Bekhorot 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

And

when he reached the place of swallowing

he took

a full pitcher of water from the place of swallowing, [

After they had all entered the ship, Rabbi Yehoshua took with him earth from the earth of their land. When he reached the place where the ocean swallows all the waters that fall into it and brings them to the abyss, and the abyss expels them, he took with him a full bucket of the water that was there]—

When they arrived,

the Sages,

Rabbi Yehoshua stood them

before

the emperor, who saw them,

the king saw the Sages

were being tortured, and said to him,

the king said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If so,

these are not they; he took

Rabbi Yehoshua

from their earth and cast it upon them,

and they straightened themselves, for they thought that they were in their own land; and therefore

they spoke harshly to the king; he said to him,

the emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua:

Do with them whatever you wish. [

When they reached the place where the emperor was, Rabbi Yehoshua placed the Sages before the emperor. But when the emperor saw that they were tortured and humbled, he claimed to Rabbi Yehoshua that these were not the Sages. Rabbi Yehoshua took some of the earth he had brought from their land and cast it upon them. As a result, they thought that they were in their own land, and therefore dared to speak harshly with the king, believing—because of the scent of the earth—that they were close to their land and that they had no fear of the king there. The king became angry and said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Do with them as you please].

Rabbi Yehoshua brought

those

waters that had come from the place of swallowing, cast them into a trough, and said to them,

Rabbi Yehoshua said to the Sages:

Fill this vessel and go away. They filled it and poured the water into it; the first waters were swallowed by it. They filled it until their shoulders were dislocated, and the waters swallowed them, and they went away. [

Rabbi Yehoshua did this to them so that they would perish: He took a vessel and put in it the waters that swallowed all other waters, and instructed them to fill the vessel with other water until it became full, whereupon they would be free to leave. But every water they poured into it was swallowed, and they were forced to carry more and more water on their shoulders, until they were worn out and went to their destruction].

Mishna:

A she-donkey

that is pregnant

that has not yet borne:

And

he arose early and found that it

had given birth to two males,

only one of whom has the status of a firstborn donkey, he

gives one lamb to the priest,

for he certainly has a firstborn donkey.

And if it gave birth to

a male

that is sanctified with the sanctity of the firstborn

and a female

that is not fit to become sanctified, and it is unknown which was born first, he

sets aside one lamb

in order to remove from the firstborn—if indeed there is one here that was sanctified with firstborn sanctity—its sanctity and prohibition, but he does not give it to the priest; rather, it is

his own,

for it is uncertain whether the law of the firstborn applies here, and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

One who had

two she-donkeys

that were pregnant

and had not yet borne:

And

he arose early and found that they

had given birth to two males,

he

gives two lambs to the priest,

because we attribute one male birth to each of them, and if so, two firstborns were born to him.

And if they gave birth to

a male and a female, or

if they gave birth to

two males and a female,

and it is found that he certainly has one firstborn, he

gives one lamb

only

to the priest,

because he certainly has one firstborn, but he does not give an additional lamb to the priest, because perhaps the second animal gave birth to the female first. And if they gave birth to

two females and a male, or two males and two females,

such that it is possible that there is not even one firstborn here, because the females were born first,

there is nothing here for the priest.

B. The Mishna of the King raised a difficulty [Firstborns 12:21, beginning “And the appearance”]: In the case of two females and a male, there is a double uncertainty requiring stringency. Perhaps one donkey gave birth to a male and the other to two females, in which case the male is sacred; and if you will say that the male was not born alone, say that the male was born first and the female afterward. According to the principle established by Rabbi Yosef ibn Lev that a double uncertainty enables one to take property from its presumed possessor, why should a priest not take one lamb, since the priest prevails through two uncertainties? That is, there is a double uncertainty establishing that there is at least one firstborn: perhaps there was no female whose precedence is in doubt, and even if there was a female, perhaps the male emerged first. If so, the priest should take one lamb! The same difficulty applies not only to two females and one male, but also to two males and two females: perhaps one donkey did not give birth to a female at all, and perhaps the male emerged first. See there how he considered resolving this by saying that when property has no particular claimant, a priest cannot extract money on the basis of a double uncertainty; but he raised a difficulty against this as well. See there and in the index volume.

