## Bekhorot Daf 24a

###### Bekhorot 24a:1
[Bekhorot 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:1)

הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**why do I** need him to state that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam?**


###### Bekhorot 24a:2
[Bekhorot 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:2)

אִי אָמַר הִלְכְתָא דְּכוּלֵּיהּ פִּירְקִין, וְלָא אָמַר הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם קָאֵי, וּמַאי ״בְּכוּלֵּיהּ פִּירְקִין״? דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי תַּרְתֵּי אָמַר, וּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּבָרַיְיתָא פְּלוּגְתָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Had** Rav **said** only that **the *halakha*** is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous *tanna* in the *mishnayot* **throughout the whole chapter, but did not say** explicitly that **the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, I would say:** Rav **is referring** specifically **to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam. And what** is the meaning of the phrase: **Throughout the whole chapter,** which indicates he is speaking of more than one case? This is referring to the fact that **Rabbi Yosei said two** separate statements in the chapter. **And** this would indicate with regard to Rav’s statement that if a mishna is contradicted by **a dissenting** opinion cited in **a *baraita*,** that **is** considered **a dispute.**


###### Bekhorot 24a:3
[Bekhorot 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:3)

אַשְׁמְעִינַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דְּאַדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל קָאֵי, וּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּבָרַיְיתָא לָאו פְּלוּגְתָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav **taught** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei** in order **to teach us that** his statement with regard to the whole chapter **is referring** to the opinion **of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and** with regard to Rav’s statement, if a mishna is contradicted by **a dissenting** opinion cited in **a *baraita*,** that **is not** considered **a dispute.**


###### Bekhorot 24a:4
[Bekhorot 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:4)

מַאי בָּרַיְיתָא? דְּתַנְיָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּהֵמָה מְנִיקָה מִן הַגּוֹי, הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו בְּכוֹר מִסָּפֵק, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּרַחֶמֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: דָּבָר בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What** is the ***baraita*** mentioned previously? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who purchases a nursing** female **animal from a gentile,** the young **that** is born **after** the offspring currently being nursed is treated as **a firstborn due to** the **uncertainty** whether it is the animal’s offspring, **because** an animal might **be merciful** and nurse another animal **even though it has not given birth** at all. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** The **matter** stands **in its presumptive status,** i.e., the nursing animal is assumed to be the mother of the nursing offspring.


###### Bekhorot 24a:5
[Bekhorot 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:5)

וְכֵן הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַנִּכְנָס לְתוֹךְ עֶדְרוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה וְרָאָה כְּעֶשֶׂר כַּחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה, מַבְכִּירוֹת וְשֶׁאֵינָן מַבְכִּירוֹת, יוֹלְדוֹת, לְמָחָר הִשְׁכִּים וּמָצָא זְכָרִים (תְּלוּיוֹת) [תְּלוּיִין] בְּשֶׁאֵין מַבְכִּירוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת תְּלוּיוֹת בְּמַבְכִּירוֹת — אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: One who enters amid his flock at night and sees about ten** or **about fifteen** animals, some of **whose offspring is a firstborn and** others **whose offspring is not a firstborn,** and all were **giving birth,** and **on the next day he arose and found** that the **male** young **were nursing from** the mothers **whose offspring is not a firstborn, and** the **female** young **were nursing from** the mothers **whose offspring is a firstborn, he does not need to be concerned** that **perhaps the young of this** mother **came to** nurse from **that** mother. Rather, he may assume that each animal is nursing its own offspring.


###### Bekhorot 24a:6
[Bekhorot 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:6)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דָּבָר בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ דְּקָאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאֵינָהּ מְרַחֶמֶת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹלֶדֶת — הָא הֵיכָא דְּאוֹלִיד חָיְישִׁינַן לְרַחוֹמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: דִּידַהּ מְרַחֲמָא, דְּלָא דִּידַהּ לָא מְרַחֲמָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: What is the precise meaning of the phrase: The **matter** stands **in its presumptive status, which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel stated?** Does this mean **that** an animal **does not show mercy unless it has given birth,** and **consequently,** in a case **where** the animal has **given birth we are concerned for** the possibility that it might **be merciful** and nurse an offspring that is not its own? **Or perhaps** it means that an animal might **be merciful** only toward **its own** offspring, but **it does not** show **mercy** to an animal **that is not its own?**


###### Bekhorot 24a:7
[Bekhorot 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:7)

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִלְקֵא עֲלַהּ מִשּׁוּם ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״. אִי אָמְרַתְּ דִּידַהּ מְרַחֲמָא, דְּלָא דִּידַהּ לָא מְרַחֲמָא — לָקֵי, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּלָא דִּידַהּ נָמֵי מְרַחֲמָא — לָא לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What difference is** there in practice based on this distinction? Either way the nursing animal is assumed to have given birth and its future offspring will not be considered a firstborn. The Gemara answers that there is a difference **with regard to** whether or not one **is flogged for** slaughtering **it due to** violating the prohibition against slaughtering **a mother and its offspring** on the same day. **If you say** an animal **is merciful** only toward **its own** offspring but **is not merciful** toward an animal **that is not its own,** then **one is flogged** if he deliberately slaughters an animal and the offspring that it is nursing. **But if you say** it **is also merciful** toward an animal **that is not its own,** then one **is not flogged** in such a case.


