Parallel
בכורות 24
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
what need is there for the ruling that the law is in accordance with R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam? — If he had said that the law was according [to the Mishnah] in the whole chapter and did not state subsequently that the law was in accordance with R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam. I might have thought that he referred to R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam. and that what [the expression] ‘the whole chapter’ meant was that R. Jose stated two things [in the subsequent Mishnah] and that the difference of opinion in the Baraitha [is considered] a genuine difference of opinion. Therefore Rab informs us that the law is in accordance with R. Jose. so as to intimate to us that [in the other statement] he refers to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, and thus the difference of opinion in the Baraitha is not considered a difference of opinion [of any importance]. What is the Baraitha [referred to above]? — As it has been taught: If one buys an animal giving suck from a gentile, the young which follows it, is a doubtful firstling, because it can give suck even to one to which it had not given birth. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel however, says: We follow the natural presumption. And so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel used to say: If one goes among his herd at night and sees about ten or fifteen animals, both those which had not borne previously and those which had previously given birth, and, the next day, he rises early and finds the males clinging to the animals that had given birth previously and the females clinging to those which were now giving birth for the first time, he need not fear that perhaps the offspring of one came to the other. It was queried: Was the reason of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's statement that we follow the natural presumption. because no dam gives suck [to a stranger] unless it has had a child of its own, but where it had given birth before, we do fear lest it gives suck to a stranger. Or perhaps was it that it gives suck to its own but it does not give suck to a stranger? What is the practical differ ence? To punish with lashes on its account for transgressing the prohibition of killing the mother and its young [on the same day]. If you say that it gives suck to its own but not to a stranger, then there is here a liability of lashes, whereas if you say that it gives suck also to a stranger. then there is no liability of lashes? — Come and hear: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If one buys an animal from a gentile, he need not fear that perhaps it was the offspring of another! — [No]. Does R. Simeon say [that perhaps] it is? He says: [That perhaps] it was. What he means is this: He need not fear that perhaps it was the offspring of another, except when it had previously given birth. Come and hear: If one went among his herd and saw [both the animals] now bearing for the first time giving suck and those not now bearing for the first time giving suck, he need not fear that perhaps the offspring of this one came to the other or the offspring of the other came to this one. Why is this so? Why not fear lest it gave suck to a stranger? — Where it has its own offspring. it does not leave its own and give suck to a stranger. Come and hear: ‘We follow the natural presumption’. And so. Now does not the first part [of the Baraitha above] resemble the second part, so that just as the second part refers to a case where the offspring is certainly its own, so the first part also refers to a case where [the offspring] is certainly its own? — Is this an argument? The first part deals with its own case and the second part deals with its own case. And what does [the Baraitha] mean [by the phrase] ‘and so’? — It refers to the exemption from [the law of] the firstling. Rabbah b. Bar Hana reported in the name of R. Johanan: If one saw a swine clinging to a ewe, it is exempted from [the law] of the firstling, and it is forbidden to be eaten Until he come and teach righteousness unto you. [You say] ‘It is exempted from the law of the firstling’. Whose view is followed? The view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. [You say] ‘And it is forbidden to be eaten’. Whose view is followed? The view of the Rabbis. And, moreover, if it is according to the Rabbis, why ‘Until he come and teach righteousness to you’? ‘Until it be known to you’ is what is required? And should you say that R. Johanan is in doubt whether the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel or the Rabbis, if R. Johanan is in doubt then why is it exempt from the law of the firstling? And further, is there a doubt? Did not Rabbah b. Bar Hana report in the name of R. Johanan: Wherever R. Simeon b. Gamaliel expressed a view in the Mishnah, the halachah is in accordance with him, with the exception of his view regarding suretyship, Sidon, and the last [case dealing with] evidence? — One may still say that R. Johanan is in no doubt that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. He is in doubt, however, whether R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that an animal which has given birth, gives suck [even to a stranger], or whether it does not give suck [to a stranger]. If so, instead of stating [this ruling] in connection with the case of a swine, why not state it in connection with the case of a lamb, and as regards the punishment with lashes for infringing the prohibition of killing the mother and its young [on the same day]? — He had need to state [this ruling] in connection with the case of a swine. For if he had stated [this ruling] in connection with the case of a lamb, I might have thought that even if you assumed that R. Simeon holds that an animal which gives birth, gives suck [to a stranger], this only applies [to a stranger belonging] to its own species, but not to [an animal] not belonging to its own species. Consequently. R. Johanan states the case of a swine [to inform us that this ruling applies] although it does not belong to the species [of the ewe], for even here one can say that perhaps it gave suck. And this is what R. Johanan meant above.
—
Aha Beribi asked: How is it if one saw a swine clinging to a ewe? But what exactly does the question refer to? If it has reference to the law of the firstling and the query is whether the law is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel or according to the Rabbis, why not put this query with reference to the case of a lamb? — The query refers to the law of the firstling as laid down by the Rabbis and to the rule as to eating, as laid down by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. The query refers to [the law] of the firstling, [thus]. [Do we say that] even in accordance with the Rabbis, who maintain that it gives suck [to a stranger], this is only the case [with an animal] belonging to its own species, but to one not belonging to its own species, it does not give suck? Or do we perhaps maintain that even [to offspring] that does not belong to its own species, the animal also gives suck? And also in connection with eating, [the query is put forward]: Do we say that even according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, granting that he holds that an animal which has begotten gives suck [even to a stranger], this is the case only when the offspring belongs to the same species [as the ewe], but where it does not belong to the same species, it does not [give suck]? Or perhaps even if the offspring does not belong to the species [of the ewe], do we say that it also gives suck [to it]? — Let this remain undecided. MISHNAH. R. JOSE B. HA-MESHULLAM SAYS: ONE WHO SLAUGHTERS THE FIRSTLING, [FIRST] MAKES A CLEAR SPACE WITH THE [BUTCHER'S] HATCHET ON BOTH SIDES AND TEARS THE HAIR [ON BOTH SIDES] PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT HE DOES NOT REMOVE THE WOOL FROM ITS PLACE [WITH AN INSTRUMENT]. AND SIMILARLY ONE MAY TEAR THE HAIR TO SHOW THE PLACE OF THE BLEMISH [TO A SAGE]. GEMARA. Rab said: The halachah is according to R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam. [The scholars] asked R. Huna: What is the rule about acting similarly on a festival day? Is the reason of R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam because he maintains that tearing is not [considered] the same as shearing and yet on a festival day it is forbidden, for it would be detaching a thing from the place of its growth; or perhaps, does R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam as a rule main tain that tearing is [considered] the same as shearing, but the reason why he permits [in the Mishnah] is because it is a forbidden act which was produced without intent and a forbidden act which was produced without intent is permissible on a festival day? — He replied to them: ‘Go and ask R. Hananel. If he tells you that the halachah is in accordance with R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam, then I shall give you a definite answer’. They went and asked him. He replied to them: ‘Rab said this: The halachah is in accordance with R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam’. Then they came before R. Huna. He said to them: It is permitted to act in a corresponding manner on a festival day. It was also stated: R. Hananya b. Shalmia reported in the name of Rab: It is permitted to act in a corresponding manner on a festival day.
—