Bekhorot 18a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

held in accordance with Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who says: It is possible to make exact measurements

even

by the hands of Heaven, and all the more so by the hands of man.

Let us say that it is a dispute between tannaim:

did the tannaim dispute the law of whether it is possible to make exact measurements by the hands of man?

For it was taught:

If

the murdered person

was found exactly between two towns, they would not break the necks of the calf-offerings

at all.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Both bring two calf-offerings.

But

is it not with regard to this that they disagree: The first tanna holds: It is impossible to make exact measurements

even though it is by the hands of man, and we do not know which one is truly the nearer?

And Rabbi Eliezer holds: It is possible to make exact measurements,

and “the nearer” means even “the near ones.” And we reject this:

But can you understand it

as you explained!? But

if the first tanna holds: It is impossible to make exact measurements

and therefore there is in fact only one nearer town,

why would they not break the necks of the calf-offerings

at all?

Let them bring one calf-offering in partnership and stipulate

between themselves that if the one is nearer, the entire offering belongs to it and atones for it, and if the other is nearer, the entire offering belongs to it and atones for it!?

Rather, everyone agrees, according to these tannaim, that it is possible to make exact measurements,

and here they disagree with regard to “

the nearer”

and not “the near ones.”

The first tanna holds:

The Torah obligated bringing a calf-offering only for

“the nearer,”

and not “the near ones,”

and if two are equally near, they do not bring at all.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds: “

the nearer”

means even “the near ones.”

The Gemara asks:

What conclusion was reached,

what of the uncertainty we raised, according to the opinion of the Sages, whether it is possible to make exact measurements by the hands of man?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Amram said: A tanna

in a beraita taught:

If he was found exactly between two towns:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

It is possible to make exact measurements, and “the nearer” means even “the near ones,” and therefore:

Both bring two calf-offerings.

And the Sages say: Let them bring one calf-offering in partnership and stipulate,

as he proceeds to explain the reason.

But

what do the Sages hold?

If the Sages hold that it is possible to make exact measurements and “

the nearer”

means even “the near ones,”

this too cannot be said, for if so,

let them bring two

[let them bring two calf-offerings].

And if

the Sages hold that it is possible to make exact measurements and “

the nearer”

and not “the near ones,”

this too cannot be said, for if so,

let them not bring even one

[let neither of them bring a calf-offering].

Rather, learn from this: The Sages hold that it is impossible to make exact measurements, even by the hands of man,

and there is only one nearer town, and they bring one calf-offering together, because of the uncertainty, and stipulate.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it

as you said.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest selects the better one:

The Gemara asks:

What is Rabbi Tarfon’s reason?

And it explains: Because

he holds

Rabbi Tarfon:

That which is healthy emerges first

[the better and healthier animal is the one that emerges first]. We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva says: They divide the fat

between them:

He said:

Explained

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan: The priest takes the inferior one.

He said:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba questioned

Rabbi Yohanan: But we learned “

They divide the fat”

between them,

which implies that they divide the fat—that is, what one has over the other—between them; and how can you say that the Israelite takes the better one and the priest takes the inferior one!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

While you were eating palm shoots in Babylonia, we explained it here from the latter clause

[while you were indulging yourself with dates in Babylonia, we here explained Rabbi Akiva’s words in the first clause on the basis of his words in the latter clause]—

For

that

the latter clause teaches: If one of them died, Rabbi Tarfon says: They divide, Rabbi Akiva says: The one who extracts from his fellow bears the burden of proof—

And if it enters your mind that “

they divide the fat”

means

that they divide equally

[that they divide between them], then

here too, let them divide equally with one another

[if we explain that they divide the excess of the better one over the inferior one, and we do not say “the one who extracts from his fellow bears the burden of proof,” then when one died as well, we should not say this, but they should divide]; and just as when one of them died we say “the one who extracts from his fellow bears the burden of proof,” so too with the inferior and the better we say this.

Rather, what does “

they divide

between them” mean? The

fat is to be

placed

between them,

so that they will come to court concerning it,

as he says

the Israelite

to the priest

concerning that fat:

Bring proof that it is the firstborn and take it

[bring proof that the better one is the firstborn, and take it].

We learned in the Mishna:

And the second shall graze until it becomes blemished.

And it is obligated in the gifts, and Rabbi Yosei exempts:

It was explained in the Mishna above, 14a: Any animal whose consecration preceded its blemish and which was redeemed is exempt from the firstborn status and from the gifts. And it was explained in the Gemara above, 15a, that the source for this is that the Torah compared consecrated animals disqualified by a blemish to a gazelle and a deer; and just as they are exempt from the gifts, so too consecrated animals disqualified by a blemish that were redeemed are exempt from the gifts.

Included in this exemption is also a firstborn animal with a blemish, which is exempt from the gifts, even if it did not belong to a priest, who is exempt from the gifts.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir

[with whom the anonymous Mishna agrees], who obligates it in the gifts? The Israelite could say: Perhaps it is a firstborn, and a firstborn with a blemish is exempt from the gifts!?

He said:

Explained

Rabbi Yohanan:

Since the priest confronts him from two sides

[“whichever way you look at it”]:

For the priest says

to the Israelite:

If it is a firstborn,

then

all of it is mine; if it is not a firstborn, give me the gifts from it

[if it is a firstborn, all of it is mine by the law of a firstborn, and if it is not a firstborn, give me its gifts].

And what is Rabbi Yosei’s reason

that he does not hold this way!?

He said:

Explained

Rava:

They treated

[the priest]

who does not acquire as one who acquires, and although it did not reach

the firstborn

his hand

of the priest,

the Sages rendered him as one to whose hand it had reached

of the priest,

and he sold it to the Israelite with its blemish

[although the firstborn did not reach the priest’s hand, they treated it as though it had reached the priest’s hand, and he sold the firstborn to the Israelite with its blemish] and received the second animal in exchange for it.

Rabbi Elazar said:

Everyone agrees—

even Rabbi Yosei, who exempts in our Mishna [as he proceeds to explain]—

with regard to an uncertain firstborn whose exchange

[substitute]

is in the priest’s possession,

and this is, for example, when it is not uncertain which one is the firstborn, but there is uncertainty whether there is a firstborn here at all, and because of the uncertainty it remains in the Israelite’s possession—

that he is obligated

the Israelite

in the gifts.

And we object: “

Everyone agrees”

who?

Surely

Rabbi Yosei

is the one who agrees, and if so,

it is obvious

that he agrees when its exchange is not in the priest’s possession, for:

Rabbi Yosei exempted only there, where its exchange is in the priest’s possession, for they treated

the priest

who does not acquire as one who acquires

the firstborn and exchanged it for an ordinary animal,

but when its exchange is not in the priest’s possession—

no,

and what does Rabbi Elazar teach us!?

And we answer: Rabbi Elazar’s words were necessary, because

it might enter your mind to say that Rabbi Yosei’s reason

is not because they treated one who does not acquire as one who acquires and sold it in exchange for its substitute, but because

he holds:

It is a rabbinic enactment to exempt it from the gifts like a firstborn, because

if you obligate him in the gifts, he will come to shear it and work with it,

for he will think that there is not even uncertain firstborn sanctity in it, and if so,

even though its exchange is not in the priest’s possession as well,

he should be exempt from the gifts—

he teaches us

Rabbi Elazar: It is not so.

And the Gemara expresses astonishment at this answer:

Can you really say this—

that the reason is not because its exchange is in the priest’s possession and they treated one who does not acquire as one who acquires—

but the latter clause teaches

[in the Mishna on folio 18b, concerning an uncertain firstborn whose exchange is in the priest’s possession, in the explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s reason for exempting it from the gifts]:

For Rabbi Yosei would say: