Study Bekhorot folio 57A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And R' Yoḥanan follows his established line of reasoning in this regard. As Rav Asi says that R' Yoḥanan says: Brothers who divided real estate received as an inheritance are considered purchasers who have purchased from each other, and as purchasers of land they must return the portions to each oth
The Talmud notes: And both statements of R' Yoḥanan are necessary. As, if he had taught this halakha to us only here, with regard to animal tithe, one might have thought that it is in this case that R' Yoḥanan says each one has not received his own portion. This is because the case must be similar
And if R' Yoḥanan had taught us only the halakha that a field inherited by two brothers must be returned in the Jubilee Year, one might have thought that R' Yoḥanan was uncertain and therefore ruled to be stringent. If so, he would rule stringently with regard to animal tithe as well, deeming the b
The Talmud raises an objection from a baraita against the opinion that there is retroactive designation of the animals: And similarly in the case of two partners who divided their common property, and one took 10 lambs and the other one took 9 lambs and a dog, sacrificing any of the 10 lambs taken
Rav Ashi said: If this is referring to a case where they are all equal in value to each other, indeed one may consider only one of the lambs as corresponding to the dog. Here, we are dealing with a case where they are not all equal in value to each other, but the value of this dog is one and a small