Kommentar zu Bekhorot 2:6
רָחֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִכְּרָה וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּאֶחָד, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יג), הַזְּכָרִים לַה'. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אִי אֶפְשָׁר, אֶלָּא אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לַכֹּהֵן. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַכֹּהֵן בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶת הַיָפֶה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מְשַׁמְּנִים בֵּינֵיהֶן, וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב. וְחַיָּב בַּמַּתָּנוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹטֵר. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, יַחֲלוֹקוּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם:
Wenn ein Mutterschaf, das noch nie zuvor zwei männliche Lämmer zur Welt gebracht hat und beide Köpfe gleichzeitig herauskamen, sagt Rabbi Yossi Haglili: Beide gehen zum Priester, wie es heißt (2. Mose 13:12): "Die Männchen sollen es sein für Gott." Die Weisen sagen: Das ist nicht möglich. Vielmehr geht einer zu [dem Besitzer] und der andere zum Priester. Rabbi Tarfon sagt: Der Priester wählt den besseren. Rabbi 'Akiva sagt: Sie machen Kompromisse. Der zweite geht hinaus, um zu grasen, bis sich ein Makel entwickelt, und er ist in Bezug auf die [priesterlichen] Gaben verpflichtet. Rabbi Yossi befreit es. Wenn einer von ihnen stirbt, sagt Rabbi Tarfon: Sie teilen [den Wert des verbleibenden]. Rabbi 'Akiva sagt: Wer kommt, um von seinem Freund zu extrahieren, hat die Beweislast. Wenn sie einen Mann und eine Frau zur Welt bringt, erhält der Priester nichts.
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
שנאמר הזכרים לה' – [the word] "זכרים"/males – implies two.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
Introduction
This mishnah discusses cases where the ewe seems to give birth to two first-borns at the same time.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
אי אפשר – to ascertain exactly their two heads came out as one (see Tractate Bekhorot 17a), but rather, the one came out first and we don’t know which of them it was.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If a ewe which never before had given birth bore two males and both heads came forth simultaneously: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: both belong to the priest for scripture says: “The males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12). But the sages say: it is impossible, therefore one remains [with the Israelite] and the other is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean both males are considered to be first-borns and both are given to the priest. This is derived midrashically from the plural use of “males” in Exodus 13. The other rabbis, however, disagree with Rabbi Yose and say that this is impossible (doesn’t sound too pleasant for the sheep either). Rather, one must have been the first-born, even if we don’t know which one it was. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva debate about how we determine which of the two animals goes to the priest. According to Rabbi Tarfon, the priest can choose which of the twins he wants. Rabbi Akiva says that they estimate the value of the two kids, and the priest and the owner divide the amount. However, the Tosefta and the Talmud state that the owner keeps the fatter, more valuable of the two kids. This is because of the principle, “the burden of proof is upon the claimant.” Since the priest cannot prove that the better of the two is his, he can only take the lesser.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
בורר לו את היפה – that in general, the better and [more] healthy one goes out at the beginning.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. The animal kept by the owner cannot simply be eaten, because it might be a first-born. Therefore, the solution is to let it become blemished and then it can be eaten by its owners. When he slaughters it he must give the priestly gifts, the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach, to the priest. For if the animal was a first-born then he should have given it all to the priest. And if the animal is not a first-born, then he is liable to give the priestly gifts, as is always the case when one slaughters animals (see chapter ten of Hullin). Rabbi Yose exempts. We will see Rabbi Yose’s reasoning below in mishnah eight.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
משמנים ביניהם – the owners and the Kohen do not have an advantage one on the other in their division other than the [permitted] fat, for the Israelite takes the fat and the leaves the lean one to the Kohen, for he who wants to exact [compensation] from his fellow bears the burden of proof (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11). And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva (see Talmud Bekhorot 18a).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If one of them dies, Rabbi Tarfon says that they can split the value of the living one. Rabbi Akiva holds that since the priest cannot prove that the one that died was the second born he has no right to claim the live one. Again, Rabbi Akiva employs the principle of “the burden of proof is upon the claimant.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
והשני – that remains to the Israelite, it should pasture until a blemish befalls it and afterwards it may be consumed, for it is a doubtful firstling , therefore, it is not slaughtered as pure. But that which belongs to the Kohen, it is not necessary to state that certainly he does not slaughter it until there should be a blemish, but we are speaking about at this time.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If it gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances]. In this case, when a male and female were born, it is possible that there is no first-born because the female might have been born first. Therefore, the priest doesn’t receive anything. The male animal must go out to pasture until it becomes blemished and after that point, the owner can eat it. He can’t eat it beforehand because it might be a bekhor.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
וחייב במתנות – the Israelite, when he slaughters it, he would give to the Kohen the foreleg, jaw and maw. For whichever way you turn, if it is firstling, all of it goes to the Kohen, but if it is not a firstling, he (i.e., the owner) is liable to the priestly gifts.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
ורבי יוסי פוטר – for this is as if the Kohen was worthy of it and it reached his hand but if a blemish befell it, it is given to an Israelite. And it is found that it is exempt from the priestly gifts, for since we consider it as if it came from the hand of a Kohen to an Israelite. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
רבי טרפון אומר יחלוקו – for Rabbi Tarfon retracted from what he said above [in this Mishnah] that the Kohen selects for himself the better part, for he holds that while alive also we compromise with both of them (i.e., the Kohen and the Israelite) and divide the proceeds. For both of them have a part in both of them (i.e., the animals – the two males). Therefore, if one of them died, they should divide the living one.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
רבי עקיבא אומר המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה – and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
זכר ונקבה אין לכהן כלום – for perhaps a female [animal] came out first and he who wants to exact [compensation] from his fellow bears the burden of proof. But here, even Rabbi Tarfon admits, that there, when he disagrees because certainly that one [animal] goes to the Kohen, therefore it strengthens one’s right to divide it equally, but here, his power is lessened for perhaps the issue of first-born status is not connected at all. But however, it should go to pasture until a blemish befalls it and afterwards, he can consume it, for it’s a doubt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy