Study Bava Metzia folio 6B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מסותא דהוו מנצו עלה בי תרי, האי אמר דידי הוא והאי אמר דידי הוא. קם חד מינייהו אקדשה. פרשי מינה רב חנניה ורב אושעיא וכולהו רבנן. ואמר ליה רב אושעיא לרבה: כי אזלת קמיה דרב חסדא לכפרי, בעי מיניה.
bathhouse over which two people were arguing, and of which neither of them were in possession. This one said: It is mine, and that one said: It is mine. One of them arose and consecrated the bathhouse. Rav Ḥananya and Rav Oshaya and all the Rabbis kept away from the bathhouse and refrained from bathing there lest they transgress the prohibition against misusing consecrated property, as they were uncertain whether this act of consecration took effect. And Rav Oshaya said to Rabba: When you go to study before Rav Ḥisda in the town of Kafrei, ask him what we should do in this case.
כי אתא לסורא, אמר ליה רב המנונא: מתניתין היא. ספק בכורות, אחד בכור אדם ואחד בכור בהמה, בין טהורים בין טמאים: המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. ותני עלה: אסורים בגיזה ובעבודה.
When on his way to Kafrei, Rabba came to the city of Sura and related the incident to the rabbis there. Rav Hamnuna said to him: The resolution to your dilemma is found in the following Mishnah (Teharot 4:12): If there is uncertainty with regard to firstborns, whether a human firstborn or an animal firstborn, whether with regard to kosher animals or non-kosher animals, i.e., the firstborn of a donkey, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. The priest may not take the animal from its owner, or the redemption payment from the child’s father. And it is taught in that regard in a baraita: One is nevertheless prohibited from shearing and from working such animals, as their status as firstborns is uncertain.
והא הכא דאמר תקפו כהן – אין מוציאין אותו מידו, דקתני המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, וכי לא תקפו – אסורין בגיזה ובעבודה.
Rav Hamnuna continued: And here, where the Mishnah effectively says that if a priest forcefully seized an animal whose status as firstborn is uncertain the court does not remove it from his possession, as it teaches that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, the baraita states that even when the priest did not seize it, one is prohibited from shearing and working it. Evidently, the fact that the priest would remain in possession of the animal were he to seize it suffices to accord consecrated status to the animal even in a case where the priest did not seize it. The same is true in the case of the bathhouse, that even though the one who consecrated it had not taken possession of it, his consecration takes effect.