Bechorot Daf 48 (בכורות דף מ״ח)
Daf: 48 | Amudim: 48a – 48b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (48a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Twins of a woman who had not given birth: the father pays five sela’im; if one twin dies within thirty days, the father is exempt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְּרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לְכֹהֵן. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — הָאָב פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The perek now applies the rules of firstborn status to cases of doubt. When a woman who has never given birth bears twin boys, one of them is certainly ‘the opener of the womb’ (peter rechem), so even though no one knows which emerged first, the father owes a single redemption of five sela’im. The obligation, however, only takes effect once the child is a month old (Numbers 18:16, ‘from a month old you shall redeem’). If one twin dies within the thirty days, it is possible that the one who died was the firstborn, whose obligation never came into force. Since the priest is the claimant and cannot prove that the survivor is the firstborn, the rule ‘the burden of proof rests on the one who seeks to extract money’ (hamotzi mechavero alav haraya) exempts the father.
Key Terms:
- מִי שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְּרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ = one whose wife had not previously given birth — so her first child opens the womb
- חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים = five sela’im, the redemption price of a firstborn son (Numbers 18:16)
- בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם = within thirty days of birth, before the obligation of pidyon haben takes effect
- הָאָב פָּטוּר = the father is exempt — the priest cannot prove the surviving twin is the firstborn
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה (מחלוקת)
The father died, both twins alive: Rabbi Meir distinguishes before and after the division of the estate; Rabbi Yehuda says the estate is already obligated; a boy and a girl owe nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵת הָאָב וְהַבָּנִים קַיָּימִים, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם נָתְנוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָלְקוּ — נָתָנוּ, וְאִם לָאו — פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נִתְחַיְּיבוּ נְכָסִים. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues the twin case. If the father dies and both sons survive, Rabbi Meir rules that payment made before the brothers divided the estate stands, but once they divide they are exempt; Rabbi Yehuda holds that the obligation has already attached to the father’s property (nitchayvu nechasim), so the heirs must pay either way. Rabbi Meir’s line between ‘before division’ and ‘after division’ is far from self-explanatory, and the whole Gemara on this amud is an attempt to pin down when the father died and why division should matter. The final clause is simpler: if the twins were a boy and a girl, the girl may have emerged first and opened the womb, so the priest receives nothing.
Key Terms:
- עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָלְקוּ = before they divided — while the brothers still hold their father’s estate jointly
- נִתְחַיְּיבוּ נְכָסִים = the property has become obligated — the redemption debt rests on the estate itself
- נָתְנוּ — נָתָנוּ = if they gave, they gave — the priest keeps what he received
- זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה = a male and a female — the female may have opened the womb, so there is no certain firstborn
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא (קושיא)
When did the father die? If after thirty days, his property was already liened — how can division exempt the heirs?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ דְּמִית הָאָב אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא דְּמִית לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — בְּהָא אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר כִּי חָלְקוּ פְּטוּרִין? וְהָא אִשְׁתַּעְבַּדוּ לְהוּ (לנכסי) [נִכְסֵי]!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the first possibility. If the father died after the thirty days, the obligation of redemption had already fallen on him personally, and a personal debt creates a lien (shi’abud) on the debtor’s property. Liened property is collected from heirs whether or not they have divided it, so Rabbi Meir’s exemption after division makes no sense in this scenario.
Key Terms:
- אִשְׁתַּעְבַּדוּ לְהוּ נִכְסֵי = the property was already liened — subject to the creditor’s claim
- שִׁעְבּוּד נְכָסִים = a lien on property that secures a debt and passes with the estate to the heirs
- לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם = after thirty days — once the father himself became obligated to redeem
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
If the father died within thirty days, the duty falls on the unknown firstborn himself — but then each brother can push the priest away even before division
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, דְּמִית בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, מַאי שְׁנָא כִּי חָלְקוּ — דְּאָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וּמְדַחֵי לֵיהּ, דְּאָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וּמְדַחֵי לֵיהּ; כִּי לֹא חָלְקוּ נָמֵי — לֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וְלִידַחֲיֵיהּ, וְלֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וְלִידַחֲיֵיהּ!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second possibility: the father died before the obligation fell on him, so it now rests on the firstborn himself, who must redeem himself. That explains why division could exempt the brothers: the priest approaches each one separately, and each says, ‘Prove that I am the firstborn.’ But the Gemara objects that the same deflection should work before division as well, since even then the priest cannot identify his debtor. Rabbi Meir’s distinction still needs an explanation.
Key Terms:
- מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ = he pushes him off — each brother rebuffs the priest’s claim for lack of proof
- לֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי = let him go to this one — the priest approaching each brother in turn
- הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה = the burden of proof rests on the one who seeks to extract money
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא (רבי ירמיה)
Rabbi Yirmeya infers the law of two men named Yosef ben Shimon who own a field jointly: a creditor of either collects from it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בְּעִיר אַחַת, וְלָקְחוּ שָׂדֶה בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת — בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מֵהֶם, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי בְּדִידָךְ מַסֵּיקְנָא — מְנָתָא דִּידָךְ קָא שָׁקֵילְנָא, וְאִי בְּחַבְרָךְ מַסֵּיקְנָא — מְנָתָא דְּחַבְרָךְ קָא שָׁקֵילְנָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya resolves the difficulty with a legal principle. Before division, the brothers are partners in a single estate, just like two men with the identical name Yosef ben Shimon who bought a field together. A creditor holding a claim against ‘Yosef ben Shimon’ cannot say which of the two owes him, yet he collects from the joint field, because whichever one is his debtor, the half of the field belonging to that man is there for the taking. So too, the undivided estate certainly contains the firstborn’s share, and the priest collects from it. Once the brothers divide, each holds a separate portion, and each can again say ‘prove it is me.’ This explains Rabbi Meir.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן = two men named Yosef ben Shimon — the stock case of identical names, where one cannot tell who is meant
- בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת = in partnership — owned jointly and undivided
- מְנָתָא דִּידָךְ קָא שָׁקֵילְנָא = I am taking your share — whichever partner is the debtor, his share is in the field
- רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה = Rabbi Yirmeya, an Amora of the Land of Israel
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא (רבא)
Rava objects: property is only a guarantor for its owner — how can the priest collect from it when he cannot claim from the debtor?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי נִכְסֵי דְּבַר אִינִישׁ אִינּוּן עָרְבִין בֵּיהּ, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דִּלְדִידֵיהּ לָא מָצֵי תָּבַע לֵיהּ, וּלְעָרֵב מָצֵי תָּבַע לֵיהּ? וְהָתְנַן: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל יְדֵי עָרֵב — לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרֵב, וְקַיְימָא לַן דְּלֹא יִתְבַּע מִן הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava rejects Rabbi Yirmeya’s approach. A person’s property functions as a guarantor (arev) for his debts, and the law of guarantors is that the creditor may not turn to the guarantor before claiming from the borrower (Bava Batra 173a). If the priest cannot press either brother personally, because each can deny being the firstborn, he should not be able to reach their property either: property cannot be more liable than its owner. Rabbi Yirmeya’s partnership model therefore fails to explain why the priest collects before division.
Key Terms:
- נִכְסֵי דְּבַר אִינִישׁ אִינּוּן עָרְבִין בֵּיהּ = a person’s property is his guarantor — the lien on property is secondary to the personal obligation
- הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל יְדֵי עָרֵב = one who lends to another through a guarantor
- לֹא יִתְבַּע מִן הֶעָרֵב תְּחִלָּה = he may not claim from the guarantor first — the borrower is approached before the guarantor
- רָבָא = Rava, the fourth-generation Babylonian Amora
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ (רבא)
Rava’s own reading: the father died after thirty days, and the estate is worth exactly five sela’im
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם שֶׁמֵּת לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְאִי דְּאִיכָּא נִכְסֵי טוּבָא — הָכִי נָמֵי דְּשָׁקֵיל, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava returns to the first scenario, which the Gemara had rejected. The father did die after the thirty days, so the estate is liened, and if there is substantial property the priest indeed collects from it even after the brothers divide. The mishna’s dispute concerns a narrow case: the entire estate is worth only five sela’im. Rava will now explain, using two established Amoraic principles, why division in such a case reduces what the priest can collect.
