## Bekhorot Daf 16b

###### Bekhorot 16b:1
[Bekhorot 16b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:1)

וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין, וַלְדֵי וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן חַיָּיבִין. הֶעֱמִיד וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן תַּחַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן — וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וּוַלְדֵי וַולְדֵי וְולָדוֹת חַיָּיבִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה פְּטוּרִים, שֶׁאַחְרָיוּתָן לַנׇּכְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**their** direct **offspring are exempt** from the mitzva of the firstborn if they give birth to a male, but **the offspring of their** direct **offspring are obligated** in the mitzva of the firstborn if they gave birth to a male. If the Jew **established their offspring in place of their mothers** for collection in case the mothers die, **the offspring of** their direct **offspring are exempt and the offspring of the offspring of** their direct **offspring are obligated. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even until ten** generations, the offspring are **exempt, as they** all serve **as a guarantee for the gentile,** because if he does not receive the fixed payment for the animal, he will collect his debt from any offspring born to it or its offspring.


###### Bekhorot 16b:2
[Bekhorot 16b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:2)

רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, וְעֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין רָחֵל — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts are exempt** from the mitzva of the **firstborn. And if** the offspring **has some of the characteristics** of its mother, it is **obligated** in the mitzva of firstborn.


###### Bekhorot 16b:3
[Bekhorot 16b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** לְמֵימְרָא, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא נָקֵט מָרָא זוּזֵי — בִּרְשׁוּתָא דְּמָרָא קָיְימָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that animals given to a Jew as a guaranteed investment by a gentile are not subject to their offspring being counted a firstborn because they belong to the gentile. The Gemara suggests: Is this **to say that since the owner did not** yet **take the money** that will be owed to him, the investment itself **stands in the owner’s possession,** i.e., the owner is still regarded as such?


###### Bekhorot 16b:4
[Bekhorot 16b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:4)

וּרְמִינְהוּ: אֵין מְקַבְּלִין צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רִבִּית, אַלְמָא בִּרְשׁוּתָא דִּמְקַבֵּל קָיְימָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** to this conclusion from a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 70b): **One may not accept from a Jew** sheep to raise or other items to care for as **a guaranteed investment,** in which the terms of the transaction dictate that the one accepting the item takes upon himself complete responsibility to repay its value in the event of depreciation or loss, but receives only part of the profit. This is **because it** is a loan, as the principal is fixed and always returned to the owner, and any additional sum the owner receives **is interest.** The Gemara remarks: **Evidently,** the investment **stands in the possession of the recipient,** as otherwise it would not be considered a loan.


###### Bekhorot 16b:5
[Bekhorot 16b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא, וְהָא דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** This is **not difficult. This** case, i.e., the mishna here, is **where** the gentile owner of the sheep **accepts upon himself** the responsibility for losses due to **an accident or depreciation** in the market value, and that is why the sheep are considered to still belong to him. And **that** case, the mishna in *Bava Metzia*, is **where** the owner **did not accept upon himself** responsibility for losses due to **an accident or depreciation.** Therefore, the guaranteed investment stands in the possession of the recipient.


###### Bekhorot 16b:6
[Bekhorot 16b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא, ״צֹאן בַּרְזֶל״ קָרֵית לֵיהּ? וְעוֹד, מַאי פַּסְקָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Abaye: **If the owner accepted upon himself** responsibility for losses due to **an accident or depreciation,** can **you call it a guaranteed investment?** This case is not a guaranteed investment, as the owner is not guaranteed to receive what he had given; rather, it is a type of joint business venture that is permitted between two Jews. **And furthermore,** if the term: Guaranteed investment, can refer to two different kinds of investments, then **why** was it stated **without qualification** in both *mishnayot*?


###### Bekhorot 16b:7
[Bekhorot 16b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:7)

וְעוֹד, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא אֲבָל מְקַבְּלִין צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִן הַגּוֹי — לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא, אֲבָל קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continued: **And furthermore,** even if one grants that this arrangement can be called a guaranteed investment, there is another difficulty. **Instead of** the *tanna* **teaching** in **the latter clause** of the mishna in *Bava Metzia*: **But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, let** the *tanna* **distinguish and teach within the** case **itself,** that of accepting a guaranteed investment from a Jew. He should have taught: **In what** case **is this statement,** i.e., that one may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, **said?** It is in a case **when** the owner **did not accept upon himself** responsibility for losses due to **an accident or depreciation, but** if **the owner accepted upon himself** responsibility for losses due to **an accident or depreciation,** one may **well** enter into such an arrangement.


###### Bekhorot 16b:8
[Bekhorot 16b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:8)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא, וְהָכָא גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרָה הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, דְּאִילּוּ אָתֵי גּוֹי בָּעֵי זוּזֵי וְלָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ — תָּפֵיס לַהּ לִבְהֵמָה, וְאִי לָא מַשְׁכַּח לַהּ לִבְהֵמָה — תָּפֵיס וְלָדוֹת דִּידַהּ, וַהֲרֵי יַד גּוֹי בָּאֶמְצַע, וְכֹל יַד גּוֹי בָּאֶמְצַע — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava** rejected this explanation and **said:** Both **this** case in the mishna here **and that** case in *Bava Metzia* are discussing a situation where **the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for** losses due to **an accident or depreciation. And here, with regard to the firstborn, this is the reason** that the offspring are exempt from the *halakhot* of a firstborn: **Since, if** the **gentile comes** and **wants** his **money, and** the Jew **does not give** it **to him,** the gentile will **seize the animal, and if he does not find the animal he will seize the offspring,** this means that **the hand of a gentile is in the middle,** i.e., even though the animals stand in the possession of the recipient, the gentile has some degree of ownership over the bodies of the offspring. **And** there is a *halakha*: In **every** case where **the hand of a gentile is in the middle,** the animal is **exempt from** the *halakhot* of **a firstborn.**


###### Bekhorot 16b:9
[Bekhorot 16b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:9)

הֶעֱמִיד וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן תַּחַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן — וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִים. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וַולְדֵי (ולדותיהן) [וְלָדוֹת] חַיָּיבִין. וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת נָמֵי פְּטוּרִין, וַולְדֵי וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the Jew **established their offspring in place of their mothers** for collection in case the mothers die, **the offspring of** their direct **offspring are exempt.** The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to animals involved in a guaranteed investment, in a case where the Jew did not establish their offspring in the place of their mothers. **Rav Huna says:** Their direct **offspring are exempt, but the offspring of their** direct **offspring are obligated. And Rav Yehuda says: The offspring of** their direct **offspring are also exempt, and the offspring of the offspring of** their direct **offspring are obligated.**


###### Bekhorot 16b:10
[Bekhorot 16b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:10)

תְּנַן: הֶעֱמִיד וְלָדוֹת תַּחַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן — וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין. טַעְמָא דְּהֶעֱמִיד, הָא לֹא הֶעֱמִיד — לָא. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרַב יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. **We learned** in the mishna: If the Jew **established their offspring in place of their mothers** for collection in case the mothers die, **the offspring of** their direct **offspring are exempt.** The Gemara infers: **The reason** they are exempt is **that he established** the offspring in place of their mothers; **but** if **he did not establish** them in place of their mothers, they are **not** exempt. This is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Bekhorot 16b:11
[Bekhorot 16b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:11)

אָמַר לָךְ רַב יְהוּדָה: הוּא הַדִּין, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הֶעֱמִיד, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֲפִילּוּ הֶעֱמִיד נָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rav Yehuda** could have **said to you:** That inference is incorrect, as **the same is true even though he did not establish** the offspring in place of their mothers. In that case as well, the offspring of their offspring are exempt. **And this** is what the mishna **is teaching us** by stating the *halakha* in that manner: **Even** if **he established** the offspring in place of the mother, only the first two generations of offspring are exempt, but not all successive generations.


###### Bekhorot 16b:12
[Bekhorot 16b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:12)

דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּגוֹי לְמִיתְפַּס בְּנָהּ, וְהָוֵי כְּמִי דְּלֹא הֶעֱמִיד — וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וַולְדֵי וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And it is necessary to teach this *halakha* that although he established the offspring in place of their mothers all successive generations are not exempt, **as** one might think that **it is the** normal **manner of the gentile to seize** not only the direct offspring, but **her young** of any generation as payment, which would mean that all successive generations are exempt. **And** therefore the mishna teaches that he **is like one who did not establish** the offspring in place of the mother, which means that **the offspring of** the direct **offspring are exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of** the direct **offspring are obligated.**


###### Bekhorot 16b:13
[Bekhorot 16b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/16b:13)

תְּנַן: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה דּוֹרוֹת פְּטוּרִין, שֶׁאַחְרָיוּתָן לַנׇּכְרִי. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: נָחֵית תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְדָרֵי —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna. **We learned** in the mishna that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even until ten generations** the offspring **are exempt, as they serve as a guarantee for the gentile,** because if he does not receive the fixed payment for the animal he will collect his debt from any offspring born to it or its offspring. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s use of the term: Even, indicates that he disagrees with the first *tanna* only with regard to how many generations of offspring are exempt, but both agree that at least some generations are exempt. **Granted, according to Rav Yehuda, who says** that, in exempting from firstborn status, **the first *tanna* descended to** two **generational** levels,