Bekhorot 35
סבר לה כרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר
holds with R'Jose the Galilean who said: It is possible to ascertain simultaneity in natural processes, and how much more so in human actions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas our enquiry is with reference to the view of the Rabbis.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
נימא כתנאי
If [a slain body was] found at the same distance between two cities, we do not perform the ceremony of breaking the heifer's neck.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For each city can maintain that it is not the nearest.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר אי אפשר לצמצם ורבי אליעזר סבר אפשר לצמצם
For the first Tanna holds: that it is impossible to be exact,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore there is no ceremony of breaking the heifer's neck at all.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
יביאו עגלה אחת בשותפות ויתנו
Let the two cities bring one heifer between them and make a stipulation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'If', let each city say, 'I am the nearest then the heifer shall atone for me, and if my neighbour is the nearest, it shall atone for her'.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
והכא בקרובה ולא קרובות קמיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר
The point at issue, however, is whether we hold that the words '[the city] which is nearest', imply 'but not [the cities] which are nearest': The first Tanna holds: The words, 'Which is nearest' imply 'but not [the cities] which are nearest', whereas R'Eliezer holds: '[The city] which is nearest', implies even [the cities] which are nearest.
קרובה ואפי' קרובות
R'Hiyya B'Abin reported in the name of R'Amram: A Tanna taught: If a slain body is found at exactly the same distance between two cities, R'Eliezer says: Both cities bring two heifers, whereas the Sages say: They shall bring one heifer between them and make a stipulation.
אלא לאו שמע מינה קסברי רבנן
Said R'Hiyya B'Abba to R'Johanan: But do we not read meshammenin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is taken to be connected with rt. meaning 'fat', indicating that the difference in the value of the fat one is shared between the Israelite and the priest.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ההוא דבריא נפק ברישא:
Now, if we were to assume that the word meshammenin etc. means that they are divided equally, here also let them divide the live animal equally! Rather what is meant by meshammenin is that the fat animal [remains to be divided] between them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the priest takes the lean one, failing the evidence that the fat one was a first-born.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ר' עקיבא אומר משמנין כו':
for [the Israelite] says to the priest: Bring a proof that it is a firstling and take it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the same way as in the latter part of the Mishnah according to R. Akiba, for we apply here the principle of money of doubtful ownership.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
מת אחד מהן רבי טרפון אומר
So although it had not reached the priest's hands, it is as if it had reached his hands and he had sold it to the Israelite when blemished.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And then the priest received something in return, i.e the other animal, and a priest who sold a firstling to an Israelite is, according to the ruling (supra 12b) exempt from the priest's gifts.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יחלוקו ר' עקיבא אומר
Said R'Eleazar: All [the authorities concerned] agree that an animal which is a doubtful first-born, since the priest has [a beast] in its stead,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where for example a female and a male are born and there is a doubt as to the first-birth, since the priest received nothing in its place, the animal grazes until it is blemished and is therefore liable for the priest's gifts, for in such a case you cannot argue that it is as if it had been acquired by the priest and subsequently sold to the Israelite, as the priest received nothing in return.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר
But where the priest has nothing In its stead, it is not so? - You might have thought that the reason of R'Jose was because he held that if you make him liable for the priest's gifts he may come to shear and work [the animal], even where the priest has nothing in its stead.