## Bekhorot Daf 18b

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

כֹּל שֶׁחֲלִיפָיו בְּיַד כֹּהֵן פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב. חֲלִיפִין בְּיַד כֹּהֵן — אִין, אֵין חֲלִיפִין בְּיַד כֹּהֵן — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **any** animal **whose replacements** are **in the possession of the priest,** its owner **is exempt from** the mitzva of giving **the** priestly **gifts, and Rabbi Meir deems** him **obligated** to give the gifts. Evidently, in a case where the **replacement is in the possession of the priest, yes,** Rabbi Yosei rules that the owner is exempt from giving the gifts, but if the **replacement is not in the possession of the priest,** he is **not** exempt.


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ — לְדִידִי, אֲפִילּוּ אֵין חֲלִיפִין בְּיַד כֹּהֵן, דְּאִי מְחַיְּיבַתְּ לֵיהּ בְּמַתָּנוֹת אָתֵי לֵיהּ לִידֵי גִּיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה; לְדִידָךְ, אוֹדִי לִי מִיהָא הֵיכָא דַּחֲלִיפִין בְּיַד כֹּהֵן, דְּעָשׂוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה כְּזוֹכֶה; וְאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר: לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that even so, Rabbi Elazar’s statement is necessary, **lest you say** that **Rabbi Yosei** was not expressing his own opinion but **stated** his opinion **in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir,** i.e., he said to him: **In my** opinion, the Israelite is exempt from giving the priestly gifts **even** if the **replacement is not in the possession of the priest, as, if you deem him obligated in the gifts,** he might think that the animal is completely non-sacred and **come to** use it for **shearing and labor.** But even **according to your** reasoning, **at least concede to me** in a case **where the replacement is in the possession of the priest, that** the Sages **rendered one who did not acquire** the animal **like one who acquired** the animal. **And Rabbi Meir said to** Rabbi Yosei: **No,** I do not concede in that case. Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar is teaching that Rabbi Yosei does, in fact, maintain that the reason for the Israelite’s exemption is that the replacement is in the possession of the priest.


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

וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בִּסְפֵק מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת. ״הַכֹּל מוֹדִים״ — מַאן? רַבִּי מֵאִיר? פְּשִׁיטָא! עַד כָּאן לָא קָמְחַיֵּיב רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם אֶלָּא בִּסְפֵק בְּכוֹר, הוֹאִיל וּבָא עָלָיו כֹּהֵן מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין, אֲבָל סָפֵק מַעֲשֵׂר — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Pappa says** with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei: **Everyone concedes** in the case **of** an animal whose status as **tithe** is **uncertain that** its owner **is exempt from** the mitzva of **the** priestly **gifts.** The Gemara asks: When Rav Pappa says that **everyone concedes,** to **whom** is he referring? Is he referring to **Rabbi Meir?** That would seem **obvious.** After all, **Rabbi Meir deemed** one **obligated** to give the gifts **only there,** in the case **of** an animal whose status as **firstborn** is **uncertain, since** the priest **comes upon** the Israelite **from two sides. But** with regard to an animal whose status as **tithe** is **uncertain** Rabbi Meir does **not** rule that one is obligated, as that reasoning does not apply. Why, then, is Rav Pappa’s statement necessary?


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּלֹא תִּשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרַת מַתָּנוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ סְפֵק מַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that the statement of Rav Pappa is necessary **lest you say** that the **reason that Rabbi Meir** deems him obligated in the gifts is so **that the** halakhic **category of the gifts should not be forgotten;** if so, the same would apply **even** in the case of an animal whose status as **tithe** is **uncertain.** Rav Pappa therefore **teaches us** otherwise.


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

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי? וְהָקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחֲלִיפָיו בְּיַד כֹּהֵן — פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And how can you say this? But doesn’t the latter clause teach: As Rabbi Yosei says:** With regard to **any** animal **whose replacements are in the possession of a priest,** its owner **is exempt from** the mitzva of giving **the** priestly **gifts, and Rabbi Meir deems** him **obligated** to give the gifts. Evidently, the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei is not whether an obligation is imposed so that the halakhic category of the priestly gifts should not be forgotten, but whether the Sages rendered one who did not acquire the animal like one who acquired the animal, which means that an animal whose replacement is in the priest’s possession is not subject to the mitzva of the gifts.


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילּוּ סְפֵק מַעֲשֵׂר מְחַיַּיב, וְהָא דְּמִיפַּלְגִי בַּחֲלִיפִין — לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּפָטַר אֲפִילּוּ הֵיכָא דְּכֹהֵן בָּא עָלָיו מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Rav Pappa’s statement is necessary **lest you say: Rabbi Meir deems** one **obligated** to give the gifts even in the case of an animal whose status as **tithe** is **uncertain,** in order that the halakhic category of the gifts should not be forgotten. **And** as for the fact **that** the mishna presents their **disagreement with regard to replacement** animals, this serves **to convey to you the far-reaching nature** of the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei, who deems** one **exempt** from the mitzva of the gifts **even** in a case **where** the priest **comes upon** the Israelite **from two sides.** Rav Pappa therefore **teaches us** that in fact Rabbi Meir exempts one from the mitzva of the priestly gifts in the case of an animal whose tithed status is uncertain.


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

מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: יַחְלוֹקוּ. אַמַּאי יַחְלוֹקוּ? נִיחְזֵי: אִי שָׁמֵן מִית — דְּכֹהֵן הוּא, וְהַאי דְּאִיכָּא דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת; וְאִי כָּחוּשׁ מִית — דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת מִית, וְהַאי דְּאִיכָּא דְּכֹהֵן הוּא! אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: חָזַר בּוֹ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **one of** the two born together **died, Rabbi Tarfon says:** The priest and the owner **divide** the remaining lamb. The Gemara asks: **Why** should they **divide** it? **Let us see:** According to Rabbi Tarfon, who holds that it is presumed that the healthier and better of the two emerged first, as explained earlier, **if** the **fatter** and better of the two **died** it should be assumed **that it** was the one that belonged **to the priest, and this** one **that is** left belongs **to the owner. And if the leaner** of the two **died,** it should be assumed that the animal **of the owner died, and this** one **that is** left belongs **to the priest.** Rabbi **Ami said:** In fact, **Rabbi Tarfon retracted** his previous ruling that the priest takes the better of the two, and instead ruled that the priest and owner divide the value of the offspring in all cases. The mishna was not emended to reflect the updated ruling.


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מָשָׁל דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל רוֹעֶה, שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ רוֹעֶה בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִסְתַּלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In a case where two animals were born together and one of them died, **Rabbi Akiva says:** The living offspring remains in the possession of the owner, as **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated a parable** that clarifies the opinion **of Rabbi Tarfon,** who says that the priest and the owner divide the remaining lamb: **To what is this matter comparable?** It is comparable **to two** people **who** each **deposited** a sheep **with a shepherd** and one of the two sheep died, and it is unclear to whom it belonged. In **that** case, the **shepherd places** the remaining sheep **between them and withdraws,** leaving them to divide the value of the sheep between them. Likewise, the mishna is discussing a case where the live offspring is not in the possession of either the owner or the priest, and therefore it is divided between them.


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

וּמָשָׁל דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Ḥiyya also stated **a parable** that clarifies the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva: To what is this matter comparable?** It is comparable **to one who deposited** a sheep **with a homeowner,** who had sheep of his own, and it is unknown whose sheep died. In **that** case, **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.** Since the remaining sheep is currently in the possession of the homeowner, the one who deposited the animal must prove that the living sheep belongs to him. Likewise, the mishna is discussing a case where the live offspring is in the possession of the owner, and therefore the burden of proof rests upon the priest.


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

אֶלָּא בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא פְּלִיג בִּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל רוֹעֶה, שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ רוֹעֶה וּמִסְתַּלֵּק? וְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן פְּלִיג בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת? אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בִּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל רוֹעֶה — שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ רוֹעֶה בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִסְתַּלֵּק, וּבְאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת — שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva are addressing different circumstances, then **with regard to what** matter **do they disagree?** Does **Rabbi Akiva disagree** with the conclusion in the parable mentioned with regard to Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion, **of two** people **who** each **deposited** a sheep **with a shepherd, that** the **shepherd places** the remaining sheep between them **and withdraws? And** similarly, does **Rabbi Tarfon disagree** with the conclusion in the case **of one who deposited** a sheep **with a homeowner** that the homeowner keeps the remaining sheep? Certainly not. Rather, **Rava says, and some say** it was **Rav Pappa** who says: **Everyone concedes** in the case **of two who deposited** sheep **with a shepherd that** the **shepherd places** it **between them and withdraws, and** everyone concedes in the case **of one who deposited** a sheep **with a homeowner that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.**


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

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בַּחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְרוֹעֶה כֹּהֵן. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן סָבַר: אַקְנוֹיֵי קָא מַקְנֵי לֵיהּ בַּחֲצֵירוֹ, וְנִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִיתְעֲבִיד מִצְוָה בְּמָמוֹנֵיהּ, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל רוֹעֶה, שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ רוֹעֶה בֵּינֵיהֶן וּמִסְתַּלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon **disagree only** where the offspring were born **in the courtyard of the homeowner, and** the **shepherd is a priest** to whom the homeowner usually gives his firstborn animals. **Rabbi Tarfon holds:** The homeowner **transfers to** the priest a portion **of his courtyard** so that the priest should acquire the firstborn offspring located there, because it is **suitable for him that** the **mitzva** of giving the firstborn to a priest **should be performed.** Therefore, the priest is considered to hold partial jurisdiction of the courtyard. **And** consequently, **this is** comparable **to two** people **who** each **deposited** a sheep **with a shepherd** and one of the two sheep died, **where** the **shepherd places** the remaining sheep **between them and withdraws,** leaving them to divide the value of the sheep between themselves.


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

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ פְּסֵידָא — לָא מַקְנֵי לֵיהּ מִידַּעַם, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּאֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Akiva holds: Since there is a loss** to the owner in this case of uncertainty, **he does not transfer anything** to the priest. **And** as the courtyard belongs exclusively to the Israelite, this case **is** comparable **to one who deposited** a sheep **with a homeowner** who had sheep of his own, and it is unknown whose sheep died. The *halakha* in **that** case is that **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.**


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

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁתֵּי רְחֵילָיו שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרוּ וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — שְׁנֵיהֶם לַכֹּהֵן. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — הַזָּכָר לַכֹּהֵן. שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבָה — אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לַכֹּהֵן. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּהֵן בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶת הַיָּפֶה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶן, וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one’s two ewes had not** previously **given birth and they gave birth to two males, both of them** are given **to the priest,** as each is its mother’s firstborn. If one gave birth to **a male and** the other to **a female, the male** is given **to the priest,** as it is its mother’s firstborn. If they gave birth to **two males and a female, one** of the males is kept **by him and one** is given **to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better** of the two. **Rabbi Akiva says: They assess** the value of the lambs **between them,** and the priest takes the leaner of the two. **And the second** lamb must **graze until it becomes blemished,** at which point the owner may slaughter and eat it.


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

וְחַיָּיב בַּמַּתָּנוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹטֵר. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: יַחְלוֹקוּ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וְזָכָר אוֹ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּשְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** when the owner slaughters the animal, he is **obligated to** have **gifts** of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, taken from it. **Rabbi Yosei deems** him **exempt** from giving the gifts. If **one of** the two born together **died, Rabbi Tarfon says:** The priest and the owner **divide** the value of the remaining lamb. **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.** If they gave birth to **two females and a male or** to **two males and two females, the priest has nothing here,** as perhaps both ewes gave birth to females first.


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

אַחַת בִּיכְּרָה, וְאַחַת לֹא בִּיכְּרָה, וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים, אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לַכֹּהֵן. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּהֵן בּוֹרֵר אֶת הַיָּפֶה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶן, וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one** of his ewes **had** previously **given birth and one had not** previously **given birth, and they gave birth to two males, one** of the males is kept **by him and one** is given **to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better** of the two. **Rabbi Akiva says: They assess** the value of the lambs **between them** and the priest takes the leaner of the two. **And the second** lamb must **graze until it becomes blemished,** at which point he may slaughter and eat it.


###### Bekhorot 18b:16
[Bekhorot 18b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18b:16)

וְחַיָּיב בַּמַּתָּנוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחֲלִיפָיו בְּיַד כֹּהֵן פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: יַחְלוֹקוּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** when he slaughters the animal he **is obligated to** have **gifts** of the priesthood taken from it. **Rabbi Yosei deems** him **exempt** him from giving those gifts, **as Rabbi Yosei says:** With regard to **any** animal **whose replacements are in the possession of a priest,** its owner **is exempt from** the mitzva of giving **the** priestly **gifts. And Rabbi Meir deems** him **obligated** to give the gifts. If **one of** the animals **died, Rabbi Tarfon says:** The priest and the owner **divide** the value of the remaining lamb. **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.** If **a male and a female** offspring were born together, everyone agrees that **the priest has nothing here,** as perhaps the one that had already given birth bore the male, and the one that had not given birth bore the female, in which case neither of the animals would have firstborn status.


###### Bekhorot 18b:17
[Bekhorot 18b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18b:17)

**גְּמָ׳** צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא, בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דִּתְרֵי מֵחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** This mishna and the previous mishna (17a–b) listed three cases in which Rabbi Akiva rules that the priest receives the leaner of two potentially firstborn offspring, whereas Rabbi Tarfon maintains that he receives the better of the two. The Gemara notes: It was **necessary** to teach each of these three cases, **as, had** the mishna **taught** only **the first** case, that of a single ewe that gave birth to two male offspring, one might have thought that **Rabbi Akiva stated** his opinion only **in that** case, **as** the **two** offspring came **from one** womb, and there is no reason to assume that the better offspring was born first.


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

אֲבָל רְחֵילָיו שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרוּ, דִּתְרֵי מֵחֲדָא וְחַד מֵחֲדָא — אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, דְּהָךְ דִּילִידָא חַד שְׁבִיחַ טְפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in the second case, that of **his two ewes** which **had not** previously **given birth** and which collectively gave birth to two males and a female, **where two** offspring came **from one** mother **and one** offspring came **from one** other mother, one might **say** that Rabbi Akiva **concedes to** the opinion **of Rabbi Tarfon,** as it can be claimed **that** the **superior** animal is **this** one that came from the mother **that gave birth to a single** offspring.


###### Bekhorot 18b:19
[Bekhorot 18b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/18b:19)

וְאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן הָא — בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ לֹא בִּיכְּרוּ, אֲבָל אַחַת בִּיכְּרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרָה וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the mishna **taught** only **that** second case, one might have thought that **Rabbi Akiva stated** his opinion only **in that** case, **as both** mothers **had not** previously **given birth. But** in a case where **one had** previously **given birth and** the other **one had not** previously **given birth, and** collectively they **gave birth to two male** offspring, one might **say** that Rabbi Akiva **concedes to** the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon