Bekhorot

According to what we have on tradition, we do not maintain that it gives birth before the due number of months is completed,1 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 day2 is considered as equivalent to the whole day. According to his own opinion,3 we say that a part of the day is considered equivalent to the whole day.4 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?5 — Said R. Hanina of Sura: The difference between them is whether milk exempts [from the law of the firstling].6 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. Joshua7 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]8 had a mother-in-law, she need not fear,9 but if when she left the mother-in-law was pregnant, she must fear.10 R. Joshua. however, says: She need not fear.11 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.12 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].13 And it has been taught similarly: Milk exempts from the law of the firstling:14 this is the teaching of R. Joshua. R. Akiba, however, Says: Milk does not exempt.15 Our Rabbis have taught: If a she-kid gave birth to three females16 and each female gave birth to three,17 all of them18 enter the shed to be tithed. Said R. Simeon: I saw [a she-kid] of which [the offspring] was tithed in its first year.19 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,20 [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?21 that day. pregnant on that very day, so that the animal was born on the last day of its first year, even after allowing for five full months for the pregnancy. first year, but meanwhile it gave milk. animals which give milk although they had never given birth. Therefore the offspring in this case is subject to the law of the firstling. and the husband died without children and left no brother (Yeb. 119a). under the levirate law to marry. R. Akiba only exempts where it is definitely known that it had given birth, but when it is not known, even if it discharges or gives milk, it is a doubtful first-born. firstlings and there could then be no tithing. All of them would have to be born between one Elul and the next, as the month of Elul is reckoned the New Year for animal tithing and those born before Elul cannot be tithed with those born after Elul; v. R.H. 2a. for tithing. because it belongs to a previous year.