Bechorot Daf 20 (בכורות דף כ׳)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (20a)

Segment 1

TYPE: מסקנא

Rava returns to the first suggestion: Rabbi Yishmael follows Rabbi Meir and takes the minority into account

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מְחַוַּורְתָּא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּחָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּטָא.

English Translation:

It is clear, as was suggested initially, that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that one must be concerned for the minority.

קלאוד על הדף:

This completes the sentence that broke off at the end of 19b. The attempt to place Rabbi Yishmael with the Rabbis failed, because the Rabbis follow even a non-evident majority, as their ruling on the levirate marriage of minors shows. Rava therefore concludes that Rabbi Yishmael must side with Rabbi Meir: since a minority of goats does not give birth in its first year, a goat bought after that year leaves its next male an uncertain firstborn.

Key Terms:

• מְחַוַּורְתָּא = it is clear — the Gemara returns to an earlier suggestion after the alternative failed
• חָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּטָא = is concerned for the minority — Rabbi Meir’s method of taking minority cases into account

Segment 2

TYPE: תירוץ

Ravina: even the Rabbis do not rely on a majority that depends on an action

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רָבִינָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כִּי אָזְלִי רַבָּנַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא — בְּרוּבָּא דְּלָא תְּלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה, אֲבָל רוּבָּא דִּתְלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה — לָא.

English Translation:

Ravina says: You may even say that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. When the Rabbis follow the majority, it is with regard to a majority that is not dependent upon an action but is simply the nature of reality. But in the case of a majority that is dependent upon an action, such as the pregnancy of a young goat, which depends upon whether or not it had copulated with a male, the Rabbis do not follow the majority.

קלאוד על הדף:

Ravina rescues the possibility that Rabbi Yishmael agrees with the Rabbis by drawing a new line. Most minors are not eunuchs or ailonit simply by nature, so that majority needs nothing to happen. Whether a goat gave birth in its first year depends on an event, namely that it mated and conceived, and the Rabbis do not presume that an action took place on the strength of a majority.

Key Terms:

• רוּבָּא דְּלָא תְּלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה = a majority that does not depend on an action — a fact of nature
• רוּבָּא דִּתְלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה = a majority that depends on an action — here, mating and conception

Segment 3

TYPE: ברייתא

A baraita gives Rabbi Yishmael’s ages for goat, ewe, cow and donkey, with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda on the donkey

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֵז בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ — וַדַּאי לַכֹּהֵן, מִיכָּן וּלְהַלָּן — סָפֵק. רָחֵל בַּת שְׁתַּיִם — וַדַּאי לַכֹּהֵן, מִיכָּן וּלְהַלָּן — סָפֵק. פָּרָה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ — וַדַּאי לַכֹּהֵן, מִיכָּן וּלְהַלָּן — סָפֵק. חֲמוֹרָה — כְּפָרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חֲמוֹרָה בַּת אַרְבַּע שָׁנִים. עַד כָּאן דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

English Translation:

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If one purchased a goat within its first year from a gentile and does not know whether or not it had previously given birth, the subsequent male offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring’s status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a ewe within its second year the offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring’s status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a cow within its third year the offspring certainly is given to the priest; from that point forward an offspring’s status as a firstborn is uncertain. If it was a donkey it is subject to the same halakha as a cow. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The offspring of a donkey within its fourth year also has the status of a firstborn. Until here is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita repeats Rabbi Yishmael’s view from the mishna on 19b: an animal bought within the age at which it could not yet have given birth produces a certain firstborn, and after that age the status is uncertain. The ages are one year for a goat, two for a ewe and three for a cow. The baraita adds a dissent on the donkey: the first tanna treats it like a cow, while Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda extends its age of certainty into the fourth year. The closing words ‘until here’ mark the end of Rabbi Yishmael’s statement, before the response that follows.

Key Terms:

• עֵז בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ = a goat within its first year
• וַדַּאי לַכֹּהֵן = certainly [a firstborn, given] to the priest
• רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה = Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda — a tanna of the generation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi

Segment 4

TYPE: ברייתא

Rabbi Yehoshua answers Rabbi Yishmael: ‘You erred’, since a murky discharge also exempts

Hebrew/Aramaic:

כְּשֶׁנֶּאְמְרוּ דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר לָהֶן: צְאוּ אִמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: טָעִיתָ! אִילּוּ בְּוָולָד בִּלְבַד הַבְּהֵמָה נִפְטֶרֶת — הָיָה כִּדְבָרֶיךָ, אֶלָּא סִימַן הַוָּולָד בִּבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה — טִינּוּף, וּבַגַּסָּה — שִׁלְיָא, וּבָאִשָּׁה — שָׁפִיר וְשִׁלְיָא.

English Translation:

The baraita continues: When these matters were stated by the students before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said to them: Go out and say to Rabbi Yishmael: You erred. Were an animal exempted only by giving birth to an offspring and in no other manner the halakha would be in accordance with your statement. But the Rabbis said: An indication of the offspring in a small animal is a murky discharge from the womb, which exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn. And the indication in a large animal is the emergence of an afterbirth, and the indication in a woman is a fetal sac or an afterbirth.

קלאוד על הדף:

In the mishna this rebuttal was given in Rabbi Akiva’s name; in the baraita it is Rabbi Yehoshua who sends it. The argument is that birth is not the only thing that exempts a mother from the firstborn law. A murky discharge from a small animal, an afterbirth from a large one, and a fetal sac or afterbirth from a woman all count as a ‘birth’, and these can occur even before the ages Rabbi Yishmael set. So youth alone cannot guarantee that the next male is a firstborn.

Key Terms:

• טָעִיתָ = you erred
• טִינּוּף = a murky discharge from the womb — a sign of an early, unformed fetus
• שִׁלְיָא = the afterbirth — the placental sac
• שָׁפִיר = a fetal sac

Segment 5

TYPE: ברייתא

Rabbi Yehoshua’s own view on the timing of a discharge, and Rabbi Akiva’s simpler rule

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וַאֲנִי אֵין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא: עֵז שֶׁטִּינְּפָה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה — יוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ, רָחֵל שֶׁטִּינְּפָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ — יוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁתַּיִם. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֲנִי לֹא בָּאתִי לִידֵי מִדָּה זוֹ, אֶלָּא: כֹּל שֶׁיָּדוּעַ שֶׁבִּיכְּרָה — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם, וְכֹל שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ לַכֹּהֵן, סָפֵק — יֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ לַבְּעָלִים.

English Translation:

Rabbi Yehoshua added: That is the opinion of the Rabbis, but I myself do not say so. Rather, I hold that a goat that expelled a murky discharge from the womb at the age of six months can give birth within its first year, and a ewe that expelled a murky discharge in its first year can give birth within its second year. The Gemara will later discuss the practical difference between his opinion and the ruling that he ascribes to the Rabbis. Rabbi Akiva says: I have not arrived at this method of determining firstborn status. Rather, in any case where it is known that the animal had previously given birth, the priest has nothing here. And in any case where it is known that the animal had not previously given birth, that is given to the priest. And if it is uncertain, it may be eaten in its blemished state by the owner.

קלאוד על הדף:

Having stated the tradition of the Sages, Rabbi Yehoshua gives his own opinion: a goat that discharged at six months can still give birth within its first year, and a ewe that discharged in its first year can give birth within its second. Rabbi Akiva refuses to work with age-based measures at all. He sets one rule: a known prior birth means nothing for the priest, a known first birth goes to the priest, and in any doubt the owner keeps the animal and eats it once it is blemished.

Key Terms:

• אֵין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן = I do not say so — distinguishing his own view from the tradition he reported
• מִדָּה = a measure — a fixed rule of thumb
• יֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ לַבְּעָלִים = it is eaten by the owner once it is blemished — the rule for an uncertain firstborn

Segment 6

TYPE: בעיא

What exactly divides Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yehoshua? Perhaps whether a discharge exempts

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? לֵימָא בְּטִינּוּף פּוֹטֵר קָמִיפַּלְגִי, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר טִינּוּף אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר טִינּוּף פּוֹטֵר?

English Translation:

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. With regard to what matter do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree? Shall we say they disagree with regard to whether or not a murky discharge from the womb exempts an animal from the mitzva of the firstborn; as Rabbi Yishmael holds that a murky discharge does not exempt an animal because it is not a sign of a birth, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a murky discharge exempts an animal?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara now analyzes the baraita. The obvious suggestion is that Rabbi Yishmael simply does not regard a murky discharge as a birth, while Rabbi Yehoshua does. That would explain why Rabbi Yishmael looks only at age and ignores the possibility of a discharge.

Key Terms:

• בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי = about what do they disagree?
• טִינּוּף פּוֹטֵר = a discharge exempts [the next offspring from firstborn status]

Segment 7

TYPE: דחייה

No: everyone agrees a seen discharge exempts; they dispute whether to suspect an unseen one

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִי דַּחֲזֵינָא דְּטַינִּוף — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּטִינּוּף פּוֹטֵר, וְהָכָא בְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְטִינּוּף קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְטִינּוּף, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְטִינּוּף.

English Translation:

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If we actually see a murky discharge, everyone agrees that the murky discharge exempts an animal. And here, it is with regard to whether one is concerned about the possibility that an animal might have expelled a murky discharge that they disagree. Rabbi Yishmael holds that we are not concerned about a murky discharge, and it can therefore be assumed that the first offspring born after its purchase from the gentile is firstborn; and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that one is concerned about a murky discharge, and due to the uncertainty the next offspring remains with its owner.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara rejects the suggestion. When the discharge is actually observed, both agree it exempts the next offspring. The dispute concerns a goat bought from a gentile, where no one knows what happened: Rabbi Yishmael does not suspect a discharge and treats the next male as a certain firstborn, while Rabbi Yehoshua does suspect it and leaves the status uncertain.

Key Terms:

• אִי דַּחֲזֵינָא = if we see [it]
• חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְטִינּוּף = one is concerned for [the possibility of] a discharge

Segment 8

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

But Rava said Rabbi Yishmael is concerned for the minority! He worries only for stringency

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְלָא חָיֵישׁ? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: מְחַוַּורְתָּא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּחָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּט! כִּי חָיֵישׁ — לְחוּמְרָא, לְקוּלָּא — לָא חָיֵישׁ.

English Translation:

The Gemara objects: And is it correct that Rabbi Yishmael is not concerned about the possibility that the mother might have expelled a murky discharge before giving birth to a live offspring? But doesn’t Rava say: It is clear that Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says one must be concerned for the minority? If so, Rabbi Yishmael should be concerned for a murky discharge as well. The Gemara explains: Where Rabbi Yishmael is concerned is when the concern leads to a stringency. But if the concern would lead to a leniency, as in this case, where it would mean that the animal born after a year is only an uncertain firstborn, he is not concerned.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara objects from Rava’s statement in segment 1: if Rabbi Yishmael takes minorities into account, he should also suspect a discharge. The answer is that he takes a minority into account only when doing so makes the law stricter. On 19b his concern made an older goat’s offspring an uncertain firstborn instead of fully exempt. Here suspecting a discharge would make the offspring of a young goat uncertain instead of certain, which is a leniency, so he does not suspect it.

Key Terms:

• לְחוּמְרָא = toward stringency
• לְקוּלָּא = toward leniency

Segment 9

TYPE: תירוץ

Alternatively: they dispute whether an animal that discharged can still give birth within its first year

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בֵּין לְקוּלָּא בֵּין לְחוּמְרָא חָיֵישׁ, וְהָכָא בִּמְטַנֶּפֶת וְחוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: מְטַנֶּפֶת אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ, וְהָא מִדְּאוֹלִיד — וַדַּאי לָא טַנִּיף. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: מְטַנֶּפֶת חוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ.

English Translation:

And if you wish, say instead: Whether it leads to a leniency or whether it leads to a stringency Rabbi Yishmael is concerned, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not an animal can expel a murky discharge and then return to its fertile state and give birth within its first year. As Rabbi Yishmael holds: An animal that expels a murky discharge does not return to its fertile state and give birth within its first year, and accordingly, from the fact that this animal gave birth it can be concluded that it certainly did not expel a murky discharge beforehand. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: An animal that expels a murky discharge returns to its fertile state and can give birth within its first year.

קלאוד על הדף:

A second answer lets Rabbi Yishmael take the minority into account in both directions. On this view the disagreement is about animals, not about doubt. Rabbi Yishmael holds that a goat which discharged cannot recover and give birth within its first year, so the very fact that this goat gave birth proves it had no discharge before. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it can recover and give birth within the year, so the possibility remains open.

Key Terms:

• וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא = and if you wish, say — introducing an alternative answer
• מְטַנֶּפֶת וְחוֹזֶרֶת וְיוֹלֶדֶת = discharges and then again gives birth

Segment 10

TYPE: קושיא

Rabbi Yehoshua’s own view quoted again: how does it differ from the tradition he reported?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וַאֲנִי אֵינִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא עֵז שֶׁטִּינְּפָה בַּת שִׁשָּׁה — יוֹלֶדֶת תּוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ, רָחֵל שֶׁטִּינְּפָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ — יוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁתַּיִם. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין גְּמָרֵיהּ לִסְבָרֵיהּ?

English Translation:

§ The baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua said: That is the opinion of the Rabbis, but I myself do not say so. Rather, I hold that a goat that expelled a murky discharge from the womb at the age of six months still gives birth within its first year, while a ewe that expelled a murky discharge in its first year still gives birth within its second year. The Gemara asks: Since according to both opinions an animal that expelled a murky discharge can still give birth within a year, what difference is there between Rabbi Yehoshua’s tradition of the opinion of the Rabbis and his own reasoning?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara turns to Rabbi Yehoshua’s personal statement. Both the tradition of the Sages and his own view hold that a discharge exempts and that a goat can discharge and still bear within its year. The question is what practical difference separates what he received from his teachers (gemarei) and what he reasoned himself (sevarei).

Key Terms:

• גְּמָרֵיהּ = his tradition — what he received from his teachers
• סְבָרֵיהּ = his reasoning — his own view

Segment 11

TYPE: תירוץ

The difference: a goat that discharged at the very end of six months, and Ze’eiri’s thirty-day rule

Hebrew/Aramaic:

שֶׁטִּינְּפָה בְּסוֹף שִׁשָּׁה, וְאִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּזְעֵירִי, דְּאָמַר זְעֵירִי: אֵין טִינּוּף פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: The difference between their opinions is in a case where a goat expelled a murky discharge at the end of its first six months of life, when the seventh month began, and then gave birth before the end of its first year. And there is a difference between them with regard to the statement of Ze’eiri, as Ze’eiri says: The expulsion of a murky discharge, which is sufficient to exempt an animal from having its future offspring counted a firstborn, prevents it from being impregnated for no less than thirty days. If an animal becomes pregnant within thirty days of expelling a murky discharge, evidently that discharge was not the sign of a fetus, and therefore the offspring will have firstborn status.

קלאוד על הדף:

The difference shows up when a goat discharged exactly at the end of its sixth month and still gave birth within the year. Ze’eiri teaches that a genuine discharge is followed by at least thirty days in which the animal cannot conceive. If such a goat conceived sooner than that, the discharge was not a real sign of a fetus.

Key Terms:

• בְּסוֹף שִׁשָּׁה = at the end of six [months]
• זְעֵירִי = Ze’eiri — an early Babylonian amora
• אֵין טִינּוּף פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם = a discharge [that counts] is followed by no less than thirty days [before conception]

Segment 12

TYPE: תירוץ

The tradition accepts Ze’eiri; Rabbi Yehoshua’s own reasoning does not

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לִגְמָרֵיהּ — אִית לֵיהּ דִּזְעֵירִי, לִסְבָרֵיהּ — לֵית לֵיהּ דִּזְעֵירִי.

English Translation:

In this case, as the pregnancy of a goat lasts five months and a murky discharge was expelled at the end of the sixth month, a goat that gave birth by the end of the year, i.e., twelve months, must have become pregnant within a month of the discharge. The Rabbis, whose opinion Rabbi Yehoshua cited by tradition, accept the statement of Ze’eiri, and therefore they rule that this goat, which became pregnant within a month of the discharge, is not exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. According to Rabbi Yehoshua’s own reasoning, he does not accept the statement of Ze’eiri, which means that although this animal became pregnant within a month of the discharge, it was nevertheless exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

A goat carries for five months. If it discharged at the end of month six and gave birth by month twelve, it must have conceived within about thirty days. The tradition of the Sages accepts Ze’eiri, so such a discharge proves nothing and the next male is a firstborn; Rabbi Yehoshua’s own view rejects Ze’eiri, so the discharge still exempts.

Key Terms:

• אִית לֵיהּ = he accepts [it]
• לֵית לֵיהּ = he does not accept [it]

Segment 13

TYPE: תירוץ

Alternatively: all accept Ze’eiri; they dispute whether an animal can give birth prematurely

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דִּזְעֵירִי, וְהָכָא — בְּיוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין קָמִיפַּלְגִי;

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests another answer: And if you wish, say that everyone accepts the statement of Ze’eiri; and here, in the case of a goat that gave birth within its first year after having expelled a murky discharge at the end of its sixth month, they disagree with regard to whether or not an animal gives birth after incomplete months, i.e., prematurely.

קלאוד על הדף:

A second explanation keeps Ze’eiri’s rule on both sides. The difference then lies in whether a goat can bear after incomplete months, that is, after a pregnancy shorter than the normal five months. The amud ends in the middle of this answer, which is completed at the top of 20b.

Key Terms:

• יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין = gives birth after incomplete [months] — a shortened pregnancy

Amud Bet (20b)

Segment 1

TYPE: תירוץ

The tradition denies premature birth; Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning allows it

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לִגְמָרֵיהּ — לָא אָמְרִינַן יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין, לִסְבָרֵיהּ — אָמְרִינַן יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין.

English Translation:

According to Rabbi Yehoshua’s tradition of the opinion of the Rabbis, we do not say that an animal gives birth after incomplete months, and therefore if it gave birth within its first year it must have become pregnant within thirty days of the discharge, which means the discharge was not indicative of a fetus and does not exempt the next offspring from being counted a firstborn. According to Rabbi Yehoshua’s own reasoning, we say an animal gives birth after incomplete months, and consequently it is possible the animal became pregnant later than thirty days after the discharge and its term of pregnancy was shorter than normal. If so, the discharge does exempt the next offspring from firstborn status.

קלאוד על הדף:

The sentence from 20a is completed. On the tradition, a goat does not deliver early, so a birth within the year proves conception within thirty days of the discharge, and by Ze’eiri the discharge does not exempt. On Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning the goat may have conceived after the thirty days and delivered early, so the discharge still counts and exempts the next male.

Key Terms:

• לָא אָמְרִינַן = we do not say
• אָמְרִינַן = we say

Segment 2

TYPE: תירוץ

A third answer: they dispute whether part of a day counts as a whole day

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָא אָמְרִינַן יוֹלֶדֶת, וְהָכָא בְּמִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי. לִסְבָרֵיהּ — אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ, לִגְמָרֵיהּ — לָא אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ.

English Translation:

And if you wish, say that everyone accepts Ze’eiri’s statement and we do not say that an animal gives birth prematurely, 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 Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning we say part of the day is like an entire day, and therefore it is possible for the goat to have become pregnant on the thirtieth day after experiencing the discharge and to give birth precisely five months later, just before the year ends. According to his tradition of the opinion of the Rabbis, we do not say part of the day is like an entire day, which means that the earliest possible birth is on the first day of the second year.

קלאוד על הדף:

A third explanation accepts both Ze’eiri and a full-length pregnancy. The question is whether the conception day can count as the thirtieth day and the birth day as the end of the five months. If part of a day is like the whole day, as Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning holds, the birth can just fit within the year; on the tradition it cannot fall before the start of the second year.

Key Terms:

• מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ = part of the day is like all of it — a general halakhic principle about counting days

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא

What practical difference is there between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֲנִי לֹא בָּאתִי לִידֵי מִדָּה זוֹ, אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁיָּדוּעַ כּוּ׳. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ?

English Translation:

The baraita taught that Rabbi Akiva says: I have not arrived at this method of determining firstborn status. Rather, in any case where it is known the animal had previously given birth, the priest has nothing here. And in any case where it is known the animal had not previously given birth, its firstborn is given to the priest. And if it is uncertain, it may be eaten in its blemished state by the owner. The Gemara asks: What difference is there in practice between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara turns to Rabbi Akiva’s closing words in the baraita. Rabbi Akiva gave no age measures, but Rabbi Yehoshua’s view also leaves most bought animals uncertain. The Gemara asks what case they would actually rule on differently.

Key Terms:

• לֹא בָּאתִי לִידֵי מִדָּה זוֹ = I have not come to this measure — I do not use this method
• מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ = what [practical difference] is there between them?

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ

Rabbi Chanina of Sura: they dispute whether giving milk exempts

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: חָלָב פּוֹטֵר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: חָלָב פּוֹטֵר, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב בְּהֵמוֹת, וְרוֹב בְּהֵמוֹת אֵין חוֹלְבוֹת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹלְדוֹת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: הָא אִיכָּא מִיעוּטָא דְּחוֹלְבוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין יוֹלְדוֹת.

English Translation:

Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura says: There is a difference between them in a case where the animal came into the Jew’s possession after it had already started to produce milk. They differ as to whether or not the production of milk is sufficient to exempt an animal from having its next offspring counted a firstborn. Rabbi Akiva holds: Milk exempts it, as we follow the majority of animals, and the majority of animals do not produce milk unless they have given birth. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Since there is a minority of animals that do produce milk even though they have not given birth, the animal that is born later is an uncertain firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Chanina of Sura places the dispute in the case of an animal bought while already giving milk. Rabbi Akiva follows the majority of animals, which give milk only after giving birth, so the milk shows that it has already given birth and the next male is exempt. Rabbi Yehoshua takes into account the minority that give milk without giving birth, so the next male is an uncertain firstborn.

Key Terms:

• חָלָב פּוֹטֵר = milk exempts — lactation is taken as proof of a prior birth
• רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא = Rabbi Chanina of Sura — a Babylonian amora
• הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב = follow the majority

Segment 5

TYPE: קושיא

But Rabbi Yehoshua ignores the minority in the case of the absent mother-in-law

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּמִי חָיֵישׁ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְמִיעוּט? וְהָתְנַן: הָיְתָה לָהּ חֲמוֹת — אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת, יָצְאָה מְלֵיאָה — חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehoshua concerned for a minority? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yevamot 119a): If a woman’s husband passed away before she had given birth to any children and the husband had no known brothers who could perform levirate marriage, even though she has a mother-in-law who traveled overseas and may have conceivably given birth to a male who could later perform levirate marriage, she does not need to be concerned for that possibility and may marry another man without finding out if a male child had been born. But if the mother-in-law left while she was full, i.e., pregnant, the daughter-in-law must be concerned that a male might have been born. Rabbi Yehoshua says: She does not need to be concerned.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara challenges the attribution from a mishna in Yevamot 119a. A childless widow whose husband had no known brothers may remarry, though her mother-in-law is abroad; but if the mother-in-law left while pregnant, the first tanna says the widow must allow for a son who could perform levirate marriage. Rabbi Yehoshua says she need not be concerned, which seems to show he does not worry about a minority.

Key Terms:

• חֲמוֹת = mother-in-law
• יָצְאָה מְלֵיאָה = she left full — that is, pregnant
• חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת = she must be concerned [for a possible levir]

Segment 6

TYPE: קושיא

The reasoning: miscarriages plus females outnumber males, and a minority is ignored

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? קָסָבַר: רוֹב מְעוּבָּרוֹת יוֹלְדוֹת, וּמִיעוּט מַפִּילוֹת, וְכׇל הַיּוֹלְדוֹת — מֶחֱצָה זְכָרִים וּמֶחֱצָה נְקֵבוֹת. סְמוֹךְ מִיעוּטָא דְּמַפִּילוֹת לְמֶחֱצָה דִּנְקֵבוֹת, וְהָווּ לְהוּ זְכָרִים מִיעוּטָא, וּלְמִיעוּטָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן!

English Translation:

And we say: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua? He holds the majority of pregnant women give birth to a child and a minority miscarry. And of all those who give birth, half bear males and half bear females. Combine the minority of those who miscarry with the half that give birth to females, and conclude that the males are in fact a minority, and we are not concerned for a minority. Evidently, Rabbi Yehoshua holds there is no need to be concerned for a minority.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara cites the analysis it gives of that mishna. Most pregnancies end in birth and a minority in miscarriage, and births divide evenly between males and females. Adding the miscarriages to the females makes a surviving son a minority outcome, and Rabbi Yehoshua disregards it. So Rabbi Yehoshua is someone who is not concerned for a minority, the opposite of the position Rabbi Chanina gave him.

Key Terms:

• מַפִּילוֹת = those who miscarry
• סְמוֹךְ מִיעוּטָא = attach the minority — combine a minority with half to create a majority

Segment 7

TYPE: תירוץ

Reverse the names: a baraita has Rabbi Yehoshua saying milk exempts and Rabbi Akiva saying it does not

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא אֵיפוֹךְ, וְהָתַנְיָא: חָלָב פּוֹטֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חָלָב אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר.

English Translation:

Rather, reverse the two opinions in the mishna. And in fact it is taught in that manner in a baraita: The production of milk exempts an animal from having its offspring counted a firstborn; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Akiva says: The production of milk does not exempt an animal from having its offspring counted a firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara resolves the contradiction by reversing the two positions in Rabbi Chanina’s explanation. A baraita confirms this: Rabbi Yehoshua, who follows the majority, holds that milk exempts, and Rabbi Akiva holds that it does not. This also fits Rabbi Akiva’s rule that any doubt is resolved in favor of the owner, since without a proven birth the next male remains a doubtful firstborn and stays with him.

Key Terms:

• אֵיפוֹךְ = reverse [the attributions]
• וְהָתַנְיָא = and so it is taught [in a baraita]

Segment 8

TYPE: ברייתא

Triplets of triplets: a kid’s offspring can make a tithable group within one year

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גְּדִיָּיה שֶׁיָּלְדָה שָׁלֹשׁ בָּנוֹת, וְכׇל בְּנוֹתֶיהָ יָלְדוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ — כּוּלָּן נִכְנָסוֹת לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי שֶׁעִישְּׂרָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ? תּוֹלֵיד חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ תְּלָת, וְאִינָךְ תַּרְתֵּי תַּרְתֵּי!

English Translation:

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a kid that gave birth to female triplets and all her offspring each gave birth to female triplets, all of them, i.e., the offspring and their offspring, enter the pen to be tithed. The animal tithe applies only if one owns at least ten or more animals born in the same year that are not male firstborns. Rabbi Shimon says: I saw a single kid that yielded enough offspring to be subject to the tithe within its first year of life. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the baraita to teach that each offspring gave birth to three other offspring? Let one of them give birth to three, and let the other two give birth to two each, so that there are a total of ten goats born within a single year, which are therefore subject to the tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

A new baraita discusses the animal tithe (maaser behema), which applies to animals born in the same year and counted together through the pen in groups of ten. A kid that bore three daughters, each of which bore three, produced twelve animals, and all enter the pen. Rabbi Shimon testifies that he saw a single goat’s offspring tithed within its first year. The Gemara asks why each must bear three, since one bearing three and two bearing two each would already make ten.

Key Terms:

• גְּדִיָּיה = a young female goat, a kid
• נִכְנָסוֹת לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר = enter the pen to be tithed — the procedure of maaser behema
• רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai — tanna, student of Rabbi Akiva

Segment 9

TYPE: קושיא

Since one must bear three, the baraita says ‘all’; but why not have the mother bear again?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אַיְּידֵי דְּאִיכָּא חֲדָא דְּלָא סַגִּיא בְּלָא שָׁלֹשׁ, תְּנָא כּוּלְּהוּ דְּיָלְדוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ. וּלְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי שָׁלֹשׁ כְּלָל? לֵילְדוּ כּוּלְּהוּ תַּרְתֵּי, וְתִיהְדַּר אִיהִי וְתוֹלֵיד בַּהֲדַיְהִי!

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: Since there is one goat in this case that would not produce a sufficient number of offspring without giving birth to three, the baraita taught a case where all three goats gave birth to three offspring each, for the sake of consistency. The Gemara asks: But why do I need to teach that any goat gave birth to three at once at all? Let all the second-generation goats give birth to two offspring, and let her, the mother of the three second-generation goats, give birth again to another goat together with them. The fact that the baraita did not teach this case indicates that a goat cannot give birth again within the same year.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara answers that one of the daughters must bear three to reach ten, so the baraita gave the same number to all for the sake of uniform wording. It then presses further: why have any goat bear three? The three daughters could bear two each and the mother could bear once more, giving ten. The translation takes the baraita’s silence to mean that a goat cannot bear twice within the same year, which bears on Rabbi Yishmael’s view at the start of the daf; the discussion continues on 21a.

Key Terms:

• אַיְּידֵי = since — on account of [one case, the others are taught the same way]
• לָא סַגִּיא = it is not sufficient
• וְתִיהְדַּר אִיהִי וְתוֹלֵיד = let her give birth again

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 20 stays with the third perek’s opening mishna, which asks when an animal bought from a gentile, with no known history, produces a certain firstborn. The daf opens by finishing Rava’s conclusion from 19b: Rabbi Yishmael follows Rabbi Meir and takes the minority into account. Ravina offers a way to place him with the Rabbis after all, since even they do not presume an action on the strength of a majority. A baraita then sets out Rabbi Yishmael’s ages for goat, ewe, cow and donkey, Rabbi Yehoshua’s rebuttal that a murky discharge (טינוף) also exempts, Rabbi Yehoshua’s own view on how quickly a goat can bear after a discharge, and Rabbi Akiva’s refusal to use age measures at all. The Gemara works through each pair. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yehoshua differ either on suspecting an unseen discharge or on whether an animal that discharged can still bear within the year. Rabbi Yehoshua’s tradition and his own reasoning are told apart by Ze’eiri’s thirty-day rule, by premature birth, or by whether part of a day counts as a whole day. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree on whether giving milk proves a prior birth, with the names reversed so that Rabbi Yehoshua stays consistent with his ruling on the absent mother-in-law. A final baraita on a kid whose offspring are tithed within one year shows that a goat cannot bear twice in a year, and the discussion continues on 21a.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• “מחוורתא”: Rava concludes that Rabbi Yishmael follows Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority. A minority of goats does not bear in its first year, so a goat bought after that year leaves its next male an uncertain firstborn.
• Ravina’s distinction: even the Rabbis may agree with Rabbi Yishmael. They follow a majority that rests on nature (רובא דלא תלי במעשה), such as most minors not being sterile. They do not follow a majority that depends on an action (רובא דתלי במעשה), and whether a goat bore in its first year depends on mating and conception.
• The baraita of ages: a goat within its first year, a ewe within its second and a cow within its third produce a certain firstborn, and after that the status is uncertain. A donkey is like a cow, while Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda extends the donkey’s certainty into its fourth year.
• “טעית”: Rabbi Yehoshua sends word that Rabbi Yishmael erred. The Rabbis said a murky discharge in a small animal, an afterbirth in a large one, and a fetal sac or afterbirth in a woman all exempt the next offspring, and these can happen before the ages Rabbi Yishmael set.
• Rabbi Yehoshua’s own view: a goat that discharged at six months can still bear within its first year, and a ewe that discharged in its first year can bear within its second.
• Rabbi Akiva: he does not use age measures. A known prior birth means the kohen gets nothing, a known first birth goes to the kohen, and any doubt is eaten by the owner once it is blemished.
• Yishmael versus Yehoshua: the first suggestion, that they dispute whether a discharge exempts, is rejected, since both agree a seen discharge exempts. They dispute whether to suspect an unseen one in a goat bought from a gentile.
• “לחומרא”: if Rabbi Yishmael takes the minority into account, why not here? He does so only to be stringent. Suspecting a discharge would turn a certain firstborn into a doubtful one, which is a leniency.
• Alternatively: both are concerned for the minority. They dispute whether a goat that discharged can still give birth within its year. Rabbi Yishmael says it cannot, so the birth itself proves there was no earlier discharge.
• Tradition versus reasoning: what separates the view Rabbi Yehoshua received (גמריה) from his own (סבריה)? The case is a goat that discharged at the very end of six months and still bore within the year. Ze’eiri teaches that a real discharge is followed by at least thirty days without conception. Since a goat carries for five months, such a birth means it conceived within that window. The tradition accepts Ze’eiri, so the discharge proves nothing. Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning rejects him, so the discharge exempts.
• A second explanation: everyone accepts Ze’eiri, and the dispute is whether a goat can bear after incomplete months (יולדת למקוטעין). The answer breaks off at the end of the amud.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Premature birth: the tradition holds that a goat does not deliver early, so the birth proves conception within thirty days and the discharge does not exempt. Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning allows an early delivery after the thirty days, so the discharge still exempts.
• A third explanation: the dispute is whether part of a day counts as a whole day (מקצת היום ככולו). If it does, the conception day and the birth day can be counted so that the birth just fits within the year.
• Akiva versus Yehoshua: since both leave most bought animals uncertain, where do they actually differ? Rabbi Chanina of Sura says they differ on an animal bought while giving milk. Rabbi Akiva follows the majority, so milk proves a prior birth and exempts the next male. Rabbi Yehoshua takes the minority into account and leaves the male doubtful.
• The absent mother-in-law: the Gemara challenges this from the mishna in Yevamot. A widow whose mother-in-law went abroad pregnant need not allow for a possible levir, according to Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara’s analysis there adds the miscarriages to the females, which makes a surviving son a minority outcome. So Rabbi Yehoshua is not concerned for the minority.
• “איפוך”: the names are reversed. A baraita states it explicitly: milk exempts according to Rabbi Yehoshua, and it does not exempt according to Rabbi Akiva. This also fits Rabbi Akiva’s rule that a doubtful case stays with the owner.
• Triplets of triplets: a baraita on the animal tithe (מעשר בהמה), counted in groups of ten born in the same year. A kid bore three females and each of them bore three, and all enter the pen to be tithed. Rabbi Shimon says he saw a single kid’s offspring tithed within its first year.
• Why three each? One bearing three and two bearing two each would make ten. The Gemara answers that one daughter must bear three, so the baraita taught “all” for uniformity. It then asks why any goat must bear three, when the mother could bear again alongside daughters bearing two each. The baraita’s silence shows that a goat cannot bear twice within the same year, and the discussion continues on 21a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

Rava’s reading of Rabbi Yishmael as following Rabbi Meir stands, though Ravina shows that the Rabbis could agree on other grounds. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yehoshua agree that a seen discharge exempts, and they divide over an unseen one. The Gemara gives two accounts of this and does not choose between them. The gap between Rabbi Yehoshua’s tradition and his reasoning is explained in three ways, and the Gemara leaves all three standing. On milk, the attributions are reversed and a baraita confirms the reversal: Rabbi Yehoshua, who follows the majority, holds that milk exempts, and Rabbi Akiva does not. The tithing baraita shows that a goat does not bear twice in one year. Its implications for the ages in the mishna are taken up on 21a.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Meir, the Rabbis, Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon

Amoraim: Rava, Ravina, Ze’eiri, Rabbi Chanina of Sura

One-Line Takeaway

When the history of a bought animal is unknown, each Sage must decide which signs of a prior birth to trust (age, a discharge, milk) and how far a minority possibility can create doubt, and the Gemara shows how a whole firstborn ruling can turn on a few days of gestation.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Yesterday’s daf started a brand-new chapter about animals bought from a non-Jew, where nobody knows whether the mother already had babies. Today we finish a cliffhanger about Rabbi Yishmael, then hear a whole conversation between Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva about baby goats, “almost-babies,” milk and counting days. We end with a fun math puzzle: how fast can one little goat become a whole family of ten?

Quick Recap: The Mystery Mother Goat 🐐❓

Here’s the setup from daf 19. A Jew buys a mother goat from a non-Jew. Then the goat has a boy baby. Is that baby a בכור (bechor, “firstborn”), which goes to the kohen (the priest)?

It depends! A bechor is only the very first baby a mother ever has. If this goat already had a baby back at the non-Jew’s farm, today’s baby is not a firstborn. But nobody saw what happened back there.

Rabbi Yishmael solves it with age:

Rabbi Akiva said: “Age doesn’t prove anything! A young animal could have had an early, unfinished pregnancy that nobody noticed.”

Then the Gemara asked: most goats do have babies in their first year. So why does Rabbi Yishmael call an older goat’s baby only a “maybe”? Shouldn’t we say “most goats already had a baby, so this one isn’t a firstborn at all”? The Gemara tried an answer, it fell apart, and the page ended with: “Rava says…”

The Simple Idea 💡: We’re finishing the question of why Rabbi Yishmael won’t just trust “most goats” when the goat is older.

Rava’s Answer: Worrying About the Few 🔍

Here’s the end of the sentence. Rava says: “It’s clear! Rabbi Yishmael agrees with Rabbi Meir.” Rabbi Meir is a Sage who always worries about the minority (חייש למיעוטא, chayeish le-miuta, “he worries about the few”).

So even though most goats have a baby in their first year, a few don’t. Maybe this older goat is one of those few! So its next boy might still be its very first baby. That’s why Rabbi Yishmael calls it a doubt, not “definitely not a firstborn.”

Think of it like… a teacher who says “most kids already ate lunch.” A careful lunch lady says: “Most, sure. But some didn’t! So I’ll keep a sandwich ready, just in case.”

The Simple Idea 💡: Rava says Rabbi Yishmael is a “worry about the few” person, like Rabbi Meir, so an older goat’s baby stays a maybe.

Ravina’s Other Answer: Did Something Happen? 🤷

Ravina says: “Actually, Rabbi Yishmael could agree with the Rabbis too!” The Rabbis usually do follow the majority. But there’s a difference between two kinds of “most”:

• “Most” that’s just how things are. Most kids aren’t born with a problem that stops them from ever having children. Nothing has to happen for that to be true. The Rabbis trust this kind of “most.”
• “Most” that needs something to happen. For a goat to have had a baby, something has to happen: it has to meet a boy goat and get pregnant. The Rabbis don’t just assume an event happened because it “usually” does.

Think of it like… “most apples are red” versus “most kids already brushed their teeth tonight.” The first one is just how apples are. The second needs someone to actually go and brush! You might want to check.

The Simple Idea 💡: Ravina says even the Rabbis won’t assume something happened just because it usually does.

A Baraita With Ages, and a Donkey Twist 🫏

Now the Gemara brings a baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishna that isn’t in the Mishna itself). It repeats Rabbi Yishmael’s ages: goat in its 1st year, ewe in its 2nd, cow in its 3rd. Those babies are definitely the kohen’s. After those ages, they’re a maybe.

What about a donkey? (A firstborn donkey has its own special mitzva too.) The baraita says: a donkey is just like a cow. But Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Yehuda says: a donkey gets one more year, all the way into its 4th year.

Think of it like… a sign at the pool: “Kids under 10 must swim with a grown-up.” Somebody says, “For the deep end, make it under 11!” Same idea, just a different age for a different case.

The Simple Idea 💡: Each animal has its own “too young to have had a baby” age, and one Sage gives donkeys an extra year.

”You Made a Mistake!” Almost-Babies Count Too 🍼

When students told Rabbi Yehoshua what Rabbi Yishmael said, he sent back a message: “טעית!” (ta’ita, “You made a mistake!”)

Why? Because a mother animal doesn’t only “use up” her firstborn by having a real live baby. Sometimes a pregnancy ends very early, before a baby forms. That also counts as her “first,” and any baby after it is not a firstborn. The signs of an “almost-baby” are:

These can happen to young animals too. So being young doesn’t promise that the next boy is a firstborn!

Think of it like… a contest for “the first cookie out of the oven.” But what if a cookie came out half-baked earlier and got tossed? That still counts as the first one out. The next cookie can’t be called “first.”

The Simple Idea 💡: An early, unfinished pregnancy counts as a mother’s “first,” even if no real baby came out.

Rabbi Yehoshua’s Own Opinion and Rabbi Akiva’s Rule 🗣️

Rabbi Yehoshua then says: “That’s what my teachers taught. But I myself think: a goat that had a discharge at six months old can still have a real baby within its first year. And a ewe that had one in its first year can still have a baby within its second.”

Then Rabbi Akiva says: “I don’t use any of these age rules at all! Here’s my simple rule”:

• We know the mother had a baby before? The kohen gets nothing. ❌
• We know she never did? The baby goes to the kohen. ✅
• We don’t know? The owner keeps it, and once it gets a mum (a permanent blemish, like a torn ear), he can eat it. 🤷

Think of it like… a referee who says: “I don’t guess. If I saw it, I call it. If I didn’t see it, the ball stays with whoever has it.”

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Yehoshua adds his own timing ideas, and Rabbi Akiva says forget the ages: only what we know counts.

So What Do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yehoshua Really Argue About? 🧐

Guess #1: Maybe Rabbi Yishmael thinks a discharge doesn’t count at all, and Rabbi Yehoshua thinks it does?

Nope! If we actually see a discharge, everybody agrees it counts. The fight is about a goat bought from a non-Jew, where nobody saw anything. Do we worry that maybe there was a discharge we didn’t see?

• Rabbi Yishmael: no worry. A young goat’s baby is definitely a firstborn.
• Rabbi Yehoshua: yes, worry! So the baby is only a maybe.

But wait! 🤔 Didn’t Rava just say Rabbi Yishmael is a “worry about the few” person? So why doesn’t he worry here?

Answer 1: Rabbi Yishmael only worries when the worry makes the rule stricter (לחומרא, le-chumra). With the older goat, worrying gave the kohen a chance at the baby, which is stricter for the owner. Here, worrying would turn a definite firstborn into a maybe, which is easier for the owner (לקולא, le-kula). So here he doesn’t worry.

Think of it like… a careful mom who says “maybe it’s cold, take a coat!” but never says “maybe it’s warm, skip the coat!” She only worries in the safe direction.

Answer 2: Rabbi Yishmael always worries, both ways. The real fight is about goats: Can a goat that had a discharge bounce back and have a real baby in the same year?

• Rabbi Yishmael: no! So if this young goat did have a baby, that proves there was no discharge before.
• Rabbi Yehoshua: yes, it can. So maybe there was a discharge.

The Simple Idea 💡: Either Rabbi Yishmael only worries in the strict direction, or he thinks a goat with a discharge can’t have a baby the same year.

What Rabbi Yehoshua Learned vs. What He Thinks 📚🧠

Now the Gemara asks a sharp question. Rabbi Yehoshua said “my teachers say one thing, but I say another.” But both say a goat can have a discharge and still have a baby within its year! So what’s the difference between his גמריה (gemarei, “what he learned”) and his סבריה (sevarei, “what he figured out himself”)?

The Gemara gives three answers. All of them are about the same tricky goat: it had a discharge at the very end of month 6, and then it had a baby before its first birthday (month 12).

Here’s the math. A goat is pregnant for about 5 months. Count back 5 months from month 12, and you land at about month 7. So this goat got pregnant only about a month after its discharge!

Answer 1: Ze’eiri’s 30-day rule ⏱️

Ze’eiri (an early Sage of the Gemara in Babylonia) teaches: after a real discharge, a goat can’t get pregnant for at least 30 days. If it got pregnant sooner, that “discharge” wasn’t a real almost-baby, so it doesn’t count.

• What he learned: Ze’eiri is right. This goat got pregnant too soon, so the discharge doesn’t count, and its boy is a firstborn.
• What he thinks: no 30-day rule. The discharge counts, and the boy is not a firstborn.

Answer 2: Can a baby come early? 👶⏩

Maybe everyone accepts Ze’eiri. The question is whether a goat can give birth early, after less than 5 months (יולדת למקוטעין, yoledet le-mekuta’in, “giving birth after unfinished months”).

• What he learned: no early babies. So this goat must have gotten pregnant within 30 days, and by Ze’eiri the discharge doesn’t count.
• What he thinks: early babies happen! Maybe the goat waited the full 30 days and then had a slightly short pregnancy. So the discharge does count.

Answer 3: Does part of a day count as a whole day? 🌅

Maybe everyone accepts Ze’eiri and says no early babies. The question is about counting days. If the goat got pregnant on day 30, and the baby came exactly on the last day of the 5 months, does a piece of a day count as a whole day (מקצת היום ככולו, miktzat hayom ke-kulo)?

• What he thinks: yes, a piece counts! So the dates squeeze in just barely, and the baby can be born right before the year ends.
• What he learned: no, a piece doesn’t count. So the earliest the baby could come is the first day of year two.

Think of it like… your library book is due in 30 days, and you return it on the morning of day 30. One librarian says: “Today counts, you’re on time!” Another says: “You only used part of today, so it doesn’t count as a full day.” Same calendar, different counting!

The Simple Idea 💡: The difference between Rabbi Yehoshua’s teachers and his own view shows up in one super-tight case, and the Gemara gives three ways to explain it.

Rabbi Akiva vs. Rabbi Yehoshua: The Milk Test 🥛

Next question: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua both leave lots of bought animals as a “maybe.” So where do they really disagree?

Rabbi Chanina of Sura (a Sage from the Babylonian city of Sura) says: it’s about milk! Suppose you buy a goat that’s already giving milk. Does that prove she already had a baby?

• Rabbi Akiva: yes! Most animals only give milk after having a baby. Follow the majority, so the next boy is not a firstborn.
• Rabbi Yehoshua: but a few animals give milk without ever having a baby! So the next boy is a maybe.

But wait! 🤔 Does Rabbi Yehoshua really worry about “the few”? There’s a mishna in Yevamot that says the opposite.

Here’s the story. A man dies with no children, and he has no brothers that anyone knows of. Normally his widow would need a brother-in-law to do yibbum (marrying her to carry on her husband’s name), or chalitza (a ceremony that releases her). With no brother, she can marry anyone. But what if the man’s mother went far away while she was pregnant? Maybe she had a baby boy out there, and that boy would be the dead man’s brother!

• The first teacher: the widow has to worry about that baby boy.
• Rabbi Yehoshua: don’t worry!

Why not? Because some pregnancies end with no baby, and half of all babies are girls. Put those together, and a living boy is only the few. And Rabbi Yehoshua doesn’t worry about the few!

So the Gemara says: flip the names! (איפוך, eipuch, “reverse it.”) And a baraita says exactly that:

• Rabbi Yehoshua: milk proves a baby was born. (He follows the majority.)
• Rabbi Akiva: milk doesn’t prove it. (That fits his rule: if we don’t know, it stays a maybe, and the owner keeps it.)

Think of it like… two friends betting on a game, and you mix up who said what. Then you find their texts and say, “Oops, it was the other way around!”

The Simple Idea 💡: The real fight is whether milk proves a goat had a baby, and after flipping the names, Rabbi Yehoshua says yes and Rabbi Akiva says no.

The Goat Family Math Puzzle 🧮🐐

Now a fun one! There’s a mitzva called מעשר בהמה (ma’aser behema, “the animal tithe”). Every year, a farmer puts his new baby animals through a little gate, one at a time, and every 10th one is holy. So you need at least ten babies born in the same year before the tithe kicks in.

A baraita says: a young goat had 3 daughters, and each daughter had 3 babies of her own. All of them go through the gate to be tithed! And Rabbi Shimon says: “I saw a goat whose family got tithed within one year!”

Let’s count: 3 daughters + 9 grandbabies = 12 goats in one year. Enough for the tithe!

But wait! 🤔 asks the Gemara. Why does every daughter need 3 babies? If one daughter had 3, and the other two had 2 each, that’s 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 10. Already enough!

Answer: One of them has to have 3 to reach 10. So the baraita just said “3 each” for all of them, to keep it neat and even.

But wait again! Why does anyone need triplets? Let each daughter have 2 (that’s 6), plus the 3 daughters, that’s 9, and then the grandma goat has one more baby herself. That makes 10!

The baraita didn’t say that. So it seems a goat can’t have babies twice in the same year. And that’s a big deal for Rabbi Yishmael’s goat rules from the beginning of the daf! The conversation keeps going on daf 21.

Think of it like… planning a party for 10 kids. “Why invite three cousins from each family? Two from some families would be enough!” “And why not just have Grandma bring one more?” “Because Grandma can only come once a year!”

The Simple Idea 💡: A goat family can reach ten babies in one year, but the way the baraita counts hints that a mother goat can’t give birth twice in one year.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• Rava: Rabbi Yishmael worries about the few, like Rabbi Meir, so an older bought goat’s baby is only a maybe firstborn.
• Ravina: even the Rabbis won’t trust “most” when it depends on something happening, like a goat getting pregnant.
• The baraita: goat 1 year, ewe 2, cow 3, and a donkey is like a cow (or 4 years, says Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda).
• Rabbi Yehoshua: “You made a mistake!” A discharge, an afterbirth or a fetal sac counts as a mother’s “first,” even with no live baby.
• Rabbi Akiva: no age rules. If we know, we know; if we don’t, the owner keeps it and eats it once it’s blemished.
• Yishmael vs. Yehoshua: a seen discharge counts for everyone. They argue about worrying over an unseen one, or whether a goat can bounce back and give birth the same year.
• What Rabbi Yehoshua learned vs. what he thinks: a goat with a discharge at the end of month 6 that gives birth by month 12. It depends on Ze’eiri’s 30 days, early births, or whether part of a day counts as a whole day.
• Milk: does a milk-giving goat prove she had a baby? After flipping the names, Rabbi Yehoshua says yes and Rabbi Akiva says no.
• The goat family puzzle: a kid, her 3 daughters and their triplets fill the tithe pen in one year, and the counting hints a goat can’t give birth twice in a year. More on daf 21!

⚖️ Halacha

An Animal Bought from a Gentile: No Age Gives Certainty

Source in Daf: 20a, Segments 1-5 (Rava: Rabbi Yishmael is concerned for the minority; Ravina: a majority that depends on an action; the baraita of ages, one year for a goat, two for a ewe, three for a cow, with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda on the donkey; Rabbi Yehoshua’s “טעית”; Rabbi Akiva’s “לא באתי לידי מדה זו… וכל ספק יאכל במומו לבעלים”)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 4:7

Hebrew:

הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּהֵמָה מִן הַנָּכְרִי וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בִּכְּרָה אוֹ לֹא בִּכְּרָה וְיָלְדָה אֶצְלוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק בְּכוֹר וְיֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ לַבְּעָלִים וְאֵינוֹ לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה:

English:

When a person purchases an animal from a gentile and does not know whether it gave birth already or not, if it gives birth in his possession, the offspring is considered a firstborn because of the doubt. It should be eaten by its masters after it becomes blemished, but is not given to a priest. The rationale is that when a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

Connection: The Rambam’s ruling is Rabbi Akiva’s closing words in the baraita (Segment 5), “וכל ספק יאכל במומו לבעלים,” with the reason the codes give throughout this perek, “המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה.” Just as important is what the Rambam leaves out. He gives no table of ages, so Rabbi Yishmael’s rule that a goat bought within its first year, a ewe within two or a cow within three yields a certain firstborn (Segment 3) is not codified. Rabbi Akiva’s refusal to “come to this measure” is the halacha, and with it the Gemara’s long analysis of whether Rabbi Yishmael follows Rabbi Meir or the Rabbis (Segments 1-2) has no practical outcome.

