Bekhorot 23b — the Talmud in English

Both this one and that one

its impurity does not cease

until [it is unfit] even for a dog; here

the blood-clot, behold,

is fit for a dog,

and it should impart impurity through carrying. If it is so that impurity is considered as though it were present, why does it not impart impurity through carrying!?

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is difficult!

As for the matter itself: Bar Padda said: Severe impurity

[through carrying]

[remains] until [it is unfit] for a convert, and light impurity

[through contact]

[remains] until [it is unfit] for a dog.

And Rabbi

Yohanan said: Both this one and that one [remain] until [they are unfit] for a dog.

And we explain:

What is the reason for Bar Padda’s [view]?

Because

it is written

[Deuteronomy 14:21]: “

You shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass; to the convert

who is within your gates you shall give it, and he shall eat it.” And we learn from the juxtaposition in the verse: an unslaughtered carcass

that is fit for a convert—

that is, in which “and he shall eat it” is fulfilled—

is called an unslaughtered carcass, but

an unslaughtered carcass

that is not fit for a convert is not called an unslaughtered carcass.

But the other one—

that is, Rabbi Yohanan—explains this verse as coming

to exclude a case in which it became putrid from the outset

[from its beginning], and it is not fit for a convert, in which case it does not impart impurity. But if it did not become putrid from the outset, rather it had been fit and became putrid, the status of impurity does not cease from it until it becomes unfit for a dog.

But the other one

[Bar Padda] holds:

A thing that became putrid from the outset does not require a verse to exclude it

[the verse does not need to exclude it] from impurity, for

it is merely dust

[it is like dust]. And necessarily the verse comes to exclude that which is not fit for a convert even if it did not become putrid from the outset.

And we raise an objection from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: In the case of a large animal that discharged a blood-clot, it must be buried, and it is exempt from the firstborn status. And Rabbi Hiyya taught: It does not impart impurity either through contact or through carrying. And Rabbi Yohanan said: They addressed this case because of nullification in the majority—

And let us object:

Why is it necessary [to say that this is] because of nullification in the majority? Let me derive that it was not fit

from the outset

at all,

and in this even Rabbi Yohanan agrees that the measure is until [it is unfit] for a convert!?

And we answer:

This too was originally fit for a convert through its mother

[this blood-clot too had been fit for a convert when it was in its mother’s womb].

We learned there

in Tractate Makhshirin [6:3]:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Pure brine

belonging to an am ha-aretz

into which any amount of water fell

is

impure,

as he proceeds to explain the reason.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: This indicates that amei ha-aretz are suspected of mixing half

water

into brine,

and although the brine did not become impure before any amount of water fell into it, as he proceeds to explain, nevertheless, once any amount of water fell into it and the water became the majority over the brine, one kind encountered its own kind and was awakened, as we said above, 22a.

And we raise an objection:

Why is it necessary

to say that amei ha-aretz are suspected of mixing water into brine up to

half,

when

even

if they were suspected only of mixing water

into brine

in less than half

[less than half—that is, close to half]—

also

it would make sense that the brine should become impure when water fell into it,

and

because of

that small amount

that fell into it

it would become half

water,

and half against half is not nullified.

That is, the water is impure, and it is only because of nullification in the majority that you declare it pure; and once some more water fell in, it became half brine and half water, and there is no majority here to nullify the water!?

And we answer: Indeed,

say:

amei ha-aretz are suspected of mixing

up to half.

That is, close to half.

If you wish, say:

Actually, [it is] as we taught, “amei ha-aretz are suspected of mixing

half,”

and because if there had been less than half, and through the falling [of water] it became half, it would still not be impure, for

the impurity of an am ha-aretz

is only of

rabbinic origin, and

even

the impurity of liquids

is only of

rabbinic origin,

and if so:

When [the mixture contains] a majority

water,

the Sages decreed [impurity], but when it is half against half the Sages did not decree impurity upon it,

and until the falling [of water] increases it so that there is a majority of water, there is no impurity.

Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:

a.

