1 It is the best explanation [to say that] R. Ishmael holds according to R. Meir, who takes into consideration the minority. Rabina said: You may still say that he holds with the Rabbis,for the Rabbis go by the majority only in the case of a majority that does not depend on action, but in the case of a majority which depends on action, it is not so. Our Rabbis taught: That born from a goat in its first year, certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a firstling]. That born of a ewe two years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case. That born of a cow three years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case. The rule for a she-ass is the same as for a cow. R. Jose b. Judah, however, says that the offspring of a she-ass four years old [certainly belongs to the priest]. Thus far the teachings are those of R. Ishmael. When these teachings were reported to R. Joshua, he said to them: Go and say to R. Ishmael, you have made a mistake. If the animal were exempted only with the [actual] birth of an embryo, it would be as you say. But [the Sages] have declared: A sign of offspring in small cattle is a discharge [from the womb], in large cattle, the after-birth, and in a woman, the signs are the foetus and after-birth. I do not, however, hold with this. But [what I say is that] a goat which at six months discharged [from the womb] can give birth in its first year, that a ewe which discharged within its first year [from the womb], gives birth in its second year. Said R. Akiba: I have not got so far as this. But [what I say is that] wherever it is known that it had given birth, the priest receives nothing; wherever it had never given birth, it belongs to the priest, and if it is a questionable [firstling], it shall be eaten in its blemished state by the owner. What is the point at issue between R. Ishmael and R. Joshua? May we say that the point at issue is as to whether a discharge [from the womb] exempts [from the law of the firstling]. R. Ishmael holding that a discharge does not exempt. whereas R. Joshua holds that a discharge exempts? — [No]. If we actually saw it discharging, all the authorities would agree that a discharge exempts [from the law of the firstling]. The point at issue, however, is whether we take into consideration the possibility of its having discharged. R. Ishmael holds: We do not take into consideration the possibility of its having discharged, whereas R. Joshua holds that we take into consideration this possibility. But does not R. Ishmael take into consideration [such a possibility]. Did not Raba say above that it is obvious that R. Ishmael holds with R. Meir, who takes into consideration [the minority]? — R. Ishmael takes into consideration [the minority] when the object is to make the ruling more stringent. But when the object is to render the ruling more lenient, then he does not take into consideration the minority. And if you prefer [another solution], I may say: Whether it is to restrict or to make the ruling more lenient, he takes into consideration [the minority]. The difference of opinion, however, is [whether] where it discharges [from the womb] it can subsequently give birth in its first year. R. Ishmael held that an animal which discharges does not subsequently give birth in its first year. and consequently this one, since it gave birth, certainly did not discharge. But R. Joshua held: An animal which discharges can give birth subsequently in its first year. [It says above]: ‘l do not, however, hold with this. But a goat six months old which discharged gives birth in its first year, a ewe a year old when she discharged gives birth in its second year’. What is the difference between what he had on tradition and his own opinion? — Where e.g., the animal discharged at the end of six months, and they differ as to Ze'iri's dictum. For Ze'iri said: The period of discharge is not less than thirty days. What he had on traditions agrees with Ze'iri's dictum, whereas his own opinion does not agree with Ze'iri's dictum. And if you prefer [another solution]. I may say: All [the authorities concerned] accept Ze'iri's dictum. The point at issue here, however, is whether an animal gives birth before the due number of months is completed.ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏ
2 According to what we have on tradition, we do not maintain that it gives birth before the due number of months is completed, but according to his own opinion we maintain that it does give birth before the due number of months is completed. And if you still prefer [another solution], I may say: We do not maintain that an animal gives birth before the due number of months is completed. and the point at issue here is, however, whether a part of the day is considered as equivalent to the whole day. According to his own opinion, we say that a part of the day is considered equivalent to the whole day. whereas according to what he had on tradition we do not say that a part of the day is considered as the whole day. ‘Said R. Akiba: I have not come so far as this. But wherever it is known etc.’ What is the difference between R. Akiba and R. Joshua? — Said R. Hanina of Sura: The difference between them is whether milk exempts [from the law of the firstling]. R. Akiba holds: Milk exempts, for we go by the majority of animals and the majority of animals do not give milk unless they have given birth. But R. Joshua holds that there exists a minority of animals which give milk although they have not yet given birth. But does R. Joshua take into consideration the minority? Have we not learnt: If [a woman] had a mother-in-law, she need not fear, but if when she left the mother-in-law was pregnant, she must fear. R. Joshua. however, says: She need not fear. And we explained, what is the reason of R. Joshua — He holds: The majority of pregnant women actually gave birth, and only a minority miscarry. And of all who give birth, half bear males and half females. Add the minority of miscarriages to the half which bear females, then males are in the minority and we do not take into consideration a minority? — Rather, reverse [the names above]. And it has been taught similarly: Milk exempts from the law of the firstling: this is the teaching of R. Joshua. R. Akiba, however, Says: Milk does not exempt. Our Rabbis have taught: If a she-kid gave birth to three females and each female gave birth to three, all of them enter the shed to be tithed. Said R. Simeon: I saw [a she-kid] of which [the offspring] was tithed in its first year. What need is there [for the Baraitha] to state that each gave birth to three? Let it state that one gave birth to three and the rest each gave birth to two? — Since one animal must necessarily bear three, [the Baraitha] states in each of the cases mentioned that it gave birth to three. And what need is there for [the Baraitha] to state [that each gave birth to] three at all? Let it say that each [offspring] gave birth to two and the mother again gave birth together with them?21ˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