Bekhorot 18a

סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן בִּידֵי אָדָם.

holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: It is possible for two matters that are in the hands of Heaven to coincide precisely, and all the more so matters that are in human hands. Consequently, one cannot cite Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in order to determine the opinion of the Rabbis.

נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: נִמְצָא מְכוָּּון בֵּין שְׁתֵּי עֲיָירוֹת — לֹא הָיוּ עוֹרְפִין, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְבִיאוֹת שְׁתֵּי עֲגָלוֹת. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם?

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is subject to a dispute between tanna’im , as it is taught in a baraita : If the corpse of a slain person was found precisely between two towns, they would not break the heifer’s neck at all. Rabbi Eliezer says: The two towns bring two heifers between them. What, is it not correct to say that they disagree with regard to this matter, in that the first tanna holds that it is impossible for two matters to coincide precisely and Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is possible for two matters to coincide precisely?

וְתִיסְבְּרַאּ? אִי קָסָבַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם, אַמַּאי לֹא הָיוּ עוֹרְפִים? יָבִיאוּ עֶגְלָה אַחַת בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, וְיִתְּנוּ!

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And how can you understand that to be the dispute? If the first tanna holds that it is impossible for two matters to coincide precisely, why does he claim that they would not break the heifer’s neck? Let them bring one heifer in partnership and stipulate that it is brought for the town that is actually nearest.

אֶלָּא, לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם, וְהָכָא בִּ״קְרוֹבָה״ וְלֹא קְרוֹבוֹת קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: ״קְרוֹבָה״ וְלֹא קְרוֹבוֹת, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: ״קְרוֹבָה״ וַאֲפִילּוּ קְרוֹבוֹת.

Rather, with regard to these tanna’im , everyone agrees that it is possible for two matters to coincide precisely. And here they disagree over whether the singular form kerova in the phrase “the town which is nearest [ kerova ]” indicates that only the nearest town brings a heifer, and not the many nearest [ kerovot ] towns; as the first tanna holds that it is derived from the term “ kerova ” that only the nearest town brings a heifer, and not multiple kerovot ; and Rabbi Eliezer holds that although the verse states “ kerova ,” nevertheless this includes even multiple towns that are kerovot .

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: תָּנָא נִמְצָא מְכוָּּון בֵּין שְׁתֵּי עֲיָירוֹת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְבִיאוֹת שְׁתֵּי עֲגָלוֹת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָבִיאוּ עֶגְלָה אַחַת בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת וְיַתְנוּ.

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about the Rabbis’ opinion with regard to whether matters in human hands can coincide precisely? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rav Amram says: The Sages taught in a baraita : If the slain person was found precisely between two towns, Rabbi Eliezer says: The two towns bring two heifers between them; and the Rabbis say: They bring one heifer in partnership and stipulate that it is brought for the town that is nearest.

מַאי קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן? אִי קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם, וּקְרוֹבָה — וַאֲפִילּוּ קְרוֹבוֹת, לַיְיתֵי תַּרְתֵּי! וְאִי ״קְרוֹבָה״ וְלֹא קְרוֹבוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ חֲדָא לָא לַיְיתֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן: אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּידֵי אָדָם. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

What do the Rabbis hold in this regard? If the Rabbis hold that is possible for two matters that are in human hands to coincide precisely, and the singular “ kerova ” includes even multiple towns, kerovot , then they should bring two heifers. And if they hold that “ kerova ” indicates: But not kerovot , then they should not bring even one heifer. Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Rabbis hold: It is impossible for two matters to coincide precisely, and this is true even with regard to matters that are in human hands? Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶת הַיָּפֶה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן? קָא סָבַר: הָהוּא דְּבָרִיא נָפֵק בְּרֵישָׁא.

§ The mishna teaches that in the case of a ewe that gave birth for the first time to two male offspring whose heads emerged as one, Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better of the two. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Tarfon? He holds that it is presumed that the healthier and better of the two emerged first, and therefore it belongs to the priest.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״מְשַׁמְּנִין״ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּהֵן נוֹטֵל כְּחוּשָׁה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהָא אֲנַן ״מְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶן״ תְּנַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַד דַּאֲכַלְתְּ כַּפְנְיָיתָא בְּבָבֶל, תַּרְגֵּימְנָא מִסֵּיפָא.

The mishna further teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: They assess the value of the lambs between them. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to Rabbi Akiva, the priest takes the leaner of the two. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: But didn’t we learn that they assess the value of the offspring between them, which indicates that the priest and owner divide their value? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: While you were eating dates in Babylonia, we in Eretz Yisrael explained it based on the latter clause in the mishna.

דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: יַחְלוֹקוּ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ ״מְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶן״ דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי פְּלִיגִי, הָכִי נָמֵי (לִיפַּלְגִי) [לִיפְלוֹג] גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי! אֶלָּא מַאי ״מְשַׁמְּנִין״ — שׁוֹמֶן יְהֵא בֵּינֵיהֶן, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן: אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה דִּבְכוֹר הוּא וּשְׁקֹיל.

As the latter clause teaches: If one of the two born together died, Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest and the owner divide the remaining lamb, and Rabbi Akiva says: Since there is uncertainty to whom it belongs, it remains in the possession of the owner, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. And if it enters your mind that when Rabbi Akiva said that they assess the value between them he meant that they divide the value between them, then in the latter clause too, let them divide the value of the remaining offspring between them instead of leaving it with the owner. Rather, what does: They assess [ meshammenin ] the value between them, mean? It means that the additional fat [ shumman ] of the better twin will be the subject of dispute between them, as the owner says to the priest: Bring a proof that the better one is the firstborn, and take it.

וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְחַיָּיב בְּמַתָּנוֹת, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹטֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹאִיל וְכֹהֵן בָּא עָלָיו מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי בְּכוֹר הוּא — כּוּלֵּיהּ דִּידִי הוּא, אִי לָא בְּכוֹר הוּא — הַב לִי מַתָּנוֹת מִינֵּיהּ.

§ The mishna teaches: And the second lamb that remains in the possession of the owner must graze until it becomes blemished, at which point he may slaughter and eat it, and he is obligated to have the gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, taken from it; and Rabbi Yosei deems him exempt from giving those gifts. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, whose opinion is the ruling cited first in the mishna? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The owner is obligated since the priest comes upon him from two sides, i.e., by force of two complementary claims, as the priest says to him: If the second lamb is in fact the firstborn, it is mine in its entirety, and if it is not the firstborn, at least give me the priestly gifts from it.

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רָבָא: עָשׂוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה כְּזוֹכֶה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְטָא לִידֵיהּ כְּמַאן דִּמְטָא לִידֵיהּ, וְזַבְּנֵיהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמוּמֵיהּ.

And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, who deems the owner exempt from giving the priestly gifts from the second animal? Rava says: In this particular case, the Sages rendered one who did not acquire the animal like one who acquired the animal. And therefore, even though the second lamb of the Israelite did not actually enter the priest’s possession, it is considered as though it entered the priest’s possession and he then sold it to the Israelite in its blemished state, in exchange for the lamb he received. The owner can then claim that perhaps it is the firstborn, and he already fulfilled his obligation of giving it to the priest.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בִּסְפֵק בְּכוֹר, שֶׁאֵין חֲלִיפִין בְּיַד כֹּהֵן, שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּמַתָּנוֹת.

§ Rabbi Elazar says: Everyone concedes in the case of an animal with uncertain firstborn status, the replacement for which is not in the possession of the priest, that it is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it. In other words, in a case where the priest receives neither offspring, e.g., when a male and female are born together, all agree that the owner must give the gifts to the priest.

הַכֹּל מוֹדִים מַאן? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי? פְּשִׁיטָא! עַד כָּאן לָא קָא פָטַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם, אֶלָּא דַּחֲלִיפִין בְּיַד כֹּהֵן, דְּעָשׂוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה כְּזוֹכֶה, אֲבָל אֵין חֲלִיפִין בְּיַד כֹּהֵן — לָא!

The Gemara asks: When Rabbi Elazar said that everyone concedes, to whom was he referring? Was he referring to Rabbi Yosei? That seems obvious. After all, Rabbi Yosei deemed the owner exempt from giving the gifts only there, where the replacement is in the possession of the priest, as the Sages rendered one who did not acquire the animal like one who acquired the animal. But if the replacement is not in the possession of the priest, evidently Rabbi Yosei does not rule that one is exempt, as his reasoning does not apply. Why, then, is the statement of Rabbi Elazar necessary?

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּקָסָבַר דְּאִי מְחַיְּיבַתְּ לֵיהּ בְּמַתָּנוֹת — אָתֵי לֵיהּ לִידֵי גִּיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵין חֲלִיפִין בְּיַד כֹּהֵן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar’s statement is in fact necessary, lest you say that the reason Rabbi Yosei deems him exempt from giving the gifts is that he holds that if you deem him obligated in the gifts, he will assume that the animal is completely non-sacred and come to use it for shearing and labor. Consequently, even though there is no replacement in the hands of the priest, the Sages ruled that one is exempt from giving the gifts, in order to ensure that he does not violate the prohibition against shearing the animal or using it for labor. Rabbi Elazar therefore teaches us that this is not the halakha , as Rabbi Yosei agrees that one is obligated to give the priestly gifts in such circumstances.

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי? וְהָתָנֵי סֵיפָא, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר:

The Gemara objects: And how can you say this? But doesn’t the latter clause of the mishna (18b) teach: As Rabbi Yosei says: