Talmud for Bekhorot 2:8

אַחַת בִּכְּרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְּרָה וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים, אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לַכֹּהֵן. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַכֹּהֵן בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶת הַיָּפֶה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מְשַׁמְּנִין בֵּינֵיהֶן, וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב. וְחַיָּב בַּמַּתָּנוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁחֲלִיפָיו בְּיַד כֹּהֵן, פָּטוּר מִן הַמַתָּנוֹת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, יַחֲלוֹקוּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם:

If one ewe has given birth before and one has not, and they give birth to two males, one goes to [the owner], and the other goes to the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better one. Rabbi 'Akiva says: We compromise. The second one goes out to graze until it develops a blemish, and it is obligated regarding the [priestly] gifts. Rabbi Yossi exempts it because Rabbi Yossi says: When the exchange goes to the priest, [the other animal] is exempt from the [priestly] gifts. Rabbi Meir obligates it. If one of them dies, Rabbi Tarfon says: They divide [the value of the remaining one]. Rabbi 'Akiva says: One who comes to extract from one's friend has the burden of proof. [If they give birth to] a male and a female, the priest receives nothing.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This follows Rebbi Yose; as we have stated there¹³²Mishnah Bekhorot 2:8. The Mishnah speaks of a rancher whose ewe gave birth to twin lambs, one of which is a firstling but it is not known which. A firstling has to be given to a Cohen (Deut. 15:19); it may not be shorn (or, if a calf, used for work). The rancher can fulfill his monetary obligation by giving one of the two lambs to the Cohen; the other lamb has to be put out to graze until it develops a defect; then it can be eaten by its owner (Deut. 15:21–22). If it was known which lamb was a firstling, that one would have to be given to the Cohen and if the other lamb were slaughtered, some parts would have to be given to a Cohen (Deut. 18:3). But in the case under consideration, R. Yose holds that no gifts to the Cohen are due since potentially the lamb was the Cohen’s and a Cohen who slaughters does not have to give away anything. He equates potential possession and real possession. The application to the Mishnah here is that the Cohen can dispose of the heave as if he had received it.
R. Meїr holds that the gifts are due since they would be due if it was known which one was the firstling.
In the Babli, 30a, this is Ulla’s opinion.: “Rebbi Yose says, anything whose replacement is in the Cohen’s hand is freed from the gifts, but Rebbi Meїr obligates.” Did Rebbi Yose not speak only if it did exist? But here, he still needs to sow¹³³Since nobody can acquire anything nonexistent (Ketubot 5:5, Note 113), R. Yose’s argument cannot be applied to our case.! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites¹³⁴The expression is Biblical (2K. 12:6,8); it refers to people who regularly give all their priestly gifts or tithes to the same Cohen or Levite. Then heave and tithes have the status of annuities and cannot be said to be nonexistent.
In the Babli, 30a, this is Rav’s opinion. Samuel requires that heave or tithes be actually given to a third party Cohen or Levite, acting as recipient for the debtor, who then returns the produce to the farmer. That opinion has no parallel in the Yerushalmi.. But did we not state “a poor person”? Does a poor person have acquaintances¹³⁵The tithe of the poor has to be given to the first poor person who applies.? There came a case before Rebbi Immi: A Cohen or Levite who owed money to an Israel and told him¹³⁶After the loan was given, the debtor then asked to be excused from repayment using the method outlined in the Mishnah., separate from my part for my account. He said to him, did we not state: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account.” When the loan was given under these conditions. Therefore, not if it was not a condition of the loan! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if it was not a condition of the loan. Rebbi Ze‘ira’s force is from the following¹³⁷Tosephta Demay 7:15. The Levite cannot tell the Israel to arrange with other farmers that they pay him to give tithes for them and deduct the sum from the Levite’s debt, since no Levite can dispose of another Levite’s tithes.: “Similarly, a Levite who owed money to an Israel and said to him, separate on my account; only he should not collect and separate because no Levite makes a Levite.” He only said, he should not separate¹³⁸Missing in the text: Other people’s tithes., but from his own he may separate.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse