Bekhorot

what need is there for the ruling that the law is in accordance with R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam? — If he had said that the law was according [to the Mishnah] in the whole chapter and did not state subsequently that the law was in accordance with R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam. I might have thought that he referred to R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam. and that what [the expression] ‘the whole chapter’ meant1 was that R. Jose stated two things [in the subsequent Mishnah]2 and that the difference of opinion in the Baraitha [is considered] a genuine difference of opinion.3 Therefore Rab informs us that the law is in accordance with R. Jose. so as to intimate to us that [in the other statement] he refers to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, and thus the difference of opinion in the Baraitha is not considered a difference of opinion [of any importance]. What is the Baraitha [referred to above]? — As it has been taught: If one buys an animal giving suck from a gentile, the young which follows it, is a doubtful firstling,4 because it can give suck even to one to which it had not given birth. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel however, says: We follow the natural presumption.5 And so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel used to say: If one goes among his herd at night and sees about ten or fifteen animals, both those which had not borne previously and those which had previously given birth, and, the next day, he rises early and finds the males6 clinging to the animals that had given birth previously and the females clinging to those which were now giving birth for the first time, he need not fear that perhaps the offspring of one came to the other.7 It was queried: Was the reason of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's statement that we follow the natural presumption. because no dam gives suck [to a stranger] unless it has had a child of its own,8 but where it had given birth before, we do fear lest it gives suck to a stranger. Or perhaps was it that it gives suck to its own but it does not give suck to a stranger? What is the practical differ ence?9 To punish with lashes on its10 account for transgressing the prohibition of killing the mother and its young [on the same day]. If you say that it gives suck to its own but not to a stranger, then there is here a liability of lashes, whereas if you say that it gives suck also to a stranger. then there is no liability of lashes?11 — Come and hear: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If one buys an animal from a gentile, he need not fear that perhaps it was the offspring of another!12 — [No]. Does R. Simeon say [that perhaps] it is?13 He says: [That perhaps] it was. What he means is this:14 He need not fear that perhaps it was the offspring of another, except when it had previously given birth. Come and hear: If one went among his herd and saw [both the animals] now bearing for the first time giving suck and those not now bearing for the first time giving suck, he need not fear that perhaps the offspring of this one came to the other or the offspring of the other came to this one. Why is this so? Why not fear lest it gave suck to a stranger?15 — Where it has its own offspring. it does not leave its own and give suck to a stranger. 16 Come and hear: ‘We follow the natural presumption’. And so.17 Now does not the first part [of the Baraitha above]18 resemble the second part,19 so that just as the second part refers to a case where the offspring is certainly its own,20 so the first part also refers to a case where [the offspring] is certainly its own?21 — Is this an argument? The first part deals with its own case and the second part deals with its own case.22 And what does [the Baraitha] mean [by the phrase] ‘and so’?23 — It refers to the exemption from [the law of] the firstling.24 Rabbah b. Bar Hana reported in the name of R. Johanan: If one saw a swine clinging to a ewe,25 it is exempted from [the law] of the firstling,26 and it is forbidden to be eaten Until he come and teach27 righteousness unto you.28 [You say] ‘It is exempted from the law of the firstling’. Whose view is followed? The view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.29 [You say] ‘And it is forbidden to be eaten’. Whose view is followed? The view of the Rabbis.30 And, moreover, if it is according to the Rabbis, why ‘Until he come and teach righteousness to you’? ‘Until it be known to you’ is what is required?31 And should you say that R. Johanan is in doubt whether the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel or the Rabbis,32 if R. Johanan is in doubt then why is it exempt from the law of the firstling? And further, is there a doubt? Did not Rabbah b. Bar Hana report in the name of R. Johanan: Wherever R. Simeon b. Gamaliel expressed a view in the Mishnah, the halachah is in accordance with him, with the exception of his view regarding suretyship,33 Sidon,34 and the last [case dealing with] evidence?35 — One may still say that R. Johanan is in no doubt that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.36 He is in doubt, however, whether R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that an animal which has given birth, gives suck [even to a stranger],37 or whether it does not give suck [to a stranger].38 If so, instead of stating [this ruling] in connection with the case of a swine, why not state it in connection with the case of a lamb, and as regards the punishment with lashes for infringing the prohibition of killing the mother and its young [on the same day]? — He had need to state [this ruling] in connection with the case of a swine. For if he had stated [this ruling] in connection with the case of a lamb, I might have thought that even if you assumed that R. Simeon holds that an animal which gives birth, gives suck [to a stranger], this only applies [to a stranger belonging] to its own species, but not to [an animal] not belonging to its own species.39 Consequently. R. Johanan states the case of a swine [to inform us that this ruling applies] although it does not belong to the species [of the ewe], for even here one can say that perhaps it gave suck. And this is what R. Johanan meant above. that we tear the wool to show the blemish of a firstling. as there is a minority which gives milk without having yet given birth. It is thus a doubtful firstling. firstling. the firstling. And the females born now, he found clinging to and being given suck by animals that had now given birth for the first time. In these cases, the priest receives nothing, for as we presume that each offspring is near its own mother, the law of the firstling is not here applicable, as the males come from animals already exempted and the females are not subject to the law of the firstling. which are giving birth for the first time. The reason why R. Simeon the son of Gamaliel speaks of entering at night etc. and does not state simply that if one entered his herd and saw males clinging etc., is in order to inform us of a striking thing, that although their birth certainly took place in the night when the dams did not as yet recognize their offspring and were, therefore, liable to make a mistake, nevertheless we do not fear lest the offspring of the one came to the other. law of the firstling. except to its own offspring. if the animal had given birth previously. But in respect of the infringement of the prohibition of killing the animal and its young on the same day, there is a doubt. first time, it gives suck only to its own, thus solving the above query. offspring, it does not give suck to a stranger. liability of lashes, for we presume that it is certainly the animal's offspring. from the law of the firstling, as certainly the females cling to those which have now given birth for the first time, for they would not leave their own offspring and give suck to strangers, in the first part of the Baraitha also, they are exempted in the future from the law of the firstling. And in the first part, even if they are not their own offspring, they are exempted, having already given birth, since otherwise they would not have given suck to strangers. But in respect of the prohibition of killing the mother and its young on the same day, there may still be a doubt. cause to rain’. nidmeh. be permitted to be eaten, as in the case of an unclean animal which comes from a clean animal. V. supra 5b. offspring. with R. Simeon and therefore it may be eaten or according to the Rabbis. It is, consequently, forbidden to be eaten because of the doubt that it perhaps gave suck to a stranger. given suck unless it had already given birth. it is a stranger. then the animal must have already given birth, since it gives suck to strangers. It is also forbidden to be eaten, for the offspring might be a stranger and its own might have died, since the animal does give suck, it must of a certainty belong to it.