Bekhorot — Daf 18b

כל שחליפיו ביד כהן פטור מן המתנות ורבי מאיר מחייב חליפין ביד כהן אין אין חליפין ביד כהן לא

מהו דתימא ר' יוסי לדבריו דר' מאיר קאמר ליה לדידי אפי' אין חליפין ביד כהן דאי מחייבת ליה במתנות אתי ליה לידי גיזה ועבודה לדידך אודי לי מיהא היכא דחליפין ביד כהן דעשו שאינו זוכה כזוכה ואמר ליה ר' מאיר לא

ואמר רב פפא הכל מודים בספק מעשר שפטור מן המתנות הכל מודים מאן ר' מאיר פשיטא עד כאן לא קמחייב ר' מאיר התם אלא בספק בכור הואיל ובא עליו כהן משני צדדין אבל ספק מעשר לא

מהו דתימא טעמא דר' מאיר דלא תשתכח תורת מתנות אפילו ספק מעשר נמי קא משמע לן

ומי מצית אמרת הכי והקתני סיפא שהיה ר' יוסי אומר כל שחליפיו ביד כהן פטור מן המתנות ורבי מאיר מחייב

מהו דתימא ר' מאיר אפי' ספק מעשר מחייב והא דמיפלגי בחליפין להודיעך כחו דרבי יוסי דפטר אפי' היכא דכהן בא עליו משני צדדין קא משמע לן:

מת אחד מהן רבי טרפון אומר יחלוקו: אמאי יחלוקו ניחזי אי שמן מית דכהן הוא והאי דאיכא דבעל הבית ואי כחוש מית דבעל הבית מית והאי דאיכא דכהן הוא אמר [רבי] אמי חזר בו ר' טרפון:

ר"ע אומר המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה: אמר רבי חייא משל דר' טרפון למה הדבר דומה לשנים שהפקידו אצל רועה שמניח רועה ביניהם ומסתלק

ומשל דרבי עקיבא למה הדבר דומה לאחד שהפקיד אצל בעל הבית שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

אלא במאי פליגי ר' עקיבא פליג בשנים שהפקידו אצל רועה שמניח רועה ומסתלק ור' טרפון פליג באחד שהפקיד אצל בעל הבית אמר רבא ואיתימא רב פפא הכל מודים בשנים שהפקידו אצל רועה שמניח רועה ביניהם ומסתלק ובאחד שהפקיד אצל בעל הבית שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

לא נחלקו אלא בחצר בעה"ב ורועה כהן רבי טרפון סבר אקנויי קא מקני ליה בחצירו וניחא ליה דליתעביד מצוה [בממוניה] והוה ליה כשנים שהפקידו אצל רועה שמניח רועה ביניהן ומסתלק

ור"ע סבר כיון דאית ליה פסידא לא מקני ליה מידעם והוה ליה כאחד שהפקיד אצל בעל הבית שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה:

מתני׳ שתי רחיליו שלא ביכרו וילדו שני זכרים שניהם לכהן זכר ונקבה הזכר לכהן שני זכרים ונקבה אחד לו ואחד לכהן רבי טרפון אומר הכהן בורר לו את היפה רבי עקיבא אומר משמנין ביניהן והשני ירעה עד שיסתאב

וחייב במתנות רבי יוסי פוטר מת אחד מהן רבי טרפון אומר יחלוקו ר' עקיבא אומר המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה שתי נקבות וזכר או שני זכרים ושתי נקבות אין כאן לכהן כלום

אחת ביכרה ואחת לא ביכרה וילדה שני זכרים אחד לו ואחד לכהן ר' טרפון אומר הכהן בורר את היפה ר' עקיבא אומר משמנין ביניהן והשני ירעה עד שיסתאב

וחייב במתנות רבי יוסי פוטר שרבי יוסי אומר כל שחליפיו ביד כהן פטור מן המתנות ורבי מאיר מחייב מת אחד מהן ר' טרפון אומר יחלוקו ר' עקיבא אומר המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה זכר ונקבה אין כאן לכהן כלום:

גמ׳ צריכא דאי אשמועינן קמייתא בההיא קאמר ר' עקיבא דתרי מחדא

אבל רחיליו שלא ביכרו דתרי מחדא וחד מחדא אימא מודי ליה לר' טרפון דהך דילידא חד שביח טפי

ואי אשמועינן הא בהא קאמר רבי עקיבא דתרוייהו לא ביכרו אבל אחת ביכרה ואחת שלא ביכרה וילדו שני זכרים אימא מודי ליה לר' טרפון

Wherever the priest has [a beast] in its stead, he is exempt from the priest's gifts, whereas R. Meir makes him liable? The reason therefore is because the priest has [a beast] in its stead, but if the priest has nothing in its stead, it would be other wise!1 — You might have assumed that R. Jose was arguing according to the view of R. Meir [as follows]: My own view is that even if the priest has nothing in its stead [he is not liable for the gifts]. For if you render him liable for the priest's gifts, he may come to shear and work [the animal]. But according to your view, at least admit that where the priest has [a beast] in its stead, [the Sages] put one who had not taken possession in the position of one who had taken possession. To this R. Meir replied to him: It is not so. Said R. Papa: All [the authorities concerned] agree with reference to a doubtfully tithed animal2 that it is exempted from the priest's gifts. You say ‘all [the authorities concerned]’? Whose opinion is that? It is R. Meir's. But is not this obvious? For R. Meir only makes him liable for the priest's gifts in connection with an animal which is a doubtful first-born, since the priest can make claim upon him from two sides,3 but in the case of a doubtfully tithed animal, it is not so!4 — You might have assumed that the reason of R. Meir was that the law of the priest's gifts should not be forgotten and consequently even in the case of a doubtfully tithed animal, the ruling is the same. He therefore informs us [that it is not so]. But how can you say this?5 Have we not learnt: For R. Jose used to say that wherever the priest has [a beast] in its stead it is exempt, whereas R. Meir makes him liable?6 — You might have assumed that R. Meir, even in the case of a doubtfully tithed animal, makes him liable, and the reason why they differ [in the matter where the priest has a beast] in its stead, is to show how far R. Jose is prepared to go, since he exempts even where the priest can make a claim upon him from two sides. He therefore informs us [that this is not so]. IF ONE DIES, R. TARFON SAYS: THEY DIVIDE THE LIVING ONE. Why should they divide [the living one]? Let us see. If the fat one died, it is the priest's [which has died],7 and the one remaining is the owner's. And if the lean one died, it is the owner's [which has died] and the one remaining is the priest's! — Said R. Ammi: R. Tarfon retracted.8 R. AKIBA SAYS: THE CLAIMANT MUST PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE. Said R. Hiyya: On R. Tarfon's view, what does the position resemble? That of two men who gave [two animals] in charge of a shepherd and [one died], where the shepherd leaves the living one between them and departs.9 On the view of R. Akiba, to what can the position be compared? To that of a man who gave an animal in charge of an owner [of animals],10 where the claimant must produce the evidence. Then what is the point at issue?11 Will R. Akiba deny where two give [two animals] in charge of a shepherd, that the shepherd leaves [the living one] and departs?12 And will R. Tarfon differ in the case where one gave an animal in charge of an owner [of animals]? — Said Raba, or some say. R. Papa: All the authorities concerned agree that where two men gave [two animals] in charge of a shepherd, the shepherd leaves [the living one] between them and departs. Also in the case where one gave an animal in charge of an owner [of animals], that the claimant must produce the evidence. The point at issue, however, is where the ground is the owner's and the priest is the shepherd.13 R. Tarfon holds: The owner gives possession to the priest in his ground14 since he is desirous that a mizwah15 should be performed through his property and therefore the position is that of two who gave [animals] in charge of a shepherd where the shepherd leaves [the living one] between them and departs. But R. Akiba says: Since he would suffer loss,16 he does not give him any possession,17 and it is therefore similar to the case of one who gave an animal in charge of the owner [of animals], where the claimant must produce the evidence. MISHNAH. IF TWO EWES WHICH HAD NEVER PREVIOUSLY GIVEN BIRTH BORE TWO MALES, BOTH BELONG TO THE PRIEST. [IF THEY GAVE BIRTH] TO A MALE AND A FEMALE, THE MALE BELONGS TO THE PRIEST. [IF THEY GAVE BIRTH] TO TWO MALES AND A FEMALE, ONE REMAINS WITH HIM,18 AND THE OTHER BELONGS TO THE PRIEST. R. TARFON SAYS: THE PRIEST CHOOSES THE STRONGER ONE. R. AKIBA SAYS: THE FAT ONE REMAINS BETWEEN THEM19 AND THE SECOND PASTURES UNTIL BLEMISHED, AND HE IS ALSO LIABLE FOR THE PRIESTS GIFTS; R. JOSE HOWEVER EXEMPTS HIM. IF ONE OF THEM DIES, R. TARFON SAYS: THEY DIVIDE [THE LIVING ONE]. R. AKIBA SAYS: THE CLAIMANT MUST PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE. [IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO] TWO FEMALES AND A MALE OR TWO MALES AND TWO FEMALES, THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.20 IF ONE [OF THE EWES] HAD GIVEN BIRTH AND THE OTHER HAD NEVER PREVIOUSLY GIVEN BIRTH. AND THEY BORE TWO MALES, ONE REMAINS WITH HIM AND THE OTHER BELONGS TO THE PRIEST. R. TARFON SAYS: THE PRIEST CHOOSES THE STRONG ONE. R. AKIBA SAYS: THE FAT ONE REMAINS BETWEEN THEM19 AND THE SECOND PASTURES UNTIL BLEMISHED, AND HE IS ALSO LIABLE FOR THE PRIESTS’ GIFTS; R. JOSE HOWEVER EXEMPTS HIM. FOR R. JOSE SAYS: WHEREVER THE PRIEST RECEIVES [AN ANIMAL] IN ITS STEAD,21 HE IS EXEMPT FROM THE PRIESTS GIFTS.22 R. MEIR HOWEVER MAKES HIM LIABLE. IF ONE OF THEM DIES. R. TARFON SAYS THEY DIVIDE [THE LIVING ONE]. R. AKIBA SAYS: THE CLAIMANT MUST PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE. [IF THEY GAVE BIRTH] TO A MALE AND A FEMALE, THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.23 GEMARA. [All these cases where R. Tarfon and R. Akiba differ] are necessary [to be stated]. For if we had been informed of the first case above,24 [I might have assumed] that in that case R. Akiba held that the claimant must produce the evidence, because two males came from one ewe,25 but in the case of two ewes which had never previously given birth, and where two animals [a male and a female] were born from one, and one [male] from the other, I might have said that he agrees with R. Tarfon that the animal which came forth singly is much the better one.26 And if he had stated only the latter case, I might have assumed that in this case R. Akiba [held that the claimant must produce the evidence], for neither had previously given birth, but where one ewe had given birth and the other had not given birth and they begot two males, I might have said that he agrees with R. Tarfon, animal a doubt whether it is the tithed one and therefore the animals pasture until blemished, when they are eaten by the owners. (Infra 58b.) the owner. and therefore R. lose argues for exemption, maintaining that the priest cannot say that if it is a firstling then it belongs entirely to him, since he holds that it is as if the priest had, after acquiring the firstling, sold it to the Israelite. But if you maintain that the reason of R. Meir is lest the law of the priest's gifts be forgotten, why does R. Jose give the reason that the priest has a beast in its stead, since possibly R. Meir himself might have exempted him on that ground. (Rashi). charge of a shepherd, and both the owner and priest claim it. Here we cannot say that the claimant must produce the evidence, since the animal is in the possession of neither of them. died, and the other makes a similar assertion. Here, since the animal is in the possession of the owner, the priest is the claimant. maintain that where one gave an animal in charge of an owner, the living animal is divided. ground has the power to acquire chattels on behalf of its owner, v. B.M. 9b. The ground also is like the shepherd in the case where two gave animals in charge of a shepherd and therefore they divide the surviving animal. male came first. gifts. begot the male. emerging; therefore it is undoubtedly the firstling.