge from the womb, which indicates the animal had been pregnant, and therefore exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn. The indication in a large animal is the emergence of an afterbirth, and the indication in a woman is a fetal sac or an afterbirth. Since these can be produced even within a year, it cannot be assumed that an animal in its first year is definitely subject to the mitzva of the firstborn.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讬讚讜注 砖讘讬讻专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讬讻专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讻讛谉 讜讗诐 住驻拽 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讜诪讜 诇讘注诇讬诐

Rabbi Akiva continues: Rather, this is the principle: In any case where it is known that the animal had previously given birth, the priest has nothing here. And in any case where it is known that the animal had not previously given birth, that is given to the priest. And if it is uncertain, it may be eaten in its blemished state by the owner.

讙诪壮 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗诪讗讬 住驻拽 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讜专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 诪转注讘专讜转 讜讬讜诇讚讜转 讘转讜讱 砖谞转谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讬诇讚 讗讜诇讬讚 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yishmael, the firstborn status of the offspring of a goat acquired from a gentile when it was more than one year old is uncertain. The Gemara asks: From that point forward, i.e., if it was bought after its first year, why is it in a state of uncertainty? One should follow the majority of animals, and as the majority of animals are impregnated and give birth within their first year, it can be assumed this animal certainly gave birth. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says one must be concerned for the minority, i.e., he must take the minority of cases into account?

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讗讝诇讬 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讘专讜讘讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 拽诪谉 讻讙讜谉 转砖注 讞谞讜讬讜转 讜住谞讛讚专讬谉 讗讘诇 专讜讘讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 拽诪谉 诇讗 讗讝诇讬 专讘谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗

The Gemara responds: You may even say Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. When the Rabbis follow the majority, this is in a case of an evident majority, which is extant and can be examined. For example, in a situation where a piece of meat is found in front of nine stores selling kosher meat and one store selling non-kosher meat, and it is not known from which store it came, it may be assumed that it came from one of the stores that sells kosher meat. And similarly, the Sanhedrin reaches its decisions by a majority vote of its judges. But with regard to a non-evident majority, which is based solely upon statistical information such as the assertion that most animals become pregnant and give birth within their first year, even the Rabbis do not follow the majority.

讜讛讗 拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 讚专讜讘讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 拽诪谉 讜拽讗讝诇讬 专讘谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚转谞谉 拽讟谉 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讬驻讛 讗诪专转 砖讗讬谉 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗讬砖 讻转讜讘 讘驻专砖讛 讜诪拽砖讬谞谉 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the case of levirate marriage of a male minor or a female minor is dependent upon a non-evident majority, and yet the Rabbis follow the majority in their ruling. As we learned in a baraita: A male minor or a female minor may not perform the ritual through which a yavam frees a yevama of her levirate bonds [岣litza], nor enter into levirate marriage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: You have aptly stated that they may not perform 岣litza, since 鈥渕an,鈥 indicating an adult male, is written in the section of the Torah addressing 岣litza (see Deuteronomy 25:7). Although an adult female is not mentioned explicitly, we juxtapose the halakha of the woman to that of the man and require that the female involved in 岣litza must be an adult as well.

诪讛 讟注诐 讗讬谉 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 拽讟谉 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 住专讬住 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转诪爪讗 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讜谞诪爪讗讜 驻讜讙注讬谉 讘注专讜讛

But what is the reason they may not enter into levirate marriage, with regard to which the Torah鈥檚 wording does not specifically indicate adults? Rabbi Meir said to them: In the case of a male minor I am concerned lest he is found to be a eunuch, i.e., one who is incapable of fathering children, when he grows up. Similarly, a female minor may not enter into levirate marriage lest when she grows up she is found to be a sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit], who is incapable of bearing children. In either case the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply, and they would be found to have encountered a forbidden relative and entered into a forbidden relationship where no mitzva applies, as the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to have children for the brother who died childless.

讜专讘谞谉 讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 拽讟谞讬诐 讜专讜讘 拽讟谞讬诐 诇讗讜 住专讬住讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讝讬诇 讘转专 拽讟谞讜转 讜专讜讘 拽讟谞讜转 诇讗讜 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 谞讬谞讛讜

And the Rabbis hold: Follow the majority of male minors, and most male minors are not eunuchs; and likewise, follow the majority of female minors, and most female minors are not sexually underdeveloped women. This indicates that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir even with regard to a non-evident majority.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗

Rather, Rava says:

Scroll To Top