Commentary for Bekhorot 3:11

הלוקח. עז בת שנתה – [a goat] a year old that produced an offspring within its first year.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with a person who bought an animal from a non-Jew and doesn’t know whether it had yet given birth. If it had not, then the first animal born in Jewish possession would be considered a first born and would have to be treated accordingly.

ודאי- that offspring belongs to the Kohen, for prior to this it had not produced offspring.

If one buys an animal from a non-Jew and it is not known whether it had given birth or had not given birth: Rabbi Ishmael says: that born of a goat in its first year certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first-born]. That born of a ewe two years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. That born of a cow or a donkey three years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. Rabbi Ishmael says that we can estimate whether the animal had given birth by checking the age of the animal. If the goat gives birth within its first year, we can assume that it is a first born. If the goat is beyond its first year, then it is a case of a doubtful first born. As we have seen previously, doubtful first borns go out to pasture until they become blemished, at which point they may be eaten by their owners. Rabbi Ishmael proceeds to give ages in which we can expect that a ewe and a cow would give birth.

ספק - it would be sent to pasture until a blemish befalls it and the owners would consume it in its blemishes (see Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 2, Mishnayot 6-7). But if it is a doubtful firstling donkey, he would separate a lamb and it would be his.

Rabbi Akiva to him: if an animal were exempted [from the law of the first born] only with the birth of [actual] offspring, it would be as you say. But they said: the sign of offspring in small cattle is a discharge [from the womb]. In large cattle, the after-birth; in a woman, the signs are the fetus and the after-birth. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael because the rabbis taught that if an animal or woman miscarries before having her first born, the next animal/child is not considered the first born, at least not to be treated as holy. Therefore, even if the animal gives birth within that time period, there is no way of knowing if it had previously miscarried. Rabbi Akiva now gives signs by which we can know whether an animal or woman had miscarried. This would be important to distinguish between a true miscarriage and non-miscarriage discharge.

טנוף (discharge from the womb indicating abortion) – bubbles/pustules of blood that the animal discharges. And they show them to a wise shepherd and recognizes them if they are because of the pregnancy that it miscarried and perhaps it discharged within the first year which is a doubtful offspring and it is exempt from the laws of firstlings, therefore, even a goat that is one year old is doubtful.

This is the general rule: Whenever it is known that it had given birth, the priest receives nothing. Whenever it had never given birth, it belongs to the priest. If there is a doubt, it shall be eaten blemished by the owners. Having rejected Rabbi Ishmael, Rabbi Akiva must provide an alternative way to treat the animal bought from the non-Jew. He relies on general rules of certain/doubtful property cases. If we know for a fact that the animal had never given birth, then the first born in Jewish possession must be treated as a first born and given to the priest. If the animal definitely had given birth before, then obviously the priest doesn’t receive anything. Finally, if it is doubtful, then the animal must go out to pasture, become blemished and then it can be eaten by its owners.

שליא – a kind of covering over the fetus that the fetus is lying in it (i.e., placenta).

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a large domestic animal has discharged a clot of blood, it [the clot] shall be buried, and it [the mother] is exempted from the law of the first born. As an addendum to our mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov states that if a large animal discharges a blood clot, the blood clot should be buried. This will allow people to know that the clot is being treated as a miscarriage and that the next born animal is not the first born.

שפיר – above from the placenta is a membrane/skin that has in it congealed blood and it is called the sac of a fetus. And my teachers/Rabbis explained, it is a piece of flesh that has on it the form of a human. But there are those who say that is called a sac of a fetus, because it is made like a tube.

ששפעה חרדת דם (that discharged a clod of blood) – that discharged a portion of blood (see also Tractate Hullin, Chapter 4, Mishnah 7 regarding to the placenta).

