## Bekhorot Daf 48a

###### Bekhorot 48a:1
[Bekhorot 48a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְּרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לְכֹהֵן. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — הָאָב פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 48a:2
[Bekhorot 48a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48a:2)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 48a:3
[Bekhorot 48a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** דְּמִית הָאָב אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא דְּמִית לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — בְּהָא אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר כִּי חָלְקוּ פְּטוּרִין? וְהָא אִשְׁתַּעְבַּדוּ לְהוּ (לנכסי) [נִכְסֵי]!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 48a:4
[Bekhorot 48a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48a:4)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bekhorot 48a:5
[Bekhorot 48a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48a:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 48a:6
[Bekhorot 48a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48a:6)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Bekhorot 48a:7
[Bekhorot 48a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48a:7)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם שֶׁמֵּת לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְאִי דְּאִיכָּא נִכְסֵי טוּבָא — הָכִי נָמֵי דְּשָׁקֵיל, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 48a:8
[Bekhorot 48a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48a:8)

וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב אַסִּי, דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ — מֶחֱצָה יוֹרְשִׁין וּמֶחֱצָה לָקוֹחוֹת, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִלְוֶה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,