Bekhorot 20b — the Talmud in English

For its explanation: we do not say that a woman gives birth in incomplete periods:

rather, she is pregnant for five complete months, and it is impossible that she waited thirty days from the tinuf until she received a male and became pregnant again for five complete months within her year; and necessarily, this was not tinuf.

For its explanation: we say that a woman gives birth in incomplete periods,

and perhaps she gave birth before five months had been completed for her, and indeed her pregnancy was after thirty days from the tinuf, and the offspring that was born is not considered a firstborn, since the womb had already been relieved through the tinuf.

The third manner:

And if you wish, say:

according to everyone

we do not say that a woman gives birth in incomplete periods

except when five months have been completed for her—

and here, it is with regard to part of the day—

that is, part of the thirtieth day from her tinuf and part of the last day of her pregnancy—

is like all of it.

That is to say, the thirty days are completed at the beginning of the day, and on that same day she receives a male; and likewise, on the last day of the five months of her pregnancy, she gives birth—

they differ:

For its explanation: we say that part of the day is like all of it,

and it follows that even if she had tinuf on the day after she reached six months, she can give birth on the last two days of the year, because she can become pregnant on the last day of the seventh month from her giving birth, and give birth on the twenty-ninth day of the twelfth month from her giving birth; or she can become pregnant on the day after the end of the seventh month and give birth on the last day of her year, since we say that part of the day is like all of it.

For its explanation: we do not say that part of the day is like all of it,

and whenever she had tinuf on the day after the end of the sixth month, it is impossible for her to receive a male except from the first day of the eighth month, and she will give birth on the day after the end of her year; and if she gave birth within her year, necessarily this was not complete tinuf.

And the Gemara adds to explain the continuation of the baraita:

Rabbi Akiva said: I did not arrive at this measure, but rather, anyone concerning whom it is known

that she had already given birth has nothing here for the koen, and any female that had not already given birth belongs to the koen; in a case of uncertainty, they may eat them in their blemished state, in the owners’ possession:

What difference is there between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua!?

For surely the reason of Rabbi Akiva is because of tinuf, since he would not dispute what Rabbi Yishmael said: a goat in its year that gave birth need not be suspected of an earlier birth!?

Rabbi Hanina of Sura said: The milk that exempts is the difference between them.

That is to say: a milk-producing goat that subsequently gave birth—whether it is necessary to establish that she had already given birth previously and her womb had been relieved, or not:

Rabbi Akiva holds: milk exempts,

because

follow the majority of animals, and the majority of animals do not produce milk unless they give birth; and from the fact that she produced milk, she gave birth

[since, once we saw that she produced milk, it is certain that she had already given birth].

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: we are concerned for the minority,

that produce milk without giving birth, and we are concerned that perhaps the one that gave birth after producing milk is a firstborn.

And we raise an objection against it:

But is Rabbi Yehoshua concerned for a minority

[does Rabbi Yehoshua indeed take a minority into consideration]!?

And did we not learn:

A woman who went, she and her husband, to an overseas country, and her husband died without sons and without brothers, and

she

had

a mother-in-law for the widow,

she need not be concerned

that perhaps her mother-in-law gave birth to a brother of her deceased husband, and she is bound to him for yibbum, but if

the woman left

her place when her mother-in-law was

full

[pregnant], she

must be concerned

that perhaps she gave birth to a male brother of her deceased husband, and she is bound to him for yibbum.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

Even if her mother-in-law was full,

she need not be concerned.

And we say: What is Rabbi Yehoshua’s reason?

Because

he holds: the majority of pregnant women

indeed

give birth, and

however, the

minority miscarry; and all women who give birth

give birth

half male

who make her bound for yibbum

and half

female

who do not make her bound for yibbum;

and males

who are viable

are a minority, and we are not concerned for a minority.

Thus Rabbi Yehoshua is not concerned for a minority.

Rather,

do not say that the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva in our baraita is whether, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, milk does not exempt, while according to Rabbi Akiva, milk exempts; rather,

reverse it,

Say: Rabbi Yehoshua holds: follow the majority of animals, and the majority of animals do not produce milk unless they give birth; and Rabbi Akiva holds: we are concerned for the minority.

The Gemara provides support for reversing the opinions:

And was it not taught

[agreeably]:

Milk exempts; these are the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Akiva says: Milk does not exempt.

b. The view of Tosafot here is that the halakha is that milk does not exempt the animal, and they proved this from the Mishna below, on page 23b; this will be brought in the notes there. They explained that although, in general, we do not take the minority into consideration, here there is a presumption that she had not given birth. Therefore, the minority joined with the presumption, making the matter evenly balanced between two possibilities. Although Rabbi Meir is the one who holds this view in tractate Chullin, on page 18b, he said it only to be lenient. In this matter Rabbi Meir is the one who said so, but when stringency is involved, even the Sages agree that the minority joins with the presumption, making the matter evenly balanced, and one must rule stringently. However, Rambam, Ramban, and the Rosh hold that the halakha is that milk exempts the animal, because we do not take the minority into consideration. For an explanation of the view of the early authorities who disagree, that the minority does not join with the presumption, see what Mahariṭ Algazi wrote, section mem, first section, subsection alef.

The Sages taught:

A. The baraita and the sugya based upon it are explained here according to Rashi’s interpretation, as Hok Natan had the text in his words [brought in Ohel Moshe].

B. Animals are not combined for the obligation of animal tithe unless they were born in one year, and the established halakha is that the New Year for animal tithe is the first of Elul.

A female kid

that gave birth to three females

in one womb,

and all her daughters gave birth to three each

females,

all of them,

all twelve animals—the three daughters and the nine daughters of the daughters—

enter the pen to be tithed.

That is to say, it is possible that all of these were born in one year, so that they would be fit to be tithed together.

Rabbi Shimon said: I saw a female kid that tithed within its year.

That is to say, within one year of the birth of her daughters, the daughters themselves gave birth until they completed ten animals sufficient for the tithe, similar to what the first tanna said; and below it explains what the difference between them is.

And we raise an objection to the first tanna:

Why do I need to teach “

and all her daughters gave birth

three each”?

For we need only ten animals from the daughters and their daughters, and if so, it is sufficient that

one of them should give birth to

[of the daughters]

three, and the others

the daughters would suffice if they gave birth to

two each

[it is sufficient that only one of the three daughters give birth to three daughters, while her sisters give birth to two daughters, and there are ten animals for the tithe]!?

And we answer:

Since there is one

of the daughters

for which it is not sufficient

that there should not be an obligation of tithe

without

her giving birth to

three

daughters,

he taught all of them

daughters

that gave birth to three each

[since one of the daughters must necessarily be established as having given birth to three daughters, the tanna therefore stated that her sisters too gave birth to three daughters, and not two].

And we still raise an objection:

Why do I need to teach three

daughters to the daughters

at all!?

Let all of them give birth

daughters

to two

daughters, and there are nine animals—the daughters and the daughters of the daughters—

and let she herself give birth together with them

[and let the mother herself give birth to one additional offspring in that same year], and there are ten animals!?