Bekhorot 48

מתני׳ מי שלא בכרה אשתו וילדה שני זכרים נותן חמש סלעים לכהן מת אחד מהן בתוך שלשים יום האב פטור

MISHNA: With regard to one whose wife had not previously given birth and then gave birth to two males, i.e., twin males, and it is unknown which is the firstborn, he gives five sela coins to the priest after thirty days have passed. If one of them dies within thirty days of birth, before the obligation to redeem the firstborn takes effect, the father is exempt from the payment due to uncertainty, as perhaps it was the firstborn who died.

מת האב והבנים קיימים רבי מאיר אומר אם נתנו עד שלא חלקו נתנו ואם לאו פטורין רבי יהודה אומר נתחייבו נכסים זכר ונקבה אין כאן לכהן כלום

In a case where the father died and the sons are alive, Rabbi Meir says: If they gave the five sela coins to the priest before they divided their father’s property between them, they gave it, and it remains in the possession of the priest. But if not, they are exempt from giving the redemption money to the priest. Rabbi Yehuda says: The obligation to redeem the firstborn already took effect on the property of the father; therefore, in either case the sons, his heirs, are required to pay the priest. If the wife gave birth to a male and a female and it is not known which was born first, the priest has nothing here, as it is possible that the female was born first.

גמ׳ דמית האב אימת אילימא דמית לאחר שלשים יום בהא אמר רבי מאיר כי חלקו פטורין והא אשתעבדן להו לנכסי

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in a case where the father died and the sons are alive, Rabbi Meir says: If they gave the five sela coins to the priest before they divided their father’s property, they gave it; but if not, they are exempt from giving the redemption money. The Gemara asks: When did the father die? If we say that he died after the thirty days following the birth of his sons, does Rabbi Meir say in this case that if they divided their father’s property they are exempt from giving the redemption money to the priest? But the property is already on lien for the mitzva of redemption.

אלא דמית בתוך שלשים יום מאי שנא כי חלקו דאזיל לגבי האי ומדחי ליה דאזיל לגבי האי ומדחי ליה כי לא חלקו נמי ליזיל לגבי האי ולידחייה וליזיל לגבי האי ולידחייה

Rather, it is referring to a case where the father died within thirty days of the birth of his sons, and the obligation of redemption applies to the firstborn himself, whose identity is unknown, but not to the father’s property. If so, what is different about a case where they already divided the property between them, that Rabbi Meir deems them exempt? The reason must be that the priest will go to this son, and the son will reject him by demanding that the priest prove he is the firstborn; and likewise he will go to that other son, and he too will reject him in the same manner. The Gemara challenges this explanation: The same should apply even in a case where they did not divide the property: Let the priest go to this son and he will reject him, and let him go to that son and he too will reject him.

אמר רבי ירמיה זאת אומרת שני יוסף בן שמעון שהיו בעיר אחת ולקחו שדה בשותפות בעל חוב גובה אותה מהם דאמר ליה אי בדידך מסיקנא מנתא דידך קא שקילנא ואי בחברך מסיקנא מנתא דחברך קא שקילנא

Rabbi Yirmeya says: That is to say, i.e., it can be inferred from here, that in a case involving two people named Yosef ben Shimon who were residents of one city, and they acquired a field in partnership, a creditor of one of them can collect payment of his debt from either of them, despite the fact that he does not know which of them owes him the money. The reason is that he can say to each of them: If I have a claim against you, I am taking the one hundred dinars that is your share in the joint field, and if I have a claim against the other Yosef ben Shimon, I am taking the one hundred dinars that is his share in the field. This is similar to the case in the mishna, as the brothers who have yet to divide their father’s property are considered partners, and therefore the priest can claim his debt from that property.

אמר רבא מכדי נכסי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה מי איכא מידי דלדידיה לא מצי תבע ליה ולערב מצי תבע ליה והתנן המלוה את חבירו על ידי ערב לא יפרע מן הערב וקיימא לן דלא יתבע מן הערב תחלה

Rava said in response: Now consider the principle that a person’s property is a guarantee for him, i.e., it serves as a guarantee for the loan if the debtor does not repay it. Is there any case where one cannot claim repayment from the debtor himself, and yet he can claim from a guarantor? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bava Batra 173a): In the case of one who lends money to another with the assurance of a guarantor, he cannot claim payment of the debt from the guarantor? And we maintain in this regard that he cannot claim payment of the debt from the guarantor at the outset, before first claiming the debt from the debtor. How, then, may the priest not claim the redemption money from either brother, and yet he can take it from their property?

אלא אמר רבא לעולם שמת לאחר שלשים יום ואי דאיכא נכסי טובא הכי נמי דשקיל והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דליכא אלא חמש סלעים

Rather, Rava says: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the father died after thirty days following the birth of his sons and the property is already on lien for the mitzva of redemption. And if this is a case where there is a lot of property, so too, the halakha is that the priest takes the five sela coins from that property, even after the sons have divided it, as they are obligated to pay their father’s debt from their inheritance. And what are we dealing with here? With a case where there is only the five sela coins received from their father. That was the entire estate.

ודכולי עלמא אית להו דרב אסי דאמר רב אסי האחין שחלקו מחצה יורשין ומחצה לקוחות ודכולי עלמא מלוה הכתובה בתורה

Rava continues: And everyone accepts the opinion of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi says: In the case of brothers who divided property they received as an inheritance, with regard to half of it they are considered heirs and with regard to the other half they are considered purchasers from each other. And furthermore, everyone agrees that a loan written in the Torah, i.e., a financial obligation by Torah law, such as the redemption of the firstborn,

לאו ככתובה בשטר דמיא ודכולי עלמא אית להו דרב פפא דאמר רב פפא מלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין ואינו גובה מן הלקוחות

is not like one written in a document, but like an oral loan. And everyone accepts the opinion of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa says: When a creditor gives a loan by oral agreement, he can collect the debt from the heirs of the debtor after his death but he cannot collect the debt from the purchasers of the debtor’s property. Consequently, the priest can collect the redemption money only from the half of the property with regard to which the sons are considered heirs, and since the entire property is worth only five sela coins he would be able to take only two and a half sela coins.

והכא בחמש ולא בחצי חמש קמיפלגי דרבי מאיר סבר חמש ולא חצי חמש ורבי יהודה סבר חמש ואפילו חצי חמש

And here Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to the issue of: Five, but not with half of five. As Rabbi Meir holds that the Torah requires giving specifically five sela coins, but not half or part of five; therefore, the brothers are exempt from giving a priest those two and a half sela coins. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the Torah requires giving five sela coins, and even half or part of five. Therefore, he rules that the priest takes those two and a half sela coins from the property with regard to which the sons are considered heirs.

אי הכי רבי יהודה אומר נתחייבו נכסים נתחייב גברא מיבעי ליה ועוד תניא רבי יהודה אומר האחין שחלקו אם יש עשרה זוז לזה ועשרה זוז לזה חייבין ואם לאו פטורין

The Gemara asks: If so, when Rabbi Yehuda says: The obligation to redeem the firstborn already took effect on the property of the father, he should have said that the obligation to redeem the firstborn took effect on the man, i.e., the brothers who are obligated to pay the sum, as Rabbi Yehuda agrees that the priest forfeits the half of the obligation that applies to the property. And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where the identity of the firstborn is unknown, and the brothers divided their father’s property, if there are ten dinars, which equals two and a half sela coins, for this brother, and ten dinars for that brother, they are obligated to pay the priest; and if not, they are exempt.

מאי עשרה זוז לזה ועשרה זוז לזה אילימא בין דירושה בין דלקוחות וחמש ואפילו חצי חמש אי הכי מאי איריא עשרה אפילו בציר מעשרה נמי

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty by analyzing the baraita: What is the meaning of the clause: Ten dinars for this brother and ten dinars for that brother? If we say each has ten dinars from the father’s property, which is the total sum of both the half of the inheritance and the half with regard to which they are purchasers together, which equals two and a half sela coins, and Rabbi Yehuda says they are obligated to pay the priest because he maintains that there is a mitzva to give five sela coins and even half or part of five, this is difficult. If so, why specifically state that they are obligated only when there are ten dinars? The same halakha would apply even to fewer than ten dinars, as the priest is entitled to whatever is available.

אלא פשיטא עשרה זוז דירושה לזה ועשרה זוז דירושה לזה אלמא חמש ולא חצי חמש סבירא ליה

Rather, it is obvious that in this case there are ten dinars of inheritance for this brother and ten dinars of inheritance for that brother, which totals five sela coins. According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is only in this case that they are obligated to pay the priest. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there is a mitzva to give specifically five sela coins, but not half or part of five, which contradicts the suggested explanation of the dispute.

אלא דכולי עלמא חמש ולא חצי חמש והכא בדרב אסי ורב פפא קמיפלגי

Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the father’s property is worth five sela coins, and everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agree that the Torah requires giving five sela coins, but not half of five. And here they disagree with regard to the statements of Rav Asi and Rav Pappa that the portion of the inheritance includes only two and a half sela, which the priest is not entitled to collect. Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with their opinion, while Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds that all five sela coins are available for the redemption.

ואיכא דמתני ליה אסיפא נתחייבו הנכסים דמית האב אימת אילימא דמית לאחר שלשים מכלל דרבי מאיר סבר כי חלקו פטורין הא אישתעבדי להו נכסי

§ The Gemara notes: And there are those who teach this discussion with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: If one had two sons and it is unknown which is the firstborn, and the father died, Rabbi Yehuda says the obligation to redeem the firstborn already took effect on the property of the father. Therefore, even if the father’s property has been divided, the sons are required to pay the priest. The Gemara asks: When did the father die? If we say that he died after thirty days following the birth of his sons, should one conclude by inference that Rabbi Meir maintains that if they divided their father’s property they are exempt from giving the redemption payment to the priest? But the property is already on lien for the mitzva of redemption.

אלא בתוך שלשים כי חלקו אמאי מחייב רבי יהודה ליזיל לגבי האי לידחייה וגבי האי ולידחייה

Rather, it is referring to a case where the father died within thirty days of the birth of his sons and the obligation of redemption applies to the firstborn himself, though it is unknown which is the firstborn. If so, why does Rabbi Yehuda obligate them even when the brothers had already divided their father’s property between them? Let the priest go to this son, and he will reject him, by claiming that he is not the firstborn, and let him go to that son and he too will reject him on the same grounds.

אמר רבי ירמיה זאת אומרת שני יוסף בן שמעון שהיו בעיר אחת ולקח אחד מהם שדה מחבירו בעל חוב גובה ממנו דאמר ליה אי בדידך מסיקנא מנתא דידך קא שקילנא ואי בחברך מסיקנא משתעבדא לי מקמי דידך

Rabbi Yirmeya says: That is to say: In a case involving two people named Yosef ben Shimon, who were residents of one city, and one of them purchased a field from the other, an earlier creditor can collect payment of his debt from that field. This is because he can say to the buyer: If you are indebted to me I am taking the one hundred dinars that is your share in the field, and if the other Yosef ben Shimon is indebted to me, then this field was on lien to me before you acquired it.

אמר רבא מכדי נכסוהי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה וכולה כלישנא קמא

Rava said: Now consider, a person’s property is a guarantee for him, so why can the creditor not claim his debt from the debtor himself but can claim it from the guarantor, i.e., his property? The Gemara comments: And from here onward, all the rest of the discussion is the same as in the first version of the passage, as cited earlier.

מתני׳ שתי נשים שלא בכרו וילדו שני זכרים נותן עשרה סלעים לכהן מת אחד מהן בתוך שלשים יום אם לכהן אחד נתן יחזיר לו חמש סלעים ואם לשני כהנים נתן אינו יכול להוציא מידם

MISHNA: With regard to two wives of one man, both of whom had not previously given birth, and they gave birth to two males, i.e., each bore one male, and the sons were intermingled, the father gives ten sela coins to the priest even if it is unknown which son was born first, because it is certain that each is firstborn of his mother. In a case where one of them dies within thirty days of birth, if he gave all ten sela coins to one priest, the priest must return five sela to him, because the father was not obligated to redeem the son who then died. And if he gave the redemption payment to two different priests, he cannot reclaim the money from the possession of either priest, as each could claim that the money that he received was for the living child.

זכר ונקבה או שני זכרים ונקבה נותן חמש סלעים לכהן שתי נקבות וזכר או שני זכרים ושתי נקבות אין כאן לכהן כלום

If one mother gave birth to a male and one gave birth to a female, or if between them they gave birth to two males and one female, and the children were intermingled, the father gives five sela coins to the priest: In the first case because the male might have preceded the female and in the second case because one of the males is certainly firstborn. If the children were two females and a male, or two males and two females, the priest has nothing here, as it is possible the female was born first to each mother.

אחת בכרה ואחת שלא בכרה וילדו שני זכרים נותן חמש סלעים לכהן מת אחד מהן בתוך שלשים יום האב פטור

If one of his wives had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth and they gave birth to two males who became intermingled, the father gives five sela coins to the priest, as it is certain that one of them was born to the mother who had not yet given birth. If one of them dies within thirty days of birth the father is exempt from that payment, as it is possible that the one who died was born to the mother who had not yet given birth.

מת האב והבנים קיימים רבי מאיר אומר אם נתנו עד שלא חלקו נתנו ואם לאו פטורין רבי יהודה אומר נתחייבו נכסים זכר ונקבה אין לכהן כלום

In a case of intermingling where the father died and the sons are alive, Rabbi Meir says: If they gave the five sela coins to the priest before they divided their father’s property between them, they gave it, and it remains in the possession of the priest. But if not, they are exempt from giving the redemption payment to the priest. Rabbi Yehuda says: The obligation to redeem the firstborn already took effect on the property of the father. If the wives gave birth to a male and a female the priest has nothing here, as perhaps the female was born to the mother who had not yet given birth.

שתי נשים של שני אנשים שלא בכרו וילדו שני זכרים זה נותן חמש סלעים לכהן וזה נותן חמש סלעים מת אחד מהם בתוך שלשים אם לכהן אחד נתנו יחזיר להם חמש סלעים אם לשני כהנים נתנו אינן יכולין להוציא מידם

With regard to two women who had not previously given birth, who were married to two different men, and they gave birth to two males and the sons were intermingled, this father gives five sela coins to a priest and that father gives five sela coins to a priest, as each is certainly firstborn to his mother. In a case where one of them dies within thirty days of birth, if the fathers gave all ten sela coins to one priest, the priest must return five sela coins to them. But if they gave the redemption payment to two different priests they cannot reclaim the money from the possession of either priest, as each could claim that the money that he received was for the living child.

זכר ונקבה האבות פטורין והבן חייב לפדות את עצמו שתי נקבות וזכר או שתי נקבות ושני זכרים אין כאן לכהן כלום

If the women gave birth to a male and a female and the children became intermingled, the fathers are exempt, as each could claim that he is the father of the female, but the son is obligated to redeem himself, as he is certainly a firstborn. If two females and a male were born, or two females and two males, the priest has nothing here, as it is possible the female was born first to each mother.

אחת בכרה ואחת שלא בכרה של שני אנשים וילדו שני זכרים זה שלא בכרה אשתו נותן חמש סלעים לכהן זכר ונקבה אין כאן לכהן כלום

If one woman had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth, and they were married to two men and they gave birth to two males, who then became intermingled, this one whose wife had not previously given birth gives five sela coins to the priest. If the women gave birth to a male and a female the priest has nothing here, as it is possible the female was born to the mother who had not yet given birth.

גמ׳ מאי שנא שני כהנים דאזיל לגבי האי ומדחי ליה ואזיל לגבי האי ומדחי ליה

GEMARA: The mishna teaches with regard to two wives of two husbands whose firstborns were intermingled, that if the fathers gave their redemption money to two different priests and one of the firstborns died, they cannot reclaim the money from the possession of either priest. The Gemara asks: What is different about a case where the fathers gave the redemption money to two different priests, and one of the firstborns subsequently died, that they cannot reclaim the money? The reason is that one father will go to this priest and he will reject him, by claiming that he took the redemption money for the surviving firstborn, and likewise he will go to that other priest and he too will reject him in the same manner.

כהן אחד נמי ליזיל לגבי האי ולידחייה וליזיל לגבי האי ולידחייה אמר שמואל

The same is also true in a case where they gave their redemption money to one priest: This father will go to the priest and the priest will reject him, by claiming that his son is still alive, and that father will go to the priest and he will reject him too, on the same grounds. Shmuel says: