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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 5, 2019 | 讘壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 49

If the son dies within the first thirty days and the father already paid the priest, can he get his money back? If the son dies after thirty days and the father hasn’t yet paid the priest, does the obligation to pay still fall on the father? If pidyon haben a monetary obligation or a commandments (issur v’heiter)? Is a redemption valid if performed before thirty days – before the obligation kicks in? If the father needs to redeem himself and his son, which takes precedence? How is the amount five selaim evaluated? Based on what coin/currency?


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

讘讘讗 讘讛专砖讗讛

This is referring to a case where one of the fathers comes with authorization to act on behalf of the other father to state his claim for him, and therefore the priest cannot reject his claim. But if they gave the money to two different priests an authorization is of no effect, as each priest can claim the other took the redemption money of the son who died.

讜讛讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗讚专讻转讗 讗诪讟诇讟诇讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讻驻专讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讻驻专讬讛 讻转讘讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: We do not write an authorization document [adrakhta] concerning movable property? Therefore, in the case of redemption, where money, which has the status of movable property, is demanded from the priest, an authorization document may not be used. The Gemara answers: This statement, that one does not write authorization for movable property, applies only when the respondent, in this case the priest, already denied the claim against him. But in a case where the respondent did not yet deny the claim against him we write authorization even for movable property. In the case of redemption, although the priest claims the one issuing the claim against him is not the father of the son who died, he does not deny that he received the money.

讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐 转谞讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to two women who had not previously given birth who were married to two men, and gave birth to a male and a female who then became intermingled, the fathers are exempt from the mitzva of redemption but the son is obligated to redeem himself, as he certainly has firstborn status. If the offspring were two females and a male, or two males and two females, all of whom became intermingled, the priest has nothing here. Concerning this case Rav Huna teaches: If they gave birth to two males and a female the priest has nothing here, despite the fact that one of them is definitely a firstborn, as each father can claim that his firstborn is the female. In addition, the sons are exempt as well, since each can claim that the female was his sister and born first.

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讘砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the tanna of our mishna, why does he not state this case? The Gemara answers: Since you find this ruling that they are entirely exempt in a case where the women are married to two men, but you do not find it in a case of one man and two of his wives, as a firstborn was definitely born to that man and he must give five sela coins to a priest, the tanna does not teach the case of two women and two men either. The reason is that stylistically, the tanna prefers to teach the ruling: The priest has nothing here, only when the halakha is identical in a case of two wives of two men and a case of two wives of one man.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转 讛讘谉 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转谉 诇讻讛谉 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讬转谉 诪转 讘讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讻讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞转谉 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讗 讬转谉

MISHNA: If the firstborn son dies within thirty days of birth, although the father gave five sela to the priest, the priest must return it. If the firstborn son dies after thirty days have passed, even if the father did not give five sela coins to the priest he must give it then. If the firstborn dies on the thirtieth day, that day鈥檚 halakhic status is like that of the day that preceded it, as the obligation takes effect only after thirty days have elapsed. Rabbi Akiva says: If the firstborn dies on the thirtieth day it is a case of uncertainty; therefore, if the father already gave the redemption payment to the priest he cannot take it back, but if he did not yet give payment he does not need to give it.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讙诪专讬 讞讚砖 讞讚砖 诪诪讚讘专 诪讛 讛转诐 讜诪注诇讛 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讜诪注诇讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, who hold that the mitzva of redemption applies only after thirty days have elapsed? The Gemara explains that they derive the meaning of the term 鈥渕onth鈥 stated in this context by means of a verbal analogy from the meaning of the term 鈥渕onth鈥 stated in the context of the redemption of the Israelite firstborn in the wilderness via the Levites. Just as there, with regard to the redemption through the Levites, it is stated: 鈥淣umber all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward鈥 (Numbers 3:40), i.e., after thirty days, so too here, with regard to the mitzva of redemption for future generations, where it states: 鈥淔rom a month old you shall redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:16), the requirement: And upward, applies as well, i.e., only after thirty days.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讜诪注诇讛 讙讘讬 注专讻讬谉 讜诇讗 讙诪专讬 诪诪讚讘专 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚

And Rabbi Akiva is uncertain in this regard, as one could claim: From the fact that it was necessary for the verse to write 鈥渁nd upward鈥 with regard to the mitzva of valuations: 鈥淎nd if it be from sixty years old and upward鈥 (Leviticus 27:7), and it is not derived from the redemption of the Israelite firstborns in the wilderness that the phrase 鈥渇rom鈥ears old鈥 means 鈥渁nd upward,鈥 one can conclude the following: The redemption of the firstborn in the wilderness and valuations are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter.

讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

And there is a principle that any two verses that come as one do not teach their common halakha to other cases. If so, the halakha with regard to the mitzva of redeeming the firstborn for future generations would be that the thirtieth day is like the following day, which is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诇注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 诇讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪住驻拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Or perhaps one could say: When do two verses that come as one not teach their common halakha? That is with regard to general halakhot, i.e., entirely different areas of halakha. But with regard to themselves, i.e., similar cases, they do teach. If so, one should derive permanent halakha of redemption of firstborns from the redemption of the firstborn in the wilderness. And it is due to that reason that Rabbi Akiva is uncertain concerning a firstborn on his thirtieth day.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 诇注谞讬谉 讗讘讬诇讜转 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讻讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讬拽诇 讘讗讘诇

Rav Ashi says: All concede with regard to mourning that the thirtieth day is like the preceding day, i.e., if the son died on the thirtieth day it is considered as though he died on the day before and he has the status of a stillborn, and the rites of mourning are not observed. And the reason is as Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转 讛讗讘 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讛 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖谞驻讚讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讞讝拽转 砖谞驻讚讛 注讚 砖讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讛 讛讜讗 诇驻讚讜转 讜讘谞讜 诇驻讚讜转 讛讜讗 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞讜 拽讜讚诪讜 砖诪爪讜转讜 注诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪爪讜转 讘谞讜 注诇讬讜

MISHNA: If the father of the firstborn dies within thirty days of birth the presumptive status of the son is that he was not redeemed, until the son will bring proof that he was redeemed. If the father dies after thirty days have passed the presumptive status of the son is that he was redeemed, until people will tell him that he was not redeemed. If one had both himself to redeem and his son to redeem, his own redemption takes precedence over that of his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: The redemption of his son takes precedence, as the mitzva to redeem the father is incumbent upon his own father, and the mitzva to redeem his son is incumbent upon him.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘 讗诪专 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗讬谉 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪注讜转 讜讚讗讬 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬

GEMARA: It was stated: In the case of one who redeems his firstborn son within thirty days of his birth by giving a priest five sela coins, Rav says his son is redeemed and Shmuel says his son is not redeemed. The Gemara explains: Everyone agrees that if the father said: He is redeemed from now, that his son is not redeemed, as the obligation to redeem the son is not yet in effect. Likewise, if the father says the redemption should take effect after thirty days, and the money is still there, in the possession of the priest, after thirty days, his son is certainly redeemed, as the money is in the priest鈥檚 possession when the obligation of redemption comes into effect.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜谞转注讻诇讜 讛诪注讜转 专讘 讗诪专 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讬讚讜砖讬 讗砖讛 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞转注讻诇讜 讛诪注讜转 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬

They disagree in a situation where the father says the redemption should take effect after thirty days but the money was squandered away in the meantime. Rav says his son is redeemed, just as is the halakha with regard to the betrothal of a woman on the condition that it takes effect after thirty days. In that case there, is it not correct that even though the money was squandered away during the thirty days it is a valid betrothal?

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Here, too, the halakha is no different.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 讘讬讚讜 诇拽讚砖讛 诪注讻砖讬讜 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇驻讚讜转讜 诪注讻砖讬讜 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讜讻砖诪讜讗诇 讘讚讬谞讬 讛讻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

And Shmuel could say to you: There, with regard to betrothal, it is in his power to betroth her from now, when he gave her the coins, and therefore it is irrelevant that the money was spent. Conversely, here, in the case of redemption, it is not in his power to redeem his son from now. With regard to the practical halakha in this dispute the Gemara comments: And even though we maintain as a principle that wherever Rav and Shmuel disagree the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav in ritual matters and in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel in monetary matters, here the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that if one redeems his son within thirty days he is not redeemed.

转谞谉 诪转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转谉 诇讻讛谉 讬讞讝讬专 诇讜 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚诪转 讛讗 诇讗 诪转 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪注讜转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna on the previous amud: If the firstborn son dies within thirty days of birth, although the father gave five sela coins to the priest, the priest must return the five sela coins to him. The Gemara infers: The reason he must return the money is that the son died. But if he did not die within thirty days his son is redeemed despite the fact that the father gave the priest the money prior to the proper time. This inference contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the money is still extant, i.e., in the priest鈥檚 possession.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讞讝拽转 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讛 注讚 砖讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖谞驻讚讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪注讜转 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara comments: Come and hear another difficulty from the mishna: If the father of the firstborn son dies within thirty days of the birth the presumptive status of the son is that he is not redeemed, until people will tell him that he is redeemed. But if people tell him he is redeemed then the redemption is effective, in contradiction to the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: There too, it is referring to a case where the money is still extant, i.e., in the priest鈥檚 possession.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讻专讘 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讜讻砖诪讜讗诇 讘讚讬谞讬 讛讻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara relates that a tanna taught a baraita in the presence of Rav Yehuda: In the case of one who redeems his firstborn son within thirty days of his birth, his son is redeemed. Rav Yehuda said to him: Shmuel said his son is not redeemed, and yet you say his son is redeemed? The Gemara comments: And even though we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav in ritual matters and in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel in monetary matters, here the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

讛讜讗 诇驻讚讜转 讜讘谞讜 诇驻讚讜转 讛讜讗 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 诇驻讚讜转 讜讘谞讜 诇驻讚讜转 讛讜讗 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞讜 拽讜讚诪讜 砖诪爪讜转讜 注诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪爪讜转 讘谞讜 注诇讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if one had both himself to redeem and his son to redeem, his own redemption takes precedence over that of his son. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one had both himself to redeem and his son to redeem, his own redemption takes precedence over that of his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: The redemption of his son takes precedence, as the mitzva to redeem the father is incumbent upon his own father, and the mitzva to redeem his son is incumbent upon him. Consequently, he should first fulfill the mitzva that is incumbent upon him by redeeming his son.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讛讜讗 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪爪讜讛 讚讬讚讬讛 注讚讬祝 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞诪砖 诪砖讜注讘讚讜转 讜讞诪砖 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

Rabbi Yirmeya says: Everyone concedes that in a case where there are only five sela coins available and one has to redeem both himself and his son, his own redemption takes precedence over that of his son, despite the indication to the contrary from the mishna. What is the reason? The reason is that his own mitzva is preferable to one he performs on behalf of others. Where they disagree is in a case where there is both land worth five sela coins that is liened property that had been previously sold to others and land worth five sela coins that is unsold property.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜专讛 讻讻转讜讘讛 讘砖讟专 讚诪讬讗 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讗讝讬诇 讜讟专讬祝 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讜讘讛谞讬 讞诪砖 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛

The Gemara explains the reasoning behind the dispute: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a loan that is written in the Torah, i.e., a financial obligation by Torah law, such as redemption of the firstborn son with five sela coins, is considered as though it is written in a document, and it can therefore be collected from liened property, as can any loan recorded in a document. Therefore, the five sela coins that are liened property are available for one鈥檚 own redemption but not for that of one鈥檚 son, as the sale of the property presumably occurred before the birth of his firstborn. And therefore the priest goes and repossesses the land worth five sela that is liened property for his own redemption, like any debt written in a document; and with those five sela of unsold property he redeems his son. In this manner, one can fulfill both mitzvot.

讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪诇讜讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜专讛 诇讗讜 讻讻转讜讘讛 讘砖讟专 讚诪讬讗 讛诇讻讱 诪爪讜讛 讚讬讚讬讛 注讚讬祝

And the Rabbis maintain: A loan that is written in the Torah is not considered as though it is written in a document, since buyers will not know to guard against repossession if it is not written in a document. Therefore, the five sela coins that are liened property are not available for redemption, and consequently his own mitzva is preferable. He accordingly redeems himself with the land that is not liened.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 砖诇 讘谉 讘诪谞讛 爪讜专讬

MISHNA: The five sela coins of the redemption of the firstborn son, with regard to which it is written: 鈥淔ive shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary鈥 (Numbers 18:16), are calculated using a Tyrian maneh. The silver content of the Tyrian coinage is significantly higher than that of provincial coinage, which is worth one-eighth its value.

砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 讞诪砖讬诐 砖诇 讗讜谞住 讜砖诇 诪驻转讛 讜诪讗讛 砖诇 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讻讜诇诐 讘砖拽诇 讛拽讚砖 讘诪谞讛 爪讜专讬 讜讻讜诇谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讜讛 讻住祝 讞讜抓 诪砖拽诇讬诐

With regard to the thirty shekels paid to the owner of a Canaanite slave who is killed by an ox (see Exodus 21:32), and the fifty shekels paid by a rapist (see Deuteronomy 22:29) and by a seducer (see Exodus 22:16) of a young virgin woman, and the one hundred shekels paid by the defamer of his bride with the claim that she is not a virgin (see Deuteronomy 22:19), all of them, even those cases where the word shekel is not explicitly written, are paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary, whose value is twenty gera (see Numbers 18:16) and that is calculated using a Tyrian maneh. And all monetary obligations are redeemed, i.e., paid, with coins or with items of the equivalent value of money, except for the half-shekels that are donated to the Temple each year, which must be given specifically as coins.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛 爪讜专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 诪谞讛 砖诇 爪讜专讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讚讬谞专讗 注专讘讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬住转专讗 住专住讬讗 讚诪讬讝讚讘谞讗 转诪谞讬讗 讘讚讬谞专讗 讞诪砖 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉

GEMARA: The mishna stated that the five sela coins of the redemption of the son are calculated using a Tyrian maneh. In explanation of this, Rabbi Asi says: One must give five sela of the maneh used in Tyre. Rabbi Ami says: The five sela coins are equal to a golden Arabian dinar. Rabbi 岣nina says: There is a Syrian sela [istera], eight of which are sold for a large golden dinar. One must give five of these for the redemption of the son.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 49

讘讘讗 讘讛专砖讗讛

This is referring to a case where one of the fathers comes with authorization to act on behalf of the other father to state his claim for him, and therefore the priest cannot reject his claim. But if they gave the money to two different priests an authorization is of no effect, as each priest can claim the other took the redemption money of the son who died.

讜讛讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗讚专讻转讗 讗诪讟诇讟诇讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讻驻专讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讻驻专讬讛 讻转讘讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: We do not write an authorization document [adrakhta] concerning movable property? Therefore, in the case of redemption, where money, which has the status of movable property, is demanded from the priest, an authorization document may not be used. The Gemara answers: This statement, that one does not write authorization for movable property, applies only when the respondent, in this case the priest, already denied the claim against him. But in a case where the respondent did not yet deny the claim against him we write authorization even for movable property. In the case of redemption, although the priest claims the one issuing the claim against him is not the father of the son who died, he does not deny that he received the money.

讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐 转谞讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讻诇讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to two women who had not previously given birth who were married to two men, and gave birth to a male and a female who then became intermingled, the fathers are exempt from the mitzva of redemption but the son is obligated to redeem himself, as he certainly has firstborn status. If the offspring were two females and a male, or two males and two females, all of whom became intermingled, the priest has nothing here. Concerning this case Rav Huna teaches: If they gave birth to two males and a female the priest has nothing here, despite the fact that one of them is definitely a firstborn, as each father can claim that his firstborn is the female. In addition, the sons are exempt as well, since each can claim that the female was his sister and born first.

