Parallel
בכורות 21
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
May we say, therefore, that he holds that an animal which discharges, does not subsequently give birth in the year [of its discharging]? — [No], though you hold that an animal which discharges can give birth in the year [of its discharging], [you may still maintain that] if it gave birth, it cannot give birth again in the same year. Said R. Simeon: ‘I saw a she-kid etc.’ What is the difference between the first Tanna [quoted above in the Baraitha] and R. Simeon? — They differ in accepting or rejecting the dictum of Ze'iri. For Ze'iri said: The period of discharging [from the womb] is not less than thirty days. The first Tanna [in the above Baraitha] accepts Ze'iri's dictum, whereas R. Simeon does not accept Ze'iri's teaching. And if you wish [another solution]. I may say: All the authorities concerned agree with Ze'iri's dictum, but the difference between them is whether an animal can give birth before the due number of months is completed. The first Tanna [of the above Baraitha] holds that an animal cannot give birth before the due number of months is completed, whereas, according to R. Simeon, It can give birth before the due number of months is completed. And if you wish [still another solution] I may say: All [the authorities concerned] maintain that an animal does not give birth before the due number of months is completed, and the difference of opinion is whether a part of the day is considered as equivalent to the whole day. According to the first Tanna [above] we do not maintain that a part of the day is considered like a whole day, whereas, according to R. Simeon, we maintain that a part of the day is considered like a whole day. And if you wish [still another solution], I may say: All the authorities concerned agree that a part of the day is considered like the whole day, and the point at issue here is whether animals may enter the shed to be tithed before its due time. 9
—
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
—