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 12:22

Hebrew:

וְכֵן הַלּוֹקֵחַ חֲמוֹר מִן הָעַכּוּ”ם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בִּכְּרָה אוֹ לֹא בִּכְּרָה וְיָלְדָה זָכָר פּוֹדֶה אוֹתוֹ בְּשֶׂה וְהוּא לַבְּעָלִים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק:

English:

Similarly, when a person purchases a donkey from a gentile and it gives birth to a male, but it is not known whether it gave birth previously or not, he should redeem it with a seh - which he may keep - because its status is doubtful.

Connection: The baraita’s one internal dispute (Segment 3) was about the donkey: the first tanna gives it a cow’s three years, and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda extends its certainty into the fourth year. The Rambam’s law of the firstborn donkey (peter chamor) in Hilchot Bikkurim mentions no age at all. A donkey bought from a gentile whose history is unknown produces a doubtful firstborn, redeemed with a lamb that the owner keeps. So neither figure in the baraita is adopted, because the age-based approach is rejected as a whole.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 316:1

Hebrew:

הלוקח בהמה מהעובד כוכבים ואין ידוע אם בכרה וילדה ה”ז ספק בכור ויאכל במומו לבעלים ואינו לכהן שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה בין אם לקחה תוך שנתה או אחר שנתה ואפי’ אם העובד כוכבים מסיח לפי תומו שכבר בכרה אינו נאמן: (וסימנים שבסדקי קרניה אין מעלה ולא מוריד לסמוך עליהם) (הגהות מרדכי פ’ האשה)

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

One who buys an animal from a gentile, and it is not known whether it has given birth before, and it gave birth: this is a doubtful firstborn, eaten by the owner once blemished and not given to the kohen, for the one who seeks to take from his fellow bears the burden of proof. This applies whether he bought it within its first year or after its first year. And even if the gentile mentions offhandedly that it has already given birth, he is not believed. [Rema: Signs in the cracks of its horns neither add nor detract; one does not rely on them.]

Connection: The Mechaber copies the Rambam and then states outright what the Rambam implied: “בין אם לקחה תוך שנתה או אחר שנתה.” That phrase is the rejection of Rabbi Yishmael’s “עז בת שנתה ודאי לכהן” (Segment 3). Buying a goat within its first year gives no certainty, just as buying it later gives none. Since the firstborn of a kosher animal is sanctified today, this is practical law.

Tinuf: The Unseen Discharge

Source in Daf: 20a, Segments 4 and 6-9 (Rabbi Yehoshua: a murky discharge from a small animal or an afterbirth from a large one exempts; the dispute is not whether a seen discharge exempts but whether “חוששין לטינוף” in a goat bought from a gentile; Rabbi Yishmael is concerned for the minority only “לחומרא”; alternatively, whether an animal that discharged can still give birth within its first year)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 4:10

Hebrew:

בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה שֶׁהִפִּילָה עֻבָּר שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְבָּאֵר צוּרָתוֹ הַרְבֵּה וְנִכֶּרֶת לַכּל וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא טִנּוּף. אִם אָמְרוּ הָרוֹעִים עֻבָּר הוּא אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּפְסְדָה צוּרָתוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וְצָרִיךְ לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לְרוֹעֶה חָכָם. לְפִיכָךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּהֵמָה מִן הַנָּכְרִי אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה וְיָלְדָה אֶצְלוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק בְּכוֹר שֶׁמָּא טִנּוּף הִפִּילָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַנָּכְרִי. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה שֶׁהִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא הֲרֵי זוֹ סִימָן וָלָד שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד וְנִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה. וּמֻתָּר לְהַשְׁלִיךְ אוֹתָהּ הַשִּׁלְיָא לַכְּלָבִים שֶׁאֵין מִתְקַדֵּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה אֶלָּא זָכָר וְחֶזְקַת הַנּוֹלָדִים מֶחֱצָה זְכָרִים וּמֶחֱצָה נְקֵבוֹת. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַזָּכָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנֵי אִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ מִתְקַדֵּשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה וְנִמְצָא מִעוּט הַנּוֹלָדִים הֵן הַמִּתְקַדְּשִׁין בִּבְכוֹרָה וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְמִעוּט. אֲבָל בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁהִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא תִּקָּבֵר [שֶׁהַנְּקֵבוֹת בָּהּ כִּזְכָרִים]:

English:

The following laws apply when a small animal miscarries and discharges a fetus whose form has not become very distinct and evident to all. It is called a tinuf. If the shepherds say: “It was a fetus, but its form has become marred,” the future offspring of this animal is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. It must, however, be shown to a shepherd who is knowledgeable.

Therefore if one purchases an animal from a gentile, even if it was small and gave birth within its first year of life, the offspring is considered as a firstborn of doubtful status, because it is possible that it discharged a tinuf while owned by the gentile.

Similarly, when a large animal discharges a placenta, it is a sign that it carried a fetus, for a placenta is never formed without a fetus and the offspring is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. It is permitted to throw that fetus to the dogs for the following reasons. Only a male is sanctified as a firstborn. We assume that offspring are half male and half female. We have already explained that a male that does not have some of the distinguishing signs of its mother is not consecrated as a firstborn. Thus the lesser portion of animals’ first offspring is consecrated as a firstborn. Hence since the probability is less than half, it is not considered. When, by contrast, a consecrated animal discharges a placenta, it must be buried. For the female offspring are bound by the same laws as the male.

Connection: This halacha codifies both halves of today’s discussion of tinuf. The first and third sentences are the tradition Rabbi Yehoshua reported in Segment 4: a murky discharge from a small animal and an afterbirth from a large one count as a birth. The Gemara’s statement that “if we see it, all agree it exempts” (Segment 7) appears as the requirement that the shepherds confirm it.

The middle sentence decides the dispute of Segment 7. “Even if it was small and gave birth within its first year… perhaps it discharged a tinuf in the gentile’s possession” is Rabbi Yehoshua’s “חוששין לטינוף,” and the words “even if it was small” answer Rabbi Yishmael directly. The Rambam thus rejects both readings of Rabbi Yishmael, that he does not suspect a discharge where it would lead to leniency (Segment 8), and that an animal which discharged cannot give birth within its first year (Segment 9).

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 315:7

Hebrew:

בהמה דקה שטנפה דהיינו שנימוח העובר ויצא המיחוי פטורה מהבכורה וצריך להראותו לרועה חכם שיראה אם הוא מיחוי ולד ובהמה גסה שהפילה שליא פטורה מהבכורה והשליא עצמה אין בה קדושה ומותר להאכילה לכלבים שפעה חררת דם פטורה מהבכורה והחררה תקבר לפרסמה שהיא פטורה מהבכורה:

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

A small animal that discharged a tinuf, meaning that the fetus dissolved and the dissolved matter came out, is exempt from the firstborn law, and it must be shown to a skilled shepherd who will see whether it is the dissolved matter of a fetus. A large animal that miscarried an afterbirth is exempt from the firstborn law; the afterbirth itself has no sanctity and may be fed to dogs. If it expelled a clot of blood, it is exempt from the firstborn law, and the clot is buried to publicize that it is exempt.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch keeps Rabbi Yehoshua’s tradition (Segment 4) as practical law: a tinuf in a small animal and an afterbirth in a large one exempt the next offspring. The rule that applies it to an animal bought from a gentile is already contained in 316:1, which makes no exception for a young animal.

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 11:14 (second part)

Hebrew:

וְכֵן הַבָּא אַחַר הַנְּפָלִים כָּל נֵפֶל שֶׁאִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו אֵינוֹ פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם. וְכָל נֵפֶל שֶׁאֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה כְּמוֹ הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים אוֹ הַמַּפֶּלֶת יוֹם אַרְבָּעִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן וְחַיָּב לִפְדּוֹת:

English:

Similar concepts apply when a son is born after a nefal. Whenever the mother is ritually impure due to birth because of a nefal, a son born afterwards is not considered the first issue of the womb. Whenever a nefal does not cause the mother to be ritually impure due to birth, e.g., a woman who miscarries and the issue resembles a fish or a grasshopper, a woman who miscarries on the fortieth day [after conception], or the like, a son born afterwards is [under obligation] to the priesthood and must be redeemed.

Connection: Rabbi Yehoshua’s tradition also listed “a fetal sac and an afterbirth in a woman” (Segment 4). For a human firstborn the Rambam gives one test: a miscarriage that makes the mother impure as after childbirth (טמאה לידה) exempts the next son from pidyon haben, and one that does not, such as a miscarriage on the fortieth day, leaves him a firstborn who must be redeemed.

Ze’eiri: No Conception Within Thirty Days of a Discharge

Source in Daf: 20a, Segments 10-13 and 20b, Segments 1-2 (what separates Rabbi Yehoshua’s tradition from his own reasoning; a goat that discharged at the end of six months; Ze’eiri: “אין טינוף פחות משלשים יום”; alternatively, premature birth, “יולדת למקוטעין”; or “מקצת היום ככולו”)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 4:12

Hebrew:

כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּעִנְיַן נִדָּה שֶׁהַוָּלָד בָּאָדָם נִגְמָר לְאַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת לְפָחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעִים אֵינוֹ וָלָד. אֲבָל וְלַד בְּהֵמָה לֹא עָמְדוּ חֲכָמִים עַל מִנְיַן הַיָּמִים שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר בּוֹ. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ שֶׁהַמַּפֶּלֶת טִנּוּף אֵינָהּ מִתְעַבֶּרֶת אַחֲרָיו וְלֹא מְקַבֶּלֶת וָלָד אַחֵר לְפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם:

English:

We already explained with regard to the concept of a woman in the niddah state that the form of a human fetus is completed on the fortieth day after conception. Thus when a woman miscarries after less than 40 days, she is not considered to have miscarried a fetus. Our Sages did not, however, conclusively determine the amount of days in which the form of an animal fetus is completed. They did, however, say that an animal which discharges a tinuf does not become pregnant, nor does it carry another fetus until after 30 days.

Connection: The last sentence is Ze’eiri’s rule (Segment 11). The Rambam accepts it as fact without attributing it to either side of the Gemara’s debate. That fits the Gemara’s later answers (20a, Segment 13 through 20b, Segment 2), on which Ze’eiri is common ground and the dispute lies elsewhere. The finer points, a premature birth and whether part of a day counts as the whole, are not codified. They decided only whether Rabbi Yehoshua’s own reasoning differed from his tradition, and the halacha in any case leaves a bought animal’s offspring a doubtful firstborn (Bechorot 4:7, 4:10).

Milk: Proof of a Prior Birth?

Source in Daf: 20b, Segments 3-7 (what separates Rabbi Akiva from Rabbi Yehoshua; Rabbi Chanina of Sura: “חלב פוטר”; the challenge from the absent mother-in-law, where Rabbi Yehoshua ignores a minority; “איפוך”: the baraita in which Rabbi Yehoshua says milk exempts and Rabbi Akiva says it does not)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 4:8

Hebrew:

לָקַח בְּהֵמָה מֵינִיקָה מִן הַנָּכְרִי אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל אַחֶרֶת הִיא מֵינִיקָה אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁיָּלְדָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה זֶה שֶׁמֵּינִיקָה כְּמוֹ מִין אַחֵר וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּמִין חֲזִיר הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא חוֹלֶבֶת פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה שֶׁרֹב הַבְּהֵמוֹת אֵינָן חוֹלְבוֹת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן כְּבָר יָלְדוּ:

English:

When a person purchases an animal that is giving suck from a gentile, he need not suspect that it is giving suck to the offspring of another animal. Instead, we operate under the assumption that it has already given birth. Even if the animal to which it is giving suck is like another species, even if it is like a pig, it is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn.

Similarly, the offspring of an animal that is providing milk is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn. The rationale is that we rely on the assumption that most animals do not provide milk unless they have given birth previously.

Connection: The second paragraph decides the dispute of Segments 4-7. The Rambam’s reason, “שרוב הבהמות אינן חולבות אלא אם כן כבר ילדו,” is the majority argument that Rabbi Chanina of Sura gave to the view that milk exempts (Segment 4). After the Gemara’s “איפוך” (Segment 7), that is Rabbi Yehoshua’s view, consistent with his refusal to worry about a minority in the case of the absent mother-in-law (Segments 5-6). So the Rambam rules like Rabbi Yehoshua on milk, against Rabbi Akiva, even though he follows Rabbi Akiva on the general doubt in 4:7.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 316:3

Hebrew:

וכן בהמה שהיא חולבת פטורה מהבכורה שרוב הבהמות אינן חולבות אא”כ ילדו: הגה: ויש אומרים דאין סומכין על מה שהיא חולבת (טור בשם ה”ג והגהות מרדכי פרק האשה) וכן פסקו האחרונים (מהרא”י בפסקיו סימן קס”ו ובת”ה סימן רע”א ומהרי”ו סימן קע”ד) וכן נוהגין בכל מדינות אלו מיהו אם יש עוד צד היתר לזה או שעובד כוכבים מסיח לפי תומו שלא להשביח מקחו ואומר שילדה סומכין להתיר ודוקא בפרות ובמקום שלא נשמע שחולבות בלא ולד אבל בעזים שדרך שחולבות בלא ולד לא סמכינן על כך אפי’ במקום דאיכא ספק ספקא כגון שילדה ב’ ואיכא למימר אכל אחד דאינו בכור אפ”ה אסור (פסקי מהרא”י סימן ק”ל) ונ”ל דבמקום דאין דרך העזים בכך או שדרך הפרות בכך אין לחלק ויש לחקור אחר זה

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

So too an animal that gives milk is exempt from the firstborn law, for most animals do not give milk unless they have given birth. Rema: Some say that one does not rely on its giving milk (Tur in the name of the Halachot Gedolot, and Hagahot Mordechai), and so the later authorities ruled, and so is the custom in all these lands. However, if there is a further ground for leniency, or the gentile mentions offhandedly, not to raise his price, that it has given birth, one relies on it to permit. This applies only to cows, in a place where it is not known that they give milk without bearing. But with goats, which commonly give milk without bearing, one does not rely on it even where there is a double doubt, for example where it bore two and one could say that the gentile ate one, which was not the firstborn; even so it is forbidden. And it seems to me that where goats are not accustomed to this, or cows are, one should not distinguish, and the matter should be investigated.

Connection: The Mechaber copies the Rambam, ruling like Rabbi Yehoshua that milk exempts. The Rema records that the Ashkenazi custom follows the authorities who do not rely on milk, which is the position the reversed baraita gives to Rabbi Akiva (Segment 7). His reasoning echoes the Gemara’s: the minority of animals that give milk without bearing is taken into account, and for goats, where that minority is common, the milk proves nothing at all. His closing note that it depends on the local animals turns the Gemara’s argument about majorities into a factual question.

Ma’aser Behema: A Goat and Its Daughters in One Year

Source in Daf: 20b, Segments 8-9 (a kid that bore three, each of which bore three: “הרי אלו נכנסות לדיר להתעשר”; Rabbi Shimon saw it; why three each; why not have the mother bear again)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 7:6

Hebrew:

כָּל הַנּוֹלָדִים בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל מִצְטָרְפִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מֵאֵלּוּ עַל אֵלּוּ. נוֹלְדוּ חֲמִשָּׁה טְלָאִים בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. יָלְדוּ תּוֹלָדוֹת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָן הֲרֵי הִיא וּבִתָּהּ נִכְנָסִים לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר:

English:

All of the offspring born from the first of Tishrei until the twenty-ninth of Elul are combined and are tithed for each other. If five lambs are born on the twenty-ninth of Elul and five on the first of Tishrei of the following year, they are not combined. If an animal gave birth to offspring in its first year of life, it and its daughter should be brought into the corral together to be tithed.

Connection: The last sentence is the baraita of Segment 8 in general form: “הרי היא ובתה נכנסים לדיר להתעשר.” The Rambam drops the arithmetic of three times three, which the Gemara itself treated as a detail of wording (Segment 9), and keeps the principle: a mother and the daughter she bore within the same tithe year are counted together through the pen. The first two sentences give the boundary that defines “within its year” for the animal tithe, from Tishrei to Elul. Ma’aser behema is offered on the altar, so it does not apply today, and there is no corresponding Shulchan Aruch. These Temple-era laws are preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

Summary of Rulings

The firstborn rulings on this daf are practical. The codes follow Rabbi Akiva’s refusal of age-based measures and Rabbi Yehoshua’s concern for an unseen tinuf, so any animal bought from a gentile with an unknown history leaves its next male a doubtful firstborn, kept by the owner and eaten once blemished. On milk, the Mechaber rules like Rabbi Yehoshua that it proves a prior birth, while Ashkenazi practice, following the Rema, does not rely on it.