Study Bava Metzia folio 6B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 bat
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
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
Rabba said to him: This is no proof, as the cases are not comparable. You say a ruling concerning the sanctity of a firstborn. Actually, I will say to you with regard to an animal whose status as firstborn is uncertain, if a priest seized it, the court removes it from his possession, as there is
Rav Ḥananya said to Rabba: A halakha is taught in a baraita that supports your opinion that if a priest seizes an animal whose status as firstborn is uncertain, the court removes it from his possession: The animals whose status as firstborn is uncertain enter the pen to be tithed. They are brought