Bechorot Daf 49 (בכורות דף מ״ט)
Daf: 49 | Amudim: 49a – 49b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (49a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ (המשך מדף מח:)
Shmuel’s answer: the single-priest case is one where a father comes with power of attorney from the other, so the priest cannot push him off
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּבָא בְּהַרְשָׁאָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This line completes the question that closed 48b. The mishna ruled that when two intermingled firstborns of two fathers were redeemed through a single priest and one of the babies died within thirty days, the priest must return five sela. The Gemara objected: why should one priest be different from two? Each father who comes to reclaim can be told ‘perhaps your son is the one who lived’, and the priest may keep the money, since the burden of proof lies on the claimant (hamotzi me-chavero alav ha-re’aya). Shmuel answers that the mishna speaks of a father who comes with a harsha’a, a power of attorney from the other father. Now the claimant stands in for both fathers, and one of them is certainly owed five sela, so the priest has no one to deflect him toward. With two priests the harsha’a does not help, because each priest can say that it was the other who took the money for the dead child.
Key Terms:
- הַרְשָׁאָה = authorization, power of attorney — the transfer of a claim to another person so that he may sue for it
- בָּא בְּהַרְשָׁאָה = comes with authorization (from the other father)
- מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ = pushes him off — the priest’s ability to reject each claimant separately
- הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה = the burden of proof rests on the one who seeks to extract money from another
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The Sages of Neharde’a do not write an authorization for movables — that applies only once the defendant has denied the claim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: לָא כָּתְבִינַן אַדְרַכְתָּא אַמִּטַּלְטְלִי! הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּכַפְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא כַּפְרֵיהּ — כָּתְבִינַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But didn’t the Sages of Neharde’a 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Shmuel’s answer from a rule of the Sages of Neharde’a: a court does not write an authorization document (adrakhta, here in the sense of harsha’a) for movable property. Redemption money is movable property, so how can one father empower the other to claim it? The answer limits the Neharde’a rule to a case where the defendant has already denied (kafrei) the claim: a movable item held by someone who denies having it is no longer in the owner’s effective possession, and one cannot transfer what one does not effectively hold. Where there is no denial, authorization may be written even for movables. Here the priest does not deny receiving the money; he merely questions whose child died, so the authorization stands.
Key Terms:
- אַדְרַכְתָּא = an authorization document (in this context, the document of harsha’a)
- נְהַרְדָּעֵי = the Sages of Neharde’a, the Babylonian academy town of Shmuel
- מִטַּלְטְלֵי = movable property, as opposed to land
- כַּפְרֵיהּ = he denied it — the respondent has denied the claim
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא (תָּנָא רַב הוּנָא)
Quoting the mishna’s male-and-female case, Rav Huna adds: two males and a female — the priest has nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. תָּנָא רַב הוּנָא: שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבָה — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites the mishna’s case of two first-time mothers married to two men who bore a male and a female that became intermingled: the fathers are exempt, the son must redeem himself, and with two females and one or two males the priest has nothing. Rav Huna adds a case the mishna omits: two males and a female. Here one of the boys is certainly a firstborn, since three children came from two first-time mothers and at least one mother’s first child was a boy. Yet the priest still collects nothing. Each father can claim that his wife bore the female first, and the priest, as the one seeking to extract money, cannot prove otherwise. The sons are exempt for the same reason, since each can claim that his sister preceded him.
Key Terms:
- תָּנָא רַב הוּנָא = Rav Huna taught — introducing a tannaitic teaching he transmits
- אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם = the priest has nothing here — no one can be compelled to pay
- זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה = a male and a female (who became intermingled)
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why our mishna omits Rav Huna’s case: it holds only for two men, and the tanna teaches ‘the priest has nothing’ only where it holds for one man too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַנָּא דִּידַן, כֵּיוָן דְּבִשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים הוּא דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ — לָא מִתְּנֵי לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
If Rav Huna’s ruling is correct, why did the tanna of our mishna not teach it? The Gemara answers with an observation about the mishna’s style. The total exemption in Rav Huna’s case works only when the two women are married to two different men, since each father can deflect the claim onto the other. With one man and two wives, a son of his is certainly a firstborn, and he must pay five sela whichever boy it is. The mishna’s formula ‘the priest has nothing here’ is reserved for rulings that hold equally whether the two women belong to one husband or to two, so Rav Huna’s case, which depends on two husbands, was left out.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּא דִּידַן = our tanna — the author of our mishna
- מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ = you find it (the ruling applies)
- לָא מִתְּנֵי לֵיהּ = he does not teach it — a stylistic choice of the mishna
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
A firstborn who dies within thirty days, after thirty days, or on the thirtieth day; Rabbi Akiva treats the thirtieth day as a doubt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ מֵת הַבֵּן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לַכֹּהֵן — יַחְזִיר. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן — יִתֵּן. מֵת בְּיוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים — כְּיוֹם שֶׁלְּפָנָיו. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אִם נָתַן — לֹא יִטּוֹל, וְאִם לֹא נָתַן — לֹא יִתֵּן.
English Translation:
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’s 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The obligation of pidyon haben takes effect only when the child reaches ‘a month old’ (Numbers 18:16). A baby who dies within thirty days was never subject to the obligation, since his viability was not yet established, so money already given must be returned. Once thirty days have passed the debt is fixed, and even if the child then dies the father must pay. For death on the thirtieth day itself, the Rabbis treat that day like the days before it, so nothing is owed. Rabbi Akiva is in doubt, and applies the rule that money stays where it is: if the father already paid he cannot reclaim it, and if he did not pay he need not give.
Key Terms:
- מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ תִּפְדֶּה = ‘from a month old you shall redeem’ (Numbers 18:16) — the source of the thirty-day threshold
- יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים כְּיוֹם שֶׁלְּפָנָיו = the thirtieth day is like the day before it
- אִם נָתַן לֹא יִטּוֹל = if he gave, he does not take back — the money stays with its holder in a case of doubt
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא (גזירה שוה)
The Rabbis’ source: a verbal analogy of ‘month’ from the census of the firstborn in the wilderness, where the verse says ‘and upward’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? גָּמְרִי ״חֹדֶשׁ״ ״חֹדֶשׁ״ מִמִּדְבָּר, מָה הָתָם ״וָמַעְלָה״ אַף הָכָא נָמֵי וָמַעְלָה.
English Translation:
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 “month” stated in this context by means of a verbal analogy from the meaning of the term “month” 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: “Number all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward” (Numbers 3:40), i.e., after thirty days, so too here, with regard to the mitzva of redemption for future generations, where it states: “From a month old you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:16), the requirement: And upward, applies as well, i.e., only after thirty days.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis learn the rule for all generations from the redemption of the firstborn in the wilderness, when the Levites replaced the firstborn of Israel. There the verse counts the firstborn ‘from a month old and upward’ (Numbers 3:40), and by a gezera shava on the word ‘month’ the same ‘and upward’ is read into Numbers 18:16. ‘And upward’ means a full month must be complete, so the obligation begins only after the thirtieth day, and death on day thirty is like death before it.
