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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 7, 2019 | 讘壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 20

The gemara brings a braita with four opinions about the case of an animal purchased from a non-Jew where the owner doesn’t know if the animal already gave birth. The gemara raises several possibilities of how to explain the differences of opinions and on what exactly they are disagreeing. Another braita is brought discussing a case of a kid that gives birth in one year to ten or more offspring. Two opinions are stated and the gemara suggests possibilities聽explaining their disagreement.


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

诪讞讜讜专转讗 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

It is clear, as was suggested initially, that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that one must be concerned for the minority.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讗讝诇讬 专讘谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讘专讜讘讗 讚诇讗 转诇讬 讘诪注砖讛 讗讘诇 专讜讘讗 讚转诇讬 讘诪注砖讛 诇讗

Ravina says: You may even say that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. When the Rabbis follow the majority, it is with regard to a majority that is not dependent upon an action but is simply the nature of reality. But in the case of a majority that is dependent upon an action, such as the pregnancy of a young goat, which depends upon whether or not it had copulated with a male, the Rabbis do not follow the majority.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讝 讘转 砖谞转讛 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讛诇谉 住驻拽 专讞诇 讘转 砖转讬诐 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讛诇谉 住驻拽 驻专讛 讘转 砖诇砖 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讛诇谉 住驻拽 讞诪讜专讛 讻驻专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞诪讜专讛 讘转 讗专讘注 砖谞讬诐 注讚 讻讗谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one purchased a goat within its first year from a gentile and does not know whether or not it had previously given birth, the subsequent male offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring鈥檚 status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a ewe within its second year the offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring鈥檚 status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a cow within its third year the offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring鈥檚 status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a donkey it is subject to the same halakha as a cow. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The offspring of a donkey within its fourth year also has the status of a firstborn. Until here is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

讻砖谞讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 爪讗讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讟注讬转 讗讬诇讜 讘讜讜诇讚 讘诇讘讚 讛讘讛诪讛 谞驻讟专转 讛讬讛 讻讚讘专讬讱 讗诇讗 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 砖诇讬讗 讜讘讗砖讛 砖驻讬专 讜砖诇讬讗

The baraita continues: When these matters were stated by the students before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said to them: Go out and say to Rabbi Yishmael: You erred. 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 Rabbis said: An indication of the offspring in a small animal is a murky discharge from the womb, which exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn. And 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.

讜讗谞讬 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗诇讗 注讝 砖讟讬谞驻讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讛 专讞诇 砖讟讬谞驻讛 讘转 砖谞转讛 讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖转讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗谞讬 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 诪讚讛 讝讜 讗诇讗 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 讝讜 诇讻讛谉 住驻拽 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讜诪讜 诇讘注诇讬诐

Rabbi Yehoshua added: That is the opinion of the Rabbis, but I myself do not say so. Rather, I hold that a goat that expelled a murky discharge from the womb at the age of six months can give birth within its first year, and a ewe that expelled a murky discharge in its first year can give birth within its second year. The Gemara will later discuss the practical difference between his opinion and the ruling that he ascribes to the Rabbis. Rabbi Akiva says: I have not arrived at this method of determining firstborn status. Rather, 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.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讬诪讗 讘讟讬谞讜祝 驻讜讟专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讟讬谞讜祝 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讟讬谞讜祝 驻讜讟专

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. With regard to what matter do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree? Shall we say they disagree with regard to whether or not a murky discharge from the womb exempts an animal from the mitzva of the firstborn; as Rabbi Yishmael holds that a murky discharge does not exempt an animal because it is not a sign of a birth, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a murky discharge exempts an animal?

讗讬 讚讞讝讬谞谉 讚讟讬谞讜祝 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讟讬谞讜祝 驻讜讟专 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讟讬谞讜祝 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讟讬谞讜祝 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讟讬谞讜祝

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If we actually see a murky discharge, everyone agrees that the murky discharge exempts an animal. And here, it is with regard to whether one is concerned about the possibility that an animal might have expelled a murky discharge that they disagree. Rabbi Yishmael holds that we are not concerned about a murky discharge, and it can therefore be assumed that the first offspring born after its purchase from the gentile is firstborn; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that one is concerned about a murky discharge, and due to the uncertainty the next offspring remains with its owner.

讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 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 讻讬 讞讬讬砖 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖

The Gemara objects: And is it correct that Rabbi Yishmael is not concerned about the possibility that the mother might have expelled a murky discharge before giving birth to a live offspring? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: It is clear that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says one must be concerned for the minority? If so, Rabbi Yishmael should be concerned for a murky discharge as well. The Gemara explains: Where Rabbi Yishmael is concerned is when the concern leads to a stringency. But if the concern would lead to a leniency, as in this case, where it would mean that the animal born after a year is only an uncertain firstborn, he is not concerned.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 讞讬讬砖 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讟谞驻转 讜讞讜讝专转 讜讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诪讟谞驻转 讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 讜讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讛 讜讛讗 诪讚讗讜诇讬讚 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讟谞讬祝 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诪讟谞驻转 讞讜讝专转 讜讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讛

And if you wish, say instead: Whether it leads to a leniency or whether it leads to a stringency Rabbi Yishmael is concerned, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not an animal can expel a murky discharge and then return to its fertile state and give birth within its first year. As Rabbi Yishmael holds: An animal that expels a murky discharge does not return to its fertile state and give birth within its first year, and accordingly, from the fact that this animal gave birth it can be concluded that it certainly did not expel a murky discharge beforehand. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: An animal that expels a murky discharge returns to its fertile state and can give birth within its first year.

讜讗谞讬 讗讬谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗诇讗 注讝 砖讟讬谞驻讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讬讜诇讚转 转讜讱 砖谞转讛 专讞诇 砖讟讬谞驻讛 讘转 砖谞转讛 讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖转讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讙诪专讬讛 诇住讘专讬讛

搂 The baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua said: That is the opinion of the Rabbis, but I myself do not say so. Rather, I hold that a goat that expelled a murky discharge from the womb at the age of six months still gives birth within its first year, while a ewe that expelled a murky discharge in its first year still gives birth within its second year. The Gemara asks: Since according to both opinions an animal that expelled a murky discharge can still give birth within a year, what difference is there between Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 tradition of the opinion of the Rabbis and his own reasoning?

砖讟讬谞驻讛 讘住讜祝 砖砖讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讝注讬专讬 讚讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗讬谉 讟讬谞讜祝 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

The Gemara answers: The difference between their opinions is in a case where a goat expelled a murky discharge at the end of its first six months of life, when the seventh month began, and then gave birth before the end of its first year. And there is a difference between them with regard to the statement of Ze鈥檈iri, as Ze鈥檈iri says: The expulsion of a murky discharge, which is sufficient to exempt an animal from having its future offspring counted a firstborn, prevents it from being impregnated for no less than thirty days. If an animal becomes pregnant within thirty days of expelling a murky discharge, evidently that discharge was not the sign of a fetus, and therefore the offspring will have firstborn status.

诇讙诪专讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讝注讬专讬 诇住讘专讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讝注讬专讬

In this case, as the pregnancy of a goat lasts five months and a murky discharge was expelled at the end of the sixth month, a goat that gave birth by the end of the year, i.e., twelve months, must have become pregnant within a month of the discharge. The Rabbis, whose opinion Rabbi Yehoshua cited by tradition, accept the statement of Ze鈥檈iri, and therefore they rule that this goat, which became pregnant within a month of the discharge, is not exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. According to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 own reasoning, he does not accept the statement of Ze鈥檈iri, which means that although this animal became pregnant within a month of the discharge, it was nevertheless exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚讝注讬专讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讬讜诇讚转 诇诪拽讜讟注讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara suggests another answer: And if you wish, say that everyone accepts the statement of Ze鈥檈iri; and here, in the case of a goat that gave birth within its first year after having expelled a murky discharge at the end of its sixth month, they disagree with regard to whether or not an animal gives birth after incomplete months, i.e., prematurely.

诇讙诪专讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬讜诇讚转 诇诪拽讜讟注讬谉 诇住讘专讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬讜诇讚转 诇诪拽讜讟注讬谉

According to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 tradition of the opinion of the Rabbis, we do not say that an animal gives birth after incomplete months, and therefore if it gave birth within its first year it must have become pregnant within thirty days of the discharge, which means the discharge was not indicative of a fetus and does not exempt the next offspring from being counted a firstborn. According to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 own reasoning, we say an animal gives birth after incomplete months, and consequently it is possible the animal became pregnant later than thirty days after the discharge and its term of pregnancy was shorter than normal. If so, the discharge does exempt the next offspring from firstborn status.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬讜诇讚转 讜讛讻讗 讘诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇住讘专讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 诇讙诪专讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜

And if you wish, say that everyone accepts Ze鈥檈iri鈥檚 statement and we do not say that an animal gives birth prematurely, and here, they disagree with regard to whether or not the halakhic status of part of the day is like an entire day: According to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 reasoning we say part of the day is like an entire day, and therefore it is possible for the goat to have become pregnant on the thirtieth day after experiencing the discharge and to give birth precisely five months later, just before the year ends. According to his tradition of the opinion of the Rabbis, we do not say part of the day is like an entire day, which means that the earliest possible birth is on the first day of the second year.

讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗谞讬 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 诪讚讛 讝讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讬讚讜注 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The baraita taught that Rabbi Akiva says: I have not arrived at this method of determining firstborn status. Rather, in any case where it is known the animal had previously given birth, the priest has nothing here. And in any case where it is known the animal had not previously given birth, its firstborn is given to the priest. And if it is uncertain, it may be eaten in its blemished state by the owner. The Gemara asks: What difference is there in practice between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 讞诇讘 驻讜讟专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讞诇讘 驻讜讟专 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讜专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讗讬谉 讞讜诇讘讜转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬讜诇讚讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚讞讜诇讘讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讬讜诇讚讜转

Rabbi 岣nina of Sura says: There is a difference between them in a case where the animal came into the Jew鈥檚 possession after it had already started to produce milk. They differ as to whether or not the production of milk is sufficient to exempt an animal from having its next offspring counted a firstborn. Rabbi Akiva holds: Milk exempts it, as we follow the majority of animals, and the majority of animals do not produce milk unless they have given birth. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Since there is a minority of animals that do produce milk even though they have not given birth, the animal that is born later is an uncertain firstborn.

讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇诪讬注讜讟 讜讛转谞谉 讛讬转讛 诇讛 讞诪讜转讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转 讬爪讗讛 诪诇讬讗讛 讞讜砖砖转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehoshua concerned for a minority? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Yevamot 119a): If a woman鈥檚 husband passed away before she had given birth to any children and the husband had no known brothers who could perform levirate marriage, even though she has a mother-in-law who traveled overseas and may have conceivably given birth to a male who could later perform levirate marriage, she does not need to be concerned for that possibility and may marry another man without finding out if a male child had been born. But if the mother-in-law left while she was full, i.e., pregnant, the daughter-in-law must be concerned that a male might have been born. Rabbi Yehoshua says: She does not need to be concerned.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽住讘专 专讜讘 诪注讜讘专讜转 讬讜诇讚讜转 讜诪讬注讜讟 诪驻讬诇讜转 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诇讚讜转 诪讞爪讛 讝讻专讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 谞拽讘讜转 住诪讜讱 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚诪驻讬诇讜转 诇诪讞爪讛 讚谞拽讘讜转 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讝讻专讬诐 诪讬注讜讟讗 讜诇诪讬注讜讟讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

And we say: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua? He holds the majority of pregnant women give birth to a child and a minority miscarry. And of all those who give birth, half bear males and half bear females. Combine the minority of those who miscarry with the half that give birth to females, and conclude that the males are in fact a minority, and we are not concerned for a minority. Evidently, Rabbi Yehoshua holds there is no need to be concerned for a minority.

