Bava Metzia

a bath-house, about which two people had a dispute. One said, 'It is mine', and the other said 'It is mine'; then one of them rose up and dedicated it [to the Temple],  [in consequence of which] R. Hananiah and R. Oshaia and the rest of the Rabbis kept away from it. R. Oshaia then said to Rabbah: When you go to Kafri  to see R. Hisda ask him [for his opinion on this matter]. When [Rabbah] came to Sura [on his way to Kafri]  R. Hamnuna said to him: This is [made clear in] a Mishnah:  [As regards] doubtful first-born,  whether a human first-born or an animal first-born, [and, as regards the latter,] whether of clean or unclean  animals, [the principle holds good that] the claimant must bring evidence [to substantiate his claim].  And in regard to this a Baraitha teaches: [Such animals] must not be shorn nor worked.  Now, it is obviously assumed here that if a priest seizes the firstling we do not take it away from him, for it is laid down that [we must apply the principle that] the claimant must bring evidence [to substantiate his claim];  and [thus] if the priest has not seized it, [the Baraitha teaches] that it must not be shorn or worked.  But Rabbah answered him: You speak of the sanctity of a firstling — [this proves nothing]. I could well maintain that even if the priest has seized it we take it away from him, and still it would be forbidden to shear or to work [this animal], because the sanctity that comes of itself is different. R. Hananiah said to Rabbah: There is [a Baraitha]  taught supporting your view:  The [sheep with which the] doubtful [firstlings of asses have been redeemed] enter the stall to be tithed.  Now, if the view were held that when the priest has seized [a doubtful firstling] we do not take it away from him, why [does the Baraitha teach that sheep with which doubtful firstlings of asses have been redeemed] enter the stall [to be tithed]? Would not the result be that this [Israelite, who owns the stall] would relieve himself of his liability [involved in the tithe] with the property of the priest, [who has a claim on it]?  — Abaye answered him: There is really nothing in that [Baraitha] to support the Master [Rabbah], For it deals with a case where [the Israelite] has only nine sheep, and this [makes the tenth], so that in any case [the Israelite is justified]: if he is obliged [to tithe the sheep] he has tithed them rightly,  but if he is not obliged [to tithe them because the tenth sheep is not really his], then [he has had no advantage, as he only owned nine sheep, and] nine are not subject to tithe. Later Abaye said: My objection is really groundless.  For in [a case where the liability of an animal to be tithed is in] doubt, tithing does not take place,  as we have learnt: If one of the sheep which were being counted [for the purpose of tithing] jumped back into the stall, the whole flock is free [from tithing].  Now, if the view were held that doubtful cases are subject to tithe,  [the owner] ought to tithe [the remaining sheep] in any case: if he is obliged [to tithe them]  he will have tithed them rightly,  but if he is not obliged to tithe them, those already counted will be free because they were properly numbered,  for Raba said: Proper numbering frees [the sheep from being tithed].