Parallel
בכורות 21:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And we have a Baraitha [confirming this]. R. Simeon the son of Judah reported in the name of R. Simeon: An animal, though immature, can enter the shed to be tithed, for it is like the case of a firstling: Just as a firstling is sanctified before its due time and is sacrificed when its time becomes due, so a tithing animal can be sanctified before its due time and offered up after its time becomes due. But why deduce [the case of a tithing animal] from the case of a firstling? Why not deduce it from the case of dedicated animals? — It is reasonable to infer [the case of a tithing animal] from the case of a firstling, because to both apply the rules regarding redemption, a blemish, exchange, and eating. On the contrary, according to this, [the Baraitha] ought to infer [the case of a tithing animal] from the case of dedicated animals, because to both apply the rules regarding a plain animal, a male, sanctification, and the priest's dues? The fact is that R. Simeon learns from [the analogy between] ‘passing’ and ‘passing’. What is the discharge [from the womb] like? — Rab said: As the shepherds of Zaltha said: The womb closes up. Samuel said: Casting up blood. And he is required to show it to a wise man [Sage]. How does a wise man know? — Said R. Papa: [What is meant is] a wise shepherd. Said R. Hisda: Behold the Sages said: The period for the formation of an embryo in a woman is forty days. R. Hisda thereupon asked: How long is the period in the case of an animal? — Said R. Papa to Abaye: Is not this Ze'iri's dictum? For Ze'iri said: The period of discharging is not less than thirty days? This [statement] referred only to the receiving of a male for coupling. Now we have [in our Mishnah] the ruling concerning [an Israelite] purchasing [an animal] from a heathen. What is the ruling, however, where [an Israelite] purchases [an animal] from an Israelite? — Said Rab: It is surely a firstling, for if it had given birth, he would certainly have recommended it on this ground. But Samuel says: It is a questionable firstling, because the seller thinks the other needs it for slaughtering. R. Johanan said: The animal is genuine hullin. What is the reason? If it be a fact that it had never given birth, since we have here a prohibition, he would surely inform him. It has been taught in support of R. Johanan's ruling, who maintains that it is hullin: If he did not inform him, he can proceed to kill and need not refrain. May we assume [then] that this [Baraitha] is a refutation of Rab and Samuel? — There, it depends on the seller, whereas here the matter depends on the buyer. MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAYS: IF A LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL HAS DISCHARGED A CLOT OF BLOOD, IT [THE CLOT] SHALL BE BURIED, AND IT [THE MOTHER] IS EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING. GEMARA. R. Hiyya taught: [The clot of blood] does not make unclean with contact, nor by being carried. Now since it does not make [a person] unclean by contact nor the carrier unclean, why is it buried?31
—