Bejorot 21

לֵימָא קָסָבַר: מְטַנֶּפֶת אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ. אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר: מְטַנֶּפֶת חוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ — יוֹלֶדֶת וַדַּאי אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ.

Shall we say the tanna of this baraita holds that an animal that expels a murky discharge does not return to its fertile state and give birth within its first year? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is possible the tanna does not hold that opinion. Even if you say an animal that expels a murky discharge returns to its fertile state and gives birth within its first year, an animal that actually gave birth to a live offspring certainly does not return to its fertile state and give birth within its first year.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי גְּדִיָּיה כּוּ׳. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּזְעֵירִי.

§ The baraita teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a single kid that yielded enough offspring to be subject to the tithe within its first year of life. By contrast, the first tanna in the baraita does not add the phrase: Within its first year of life. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinion of the first tanna and that of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between them in a case where the second-generation goats expel a murky discharge on the first day of their seventh month, which is the seventh month of their year for animal tithe. And they disagree with regard to the statement of Ze’eiri, cited earlier, that the expulsion of a discharge which exempts an animal from having its future offspring counted a firstborn is one which prevents it from being impregnated for no less than thirty days.

תַּנָּא קַמָּא אִית לֵיהּ דִּזְעֵירִי, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ דִּזְעֵירִי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דִּזְעֵירִי, וְהָכָא בְּיוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. לְתַנָּא קַמָּא אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יוֹלֶדֶת.

The first tanna accepts the statement of Ze’eiri, and therefore he holds that in such a case the goats cannot become pregnant before the first day of the eighth month, which means they cannot give birth before the first day of the second year. And Rabbi Shimon does not accept the statement of Ze’eiri; he holds that the goats can become pregnant during the seventh month and give birth during the last month of their first year of life. And if you wish, say that everyone accepts the statement of Ze’eiri, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not an animal gives birth after incomplete months, i.e., prematurely. According to the first tanna, an animal does not give birth after incomplete months; according to Rabbi Shimon, an animal gives birth after incomplete months.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין, וְהָכָא בְּמִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי: לְתַנָּא קַמָּא — לָא אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ.

And if you wish, say that everyone accepts Ze’eiri’s statement and everyone agrees that an animal does not give birth after incomplete months, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not the halakhic status of part of the day is like an entire day. According to the first tanna, we do not say part of the day is like an entire day, which means the earliest possible birth is on the first day of the second year. According to Rabbi Shimon, we do say part of the day is like an entire day, and therefore it is possible for the goat to give birth on the last day of the first year.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ, וְהָכָא בִּמְחוּסַּר זְמַן נִכְנָס לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר קָמִיפַּלְגִי,

And if you wish, say that everyone agrees that part of the day is like an entire day, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not an animal whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., one that is not yet seven days old, which may not be sacrificed on the altar, enters the pen to be tithed. According to the first tanna it does not enter the pen to be tithed; according to Rabbi Shimon, it does enter the pen to be tithed.

וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מְחוּסַּר זְמַן נִכְנָס לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר, וַהֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְכוֹר — מָה בְּכוֹר קָדוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וְקָרֵב לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ, אַף מְחוּסַּר זְמַן קָדוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וְקָרֵב לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ.

The Gemara adds: And in fact it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: An animal whose time has not yet arrived enters the pen to be tithed. And these animals are like a firstborn: Just as a firstborn is consecrated before its time and is sacrificed after its time, so too, an animal whose time has not yet arrived is consecrated before its time and sacrificed after its time.

וְאַדְּיָלֵיף מִבְּכוֹר, נֵילַיף מִקֳּדָשִׁים? מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִבְּכוֹר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן: גּוֹאֵל, מוּם, תְּמוּרַת, אֲכִילָה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But rather than deriving the halakha of tithed animals from the firstborn let one derive it from sacrificial animals, which cannot be consecrated before their time arrives. The Gemara answers that it is reasonable to claim it would be appropriate for one to derive the halakha of tithed animals from the firstborn, as they have the following four aspects in common: First, unlike sacrificial animals, one cannot redeem a firstborn or a tithed animal even if it develops a blemish. Second, a blemish does not prevent them from being imbued with sanctity. Third, an animal that was rendered a substitute for a firstborn or a tithed animal is not sacrificed. Finally, they are consumed without having been redeemed, whereas other sacrificial animals must be redeemed first.

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִקֳּדָשִׁים הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן זָכָר, קָדוֹשׁ, בְּמַתָּנוֹת, פָּשׁוּט. אֶלָּא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן ״הַעֲבָרָה״ ״הַעֲבָרָה״ גְּמִיר.

The Gemara responds: On the contrary, it would be appropriate for one to derive the halakha of tithed animals from sacrificial animals, as they have the following in common: First, unlike firstborn animals, both tithed and consecrated animals are not limited to males. Second, both are sanctified by human action rather than intrinsically consecrated. Additionally, they are not included among the gifts to the priest. Finally, both begin life as regular animals rather than as animals with the unique status of being born first. The Gemara accepts this objection: Rather, Rabbi Shimon derives the halakha from a verbal analogy between the term: “You shall pass” (Exodus 13:12), written with regard to the firstborn, and the term: “Whatsoever passes under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32), stated with regard to tithed animals.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי טִינּוּף? אָמַר רָבָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי רָעֲוָתָא: דְּצָלְתָּא אֲצַר חֵיוְתָא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בַּעְבּוּעֵי דִּדְמָא. וְצָרִיךְ לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לְחָכָם. חָכָם מְנָא יָדַע? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: רוֹעֶה חָכָם.

§ The mishna teaches that a murky discharge is evidence of an offspring and exempts any future offspring from being counted a firstborn. The Gemara asks: What is considered a murky discharge that exempts future offspring from firstborn status? Rava says: As the shepherds say: A murky [detzalta] discharge from the womb is an indicator of a fetus that the animal suppressed in its womb. And Shmuel says: It is bubbles of blood. The Gemara adds: And one must show the discharge to a Sage [ḥakham] in order to determine its status. The Gemara asks: A Sage? From where would he know how to determine its nature? Rav Pappa says: The reference is to a knowledgeable [ḥakham] shepherd, who is familiar with the different types of discharge an animal can produce.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ יְצִירַת הַוָּולָד בָּאִשָּׁה אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם. בָּעֵי רַב חִסְדָּא: בִּבְהֵמָה בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: לָאו הַיְינוּ דִּזְעֵירִי, דְּאָמַר זְעֵירִי: אֵין טִינּוּף פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם? הַהוּא לְקַבֵּל אִיתְּמַר.

Rav Ḥisda says: They said the formation of a fetus in a woman takes forty days. Rav Ḥisda therefore asks: In an animal, how many days does it take for the fetus to form? Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Isn’t this question resolved by that which Ze’eiri said, as Ze’eiri said: A murky discharge occurs no less than thirty days after conception? The Gemara explains: No; that was stated with regard to the thirty days after expulsion of a murky discharge, during which a female does not show receptivity to a male and does not become pregnant. The Gemara leaves Rav Ḥisda’s inquiry unresolved.

מָצִינוּ לוֹקֵחַ מִגּוֹי, לוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מַאי? אָמַר רַב: בְּכוֹר וַדַּאי, דְּאִם אִיתָא דְּבִכְּרָה — אִישְׁתַּבּוֹחֵי הֲוָה מִישְׁתַּבַּח לֵיהּ.

§ We found that the mishna discusses the halakha of one who purchases an animal from a gentile. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha with regard to one who purchases an animal from a Jew and it is unknown whether the animal had previously given birth? Rav says: Its offspring is a definite firstborn, as if it is so that it had previously given birth to a firstborn, the owner would have boasted to the buyer about the fact that he would not have to give its offspring to a priest.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּכוֹר סָפֵק, סָבַר לִשְׁחִיטָה קָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חוּלִּין וַדָּאִין, מַאי טַעְמָא? אִם אִיתָא דְּלֹא בִּכְּרָה, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אִיסּוּרָא, אוֹדוֹעֵי הֲוָה מוֹדַע לֵיהּ.

And Shmuel says: The firstborn status of its offspring is uncertain, as even if it had previously given birth the seller thinks the buyer wants it for slaughter, and therefore he does not bother informing him of its status. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Its offspring is certainly a non-sacred animal. What is the reason? If it is so that it had not previously given birth, since there is a prohibition involved, it can be assumed that the seller would have notified the buyer of the animal’s status.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר חוּלִּין: אִם לֹא הוֹדִיעוֹ — הוֹלֵךְ וְשׁוֹחֵט וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע. לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל? הָתָם בְּמוֹכֵר תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, הָכָא בְּלוֹקֵחַ תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא.

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says the offspring is non-sacred: With regard to the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring in the same day, if the seller did not inform the buyer that the mother or offspring of the animal he is purchasing was sold earlier that day, the buyer may go and slaughter the animal and he need not refrain from doing so. Shall we say this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinions of Rav and Shmuel? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There, with regard to slaughtering a mother and its offspring, the matter is dependent upon the seller, as it is his responsibility to notify the buyer. Here, in the case of a firstborn, the matter is dependent upon the buyer, and it is his responsibility to inquire about the animal’s status.

מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה שֶׁשָּׁפְעָה חֲרָרַת דָּם, הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּקָּבֵר, וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of a large animal that expelled a mass of congealed blood, that mass must be buried. The reason is that perhaps there was a male fetus there which was consecrated as a firstborn when it emerged, and the animal is exempt from having any future offspring counted a firstborn.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא. וּמֵאַחַר דְּאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא, אַמַּאי תִּקָּבֵר?

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: That mass of congealed blood does not impart ritual impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying it. The Gemara asks: But since does not impart impurity, neither through contact nor through carrying, which indicates that it is not considered a fetus, why must it be buried?