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: 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.
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: 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.
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: 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.
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: 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.