בכורות 19:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ

^ᵃnote:And therefore its offspring is the stronger and, consequently, the priest should claim it as the firstling.
^ᵇnote:For they are animals of uncertain first-birth, according to R. Tarfon. In the case of the first animal, although it is the first of the offspring, it is not the first which came forth from the womb. And with regard to the second animal, although it is the first which left the womb, it is not the first of the offspring.
^ᶜnote:Ex. XIII, 2. This first part is not an illustration of the general proposition which requires a specification to define it, as mentioned above (Rashi).
^ᵈnote:Deut. XV, 19.
^ᵉnote:This is an example of a general proposition followed by a specification in which the scope of the proposition is limited by the things specified.
^ᶠnote:Here we have a case of a specification which is required to define and explain a general proposition as mentioned above. It is not, however, a genuine general proposition followed by a specification referred to in the first portion of the passage where there is no necessity to define the nature of a first-born, since a female can also be first of the womb, the specification. however, limiting the scope of the general proposition to males alone (Rashi).
^ᵍnote:Ex. XIII, 2. Here we have an illustration of a specification requiring a general proposition to define it.
^ʰnote:He calls here the middle part of the above passage commencing ‘From the word males" etc.’, the first part.
^ⁱnote:If the law of the firstling only applied to an animal which is a firstling in every particular, why does not the Talmud, instead of saying ‘I might infer that even if a female came before’ etc., simply refer to the word ‘firstling, in the text as excluding this assumption, since a genuine firstling must be such in all respects? Hence we may deduce that the scriptural firstling can be an animal which is so only in one respect.
^ʲnote:It says ‘one might infer that the animal which came after one extracted through the cesarean section, etc., from which we may conclude that the firstling in only one respect is not a genuine firstling. Thus there is a clear contradiction in the above passage.
^ᵏnote:For the firstling of the Scripture implies a firstling in every particular.
^ˡnote:And here the Talmud could not adduce the text ‘Firstling’ to refute the inference, for in this case the animal is a firstling, since it had never given birth. Therefore he quotes the text. The first-birth of the womb’, which, at the same time, excludes the case of a female born previously through the womb (Rashi).
^ᵐnote:And we do not derive the exclusion of an animal following one extracted through the cesarean Section from the scriptural word ‘Firstling’, as the latter also indicates that it is a firstling even if it is so in one particular only. But the exclusion is in fact derived from the addition of the word ‘Firstling’.
^ⁿnote:Let Scripture write: The first-birth of the womb, a male, thou shalt sanctify.