בכורות כ-כא

בכורות כ-כא

מְחַוַּורְתָּא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּחָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּטָא.

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.

רָבִינָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כִּי אָזְלִי רַבָּנַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא — בְּרוּבָּא דְּלָא תְּלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה, אֲבָל רוּבָּא דִּתְלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה — לָא.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֵז בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ — וַדַּאי לַכֹּהֵן, מִיכָּן וּלְהַלָּן — סָפֵק. רָחֵל בַּת שְׁתַּיִם — וַדַּאי לַכֹּהֵן, מִיכָּן וּלְהַלָּן — סָפֵק. פָּרָה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ — וַדַּאי לַכֹּהֵן, מִיכָּן וּלְהַלָּן — סָפֵק. חֲמוֹרָה — כְּפָרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חֲמוֹרָה בַּת אַרְבַּע שָׁנִים. עַד כָּאן דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

§ 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’s 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’s 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’s 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.

כְּשֶׁנֶּאְמְרוּ דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר לָהֶן: צְאוּ אִמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: טָעִיתָ! אִילּוּ בְּוָולָד בִּלְבַד הַבְּהֵמָה נִפְטֶרֶת — הָיָה כִּדְבָרֶיךָ, אֶלָּא סִימַן הַוָּולָד בִּבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה — טִינּוּף, וּבַגַּסָּה — שִׁלְיָא, וּבָאִשָּׁה — שָׁפִיר וְשִׁלְיָא.

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.

וַאֲנִי אֵין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא: עֵז שֶׁטִּינְּפָה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה — יוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ, רָחֵל שֶׁטִּינְּפָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ — יוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁתַּיִם. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֲנִי לֹא בָּאתִי לִידֵי מִדָּה זוֹ, אֶלָּא: כֹּל שֶׁיָּדוּעַ שֶׁבִּיכְּרָה — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם, וְכֹל שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ לַכֹּהֵן, סָפֵק — יֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ לַבְּעָלִים.

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.

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? לֵימָא בְּטִינּוּף פּוֹטֵר קָמִיפַּלְגִי, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר טִינּוּף אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר טִינּוּף פּוֹטֵר?

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?

אִי דַּחֲזֵינָא דְּטַינִּוף — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּטִינּוּף פּוֹטֵר, וְהָכָא בְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְטִינּוּף קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְטִינּוּף, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְטִינּוּף.

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.

וְלָא חָיֵישׁ? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: מְחַוַּורְתָּא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּחָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּט! כִּי חָיֵישׁ — לְחוּמְרָא, לְקוּלָּא — לָא חָיֵישׁ.

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’t 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.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בֵּין לְקוּלָּא בֵּין לְחוּמְרָא חָיֵישׁ, וְהָכָא בִּמְטַנֶּפֶת וְחוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: מְטַנֶּפֶת אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ, וְהָא מִדְּאוֹלִיד — וַדַּאי לָא טַנִּיף. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: מְטַנֶּפֶת חוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ.

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.

וַאֲנִי אֵינִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא עֵז שֶׁטִּינְּפָה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה — יוֹלֶדֶת תּוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ, רָחֵל שֶׁטִּינְּפָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ — יוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁתַּיִם. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין גְּמָרֵיהּ לִסְבָרֵיהּ?

§ 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’s tradition of the opinion of the Rabbis and his own reasoning?

שֶׁטִּינְּפָה בְּסוֹף שִׁשָּׁה, וְאִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּזְעֵירִי, דְּאָמַר זְעֵירִי: אֵין טִינּוּף פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.

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’eiri, as Ze’eiri 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.

לִגְמָרֵיהּ — אִית לֵיהּ דִּזְעֵירִי, לִסְבָרֵיהּ — לֵית לֵיהּ דִּזְעֵירִי.

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’eiri, 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’s own reasoning, he does not accept the statement of Ze’eiri, which means that although this animal became pregnant within a month of the discharge, it was nevertheless exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דִּזְעֵירִי, וְהָכָא — בְּיוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין קָמִיפַּלְגִי;

The Gemara suggests another answer: And if you wish, say that everyone accepts the statement of Ze’eiri; 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.

לִגְמָרֵיהּ — לָא אָמְרִינַן יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין, לִסְבָרֵיהּ — אָמְרִינַן יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין.

According to Rabbi Yehoshua’s 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’s 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.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָא אָמְרִינַן יוֹלֶדֶת, וְהָכָא בְּמִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי. לִסְבָרֵיהּ — אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ, לִגְמָרֵיהּ — לָא אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ.

And if you wish, say that everyone accepts Ze’eiri’s 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’s 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.

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֲנִי לֹא בָּאתִי לִידֵי מִדָּה זוֹ, אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁיָּדוּעַ כּוּ׳. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ?

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?

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: חָלָב פּוֹטֵר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: חָלָב פּוֹטֵר, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב בְּהֵמוֹת, וְרוֹב בְּהֵמוֹת אֵין חוֹלְבוֹת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹלְדוֹת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: הָא אִיכָּא מִיעוּטָא דְּחוֹלְבוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין יוֹלְדוֹת.

Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura says: There is a difference between them in a case where the animal came into the Jew’s 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.

וּמִי חָיֵישׁ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְמִיעוּט? וְהָתְנַן: הָיְתָה לָהּ חֲמוֹת — אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת, יָצְאָה מְלֵיאָה — חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת.

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehoshua concerned for a minority? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yevamot 119a): If a woman’s 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.

וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? קָסָבַר: רוֹב מְעוּבָּרוֹת יוֹלְדוֹת, וּמִיעוּט מַפִּילוֹת, וְכׇל הַיּוֹלְדוֹת — מֶחֱצָה זְכָרִים וּמֶחֱצָה נְקֵבוֹת. סְמוֹךְ מִיעוּטָא דְּמַפִּילוֹת לְמֶחֱצָה דִּנְקֵבוֹת, וְהָווּ לְהוּ זְכָרִים מִיעוּטָא, וּלְמִיעוּטָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן!

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.

אֶלָּא אֵיפוֹךְ, וְהָתַנְיָא: חָלָב פּוֹטֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חָלָב אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גְּדִיָּיה שֶׁיָּלְדָה שָׁלֹשׁ בָּנוֹת, וְכׇל בְּנוֹתֶיהָ יָלְדוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ — כּוּלָּן נִכְנָסוֹת לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי שֶׁעִישְּׂרָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ? תּוֹלֵיד חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ תְּלָת, וְאִינָךְ תַּרְתֵּי תַּרְתֵּי!

§ 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.

אַיְּידֵי דְּאִיכָּא חֲדָא דְּלָא סַגִּיא בְּלָא שָׁלֹשׁ, תְּנָא כּוּלְּהוּ דְּיָלְדוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ. וּלְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי שָׁלֹשׁ כְּלָל? לֵילְדוּ כּוּלְּהוּ תַּרְתֵּי, וְתִיהְדַּר אִיהִי וְתוֹלֵיד בַּהֲדַיְהִי!

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.

לֵימָא קָסָבַר: מְטַנֶּפֶת אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ. אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר: מְטַנֶּפֶת חוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ — יוֹלֶדֶת וַדַּאי אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ.

Shall we say the tanna of this baraita holds that an animal that expels a murky discharge does not return to its fertile state and give birth within its first year? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is possible the tanna does not hold that opinion. Even if you say an animal that expels a murky discharge returns to its fertile state and gives birth within its first year, an animal that actually gave birth to a live offspring certainly does not return to its fertile state and give birth within its first year.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי גְּדִיָּיה כּוּ׳. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּזְעֵירִי.

§ The baraita teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a single kid that yielded enough offspring to be subject to the tithe within its first year of life. By contrast, the first tanna in the baraita does not add the phrase: Within its first year of life. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinion of the first tanna and that of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between them in a case where the second-generation goats expel a murky discharge on the first day of their seventh month, which is the seventh month of their year for animal tithe. And they disagree with regard to the statement of Ze’eiri, cited earlier, that the expulsion of a discharge which exempts an animal from having its future offspring counted a firstborn is one which prevents it from being impregnated for no less than thirty days.

תַּנָּא קַמָּא אִית לֵיהּ דִּזְעֵירִי, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ דִּזְעֵירִי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דִּזְעֵירִי, וְהָכָא בְּיוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. לְתַנָּא קַמָּא אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יוֹלֶדֶת.

