Bekhorot 38

Chapter 38

א אי למעוטי היכא דיצתה נקבה לפניו מפטר רחם נפקא אלא שמע מינה בכור למעוטי היכא דיוצא אחר יוצא דופן
1 It cannot be for the purpose of excluding a case of a female which came before it, since this is derived from the text 'The first-birth of the womb'. Deduce then from here that the additional word 'Firstling' excludes the case of an animal which came forth after one extracted through the cesarean section.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is not sanctified, but in the case where a female was born before through the cesarean section, the male animal following, it is still the firstling of the Scripture, although it is not a firstling as regards birth, for a firstling need not be so in every respect.');"><sup>1</sup></span> Said R'Aha of Difti to Rabina: If you should assume that a firstling in one respect is the firstling [of the Scripture],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And an animal which was born after one which came through the cesarean section is excluded, not by the implication of the word 'Firstling', but owing to the addition of the word 'Firstling'.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא אי סלקא דעתך בכור לדבר אחד הוי בכור תינח היכא דיצא זכר יוצא דופן וזכר דרך רחם דלא קדוש דאימעוט לידה מבכור דבכור לרחמים איכא בכור לזכרים ליכא
2 we can well understand that if a male extracted through the cesarean section is followed by a male subsequently born from the womb, the latter is not sanc tified, being excluded by the word 'Firstling', since we have here a firstling in respect of the womb but not as regards males and offspring.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is logical to maintain that the additional word 'Firstling' would exclude a case of this character.');"><sup>3</sup></span> But in the case of a female extracted from the cesarean section and a male subsequently born from the womb, let it be sanctified, since here we have a firstling of males and the firstling of the womb?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the additional word can only exclude one case, whereas the Baraitha above implies that in both instances, even where a female was extracted through the cesarean section and a male was born from the womb, it is not the Scriptural firstling.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אלא היכא דיצתה נקבה דרך דופן וזכר דרך רחם ליקדש דהא איכא בכור לזכרים ובכור לרחם אלא מחוורתא כדאביי:
3 - The fact is that the best explanation is that of Abaye.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the significance of the term 'Firstling' is that in every particular the animal must be a firstling and therefore all the cases cited above are excluded.');"><sup>5</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE BUYS AN ANIMAL FROM A HEATHEN NOT KNOWING WHETHER IT HAD GIVEN BIRTH OR HAD NEVER YET GIVEN BIRTH, R'ISHMAEL SAYS: THAT BORN OF A GOAT IN ITS FIRST YEAR CERTAINLY BELONGS TO THE PRIEST; AFTER THAT, IT IS A QUESTIONABLE CASE [OF A FIRSTLING].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal therefore grazes until it is blemished and it is then eaten by the owners.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד <br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הלוקח עובר פרתו</strong></big><br><br>
4 THAT BORN OF A EWE TWO YEARS OLD CERTAINLY BELONGS TO THE PRIEST; AFTER THAT, IT IS A QUESTIONABLE CASE [OF A FIRSTLING].
ה מתני׳ <big><strong>הלוקח</strong></big> בהמה מן העובד כוכבים ואינו יודע אם ביכרה אם לא ביכרה רבי ישמעאל אומר עז בת שנתה ודאי לכהן מכאן ואילך ספק רחל בת שתים ודאי לכהן מכאן ואילך ספק פרה וחמור בנות שלש ודאי לכהן מכאן ואילך ספק
5 THAT BORN OF A COW OR AN ASS THREE YEARS OLD CERTAINLY BELONGS TO THE PRIEST; AFTER THAT, IT IS A QUESTIONABLE CASE [OF A FIRSTLING].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in the case of an ass of a questionable first-birth, the Israelite separates a lamb on its behalf, which, however, he retains for himself.');"><sup>7</sup></span> SAID R'AKIBA TO HIM: IF AN ANIMAL WERE EXEMPTED [FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING] ONLY WITH THE BIRTH OF [ACTUAL] OFFSPRING, IT WOULD BE AS YOU SAY. BUT THE FACT IS [AS THE RABBIS] SAID: THE SIGN OF OFFSPRING IN SMALL CATTLE IS A DISCHARGE [FROM THE WOMB].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we say that there is an abortion. We fear then lest it discharged in its first year, and therefore that born of a goat, even in its first year is a questionable case of a first-birth.');"><sup>8</sup></span> IN LARGE CATTLE, THE AFTER-BIRTH; IN A WOMAN, THE SIGNS ARE THE FOETUS AND THE AFTER-BIRTH.
ו אמר לו רבי עקיבא אילו בוולד בלבד הבהמה נפטרת כדבריך אלא אמרו סימן הוולד בבהמה דקה טינוף ובגסה שיליא ובאשה שפיר ושיליא
6 THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHEREVER IT IS KNOWN THAT IT HAD GIVEN BIRTH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either actual birth or a discharge from the womb.');"><sup>9</sup></span> THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING. WHEREVER IT HAD NEVER GIVEN BIRTH, IT BELONGS TO THE PRIEST.
ז זה הכלל כל שידוע שביכרה אין כאן לכהן כלום וכל שלא ביכרה הרי זה לכהן ואם ספק יאכל במומו לבעלים:
7 IF THERE IS A DOUBT, IT SHALL BE EATEN IN ITS BLEMISHED STATE BY THE OWNERS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>[The Mishnah says] that, after that, it is a questionable case [of a firstling].
ח <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מיכן ואילך אמאי ספק הלך אחר רוב בהמות ורוב בהמות מתעברות ויולדות בתוך שנתן נינהו והא ודאי מילד אוליד לימא רבי ישמעאל כר' מאיר ס"ל דחייש למיעוטא
8 Why is it a questionable case? Why not go by the majority of animals which become pregnant and beget in their first year, and [so we say that] this one certainly gave birth in the first year?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently, the animal born now should be regarded as genuine hullin, to be eaten unblemished.');"><sup>10</sup></span> May we, therefore, not say that R'Ishmael holds according to R'Meir, who takes into consideration the minority? - You may say that he even concurs with the Rabbis, for the Rabbis go by the majority only when it is the majority which is before us, as e.g.
ט אפי' תימא רבנן כי אזלי בתר רובא ברובא דאיתיה קמן כגון תשע חנויות וסנהדרין אבל רובא דליתיה קמן לא אזלי רבנן בתר רובא
9 the case of the nine stalls<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each selling meat killed ritually and one stall selling ritually forbidden meat. A piece of meat is found on the ground before one of these stalls and it is not known whether it is kosher (ritually fit to be eaten) or not. The ruling is that whatever comes out of a heterogeneous mass is presumed to come from the larger element in it and, in this instance, it is a majority which is before us, since the stalls are before us to witness.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
י והא קטן וקטנה דרובא דליתיה קמן וקאזלי רבנן בתר רובא דתנן קטן וקטנה לא חולצין ולא מייבמין דברי רבי מאיר אמרו לו יפה אמרת שאין חולצין איש כתוב בפרשה ומקשינן אשה לאיש
10 and the Sanhedrin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a court of law, where twelve judges absolve and eleven condemn and we are guided by the views of the majority. Here, too, the majority is one which is visible to us; v. Hul. 11a.');"><sup>12</sup></span> But in the case of a majority which is not before us,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this case, where we argue that the majority of the animals the world over are pregnant, etc.');"><sup>13</sup></span> the Rabbis do not go by the majority. But is there not the case of minors, a boy and a girl,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A boy under thirteen years of age, and a girl under twelve.');"><sup>14</sup></span> which is a majority that is not before us, and still the Rabbis go by the majority?
יא מה טעם אין מייבמין אמר להם קטן שמא ימצא סריס קטנה שמא תמצא איילונית ונמצאו פוגעין בערוה
11 For we have learnt: Minors, whether boy or girl, do not perform the act of halizah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ceremony of taking off the brother-in-law's shoe. (Deut. XXV, 5-11.)');"><sup>15</sup></span> nor the levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry the wife of a brother who died without issue.');"><sup>16</sup></span> This is the teaching of R'Meir.
יב ורבנן זיל בתר רובא קטנים ורוב קטנים לאו סריסים נינהו זיל בתר קטנות ורוב קטנות לאו איילונית נינהו
12 [The Rabbis] said to him: You rightly say that they do not perform the act of halizah, for Scripture says a man;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'So shall it be done with that man', (Deut. XXV, 9.) Excluding, therefore, a minor.');"><sup>17</sup></span> and we put a woman on a level with a man [in this respect].
יג אלא אמר רבא
13 But what is the reason why they do not perform the levirate marriage? - He thereupon replied to them: A boy minor [is not allowed to do so]. lest he be found to be a eunuch,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Impotent as regards a sexual act.');"><sup>18</sup></span> and a girl minor, lest she be discovered to be sterile<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Incapable of conception.');"><sup>19</sup></span> and thus render it a case of contact with a forbidden relation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman forbidden to marry a certain man and vice versa, owing to consanguinity.');"><sup>20</sup></span> And the Rabbis? - We go by the majority of boys in the world, and the majority of boys are not eunuchs. We go by the majority of girls [in the world], and the majority of girl minors are not sterile!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that the Rabbis follow also a majority which is not before.');"><sup>21</sup></span> - Rather said Raba:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter