Bekhorot 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

If it comes to exclude the case where a female emerged before it, it is derived from “that which opens the womb,”

“firstborn,”

is unnecessary—

Rather, learn from this:

“firstborn”

comes to exclude one born after one delivered by caesarean section.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina:

If it enters your mind

as you say, that

one who is firstborn in one respect is considered a firstborn,

and the one born after one delivered by caesarean section is inferred from the superfluous mention of “firstborn,” which comes to exclude one born after one delivered by caesarean section—

That works in a case where a male emerged through the side

and

a male

after it

through the womb, who is not sanctified, because

that one is properly

excluded by

“firstborn,”

because

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

a firstborn with regard to males and

a firstborn

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

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 a case where a female emerged through the side and a male through the womb, should he be sanctified,

for we have no necessity to exclude even this case from the superfluous wording “firstborn,”

since he is a firstborn with regard to males and a firstborn with regard to the womb. That is, since he is a firstborn in two respects, perhaps the Torah excluded only one who is a firstborn in a single 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 clear according to Abaye

that as long as he is not a firstborn in every respect, he is not a firstborn, for “firstborn” indicates in every respect; consequently, everyone who is not a firstborn in every respect is excluded, even where a female emerged through the side and a male through the womb.

We have completed the 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 gentile’s possession

or had not given birth:

Rabbi Yishmael says:

A goat

that gave birth

in its first year

within the first year after its birth—the offspring is

definitely for the priest,

because it certainly had not previously given birth to another offspring.

And if

thereafter

after its first year it gave birth, the offspring is

a doubtful firstborn,

because perhaps it gave birth while in the gentile’s possession during its first year.

A ewe

that gave birth

in its second year

within two years after its birth—the offspring is

definitely for the priest,

because it is impossible for it to give birth earlier; but if it gave birth

thereafter

after two years, it is

a doubtful

firstborn.

A cow and a donkey

that gave birth

in their third year,

the offspring is

definitely for the priest; thereafter—

a doubt.

Rabbi Akiva said

to Rabbi Yishmael:

If

the law were that

only upon a

complete

offspring is the animal released from the status of firstborn,

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

would be as you say!

But this is not so.

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

that expelled blood from its womb; that blood was an offspring, but it miscarried, and it is called a “discharge” even though there is no complete offspring here.

And in

an animal

of a large species,

the sign of an offspring is:

the afterbirth; and in a woman: a fetus

skin containing the form of an offspring

and an afterbirth.

Perhaps it first had a discharge and then gave birth within its first year, and this is not a firstborn; and the same applies in all the cases. Therefore:

This is the general principle: Whenever it is known that it had already given birth while in the gentile’s possession,

there is nothing here for the priest; and whenever

it is known

that it had not already given birth

while in the gentile’s possession,

this

is

the offspring that was born—

for the priest.

And if there is doubt

whether it had already given birth:

the offspring shall be eaten

the offspring born while in the Jew’s possession

with its blemish by its owners,

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A one-year-old goat is certainly for the priest; thereafter it is doubtful.

And we raise an objection:

Thereafter it is doubtful!?

And

why!?

Follow the majority of animals, and the majority of animals become pregnant

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

for the majority become pregnant and give birth within their first year; if so, this one too certainly gave birth while in the gentile’s possession, and the offspring born while in the Jew’s possession after its first year is not a firstborn]!?

And shall we

say that Rabbi Yishmael holds like Rabbi Meir—

who is cited later in the discussion—

that he is concerned for the minority?

And we answer:

Even if you say

that Rabbi Yishmael

holds like

the Rabbis,

nevertheless there is no difficulty:

The reason is that

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

a majority found before us,

such as nine shops

that sell kosher meat and nine that sell non-kosher meat, and meat is found whose source we do not know,

and

similarly,

a Sanhedrin

whose majority determines the law—

But a majority that is not present before us,

such as this majority, concerning which we say that the majority of animals become pregnant and give birth, and this animal is like them,

the Rabbis do not follow the majority.

And we raise an objection to this:

But an underage boy and an underage girl

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

is a majority that is not present before us

and

nevertheless

the Rabbis

do follow the majority,

demonstrating that according to the Rabbis we follow even a majority that is not present before us!?

As it was taught:

An underage boy

whose deceased brother’s wife falls before him for yibbum,

and an underage girl

who falls for yibbum,

do not perform halitza and may not perform yibbum; these are the words of Rabbi Meir,

as he proceeds to explain the reason.

The Rabbis said

to Rabbi Meir:

You have spoken well that

an underage boy and an underage girl

do not perform halitza,

because

“

a man” [“But if the man does not wish to take his yevama, then his yevama shall go up to the gate”—Deuteronomy 25:7]

is written in the passage,

excluding an underage boy from halitza, and

we compare a woman to a man,

since “his yevama” is compared to him.

But what is the reason

that an underage boy and an underage girl

may not perform yibbum!?

He said to them,

Rabbi Meir:

An underage boy

may not perform yibbum,

lest he be found to be a eunuch,

who is not subject to the mitzva of yibbum; and

an underage girl

may not undergo yibbum,

lest she be found to be an ailonit,

who is not eligible for yibbum,

and they will thereby encounter a forbidden relationship

the wife of a brother where there is no mitzva.

And the Rabbis

reason:

Follow the majority of underage boys, and the majority of underage boys are not eunuchs.

And likewise,

follow the majority of underage girls, and the majority of underage girls are not ailoniyot.

Therefore even an underage boy and an underage girl may perform yibbum.

It is thus clear that even with regard to a majority that is not present before us, the Rabbis follow the majority. Accordingly, in our Mishna too, one should follow the majority of animals that become pregnant and give birth during their first year, and exempt an animal that gives birth after its first year!?

Rather, Rava said: