## Bekhorot Daf 48b

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

לָאו כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת.

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


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

וְהָכָא בְּחָמֵשׁ וְלֹא בַּחֲצִי חָמֵשׁ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: חָמֵשׁ וְלֹא חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: חָמֵשׁ וַאֲפִילּוּ חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ.

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


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

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.

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


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

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא, עֲשָׂרָה זוּז דִּירוּשָּׁה לָזֶה, וַעֲשָׂרָה זוּז דִּירוּשָּׁה לָזֶה, אַלְמָא: חָמֵשׁ וְלֹא חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ!

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


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

אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא חָמֵשׁ וְלֹא חֲצִי חָמֵשׁ, וְהָכָא בִּדְרַב אַסִּי וְרַב פָּפָּא קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

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


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

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לֵיהּ אַסֵּיפָא, נִתְחַיְּיבוּ הַנְּכָסִים, דְּמִית הָאָב אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא דְּמִית לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר כִּי חָלְקוּ פְּטוּרִין? הָא אִישְׁתַּעְבַּדוּ לְהוּ נִכְסֵי!

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


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

אֶלָּא בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים, כִּי חָלְקוּ, אַמַּאי מְחַיֵּיב רַבִּי יְהוּדָה? לֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי לִידַחֲיֵיהּ, וְגַבֵּי הַאי וְלִידְחֲיֵיהּ!

**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, 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.


###### Bekhorot 48b:9
[Bekhorot 48b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:9)

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.

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


###### Bekhorot 48b:10
[Bekhorot 48b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי נִכְסוֹהִי דְּבַר אִינִישׁ אִינּוּן עָרְבִין בֵּיהּ, וְכוּלַּהּ כְּלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא.

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


###### Bekhorot 48b:11
[Bekhorot 48b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:11)

**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.

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


###### Bekhorot 48b:12
[Bekhorot 48b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:12)

זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, אוֹ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבָה — נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן; שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וְזָכָר, אוֹ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּשְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 48b:13
[Bekhorot 48b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:13)

אַחַת בִּכֵּרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּכֵּרָה, וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן, מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — הָאָב פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 48b:14
[Bekhorot 48b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:14)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 48b:15
[Bekhorot 48b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:15)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 48b:16
[Bekhorot 48b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:16)

זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — הָאָבוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וְהַבֵּן חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ; שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וְזָכָר, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וּשְׁנֵי זְכָרִים — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 48b:17
[Bekhorot 48b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:17)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 48b:18
[Bekhorot 48b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:18)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים, דְּאָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וּמְדַחֵי לֵיהּ, וְאָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וּמְדַחֵי לֵיהּ?

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


###### Bekhorot 48b:19
[Bekhorot 48b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/48b:19)

כֹּהֵן אֶחָד נָמֵי לֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וְלִידַחֲיֵיהּ, וְלֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּי הַאי וְלִידַחֲיֵיהּ! אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:

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