###### Bekhorot 24a:8
[Bekhorot 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:8)

מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּהֵמָה מִן הַגּוֹי — אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל אַחֶרֶת הָיָה. מִי קָתָנֵי ״הוּא״? ״הָיָה״ קָתָנֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל אַחֶרֶת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לָהּ וָלָד מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to its initial inquiry. **What** is the precise meaning of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement? **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna, as **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** In the case of **one who purchases** a nursing female **animal from a gentile, he** does **not** need **to be concerned lest** the offspring currently being nursed **was the offspring of another** animal. Evidently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that an animal nurses only its own offspring. The Gemara rejects this proof: **Does** the mishna **teach** that one does not need to be concerned that perhaps **it is** the offspring of another animal? No, it **teaches** that one does not need to be concerned that perhaps **it was** the offspring of another animal, and **this** is what it **is saying:** Whichever way you look at it, the next offspring is not a firstborn, as **one** does **not** need **to be concerned** that **perhaps it** was **the offspring of another** animal that it is nursing, as it would not nurse **unless it** already **had an offspring initially.**


###### Bekhorot 24a:9
[Bekhorot 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִכְנַס בְּתוֹךְ עֶדְרוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת הַמַּבְכִּירוֹת מְנִיקוֹת, וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינָן מַבְכִּירוֹת מְנִיקוֹת — אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא בְּנָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the continuation of the mishna: In the case of one who **enters amid his flock and sees** mother animals **that gave birth for the first time** that were **nursing, and** also sees mother animals **that gave birth not for the first time** that were also **nursing, he** does **not** need **to be concerned** that **perhaps the offspring of this** animal **came to that** animal to be nursed, or that **perhaps the offspring of that** animal **came to this** animal to be nursed.


###### Bekhorot 24a:10
[Bekhorot 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:10)

אַמַּאי? לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא רַחוֹמֵי רַחֵים! בִּמְקוֹם דִּידַהּ, לָא שָׁבְקָא דִּידַהּ וּמְרַחֲמָא דְּלָא דִּידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof: But **why** not? **Let us be concerned** that **perhaps** the nursing animal **is merciful** toward an offspring that is not its own. Evidently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that an animal nurses only its own offspring, even if it had previously given birth. The Gemara rejects this proof: Even if an animal does show mercy toward offspring that is not its own, in **a place where** it has **its own** offspring, **it does not set aside its own** offspring **and** show **mercy** toward offspring **that is not its own.**


###### Bekhorot 24a:11
[Bekhorot 24a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דָּבָר בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ כּוּ׳. מַאי לָאו רֵישָׁא דּוּמְיָא דְּסֵיפָא? מָה סֵיפָא וַדַּאי דִּידַהּ, אַף רֵישָׁא וַדַּאי דִּידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement in the *baraita*: If one purchases a nursing animal from a gentile, the **matter** stands **in its presumptive status.** From the phrase: And similarly, in the continuation of the *baraita*, the Gemara infers: **What, is it not** so that **the first clause is similar to the latter clause? Just as** in **the latter clause** the nursing young is **certainly** considered to be the nursing animal’s **own** offspring, **so too,** in **the first clause** it is **certainly** considered to be the nursing animal’s **own** offspring, despite the fact that the animal mother might have given birth previously.


###### Bekhorot 24a:12
[Bekhorot 24a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:12)

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הַאי כִּדְאִיתֵאּ, וְהַאי כִּדְאִיתֵאּ. וּמַאי ״וְכֵן״? אַפְּטוּרָה דִּבְכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Are the cases comparable? This** first clause of the *baraita* stands **as it is and that** second clause of the *baraita* stands **as it is,** i.e., they are referring to different cases. In the second clause, where all the offspring are standing before their mothers, it is certain that each mother will nurse only its own child. Conversely, in the first clause it is uncertain whether that child is its own. **But** if so, what is the meaning of the phrase: **And similarly?** It means both clauses state that the nursing animal **is exempt from** having its future offspring counted **a firstborn,** since even if that offspring is not the mother’s, the mother would not nurse it unless it had previously given birth.


