Bechorot Daf 21 (בכורות דף כ״א)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (21a)

Segment 1

TYPE: דחייה

Can we infer that an animal that had a murky discharge cannot give birth again within its year? No, only one that actually gave birth

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

This picks up the end of 20b, where the Gemara deduced from the baraita that a goat which has given birth cannot give birth again within the same year. The Gemara now tries to stretch that deduction to an animal that only expelled a murky discharge (טִינּוּף). The attempt fails: the baraita proves nothing about the weaker case. A full birth may need a longer recovery than a discharge, so the rule for one cannot be carried over to the other.

Key Terms:

• לֵימָא קָסָבַר = shall we say that he holds — a proposed inference
• מְטַנֶּפֶת = an animal that expelled a murky discharge (טִינּוּף), which counts as a birth for firstborn purposes
• בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתָהּ = within its year — the animal-tithe year

Segment 2

TYPE: שאלה

What practical difference is there between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon’s ‘within its year’? The case of Ze’eiri’s thirty days

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Shimon goes further than the first tanna, claiming he saw a single kid produce a titheable flock within its first year. The Gemara asks what is at stake. The answer is a very tight timeline: the second generation has a murky discharge on the first day of its seventh month, and the question is whether a full year has passed by the time the third generation is born. Ze’eiri’s rule, that a discharge leaves the animal unable to conceive for thirty days, decides the arithmetic.

Key Terms:

• מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ = what is the practical difference between them?
• דִּזְעֵירִי = the statement of Ze’eiri — no conception within thirty days of a discharge
• גְּדִיָּיה = a young female goat, a kid

Segment 3

TYPE: תירוץ

Two explanations: they disagree about Ze’eiri, or all accept Ze’eiri and disagree about premature births

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The first explanation is simple: the first tanna accepts Ze’eiri, so conception is pushed to the eighth month and birth falls in the second year, while Rabbi Shimon rejects Ze’eiri. The second explanation keeps Ze’eiri for both and moves the dispute to biology. Rabbi Shimon holds that an animal can give birth after incomplete months (לִמְקוּטָּעִין), slightly short of a full term, which brings the birth back inside the first year.

Key Terms:

• וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא = and if you wish, say — introducing an alternative explanation
• יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין = gives birth after incomplete months, i.e. slightly before full term
• תַּנָּא קַמָּא = the first tanna — the anonymous opening view

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ

A third explanation: all agree on Ze’eiri and on full-term births, and they disagree whether part of a day counts as a whole day

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara narrows the dispute again. Now both tannaim accept Ze’eiri and both hold that births come only after full months. What divides them is the legal principle מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ, that part of a day counts as a full day. For Rabbi Shimon the birth on the last day of the year counts as within the year; for the first tanna it does not.

Key Terms:

• מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ = part of the day is like the whole day — a legal principle used in counting periods
• אָמְרִינַן = we say — we apply the principle

Segment 5

TYPE: תירוץ

A fourth explanation: all accept ‘part of the day,’ and they disagree whether a too-young animal enters the tithe pen

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

In the last explanation the third generation is born within the year according to everyone, but in the final week, so it is not yet seven days old. Such an animal is מְחוּסַּר זְמַן, not yet fit for the altar. The first tanna holds it does not enter the pen to be tithed, so the flock lacks ten; Rabbi Shimon holds it does. The sentence continues on 21b with a baraita supporting this reading of Rabbi Shimon.

Key Terms:

• מְחוּסַּר זְמַן = lacking time — an animal under eight days old, not yet fit to be offered (Leviticus 22:27)
• נִכְנָס לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר = enters the pen to be tithed — counted for מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, the animal tithe

Amud Bet (21b)

Segment 1

TYPE: ברייתא

A baraita confirms that Rabbi Shimon counts a too-young animal for the tithe, comparing it to a firstborn

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

This baraita supports the fourth explanation from 21a. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, quoting Rabbi Shimon, rules that a מְחוּסַּר זְמַן enters the pen and becomes sanctified as a tithe even though it cannot yet be offered. He models this on the firstborn, which is holy from birth but is offered only once it is old enough. Sanctity and fitness for the altar are two separate stages.

Key Terms:

• וַהֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְכוֹר = and they are like a firstborn — the model for the comparison
• קָדוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ = holy before its time
• קָרֵב לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ = offered after its time — once it reaches eight days

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why compare the tithe to the firstborn rather than to other offerings? Four shared features

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Ordinary consecrated animals cannot be sanctified before their time, so the Gemara asks why Rabbi Shimon chose the firstborn as his model. The answer lists four features that the firstborn and the tithe share and other offerings lack, abbreviated as גּוֹאֵל, מוּם, תְּמוּרַת, אֲכִילָה. Neither can be redeemed. A blemish does not stop either from becoming holy. A substitute for either is not offered. Both are eaten without redemption. The list is built for memorizing, and the English spells out each word.

Key Terms:

• וְאַדְּיָלֵיף… נֵילַיף = rather than deriving from this, let him derive from that
• קֳדָשִׁים = consecrated offerings in general
• תְּמוּרָה = an animal substituted for a consecrated one, which becomes holy as well

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

On the contrary, the tithe resembles other offerings in four ways; so Rabbi Shimon relies on the gezeira shava ‘passing’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara answers with an equally strong list. Like other offerings, the tithe applies to females as well as males, is made holy by a person’s act, is not a gift to the kohen, and starts out as an ordinary animal: זָכָר, קָדוֹשׁ, בְּמַתָּנוֹת, פָּשׁוּט. With the two lists evenly balanced, comparing features settles nothing. Rabbi Shimon therefore relies on a verbal analogy (גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה): ‘you shall pass’ (וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ) for the firstborn and ‘passes under the rod’ (יַעֲבֹר) for the tithe.

Key Terms:

• אַדְּרַבָּה = on the contrary
• הַעֲבָרָה הַעֲבָרָה גְּמִיר = he learns it from ‘passing’ and ‘passing’ — a verbal analogy
• פָּשׁוּט = ordinary — an animal not holy from birth, unlike a firstborn

Segment 4

TYPE: שאלה ותשובה

What is a ‘murky discharge’? Rava: as shepherds describe it; Shmuel: bubbles of blood; it is shown to an expert shepherd

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara turns back to the mishna on 19b, which counts a טִינּוּף as a birth that exempts later offspring. Rava defines it with the shepherds’ own phrase: a murky discharge from a fetus the animal held back. Shmuel says it is bubbles of blood. The requirement to show it to a חָכָם is read by Rav Pappa as a practical expert, a skilled shepherd, not a Torah scholar. Here a question of animal biology depends on the people who know the animals.

Key Terms:

• טִינּוּף = a murky discharge from the womb, indicating an early fetus
• רָעֲוָתָא = shepherds
• בַּעְבּוּעֵי דִּדְמָא = bubbles of blood
• רוֹעֶה חָכָם = a knowledgeable shepherd

Segment 5

TYPE: בעיא

Rav Chisda: a human fetus forms in forty days; how long in an animal? Ze’eiri’s thirty days does not answer it; left unresolved

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Chisda starts from the known rule that a human fetus takes forty days to form, and asks the equivalent figure for animals. That figure would tell us how early a discharge can count as an offspring. Rav Pappa suggests that Ze’eiri’s thirty days answers the question. The Gemara explains that Ze’eiri’s rule is about the thirty days after a discharge, when the animal does not conceive, not about how long formation takes. So Rav Chisda’s question stays open.

Key Terms:

• יְצִירַת הַוָּולָד = the formation of the fetus
• בָּעֵי = he asked — an inquiry, here left unresolved
• לְקַבֵּל = to receive — here, to accept a male and conceive

Segment 6

TYPE: בעיא ומחלוקת

Buying an animal from a Jew whose history is unknown: Rav says its offspring is a definite firstborn

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna on 19b dealt with buying from a gentile, who gives no reliable information. The Gemara asks about buying from a fellow Jew who says nothing about whether the animal has given birth. Rav reasons from the seller’s interest: if the animal had already given birth, the seller would have mentioned it, because it makes the animal more valuable to the buyer. His silence shows it has not given birth, so the next male is a definite firstborn.

Key Terms:

• לוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל = one who buys from a Jew
• בִּכְּרָה = it has already given birth for the first time
• אִישְׁתַּבּוֹחֵי הֲוָה מִישְׁתַּבַּח = he would have boasted about it

Segment 7

TYPE: מחלוקת

Shmuel: an uncertain firstborn, since the seller assumed it was bought for slaughter; Rabbi Yochanan: definitely non-sacred

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Shmuel weakens Rav’s argument. The seller may have assumed the animal was bought for meat, so its breeding history seemed irrelevant and his silence proves nothing. Rabbi Yochanan reasons in the other direction. If the animal had not yet given birth, the next male would be holy and forbidden for ordinary use, and an honest seller would warn the buyer. His silence suggests it already gave birth, so the offspring is חוּלִּין. The three views form a full range: definite firstborn, doubtful, and definitely not.

Key Terms:

• בְּכוֹר סָפֵק = a firstborn of doubtful status
• חוּלִּין וַדָּאִין = definitely non-sacred
• אוֹדוֹעֵי הֲוָה מוֹדַע = he would have informed him

Segment 8

TYPE: ראיה ודחייה

A baraita on ‘it and its offspring’ supports Rabbi Yochanan; rejected, since there the duty falls on the seller, here on the buyer

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

The supporting baraita is about the prohibition of slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day (אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, Leviticus 22:28). If the seller said nothing, the buyer may slaughter, which suggests that the seller’s silence can be relied on. The Gemara answers that the two cases put the duty on different people. There, the seller must tell the buyer, so his silence means something. With a firstborn, the buyer is the one who must ask, so the seller’s silence proves nothing and Rav and Shmuel are not refuted.

Key Terms:

• אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ = ‘it and its offspring’ — the ban on slaughtering a mother and its young on the same day
• תְּיוּבְתָּא = a conclusive refutation
• תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא = the matter depends on

Segment 9

TYPE: משנה

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: a large animal that expelled a clot of blood — the clot is buried and the animal is exempt from firstborn status

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

A new mishna deals with a cow or other large animal that expels a mass of congealed blood. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov treats it as a possible birth. The mass is buried in case it held a male fetus that was holy as a firstborn, and the animal’s later offspring are exempt because it has already ‘opened the womb.’ He gives a shapeless clot the weight of a real birth.

Key Terms:

• בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה = a large animal — cattle, as opposed to sheep and goats
• חֲרָרַת דָּם = a mass or clot of congealed blood
• תִּקָּבֵר = it must be buried
• פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה = exempt from the firstborn obligation

Segment 10

TYPE: ברייתא וקושיא

Rabbi Chiyya: the clot does not impart impurity; then why must it be buried?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

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

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Chiyya adds that the clot carries none of the impurity of a נְבֵלָה (carcass), either by contact or by carrying, which implies it is not a fetus at all. That seems to undercut the mishna: if there is no fetus, there is nothing holy to bury. The answer comes at the start of 22a: the burial is there to make public that the animal is exempt from the firstborn obligation.

Key Terms:

• מַגָּע = contact — conveying impurity by touch
• מַשָּׂא = carrying — conveying impurity by lifting, even without touching
• תָּנֵי = he taught — introducing a baraita

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 21 finishes the animal-tithe baraita that closed 20b, then returns to the mishna of 19b on animals of unknown history. The Gemara first refuses to extend the 20b deduction, that a goat which gave birth cannot give birth again within its year, to an animal that only expelled a murky discharge (טִינּוּף). It then asks what separates the first tanna from Rabbi Shimon, who adds “within its year” to the claim that one kid can produce a titheable flock. Four explanations follow, each narrower than the last: Ze’eiri’s thirty days, births after incomplete months, part of a day counting as a whole day, and whether an animal too young for the altar (מְחוּסַּר זְמַן) enters the tithe pen. A baraita confirms the last reading of Rabbi Shimon and compares the tithe to the firstborn. That comparison draws a debate over whether the tithe looks more like a firstborn or like other offerings, and the debate is settled by a verbal analogy, “הַעֲבָרָה” “הַעֲבָרָה”. The amud then defines a murky discharge, leaves Rav Chisda’s question about how long an animal fetus takes to form unresolved, and records a three-way dispute among Rav, Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan about an animal bought from a Jew who said nothing of its history. A new mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov treats a clot of blood expelled by a large animal as a possible birth. Rabbi Chiyya’s baraita, that the clot carries no impurity, raises the question of why it must be buried, and the answer comes on 22a.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• The discharge is not proven: the Gemara proposes that the baraita’s tanna holds an animal that had a murky discharge cannot give birth again within its year. It rejects this. Even if a discharge allows another birth within the year, a full live birth may not, so the deduction from 20b covers only an animal that actually gave birth.
• Rabbi Shimon’s “within its year”: Rabbi Shimon says he saw a single kid produce enough offspring to be tithed within its first year, and the first tanna does not add that phrase. The Gemara asks what is at stake, and the answer is “דִּזְעֵירִי”: a case where the second generation has a discharge on the first day of its seventh month.
• First explanation, Ze’eiri: the first tanna accepts Ze’eiri’s rule that after a discharge an animal does not conceive for thirty days. Conception is pushed to the eighth month and the birth falls in the second year. Rabbi Shimon rejects Ze’eiri, so the birth can fall in the last month of the first year.
• Second explanation, incomplete months: everyone accepts Ze’eiri. The dispute is biological: the first tanna holds an animal does not give birth after incomplete months (לִמְקוּטָּעִין), and Rabbi Shimon holds it can, which brings the birth back inside the year.
• Third explanation, part of a day: everyone accepts Ze’eiri and rejects premature births. They disagree over “מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ.” For Rabbi Shimon a birth on the last day of the year counts within the year; for the first tanna it does not.
• Fourth explanation, the tithe pen: everyone applies “part of a day,” and the third generation is born within the year but in its final week. Such an animal is מְחוּסַּר זְמַן, not yet fit for the altar. The first tanna says it does not enter the pen, so the flock lacks ten, and Rabbi Shimon says it does. The sentence runs onto 21b.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda’s baraita: in the name of Rabbi Shimon, an animal too young for the altar enters the pen to be tithed, “וַהֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְכוֹר.” Just as a firstborn is holy from birth and offered only once old enough, so is a young tithe animal. Holiness and fitness for the altar are separate stages.
• Why the firstborn as the model? Other offerings cannot be consecrated before their time, so why not compare the tithe to them? The Gemara lists four features the tithe shares with the firstborn, remembered as גּוֹאֵל, מוּם, תְּמוּרַת, אֲכִילָה: neither is redeemed, a blemish does not prevent either from becoming holy, a substitute for either is not offered, and both are eaten without redemption.
• “אַדְּרַבָּה”: the Gemara answers with an equal list tying the tithe to other offerings, זָכָר, קָדוֹשׁ, בְּמַתָּנוֹת, פָּשׁוּט: they apply to females too, are made holy by a person’s act, are not gifts to the kohen, and begin as ordinary animals. With the lists balanced, Rabbi Shimon relies instead on a verbal analogy (גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה) between “וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ” for the firstborn (Exodus 13:12) and “יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט” for the tithe (Leviticus 27:32).
• What is a טִינּוּף? Rava defines it with the shepherds’ own phrase, a murky discharge from a fetus the animal held back. Shmuel says it is bubbles of blood. It must be shown to a חָכָם, which Rav Pappa explains as a knowledgeable shepherd (רוֹעֶה חָכָם), not a Torah scholar.
• Rav Chisda’s question: a human fetus is formed in forty days, so how long does an animal fetus take? Rav Pappa asks Abaye whether Ze’eiri’s thirty days answers it. The Gemara replies that Ze’eiri spoke of the thirty days after a discharge in which the animal does not conceive, not of formation, and the question is left unresolved.
• Buying from a Jew: the mishna dealt with buying from a gentile. When a Jew sells an animal without saying whether it has given birth, three views follow:
  • Rav: the next male is a definite firstborn. Had the animal already given birth, the seller would have boasted of it, since it frees the buyer from giving the offspring to a kohen.
  • Shmuel: it is a doubtful firstborn. The seller may have assumed the animal was bought for slaughter, so he saw no reason to mention its history.
  • Rabbi Yochanan: it is definitely non-sacred. Had the animal not given birth, its next male would be forbidden, and the seller would have warned the buyer.
• The baraita on “it and its offspring”: a baraita supports Rabbi Yochanan. With the ban on slaughtering a mother and its young on the same day (אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ), a buyer who was told nothing may slaughter. This does not refute Rav and Shmuel: there the duty to inform rests on the seller, while with a firstborn the duty to ask rests on the buyer.
• The mishna of the clot: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov rules that when a large animal expels a mass of congealed blood (חֲרָרַת דָּם), the mass is buried in case it held a male firstborn, and the animal’s later offspring are exempt from firstborn status.
• Rabbi Chiyya’s baraita: the clot imparts no impurity, neither by contact nor by carrying, which implies it is not a fetus. The Gemara asks why it must be buried at all. The answer, that burial makes public the animal’s exemption, opens 22a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

The 20b deduction applies only to an animal that actually gave birth, not to one that expelled a discharge. The dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon is left with four possible explanations, and the baraita of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda supports the fourth, that a too-young animal enters the tithe pen. The comparison between the tithe and the firstborn cannot be decided by listing shared features, since the lists balance, so it rests on the verbal analogy of “passing.” A murky discharge is judged by an expert shepherd. Rav Chisda’s question on how long an animal fetus takes to form remains unresolved. The dispute among Rav, Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan stands; the baraita on “it and its offspring” supports Rabbi Yochanan but does not refute the others, because the duty to inform falls on a different party in each case. Rabbi Chiyya’s question about why the clot is buried is left open at the end of the daf.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Shimon, the first tanna of the tithe baraita, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, Rabbi Chiyya

Amoraim: Ze’eiri, Rava, Shmuel, Rav Pappa, Abaye, Rav Chisda, Rav, Rabbi Yochanan

One-Line Takeaway

Where the facts cannot be seen directly, whether in a womb, a calendar or a seller’s silence, the halacha builds its rulings from careful reasoning about timing, expert knowledge and who could be expected to speak.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf starts in the middle of a story about one very busy little goat and her whole family, and asks how fast a goat family can grow in a single year. Then we learn what a “murky discharge” is (and who is the expert on it), we meet three different ways to read a quiet seller at the animal market, and a new mishna asks what to do when a cow gives birth to nothing more than a clot of blood.

Quick Recap: The Goat Family Puzzle 🐐

At the end of daf 20, the Gemara quoted a baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishna that isn’t in the Mishna itself). It went like this:

• A young goat gives birth to three girl kids.
• Each of those three girls grows up and gives birth to three girls of her own.
• Now there are lots of goats, and they all go into the pen to be tithed.

What does “tithed” mean here? The Torah’s מעשר בהמה (ma’aser behema, the animal tithe) says: when you have ten or more animals born in the same year, you pass them one by one through a gate, and every tenth one becomes holy and is brought as an offering. So you need at least ten babies from the same year.

Rabbi Shimon added: “I once saw a single little goat whose family got big enough to be tithed within her first year!” Wow, that’s one fast-growing family.

At the very end of daf 20, the Gemara asked: why didn’t the baraita just say the grandma goat had more babies herself, alongside her daughters? It must be because a goat that just gave birth can’t give birth again in the same year.

Think of it like… a family tree drawn on a poster: Grandma, three daughters, nine granddaughters. The question is how quickly you can fill in the poster.

The Simple Idea 💡: We’re in the middle of a puzzle about how many baby goats one goat can produce in one year.

What About a “Messy Almost-Birth”? 🤔

Now the Gemara tries to stretch that idea. Sometimes a mother animal doesn’t give birth to a real baby. Instead, something murky comes out of her womb, a sign that a tiny, very early baby was there. This is called טינוף (tinuf), a “murky discharge.” For firstborn laws, it counts like a birth: once a mother has had one, her next baby isn’t a firstborn anymore.

The Gemara asks: does the baraita also teach that an animal that had a tinuf can’t give birth again within the year?

No! says the Gemara. A real birth is a big deal for the mother’s body. A tinuf is much smaller. Maybe after a tinuf she recovers quickly. The baraita only tells us about a real birth.

Think of it like… running a whole marathon versus jogging around the block. If you ran a marathon, you definitely can’t run another one tomorrow. But that doesn’t tell us anything about the kid who just jogged around the block.

The Simple Idea 💡: A rule about a full birth doesn’t automatically apply to a small “almost-birth.”

Rabbi Shimon vs. the First Tanna: What’s the Difference? ⚔️

Here’s something sneaky. The first tanna (the first teacher in the baraita, whose name isn’t given) just said the goat family gets tithed. Rabbi Shimon said it happened within her first year. So they must disagree about something! But what?

The Gemara says the difference shows up in a very tight case, connected to a rule from a sage named Ze’eiri:

Ze’eiri’s rule: after a mother animal has a tinuf, she can’t get pregnant again for 30 days.

Picture this timeline. The second-generation goats (the daughters) have a tinuf on the first day of their seventh month. Then they need to get pregnant again and have the third generation (the granddaughters). Will those granddaughters be born before the year runs out? It’s going to be very, very close!

The Simple Idea 💡: The two opinions are separated by just a few days on a calendar, and the Gemara is going to find out which days.

Four Ways to Explain It 🧩

The Gemara gives four different explanations. Each new one says “everyone agrees about the last thing, so let’s find a new disagreement.” It’s like peeling an onion, one layer at a time.

Explanation 1: Do they accept Ze’eiri?

• First tanna: Yes, 30 days with no pregnancy. So the daughters can’t get pregnant until the eighth month, and the granddaughters are born in the second year. Too late!
• Rabbi Shimon: No, he doesn’t accept Ze’eiri. The daughters can get pregnant during the seventh month, and the granddaughters arrive in the last month of the first year. Just in time!

Explanation 2: Can a baby come a little early?

“And if you want,” says the Gemara (ואיבעית אימא, ve-iba’eit eima), “everyone accepts Ze’eiri.” So what’s the fight? Whether an animal can give birth after incomplete months (למקוטעין, le-mekuta’in), meaning slightly before a full pregnancy is done.

• First tanna: No early births. Too late.
• Rabbi Shimon: A little early is possible! Just in time.

Explanation 3: Does part of a day count as a whole day?

Now everyone accepts Ze’eiri and everyone agrees there are no early births. The fight is about a counting rule called מקצת היום ככולו (miktzat hayom ke-khulo), “part of the day is like the whole day.”

• First tanna: No, a piece of a day isn’t a whole day, so the earliest birth is on the first day of year two. Too late.
• Rabbi Shimon: Yes! A piece of the day counts, so the birth can land on the last day of year one. Just in time!

Explanation 4: Does a brand-new baby count in the tithe pen?

Now everyone agrees that part of a day counts. So the granddaughters really are born within the year, but in the very last week. They’re less than eight days old. A baby animal under eight days old is called מחוסר זמן (mechusar zeman, “missing time”). It can’t be brought on the altar yet (Vayikra 22:27 says it must stay with its mother seven days first).

• First tanna: A too-young baby doesn’t go into the tithe pen. So there aren’t ten, and no tithe.
• Rabbi Shimon: It does go in! Ten goats, tithe time!

Think of it like… two friends arguing over whether a kid “made it” to a birthday party on time. Maybe they disagree about when the party started. Or about whether the kid’s watch was fast. Or about whether arriving during the last song counts. Or about whether the kid has to be wearing a party hat to count as a guest! Same argument, four possible reasons.

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Shimon thinks the goat family could squeeze into one year, and the Gemara finds four different reasons the first tanna might say “not quite.”

Proof for Explanation 4: Just Like a Firstborn! 📜

On the back of the page (21b), the Gemara brings a baraita that backs up explanation 4. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, quoting Rabbi Shimon, says: a too-young animal does go into the tithe pen.

His reason: it’s just like a בכור (bechor, a firstborn animal). A firstborn becomes holy the moment it’s born, but it can only be brought on the altar once it’s old enough. So too, a tithe animal can become holy while it’s tiny, and be offered later.

Think of it like… a kid who gets picked for the school team in kindergarten but only gets to play in real games once he’s older. He’s already on the team. He just has to wait for his turn.

The Simple Idea 💡: Being holy and being ready for the altar are two different steps, and a baby can have the first before the second.

Who Is the Tithe More Like? A Tug-of-War 🪢

But wait! The Gemara asks: why compare the tithe to a firstborn? There are lots of other offerings (קדשים, kodashim), and those can’t become holy before they’re old enough. Maybe the tithe is like them!

Team Firstborn has four points, remembered by four Hebrew words:

Then Team Other Offerings answers: “אדרבה!” (adraba, “on the contrary!”). The tithe is like the other offerings in four ways too:

Four against four! It’s a tie, so comparing doesn’t decide anything.

So how does Rabbi Shimon know? He uses a גזירה שוה (gezeira shava), a “matching word” link between two verses. About the firstborn, the Torah says “you shall pass” (Shemot 13:12). About the tithe, it says “whatever passes under the rod” (Vayikra 27:32). Same word, “pass,” so the two laws are linked!

Think of it like… trying to decide if a tomato belongs with fruits or vegetables. You can list reasons both ways forever. Finally someone opens the official rulebook, and that settles it.

The Simple Idea 💡: When the lists come out even, Rabbi Shimon uses a word in the Torah to link the tithe to the firstborn.

What Exactly Is a Murky Discharge? 🔍

Back to the tinuf. The mishna (on daf 19b) said it counts as a birth. But what does it look like?

• Rava: It’s what the shepherds describe: a murky discharge that comes from a baby the mother “held back” in her womb.
• Shmuel: It’s bubbles of blood.

And there’s a rule: you have to show it to a חכם (chakham, “wise one”). Usually that word means a Torah scholar. But the Gemara asks: how would a Torah scholar know about this? Rav Pappa answers: it means a רועה חכם, a wise shepherd, someone who has spent years with animals and knows exactly what he’s looking at.

Think of it like… if you find a weird bug in the garden, you don’t ask your math teacher. You ask the person who has studied bugs for years.

The Simple Idea 💡: For a question about animal bodies, the “expert” is the experienced shepherd.

How Long Does It Take a Baby to Form? 🧬 ❓

Rav Chisda says: we know a human baby takes 40 days to form. So he asks: how long does it take in an animal? That matters, because it tells us how early a tinuf can count as a real baby.

Rav Pappa says to Abaye: “Isn’t that Ze’eiri’s 30 days?”

No! The Gemara explains that Ze’eiri’s 30 days are about something else: the time after a tinuf when the mother can’t get pregnant again. It’s not about how long a baby takes to form.

So Rav Chisda’s question is left unanswered. Nobody knows!

Think of it like… asking “How long does it take to bake a cake?” and someone answers “You have to wait 30 minutes after baking before you can use the oven again.” That’s a real fact, but it answers a different question.

The Simple Idea 💡: Ze’eiri’s 30 days is about waiting after a tinuf, not about how long a baby takes to form, so Rav Chisda’s question stays open.

The Quiet Seller at the Market 🏪🤫

The mishna talked about buying an animal from a non-Jew, who doesn’t tell us anything useful about whether the animal has given birth. Now the Gemara asks: what if you buy a mother animal from a fellow Jew, and he says nothing about whether she has given birth before? Is her next boy baby a firstborn?

Here’s why it matters. If she never gave birth, her next boy goes to the kohen (or is holy). If she already gave birth, her next boy is yours.

Three sages read the seller’s silence three different ways:

Think of it like… you buy a used bike, and the seller didn’t say anything about the brakes. One friend says: “If the brakes were new, he’d have bragged about it, so they’re old.” Another says: “He thought you only wanted it for parts, so he didn’t care.” A third says: “If the brakes were broken, he would have warned you, so they’re fine!” Same silence, three meanings.

The Simple Idea 💡: When a seller says nothing, you have to figure out what he would have said if he had something to say, and the sages see it differently.

A Proof for Rabbi Yochanan? Not So Fast! 🐄🐂

The Gemara finds a baraita that seems to support Rabbi Yochanan. It’s about a different law called אותו ואת בנו (oto ve-et beno, “it and its child”): you may not slaughter a mother animal and her baby on the same day (Vayikra 22:28).

The baraita says: if a seller sold you an animal and didn’t tell you he had sold its mother or baby to someone else today, you may go ahead and slaughter it. So it seems we trust the seller’s silence, just like Rabbi Yochanan does. Is that a knock-out for Rav and Shmuel?

No! The Gemara says the two cases are different because of whose job it is to speak up:

Think of it like… a lifeguard whose job is to blow the whistle when there’s danger. If he’s quiet, the pool is safe. But if it’s your job to check the water depth before you dive, the lifeguard staying quiet doesn’t tell you anything.

The Simple Idea 💡: Silence only means something when the person staying quiet was the one who was supposed to talk.

New Mishna: A Cow and a Clot of Blood 🐄🩸

A new mishna! Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov talks about a בהמה גסה (behema gasa, a “large animal” like a cow) that gives birth to a חררת דם (chararat dam), a lump of thick, clotted blood, instead of a calf.

He says two things:

1. Bury the clot. Why? Maybe there was a tiny boy calf in there, and a boy calf that opens its mother’s womb is a holy firstborn. You can’t just throw away something that might be holy.
2. The cow is now exempt. Her next baby is not a firstborn, because her womb has already been “opened.”

Think of it like… finding a sealed envelope that might have something important inside. You can’t be sure, so you treat it carefully, just in case.

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov treats a clot of blood like a possible baby: it gets buried, and the cow’s next calf isn’t a firstborn.

Wait, Why Bury It? 🤔 ⏸️

The Gemara opens with a teaching from Rabbi Chiyya: this clot doesn’t make anyone impure (tamei), not by touching it (מגע, maga) and not by carrying it (משא, masa).

That’s surprising! A dead animal (a נבלה, nevela) does make people impure. If the clot doesn’t, it seems like it isn’t a baby at all. So the Gemara asks: if it’s not a baby, why do we have to bury it?

…and the page ends! We’ll find the answer at the start of daf 22. (Here’s a hint: the burying is a kind of public sign, so everyone knows that this cow’s next calf isn’t a firstborn.)

Think of it like… putting up a “Wet Floor” sign. The sign itself isn’t the important part. It’s there so everyone knows what happened.

The Simple Idea 💡: If the clot isn’t really a baby, burying it needs a reason, and that reason is waiting on the next daf.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• Fast-growing goats: a goat that had a real birth can’t give birth again in the same year, but that teaches nothing about a small tinuf (murky discharge).
• Rabbi Shimon says one goat’s family can be tithed within her first year. The Gemara gives four possible reasons the first tanna disagrees: Ze’eiri’s 30 days, early births, part of a day counts as a whole day, or a too-young baby entering the tithe pen.
• Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda’s baraita: a too-young animal does enter the pen, just like a firstborn is holy from birth and offered later.
• Tug-of-war: the tithe is like the firstborn in four ways (go’el, mum, temura, akhila) and like other offerings in four ways (zakhar, kadosh, be-matanot, pashut). Tie! So Rabbi Shimon links them with the word “pass” (a gezeira shava).
• What’s a tinuf? Rava: the murky discharge shepherds know. Shmuel: bubbles of blood. Show it to a wise shepherd (Rav Pappa).
• Rav Chisda: a human baby forms in 40 days; how long for an animal? Ze’eiri’s 30 days is about something else, so the question is left unanswered.
• The quiet seller: Rav says definitely a firstborn (he’d have bragged), Shmuel says maybe (he thought it was for meat), Rabbi Yochanan says definitely not (he’d have warned you).
• “It and its child”: silence works there because it’s the seller’s job to speak, but with a firstborn it’s the buyer’s job to ask.
• New mishna: a cow that passed a clot of blood: bury it, and her next calf isn’t a firstborn (Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov). But if the clot doesn’t make anyone impure (Rabbi Chiyya), why bury it? The answer is on daf 22!

⚖️ Halacha

A Tithe Animal Too Young for the Altar: Rabbi Shimon Is Not Followed

Source in Daf: 21a, Segment 5 and 21b, Segments 1-3 (the fourth explanation of the dispute over “within its year”: whether a מְחוּסַּר זְמַן enters the pen; Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda’s baraita comparing the tithe to a firstborn, “holy before its time and offered after its time”; the two lists of shared features; the gezeira shava of “passing” and “passing”)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:14

Hebrew:

הַכֹּל נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר. בֵּין תְּמִימִים בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין. וְכָל אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ. חוּץ מִן הַכִּלְאַיִם. וְהַטְּרֵפָה. וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן. וּמְחֻסָּר זְמַן. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וְכֵן הַיָּתוֹם שֶׁמֵּתָה אִמּוֹ אוֹ נִשְׁחֲטָה עִם לֵידָתוֹ אֵינוֹ מִתְעַשֵּׂר. וּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה הֵם:

English:

All the animals in one’s herd are brought into the corral for tithing, whether they are unblemished or blemished, even those which are forbidden to be offered on the altar with the exception of hybrids, animals that are tereifah, born through Caesarian section, or “lacking in age.” For all of these are exempt from the tithes. Similarly, an animal whose mother died or was slaughtered when it was born should not be tithed. These concepts are part of the Oral Tradition.

Connection: The Rambam lists the מְחוּסַּר זְמַן among the animals that do not enter the pen at all, which is the view the Gemara assigned to the first tanna in Segment 5 of 21a. Rabbi Shimon’s position, that it enters the pen and is sanctified like a firstborn, “holy before its time,” is not adopted. The Rambam’s list is the anonymous mishna in the ninth perek of this masechet (Bechorot 9:4: “הכל נכנס לדיר להתעשר חוץ מן הכלאים והטרפה ויוצא דופן ומחוסר זמן ויתום”), and he notes that these exclusions are “from the oral tradition,” not from an explicit verse. So the gezeira shava of “וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ” and “יַעֲבֹר” with which Rabbi Shimon ties the tithe to the firstborn (21b, Segment 3) does not determine the halacha. The tithe follows the pattern of ordinary offerings, which are not sanctified before the animal is fit.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:15

Hebrew:

אֵין הַלּוֹקֵחַ פָּטוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִלְקַח אַחַר שֶׁנִּרְאָה לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר. לְפִיכָךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ טְלָאִים בְּתוֹךְ שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַלֵּידָה כְּשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַנָּם חַיָּב לְעַשְּׂרָן. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין מְחֻסָּר זְמַן רָאוּי לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁלָּקַח עֻבָּרִים וְנוֹלְדוּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ:

English:

A purchaser is not exempt from the obligation to tithe unless he purchased the animals after they were fit to be tithed. Therefore one who purchases lambs in the seven days after their birth, is obligated to tithe them when the time comes.Since an animal that is “lacking in age” is not fit to be tithed, it is as if he purchased a fetus and it was born in his domain.

Connection: This halacha shows what the first tanna’s view means in practice. Because a lamb in its first seven days is not yet “fit to be tithed,” buying it then is like buying a fetus, and the buyer must tithe it once it comes of age. On the first tanna’s view the too-young animal is outside the tithe system until its eighth day, which is why, in the 21a calculation, a third generation born in the last week of the year could not complete a titheable flock within that year.

”Murky Discharge” Defined: Shown to an Expert Shepherd

Source in Daf: 21a, Segment 1 and 21b, Segment 4 (an animal that expelled a טִינּוּף; Rava’s definition “as the shepherds say,” Shmuel’s “bubbles of blood”; Rav Pappa: the “חכם” is a knowledgeable shepherd), with the mishna of 19b

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: The Rambam’s definition follows Rava: a fetus “whose form has not become very distinct,” which the shepherds identify as a fetus whose form was spoiled. His requirement that it “must be shown to a shepherd who is knowledgeable” (רועה חכם) is Rav Pappa’s reading of the mishna’s “חכם” in Segment 4 word for word. The second clause applies the mishna of 19b: an animal bought from a gentile that gives birth “within its year” is still a doubtful firstborn, because a טינוף may have been expelled before the sale. The Rambam also adds the case of the placenta from the same perek, which the Gemara treats on 22a.

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 expelled a murky discharge, that is, the fetus dissolved and the dissolved matter came out, is exempt from the firstborn obligation, and it must be shown to a knowledgeable shepherd, who will see whether it is the dissolved matter of an offspring. And a large animal that miscarried a placenta is exempt from the firstborn obligation, and the placenta itself has no sanctity and may be fed to the dogs. If it expelled a clot of blood, it is exempt from the firstborn obligation, and the clot is buried to publicize that it is exempt from the firstborn obligation.

Connection: The Mechaber rules the טינוף and the expert shepherd exactly as the Rambam does, so the definitions of 21b are practical law wherever the firstborn of a kosher animal still applies. His phrase “שנימוח העובר ויצא המיחוי,” the fetus dissolved, is closer to Shmuel’s “bubbles of blood” than to a recognizable form. The same se’if also rules the new mishna about the clot of blood (see below).

How Long Until an Animal Fetus Forms? Rav Chisda’s Question Stays Open

Source in Daf: 21b, Segment 5 (Rav Chisda: a human fetus is formed in forty days, how long for an animal? Rav Pappa’s proposal from Ze’eiri rejected: Ze’eiri’s thirty days are about the time before the animal can conceive again)

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 Rambam records the outcome of Segment 5 exactly. The forty days for a human fetus are settled law. For an animal, “our Sages did not conclusively determine” the number of days, which is Rav Chisda’s unresolved question. What is settled is Ze’eiri’s rule, and the Rambam states it in the sense the Gemara gave it: an animal that expelled a טינוף cannot conceive again for thirty days. It does not answer Rav Chisda. The same rule of Ze’eiri also underlies the arithmetic of 21a, Segments 2-4, about whether a third generation can be born within one year.

Buying an Animal from a Fellow Jew: Rav, Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan

Source in Daf: 21b, Segments 6-8 (Rav: a definite firstborn, the seller would have boasted; Shmuel: a doubtful firstborn, the seller assumed it was bought for slaughter; Rabbi Yochanan: definitely non-sacred, the seller would have informed him; the baraita of “it and its offspring” and its rejection)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 4:9

Hebrew:

הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּהֵמָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁבִּכְּרָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא יָלְדָה. שֶׁאֵין הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל שׁוֹתֵק וְגוֹרֵם לוֹ לֶאֱכל קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ וַדַּאי שֶׁבִּכְּרָה וּלְפִיכָךְ מְכָרָהּ סְתָם:

English:

When a person purchases an animal from a fellow Jew, we operate under the assumption that it already gave birth unless the seller states that it did not give birth yet. The rationale is that we assume a Jew will not remain silent and cause a fellow Jew to partake of a consecrated animal outside the Temple Courtyard. Hence we conclude that it certainly gave birth previously. Therefore the owner sold the mother without any qualification.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabbi Yochanan, and even uses his reasoning from Segment 7: a Jew does not stay silent and cause his fellow to eat consecrated meat outside the Temple, so a sale without comment implies the animal has already given birth. The Gemara in Segment 8 deflected the proof from “it and its offspring,” which means Rav and Shmuel were not refuted, but the Rambam follows the general rule that halacha follows Rabbi Yochanan against Rav and Shmuel. The animal is presumed to have given birth until the seller says it has not.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 316:6

Hebrew:

הלוקח בהמה מישראל הרי זה בחזקת שבכרה עד שיודיעו המוכר שעדיין לא ילדה: (ויש אומרים שהוא ספק בכור) . (טור בשם הרא”ש והר”ר יונה):

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

One who buys an animal from a Jew: it is presumed to have given birth, until the seller informs him that it has not yet given birth. (And some say that it is a doubtful firstborn.) (Tur in the name of the Rosh and Rabbeinu Yonah.)

Connection: The Mechaber copies the Rambam, following Rabbi Yochanan. The Rema’s gloss records the view of the Rosh and Rabbeinu Yonah, cited by the Tur, that the offspring is a doubtful firstborn, which is Shmuel’s ruling in Segment 7. Rav’s view, a definite firstborn, is not adopted by either. Two of the three opinions on the daf therefore survive as practical positions, and in either case the kohen cannot claim the animal, since one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

”It and Its Offspring”: When the Seller Must Speak

Source in Daf: 21b, Segment 8 (the baraita: the buyer may slaughter when the seller said nothing; the Gemara: there the duty to inform falls on the seller, here the duty to ask falls on the buyer)

Rambam — Hilchot Shechita 12:14

Hebrew:

בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים בְּשָׁנָה הַמּוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ כְּבָר מָכַרְתִּי אִמָּהּ אוֹ בִּתָּהּ לְאַחֵר לִשְׁחֹט כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּמְתִּין זֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן וְלֹא יִשְׁחֹט עַד לְמָחָר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. עֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג. וְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח. וְעֶרֶב עֲצֶרֶת. וְעֶרֶב רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה:

English:

Four times a year, it is necessary for a person who sells an animal to a colleague to inform him that he already sold the mother or the daughter of the animal to another person for the sake of slaughtering it so that the latter purchaser will wait and not slaughter until the next day. They are: the day preceding the final holiday of Sukkot, the day preceding the first holiday of Pesach, the day preceding Shavuot, states that Shavuos is customarily marked by great celebration in commemoration of the Giving of the Torah. and the day preceding Rosh HaShanah.

Connection: This is the source of the baraita’s rule: on the four days when every buyer slaughters at once, the duty to speak falls on the seller. That is the distinction the Gemara drew in Segment 8. In “it and its offspring” the seller must inform the buyer, so the buyer may rely on his silence. With a firstborn the buyer is the one who should ask, so the seller’s silence proves less. The proof for Rabbi Yochanan is rejected, though the Rambam still rules like him on the firstborn (4:9 above).

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 16:6 (first part)

Hebrew:

הלוקח בהמה אינו חושש שמא נשחטה אמה או בנה היום אבל על המוכר להזהיר הלוקח ולהודיעו אם שחט האם או הבן היום או אם מכרה לאחר לשחטה היום ואם הוא באחד מן ד’ זמנים שדרך שכל מי שקונה בהמה ששוחטה מיד והם ערב פסח. וערב עצרת. וערב ר”ה. וערב יום טוב האחרון של חג. צריך להודיעו שמכר היום האם או הבת ואם לא הודיעו שוחט ואינו חושש בין קנה מישראל בין קנה מעובד כוכבים

English:

Someone who buys an animal does not need to worry that its mother or child was slaughtered that same day, however if the mother or child was slaughtered that same day, or if the mother or child was sold to someone else to be slaughtered that day, the seller is obligated to let the buyer know. Furthermore, if it is one of the four times of the year when every Jew who purchases an animal can be assumed to slaughter it immediately; namely: Erev Pesach, Erev Shavuos, Erev Rosh Hashanah, and Hoshana Rabbah, the seller is obligated to inform the buyer if he sold the mother or child of that animal on the same day. If the seller did not say anything, the buyer may slaughter the animal without worry, whether he purchased the animal from a Jew or from a gentile.

Connection: The Mechaber states the baraita’s two sides: the buyer “does not need to worry,” while the seller “is obligated to let the buyer know.” The phrase “ואם לא הודיעו שוחט ואינו חושש,” if he did not inform him the buyer slaughters without worry, is the baraita the Gemara cited in Segment 8. Unlike the firstborn laws, this is fully practical today, since the prohibition of אותו ואת בנו applies to every slaughter.

The Clot of Blood: Buried, and the Animal Is Exempt

Source in Daf: 21b, Segments 9-10 (the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: a large animal that expelled a clot of blood, the clot is buried and the animal is exempt from the firstborn; Rabbi Chiyya: the clot does not impart impurity by contact or carrying; then why bury it?)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 4:11

Hebrew:

בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה שֶׁהִפִּילָה חֲרָרַת דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ נִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה שֶׁחֶזְקָתָהּ שֶׁהַוָּלָד בְּתוֹכָהּ וְרָבָה עָלָיו הַדָּם וְהִפְסִידוֹ וּבִטְּלוֹ. וְקוֹבְרִין חֲרָרָה זוֹ כְּמוֹ נֵפֶל מְבַכֶּרֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חֲרָרָה זוֹ קְדוֹשָׁה. וְלָמָּה קוֹבְרִין אוֹתָהּ כְּדֵי לְפַרְסֵם הַדָּבָר שֶׁנִּפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה:

English:

When a large animal discharges a flow of blood, the future offspring of this animal is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn, for we assume that there was an offspring in it, but there was much more blood and it lost its form and its existence was nullified. We must bury the flow of blood like a stillborn firstborn animal, even though this flow of blood has no consecrated quality. Why is it buried? In order to publicize the matter that the offspring of this animal was exempted from the requirements of the firstborn.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: the animal is exempt because the clot presumably held a fetus that was overwhelmed by the blood. He also takes Rabbi Chiyya’s point from Segment 10 that the clot itself is not holy (“אף על פי שאין חררה זו קדושה”), and gives the answer the Gemara reaches at the start of 22a: the clot is buried only “to publicize the matter that it was exempted from the firstborn.” The burial does not show that the clot is holy. It tells others that the animal’s next offspring is not a firstborn.

Summary of Rulings

The halacha of this daf divides along the line of the Temple. The animal tithe belongs to the Temple-era laws, preserved in the Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt, and there the Rambam follows the first tanna: an animal “lacking time” is outside the tithe, and Rabbi Shimon’s comparison to the firstborn is not followed. The firstborn laws of 21b, by contrast, are practical today. The Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch define the טינוף by the shepherds’ expertise, leave Rav Chisda’s question about animal gestation open, follow Rabbi Yochanan when an animal is bought from a fellow Jew (with the Rema noting Shmuel’s doubt), and bury the clot of blood only to make the exemption known.