## Mishnah Bekhorot Chapter 3

###### Mishnah Bekhorot 3:1
[Mishnah Bekhorot 3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Bekhorot/r/3:1)

הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּהֵמָה מִן הַנָּכְרִי וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בִּכְּרָה וְאִם לֹא בִכְּרָה, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, עֵז בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ וַדַּאי לַכֹּהֵן, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ סָפֵק. רָחֵל בַּת שְׁתַּיִם וַדַּאי לַכֹּהֵן, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ סָפֵק. פָּרָה וַחֲמוֹר בְּנוֹת שָׁלשׁ וַדַּאי לַכֹּהֵן, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ סָפֵק. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אִלּוּ בַּוָּלָד בִּלְבַד בְּהֵמָה נִפְטֶרֶת, הָיָה כִדְבָרֶיךָ, אֶלָּא אָמְרוּ, סִימַן הַוָּלָד בִּבְהֵמָה דַקָּה, טִנוּף. וּבְגַסָּה, שִׁלְיָא. וּבְאִשָּׁה, שְׁפִיר וְשִׁלְיָא. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁיָדוּעַ שֶׁבִּכְּרָה, אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. וְכֹל שֶׁלֹּא בִכְּרָה, הֲרֵי זֶה לַכֹּהֵן. אִם סָפֵק, יֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ לַבְּעָלִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה שֶׁשָּׁפְעָה חֲרָרַת דָּם, הֲרֵי זוֹ תִקָּבֵר, וְנִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of **one who purchases** a female **animal from a gentile and does not know whether it had** previously **given birth** or **whether it had not** previously **given birth,** and after the purchase the animal gave birth to a male, **Rabbi Yishmael says:** If the mother was **a goat within its first year** the male offspring **certainly** is given **to the priest,** as it definitely never gave birth previously. **From that** point **forward,** i.e., if the mother is older than that, its offspring’s status as a firstborn is **uncertain.** If it was **a ewe within its second year** the male offspring **certainly** is given **to the priest; from that** point **forward** an offspring’s status is **uncertain.** If it was **a cow or a donkey within its third year** the male offspring **certainly** is given **to the priest; from that** point **forward** the offspring’s status is **uncertain.** **Rabbi Akiva said to him: Were an animal exempted only by** giving birth to **an offspring** and in no other manner the *halakha* would be **in accordance with your statement. But** the Sages **said: An indication of the offspring in a small animal** is **a murky discharge** from the womb, which indicates the animal had been pregnant, and therefore exempts subsequent births from the mitzva of the firstborn. The indication **in a large** animal is the emergence of **an afterbirth, and** the indication **in a woman** is **a fetal sac or an afterbirth.** Since these can be produced even within a year, it cannot be assumed that an animal in its first year is definitely subject to the mitzva of the firstborn. Rabbi Akiva continues: Rather, **this is the principle:** In **any** case **where it is known that** the animal **had** previously **given birth, the priest has nothing here. And** in **any** case **where it is known that** the animal **had not** previously **given birth, that** is given **to the priest. And if it is uncertain, it may be eaten in its blemished** state **by the owner.** **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.**


###### Mishnah Bekhorot 3:2
[Mishnah Bekhorot 3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Bekhorot/r/3:2)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּהֵמָה מְנִיקָה מִן הַנָּכְרִי, אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא בְנָהּ שֶׁל אַחֶרֶת הָיָה. נִכְנַס לְתוֹךְ עֶדְרוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת הַמַּבְכִּירוֹת מְנִיקוֹת וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינָן מַבְכִּירוֹת מְנִיקוֹת, אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא בְנָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא בְנָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,** i.e., take into account the possibility, that **perhaps it was** nursing **the offspring of another** animal. Rather, the buyer may assume it had previously given birth. 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.


###### Mishnah Bekhorot 3:3
[Mishnah Bekhorot 3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Bekhorot/r/3:3)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן מְשֻׁלָּם אוֹמֵר, הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, עוֹשֶׂה מָקוֹם בְּקוֹפִיץ מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן וְתוֹלֵשׁ הַשֵּׂעָר, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְזִיזֶנּוּ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ. וְכֵן הַתּוֹלֵשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׂעָר לִרְאוֹת מְקוֹם הַמּוּם:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says:** Since it is prohibited by Torah law to shear a firstborn, as it states: “And you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19), **one who is slaughtering a firstborn,** and must clear hair or wool from the area of the neck in order to facilitate proper slaughter, **clears space** by uprooting the hair **with a cleaver [*bekofitz*] from here and from there,** on either side of the neck, although he thereby **plucks** out **the hair.** He may clear space in this manner **provided that he does not move** the plucked hair **from its place;** it must remain intermingled with the rest of the hair so it will appear that he did not shear the animal. **And likewise, one plucks the hair** to enable one of the Sages **to examine the place of a blemish** and thereby determine whether it is permitted to slaughter the firstborn outside the Temple.


###### Mishnah Bekhorot 3:4
[Mishnah Bekhorot 3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishnah%20Bekhorot/r/3:4)

שְׂעַר בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנָּשַׁר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַחַלּוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטוֹ, עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מַתִּיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, לֹא בָזֶה הִתִּיר עֲקַבְיָא, אֶלָּא בִשְׂעַר בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנָּשַׁר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּחַלּוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת, בָּזֶה עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מַתִּיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. הַצֶּמֶר הַמְדֻבְלָל בַּבְּכוֹר, אֶת שֶׁהוּא נִרְאֶה מִן הַגִּזָּה, מֻתָּר. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה מִן הַגִּזָּה, אָסוּר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **the hair of a blemished firstborn** animal **that shed** from the animal, **and which one placed in a compartment** for safekeeping, **and thereafter he slaughtered** the animal; given that after the animal dies he is permitted to derive benefit from the hair the animal had on its body when it died, what is the halakhic status of hair that shed from the animal while it was alive? **Akavya ben Mahalalel deems** its use **permitted,** **and the Rabbis deem** its use **prohibited;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said to him:** It was **not with regard to that** case **that Akavya ben Mahalalel deemed** use of the wool permitted. **Rather,** it was in the case of **the hair of a blemished** firstborn animal **that shed** from the animal **which one placed in a compartment and thereafter** the animal **died.** It was **in that** case that **Akavya ben Mahalalel deems** use of the wool **permitted, and the Rabbis deem** its use **prohibited** even after its death. With regard to **wool that is dangling from a firstborn** animal, i.e., which was not completely shed, **that which appears** to be part **of the fleece** is **permitted** when the animal is shorn after its death, **and that which does not appear** to be part **of the fleece** is **prohibited.**