One who purchases the fetus of a cow belonging to an idolater, and one who sells [such a fetus] to him, even though he is not permitted to do so, and one who partners with him, [and] one gives it to him in partnership, and one who receives it from him (i.e., to look after in exchange for a share in the offspring), and one who gives it to him in receivership, [are all] exempt from [the laws] of the first-born. Rabbi Yehuda says, even one who receives from an idolater, even though he is not permitted to do so, behold, he is credited with its full value, and he gives half the money to a priest; and one who gives it to him in receivership, even though he is not permitted to do so, behold, that one shall credit him -- and even if there are ten -- with its full value, so as to give its money to a priest. But the Sages say, since the finger of the idolater is in the middle [of the transaction], he is exempt from [the law of] the first-born.

Ownerless livestock, and consecrated livestock, and the livestock of a convert who died and has no heirs -- [all these are] exempt from [the law of] the first-born. Livestock [used to pay off] property tax are liable in [the law of] the first-born.

All consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration, and they were redeemed, are liable in [the law of] the first-born, and in the [priestly] gifts, and their offspring* are mundane, and may be redeemed unblemished, and they may be brought for any sacrifice that one desires before their redemption, and they are subject to the prohibition of benefiting from Temple property after their redemption, and whether before their redemption or after their redemption they may not be exchanged for other sanctified animals. Whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one who shears them and one who performs work with them does not receive forty lashes. The general rule of the matter: Behold, they are like mundane animals in every respect, and they are only [similar to consecrated animals in that they are] subject to commandment of valuation*. But if their consecration preceded their blemish, or a transitory blemish [preceded] their consecration, and afterward they developed a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed, they are exempt from [the law of] the first-born and from the [priestly] gifts, and their offspring are consecrated, and they may not be redeemed in their unblemished state, and they may not be brought [into the Temple] for any sacrifice that [their owner] desires, and before their redemption one can [be held liable for violating of the law against] misuse of consecrated property with them, and after their redemption one cannot [be held liable for violating the law against] misuse of consecrated property with them, and whether before their redemption or after their redemption, they may be substituted for another animal (temurah). And whether before their redemption or after their redemption, one who shears them or performs work with them -- behold, that one is administered forty lashes. The general rule of the matter: Behold, they are like consecrated animals in every respect, and they are only [similar to mundane animals in that they are] subject to the permission to be slaughtered [and eaten as chullin].

One who receives an "iron flock" (i.e., a flock sold to payment in terms under the condition that the young be divided until the payment in full has taken place (Jastrow)) from an idolater: The offspring are exempt [from the law of the first-born] and the offspring's offspring are liable. [If] the mothers died and the offspring were stood in place of the their mothers, the offspring's offspring are exempt and the offspring's offspring's offspring are liable.* of Minchat Bikkurim Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says, they, their offspring, and their offspring's offspring are exempt from [the law of] the first-born and from the [priestly] gifts, even until the end of the world.

A ewe that gave birth to a type of goat, or a female goat that gave birth to a type of sheep, [the offspring] is exempt from [the law of] the first-born, but if it has even a few signs [of being the same species as its mother], it is liable in [the law of] the first-born. A ewe that had never given birth, and then gives birth to two males, and both of their heads emerged simultaneously: Rabbi Yosei HaGalili says, both of them are [set aside] for the priest, as it is said (Ex. 13:12), "The males (plural) are for the Lord." And the Sages say, this is impossible; rather, one is for him and one is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says, the more desirable of them [is for the priest]. Rabbi Akiva says, the less desirable of them (contra. Bekh. 2:6 ("They compromise between them."). The second one (i.e., the one not given to the priest) is left to pasture until it develops a blemish, and it is liable in the [priestly] gifts, but Rabbi Yosei exempts it. [If] one of them dies, Rabbi Tarfon says, they split [the value of the live one]. Rabbi Akiva says, the burden of proof rests on the claimant (i.e., the priest). [If] a male and female [are born] and it is unknown [which emerged first], the priest receives nothing; rather, the male is left to pasture until it develops a blemish, and it is eaten with its blemish by the owners.

Two ewes that had never given birth, and they gave birth to two males [and it is unknown which gave birth to which], both are given to the priest. A male and a female, the male is for the priest. Two males and a female, one [male] is for him and one is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says, the the more desirable of them [is for the priest]. Rabbi Akiva says, the less desirable of them. The second one* is left to pasture until it develops a blemish, and it is liable in the [priestly] gifts, but Rabbi Yosei exempts it. [If] one of them [dies], Rabbi Tarfon says, they split [the value of the live one]. Rabbi Akiva says, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Two females and a male, or two males and two females, and it is unknown [which ewe gave birth to which offspring, and which emerged first], the priest receives nothing; rather, the males are left to pasture until they develop a blemish, and they are eaten with their blemishes by the owners.

One ewe that had previously given birth, and one that had never given birth, and they gave birth to two males [and it is unknown which gave birth to which], one is for him and one is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says, the more desirable of them. Rabbi Akiva says, the less desirable of them. The second one is left to pasture until it develops a blemish, and it is liable in the [priestly gifts]. Rabbi Yosei exempts [one of them], for Rabbi Yosei used to say, any [animal] whose replacements are in the hands of the priest is exempt from the gifts, and Rabbi Meir renders it labile, for he used to say, if it is a first-born, give it to me, and if not, give me its gifts. [If] one of them died, Rabbi Tarfon says, they split [the proceeds]. Rabbi Akiva says, the burden of proof rests on the claimant. [If a ewe that had previously given birth, and one that had never given birth, gave birth to] a male and a female, and it is unknown [which gave birth to which], the priest receives nothing; rather, the male is left to pasture until it develops a blemish, and it is eaten with its blemish by the owners.

One who purchases a domesticated animal from an idolater and does not know if it had previously given birth or not: [The offspring of] a female goat up to a year old is deemed to certainly belong to the priest, and [the offspring of a goat] older than that is in doubt. [The offspring of] a ewe up to to two years old is deemed to certainly belong to the priest, and [the offspring of a ewe] older than that is in doubt. [The offspring of] a cow up to to three years old is deemed to certainly belong to the priest, and [the offspring of a cow] older than that is in doubt, and a donkey is like a cow. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says, a four year-old donkey. Up to this point are the words of Rabbi Yishmael, and when these words were spoken before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said [to his students], "Go and tell Rabbi Yishmael, 'You have erred. Were an animal exempted only by giving birth to an offspring, you would have spoken well. Rather, [the Sages] said, the sign of [previously having] given birth in small livestock is a murky discharge [from the womb], and in large livestock is [the emergence of] an afterbirth, and in a woman is a fetal sac or an afterbirth.' And I say, a goat that has emitted a murky discharge at six [months] can give birth during the first year; [and] a ewe that emitted a murky discharge at a year can give birth during the second year." Rabbi Akiva says, this teaching has not reached me; rather, any [animal] as to which it is known that it gave birth, the priest does not receive anything [from subsequent births], and that which has not given birth, behold [the next birth] belongs to the priest, [and] in a case of doubt, they are eaten along with their blemish by the owners. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, large livestock from which was expelled a mass of [congealed] blood, [that mass] requires burying, and it does not defile by carrying, and any [offspring] that is born after it is exempt from [the law of] the first-born (Bekh. 3:1).

One who purchases a nursing domesticated animal from an idolater: That which is born after [the purchase is considered] a first-born, due to the doubt that she cared for [a newborn animal] that she did not birth. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says, behold, it retains its presumptive status (i.e., a nursing female is presumed to be nursing her own offspring), and so too would Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel say, one who entered amidst his flock at night and saw around ten [or] fifteen of the first-born offspring which had been borne [by first-time mothers], and when morning rose, he came and found that the males were nursing (lit., "dangling") from older [animals] and the females [were nursing] from the first-time mothers, he need not be concerned lest the offspring of this one came [to nurse] by that one, or lest the offspring of that one came [to nurse] by this one. And so too would Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel say, one who delivers his domesticated animal to an idolater to shepherd, even though that he is not permitted to do so, and the next morning came and found [newborn] males with older [animals] and [newborn] females with first-time mothers, he need not be concerned lest the idolater placed the offspring of this one by that one, or the offspring of that one by this one.

One who removes wool from an unblemished first-born, and sets it down in a window, even though [a blemish] developed afterwards and it was slaughtered, behold, this one shall bury the blemished first-born that [the wool] was removed from and afterwards died. Akavya ben Mehalalel permits it and the Sages forbid it. Said Rabbi Yehuda*, Akavya [ben Mehalalel] conceded that it is forbidden [to use the wool in such a case]. About what did they disagree? About [a first-born] that was rendered unclean* from which [its wool] was then removed, and afterwards he slaughtered it, that Akavya ben Mehalalel permits [the wool] and the Sages forbid it. Said Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Halafta agree with this, that [the wool] is permitted, but the Sages more specifically said, let him set it down in a window, lest there be a way to rectify [the situation], for if it should die it will be prohibited, but if he slaughtered it, it is permitted. About what did they disagree? About [a case when] it was rendered unclean and he removed [wool] from it and after that it died, for Akavya ben Mehalalel permits [the wool] and the Sages prohibit.