Previous daf

1)

(a) A ‘Yotze Dofen’ is – a baby that does not touch the sides of the vagina as it is born (e.g. a cesarean birth).

(b) Rebbi Tarfon rules ‘Yir’u’, with regard to both a Yotze Dofen and the baby that is born after it. Rebbi Akiva maintains – that this is not necessary, since the first baby was not born by means of a vaginal birth, and the second one was not its mother’s first baby.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is whether a Bechor in one respect is considered a Bechor (Rebbi Tarfon thinks that it might be) or not (Rebbi Akiva).

(a) Discussing ‘K’lal ha’Tzarich li’F’rat’ and ‘P’rat she’Hu Tzarich li’Ch’ lal’, the Beraisa cites the Pasuk in Bo “Zachar”, from which it learns us that the Pasuk “Kadesh Li Kol Bechor” is confined to males. This is – a ‘K’ lal she’Hu Tzarich li’F’rat’.

(b) The second of the Pesukim mentions “Peter Kol Rechem” – to preclude from the notion that a male born after a female firstborn has the Din of a Bechor (since he is the first male to be born).

(c) And we learn from “Bechor” (the K’lal) – that if the first male is born after a Yotze Dofen, it does not have the Din of a Bechor.

(d) This is – a ‘P’rat she’Hu Tzarich li’Ch’lal’.

(a) Rav Sheravya extrapolates from the fact that ...

1. ... the Metzi’asa of the Beraisa cites “Peter Kol Rechem” and not “Bechor” – that the Tana seems to hold that “Bechor” incorporates even a firstborn in one respect. Otherwise, the Tana should rather have cited “Bechor” in anticipation of the Tana’s next question.
2. ... the Seifa cites “Bechor” – that he now believes “Bechor” to mean specifically a Bechor in all respects. Otherwise, what does he prove by quoting it.

(b) Abaye replied that really “Bechor” means a Bechor in all respects. And he amends the Metzi’asa in that “Peter Rechem” comes to preclude a male that was born first but that was itself a Yotze Dofen ...

(c) ... where the Tana has to quote “Peter Rechem”, because without knowing that it needs to a Peter Rechem, “Bechor” would not preclude it.

(d) Ravina on the other hand, holds that “Bechor” does incorporate a Bechor in one respect, and the reason that the Tana cites it in the Seifa – is because (bearing in mind that there where a female baby preceded the male we already know from “Peter Rechem”), the only thing that it can possibly coming to teach us is that a male that is born after a Yotze Dofen is Patur from the Bechorah.

(a) Rav Acha mi’Difti queries Ravina however – in that the previous Limud from Bechor (which is derived from the fact that the word is superfluous, and not by implication) would be fine if the Yotze Dofen was a male (in which case the second baby is only a Bechor for Rechamim [the first vaginal birth]) - but how will we know to preclude also a case where it was a female (in which case it is also a Bechor li’Zecharim [the first male to be born])?

(b) We therefore conclude – that we have no option but to reject Ravina’s explanation, and to adopt that of Abaye ...

(c) ... in which case “Bechor” means a Bechor in all respects.

5)

(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, if someone purchases a goat from a Nochri without knowing whether it has already given birth or not, as long as it is within its first year, he must give its next baby to the Kohen. If that baby was born after it entered its second year – it would be a Safek, which means ‘Ro’eh’, and when it obtains a blemish, it can be eaten by the owner.

(b) We assume that the next baby is the firstborn with regard to ...

1. ... a sheep – as long as it has not yet entered its third year.
2. ... a cow and a donkey – as long as they have not yet entered their fourth year.

(a) Rebbi Akiva disagrees. When he says ‘Siman ha’V’lad bi’Veheimah Dakah Tinuf’, he means – that even within the first year, a goat might be Patur from the Bechorah, because it may have emitted Tinuf (which will be explained in the Sugya) prior to the birth, and that Tinuf might itself have been a birth.

(b) The ‘Siman V’lad by ...

1. ... a Beheimah Gasah is – the emission of a placenta.
2. ... a woman is – the skin of a baby or a placenta.

(c) According to him, the first baby is definitely ...

1. ... not a Bechor – only if we know for sure that the current baby is its first one.
2. ... a Bechor – if we know for sure that it is not.
3. ... a Safek – if we don’t know whether it is or it isn’t.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael just learned that once a goat has entered its second year, the next baby is a Safek Bechor. The problem with this is - that most goats conceive within their first year, so why do we not go after the Rov, and assume that the next baby is not a Bechor?

(b) We reply by establishing Rebbi Yishmael like Rebbi Meir – who contends with the minority.

(c) We try to establish Rebbi Yishmael even like the Rabbanan, by drawing a distinction between two kinds of Rov. We define ‘Tesha Chanuyos’ and ‘Sanhedrin’ as a ‘Ruba de’Isa Lekaman’ (a visible majority, where the numbers [of shops and judges] can actually be counted), as opposed to most women or most animals in the world, thwhich cannot, and where the Rabbanan might therefore concur with Rebbi Meir.

(d) But we refute this suggestion by citing the Mishnah in Yevamos regarding ‘Katan u’Ketanah’, where Rebbi Meir states - that a Katan or a Ketanah cannot perform Chalitzah or Yibum, in case the former turns out to be a Saris and the latter, an Aylonis, both of whom are Patur from Yibum, and who are therefore subject to Eishes Ach.

(a) The Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Meir regarding Chalitzah – by which the Torah writes “Ish” (precluding a Katan).

(b) They disagree with him regarding Yibum however – because they go after the majority of men who are not Sarisim, and women who are not Aylonos.

(c) Rava therefore concludes - that Rebbi Yishmael must hold like Rebbi Meir.

(d) Ravina maintains that Rebbi Yishmael can still hold like the Rabbanan, because they will concede in the case of the birth of an animal that we do not go after the majority – because it is a Rov that is determined by the act of Tashmish (see Tosfos DH ‘Ravina’), unlike most other cases of Rov, which are automatic.