Bekhorot

And we have a Baraitha [confirming this]. R. Simeon the son of Judah reported in the name of R. Simeon: An animal, though immature,1 can enter the shed to be tithed, for it is like the case of a firstling: Just as a firstling is sanctified before its due time2 and is sacrificed when its time becomes due, so a tithing animal can be sanctified before its due time and offered up after its time becomes due. But why deduce [the case of a tithing animal] from the case of a firstling? Why not deduce it from the case of dedicated animals?3 — It is reasonable to infer [the case of a tithing animal] from the case of a firstling, because to both apply the rules regarding redemption,4 a blemish,5 exchange,6 and eating.7 On the contrary, according to this, [the Baraitha] ought to infer [the case of a tithing animal] from the case of dedicated animals, because to both apply the rules regarding a plain animal,8 a male,9 sanctification,10 and the priest's dues?11 The fact is that R. Simeon learns from [the analogy between] ‘passing’12 and ‘passing’. What is the discharge [from the womb] like? — Rab said: As the shepherds of Zaltha said: The womb closes up.13 Samuel said: Casting up blood. And he is required to show it to a wise man [Sage].14 How does a wise man know? — Said R. Papa: [What is meant is] a wise shepherd. Said R. Hisda: Behold the Sages said: The period for the formation of an embryo in a woman is forty days.15 R. Hisda thereupon asked: How long is the period in the case of an animal?16 — Said R. Papa to Abaye: Is not this Ze'iri's dictum? For Ze'iri said: The period of discharging is not less than thirty days?17 This [statement] referred only to the receiving of a male for coupling.18 Now we have [in our Mishnah] the ruling concerning [an Israelite] purchasing [an animal] from a heathen. What is the ruling, however, where [an Israelite] purchases [an animal] from an Israelite? — Said Rab: It is surely a firstling, for if it had given birth, he would certainly have recommended it on this ground.19 But Samuel says: It is a questionable firstling, because the seller thinks the other needs it for slaughtering.20 R. Johanan said: The animal is genuine hullin.21 What is the reason? If it be a fact that it had never given birth, since we have here a prohibition,22 he would surely inform him.23 It has been taught in support of R. Johanan's ruling, who maintains that it is hullin: If24 he did not inform him,25 he can proceed to kill and need not refrain.26 May we assume [then] that this [Baraitha] is a refutation of Rab and Samuel?27 — There,28 it depends on the seller, whereas here the matter depends on the buyer.29 MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAYS: IF A LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL HAS DISCHARGED A CLOT OF BLOOD, IT [THE CLOT] SHALL BE BURIED,30 AND IT [THE MOTHER] IS EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING. GEMARA. R. Hiyya taught: [The clot of blood] does not make unclean with contact, nor by being carried. Now since it does not make [a person] unclean by contact nor the carrier unclean, why is it buried?31 if consecrated before the expiration of the seven days after birth. capable of redemption. animals, they and their exchanges are sacred. Israelite, whereas blemished dedicated objects must be redeemed. Tosaf. explains that all consecrated animals which have been disqualified from the altar may be bought in a shop and sold by the pound weight, which is forbidden in the case of a firstling and tithing animal. from birth. connection with the law of the firstling, and the text that passeth under the rod’, mentioned in connection with the law of tithing animals. days of purity and impurity laid down by Scripture for a woman after childbirth. womb. But there is no indication here as regards the time it takes to form an embryo. Another explanation is that Ze'iri's meaning is that before the animal becomes pregnant she discharges for thirty days, but there is nothing here with reference to the period of the formation of an embryo. (R. Gershom.) because he thinks that the buyer desires to kill the animal and not to rear offspring, in which case there is no advantage in informing him. Consequently, it is a doubtful firstling. the mother or the young on that day, so as to safeguard the buyer from killing the mother with its young on the same day. silence as indicating that there is no infringement of the law. genuine hullin. interprets the former's silence as indicating that there is no infringement of the law. males that come of thy herd and thy flock etc. (Deut. XV. 19), indicating that the duty of separating the firstling devolves upon the person in whose possession the animal is. Consequently, as the necessary inquiries were not made, we regard the offspring as a case of a questionable firstling. firstling.