Bekhorot

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,1 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.2 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].3 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.4 But when the object is to render the ruling more lenient,5 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 tradition6 and his own opinion?7 — Where e.g., the animal discharged at the end of six months,8 and they differ as to Ze'iri's dictum. For Ze'iri said: The period of discharge is not less than thirty days.9 What he had on traditions10 agrees with Ze'iri's dictum, whereas his own opinion11 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. there was no coupling in this instance. year we are not certain that the offspring is a firstling. discharges in its first year, it is not thereby exempted. give birth in the first year, whereas if we went only by the majority, an animal born after the first year would be regarded as hullin, without any doubt as to whether it is a first-birth. animal as a questionable firstling even in its first year. that would be making the law of the firstling more lenient. second year. the offspring is a firstling, as we accept Ze'iri's dictum that its discharge is for thirty full days, after which there is a period of pregnancy of five complete months, so that it would give birth on the first day of the second year. that the discharge lasts the full thirty days as laid down by Ze'iri's dictum, for then, allowing for the full months of pregnancy, it could not give birth in the first year.