One who purchases a suckling animal from a gentile need not be concerned lest

it did not give birth while in his possession and

its offspring—

which it is nursing—

belonged to another,

and if so, the offspring that it will give birth to is a firstborn. Rather, he relies on the fact that it gave birth to it, and has already given birth previously; as is explained in the Gemara, the reason is that an animal does not love the offspring of another animal so as to nurse it. b. If

he entered his herd and saw the animals giving birth for the first time

[whose birth was their first]

nursing

each a particular animal, and

those that were not giving birth for the first time

[which had already given birth before this offspring]

nursing

other animals, this person

need not be concerned: lest the offspring of this one

that was not giving birth for the first time, whose offspring is not a firstborn,

came to that one

that is giving birth for the first time,

and lest the offspring of this one

that is giving birth for the first time, whose offspring is a firstborn,

came to that one

that was not giving birth for the first time, with the result that we do not know which is the firstborn and all are doubtful firstborns. Rather, he relies on the fact that each one nurses its own offspring: the one giving birth for the first time nurses the firstborn, and the one not giving birth for the first time nurses the ordinary offspring.

Gemara:

Rav said: The halakha throughout the entire chapter is [in accordance with the Mishna], except for disputes,

the halakha follows all the laws taught in the Mishnayot of this chapter, except in those places where we taught a dispute.

Rav Sheshet said: I would say that when Rav was drowsy and lying down he stated this teaching,

[it appears that Rav said these words while he was drowsy and lying down], for

with regard to which

[concerning which Mishna did Rav need to inform us that the halakha follows it], for:

If you say [that he referred] to the first clause

[perhaps you might say that he came to inform us that the halakha follows the first Mishna of this chapter], this cannot be said, for:

They explicitly dispute

concerning it

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva,

and when a dispute is taught, Rav said that the halakha does not follow it.

Rather, [that he referred] to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

perhaps you might say that Rav came to inform us that the halakha follows Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov in the law taught in the second Mishna of this chapter. This too cannot be said, for:

It is an established principle for us: “

The Mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is a small measure and pure

[few laws were stated in his name in the Mishnayot, but it is a small measure of pure [teaching], for the halakha follows him],” and Rav did not need to inform us that the halakha follows him specifically in this chapter.

Rather, [that he referred] to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel,

perhaps you might say that Rav came to inform us that the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, who is taught in our Mishna. This too cannot be said, for:

They explicitly dispute him in a beraita,

for we taught in a beraita that the Sages disputed Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel; and wherever we taught a dispute of the Sages, the halakha does not follow it, as Rav said: “except for disputes.”

We learned in the Mishna below, 24b: Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: One who slaughters a firstborn makes a place with a cleaver on either side [around the place of slaughter] and plucks the hair [and this does not involve shearing of a firstborn, which is prohibited by Torah law], provided that he does not move it [the plucked hair] from its place. And likewise he plucks the hair in order to see the place of a blemish.

Rather, [it refers] to Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam

who is mentioned in the Mishna below, 24b. For this too cannot be said, because:

Rav already said this once

(he already said this another time),

for Rav said: The halakha is like Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam.

We learned in the Mishna below, 25a: The hair of a blemished firstborn animal that fell out, and he placed it in a window, and afterwards they slaughtered it: Akavya ben Mahalalel permits, and the Sages prohibit; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said to him: It was not in this case that Akavya ben Mahalalel permitted; rather, it was in the case of the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that fell out in a window, and afterwards it died—in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel permits, and the Sages prohibit.

Rather, [it refers] to the hair of a blemished animal

lest you say that Rav needed to make known the halakha concerning the hair of a blemished firstborn animal that fell out and afterwards they slaughtered it or it died; this too cannot be said, since:

They disputed—

in the Mishna below, 25a—

Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Sages.

And we answer:

Actually, [it refers] to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

who is in our Mishna, and it is he concerning whom Rav said that the halakha is like him;

and

even though the Sages disputed him in the beraita,

Rav teaches us this:

Rav:

that the dispute of the beraita is not a dispute.

That is, Rav did not intend this when he said “apart from a dispute,” but rather the dispute that was taught in the Mishna.

And we object:

And since Rav said “

the halakha throughout the entire chapter is except for a dispute,”