Talmud su 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:

Se una pecora che non ha mai partorito prima di sopportare due agnelli maschi, ed entrambe le loro teste sono uscite contemporaneamente, il rabbino Yossi Haglili dice: Entrambi vanno dal sacerdote, come dice (Esodo 13:12): "I maschi devono essere per Dio." I saggi dicono: questo non è possibile. Piuttosto uno va al [proprietario] e l'altro al prete. Rabbi Tarfon dice: Il prete sceglie quello migliore. Il rabbino Akiva dice: scendono a compromessi. Il secondo esce a pascolare fino a quando non si sviluppa un difetto, ed è obbligato per quanto riguarda i doni [sacerdotali]. Il rabbino Yossi lo esenta. Se uno di loro muore, il rabbino Tarfon dice: Dividono [il valore di quello rimanente]. Il rabbino Akiva dice: chi viene ad estrarre dall'amico ha l'onere della prova. [Se dà alla luce] un maschio e una femmina, il prete non riceve nulla.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah

Rebbi Abbahu⁵⁹Here we discuss the last part of the Mishnah, the disagreement between the Sages and R. Eliezer on whether it is possible to transfer property of a single ear or whether it is necessary first to give the entire stack to the poor. in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows Rebbi Yose⁶⁰Bar Ḥalaphta, the Tanna., as we have stated there⁶¹The Mishnah Bekhorot 2:6 deals with a sheep whose first lambs are male twins of which it is unknown which one was the firstborn. It is then decreed that one of them be given to the Cohen, and the other one (who might be the firstborn and, if without blemish, should be brought as sacrifice) should graze until it develops a bodily defect and then can be eaten. The first Tanna (representing R. Meïr) insists that the second animal is subject to the rule of obligatory gifts to the Cohen as profane meat. Rebbi Yose disagrees, and in a baraita (also Babli Bekhorot18a) explains that every animal whose exchange is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the rule of obligatory gifts. The Babli explains, in an apparent disagreement with the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, that this is not a general principle but it underlines the special status of the second animal which, as a potential sacrifice, may not be shorn or used for work.: “For Rebbi Yose says that everything whose replacement is in the hand of the Cohen is freed from the obligatory gifts, but Rebbi Meïr obligates him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest⁶²It is not enough to designate an ear as tithes; it must actually be delivered into the hand of the Cohen.. Rebbi Yose⁶³The later Amora. said, the statement of Rebbi Abba contradicts Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish since we have stated here: “He has to give the poor rights to the entire stack; then he gives tithes for one ear and gives to him.” Rebbi Abba said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that he has to empower the priest, hence⁶⁴This is the Amora Rebbi Yose’s inference. this is not from the words of Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah itself testifies that it is by Rebbi Yose⁶⁵Everybody agrees that transfer of property must take place, but not necessarily delivery; the Tanna R. Yose requires only transfer of property rights.. The first Tanna wants to say that he transfers as property to the poor not the entire stack but only one ear. The other Tanna wants to say that he transfers the entire stack as property to the poor. The first Tanna wants to say that this⁶⁶The symbolic transfer of the entire stack to the poor as a “gift on condition that it be returned” is considered a subterfuge without legal validity. is like the transfer of property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is no transfer. The other Tanna wants to say that it is not transferring property from one’s right hand to his left hand; it is transfer⁶⁷And is legally valid..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Versetto precedente Capitolo completo Versetto successivo