The first tanna accepts the statement of Ze’eiri, and therefore he holds that in such a case the goats cannot become pregnant before the first day of the eighth month, which means they cannot give birth before the first day of the second year. And Rabbi Shimon does not accept the statement of Ze’eiri; he holds that the goats can become pregnant during the seventh month and give birth during the last month of their first year of life. And if you wish, say that everyone accepts the statement of Ze’eiri, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not an animal gives birth after incomplete months, i.e., prematurely. According to the first tanna, an animal does not give birth after incomplete months; according to Rabbi Shimon, an animal gives birth after incomplete months.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין, וְהָכָא בְּמִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי: לְתַנָּא קַמָּא — לָא אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ.

And if you wish, say that everyone accepts Ze’eiri’s statement and everyone agrees that an animal does not give birth after incomplete months, 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 the first tanna, we do not say part of the day is like an entire day, which means the earliest possible birth is on the first day of the second year. According to Rabbi Shimon, we do say part of the day is like an entire day, and therefore it is possible for the goat to give birth on the last day of the first year.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ, וְהָכָא בִּמְחוּסַּר זְמַן נִכְנָס לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר קָמִיפַּלְגִי,

And if you wish, say that everyone agrees that part of the day is like an entire day, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not an animal whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., one that is not yet seven days old, which may not be sacrificed on the altar, enters the pen to be tithed. According to the first tanna it does not enter the pen to be tithed; according to Rabbi Shimon, it does enter the pen to be tithed.

וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מְחוּסַּר זְמַן נִכְנָס לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר, וַהֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְכוֹר — מָה בְּכוֹר קָדוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וְקָרֵב לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ, אַף מְחוּסַּר זְמַן קָדוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וְקָרֵב לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ.

The Gemara adds: And in fact it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: An animal whose time has not yet arrived enters the pen to be tithed. And these animals are like a firstborn: Just as a firstborn is consecrated before its time and is sacrificed after its time, so too, an animal whose time has not yet arrived is consecrated before its time and sacrificed after its time.

וְאַדְּיָלֵיף מִבְּכוֹר, נֵילַיף מִקֳּדָשִׁים? מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִבְּכוֹר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן: גּוֹאֵל, מוּם, תְּמוּרַת, אֲכִילָה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But rather than deriving the halakha of tithed animals from the firstborn let one derive it from sacrificial animals, which cannot be consecrated before their time arrives. The Gemara answers that it is reasonable to claim it would be appropriate for one to derive the halakha of tithed animals from the firstborn, as they have the following four aspects in common: First, unlike sacrificial animals, one cannot redeem a firstborn or a tithed animal even if it develops a blemish. Second, a blemish does not prevent them from being imbued with sanctity. Third, an animal that was rendered a substitute for a firstborn or a tithed animal is not sacrificed. Finally, they are consumed without having been redeemed, whereas other sacrificial animals must be redeemed first.

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִקֳּדָשִׁים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן זָכָר, קָדוֹשׁ, בְּמַתָּנוֹת, פָּשׁוּט. אֶלָּא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן ״הַעֲבָרָה״ ״הַעֲבָרָה״ גְּמִיר.

The Gemara responds: On the contrary, it would be appropriate for one to derive the halakha of tithed animals from sacrificial animals, as they have the following in common: First, unlike firstborn animals, both tithed and consecrated animals are not limited to males. Second, both are sanctified by human action rather than intrinsically consecrated. Additionally, they are not included among the gifts to the priest. Finally, both begin life as regular animals rather than as animals with the unique status of being born first. The Gemara accepts this objection: Rather, Rabbi Shimon derives the halakha from a verbal analogy between the term: “You shall pass” (Exodus 13:12), written with regard to the firstborn, and the term: “Whatsoever passes under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32), stated with regard to tithed animals.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי טִינּוּף? אָמַר רָבָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי רָעֲוָתָא: דְּצָלְתָּא אֲצַר חֵיוְתָא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בַּעְבּוּעֵי דִּדְמָא. וְצָרִיךְ לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לְחָכָם. חָכָם מְנָא יָדַע? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: רוֹעֶה חָכָם.

§ The mishna teaches that a murky discharge is evidence of an offspring and exempts any future offspring from being counted a firstborn. The Gemara asks: What is considered a murky discharge that exempts future offspring from firstborn status? Rava says: As the shepherds say: A murky [detzalta] discharge from the womb is an indicator of a fetus that the animal suppressed in its womb. And Shmuel says: It is bubbles of blood. The Gemara adds: And one must show the discharge to a Sage [ḥakham] in order to determine its status. The Gemara asks: A Sage? From where would he know how to determine its nature? Rav Pappa says: The reference is to a knowledgeable [ḥakham] shepherd, who is familiar with the different types of discharge an animal can produce.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ יְצִירַת הַוָּולָד בָּאִשָּׁה אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם. בָּעֵי רַב חִסְדָּא: בִּבְהֵמָה בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: לָאו הַיְינוּ דִּזְעֵירִי, דְּאָמַר זְעֵירִי: אֵין טִינּוּף פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם? הַהוּא לְקַבֵּל אִיתְּמַר.

Rav Ḥisda says: They said the formation of a fetus in a woman takes forty days. Rav Ḥisda therefore asks: In an animal, how many days does it take for the fetus to form? Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Isn’t this question resolved by that which Ze’eiri said, as Ze’eiri said: A murky discharge occurs no less than thirty days after conception? The Gemara explains: No; that was stated with regard to the thirty days after expulsion of a murky discharge, during which a female does not show receptivity to a male and does not become pregnant. The Gemara leaves Rav Ḥisda’s inquiry unresolved.

מָצִינוּ לוֹקֵחַ מִגּוֹי, לוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מַאי? אָמַר רַב: בְּכוֹר וַדַּאי, דְּאִם אִיתָא דְּבִכְּרָה — אִישְׁתַּבּוֹחֵי הֲוָה מִישְׁתַּבַּח לֵיהּ.

§ We found that the mishna discusses the halakha of one who purchases an animal from a gentile. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha with regard to one who purchases an animal from a Jew and it is unknown whether the animal had previously given birth? Rav says: Its offspring is a definite firstborn, as if it is so that it had previously given birth to a firstborn, the owner would have boasted to the buyer about the fact that he would not have to give its offspring to a priest.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּכוֹר סָפֵק, סָבַר לִשְׁחִיטָה קָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חוּלִּין וַדָּאִין, מַאי טַעְמָא? אִם אִיתָא דְּלֹא בִּכְּרָה, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אִיסּוּרָא, אוֹדוֹעֵי הֲוָה מוֹדַע לֵיהּ.

And Shmuel says: The firstborn status of its offspring is uncertain, as even if it had previously given birth the seller thinks the buyer wants it for slaughter, and therefore he does not bother informing him of its status. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Its offspring is certainly a non-sacred animal. What is the reason? If it is so that it had not previously given birth, since there is a prohibition involved, it can be assumed that the seller would have notified the buyer of the animal’s status.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר חוּלִּין: אִם לֹא הוֹדִיעוֹ — הוֹלֵךְ וְשׁוֹחֵט וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע. לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל? הָתָם בְּמוֹכֵר תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, הָכָא בְּלוֹקֵחַ תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא.

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says the offspring is non-sacred: With regard to the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring in the same day, if the seller did not inform the buyer that the mother or offspring of the animal he is purchasing was sold earlier that day, the buyer may go and slaughter the animal and he need not refrain from doing so. Shall we say this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinions of Rav and Shmuel? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There, with regard to slaughtering a mother and its offspring, the matter is dependent upon the seller, as it is his responsibility to notify the buyer. Here, in the case of a firstborn, the matter is dependent upon the buyer, and it is his responsibility to inquire about the animal’s status.

מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה שֶׁשָּׁפְעָה חֲרָרַת דָּם, הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּקָּבֵר, וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of a large animal that expelled a mass of congealed blood, that mass must be buried. The reason is that perhaps there was a male fetus there which was consecrated as a firstborn when it emerged, and the animal is exempt from having any future offspring counted a firstborn.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא. וּמֵאַחַר דְּאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא, אַמַּאי תִּקָּבֵר?

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: That mass of congealed blood does not impart ritual impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying it. The Gemara asks: But since does not impart impurity, neither through contact nor through carrying, which indicates that it is not considered a fetus, why must it be buried?