Parallel
בכורות 19
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
that the one which had not given birth is much the better one. There is need therefore [for the enumeration of all the instances where R. Tarfon and R. Akiba differ]. MISHNAH. WITH REGARD TO [AN ANIMAL] EXTRACTED THROUGH THE CESAREAN SECTION AND THE FIRSTLING WHICH CAME AFTER IT, R. TARFON SAYS: BOTH PASTURE UNTIL BLEMISHED AND ARE EATEN WITH THEIR BLEMISHES BY THE OWNERS, WHEREAS R. AKIBA SAYS: IN BOTH CASES THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING DOES NOT APPLY: IN THE FIRST, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE FIRST-BIRTH OF THE WOMB, AND THE SECOND, BECAUSE ANOTHER [ANIMAL] PRECEDED IT. GEMARA. On what principle do they differ? — R. Tarfon is in doubt whether a firstling in only one respect is the firstling [of Scripture]. whereas R. Akiba is certain that a firstling in only one respect is not the firstling [of the Scripture]. Our Rabbis taught: [A lesson can be derived] from a general proposition which requires complementing by specification and from a specification which requires complementing by a general proposition. For Instance: [Scripture says]: Sanctify unto me all the first-born. I might understand from this that even a female is subject to the law of the firstling. Hence the text expressly states: All the firstling males [that are born]. From the word males’, however, I might understand that even if a female came forth before it, [it is subject to the law of the firstling]. Hence the text expressly states: That openeth the womb. From the words ‘that openeth the womb’, however, I might understand that the law applies even if it came after an animal extracted through the cesarean section. Hence Scripture expressly states: The firstling. Said R. Sherabya to Abaye: In the first part [of the above passage], why does not the Talmud bring the text ‘The firstling’? From this we see that a firstling in only one respect is the firstling [of the Scripture]. And in the last part [of the above passage], the Talmud brings the text ‘firstling’. Consequently, we see that the firstling in only one respect is not the firstling [of the Scripture]! — He replied to him: Indeed a firstling in only one respect may still not be the firstling [of the Scripture] and, in the first part [of the above passage], what he means to say is this: From the word ‘male’ in the text, however, I might infer that even a firstling extracted through the cesarian section is the firstling [of the Scripture]. Hence Scripture expressly states: The first-birth of the womb. Rabina said: Indeed a firstling in one respect may still be the firstling [of the Scripture]. and the last part [of the passage] means this: If you should assume that a firstling which came forth after one extracted through the cesarean section is sanctified, what need is there for the Divine Law to write the word ‘Firstling’? 14
—
It cannot be for the purpose of excluding a case of a female which came before it, since this is derived from the text ‘The first-birth of the womb’. Deduce then from here that the additional word ‘Firstling’ excludes the case of an animal which came forth after one extracted through the cesarean section. Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: If you should assume that a firstling in one respect is the firstling [of the Scripture], we can well understand that if a male extracted through the cesarean section is followed by a male subsequently born from the womb, the latter is not sanc tified, being excluded by the word ‘Firstling’, since we have here a firstling in respect of the womb but not as regards males and offspring. But in the case of a female extracted from the cesarean section and a male subsequently born from the womb, let it be sanctified, since here we have a firstling of males and the firstling of the womb? — The fact is that the best explanation is that of Abaye. MISHNAH. IF ONE BUYS AN ANIMAL FROM A HEATHEN NOT KNOWING WHETHER IT HAD GIVEN BIRTH OR HAD NEVER YET GIVEN BIRTH, R. ISHMAEL SAYS: THAT BORN OF A GOAT IN ITS FIRST YEAR CERTAINLY BELONGS TO THE PRIEST; AFTER THAT, IT IS A QUESTIONABLE CASE [OF A FIRSTLING]. THAT BORN OF A EWE TWO YEARS OLD CERTAINLY BELONGS TO THE PRIEST; AFTER THAT, IT IS A QUESTIONABLE CASE [OF A FIRSTLING]. THAT BORN OF A COW OR AN ASS THREE YEARS OLD CERTAINLY BELONGS TO THE PRIEST; AFTER THAT, IT IS A QUESTIONABLE CASE [OF A FIRSTLING]. SAID R. AKIBA TO HIM: IF AN ANIMAL WERE EXEMPTED [FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING] ONLY WITH THE BIRTH OF [ACTUAL] OFFSPRING, IT WOULD BE AS YOU SAY. BUT THE FACT IS [AS THE RABBIS] SAID: THE SIGN OF OFFSPRING IN SMALL CATTLE IS A DISCHARGE [FROM THE WOMB]. IN LARGE CATTLE, THE AFTER-BIRTH; IN A WOMAN, THE SIGNS ARE THE FOETUS AND THE AFTER-BIRTH. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHEREVER IT IS KNOWN THAT IT HAD GIVEN BIRTH, THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING. WHEREVER IT HAD NEVER GIVEN BIRTH, IT BELONGS TO THE PRIEST. IF THERE IS A DOUBT, IT SHALL BE EATEN IN ITS BLEMISHED STATE BY THE OWNERS. GEMARA. [The Mishnah says] that, after that, it is a questionable case [of a firstling]. Why is it a questionable case? Why not go by the majority of animals which become pregnant and beget in their first year, and [so we say that] this one certainly gave birth in the first year? May we, therefore, not say that R. Ishmael holds according to R. Meir, who takes into consideration the minority? — You may say that he even concurs with the Rabbis, for the Rabbis go by the majority only when it is the majority which is before us, as e.g. the case of the nine stalls and the Sanhedrin. But in the case of a majority which is not before us, the Rabbis do not go by the majority. But is there not the case of minors, a boy and a girl, which is a majority that is not before us, and still the Rabbis go by the majority? For we have learnt: Minors, whether boy or girl, do not perform the act of halizah nor the levirate marriage. This is the teaching of R. Meir. [The Rabbis] said to him: You rightly say that they do not perform the act of halizah, for Scripture says a man; and we put a woman on a level with a man [in this respect]. But what is the reason why they do not perform the levirate marriage? — He thereupon replied to them: A boy minor [is not allowed to do so]. lest he be found to be a eunuch, and a girl minor, lest she be discovered to be sterile and thus render it a case of contact with a forbidden relation. And the Rabbis? — We go by the majority of boys in the world, and the majority of boys are not eunuchs. We go by the majority of girls [in the world], and the majority of girl minors are not sterile! — Rather said Raba:
—