And if he had two she-donkeys,

one

that had already

borne, and one that

had not yet

borne:

And they gave birth to two males,

he

gives one lamb to the priest,

for even the one that had not yet borne gave birth to a firstborn.

And if they gave birth to

a male and a female,

and it is unknown whether the male came from the one that had already borne, in which case there is no firstborn, or whether it came from the one that had not yet borne, in which case there is a firstborn, he

sets aside one lamb,

but he does not give it to the priest, because perhaps there is no firstborn here, and he takes it

for himself.

And from where do we learn that one redeems with a lamb?

As it is stated:

“And you shall redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb.”

And this lamb may be

from sheep and

may be

from goats, male or female [

or female],

large or small, unblemished or blemished.

And he may redeem with it many times,

if the priest returned it to him after he had given it to him. And

it enters the pen to be tithed,

and the intention of the Mishna will be explained in the Gemara.

And if it dies,

the redemption animal,

one may derive benefit from it,

and the intention of the Mishna will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A she-donkey that has not yet borne and gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the priest.

We learned in the Mishna below, 17a, with regard to the firstborn of a kosher animal: “A ewe that has not yet borne and gave birth to two males, and both heads emerged simultaneously—Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Both belong to the priest,” as it is stated: “And every first issue of an animal that you have, the males shall be the Lord’s,” which implies two males. His reason is that it is possible for two things to emerge simultaneously, and both are firstborns; and the Torah teaches that even two firstborns become sacred. But the Sages disagreed with him there, because it is impossible for two things to emerge simultaneously.

The Gemara initially understood the reason for the Mishna to be that he gives only one lamb because it is impossible for two things to emerge simultaneously, and we assume that one emerged before the other, so there is only one firstborn. If so:

Who is the tanna,

who is the tanna who taught our Mishna?

Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, for if it were Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, he said

with regard to the firstborn of a kosher animal that if both heads emerged simultaneously, both become sacred, because

it is possible for two things to emerge simultaneously;

and if so, here as well, by law both should have the status of firstborns.

Abaye said: You may even say that it is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili; there it is different,

with regard to the firstborn of a kosher animal,

as it is written [Exodus 13:12]: “And every first issue of an animal that you have,

the males”

the males” [

a plural expression]

“shall be the Lord’s,”

for the Torah thereby included two males within the law of the firstborn. But with regard to a firstborn donkey, only one becomes sacred as a firstborn, and it is uncertain which one is sacred.

And we challenge:

and let us derive

the firstborn donkey

from it

[from a firstborn kosher animal], so that two males should be subject to the law of the firstborn, even in the case of a firstborn donkey!?

And we answer:

The Merciful One excluded “

the males” [the added letter heh], to exclude a firstborn donkey.

Some say: Let us say

the Mishna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, for if it were in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, he said

that

it is possible to determine exact simultaneity.

Abaye said: You can even say that it is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

—

it is different there, as it is written “

the males are for Him.”

And we challenge:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yirmeya, who does not establish it in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

and we understand the case as one in which the two heads did not emerge simultaneously,

this is why it does not teach “

and the two heads emerged simultaneously,”

as we learned with regard to a firstborn kosher animal.

But according to Abaye,

who explains that only one becomes sacred even if the two heads in fact emerged simultaneously,

it should teach “

and the two heads emerged simultaneously,”

as we learned with regard to a firstborn kosher animal.

Furthermore,

we challenge Abaye from this, as

it was taught: A donkey that had not previously given birth and gave birth to two males, and the two heads emerged simultaneously, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Both belong to the priest, as it is stated: “

the males are for Him”—

Before completing the challenge, the Gemara explains the wording of the beraita, “as it is stated: ‘the males are for Him,’” which implies that with regard to a firstborn donkey it is stated,

but this phrase is written “

the males are for Him”

only with regard to bodily sanctity

—that is, a firstborn kosher animal, which possesses bodily sanctity—

and it is this that is written,

and not with regard to a firstborn donkey!?

And we explain:

Rather,

say in the beraita: “

Because it is stated: ‘the males are for Him,’”

meaning, since it is stated with regard to a firstborn kosher animal, “the males are for Him,” we derive from it as well that this applies to a firstborn donkey—

And in any event, it is explicitly stated in the beraita that Rabbi Yosei disputes our Mishna, and

this is a tiyu vta of Abaye—

And we conclude: Indeed,

tiyu vta

of Abaye, and our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.