Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "EFSHAR L'TZAMTZEM" (cont.)

(a) Answer #4 (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If a murdered corpse was found equidistant from two cities, each of them brings an Eglah Arufah.

1. Suggestion: He holds Efshar l'Tzamtzem; the verse says that "ha'Kerovah" (the closest city) brings - this can also mean, the closest *cities* (if they are equidistant). (We are thinking that he holds Iy Efshar l'Tzamtzem bi'Yedei Shamayim, like Chachamim).

(b) Rejection: R. Eliezer holds like R. Yosi ha'Glili, who says that Efshar l'Tzamtzem bi'Yedei Shamayim, all the more so bi'Yedei Adam - we cannot learn from him about Chachamim.
(c) Suggestion: Tana'im argue whether or not Efshar l'Tzamtzem bi'Yedei Adam:

1. (Beraisa): If it was found equidistant from two cities, no Eglah is brought;
2. R. Eliezer says, each of them brings an Eglah.
3. Suggestion: The first Tana holds Iy Efshar l'Tzamtzem, R. Eliezer holds Efshar l'Tzamtzem.
4. Rejection: This is unreasonable - if the first Tana held that Iy Efshar l'Tzamtzem, an Eglah would be brought on condition (that it is for the closer city)

i. Rather, both agree that Efshar l'Tzamtzem;
ii. The first Tana expounds "ha'Kerovah" - but not ha'Kerovos (if two are equidistant, neither brings); R. Eliezer expounds "ha'Kerovah" - even ha'Kerovos.

(d) Question: What was the conclusion?
(e) Answer (R. Chiya bar Avin - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If it was found equidistant from two cities, each of them brings an Eglah;

1. Chachamim say, one Eglah is brought; they stipulate (that it is for the closer city).
2. Question: How do we understand Chachamim?

i. If they hold that Efshar l'Tzamtzem, and expound "ha'Kerovah" - even ha'Kerovos, then two Eglos should be brought!
ii. If they hold that Efshar l'Tzamtzem, and expound "ha'Kerovah" - but not ha'Kerovos, no Eglah should be brought!

3. Answer: They hold that Iy Efshar l'Tzamtzem, even bi'Yedei Adam.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Tarfon): The Kohen takes the nicer animal.
(b) Question: What is his reason?
(c) Answer: Presumably, the healthier animal left the womb first.
(d) (Mishnah - R. Akiva): Meshamnim Beineihem.
(e) (R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): The Kohen takes the weaker animal.

1. Question (R. Chiya bar Aba): "Meshamnim Beineihem" connotes that they divide the animals equally!
2. R. Yochanan: You were indulging yourself with dates (Rashi) or eating poor dates (Rabeinu Gershom) in Bavel when I derived my teaching from the Seifa!

i. (Seifa - R. Tarfon): If one of the animals dies, they divide the other animal;
ii. R. Akiva says, ha'Motzei me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.

3. If Meshamnim indeed means that they divide the animals equally, R. Akiva would also say so in the Seifa!

i. Rather, "Meshamnim Beineihem" connotes that the difference in value of the two animals is [contested] between them; the Yisrael keeps it until the Kohen proves that the nicer animal is the Bechor.

(f) (Mishnah): Reuven's animal grazes until it gets a Mum, Matanos must be given; R. Yosi exempts.
(g) Question: What is R. Meir's reason? (A Stam (unattributed) Mishnah is assumed to be R. Meir; also, R. Meir explicitly obligates in the Seifa (18b).)
(h) Answer (R. Yochanan): No matter which animal was the Bechor, the Matanos belong to Kohanim:

1. If Reuven kept the Bechor, the entire animal should have been given to a Kohen;
2. If Reuven kept the Pashut, Matanos must be given to a Kohen!

(i) Question: What is R. Yosi's reason?
(j) Answer (Rava): [If Reuven kept the Bechor,] Chachamim consider it as if the Kohen acquired the Bechor;

1. Even though the Kohen never received it, we consider it as if he received it and, after it got a Mum, traded it with Reuven for the Pashut. (A Bechor Ba'al Mum is exempt from Matanos.)

(a) (R. Elazar): All agree that Matanos must be given from a Safek Bechor in a case when the Kohen does not receive anything (e.g. a Mevakeres gave birth to a male and female, we do not know which was first).
(b) Objection: Surely, he teaches that R. Yosi agrees - this is obvious!

1. R. Yosi exempts only when the Kohen received an animal, it is as if he traded the Bechor for Reuven's animal - when the Kohen did not receive anything, surely he agrees with R. Meir!

(c) Answer: One might have thought that R. Yosi decrees to exempt in every case, lest people think that it is like a regular Chulin animal, and they will shear it or work with it. R. Elazar teaches, this is not so.
(d) Question: We never would have thought so, on account of the Seifa!

1. (Seifa - R. Yosi): Whenever the Kohen received Chalipin of [something in exchange for] an animal, the animal is exempt from Matanos.

2. R. Meir obligates Matanos.
3. Inference: R. Yosi exempts only when the Kohen received Chalipin!

(e) Answer: One might have thought that R. Yosi addresses R. Meir according to R. Meir's reasoning:

1. I exempt even when the Kohen did not receive Chalipin, lest people come to shear it or work with it;
2. Granted, you argue with this - but you should agree that when the Kohen received Chalipin, in any case it is exempt!
3. R. Meir disagreed.

(f) (Rav Papa): All agree that Safek Ma'aser (Rashi - an Asiri became mixed with Chulin animals) is exempt from Matanos.
(g) Objection: Surely, he teaches that R. Meir agrees - this is obvious!

1. R. Meir obligates only in a case of Safek Bechor, for in any case, the Matanos belong to Kohanim - he would not obligate Safek Ma'aser!

(h) Answer: One might have thought that R. Meir obligates lest people will forget the law of Matanos, and this also applies to Safek Ma'aser - Rav Papa teaches, this is not so.
(i) Question: We never would have thought so, on account of the Seifa!

1. (Seifa - R. Yosi): Whenever the Kohen received Chalipin, the other animal (the Yisrael's) is exempt from Matanos.
2. R. Meir obligates.
3. (If R. Meir obligates lest people will forget the law of Matanos, then R. Yosi should not discuss when the Kohen received Chalipin; R. Meir could agree to this!)

(j) Answer: One might have thought that R. Meir obligates even Safek Ma'aser, and the Beraisa discusses Bechor to teach the extremity of R. Yosi's opinion, i.e. even though in any case Matanos should be given, he exempts;

1. Rav Papa teaches, this is not so.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Tarfon): If one of the twins dies, they share the other animal.
(b) Question: [In the Reisha,] R. Tarfon assumes that the healthier animal came out first - the Kohen should get the healthier animal, dead or alive!
(c) Answer (R. Ami): R. Tarfon retracted from what he said in the Reisha.
(d) (Mishnah - R. Akiva): Ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.
(e) (R. Chiya): A parable for R. Tarfon's law - Reuven and Shimon each deposited an animal by a shepherd (and one animal died, it is not known which one) - the shepherd leaves the live animal in front of them (and they divide it).
(f) A parable for R. Akiva's law - Reuven deposited an animal by Shimon, who put it with his flock. (One animal died, it is not known whose.) Ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah (Reuven must prove that his animal did not die).
(g) Question: In which case do they argue?

1. Would R. Akiva argue when the Safek Bechor was deposited by a shepherd?! Surely, he agrees that they divide it!
2. Would R. Tarfon argue when the Safek Bechor is by the Yisrael?! Surely, he agrees that ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah!

(h) Answer (Rava): All agree that if Reuven and Shimon deposited by one shepherd, the shepherd leaves the live animal in front of them and they divide it;
(i) All agree that if Reuven deposited by Shimon, Reuven cannot take without proof;
(j) They argue when the Kohen takes care of the Yisrael's animals on the Yisrael's premises:

1. R. Tarfon says that the Yisrael is Makneh (transfers ownership) of his land to the Kohen, in order that the Kohen will acquire Bechoros when they are born, for he wants the Mitzvah (R. Gershom - of giving the Bechor to a Kohen; Rashi - of raising the Bechor on his property);

i. It is considered as if they are partners in the land, they are equally Muchzak, therefore they divide;

2. R. Akiva says that the Yisrael does not Makneh, for he does not want to lose (Safek Bechoros), it is as if the Kohen deposited by him (the Yisrael is Muchzak), the Kohen cannot take without proof.

(a) (In the Mishnah, Reuven left pregnant sheep; offspring were born, no one saw the births. The Kohen may be Makriv the male(s) he receives only if they are definite Bechoros; otherwise (or after the Churban) he eats them after they get a Mum.)
(b) (Mishnah): If two males were born to two Mevakros, the Kohen receives both of them;
(c) If they gave birth to a male and a female, the Kohen receives the male.
(d) R. Tarfon says, if they gave birth to two males and a female, the Kohen receives the nicer male;
(e) R. Akiva says, Meshamnim Beineihem (he gets the inferior one); Reuven's male grazes until it gets a Mum, Reuven eats it, he must give Matanos;
(f) R. Yosi exempts.
(g) R. Tarfon says, if one of the males dies, they share the other male;
(h) R. Akiva says, ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.
(i) If they gave birth to two females and one or two males, the Kohen does not receive anything (perhaps each mother gave birth to a female first).
(j) If only one of the mothers was a Mevakeres and they gave birth to two males, the Kohen receives one of them;

1. R. Tarfon says, the Kohen receives the nicer one;
2. R. Akiva says, Meshamnim Beineihem.

(k) Reuven's animal grazes until it gets a Mum, he eats it.
(l) Matanos must be given;
(m) R. Yosi exempts;

1. R. Yosi says, whenever the Kohen received Chalipin of an animal, the animal is exempt from Matanos.
2. R. Meir obligates.

(n) R. Tarfon says, if one of the males dies, they share the other male;
(o) R. Akiva says, ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.
(p) If they gave birth to a female and a male, the Kohen does not receive anything (perhaps the Mevakeres gave birth to the female).
(q) (Gemara): The argument of R. Akiva and R. Tarfon must be taught in all three cases:

1. If they argued only above (17a), when two males are born to one animal, we would have thought that R. Akiva agrees [in the Reisha of our Mishnah,] when two males and a female are born to two animals, for surely the healthier animal was a lone child!
2. (Presumably, this is only if the better male is better than the female - otherwise, we should say that the female was the lone child!)
3. If they argued only in the Reisha, we would have thought that R. Akiva agrees in the Seifa, when males are born to a Mevakeres and a mother that already gave birth, for surely the healthier animal was born to the Mevakeres.