Bekhorot

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.1 Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: If you should assume that a firstling in one respect is the firstling [of the Scripture],2 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.3 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?4 — The fact is that the best explanation is that of Abaye. 5 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].6 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].7 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].8 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,9 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?10 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 stalls11 and the Sanhedrin.12 But in the case of a majority which is not before us,13 the Rabbis do not go by the majority. But is there not the case of minors, a boy and a girl,14 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 halizah15 nor the levirate marriage.16 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;17 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,18 and a girl minor, lest she be discovered to be sterile19 and thus render it a case of contact with a forbidden relation.20 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!21 — Rather said Raba: following, it is still the firstling of the Scripture, although it is not a firstling as regards birth, for a firstling need not be so in every respect. of the word ‘Firstling’, but owing to the addition of the word ‘Firstling’. where a female was extracted through the cesarean section and a male was born from the womb, it is not the Scriptural firstling. the cases cited above are excluded. retains for himself. even in its first year is a questionable case of a first-birth. before one of these stalls and it is not known whether it is kosher (ritually fit to be eaten) or not. The ruling is that whatever comes out of a heterogeneous mass is presumed to come from the larger element in it and, in this instance, it is a majority which is before us, since the stalls are before us to witness. Here, too, the majority is one which is visible to us; v. Hul. 11a.