###### Bekhorot 24a:13
[Bekhorot 24a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:13)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רָאָה חֲזִיר שֶׁכָּרוּךְ אַחַר רָחֵל, פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה ״עַד יָבֹא וְיוֹרֶה צֶדֶק לָכֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes a similar case. **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If one **saw** a young animal resembling **a pig that** was **trailing after a ewe,** the ewe is **exempt from** having its future offspring counted **a firstborn. And** the pig-like animal **is forbidden for consumption “until he comes and instructs righteousness to you”** (Hosea 10:12), i.e., until Elijah the prophet arrives and determines the *halakha*.


###### Bekhorot 24a:14
[Bekhorot 24a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:14)

פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה — כְּמַאן? כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה — כְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s statement: On the one hand, the ewe is **exempt from** having its future offspring counted **a firstborn,** which is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** that an animal that nurses from another is presumed to be its offspring. **But** on the other hand, the pig-like animal **is forbidden for consumption,** which is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis** that an animal might nurse the young of another.


###### Bekhorot 24a:15
[Bekhorot 24a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:15)

וְתוּ, אִי כְּרַבָּנַן, מַאי ״עַד יָבֹא וְיוֹרֶה צֶדֶק לָכֶם״? ״עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ דָּבָר״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, if** the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and there is a concern with regard to the identity of the mother of the offspring, **what** is the reason for citing the verse: **“Until he comes and instructs righteousness to you”?** By citing it, the *baraita* is indicating that the status of the pig-like animal is a halakhic uncertainty that can be resolved only by Elijah the prophet. Instead, **it should have** stated: **Until the matter becomes known to you,** in reference to the empirical uncertainty as to whether the pig-like animal is the offspring of the ewe.


###### Bekhorot 24a:16
[Bekhorot 24a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:16)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אִי כְּרַבָּנַן, אִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ — אַמַּאי פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה? וְתוּ: מִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, חוּץ מֵעָרֵב, וְצַיְדָן, וּרְאָיָה אַחֲרוֹנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **it is uncertain whether the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel or in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** that cannot be correct: **If** that matter **is uncertain,** then **why is** the **ewe exempt from** having its future offspring counted **a firstborn? And furthermore, is** this question of whose opinion is accepted as the *halakha* **an uncertainty** at all? **But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Wherever Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught** a *halakha* **in** the corpus of **our Mishna** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with his** opinion, **except for** the following three cases: The responsibility of the **guarantor** (see *Bava Batra* 174a), **and** the incident that occurred in the city of **Tzaidan** (see *Gittin* 74a), **and** the dispute with regard to **evidence** in the **final** disagreement (see *Sanhedrin* 31a)?


###### Bekhorot 24a:17
[Bekhorot 24a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:17)

לְעוֹלָם פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מִיהוּ מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי סָבַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל יוֹלֶדֶת מְרַחֶמֶת, אוֹ אֵינָהּ מְרַחֶמֶת. אִי הָכִי, עַד דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן חֲזִיר, לַישְׁמְעִינַן טָלֶה, וּלְמִילְקֵי עֲלֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** it is **obvious to** Rabba bar bar Ḥana that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. But it is uncertain if Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds** that **an animal that has given birth** might **be merciful** toward offspring that is not its own, **or** if he holds that it **is not merciful** toward the offspring of another. The Gemara rejects this claim: **If that is so, instead of teaching** a case involving an animal with the appearance of **a pig,** he **should have taught** the more common case of a mother ewe nursing a baby **lamb. And** accordingly, rather than inquiring with regard to the prohibition against eating a non-kosher animal, he should have inquired as **to** whether or not one is **flogged for it due to** violating the prohibition against slaughtering **a mother and its offspring** on the same day.


###### Bekhorot 24a:18
[Bekhorot 24a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:18)

חֲזִיר אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן טָלֶה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר דְּסָבַר יוֹלֶדֶת מְרַחֲמָא — דְּמִינַהּ, דְּלָא מִינַהּ — לָא. אַשְׁמְעִינַן חֲזִיר, דִּמְרַחֶמֶת, וַאֲפִילּוּ דְּלָאו מִינַהּ נָמֵי, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דִּלְמָא מְרַחֲמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It **was necessary for** Rabba bar bar Ḥana to teach the case of **a pig, as, had he taught** a case involving **a lamb, I would say:** Even **if you say that** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel **holds** that **an animal that has given birth** might **be merciful** toward the offspring of another, this is so only **with regard to its** own **species,** but with regard to an animal **that is not** of **its** own **species,** it would **not** show mercy and would not nurse the offspring. Therefore, Rabba bar bar Ḥana **teaches us** the case of **a pig,** to convey **that** an animal might **be merciful, and** this is **also** true **even where** the offspring **is not** of **its** own **species, as it could be said** that **perhaps** the animal was **merciful** in such a case as well.


###### Bekhorot 24a:19
[Bekhorot 24a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/24a:19)

וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בָּעֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And this is** the meaning of **that** which Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A dilemma was raised**