Bekhorot 19b — the Talmud in English

If [it is] to exclude the case in which a female emerged before it, from

“the opener of the womb”

it follows—

rather, infer from it:

“firstborn”

[comes] to exclude the case in which [the male] emerged after one who emerged by an unusual opening.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina:

If it enters your mind

according to your words, that

a firstborn in one respect is a firstborn, and the one who emerges after one who emerged by an unusual opening is learned from the superfluity of “firstborn,” which comes to exclude the one who emerges after one who emerged by an unusual opening—

one born after a birth by caesarean section is excluded by the extra word “firstborn”—

This works in the case in which a male emerged through the side and

emerged

a male

after him

through the womb, who is not sanctified, because

that is properly

excluded by

“firstborn,”

because

there is a firstborn with respect to the womb [indeed, he is a firstborn with respect to the womb], but

a firstborn with respect to males and

a firstborn

with respect to offspring there is not [he is not a firstborn with respect to these two]. That is, because he is a firstborn only in one respect, and in two respects he is not a firstborn—

In other words, since he is a firstborn in only one respect and is not a firstborn in the other two, he is excluded—

but in the case in which a female emerged through the side and a male through the womb, to be sanctified, for we have no necessity to exclude even this through the superfluous wording “firstborn,”

For we have no necessity to exclude this case as well on the basis of the extra word “firstborn,”

for there is a firstborn with respect to males and a firstborn with respect to the womb. That is, for he is a firstborn in two respects, and perhaps the Torah excluded only a firstborn in one respect!?

That is, since he is a firstborn in two respects, perhaps the Torah excluded only one who is a firstborn in a single respect!?

Rather, it is established according to Abaye, that until he is a firstborn in every respect he is not a firstborn, for “firstborn” means in every respect, and consequently everyone who is not a firstborn in every respect is excluded, even when a female emerged through the side and a male through the womb.

until an animal is a firstborn in every respect, it is not considered a firstborn, because the word “firstborn” indicates one who is firstborn in every respect. It follows that everyone who is not a firstborn in every respect is excluded, even a male born through the womb after a female born through the side of the mother.

We return to you, chapter “One Who Purchases the Fetus of His Cow.”

Mishna:

One who purchases an animal from a gentile and does not know whether it had already given birth

while in the possession of the gentile

or had not given birth:

Rabbi Yishmael says:

A goat

that gave birth

in its first year

within the first year of its birth, the offspring is

certainly for the priest,

for it certainly did not give birth previously to an additional offspring.

And if

from that point onward

[after its first year] it gave birth, the offspring is

a doubtful firstborn,

for perhaps it gave birth while in the possession of the gentile during its first year.

A ewe

that gave birth

in its second year

within two years of its birth, the offspring is

certainly for the priest,

for it is impossible that it gave birth earlier; and if it gave birth

from that point onward

[after two years], it is

a doubtful

firstborn.

A cow and a donkey

that gave birth

in their third year,

the offspring is

certainly for the priest; from that point onward—

a doubt.

Rabbi Akiva said

to Rabbi Yishmael:

If

the law were that

by a

complete

offspring alone the animal becomes exempt,

and until it gave birth to the complete offspring that follows it, it is a firstborn—then indeed the law

would be as you say!

But this is not so.

Rather, they said: The sign of offspring in a small animal is: a discharge

[that expelled blood from its womb, and that blood was an offspring, except that it miscarried, and it is called “a discharge”] and although there is here no complete offspring,

and in

an animal

of large species

the sign of offspring is:

a placenta, and in a woman: a fetus

[skin in which there is the form of the offspring]

and a placenta.

And perhaps it first had a discharge and then gave birth within its year, and this is not a firstborn, and likewise in all of them. Therefore:

This is the general rule: Anyone concerning whom it is known that it had given birth

while in the possession of the gentile,

there is nothing here for the priest, and anyone

concerning whom it is known

that it had not given birth

while in the possession of the gentile,

this

the offspring that was born

is for the priest.

And if it is doubtful

whether it had given birth,

the offspring shall be eaten

the offspring born while in the possession of the Israelite

with its defect by the owners,

and it may not be sacrificed, lest it be non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A goat in its first year is certainly for the priest; from that point onward, a doubt:

And we raise an objection:

From that point onward, a doubt!?

And

why!?

Go after the majority of animals, and the majority of animals become pregnant

and give birth within their year, and this one certainly gave birth

[for most of them become pregnant and give birth within their year, and if so, certainly this one too gave birth while in the possession of the gentile]; and the offspring born while in the possession of the Israelite after its year is not a firstborn!?

And should we

say that Rabbi Yishmael holds like Rabbi Meir—

who is brought later in the discussion—

that he holds that one is concerned for the minority?

And we answer:

And we answer:

Even if you say

that

the Rabbis

is what Rabbi Yishmael holds, nevertheless it is not difficult:

And because

when the Rabbis follow the majority, it is with a majority that is present before us

[a majority that is found before us],

such as nine shops

selling slaughtered meat and nine selling carcass meat, and meat is found whose shop of origin we do not know,

and

likewise

a Sanhedrin

the majority of whom decide the law—

but a majority that is not present before us

[a majority that is not before us], such as this majority that we say: The majority of animals become pregnant and give birth, and this one is like them,

the Rabbis do not follow the majority.

And we raise an objection to this:

But a male minor and a female minor

about whom we are uncertain whether the male is a eunuch or the female is an ailonit, while most people are not eunuchs,

is a majority that is not present before us,

is it,

and

nevertheless

the Rabbis do follow the majority?

For it follows that according to the Rabbis we also follow a majority that is not present before us!?

As it was taught:

A minor

whose brother’s wife fell before him for levirate marriage,

and a female minor

who fell for levirate marriage,

do not perform halitza and do not enter into levirate marriage; these are the words of Rabbi Meir,

as he explains the reason and proceeds.

They said to him

the Rabbis, to Rabbi Meir:

You have stated well that

a male minor and a female minor

do not perform halitza,

because

“man”

[“And if the man does not wish to take his sister-in-law, then his sister-in-law shall go up to the gate”—Deuteronomy 25:7]

is written in the passage,

to exclude a minor from halitza,

and we equate a woman with a man,

for “his sister-in-law” was equated with him.

But for what reason

do a male minor and a female minor

not enter into levirate marriage!?

He said to them

Rabbi Meir:

A minor

does not enter into levirate marriage

lest he be found to be a eunuch,

who is not subject to the mitzva of levirate marriage,

and a female minor

does not enter into levirate marriage

lest she be found to be an ailonit,

who is not fit for levirate marriage,

and they will be encountering a forbidden relation

[a brother’s wife where there is no mitzva].

And the Rabbis

hold:

Go after the majority of male minors, and the majority of male minors are not eunuchs.

And likewise,

go after the majority of female minors, and the majority of female minors are not ailoniyot.

Therefore even a male minor and a female minor enter into levirate marriage.

It is thus explained that even with a majority that is not present before us, the Rabbis follow the majority; and according to their view, even in our Mishna one should follow the majority of animals that become pregnant and give birth within their year, and exempt the one that gives birth after its year!?

Rather, Rava said: