Bekhorot 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

And it was taught

as an agreeable corroboration]:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

An animal whose time has not yet arrived may enter the pen to be tithed

and thereby acquire the sanctity of animal tithe, even though it may not be sacrificed on the altar until the eighth day;

and it is analogous to a firstborn. Just as a firstborn becomes sacred before its proper time,

as it becomes sacred immediately upon emerging from the womb,

so

an animal tithe that

is lacking its proper time becomes sacred before its proper time, but is sacrificed only after its proper time.

And

we raise an objection:

Instead of deriving the halakha from a firstborn, let us derive it from sacrificial animals,

which may not be consecrated when their time has not yet arrived!?

We answer:

It is more logical that he should have derived it from a firstborn

with regard to an animal tithe, and not from sacrificial animals,

as

the firstborn and the animal tithe resemble one another in four respects: 1.

Redemption:

neither a firstborn nor an animal tithe may be redeemed [ransomed], even when it develops a blemish.

2.

A blemish:

both a firstborn and an animal tithe retain complete sanctity even if they have a blemish. Can this be said of other sacrificial animals? If a permanent blemish preceded their consecration, they acquire only sanctity of value.

3.

Substitution:

the substitute for neither a firstborn nor an animal tithe is sacrificed on the altar.

4.

Eating:

both a firstborn and an animal tithe that developed a blemish may be eaten: the firstborn by a kohen, and the animal tithe by its owner. Can this be said of other sacrificial animals? They may not be eaten; they are redeemed.

We raise another objection:

On the contrary, he should have derived it from sacrificial animals

with regard to the animal tithe,

as

the animal tithe resembles them in four other respects: 1.

An ordinary animal:

both an animal tithe and other sacrificial animals are ordinary animals, and are not firstborn.

2.

Male:

both an animal tithe and other sacrificial animals apply even to females. Can this be said of a firstborn? It applies only to males.

3.

Consecrated:

neither an animal tithe nor other sacrificial animals become sacred automatically. Can this be said of a firstborn? It becomes sacred automatically.

4.

Priestly gifts:

neither an animal tithe nor other sacrificial animals are among the gifts of the kehunah. Can this be said of a firstborn? It is one of the gifts of the kehunah.

Rather, Rabbi Shimon

“a passing, a passing”

[“Whatever passes under the rod,” “And you shall cause every first issue of the womb to pass to the Lord”],

learns

from the firstborn that an animal whose time has not yet arrived may likewise enter the pen to be tithed.

We learned in the Mishna: The sign of a birth in a small domesticated animal is tinfuf.

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances of tinfuf?

Rav said: As the shepherds say,

“the tzalta stops the animal’s life-force,”

[its womb closes and the fetus dissolves].

And Shmuel said: bubbles of blood,

[it discharges bubbles of blood].

The Gemara adds:

And one must show it to a sage,

to determine whether it was a fetus, which would exempt the offspring that follows it from the law of the firstborn.

We wonder:

How could a sage know

[how would he know]!?

He said—

he explained—

Rav Pappa:

One must show it to a

knowledgeable shepherd.

Rav Ḥisda said:

They said: The formation of a fetus in a woman takes forty days

from the night on which she had intercourse; and a woman who miscarries during the first forty days must observe the days of impurity and purity of a woman who has given birth, but if she miscarried earlier, it is merely water. But

Rav Ḥisda asked

[he inquired]:

Rav Ḥisda

asked: The formation of a fetus in

an animal takes how long,

with the practical implication that if tinfuf occurred before that time, it is not a fetus and does not exempt the offspring that follows it from the law of the firstborn?

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

But

is this not the same as Ze’iri’s statement? Ze’iri said: Tinfuf lasts no less than thirty days,

and Rav Pappa understood him to mean that tinfuf is not considered significant unless thirty days have passed since a male mounted her. If so, the formation of a fetus in an animal takes thirty days?

Abaye said to him:

That

statement of Ze’iri does not mean that the tinfuf remained in the animal’s womb for thirty days. Rather, it was

with regard to accepting a male

that it

was stated:

an animal that experienced tinfuf does not accept a male until thirty days after its tinfuf.

It was stated:

We find

in our Mishna the law of one who

purchases from a gentile:

if the animal gives birth after its year, it is a doubtful firstborn.

What is the law if one purchases from a Jew?

Rav said:

The first offspring born while in the purchaser’s possession—even if it is born after its year—

is certainly a firstborn

because, had it been the case that she had previously given birth

while in the seller’s possession,

he would certainly have praised her to him

[the seller would have praised his animal before the purchaser as one that had already given birth, and therefore would no longer be at risk during its next delivery].

And Shmuel said:

It is only

a doubtful firstborn,

and no proof can be drawn from the seller’s failure to say anything, because

he assumed that the purchaser needed it for slaughter

and not for producing offspring, and the purchaser did not care that it had not yet given birth.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The first offspring born

is certainly non-sacred.

And

what is the reason?

Because

if it were the case that she had not previously given birth, since there would be a prohibition

regarding the first offspring born,

he would have informed him

the purchaser and warned him about it. He would not have refrained from doing so on the grounds that he assumed the animal had been purchased for slaughter.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that it is non-sacred,

from what we learned in Ḥullin 83a:

On four times during the year [when Jews customarily hold festive meals, and ordinarily one who purchases an animal purchases it only to slaughter it immediately], one who sells an animal to another must inform him: I sold its mother for slaughter; I sold its daughter for slaughter. And these are they: the eve of the last day of the Festival...

And in the beraita [there] it states:

If he did not inform him

that the seller had sold “its mother for slaughter,”

the purchaser goes

and slaughters it without refraining

because of the prohibition, “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day.” Thus, we rely on the assumption that the seller would have warned him in order to prevent him from transgressing; likewise, he would have warned him not to violate and desecrate the sanctity of a firstborn.

The Gemara asks:

Shall we say that this will be

this beraita

a refutation of Rav and Shmuel,

who disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan?

We answer according to their view:

There,

with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day,

the matter depends on the seller:

that is, he is obligated to inform the purchaser on these days that he sold the mother for slaughter, and since he did not inform him, it is certain that he did not sell the mother. But

here, the matter depends on the purchaser,

because the animal is his, and he is responsible for separating his firstborn animals; it is not the seller’s concern.

Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:

With regard to a large domesticated animal

that is about to give birth,

from which a blood clot flowed, this

[the clot]

must be buried, and it is exempt from the law of the firstborn,

since the offspring born after it is not considered a firstborn. The Gemara will explain the Mishna.

Gemara:

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught

in a beraita, as a continuation of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s statement: But

it does not impart impurity

the clot

either through contact or through carrying,

even though a carcass imparts impurity through contact and carrying.

We raise an objection: The Mishna states that it must be buried, and, on its plain meaning, this is because we are concerned that perhaps it was a male fetus that dissolved, and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it because of its firstborn status. But according to Rabbi Ḥiyya, there is a difficulty:

And since it does not impart impurity either through contact or through carrying,

and it does not have the status of an offspring,

why must it be buried!?