Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 4, 2019 | 讗壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bekhorot 48

What happens if there are doubts regarding two wives of one man – if it is the first for both, the father needs to pay but what if he dies? Does it depend of whether they already divided the property? Does it depend on whether he died within the first 30 days or after? What if two women’s babies get mixed up – if they both have the same husband, different husbands, one has a multiple birth and there are girls born also, one woman already had offspring and one did not, etc.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖诇讗 讘讻专讛 讗砖转讜 讜讬诇讚讛 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛讗讘 驻讟讜专

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.

诪转 讛讗讘 讜讛讘谞讬诐 拽讬讬诪讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞转谞讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讞诇拽讜 谞转谞讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 谞讻住讬诐 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 讚诪讬转 讛讗讘 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讬转 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讬 讞诇拽讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛讗 讗砖转注讘讚谉 诇讛讜 诇谞讻住讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 property they are exempt from giving the redemption money to the priest? But the property is already on lien for the mitzva of redemption.

讗诇讗 讚诪讬转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讬 讞诇拽讜 讚讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讚讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 诇讗 讞诇拽讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛 讜诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注讬专 讗讞转 讜诇拽讞讜 砖讚讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗讜转讛 诪讛诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讚讬讚讱 诪住讬拽谞讗 诪谞转讗 讚讬讚讱 拽讗 砖拽讬诇谞讗 讜讗讬 讘讞讘专讱 诪住讬拽谞讗 诪谞转讗 讚讞讘专讱 拽讗 砖拽讬诇谞讗

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鈥檚 property are considered partners, and therefore the priest can claim his debt from that property.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 谞讻住讬 讚讘专 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讬谞讜谉 注专讘讬谉 讘讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 转讘注 诇讬讛 讜诇注专讘 诪爪讬 转讘注 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讬讚讬 注专讘 诇讗 讬驻专注 诪谉 讛注专讘 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 讬转讘注 诪谉 讛注专讘 转讞诇讛

Rava said in response: Now consider the principle that a person鈥檚 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鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 砖诪转 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 谞讻住讬 讟讜讘讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚砖拽讬诇 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 诪讞爪讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛 诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪诇讜讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜专讛

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,

诇讗讜 讻讻转讜讘讛 讘砖讟专 讚诪讬讗 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讙讜讘讛 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转

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鈥檚 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.

讜讛讻讗 讘讞诪砖 讜诇讗 讘讞爪讬 讞诪砖 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讞诪砖 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讞诪砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讞诪砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪讬 讞诪砖

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 谞讻住讬诐 谞转讞讬讬讘 讙讘专讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讗诐 讬砖 注砖专讛 讝讜讝 诇讝讛 讜注砖专讛 讝讜讝 诇讝讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专讬谉

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 注砖专讛 讝讜讝 诇讝讛 讜注砖专讛 讝讜讝 诇讝讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬谉 讚讬专讜砖讛 讘讬谉 讚诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讞诪砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪讬 讞诪砖 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 注砖专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘爪讬专 诪注砖专讛 谞诪讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 注砖专讛 讝讜讝 讚讬专讜砖讛 诇讝讛 讜注砖专讛 讝讜讝 讚讬专讜砖讛 诇讝讛 讗诇诪讗 讞诪砖 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讞诪砖 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞诪砖 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讞诪砖 讜讛讻讗 讘讚专讘 讗住讬 讜专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the father鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 讗住讬驻讗 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讛谞讻住讬诐 讚诪讬转 讛讗讘 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讬转 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻讬 讞诇拽讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 讛讗 讗讬砖转注讘讚讬 诇讛讜 谞讻住讬

搂 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 property they are exempt from giving the redemption payment to the priest? But the property is already on lien for the mitzva of redemption.

讗诇讗 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讻讬 讞诇拽讜 讗诪讗讬 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 诇讬讚讞讬讬讛 讜讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注讬专 讗讞转 讜诇拽讞 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 诪诪谞讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讚讬讚讱 诪住讬拽谞讗 诪谞转讗 讚讬讚讱 拽讗 砖拽讬诇谞讗 讜讗讬 讘讞讘专讱 诪住讬拽谞讗 诪砖转注讘讚讗 诇讬 诪拽诪讬 讚讬讚讱

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 谞讻住讜讛讬 讚讘专 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讬谞讜谉 注专讘讬谉 讘讬讛 讜讻讜诇讛 讻诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗

Rava said: Now consider, a person鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖诇讗 讘讻专讜 讜讬诇讚讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 谞讜转谉 注砖专讛 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诐 诇讻讛谉 讗讞讚 谞转谉 讬讞讝讬专 诇讜 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讜讗诐 诇砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 谞转谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚诐

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.

讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讜谞拽讘讛 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 砖转讬 谞拽讘讜转 讜讝讻专 讗讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讜砖转讬 谞拽讘讜转 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

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.

讗讞转 讘讻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讘讻专讛 讜讬诇讚讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛讗讘 驻讟讜专

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.

诪转 讛讗讘 讜讛讘谞讬诐 拽讬讬诪讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞转谞讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讞诇拽讜 谞转谞讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 谞讻住讬诐 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

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鈥檚 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.

砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖诇 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 砖诇讗 讘讻专讜 讜讬诇讚讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讗诐 诇讻讛谉 讗讞讚 谞转谞讜 讬讞讝讬专 诇讛诐 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讗诐 诇砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 谞转谞讜 讗讬谞谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚诐

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.

讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讛讗讘讜转 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 砖转讬 谞拽讘讜转 讜讝讻专 讗讜 砖转讬 谞拽讘讜转 讜砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

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.

讗讞转 讘讻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讘讻专讛 砖诇 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜讬诇讚讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讝讛 砖诇讗 讘讻专讛 讗砖转讜 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讚讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛

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.

讻讛谉 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛 讜诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

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:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 48

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖诇讗 讘讻专讛 讗砖转讜 讜讬诇讚讛 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛讗讘 驻讟讜专

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.

诪转 讛讗讘 讜讛讘谞讬诐 拽讬讬诪讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞转谞讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讞诇拽讜 谞转谞讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 谞讻住讬诐 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 讚诪讬转 讛讗讘 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讬转 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讬 讞诇拽讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛讗 讗砖转注讘讚谉 诇讛讜 诇谞讻住讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 property they are exempt from giving the redemption money to the priest? But the property is already on lien for the mitzva of redemption.

讗诇讗 讚诪讬转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讬 讞诇拽讜 讚讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讚讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 诇讗 讞诇拽讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛 讜诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注讬专 讗讞转 讜诇拽讞讜 砖讚讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 讗讜转讛 诪讛诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讚讬讚讱 诪住讬拽谞讗 诪谞转讗 讚讬讚讱 拽讗 砖拽讬诇谞讗 讜讗讬 讘讞讘专讱 诪住讬拽谞讗 诪谞转讗 讚讞讘专讱 拽讗 砖拽讬诇谞讗

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鈥檚 property are considered partners, and therefore the priest can claim his debt from that property.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 谞讻住讬 讚讘专 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讬谞讜谉 注专讘讬谉 讘讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 转讘注 诇讬讛 讜诇注专讘 诪爪讬 转讘注 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讬讚讬 注专讘 诇讗 讬驻专注 诪谉 讛注专讘 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 讬转讘注 诪谉 讛注专讘 转讞诇讛

Rava said in response: Now consider the principle that a person鈥檚 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鈥檛 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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 砖诪转 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 谞讻住讬 讟讜讘讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚砖拽讬诇 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 诪讞爪讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛 诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪诇讜讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜专讛

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,

诇讗讜 讻讻转讜讘讛 讘砖讟专 讚诪讬讗 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讙讜讘讛 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转

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鈥檚 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.

讜讛讻讗 讘讞诪砖 讜诇讗 讘讞爪讬 讞诪砖 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讞诪砖 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讞诪砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讞诪砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪讬 讞诪砖

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 谞讻住讬诐 谞转讞讬讬讘 讙讘专讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讗诐 讬砖 注砖专讛 讝讜讝 诇讝讛 讜注砖专讛 讝讜讝 诇讝讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专讬谉

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 注砖专讛 讝讜讝 诇讝讛 讜注砖专讛 讝讜讝 诇讝讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬谉 讚讬专讜砖讛 讘讬谉 讚诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讞诪砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪讬 讞诪砖 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 注砖专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘爪讬专 诪注砖专讛 谞诪讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 注砖专讛 讝讜讝 讚讬专讜砖讛 诇讝讛 讜注砖专讛 讝讜讝 讚讬专讜砖讛 诇讝讛 讗诇诪讗 讞诪砖 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讞诪砖 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞诪砖 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讞诪砖 讜讛讻讗 讘讚专讘 讗住讬 讜专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the father鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 讗住讬驻讗 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讛谞讻住讬诐 讚诪讬转 讛讗讘 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讬转 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻讬 讞诇拽讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 讛讗 讗讬砖转注讘讚讬 诇讛讜 谞讻住讬

搂 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 property they are exempt from giving the redemption payment to the priest? But the property is already on lien for the mitzva of redemption.

讗诇讗 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讻讬 讞诇拽讜 讗诪讗讬 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 诇讬讚讞讬讬讛 讜讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注讬专 讗讞转 讜诇拽讞 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 诪诪谞讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讚讬讚讱 诪住讬拽谞讗 诪谞转讗 讚讬讚讱 拽讗 砖拽讬诇谞讗 讜讗讬 讘讞讘专讱 诪住讬拽谞讗 诪砖转注讘讚讗 诇讬 诪拽诪讬 讚讬讚讱

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讻讚讬 谞讻住讜讛讬 讚讘专 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讬谞讜谉 注专讘讬谉 讘讬讛 讜讻讜诇讛 讻诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗

Rava said: Now consider, a person鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖诇讗 讘讻专讜 讜讬诇讚讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 谞讜转谉 注砖专讛 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诐 诇讻讛谉 讗讞讚 谞转谉 讬讞讝讬专 诇讜 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讜讗诐 诇砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 谞转谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚诐

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.

讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讜谞拽讘讛 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 砖转讬 谞拽讘讜转 讜讝讻专 讗讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讜砖转讬 谞拽讘讜转 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

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.

讗讞转 讘讻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讘讻专讛 讜讬诇讚讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛讗讘 驻讟讜专

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.

诪转 讛讗讘 讜讛讘谞讬诐 拽讬讬诪讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞转谞讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讞诇拽讜 谞转谞讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 谞讻住讬诐 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

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鈥檚 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.

砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖诇 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 砖诇讗 讘讻专讜 讜讬诇讚讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讗诐 诇讻讛谉 讗讞讚 谞转谞讜 讬讞讝讬专 诇讛诐 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讗诐 诇砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 谞转谞讜 讗讬谞谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚诐

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.

讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讛讗讘讜转 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 砖转讬 谞拽讘讜转 讜讝讻专 讗讜 砖转讬 谞拽讘讜转 讜砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

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.

讗讞转 讘讻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讘讻专讛 砖诇 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讜讬诇讚讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讝讛 砖诇讗 讘讻专讛 讗砖转讜 谞讜转谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诇讻讛谉 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讚讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛

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.

讻讛谉 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛 讜诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

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:

Scroll To Top