Bekhorot 42

Chapter 42

א והתניא רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון מחוסר זמן נכנס לדיר להתעשר והרי הן כבכור מה בכור קדוש לפני זמנו וקרב לאחר זמנו אף מחוסר זמן קדוש לפני זמנו וקרב לאחר זמנו
1 And we have a Baraitha [confirming this]. R'Simeon the son of Judah reported in the name of R'Simeon: An animal, though immature,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., too early for sacrifice, before the expiration of the seven days after birth.');"><sup>1</sup></span> can enter the shed to be tithed, for it is like the case of a firstling: Just as a firstling is sanctified before its due time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the time it leaves the womb.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב ואדיליף מבכור ניליף מקדשים מסתברא מבכור הוה ליה למילף שכן גואל מום תמורת אכילה
2 and is sacrificed when its time becomes due, so a tithing animal can be sanctified before its due time and offered up after its time becomes due. But why deduce [the case of a tithing animal] from the case of a firstling? Why not deduce it from the case of dedicated animals?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where not only is the animal disqualified for sacrifice before its due time but it is even not invested with any sanctity if consecrated before the expiration of the seven days after birth.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג אדרבה מקדשים הוה ליה למילף שכן זכר קדוש במתנות פשוט אלא רבי שמעון העברה העברה גמיר
3 - It is reasonable to infer [the case of a tithing animal] from the case of a firstling, because to both apply the rules regarding redemption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A firstling and a tithing animal cannot be redeemed from their sanctity. whereas blemished dedicated animals are capable of redemption.');"><sup>4</sup></span> a blemish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A firstling, even born blemished, is sacred. A tithing animal is also sacred, even in a blemished state.');"><sup>5</sup></span> exchange,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal for which a firstling or a tithed animal is exchanged is not holy, whereas with reference to dedicated animals, they and their exchanges are sacred.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד היכי דמי טינוף אמר רבא כדאמרי רעותא דצלתא אצר חיותא ושמואל אמר בעבועי דדמא וצריך להראותו לחכם חכם מנא ידע אמר רב פפא רועה חכם
4 and eating.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A firstling and a tithing animal are eaten by their owners, in the first case by the priest and in the second by the Israelite, whereas blemished dedicated objects must be redeemed. Tosaf. explains that all consecrated animals which have been disqualified from the altar may be bought in a shop and sold by the pound weight, which is forbidden in the case of a firstling and tithing animal.');"><sup>7</sup></span> On the contrary, according to this, [the Baraitha] ought to infer [the case of a tithing animal] from the case of dedicated animals, because to both apply the rules regarding a plain animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rules of tithing and consecration apply to plain animals, i.e., not first-born.');"><sup>8</sup></span> a male,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consecration and tithing apply to both males and females, whereas the law of the firstling applies only to males.');"><sup>9</sup></span> sanctification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An act of consecration is required in the case of tithing animals and dedicated objects. whereas a firstling is sacred from birth.');"><sup>10</sup></span> and the priest's dues?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tithing animal or a consecrated animal is not the priests' due, whereas a firstling is the due of the priests.');"><sup>11</sup></span> The fact is that R'Simeon learns from [the analogy between] 'passing'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text: 'Thou shalt cause to pass (set apart) unto the Lord all that openeth the womb'. (Ex. XIII, 12) stated in connection with the law of the firstling, and the text that passeth under the rod', mentioned in connection with the law of tithing animals.');"><sup>12</sup></span> and 'passing'. What is the discharge [from the womb] like? - Rab said: As the shepherds of Zaltha said: The womb closes up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the embryo was mashed.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ה אמר רב חסדא הרי אמרו יצירת הוולד באשה ארבעים יום בעי רב חסדא בבהמה בכמה אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי לאו היינו דזעירי דאמר זעירי אין טינוף פחות משלשים יום ההוא לקבל איתמר
5 Samuel said: Casting up blood. And he is required to show it to a wise man [Sage].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To ascertain whether there was an embryo and thus to be exempted from the law of the firstling.');"><sup>14</sup></span> How does a wise man know? - Said R'Papa: [What is meant is] a wise shepherd. Said R'Hisda: Behold the Sages said: The period for the formation of an embryo in a woman is forty days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And should the woman, therefore, have a miscarriage before this period has elapsed. she is not required to keep the days of purity and impurity laid down by Scripture for a woman after childbirth.');"><sup>15</sup></span> R'Hisda thereupon asked: How long is the period in the case of an animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if it miscarried and is not therefore exempt from the law of the firstling.');"><sup>16</sup></span> - Said R'Papa to Abaye: Is not this Ze'iri's dictum? For Ze'iri said: The period of discharging is not less than thirty days?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently referring to the formation of the embryo.');"><sup>17</sup></span> This [statement] referred only to the receiving of a male for coupling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it cannot take a male for coupling purpose for a period of thirty days, having commenced to discharge from the womb. But there is no indication here as regards the time it takes to form an embryo. Another explanation is that Ze'iri's meaning is that before the animal becomes pregnant she discharges for thirty days, but there is nothing here with reference to the period of the formation of an embryo. (R. Gershom.)');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ו מצינו לוקח מעובד כוכבים לוקח מישראל מאי אמר רב בכור ודאי דאם איתא דבכרה אישתבוחי הוה מישתבח ליה
6 Now we have [in our Mishnah] the ruling concerning [an Israelite] purchasing [an animal] from a heathen. What is the ruling, however, where [an Israelite] purchases [an animal] from an Israelite? - Said Rab: It is surely a firstling, for if it had given birth, he would certainly have recommended it on this ground.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the animal had already given birth and thus the priest had no further claim on the offspring.');"><sup>19</sup></span> But Samuel says: It is a questionable firstling, because the seller thinks the other needs for slaughtering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the reason, therefore, why the seller is silent on this point is perhaps not because it had never given birth but because he thinks that the buyer desires to kill the animal and not to rear offspring, in which case there is no advantage in informing him. Consequently, it is a doubtful firstling.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
ז ושמואל אמר בכור ספק סבר לשחיטה קא בעי ליה ורבי יוחנן אמר חולין ודאין מאי טעמא אם איתא דלא בכרה כיון דאיכא איסורא אודועי הוה מודע ליה
7 R'Johanan said: The animal is genuine hullin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unconsecrated animal.');"><sup>21</sup></span> What is the reason? If it be a fact that had never given birth, since we have here a prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the Israelite ate the firstling, since it belongs to the priest.');"><sup>22</sup></span> he would surely inform him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the animal had never given birth.');"><sup>23</sup></span> It has been taught in support of R'Johanan's ruling, who maintains that it is hullin: If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 83a.');"><sup>24</sup></span> he did not inform him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In four periods of the year. the Mishnah says in Hul. 83b, a seller must inform prospective buyers that he had sold the mother or the young on that day, so as to safeguard the buyer from killing the mother with its young on the same day.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
ח תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן דאמר חולין אם לא הודיעו הולך ושוחט ואינו נמנע לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב ושמואל התם במוכר תליא מילתא הכא בלוקח תליא מילתא:
8 he can proceed to kill and need not refrain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he had not informed him about selling its mother or its young on that day. We see therefore that we construe silence as indicating that there is no infringement of the law.');"><sup>26</sup></span> May we assume [then] that this [Baraitha] is a refutation of Rab and Samuel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold above respectively that the animal is a certain or a doubtful firstling, for here we see that it is regarded as genuine hullin.');"><sup>27</sup></span> - There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the Baraitha in Hul., the duty rests with the seller to inform the public and therefore the purchaser interprets the former's silence as indicating that there is no infringement of the law.');"><sup>28</sup></span> it depends on the seller, whereas here the matter depends on the buyer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It rests with the buyer of the animal to inquire whether it is a firstling or not, as Scripture says: All the firstling males that come of thy herd and thy flock etc. (Deut. XV. 19) , indicating that the duty of separating the firstling devolves upon the person in whose possession the animal is. Consequently, as the necessary inquiries were not made, we regard the offspring as a case of a questionable firstling.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
ט <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר בהמה גסה ששפעה חררת דם הרי זו תקבר ופטורה מן הבכורה:
9 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>R'ELIEZER B. JACOB SAYS: IF A LARGE DOMESTIC ANIMAL HAS DISCHARGED A CLOT OF BLOOD, IT [THE CLOT] SHALL BE BURIED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is forbidden to use it profitably in case it was a male embryo which was mashed and was sanctified as a firstling.');"><sup>30</sup></span> AND IT [THE MOTHER] IS EXEMPTED FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING.
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תני רבי חייא אינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא ומאחר דאינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא אמאי תקבר
10 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Hiyya taught: [The clot of blood] does not make unclean with contact, nor by being carried. Now since it does not make [a person] unclean by contact nor the carrier unclean, why is it buried?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it does not cause levitical uncleanness; we see that we do not fear lest there was here an embryo at all!');"><sup>31</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter