Bekhorot

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! — 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 animal 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, but in the case of a doubtfully tithed animal, it is not so! — 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? 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? — 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], 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. 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. 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], where the claimant must produce the evidence. Then what is the point at issue? Will R. Akiba deny where two give [two animals] in charge of a shepherd, that the shepherd leaves [the living one] and departs? 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. R. Tarfon holds: The owner gives possession to the priest in his ground since he is desirous that a mizwah 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, he does not give him any possession, 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, AND THE OTHER BELONGS TO THE PRIEST. R. TARFON SAYS: THE PRIEST CHOOSES THE STRONGER ONE. R. AKIBA SAYS: THE FAT ONE REMAINS BETWEEN THEM 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. 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 THEM 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, HE IS EXEMPT FROM THE PRIESTS GIFTS. 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. 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, [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, 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. 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,