Study Bekhorot folio 37A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
is to the exclusion of the opinion of R' Yosei in the Mishnah, who prohibits any number of laymen to deem a firstborn animal permitted. The ruling that a group of 3 laymen may dissolve a vow in a place where there is no Sage is to the exclusion of the opinion of R' Yehuda, as it is taught in a barai
Rav Ḥiyya bar Amram stated above that a group of 3 may dissolve a vow in a place where there is no Sage. This indicates that if there is a Sage, he alone may dissolve a vow. The Talmud asks: Who, for example, is considered such a Sage? Rav Naḥman said: For example, one such as me. The baraita fu
§ The Mishnah teaches that R' Yosei says: Even if there is a court of 23 rabbis there, it may be slaughtered only on the basis of the ruling of an expert. Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei. The Talmud challenges: This is obvious, as the
Earlier (36b), the Talmud cited a ruling, which was issued either by Rav or Shmuel, that 3 regular Jews may deem a firstborn animal permitted in a place where there is no expert, in contrast to the opinion of R' Yosei. The Talmud suggests: Resolve that dilemma from this statement in the name of Rav,
The Talmud answers: This is insufficient proof, as it is possible that Rav did not issue two identical rulings. Rather, one ruling was stated from the other, by inference. Rav issued only one of these statements explicitly; the other was reported by his students in his name based on an inference fr