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讘砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the tanna of our mishna, why does he not state this case? The Gemara answers: Since you find this ruling that they are entirely exempt in a case where the women are married to two men, but you do not find it in a case of one man and two of his wives, as a firstborn was definitely born to that man and he must give five sela coins to a priest, the tanna does not teach the case of two women and two men either. The reason is that stylistically, the tanna prefers to teach the ruling: The priest has nothing here, only when the halakha is identical in a case of two wives of two men and a case of two wives of one man.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转 讛讘谉 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转谉 诇讻讛谉 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讬转谉 诪转 讘讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讻讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞转谉 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讗 讬转谉

MISHNA: If the firstborn son dies within thirty days of birth, although the father gave five sela to the priest, the priest must return it. If the firstborn son dies after thirty days have passed, even if the father did not give five sela coins to the priest he must give it then. If the firstborn dies on the thirtieth day, that day鈥檚 halakhic status is like that of the day that preceded it, as the obligation takes effect only after thirty days have elapsed. Rabbi Akiva says: If the firstborn dies on the thirtieth day it is a case of uncertainty; therefore, if the father already gave the redemption payment to the priest he cannot take it back, but if he did not yet give payment he does not need to give it.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讙诪专讬 讞讚砖 讞讚砖 诪诪讚讘专 诪讛 讛转诐 讜诪注诇讛 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讜诪注诇讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, who hold that the mitzva of redemption applies only after thirty days have elapsed? The Gemara explains that they derive the meaning of the term 鈥渕onth鈥 stated in this context by means of a verbal analogy from the meaning of the term 鈥渕onth鈥 stated in the context of the redemption of the Israelite firstborn in the wilderness via the Levites. Just as there, with regard to the redemption through the Levites, it is stated: 鈥淣umber all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward鈥 (Numbers 3:40), i.e., after thirty days, so too here, with regard to the mitzva of redemption for future generations, where it states: 鈥淔rom a month old you shall redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:16), the requirement: And upward, applies as well, i.e., only after thirty days.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讜诪注诇讛 讙讘讬 注专讻讬谉 讜诇讗 讙诪专讬 诪诪讚讘专 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚

And Rabbi Akiva is uncertain in this regard, as one could claim: From the fact that it was necessary for the verse to write 鈥渁nd upward鈥 with regard to the mitzva of valuations: 鈥淎nd if it be from sixty years old and upward鈥 (Leviticus 27:7), and it is not derived from the redemption of the Israelite firstborns in the wilderness that the phrase 鈥渇rom鈥ears old鈥 means 鈥渁nd upward,鈥 one can conclude the following: The redemption of the firstborn in the wilderness and valuations are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter.

讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

And there is a principle that any two verses that come as one do not teach their common halakha to other cases. If so, the halakha with regard to the mitzva of redeeming the firstborn for future generations would be that the thirtieth day is like the following day, which is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诇注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 诇讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪住驻拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Or perhaps one could say: When do two verses that come as one not teach their common halakha? That is with regard to general halakhot, i.e., entirely different areas of halakha. But with regard to themselves, i.e., similar cases, they do teach. If so, one should derive permanent halakha of redemption of firstborns from the redemption of the firstborn in the wilderness. And it is due to that reason that Rabbi Akiva is uncertain concerning a firstborn on his thirtieth day.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 诇注谞讬谉 讗讘讬诇讜转 讬讜诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讻讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讬拽诇 讘讗讘诇

Rav Ashi says: All concede with regard to mourning that the thirtieth day is like the preceding day, i.e., if the son died on the thirtieth day it is considered as though he died on the day before and he has the status of a stillborn, and the rites of mourning are not observed. And the reason is as Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转 讛讗讘 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讛 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖谞驻讚讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讞讝拽转 砖谞驻讚讛 注讚 砖讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讛 讛讜讗 诇驻讚讜转 讜讘谞讜 诇驻讚讜转 讛讜讗 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞讜 拽讜讚诪讜 砖诪爪讜转讜 注诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪爪讜转 讘谞讜 注诇讬讜

MISHNA: If the father of the firstborn dies within thirty days of birth the presumptive status of the son is that he was not redeemed, until the son will bring proof that he was redeemed. If the father dies after thirty days have passed the presumptive status of the son is that he was redeemed, until people will tell him that he was not redeemed. If one had both himself to redeem and his son to redeem, his own redemption takes precedence over that of his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: The redemption of his son takes precedence, as the mitzva to redeem the father is incumbent upon his own father, and the mitzva to redeem his son is incumbent upon him.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘 讗诪专 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗讬谉 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪注讜转 讜讚讗讬 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬

GEMARA: It was stated: In the case of one who redeems his firstborn son within thirty days of his birth by giving a priest five sela coins, Rav says his son is redeemed and Shmuel says his son is not redeemed. The Gemara explains: Everyone agrees that if the father said: He is redeemed from now, that his son is not redeemed, as the obligation to redeem the son is not yet in effect. Likewise, if the father says the redemption should take effect after thirty days, and the money is still there, in the possession of the priest, after thirty days, his son is certainly redeemed, as the money is in the priest鈥檚 possession when the obligation of redemption comes into effect.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜谞转注讻诇讜 讛诪注讜转 专讘 讗诪专 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讬讚讜砖讬 讗砖讛 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞转注讻诇讜 讛诪注讜转 讛讜讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬

They disagree in a situation where the father says the redemption should take effect after thirty days but the money was squandered away in the meantime. Rav says his son is redeemed, just as is the halakha with regard to the betrothal of a woman on the condition that it takes effect after thirty days. In that case there, is it not correct that even though the money was squandered away during the thirty days it is a valid betrothal?

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Here, too, the halakha is no different.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 讘讬讚讜 诇拽讚砖讛 诪注讻砖讬讜 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇驻讚讜转讜 诪注讻砖讬讜 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讜讻砖诪讜讗诇 讘讚讬谞讬 讛讻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

And Shmuel could say to you: There, with regard to betrothal, it is in his power to betroth her from now, when he gave her the coins, and therefore it is irrelevant that the money was spent. Conversely, here, in the case of redemption, it is not in his power to redeem his son from now. With regard to the practical halakha in this dispute the Gemara comments: And even though we maintain as a principle that wherever Rav and Shmuel disagree the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav in ritual matters and in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel in monetary matters, here the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that if one redeems his son within thirty days he is not redeemed.

转谞谉 诪转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转谉 诇讻讛谉 讬讞讝讬专 诇讜 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚诪转 讛讗 诇讗 诪转 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪注讜转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna on the previous amud: If the firstborn son dies within thirty days of birth, although the father gave five sela coins to the priest, the priest must return the five sela coins to him. The Gemara infers: The reason he must return the money is that the son died. But if he did not die within thirty days his son is redeemed despite the fact that the father gave the priest the money prior to the proper time. This inference contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the money is still extant, i.e., in the priest鈥檚 possession.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讞讝拽转 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讛 注讚 砖讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖谞驻讚讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪注讜转 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara comments: Come and hear another difficulty from the mishna: If the father of the firstborn son dies within thirty days of the birth the presumptive status of the son is that he is not redeemed, until people will tell him that he is redeemed. But if people tell him he is redeemed then the redemption is effective, in contradiction to the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: There too, it is referring to a case where the money is still extant, i.e., in the priest鈥檚 possession.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讘谞讜 驻讚讜讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讻专讘 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讜讻砖诪讜讗诇 讘讚讬谞讬 讛讻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

The Gemara relates that a tanna taught a baraita in the presence of Rav Yehuda: In the case of one who redeems his firstborn son within thirty days of his birth, his son is redeemed. Rav Yehuda said to him: Shmuel said his son is not redeemed, and yet you say his son is redeemed? The Gemara comments: And even though we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav in ritual matters and in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel in monetary matters, here the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

讛讜讗 诇驻讚讜转 讜讘谞讜 诇驻讚讜转 讛讜讗 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 诇驻讚讜转 讜讘谞讜 诇驻讚讜转 讛讜讗 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞讜 拽讜讚诪讜 砖诪爪讜转讜 注诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪爪讜转 讘谞讜 注诇讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if one had both himself to redeem and his son to redeem, his own redemption takes precedence over that of his son. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one had both himself to redeem and his son to redeem, his own redemption takes precedence over that of his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: The redemption of his son takes precedence, as the mitzva to redeem the father is incumbent upon his own father, and the mitzva to redeem his son is incumbent upon him. Consequently, he should first fulfill the mitzva that is incumbent upon him by redeeming his son.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讛讜讗 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谞讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪爪讜讛 讚讬讚讬讛 注讚讬祝 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞诪砖 诪砖讜注讘讚讜转 讜讞诪砖 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

Rabbi Yirmeya says: Everyone concedes that in a case where there are only five sela coins available and one has to redeem both himself and his son, his own redemption takes precedence over that of his son, despite the indication to the contrary from the mishna. What is the reason? The reason is that his own mitzva is preferable to one he performs on behalf of others. Where they disagree is in a case where there is both land worth five sela coins that is liened property that had been previously sold to others and land worth five sela coins that is unsold property.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪诇讜讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜专讛 讻讻转讜讘讛 讘砖讟专 讚诪讬讗 讜讚讬讚讬讛 讗讝讬诇 讜讟专讬祝 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讜讘讛谞讬 讞诪砖 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛

The Gemara explains the reasoning behind the dispute: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a loan that is written in the Torah, i.e., a financial obligation by Torah law, such as redemption of the firstborn son with five sela coins, is considered as though it is written in a document, and it can therefore be collected from liened property, as can any loan recorded in a document. Therefore, the five sela coins that are liened property are available for one鈥檚 own redemption but not for that of one鈥檚 son, as the sale of the property presumably occurred before the birth of his firstborn. And therefore the priest goes and repossesses the land worth five sela that is liened property for his own redemption, like any debt written in a document; and with those five sela of unsold property he redeems his son. In this manner, one can fulfill both mitzvot.

讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪诇讜讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜专讛 诇讗讜 讻讻转讜讘讛 讘砖讟专 讚诪讬讗 讛诇讻讱 诪爪讜讛 讚讬讚讬讛 注讚讬祝

And the Rabbis maintain: A loan that is written in the Torah is not considered as though it is written in a document, since buyers will not know to guard against repossession if it is not written in a document. Therefore, the five sela coins that are liened property are not available for redemption, and consequently his own mitzva is preferable. He accordingly redeems himself with the land that is not liened.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 砖诇 讘谉 讘诪谞讛 爪讜专讬

MISHNA: The five sela coins of the redemption of the firstborn son, with regard to which it is written: 鈥淔ive shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary鈥 (Numbers 18:16), are calculated using a Tyrian maneh. The silver content of the Tyrian coinage is significantly higher than that of provincial coinage, which is worth one-eighth its value.

砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 讞诪砖讬诐 砖诇 讗讜谞住 讜砖诇 诪驻转讛 讜诪讗讛 砖诇 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讻讜诇诐 讘砖拽诇 讛拽讚砖 讘诪谞讛 爪讜专讬 讜讻讜诇谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讜讛 讻住祝 讞讜抓 诪砖拽诇讬诐

With regard to the thirty shekels paid to the owner of a Canaanite slave who is killed by an ox (see Exodus 21:32), and the fifty shekels paid by a rapist (see Deuteronomy 22:29) and by a seducer (see Exodus 22:16) of a young virgin woman, and the one hundred shekels paid by the defamer of his bride with the claim that she is not a virgin (see Deuteronomy 22:19), all of them, even those cases where the word shekel is not explicitly written, are paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary, whose value is twenty gera (see Numbers 18:16) and that is calculated using a Tyrian maneh. And all monetary obligations are redeemed, i.e., paid, with coins or with items of the equivalent value of money, except for the half-shekels that are donated to the Temple each year, which must be given specifically as coins.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛 爪讜专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 诪谞讛 砖诇 爪讜专讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讚讬谞专讗 注专讘讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬住转专讗 住专住讬讗 讚诪讬讝讚讘谞讗 转诪谞讬讗 讘讚讬谞专讗 讞诪砖 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉

GEMARA: The mishna stated that the five sela coins of the redemption of the son are calculated using a Tyrian maneh. In explanation of this, Rabbi Asi says: One must give five sela of the maneh used in Tyre. Rabbi Ami says: The five sela coins are equal to a golden Arabian dinar. Rabbi 岣nina says: There is a Syrian sela [istera], eight of which are sold for a large golden dinar. One must give five of these for the redemption of the son.

Scroll To Top