Bekhorot 19a — the Talmud in English

And therefore

it is necessary

for our Mishna to inform us that according to Rabbi Akiva the priest does not take the superior one in all three manners.

Mishna:

One born by an unusual birth

who was not born through the womb,

and the one after him

through the womb:

Rabbi Tarfon says: Both of them

are cases of doubtfully firstborn males, and

they shall be left to graze until they become blemished, and they shall be eaten by their owners through their blemishes,

and the Gemara explains the reason.

Rabbi Akiva says: Both of them are not firstborn males. The first: because it is not “

the one that opens the womb,”

for it did not emerge through the womb,

and the second: because another preceded it,

even though the first did not emerge through the womb.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

In what do

Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva

differ?

Rabbi Tarfon is uncertain: If

a firstborn in one respect—

that is, the one born by an unusual birth, who is first among the offspring but is not first with regard to the womb, and likewise the one after him, who is firstborn with regard to the womb but is not first among the offspring—

is considered a firstborn or is not considered a firstborn,

and therefore both shall be left to graze until they become blemished, since each is a firstborn in one respect.

And Rabbi Akiva considers it obvious that a firstborn in one respect is not considered a firstborn.

c. The Shulchan Aruch wrote in Yoreh De'ah [305:22], concerning a human firstborn: “One born by an unusual birth and the one born after him in the ordinary manner are both exempt; the first, because it did not emerge from the womb, and the second, because another preceded it.” This is based on what is explained below, on daf 47b, concerning a human firstborn, as is explained here concerning an animal firstborn: the first is not the one that opens the womb, and the second is a firstborn in one respect and is not a firstborn. And the Taz wrote there a novel point: Even though that other one [the first] did not open the womb, nevertheless, since this one born after him is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance, for he is not “the first of his strength,” he is likewise not a firstborn for the priest, since a firstborn in one respect—that is, with regard to the womb and not with regard to the offspring—is not a firstborn. So it is said in chapter Yesh Bechor, daf 47. And similarly he wrote in Sederi Tahara in his novellae to Niddah, daf 26, and afterward he also cited the words of the Taz. d. Below, in chapter Yesh Bechor, daf 47b, concerning a human firstborn, the position of Rabbi Shimon is explained: the first is not a firstborn because “the one that opens the womb” is required, whereas the second is a firstborn because a firstborn in one respect is a firstborn. See Mahרי"ט Algazi [24:4, s.v. vehineh], who wondered: Why did Rabbi Shimon not likewise distinguish concerning an animal firstborn? See there at length concerning this.

The Sages taught

among the principles by which the Torah is expounded: “

From a generalization requiring a specification [

the generalization requires that the specification be with it], and

from a specification requiring a generalization [

there are cases in which the specification requires that the generalization be with it],

there are cases in which the specification requires the general statement to accompany it],”

how:

It is written [Exodus 12]: “

Sanctify to Me every firstborn.”

One might have thought that even a female is included; the verse states [

Deuteronomy 15]: “Every firstborn that is born among your cattle and your flocks,

the male

you shall sanctify,” and it is established for us: “A generalization [‘every firstborn’] and a specification [‘male’]—in the generalization there is only what is in the specification.”

If “

firstborn

male,”

one might have thought

it is sufficient that he be firstborn among males, and

even if a female emerged before him

he should be a firstborn, for this is what “firstborn male” implies: one who is firstborn among males—whom no other male preceded—is a firstborn, even though he is not firstborn among the offspring and with regard to the womb.

The verse states “

the one that opens the womb,”

and not the male that opens the womb. And this is “a generalization requiring a specification,” which comes to explain that he is not called a firstborn until he is also firstborn with regard to the womb.

If “

the one that opens the womb,”

one might have thought even if it emerged

through the womb

after one born by an unusual birth,

since it is the one that opens the womb,

the verse states “

firstborn,”

which implies firstborn in every respect; and this one is not firstborn among the offspring, although it is firstborn with regard to the womb. This is a specification requiring a generalization, for “male” and “the one that opens the womb,” which are the specification, require “firstborn”; had “firstborn” not been stated, I would have said that even though he is not a firstborn, he should be sanctified.

Rav Sherbya said

he challenged

Abaye:

The opening clause [

the middle clause]

does not derive it from “

firstborn.” When the beraita said, “If male, one might have thought even if a female emerged before him,” the beraita did not exclude it from “firstborn”;

Thus,

apparently, a firstborn in one respect—

such as this one, who is firstborn among males but not among the offspring and with regard to the womb—

is

included in “

firstborn,”

and therefore the beraita did not exclude from this the one who came after the female. But

the final clause—“If the one that opens the womb, one might have thought even if it emerged after one born by an unusual birth; the verse states ‘firstborn’”—

does derive it from ‘firstborn’

derives it from ‘firstborn’ [

the beraita excludes this case from “firstborn”],

apparently, a firstborn in one respect—

such as this firstborn with regard to the womb but not among the offspring—

is not

included in “

firstborn”!?

He said to him,

Abaye to Rav Sherbya:

In truth, a firstborn in one respect is not

included in “

firstborn” until he is firstborn in every respect, and indeed a firstborn born after a female is also excluded by “firstborn.”

unless it is a firstborn in every respect. Indeed, a firstborn born after a female is also excluded by the word “firstborn.”

And the opening clause,

which we learned not in this manner,

means as follows: If “

male,”

one might have thought that even if he emerged through the side

he himself would be sanctified by firstborn status;

the verse states “

the one that opens the womb,”

and consequently the one preceded by a female is also excluded by this, and there is no need to learn it from “firstborn.”

Ravina said:

In truth, a firstborn in one respect is a firstborn,

and from the mere meaning of “firstborn” we would not know to exclude the one born after one born by an unusual birth.

And the final clause,

which we learned derives from “firstborn” to exclude the one born after one born by an unusual birth, did not learn this from the meaning of “firstborn,” but from the superfluity of “firstborn,” and

this is what it means:

If it entered your mind that one born after one born by an unusual birth is sanctified, “

firstborn,”

which the Merciful One wrote, why do I need it,

for: