[If] a ewe which had not previously given birth bore two males, and their two heads emerged simultaneously —- R’ Yose HaGlili says: Both belong to a Kohen, since it is stated, the males are to HASHEM. The Sages, however, say: It is impossible; rather one [lamb] is his and one goes to a Kohen. R’ Tarfon says: The Kohen selects the better one for himself. R’ Akiva says: The fatter one is at issue between them, while the second [one] is left to pasture until it develops a blemish, and it is subject to the law of gifts [to the Kohen]. R’ Yose exempts [it].  [If] one of them died —- R’ Tarfon says: They divide. R’ Akiva says: The burden of proof lies on the one who seeks to exact [something] from the other. [If] a male and a female [were born first], there is nothing here for a Kohen.

[If] two ewes which had not previously given birth bore two males —- he gives them both to a Kohen; [if they bore] a male and a female, the male belongs to a Kohen.  [If they bore] two males and a female, one belongs to him and one to a Kohen. R’ Tarfon says: The Kohen selects the better one for himself. R’ Akiva says: The fatter one is at issue between them, while the second [lamb] is left to pasture until it develops a blemish, and it is subject to the law of gifts [to the Kohen]. R’ Yose exempts [it].  [If] one of them died —- R’ Tarfon says: They divide. R’ Akiva says: The burden of proof lies on the one who seeks to exact [something] from the other.  [If they bore] two females and a male, or two males and two females, there is nothing here for a Kohen.

[If] one which had previously given birth and one which had not previously given birth [now] bore two males —- one belongs to him and one goes to a Kohen. R’ Tarfon says: The Kohen selects the better one for himself. R’ Akiva says: The fatter one is at issue between them, while the second [lamb] is left to pasture until it develops a blemish, and it is subject to the law of gifts [to the Kohen]. R’ Yose exempts [it]; for R’ Yose was wont to say: Whatever has its substitute in the Kohen’s hand is exempt from the law of gifts [to the Kohen]. R’ Meir rules [it] subject [to the gifts].  [If] one of them died —- R’ Tarfon says: They divide. R’ Akiva says: The burden of proof lies on the one who seeks to exact [something] from the other.  [If they bore] a male and a female, there is nothing here for a Kohen.

An [animal] born by Caesarean section and the one that follows it —- R’ Tarfon says: Both must be left to pasture until they develop blemishes, and they may be eaten with their blemish by their owner. R’ Akiva says: Neither one is a bechor; the first, because it did not open the womb, and the second, because it was preceded by another.

[If] one buys an animal from a non-Jew, and it is not known whether it had borne its first [offspring] or not —- R’ Yishmael says: [The offspring of] a goat in its first year certainly belongs to a Kohen, from here on it is questionable; [the offspring of] a ewe in its second year certainly belongs to a Kohen, from here on it is questionable; [the offspring of] a cow or donkey in its third year certainly belongs to a Kohen, from here on it is questionable. R’ Akiva said to him: If offspring alone would exempt the animal, it would be as you say; but they said: The sign of offspring in small livestock [is] a womb-discharge; and in large livestock, an amniotic sac; and in a woman, an embryo or an amnioti sac. This is the rule: [With] any [animal] known to have previously borne its first, the Kohen receives nothing; and [with] any one that had not borne its first, this [first male offspring] belongs to the Kohen; if it is questionable, it may be eaten in its blemished [state] by the owner.  R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov says: [If] a large livestock animal discharges a mass of congealed blood, it must be buried, and it is exempt from the laws of bechor.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: [If] one buys a nursing animal from a non-Jew, he need not suspect that it was the offspring of another animal. [If] he entered among his flock and saw that those that had just borne for the first time were nursing, and that those that had previously given birth were nursing [as well], he need not suspect that the offspring of this one came to that one, or that the offspring of that one came to this one.

R’ Yose ben Meshullam says: [If] one slaughters a bechor he may make a space for a butcher’s hatchet on either side, and pluck the hair, provided that he does not dislodge it from its place. The same [is true for] one who plucks the hair to observe the place of a blemish.

[If] the hair of a blemished bechor fell out and he placed it in a recess in the wall, and afterward [he] slaughtered it —- Akavya ben Mahalalel permits [it], and the Sages prohibit [it]; [these are] the words of R’ Yehudah. R’ Yose [however] said: Not in this [case] did Akavya [alone] permit [it]. Rather [they argued about] the hair of a blemished bechor that fell out and was placed in a recess, and afterward [the animal] died —- in this [case], Akavya ben Mahalalel permits [it] and the Sages prohibit [it].  [If] wool is hanging from a bechor —- that which appears to be from the shearing is permissible; and that which does not appear to be from the shearing is prohibited.

How long is a Yisrael required to care for a bechor? With small livestock, until thirty days; and with large livestock, fifty days. R’ Yose says: With small [livestock] three months. [If] the Kohen said to him within this time, “Give it to me,” he may not give it to him. [If] it was blemished, [and] he said to him, “Give it to me so that I may eat it,” it is permissible. However, during the era of the Temple, if it was perfect [and] he said to him, “Give it to me that I may offer it,” it is permissible.  The bechor must be eaten within the year, whether it is perfect or blemished, as it is said (Deut. 15:20): “Before HASHEM your God you shall eat it year by year.”