Key Terms:
- לְעוֹלָם = actually — the Gemara reinstates a reading it had set aside
- נִכְסֵי טוּבָא = much property — an estate large enough to pay the debt in full
- לֵיכָּא אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים = there is nothing but five sela’im — the whole estate equals the redemption sum
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא (נמשך בעמוד ב)
Rava’s two premises begin: Rav Asi’s rule that brothers who divide are half heirs and half purchasers; and the status of a Torah-mandated debt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב אַסִּי, דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ — מֶחֱצָה יוֹרְשִׁין וּמֶחֱצָה לָקוֹחוֹת, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִלְוֶה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה
English Translation:
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,
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s explanation rests on two premises that ‘everyone’ accepts. The first is Rav Asi’s: when brothers divide an inheritance, each one’s portion is only half his by inheritance, while the other half he is regarded as having bought from his brother in exchange for relinquishing his own claim to the other portion. The second premise, about a debt ‘written in the Torah’ such as the redemption of the firstborn, begins here and is completed at the top of 48b. Together they will show that after division only half of the estate is in the hands of ‘heirs.’
Key Terms:
- הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ = brothers who divided an inheritance
- מֶחֱצָה יוֹרְשִׁין וּמֶחֱצָה לָקוֹחוֹת = half heirs and half purchasers — each brother’s portion is half inherited and half acquired by exchange
- מִלְוֶה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה = a debt written in the Torah — an obligation created by Torah law rather than by a loan contract
- רַב אַסִּי = Rav Asi, a first-generation Babylonian Amora
Amud Bet (48b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מימרא (המשך מעמוד א)
A Torah-mandated debt is like an oral loan, and Rav Pappa rules an oral loan is collected from heirs but not from purchasers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָאו כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence begun on 48a concludes: a debt ‘written in the Torah’ does not have the force of a debt recorded in a document. A written loan is publicized and creates a lien that follows the property even into the hands of buyers, but an oral loan does not. Rav Pappa rules that an oral loan can be collected from the debtor’s heirs but not from those who purchased his property. Combined with Rav Asi’s principle, the priest can collect only from the half of the divided estate that the brothers hold as heirs: two and a half sela’im out of five.
Key Terms:
- כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר = like a debt written in a document — which creates a publicized lien enforceable against buyers
- מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה = an oral loan — a debt without a document
- גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין = is collected from the heirs, who stand in the debtor’s place
- אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת = is not collected from purchasers of the debtor’s property
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ (המשך)
The dispute: must the priest receive a full five sela’im, or does part of five also count?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָכָא בְּחָמֵשׁ וְלֹא בַּחֲצִי חָמֵשׁ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: חָמֵשׁ וְלֹא חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: חָמֵשׁ וַאֲפִילּוּ חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
With two and a half sela’im collectible after division, Rava identifies the dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that the Torah’s ‘five shekels’ is an all-or-nothing obligation: a partial payment is not the mitzva, so the heirs owe nothing once only half the estate is reachable. Before division, though, the entire estate is inherited and all five sela’im are collectible, which is why Rabbi Meir upholds a payment made ‘before they divided.’ Rabbi Yehuda holds that even part of the five is owed, so the priest takes the two and a half sela’im from the inherited half.
Key Terms:
- חָמֵשׁ וְלֹא חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ = five and not half of five — only a complete redemption sum is owed
- חָמֵשׁ וַאֲפִילּוּ חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ = five and even half of five — a partial sum is owed when the full sum is unavailable
- קָמִיפַּלְגִי = they disagree
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא (שתיים)
Two challenges to Rava: Rabbi Yehuda’s wording should be ‘the man is obligated’, and a baraita has Rabbi Yehuda require ten dinars for each brother
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר נִתְחַיְּיבוּ נְכָסִים, נִתְחַיֵּיב גַּבְרָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ, אִם יֵשׁ עֲשָׂרָה זוּז לָזֶה וַעֲשָׂרָה זוּז לָזֶה — חַיָּיבִין, וְאִם לָאו — פְּטוּרִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rava’s reconstruction twice. First, if Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the priest loses the half held ‘as purchasers’ and collects only from what the brothers took as heirs, the obligation is really being collected from them as persons; he should have said ‘the man is obligated’, not ‘the property is obligated.’ Second, a baraita reports that Rabbi Yehuda obligates brothers who have divided only if each holds ten dinars; otherwise they are exempt. Since four dinars make a sela, ten dinars equal two and a half sela’im, and the Gemara will now show that this threshold contradicts Rava.