הרי זו תקבר – to inform that it was exempted from the [law of] the firstling, for a person who sees that they bury it knows that what comes after it (i.e., born afterwards) is not holy for the [law of] the firstling. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva and [according to] Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

אין חוששין שמא בנה של אחרת היה - that what comes (i.e., the offspring) after it is a doubtful firstling, that we would say: “this animal never gave birth, but that she loved this one, the male offspring of her neighbor,” but if because that she has milk, there is a minority of those giving milk even though they have not given birth, but certainly we don’t say, that it is her offspring and that she is exempt from the laws of firstlings (see Talmud Bekhorot 20b).

Introduction In this mishnah Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel teaches that when one sees an animal nursing, he can assume that it is nursing its own offspring. As we shall see, this has certain halakhic ramifications for determining which animal is a first born.

מבכירות – female animals that did not give birth until now.

Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: if one buys a nursing animal from a non-Jew, he need not fear that perhaps the offspring belongs to another [animal]. If one buys a nursing animal from a non-Jew, one can assume that it is nursing its own animal and therefore, one does not have to treat the next born animal as a first born.

אין חוששין שמא בנה של זו בא לו אצל זו – for we should be troubled for all of them of a doubtful firstling status, but certainly, those that are running after/clinging to those animals that have given birth for the first time were definite firstlings, but those running after/clinging to those animals that were not giving birth for the first time were definitely plain (i.e., not firstlings). And the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

If he went among his herd and saw animals which had given birth for the first time nursing and animals which had not given birth for the first time nursing, we need not fear that perhaps the offspring of this one came to the other or perhaps the offspring of the other came to this one. Similarly, if one sees animals in his own herd nursing, he can assume that they are nursing their own offspring. For instance, if he sees an animal that he knows has already given birth nursing a female and an animal that has not given birth is nursing a male, he can be sure that the male is a first born. If the offspring of the one that has given birth is a male, he can be sure that it is not a first born.

עושה מקום בקופיץ - This is our reading. But in the Gemara (Talmud Bekhorot 25a), it explains that we teach לקופיץ (instead of בקופיץ )/to a hatchel, that is to say, for the need of the place of the hatchel, we remove the hair of the neck, and there isn’t here [a violation of] (Deuteronomy 15:19): “you must not…sheer your firstling sheep,” for plucking with the hand is not sheering , but with a utensil, it is definitely forbidden.

Introduction It is prohibited to shear a first born (this is based on a midrash on Deuteronomy 15:22). Our mishnah discusses how one can remove some of the hair of the first born without transgressing this prohibition.

וכן מותר לתלוש את השער- and even ab initio, to show to the Sage the place of the blemish. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi ben Meshulam.

Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: one who slaughters the first born, [first] clears a space with the [butcher's] knife on both sides and tears the hair, as long as he does not remove the wool from its place. If one wants to make space on the first born’s neck so that it can be properly slaughtered, what he should first do is use the butcher’s knife to clear some hair to the sides. Then he can pull out some of the hair but he should leave it stuck elsewhere in the animal’s wool so that it doesn’t look as if he is shearing. Someone who sees him act in such a manner will know that his intent is to clear some room on the animal’s neck, and not to remove the animal’s wool.

And similarly one may tear the hair to show the place of the blemish [to a sage]. The same procedure should be followed if one wants to clear some hair from the animal to show the blemish to a sage so that the sage could declare it blemished.

עקביה בן מהללאל מתיר [Rabbi Akavya ben Mehallalel permits] the wool for the Kohen to derive benefit from it.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with the prohibition of shearing a first born, even a blemished first born that may be slaughtered and eaten. We should note that not only is it forbidden to shear the animal, but if it is sheared, it is forbidden to derive benefit from its wool. However, this prohibition is in effect only if the animal was sheared while it was alive. Once dead or slaughtered the wool that is subsequently removed can be used. Specifically, our mishnah deals with wool that fell off the animal while it was alive.

וחכמים אוסרים – for if he permitted him the wool that drops off/falls out while living, he will come to wait for a firstling in order that his wool will drop off/fall out every hour, and it will come to be a snare/stumbling block that he will shear it and work on it, and those consecrated animals that are disqualified are forbidden for shearing and for work, as it is written )Deuteronomy 12:15): “[But whenever you desire,] you may slaughter and eat meat [in any of your settlements according to the blessing that the LORD your God has granted you],” you may slaughter but not shearing.

If [a portion of] the hair of a blemished first born fell out and he placed it in the window, and then he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel allows it. But the sages forbid it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Wool that falls off when the animal is alive is forbidden as long as the animal is alive. In the case in this mishnah, the person put the wool that fell out of the animal in a hole in the window to store it so that he could use it after he slaughtered the animal. Akavya ben Mehalalel allows the use of that wool after the animal was slaughtered. Since the slaughtering allows the wool that is on the animal when it is slaughtered, it also allows wool that fell out of the animal while it was still alive. Note that Akavya would not allow wool that was sheared when the animal was alive, because shearing is a prohibited action. The other sages forbid this wool. This is the version of the debate according to Rabbi Judah.

לא בזה התיר עקביה – meaning to say, not in this [case- of the hair of a blemished firstling which fell out, and which one put in a wall niche/window, and which -firstling – one slaughtered afterwards] did [Rabbi] Akavyah [ben Mehallalel] permit and the Sages prohibited, for everyone agrees that when he slaughters it, it is permitted, slaughtering provides the benefit of the wool that is attached to it to permit it after ritual slaughtering, he also benefits from that which is plucked/detached and placed in a wall niche/window. But they did not disagree other than regarding a dead animal, for that wool that is attached to it requires burial, [Rabbi] Akavya [ben Mehallalel] permits the wool that fell out from it while it was living but the Sages prohibit it as a decree lest he will delay in order to derive benefit from the wool that falls out from it every hour, and one would come to perform acts of shearing and work. But the legal decision is even after the ritual slaughter, the wool that fell out from it while living is forbidden.

Rabbi Yose said to him: Akavya ben Mahalalel did not allow [only] in this case, but [even] in the case where the hair of a blemished first born which fell out and he placed it in the window, and the animal died subsequently, [even] in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel allows, but the sages forbid. Rabbi Yose has a different version of the debate. According to Rabbi Yose if the animal was slaughtered, then even the rabbis agree that the wool that fell off when it was alive may be used. Rabbi Yose holds that they debated a case where the wool fell off and then the animal died on its own. In this case, it is prohibited to derive benefit from both the meat and the wool that is on the animal. Therefore, the wool that fell off the animal is also prohibited. According to Rabbi Yose, Akavya allows the wool even in this case.

צמר המדובלל (wool which dangles/clumps in the wool) – that was not detached entirely but is attached with the wool and it doesn’t fall.

If the wool of a first born is hanging loose, that part which appears [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is permitted, whereas that which does not appear [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is forbidden. Here we deal with some wool that has become detached from the animal but is still stuck to the rest of the animal’s wool. When he slaughters the animal, the part that is seen on level with the rest of the wool is permitted, because it does not look like wool that fell off while the animal was alive. However, if it is noticeable that the wool fell off when the animal was still alive, then it is forbidden. This is according to Rabbi Judah’s opinion, that the sages prohibit wool that fell off the animal when it was still alive, even if the animal was properly slaughtered. Rabbi Yose would hold that this wool is permitted in any case.

את שנראה עם הגיזה – when they slaughter it and shear it after the ritual slaughter, that the wool that clumps/dangles is mixed with the rest of the shearing and does not appear as separated from it, it is permitted like the rest of the shearing.

ושאינו נראה עם הגיזה – that it went outside too much and is recognized that it is [separated] from the shearing.

אסור – it is like it fell off/dropped completely prior to the ritual slaughter. And the anonymous teaching is according to the Rabbis who dispute that of [Rabbi] Akavya [ben Mehallalel], and the Halakha is according to them.