In the first chapter of Bekhorot, we discussed firstborn donkeys, which require redemption with a lamb given to a priest. In this second chapter, and moving forward, the main focus is kosher domesticated animals. Firstborns of these species, unlike donkeys (which are not kosher), have an inherent sanctity from birth. This means more than just their monetary value that is owed to the priesthood — their physical bodies are consecrated and sacrificed.
The Talmud’s concern right now is cases in which it is not clear which animal is a firstborn, if any. The mishnah on today’s daf begins with an unlikely (perhaps even impossible?) scenario:
In the case of a ewe that had not previously given birth, and it gave birth to two males and both their heads emerged as one:
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Both of them are given to the priest, as it is stated in the plural: “Every firstborn that you have of animals, the males shall be to the Lord” (Exodus 13:12).
The rabbis say: It is impossible for two events to coincide precisely. Rather, one of the males is given to the owner and one to the priest.
If a ewe gives birth to male twins that emerge simultaneously (ouch!) Rabbi Yosei HaGelili declares both offspring bekhorot. He bases this interpretation on the use of the plural word “males” in the quoted verse about bekhorot. The rabbis contest his reading, because they don’t believe it’s possible that two animals could be birthed at the exact same time. In their estimation, surely one head emerged a fraction of a second before the other, rendering that animal, and only that animal, the bekhor. According to this view, one could never owe more than one animal to a priest from the same mother animal.
Since the majority view is that the owner gives one animal to a priest and keeps the other, the rabbis discuss how this split should be determined:
Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest chooses the better of the two.
Rabbi Akiva says: They assess the value of the lambs between them.
Rabbi Tarfon thinks the priest is privileged in this scenario, and can select whichever animal he’d prefer. Rabbi Akiva’s phrasing in this mishnah suggests an even split, but he gives no explanation of how this is done. Both the Tosefta and the Talmud assert that, according to Rabbi Akiva, the owner actually keeps the fatter of the two animals. This is because of a principle we’ve mentioned previously, hamotzi mechavero alav hara’ayah: one who is trying to collect from their fellow has the burden of proof. Since we don’t know which of these twins is the bekhor, it is the priest’s job to prove that the fatter one is rightfully his (which, realistically, he can’t possibly do).
The mishnah goes on to discuss what the owner does with the lamb that he keeps:
With regard to the second lamb, it must graze until it becomes blemished. And when he slaughters the animal he is obligated to have the gifts. And Rabbi Yosei deems him exempt.
Since either lamb might be the bekhor, the owner can’t just use the lamb he keeps right away. Rather, he must graze it until it becomes blemished, at which point its sacred status is naturally revoked and it may be slaughtered for ordinary consumption. According to the rabbis, he has to give from it the normal gifts of the priesthood: the foreleg, jaw and maw. Their logic is that this animal is either a bekhor, in which case it’s entirely owed to the priest, or it’s a regular animal, in which case the priestly gifts are owed. Rabbi Yosei disagrees; his logic will be presented in a later mishnah.
Finally, we deal with cases where there aren’t two male lambs remaining to be split:
If one of the two born together died:
Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest and the owner divide the remaining lamb.
Rabbi Akiva says: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant.
Rabbi Tarfon believes that if one of the male twins died, since the remaining lamb might be a bekhor, the priest and owner should split its value. Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, maintains that the surviving lamb belongs entirely to the owner; since it’s possible that the lamb that died was the bekhor, it is the priest’s job to prove that the surviving lamb was rightfully his. In the absence of proof, he has no claim.
Lastly:
If a male and a female offspring were born together: (Everyone agrees) the priest has nothing here.
Even Rabbi Tarfon, who leans toward awarding more to priests, agrees that in this final case, in which a male and female were born together, the priest has no claim. In the case of two males, we know there’s at least one bekhor; we just don’t know which it is. In this scenario, if the female was born first, there’s no bekhor at all. And since we can’t prove the female wasn’t born first, the priest has no claim to either animal.
Read all of Bekhorot 17 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on October 5, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
The post Bekhorot 17 appeared first on My Jewish Learning.
Source: My Jewish Learning