Key Terms:
- נִתְחַיֵּיב גַּבְרָא = the man is obligated — a personal liability rather than a lien on property
- עֲשָׂרָה זוּז = ten zuz (dinars) — two and a half sela’im, since a sela is four dinars
- תַּנְיָא = it is taught in a baraita — a Tannaitic teaching outside the Mishna
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא (ניתוח הברייתא)
If the ten dinars include both the inherited and purchased halves, why require ten at all, if Rabbi Yehuda accepts part of five?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי עֲשָׂרָה זוּז לָזֶה וַעֲשָׂרָה זוּז לָזֶה? אִילֵּימָא בֵּין דִּירוּשָּׁה בֵּין דְּלָקוֹחוֹת, וְחָמֵשׁ וַאֲפִילּוּ חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ — אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא עֲשָׂרָה? אֲפִילּוּ בְּצִיר מֵעֲשָׂרָה נָמֵי!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara works through the baraita. Suppose ‘ten dinars for each’ means each brother’s whole portion, inherited and purchased halves together, so the estate totals five sela’im. On Rava’s account, Rabbi Yehuda collects only the inherited half and accepts part of five. But then there is no reason for a threshold of ten: whatever the brothers hold as heirs, however little, should go to the priest.
Key Terms:
- בֵּין דִּירוּשָּׁה בֵּין דְּלָקוֹחוֹת = both of inheritance and of purchase — counting each brother’s entire portion
- מַאי אִירְיָא = why specifically — why name this amount if the law is not limited to it
- בְּצִיר מֵעֲשָׂרָה = less than ten
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא (מסקנה)
So the ten dinars must be the inherited half alone — which means Rabbi Yehuda requires a full five sela’im
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא, עֲשָׂרָה זוּז דִּירוּשָּׁה לָזֶה, וַעֲשָׂרָה זוּז דִּירוּשָּׁה לָזֶה, אַלְמָא: חָמֵשׁ וְלֹא חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The only sensible reading is that each brother must hold ten dinars as an heir, so that the inherited halves together reach five sela’im. That reading presupposes Rav Asi’s half-heir rule, but it also shows that Rabbi Yehuda demands the full sum and does not accept part of five. Rava’s claim that the Tannaim dispute ‘five and not half of five’ is therefore refuted.
Key Terms:
- עֲשָׂרָה זוּז דִּירוּשָּׁה = ten zuz of inheritance — counting only the inherited half of each portion
- אַלְמָא = evidently
- סְבִירָא לֵיהּ = he holds
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Revised explanation: all agree on ‘five and not half of five’; the Tannaim disagree about the rulings of Rav Asi and Rav Pappa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא חָמֵשׁ וְלֹא חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ, וְהָכָא בִּדְרַב אַסִּי וְרַב פָּפָּא קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara withdraws the earlier premise that ‘everyone accepts’ Rav Asi and Rav Pappa. Both Tannaim agree that only a full five sela’im fulfils the redemption. Rabbi Meir accepts the principles that divided brothers are half purchasers and that a Torah debt cannot be collected from purchasers, so after division only two and a half sela’im are reachable and nothing is owed. Rabbi Yehuda rejects them, so the whole five-sela estate remains collectible even after division, which also fits the baraita’s ‘ten dinars for each’ as a total of five sela’im.