讗诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞诇讘 驻讜讟专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞诇讘 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专

Rather, reverse the two opinions in the mishna. And in fact it is taught in that manner in a baraita: The production of milk exempts an animal from having its offspring counted a firstborn; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Akiva says: The production of milk does not exempt an animal from having its offspring counted a firstborn.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讚讬讬讛 砖讬诇讚讛 砖诇砖 讘谞讜转 讜讻诇 讘谞讜转讬讛 讬诇讚讜 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 讻讜诇谉 谞讻谞住讜转 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 砖注讬砖专讛 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 转讜诇讬讚 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 转诇转 讜讗讬谞讱 转专转讬 转专转讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a kid that gave birth to female triplets and all her offspring each gave birth to female triplets, all of them, i.e., the offspring and their offspring, enter the pen to be tithed. The animal tithe applies only if one owns at least ten or more animals born in the same year that are not male firstborns. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a single kid that yielded enough offspring to be subject to the tithe within its first year of life. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the baraita to teach that each offspring gave birth to three other offspring? Let one of them give birth to three, and let the other two give birth to two each, so that there are a total of ten goats born within a single year, which are therefore subject to the tithe.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 讚诇讗 住讙讬讗 讘诇讗 砖诇砖 转谞讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讚讬诇讚讜 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 砖诇砖 讻诇诇 诇讬诇讚讜 讻讜诇讛讜 转专转讬 讜转讬讛讚专 讗讬讛讬 讜转讜诇讬讚 讘讛讚讬讛谉

The Gemara answers: Since there is one goat in this case that would not produce a sufficient number of offspring without giving birth to three, the baraita taught a case where all three goats gave birth to three offspring each, for the sake of consistency. The Gemara asks: But why do I need to teach that any goat gave birth to three at once at all? Let all the second-generation goats give birth to two offspring, and let her, the mother of the three second-generation goats, give birth again to another goat together with them. The fact that the baraita did not teach this case indicates that a goat cannot give birth again within the same year.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 20

诪讞讜讜专转讗 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

It is clear, as was suggested initially, that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that one must be concerned for the minority.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讗讝诇讬 专讘谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讘专讜讘讗 讚诇讗 转诇讬 讘诪注砖讛 讗讘诇 专讜讘讗 讚转诇讬 讘诪注砖讛 诇讗

Ravina says: You may even say that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. When the Rabbis follow the majority, it is with regard to a majority that is not dependent upon an action but is simply the nature of reality. But in the case of a majority that is dependent upon an action, such as the pregnancy of a young goat, which depends upon whether or not it had copulated with a male, the Rabbis do not follow the majority.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讝 讘转 砖谞转讛 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讛诇谉 住驻拽 专讞诇 讘转 砖转讬诐 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讛诇谉 住驻拽 驻专讛 讘转 砖诇砖 讜讚讗讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讛诇谉 住驻拽 讞诪讜专讛 讻驻专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞诪讜专讛 讘转 讗专讘注 砖谞讬诐 注讚 讻讗谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one purchased a goat within its first year from a gentile and does not know whether or not it had previously given birth, the subsequent male offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring鈥檚 status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a ewe within its second year the offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring鈥檚 status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a cow within its third year the offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring鈥檚 status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a donkey it is subject to the same halakha as a cow. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The offspring of a donkey within its fourth year also has the status of a firstborn. Until here is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

讻砖谞讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 爪讗讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讟注讬转 讗讬诇讜 讘讜讜诇讚 讘诇讘讚 讛讘讛诪讛 谞驻讟专转 讛讬讛 讻讚讘专讬讱 讗诇讗 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 砖诇讬讗 讜讘讗砖讛 砖驻讬专 讜砖诇讬讗

The baraita continues: When these matters were stated by the students before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said to them: Go out and say to Rabbi Yishmael: You erred. 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 Rabbis said: An indication of the offspring in a small animal is a murky discharge from the womb, which exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn. And 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.

讜讗谞讬 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗诇讗 注讝 砖讟讬谞驻讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讛 专讞诇 砖讟讬谞驻讛 讘转 砖谞转讛 讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖转讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗谞讬 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 诪讚讛 讝讜 讗诇讗 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 讝讜 诇讻讛谉 住驻拽 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讜诪讜 诇讘注诇讬诐

Rabbi Yehoshua added: That is the opinion of the Rabbis, but I myself do not say so. Rather, I hold that a goat that expelled a murky discharge from the womb at the age of six months can give birth within its first year, and a ewe that expelled a murky discharge in its first year can give birth within its second year. The Gemara will later discuss the practical difference between his opinion and the ruling that he ascribes to the Rabbis. Rabbi Akiva says: I have not arrived at this method of determining firstborn status. Rather, 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.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讬诪讗 讘讟讬谞讜祝 驻讜讟专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讟讬谞讜祝 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讟讬谞讜祝 驻讜讟专

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. With regard to what matter do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree? Shall we say they disagree with regard to whether or not a murky discharge from the womb exempts an animal from the mitzva of the firstborn; as Rabbi Yishmael holds that a murky discharge does not exempt an animal because it is not a sign of a birth, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a murky discharge exempts an animal?

讗讬 讚讞讝讬谞谉 讚讟讬谞讜祝 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讟讬谞讜祝 驻讜讟专 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讟讬谞讜祝 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讟讬谞讜祝 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讟讬谞讜祝

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If we actually see a murky discharge, everyone agrees that the murky discharge exempts an animal. And here, it is with regard to whether one is concerned about the possibility that an animal might have expelled a murky discharge that they disagree. Rabbi Yishmael holds that we are not concerned about a murky discharge, and it can therefore be assumed that the first offspring born after its purchase from the gentile is firstborn; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that one is concerned about a murky discharge, and due to the uncertainty the next offspring remains with its owner.

讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 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 讻讬 讞讬讬砖 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖

The Gemara objects: And is it correct that Rabbi Yishmael is not concerned about the possibility that the mother might have expelled a murky discharge before giving birth to a live offspring? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: It is clear that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says one must be concerned for the minority? If so, Rabbi Yishmael should be concerned for a murky discharge as well. The Gemara explains: Where Rabbi Yishmael is concerned is when the concern leads to a stringency. But if the concern would lead to a leniency, as in this case, where it would mean that the animal born after a year is only an uncertain firstborn, he is not concerned.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 讞讬讬砖 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讟谞驻转 讜讞讜讝专转 讜讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诪讟谞驻转 讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 讜讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讛 讜讛讗 诪讚讗讜诇讬讚 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讟谞讬祝 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诪讟谞驻转 讞讜讝专转 讜讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讛

And if you wish, say instead: Whether it leads to a leniency or whether it leads to a stringency Rabbi Yishmael is concerned, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not an animal can expel a murky discharge and then return to its fertile state and give birth within its first year. As Rabbi Yishmael holds: An animal that expels a murky discharge does not return to its fertile state and give birth within its first year, and accordingly, from the fact that this animal gave birth it can be concluded that it certainly did not expel a murky discharge beforehand. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: An animal that expels a murky discharge returns to its fertile state and can give birth within its first year.

讜讗谞讬 讗讬谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗诇讗 注讝 砖讟讬谞驻讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讬讜诇讚转 转讜讱 砖谞转讛 专讞诇 砖讟讬谞驻讛 讘转 砖谞转讛 讬讜诇讚转 讘转讜讱 砖转讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讙诪专讬讛 诇住讘专讬讛

搂 The baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua said: That is the opinion of the Rabbis, but I myself do not say so. Rather, I hold that a goat that expelled a murky discharge from the womb at the age of six months still gives birth within its first year, while a ewe that expelled a murky discharge in its first year still gives birth within its second year. The Gemara asks: Since according to both opinions an animal that expelled a murky discharge can still give birth within a year, what difference is there between Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 tradition of the opinion of the Rabbis and his own reasoning?

砖讟讬谞驻讛 讘住讜祝 砖砖讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讝注讬专讬 讚讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗讬谉 讟讬谞讜祝 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

The Gemara answers: The difference between their opinions is in a case where a goat expelled a murky discharge at the end of its first six months of life, when the seventh month began, and then gave birth before the end of its first year. And there is a difference between them with regard to the statement of Ze鈥檈iri, as Ze鈥檈iri says: The expulsion of a murky discharge, which is sufficient to exempt an animal from having its future offspring counted a firstborn, prevents it from being impregnated for no less than thirty days. If an animal becomes pregnant within thirty days of expelling a murky discharge, evidently that discharge was not the sign of a fetus, and therefore the offspring will have firstborn status.

诇讙诪专讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讝注讬专讬 诇住讘专讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讝注讬专讬

In this case, as the pregnancy of a goat lasts five months and a murky discharge was expelled at the end of the sixth month, a goat that gave birth by the end of the year, i.e., twelve months, must have become pregnant within a month of the discharge. The Rabbis, whose opinion Rabbi Yehoshua cited by tradition, accept the statement of Ze鈥檈iri, and therefore they rule that this goat, which became pregnant within a month of the discharge, is not exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. According to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 own reasoning, he does not accept the statement of Ze鈥檈iri, which means that although this animal became pregnant within a month of the discharge, it was nevertheless exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚讝注讬专讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讬讜诇讚转 诇诪拽讜讟注讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara suggests another answer: And if you wish, say that everyone accepts the statement of Ze鈥檈iri; and here, in the case of a goat that gave birth within its first year after having expelled a murky discharge at the end of its sixth month, they disagree with regard to whether or not an animal gives birth after incomplete months, i.e., prematurely.

诇讙诪专讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬讜诇讚转 诇诪拽讜讟注讬谉 诇住讘专讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬讜诇讚转 诇诪拽讜讟注讬谉

According to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 tradition of the opinion of the Rabbis, we do not say that an animal gives birth after incomplete months, and therefore if it gave birth within its first year it must have become pregnant within thirty days of the discharge, which means the discharge was not indicative of a fetus and does not exempt the next offspring from being counted a firstborn. According to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 own reasoning, we say an animal gives birth after incomplete months, and consequently it is possible the animal became pregnant later than thirty days after the discharge and its term of pregnancy was shorter than normal. If so, the discharge does exempt the next offspring from firstborn status.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬讜诇讚转 讜讛讻讗 讘诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇住讘专讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜 诇讙诪专讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜

And if you wish, say that everyone accepts Ze鈥檈iri鈥檚 statement and we do not say that an animal gives birth prematurely, and here, they disagree with regard to whether or not the halakhic status of part of the day is like an entire day: According to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 reasoning we say part of the day is like an entire day, and therefore it is possible for the goat to have become pregnant on the thirtieth day after experiencing the discharge and to give birth precisely five months later, just before the year ends. According to his tradition of the opinion of the Rabbis, we do not say part of the day is like an entire day, which means that the earliest possible birth is on the first day of the second year.

讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗谞讬 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 诪讚讛 讝讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讬讚讜注 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The baraita taught that Rabbi Akiva says: I have not arrived at this method of determining firstborn status. Rather, in any case where it is known the animal had previously given birth, the priest has nothing here. And in any case where it is known the animal had not previously given birth, its firstborn is given to the priest. And if it is uncertain, it may be eaten in its blemished state by the owner. The Gemara asks: What difference is there in practice between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 讞诇讘 驻讜讟专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讞诇讘 驻讜讟专 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讜专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讗讬谉 讞讜诇讘讜转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬讜诇讚讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚讞讜诇讘讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讬讜诇讚讜转

Rabbi 岣nina of Sura says: There is a difference between them in a case where the animal came into the Jew鈥檚 possession after it had already started to produce milk. They differ as to whether or not the production of milk is sufficient to exempt an animal from having its next offspring counted a firstborn. Rabbi Akiva holds: Milk exempts it, as we follow the majority of animals, and the majority of animals do not produce milk unless they have given birth. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Since there is a minority of animals that do produce milk even though they have not given birth, the animal that is born later is an uncertain firstborn.

讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇诪讬注讜讟 讜讛转谞谉 讛讬转讛 诇讛 讞诪讜转讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转 讬爪讗讛 诪诇讬讗讛 讞讜砖砖转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehoshua concerned for a minority? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Yevamot 119a): If a woman鈥檚 husband passed away before she had given birth to any children and the husband had no known brothers who could perform levirate marriage, even though she has a mother-in-law who traveled overseas and may have conceivably given birth to a male who could later perform levirate marriage, she does not need to be concerned for that possibility and may marry another man without finding out if a male child had been born. But if the mother-in-law left while she was full, i.e., pregnant, the daughter-in-law must be concerned that a male might have been born. Rabbi Yehoshua says: She does not need to be concerned.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽住讘专 专讜讘 诪注讜讘专讜转 讬讜诇讚讜转 讜诪讬注讜讟 诪驻讬诇讜转 讜讻诇 讛讬讜诇讚讜转 诪讞爪讛 讝讻专讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 谞拽讘讜转 住诪讜讱 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚诪驻讬诇讜转 诇诪讞爪讛 讚谞拽讘讜转 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讝讻专讬诐 诪讬注讜讟讗 讜诇诪讬注讜讟讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

And we say: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua? He holds the majority of pregnant women give birth to a child and a minority miscarry. And of all those who give birth, half bear males and half bear females. Combine the minority of those who miscarry with the half that give birth to females, and conclude that the males are in fact a minority, and we are not concerned for a minority. Evidently, Rabbi Yehoshua holds there is no need to be concerned for a minority.

讗诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞诇讘 驻讜讟专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞诇讘 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专

Rather, reverse the two opinions in the mishna. And in fact it is taught in that manner in a baraita: The production of milk exempts an animal from having its offspring counted a firstborn; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Akiva says: The production of milk does not exempt an animal from having its offspring counted a firstborn.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讚讬讬讛 砖讬诇讚讛 砖诇砖 讘谞讜转 讜讻诇 讘谞讜转讬讛 讬诇讚讜 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 讻讜诇谉 谞讻谞住讜转 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 砖注讬砖专讛 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 转讜诇讬讚 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 转诇转 讜讗讬谞讱 转专转讬 转专转讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a kid that gave birth to female triplets and all her offspring each gave birth to female triplets, all of them, i.e., the offspring and their offspring, enter the pen to be tithed. The animal tithe applies only if one owns at least ten or more animals born in the same year that are not male firstborns. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a single kid that yielded enough offspring to be subject to the tithe within its first year of life. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the baraita to teach that each offspring gave birth to three other offspring? Let one of them give birth to three, and let the other two give birth to two each, so that there are a total of ten goats born within a single year, which are therefore subject to the tithe.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 讚诇讗 住讙讬讗 讘诇讗 砖诇砖 转谞讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讚讬诇讚讜 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 砖诇砖 讻诇诇 诇讬诇讚讜 讻讜诇讛讜 转专转讬 讜转讬讛讚专 讗讬讛讬 讜转讜诇讬讚 讘讛讚讬讛谉

The Gemara answers: Since there is one goat in this case that would not produce a sufficient number of offspring without giving birth to three, the baraita taught a case where all three goats gave birth to three offspring each, for the sake of consistency. The Gemara asks: But why do I need to teach that any goat gave birth to three at once at all? Let all the second-generation goats give birth to two offspring, and let her, the mother of the three second-generation goats, give birth again to another goat together with them. The fact that the baraita did not teach this case indicates that a goat cannot give birth again within the same year.

Scroll To Top