וחייב במתנות ורבי יוסי פוטר מת אחד מהן ר"ט אומר יחלוקו ר"ע אומר המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה זכר ונקבה אין כאן לכהן כלום: And when he slaughters the animal he is obligated to have the gifts of the priesthood taken from it, i.e., the gifts that one is required to give a priest from a non-sacred animal: The foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. And Rabbi Yosei deems him exempt from giving those gifts. If one of the two born together died, Rabbi Tarfon says: The priest and the owner divide the remaining lamb. Rabbi Akiva says: Since there is uncertainty to whom it belongs, it remains in the possession of the owner, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. If a male and a female offspring were born together, everyone agrees that the priest has nothing here.
גמ׳ אמרי דבי רבי ינאי לרבי יוסי הגלילי שמעינן ליה דאמר אפשר לצמצם בידי שמים וכ"ש בידי אדם ורבנן בידי שמים אי אפשר לצמצם בידי אדם מאי GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, maintaining that it is impossible for the time of twins’ births to coincide precisely. They said in the school of Rabbi Yannai: According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, we heard in the mishna that he says: It is possible for two events that are in the hands of Heaven to coincide precisely, and all the more so it is clear that it is possible for two events that are in human hands to coincide precisely, as they are intended to be simultaneous. But according to the Rabbis, evidently they maintain that it is impossible for two matters that are in the hands of Heaven to coincide precisely, but with regard to events that are in human hands, what is their opinion?
ת"ש חוט של סיקרא חוגרו באמצע להבדיל בין דמים העליונים ובין דמים התחתונים ואי אמרת אי אפשר לצמצם בידי אדם זימנין דקא יהיב עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה דמרווח בה פורתא The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Middot 3:1): A red line encircled the altar in the middle, to separate between the blood that must be presented on the upper part of the altar and the blood that must be presented on the lower section of the altar. And if you say that it is impossible for two matters that are in human hands to coincide precisely, i.e., that people cannot measure the precise midpoint of an area, then that line will not be precisely in the middle, which means that there will be times when the priest puts blood meant for the upper part of the altar upon the lower section, and blood meant for the lower section above. The Gemara rejects this proof: In that case, one widens the line a little so that it certainly covers the middle part of the altar.
תא שמע ממדת כלים ממדת מזבח שאני התם דרחמנא אמר עביד ובכל היכי דמצית למיעבד ניחא ליה (דברי הימים א כח, יט) הכל בכתב מיד ה' עלי השכיל The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the measurements of the vessels and from the measurements of the altar of the Temple. Since the Torah gives precise measurements for them, this indicates that it is possible to measure precisely. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: It is different there, as the Merciful One says: Do it, and to whatever extent you can fulfill His directives, this finds favor in His eyes, as the verse states: “All this in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19).
אמר רב קטינא ת"ש חלקו לשנים והן שוין שניהן טמאים לפי שאי אפשר לצמצם אמר רב כהנא שאני כלי חרס הואיל ויש בו גומות Rav Ketina said: Come and hear a different proof from a baraita: An earthenware vessel that became ritually impure can be purified only by being broken. If it is broken in two, the larger piece remains impure while the smaller piece becomes pure. If one divided an impure earthenware oven into two pieces and they are equal in size, both are ritually impure, because it is impossible for the two to coincide precisely, i.e., one cannot measure exactly. Rav Kahana said, in rejection of this proof: An earthenware vessel is different, since it has indentations in it, i.e., the place of the break is uneven and is therefore particularly difficult to measure precisely.
ת"ש נמצא מכוון בין שתי עיירות שתיהן מביאות שתי עגלות דברי ר"א מ"ט The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a mishna (Sota 45b): With regard to a case involving the heifer whose neck is broken, if the slain person was found precisely between two towns, the two towns bring two heifers between them; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. What is the reason that each town must bring a heifer?
לאו משום דקסבר בידי אדם אפשר לצמצם וקרובה ואפילו קרובות Is it not because Rabbi Eliezer holds: With regard to matters that are in human hands, it is possible for two matters to coincide precisely? And Rabbi Eliezer also holds that when the verse states, in the singular: “And it shall be that the town which is nearest to the slain man, even the elders of that town shall take a heifer of the herd” (Deuteronomy 21:3), it is not necessarily referring to only one town, but even to the two nearest towns, if they are equidistant from the corpse. If it were impossible for both towns to be measured as precisely the same distance from the corpse, they would not bring two heifers but one in partnership, stipulating that it belongs to the town that is actually closer.
לא ר' אליעזר The Gemara rejects this: No, Rabbi Eliezer