Key Terms:
- דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא = according to everyone — a premise both disputants share
- בִּדְרַב אַסִּי וְרַב פָּפָּא קָמִיפַּלְגִי = they disagree regarding the rulings of Rav Asi and Rav Pappa
- אֶלָּא = rather — introducing a new explanation after the previous one is rejected
Segment 7
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא (קושיא)
A second version attaches the discussion to Rabbi Yehuda’s clause: if the father died after thirty days, could Rabbi Meir exempt them after division?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לֵיהּ אַסֵּיפָא, נִתְחַיְּיבוּ הַנְּכָסִים, דְּמִית הָאָב אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא דְּמִית לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר כִּי חָלְקוּ פְּטוּרִין? הָא אִישְׁתַּעְבַּדוּ לְהוּ נִכְסֵי!
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now presents a second version (lishna) of the same discussion, which starts from Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling that ‘the property has become obligated.’ It asks the same question about timing. If the father died after thirty days, Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling is obvious, and the implication is that Rabbi Meir exempts the brothers after division, which is impossible when the property is already liened. The structure mirrors 48a’s first version, but the burden now falls on explaining Rabbi Yehuda.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לֵיהּ אַסֵּיפָא = some teach it on the latter clause — an alternate version of the passage
- מִכְּלָל = by inference
- לִישָּׁנָא = version — a parallel transmission of a Talmudic discussion
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
If the father died within thirty days, why does Rabbi Yehuda obligate the brothers after division, when each can deny being the firstborn?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים, כִּי חָלְקוּ, אַמַּאי מְחַיֵּיב רַבִּי יְהוּדָה? לֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי לִידַחֲיֵיהּ, וְגַבֵּי הַאי וְלִידְחֲיֵיהּ!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The alternative fails too. If the father died within thirty days, the obligation falls on the unidentified firstborn himself. Once the estate is divided, each brother can tell the priest to prove that he is the firstborn. Why then does Rabbi Yehuda hold them liable even after division? In the first version the puzzle was why division helps (Rabbi Meir); here it is why division does not help (Rabbi Yehuda).
Key Terms:
- מְחַיֵּיב = he holds liable
- לִידַחֲיֵיהּ = let him push him away
- כִּי חָלְקוּ = when they have divided
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא (רבי ירמיה, לישנא בתרא)
In this version, Rabbi Yirmeya infers the law of one Yosef ben Shimon who bought a field from the other: an earlier creditor collects from the buyer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בְּעִיר אַחַת, וְלָקַח אֶחָד מֵהֶם שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ — בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי בְּדִידָךְ מַסֵּיקְנָא — מְנָתָא דִּידָךְ קָא שָׁקֵילְנָא, וְאִי בְּחַבְרָךְ מַסֵּיקְנָא — מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדָא לִי מִקַּמֵּי דִּידָךְ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya again draws a lesson from the case of two men named Yosef ben Shimon, but here one bought a field from the other. A creditor of ‘Yosef ben Shimon’ collects from the field regardless: if the buyer is his debtor, the field is the debtor’s own property; if the seller is his debtor, the field was liened to the creditor before it was sold. Applied to the brothers: after division, each brother’s portion was received partly from the other brother, and the firstborn’s obligation existed before the division. Whichever brother is the firstborn, the priest’s claim reaches every portion, so Rabbi Yehuda obligates them even after division.
Key Terms:
- וְלָקַח אֶחָד מֵהֶם שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ = and one of them bought a field from the other
- מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדָא לִי מִקַּמֵּי דִּידָךְ = it was liened to me before it became yours
- בַּעַל חוֹב מוּקְדָּם = an earlier creditor, whose lien precedes the sale
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא (רבא)
Rava’s objection repeats: property guarantees its owner’s debt, so it cannot be liable when the owner is not — and the rest is as in the first version
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי נִכְסוֹהִי דְּבַר אִינִישׁ אִינּוּן עָרְבִין בֵּיהּ, וְכוּלַּהּ כְּלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava answers this version exactly as he answered the first: property is only a guarantor for its owner’s obligation, and one cannot collect from a guarantor when the debtor himself cannot be pressed. The Gemara notes briefly that from here on the discussion follows the first version: Rava’s reading that the father died after thirty days with an estate worth five sela’im, the principles of Rav Asi and Rav Pappa, and the Gemara’s challenges and final explanation.
Key Terms:
- נִכְסוֹהִי דְּבַר אִינִישׁ אִינּוּן עָרְבִין בֵּיהּ = a person’s property is his guarantor
- וְכוּלַּהּ כְּלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא = and all of it is like the first version
- עָרֵב = a guarantor
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
Two wives of one man bear two sons who are mixed up: ten sela’im; if one dies within thirty days, one priest returns five, two priests return nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא בִּכֵּרוּ וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — נוֹתֵן עֲשָׂרָה סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אִם לְכֹהֵן אֶחָד נָתַן — יַחֲזִיר לוֹ חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים, וְאִם לִשְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים נָתַן — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna moves from twins of one mother to sons of two mothers. If one man’s two wives, neither of whom had given birth, each bear a son and the babies are mixed up, the mix-up is irrelevant: each child certainly opened his own mother’s womb, so the father owes ten sela’im. If one baby dies within thirty days, the father owed only five. Where all ten went to a single priest, that priest certainly holds five sela’im he was not owed and must return them. Where each priest received five, each can claim that his payment was for the surviving son, and the father, as claimant, has no proof.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים = two wives of one man
- עֲשָׂרָה סְלָעִים = ten sela’im — two full redemptions
- יַחֲזִיר לוֹ חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים = he returns five sela’im — the excess is certainly in his hands
- אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם = he cannot extract it from their possession — each priest can claim he holds the living son’s redemption
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה
Boy and girl, or two boys and a girl: five sela’im; two girls and a boy, or two boys and two girls: nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, אוֹ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבָה — נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן; שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וְזָכָר, אוֹ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּשְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna applies the same logic to mixed sexes, still for one man with two first-time mothers. If one wife bore a son and the other a daughter, the son is certainly the first child of his mother, so five sela’im are due. With two sons and a daughter, at least one mother bore a single son, who is certainly her firstborn, so again five are due. With two daughters and a son, the son may have been born after his sister, and with two sons and two daughters each mother may have borne a daughter first. In those cases no boy is certainly a firstborn, and the priest receives nothing.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבָה = two males and a female
- שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וְזָכָר = two females and a male
- אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם = the priest has nothing here — no son is certainly a firstborn
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה
One wife had given birth before and one had not, and both bear sons: five sela’im; if one dies within thirty days, the father is exempt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַחַת בִּכֵּרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּכֵּרָה, וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן, מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — הָאָב פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Now one of the wives had already given birth. Of the two sons, the one born to the first-time mother is certainly a firstborn, so five sela’im are due even though no one knows which baby he is. If one dies within thirty days, the dead child may be that firstborn, whose obligation never took effect, so the priest cannot prove a debt and the father is exempt. The case parallels the twins on 48a.
Key Terms:
- אַחַת בִּכֵּרָה = one had already given birth — her son is not a peter rechem
- וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּכֵּרָה = and one had not given birth — her son is certainly a firstborn
- סְפֵק בְּכוֹר = a possible firstborn — uncertain status, from which no payment can be extracted
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה (מחלוקת)
The father died with both sons alive: the same dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda; a boy and a girl owe nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵת הָאָב וְהַבָּנִים קַיָּימִים, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם נָתְנוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָלְקוּ נָתְנוּ, וְאִם לָאו פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נִתְחַיְּיבוּ נְכָסִים, זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה אֵין לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The 48a dispute recurs in the two-wives case. If the father dies and both sons live, Rabbi Meir upholds payment made before division but exempts the brothers after it, while Rabbi Yehuda holds that the estate is already obligated. The Gemara’s analysis of the twins case, through both versions, applies here as well. If one wife bore a son and the other a daughter, the daughter may belong to the first-time mother, so the son may not be a firstborn, and the priest receives nothing.
Key Terms:
- מֵת הָאָב וְהַבָּנִים קַיָּימִים = the father died and the sons are alive
- נִתְחַיְּיבוּ נְכָסִים = the property has become obligated
- זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה = a male and a female — the female may be the first-time mother’s child
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה
Two first-time mothers married to two men bear sons who are mixed up: each father pays five; if one dies, one priest returns five, two priests return nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁל שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא בִּכֵּרוּ, וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — זֶה נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן וְזֶה נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים — אִם לַכֹּהֵן אֶחָד נָתָנוּ, יַחֲזִיר לָהֶם חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים. אִם לִשְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים נָתָנוּ — אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna now places the two mothers in two separate households. Since each woman’s son certainly opened her womb, each father owes five sela’im for his own son, whichever baby that is. If one son dies within thirty days, one of the fathers was never obligated. A single priest holding ten sela’im must return five to them, but two priests holding five each can both claim their payment redeemed the living son. The Gemara will ask why the single priest cannot fend off each father separately.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁל שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים = two women of two men — two separate marriages
- זֶה נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים = this one gives five sela’im — each father redeems his own son
- יַחֲזִיר לָהֶם = he returns to them — to the two fathers together
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה
Two men, a boy and a girl: the fathers are exempt but the son must redeem himself; two girls and a boy, or two girls and two boys: nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — הָאָבוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וְהַבֵּן חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ; שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וְזָכָר, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וּשְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Here the separate households change the result. In the one-man case a boy and a girl meant five sela’im, because the boy was surely his father’s firstborn son. With two fathers, each father can say ‘my child is the girl,’ and no one can prove otherwise, so both are exempt. The boy, however, is certainly the first child of his mother, whoever she is, so he must redeem himself when he grows up. With two girls and a boy, or two girls and two boys, no boy is certainly a firstborn, and the priest receives nothing.
Key Terms:
- הָאָבוֹת פְּטוּרִין = the fathers are exempt — each can claim the daughter is his
- הַבֵּן חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ = the son is obligated to redeem himself — the mitzva passes to the firstborn when the father is not obligated
- שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וּשְׁנֵי זְכָרִים = two females and two males — each mother may have borne a daughter first
Segment 17
TYPE: משנה
Two men, one wife experienced and one first-time: the husband of the first-time mother pays five; a boy and a girl owe nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַחַת בִּכֵּרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּכֵּרָה, שֶׁל שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים, וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְּרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן; זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
In the last case one woman had given birth before and the other had not, each married to a different man. If both bear sons, the first-time mother’s son is certainly a firstborn, and since both boys are alive her husband’s son is surely among them, so that husband pays five sela’im. If one bore a son and the other a daughter, the daughter may be the first-time mother’s child and the son the other woman’s, so no one owes the priest anything.
Key Terms:
- זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְּרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ = the one whose wife had not given birth — his son is certainly a firstborn
- שֶׁל שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים = of two men
- אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם = the priest has nothing here
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא (שאלה)
Why can the fathers not recover money from two priests? Because each priest rebuffs each father
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים, דְּאָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וּמְדַחֵי לֵיהּ, וְאָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וּמְדַחֵי לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens by explaining the mishna’s case of two priests. When one son has died and each priest holds five sela’im, a father who comes to reclaim his money is told: ‘The money I received was for the living child; prove otherwise.’ The same answer is given to the second father, so neither recovers anything. This sets up the next question about the single priest.
Key Terms:
- מַאי שְׁנָא = what is different
- מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ = he pushes him away — the priest dismisses the claim for lack of proof
- שְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים = two priests
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא (נמשך בדף מט.)
Even with one priest, each father could be rebuffed in turn; Shmuel’s answer begins here and continues on 49a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֹּהֵן אֶחָד נָמֵי לֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וְלִידַחֲיֵיהּ, וְלֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וְלִידַחֲיֵיהּ! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:
English Translation:
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:
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the mishna’s ruling about a single priest. When two fathers paid the same priest, he certainly holds five sela’im that are not his, but each father who comes separately can be told, ‘Your son is the one who lived.’ The priest should be able to rebuff both, just as two priests do. The amud ends on the words ‘Shmuel says,’ and his answer opens 49a: one father comes with a power of attorney (harsha’a) from the other, so he is claiming on behalf of both and the priest cannot dismiss him.
Key Terms:
- כֹּהֵן אֶחָד = one priest
- אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל = Shmuel says — the first-generation Babylonian Amora, whose answer continues on 49a
- הַרְשָׁאָה = power of attorney — the subject of Shmuel’s answer on 49a