Key Terms:
- גָּמְרִי חֹדֶשׁ חֹדֶשׁ = they derive ‘month’ from ‘month’ — a gezera shava
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה = a verbal analogy, applying the law of one passage to another through a shared word
- מִדְבָּר = the wilderness — here, the census and redemption of the firstborn through the Levites (Numbers 3)
- וָמַעְלָה = and upward — only after the stated age is complete
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא (טעמו של רבי עקיבא)
Rabbi Akiva’s doubt: ‘and upward’ had to be written for valuations too, so the wilderness and valuations are two verses that come as one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״וָמַעְלָה״ גַּבֵּי עֲרָכִין, וְלָא גָּמְרִי מִמִּדְבָּר — הָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד,
English Translation:
And Rabbi Akiva is uncertain in this regard, as one could claim: From the fact that it was necessary for the verse to write “and upward” with regard to the mitzva of valuations: “And if it be from sixty years old and upward” (Leviticus 27:7), and it is not derived from the redemption of the Israelite firstborns in the wilderness that the phrase “from…years old” means “and upward,” 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva’s uncertainty rests on a problem with the Rabbis’ derivation. The Torah writes ‘and upward’ explicitly in the laws of valuations (arakhin): ‘from sixty years old and upward’ (Leviticus 27:7). Had the wilderness verse been able to teach its ‘and upward’ to other passages, valuations could have learned it from there and the Torah would not have needed to repeat it. Since it did repeat it, the wilderness and valuations are ‘two verses that come as one’, two texts that state the same rule independently. The next two segments spell out why this leaves Rabbi Akiva in doubt.
Key Terms:
- מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ = he is uncertain
- עֲרָכִין = valuations — the fixed sums pledged to the Temple according to a person’s age and sex (Leviticus 27)
- שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד = two verses that come as one — two passages that teach the same rule
Segment 8
TYPE: כלל (המשך)
The rule: two verses that come as one do not teach — so redemption for future generations would not learn ‘and upward’, and day thirty would count
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד — אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first side of Rabbi Akiva’s doubt applies a standard hermeneutical principle: when the Torah states the same rule in two places, the repetition shows that the rule is limited to those cases, so it may not be extended to a third. On this view the ‘and upward’ of the wilderness cannot pass to the redemption of later generations. ‘From a month old’ in Numbers 18:16 would then mean that the thirtieth day already belongs to the month, so a child who dies on that day must still be redeemed, against the view of the Rabbis.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין = any two verses that come as one do not teach (their rule to other cases)
- מְלַמְּדִין = they teach — they serve as the source for another case
Segment 9
TYPE: ספק (הצד השני)
Or perhaps such verses teach their own kind of case — and redemption for future generations is the same kind as redemption in the wilderness
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ דִלְמָא: כִּי אֵין מְלַמְּדִין — לְעָלְמָא, אֲבָל לְגוּפַיְיהוּ — מְלַמְּדִין, וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The other side of the doubt narrows the principle. Perhaps ‘two verses that come as one do not teach’ applies only to entirely separate areas of law (le-alma), while within their own subject (le-gufayhu) they still teach. Redemption of the firstborn in later generations is the same subject as the redemption in the wilderness, so it would learn ‘and upward’ from there, as the Rabbis say. Unable to decide between the two readings, Rabbi Akiva treats death on the thirtieth day as a true doubt, which is why the money stays wherever it is.
Key Terms:
- לְעָלְמָא = to the world at large — to unrelated areas of law
- לְגוּפַיְיהוּ = to themselves — to cases of the same kind as the verses’ own subject
- אוֹ דִלְמָא = or perhaps — introducing the second side of a doubt
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Ashi: on mourning, everyone agrees day thirty is like the day before, since the halakha follows the lenient view in mourning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים לְעִנְיַן אֲבֵילוּת, יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים כְּיוֹם שֶׁלְּפָנָיו. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּאֵבֶל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi limits Rabbi Akiva’s doubt to redemption money. For mourning, everyone, Rabbi Akiva included, treats the thirtieth day like the days before it. A baby who dies within thirty days has the status of a possible nefel, a non-viable birth, for whom the rites of mourning are not observed, so a child who dies on the thirtieth day is not mourned. The reason is Shmuel’s general rule that in the laws of mourning the halakha follows the more lenient opinion. Where Rabbi Akiva’s doubt would make mourning obligatory, the lenient view of the Rabbis prevails.
Key Terms:
- אֲבֵילוּת = mourning — the rites observed for a close relative
- הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּאֵבֶל = the halakha follows the lenient view in matters of mourning
- נֵפֶל = a non-viable birth — a baby not shown to be viable, for whom mourning is not observed
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
A father who dies within or after thirty days: presumptions about whether his son was redeemed; a father who must redeem both himself and his son
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ מֵת הָאָב בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים — בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדָּה, עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנִּפְדָּה; לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁנִּפְדָּה, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדָּה. הוּא לִפְדּוֹת וּבְנוֹ לִפְדּוֹת — הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ; רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּנוֹ קוֹדְמוֹ, שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ עַל אָבִיו וּמִצְוַת בְּנוֹ עָלָיו.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna sets two presumptions (chazakot). If the father died within thirty days, he could not yet have redeemed his son, so the son is presumed unredeemed until he brings proof otherwise. If the father died after thirty days, the son is presumed redeemed, since a father does not normally neglect a mitzva once it falls due; this holds until people say that he was not redeemed. The second ruling concerns a man who was never redeemed and now has a firstborn of his own: the first tanna says his own redemption comes first. Rabbi Yehuda says his son’s comes first, because his own redemption was his father’s duty, while his son’s redemption is his own.
Key Terms:
- בְּחֶזְקַת = under the presumption of — a default status assumed until evidence shows otherwise
- הוּא לִפְדּוֹת וּבְנוֹ לִפְדּוֹת = he to redeem and his son to redeem — a man who must redeem both himself and his son
- מִצְוָתוֹ עַל אָבִיו = the mitzva of his redemption rests on his father
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא (מחלוקת רב ושמואל)
Redeeming within thirty days: Rav says the son is redeemed, Shmuel says not; the Gemara sets out what all agree on
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר: הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, רַב אָמַר: בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי. דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ — אֵין בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי, לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וְאִיתַנְהוּ לְמָעוֹת — וַדַּאי בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי.
English Translation:
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’s possession when the obligation of redemption comes into effect.
קלאוד על הדף:
The amoraim dispute a father who gives the five sela to a priest before the thirty days are up. The Gemara first defines the dispute. If the father says the redemption takes effect ‘from now’, everyone agrees it fails, because there is no obligation yet to discharge. If he intends it to take effect after thirty days and the coins are still with the priest at that point, everyone agrees the son is redeemed, since the money is in the priest’s hands when the obligation begins. The dispute lies in the case between these two, described in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- אִיתְּמַר = it was stated — introducing an amoraic dispute
- מֵעַכְשָׁיו = from now — the redemption is meant to take effect immediately
- אִיתַנְהוּ לְמָעוֹת = the money is extant — the coins still exist in the priest’s possession
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא (טעמו של רב)
Rav: the case is where the money was used up before day thirty — compared to betrothal ‘after thirty days’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי פְּלִיגִי לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְנִתְעַכְּלוּ הַמָּעוֹת, רַב אָמַר: בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקִּידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה, הָתָם לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּנִתְעַכְּלוּ הַמָּעוֹת — הָווּ קִידּוּשֵׁי,
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The dispute concerns redemption that is set to take effect after thirty days when the priest has spent the money in the meantime. Rav says the son is redeemed, and compares the case to betrothal: a man who betroths a woman ‘after thirty days’ with money she spends before then has still made a valid betrothal, because the act of giving was complete when it took place, and its effect is merely deferred. The conclusion of Rav’s argument appears on the next amud.
Key Terms:
- נִתְעַכְּלוּ הַמָּעוֹת = the money was consumed — spent or lost before the deferred act took effect
- מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה = just as in the case of — introducing an analogy
- קִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה = the betrothal of a woman (here, betrothal set to take effect after thirty days)
Amud Bet (49b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא (המשך מדף מט.)
Conclusion of Rav’s analogy: redemption is no different from betrothal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.
English Translation:
Here, too, the halakha is no different.
קלאוד על הדף:
These words finish the comparison begun at the end of 49a. Betrothal that takes effect after thirty days remains valid even if the money is spent in the interim, and Rav applies the same reasoning to redemption. The father handed over the coins, the priest acquired them, and the redemption takes effect automatically when the thirty days end, whether or not the coins still exist.
Key Terms:
- הָכָא נָמֵי = here too
- לָא שְׁנָא = it is no different
Segment 2
TYPE: דחייה ופסק הלכה
Shmuel: a man can betroth now, but no one can redeem now; the halakha follows Shmuel, an exception to the usual rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לָךְ: הָתָם — בְּיָדוֹ לְקַדְּשָׁהּ מֵעַכְשָׁיו, הָכָא — אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לִפְדּוֹתוֹ מֵעַכְשָׁיו. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּקַיְימָא לַן, דְּכֹל הֵיכָא דִּפְלִיגִי רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל — הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב בְּאִיסּוּרֵי וְכִשְׁמוּאֵל בְּדִינֵי, הָכָא הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel rejects the analogy. A man can betroth a woman immediately, so when he chooses to defer the effect, his giving is valid from the start and the spending of the money changes nothing. A father cannot redeem his son before thirty days at all, so a gift of money at that stage has no legal force, and if the coins are gone by day thirty there is nothing to effect the redemption. The Gemara then rules like Shmuel. Ordinarily the halakha follows Rav in ritual matters (issurei) and Shmuel in monetary matters (dinei), and the son’s status as redeemed is apparently treated as a ritual question where Rav would prevail, so the Gemara states the exception explicitly.
Key Terms:
- בְּיָדוֹ = in his power — he is able to perform the act now
- הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב בְּאִיסּוּרֵי וְכִשְׁמוּאֵל בְּדִינֵי = the halakha follows Rav in ritual law and Shmuel in civil law
- הָכָא הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל = here the halakha follows Shmuel
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge to Shmuel from the mishna: only death requires the priest to return the money — answered: the coins are still extant
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן: מֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לַכֹּהֵן — יַחְזִיר לוֹ חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים. טַעְמָא דְּמֵת, הָא לֹא מֵת — בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּאִיתַנְהוּ לְמָעוֹת.
English Translation:
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’s possession.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests Shmuel against the mishna on 49a: if the son dies within thirty days, the priest returns the five sela. The implication seems to be that only death undoes the payment, and had the child lived he would have been redeemed by money given early, as Rav holds. The answer: the mishna speaks of coins still in the priest’s hands when the thirty days end, and in that case both Rav and Shmuel agree the redemption works.
Key Terms:
- תְּנַן = we learned (in a mishna)
- טַעְמָא דְּמֵת = the reason is that he died — an inference from the mishna’s wording
- הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן = with what are we dealing here — introducing a narrower reading of a source
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A second challenge from the next mishna: a son whose father died within thirty days may be told he was redeemed — again, the coins are extant
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדָּה עַד שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ שֶׁנִּפְדָּה! הָתָם נָמֵי דְּאִיתַנְהוּ לְמָעוֹת בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
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’s possession.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second challenge comes from the second mishna. A son whose father died within thirty days is presumed unredeemed until he is told otherwise. That suggests a father can redeem within the thirty days, otherwise how could he have redeemed a son before dying? The Gemara gives the same answer: the father gave the money before he died, and the coins were still intact with the priest when the thirty days ended, which works even according to Shmuel.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — introducing a proof or challenge from a source
- בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ = in their original form — the coins exist as they were
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה ופסק הלכה
A tanna recites ‘his son is redeemed’ before Rav Yehuda, who corrects him from Shmuel; the ruling is restated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר אֵין בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי?! וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּקַיְימָא לַן כְּרַב בְּאִיסּוּרֵי וְכִשְׁמוּאֵל בְּדִינֵי, הָכָא הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A tanna, one of the professional reciters who memorized baraitot for the academy, recited before Rav Yehuda that a son redeemed within thirty days is redeemed. Rav Yehuda, Shmuel’s disciple, objected that Shmuel had ruled the opposite. The Gemara repeats its ruling: although Rav usually prevails in ritual matters, here the halakha follows Shmuel. The repetition gives the ruling particular weight.
Key Terms:
- תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ = a tanna recited before him — a reciter of tannaitic teachings in the amoraic academy
- רַב יְהוּדָה = Rav Yehuda bar Yechezkel, a disciple of both Rav and Shmuel and the founder of the academy at Pumbedita
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
The mishna’s dispute over a man who must redeem himself and his son, restated in a baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הוּא לִפְדּוֹת וּבְנוֹ לִפְדּוֹת — הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא לִפְדּוֹת וּבְנוֹ לִפְדּוֹת — הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּנוֹ קוֹדְמוֹ, שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ עַל אָבִיו, וּמִצְוַת בְּנוֹ עָלָיו.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the last clause of the second mishna and quotes a baraita with the same dispute. The first tanna gives priority to the man’s own redemption. Rabbi Yehuda gives priority to his son’s, because a man’s own redemption was his father’s duty, while redeeming his son is the mitzva that rests on him. The baraita adds nothing new to the wording but prepares for Rabbi Yirmeya’s explanation of exactly where the two sides disagree.
Key Terms:
- תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן = the Sages taught — introducing a baraita
- קוֹדֵם = takes precedence
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yirmeya: with only five sela, everyone agrees he redeems himself; the dispute concerns five sela of liened land and five of free land
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים — הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּמִצְוָה דִּידֵיהּ עֲדִיף. כִּי פְּלִיגִי הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא חָמֵשׁ מְשׁוּעְבָּדוֹת וְחָמֵשׁ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya narrows the dispute sharply. If the man has only five sela, everyone, including Rabbi Yehuda, agrees he redeems himself, since a mitzva concerning one’s own body takes priority. They disagree only when he owns land worth five sela that is liened (it was already sold to others, but remains subject to his debts) and land worth five sela that is free. The question becomes which obligation can reach the sold land, as the next segments explain.
Key Terms:
- מִצְוָה דִּידֵיהּ עֲדִיף = his own mitzva is preferable
- מְשׁוּעְבָּדוֹת = liened property — land already sold, which creditors with prior claims may still seize from the buyer
- בְּנֵי חוֹרִין = free property — land still in the owner’s possession and unencumbered
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא (טעמו של רבי יהודה)
Rabbi Yehuda: a debt written in the Torah is like a debt written in a document, so it can be collected from liened property
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִלְוָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה — כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא, וְדִידֵיהּ אָזֵיל וְטָרֵיף מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי, וּבְהָנֵי חָמֵשׁ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין — פָּרֵיק לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ.
English Translation:
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’s own redemption but not for that of one’s 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda holds that an obligation imposed by the Torah, such as five sela for redemption, is like a loan recorded in a document (shetar), and so carries a lien on the debtor’s land that can be enforced against later buyers. The man’s own redemption has been owed since his birth, before he sold the land, so a priest can collect it from the buyers. His son’s redemption arose only after the sale, so it can be paid only from the free land. Paying his son’s five sela from the free land therefore lets both mitzvot be fulfilled, and on this reading Rabbi Yehuda’s ‘his son takes precedence’ is practical advice rather than a ranking of the two mitzvot.
Key Terms:
- מִלְוָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה = a loan written in the Torah — an obligation imposed directly by Torah law
- כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא = it is like one written in a document — and so creates a lien on land
- טָרֵיף מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי = he seizes from liened property — collecting from land sold to third parties
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא (טעם רבנן)
The Rabbis: a Torah debt is not like a debt in a document, so only the free land is available and his own mitzva comes first
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִלְוָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה — לָאו כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא, הִלְכָּךְ מִצְוָה דִּידֵיהּ עָדִיף.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis disagree: an obligation imposed by the Torah is not equivalent to a written loan. A buyer is protected against a written debt because a document gives it publicity and he can check for it, but there is no way to know of an unwritten Torah obligation, so it cannot be collected from sold land. The liened five sela are therefore out of reach, the man has only five sela of free land, and as Rabbi Yirmeya stated, his own redemption takes precedence.
Key Terms:
- לָאו כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא = it is not like one written in a document
- שְׁטָר = a legal document, especially a loan deed whose lien is public
- הִלְכָּךְ = therefore
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: the five sela of pidyon haben are reckoned in the Tyrian maneh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן — בְּמָנֶה צוֹרִי.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The five sela coins of the redemption of the firstborn son, with regard to which it is written: “Five shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary” (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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna fixes the currency standard for the redemption money. The Torah requires ‘five shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary’ (Numbers 18:16). The Torah’s shekel is the sela of the mishna’s period, and its value is reckoned by the maneh of Tyre, a currency of full silver weight. The ‘provincial’ (medina) coinage was worth only one eighth as much. The Gemara on the next daf works out the sela’s value in coins of its own time.
Key Terms:
- מָנֶה צוֹרִי = the Tyrian maneh — the standard of pure silver weight; a maneh equals one hundred dinars, or twenty-five sela
- סֶלַע = sela — the rabbinic name for the Torah’s shekel, worth four dinars
- חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן = the five sela of the son — the redemption payment for a firstborn
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Every fixed Torah payment — the slave’s thirty, the fifty of a rapist or seducer, the hundred of a defamer — is in sacred shekels; all may be paid in goods, except the half-shekel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁלֹשִׁים שֶׁל עֶבֶד, חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל אוֹנֵס וְשֶׁל מְפַתֶּה, וּמֵאָה שֶׁל מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע — כּוּלָּם בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ, בְּמָנֶה צוֹרִי. וְכוּלָּן נִפְדִּין בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֵה כֶּסֶף, חוּץ מִשְּׁקָלִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna extends the same standard to every fixed monetary sum in the Torah: thirty shekels paid to the master of a slave killed by an ox (Exodus 21:32), fifty paid by one who violates or seduces a young woman (Deuteronomy 22:29; Exodus 22:16), and one hundred paid by a husband who falsely defames his bride (Deuteronomy 22:19). Even where the verse does not say ‘shekel’, all are paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary at the Tyrian standard. All of these may be paid in coin or in goods of equal value, except the annual half-shekel to the Temple, which must be given in coin.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלֹשִׁים שֶׁל עֶבֶד = the thirty (shekels) of a slave — paid when an ox kills a Canaanite slave
- אוֹנֵס / מְפַתֶּה = one who violates / one who seduces a young woman, who pays a fixed fine of fifty shekels
- מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע = one who defames (his bride), who pays one hundred shekels
- שְׁקָלִים = the annual half-shekel to the Temple, which must be paid in coin
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
What is a ‘Tyrian maneh’? Rabbi Asi: the maneh of Tyre; Rabbi Ami: an Arabian dinar; Rabbi Chanina: the Syrian istera, eight to a dinar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מָנֶה צוֹרִי. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: מָנֶה שֶׁל צוֹר. רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר: דִּינָרָא (ערבא) [עַרְבָיָא]. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אוֹמֵר: אִיסְתֵּרָא סֻרְסְיָא דְּמִיזְדַּבְּנָא תְּמָנְיָא בְּדִינָרָא, חֲמֵשׁ מִינַּיְיהוּ לְפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן.
English Translation:
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 Ḥanina 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks how the mishna’s ‘Tyrian maneh’ is to be understood in practice, and three amoraim answer with different coins. Rabbi Asi takes the term literally as the maneh used in Tyre. Rabbi Ami gives the five sela an equivalent in an Arabian dinar. Rabbi Chanina points to a Syrian coin, the istera, eight of which are sold for a large gold dinar, and requires five of them for the redemption. The value of the sela is taken up in detail on the next daf.
Key Terms:
- מָנֶה שֶׁל צוֹר = the maneh of Tyre
- דִּינָרָא עַרְבָיָא = an Arabian dinar (the bracketed reading in the printed text)
- אִיסְתֵּרָא סֻרְסְיָא = a Syrian istera — a local coin used as a measure of the redemption sum