## Bekhorot Daf 18a

###### Bekhorot 18a:1
[Bekhorot 18a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 18a:2
[Bekhorot 18a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:2)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Bekhorot 18a:3
[Bekhorot 18a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 18a:4
[Bekhorot 18a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.**


###### Bekhorot 18a:5
[Bekhorot 18a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 18a:6
[Bekhorot 18a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 18a:7
[Bekhorot 18a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Bekhorot 18a:8
[Bekhorot 18a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 18a:9
[Bekhorot 18a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:9)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bekhorot 18a:10
[Bekhorot 18a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Bekhorot 18a:11
[Bekhorot 18a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:11)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 18a:12
[Bekhorot 18a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Bekhorot 18a:13
[Bekhorot 18a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:13)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bekhorot 18a:14
[Bekhorot 18a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:14)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 18a:15
[Bekhorot 18a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18a:15)

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

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