## Bekhorot Daf 49a

###### Bekhorot 49a:1
[Bekhorot 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:1)

בְּבָא בְּהַרְשָׁאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 49a:2
[Bekhorot 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:2)

וְהָאָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: לָא כָּתְבִינַן אַדְרַכְתָּא אַמִּטַּלְטְלִי! הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּכַפְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא כַּפְרֵיהּ — כָּתְבִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 49a:3
[Bekhorot 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:3)

זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. תָּנָא רַב הוּנָא: שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבָה — אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם.

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


###### Bekhorot 49a:4
[Bekhorot 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:4)

וְתַנָּא דִּידַן, כֵּיוָן דְּבִשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים הוּא דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ — לָא מִתְּנֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 49a:5
[Bekhorot 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:5)

**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.

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


###### Bekhorot 49a:6
[Bekhorot 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? גָּמְרִי ״חֹדֶשׁ״ ״חֹדֶשׁ״ מִמִּדְבָּר, מָה הָתָם ״וָמַעְלָה״ אַף הָכָא נָמֵי וָמַעְלָה.

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


###### Bekhorot 49a:7
[Bekhorot 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:7)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״וָמַעְלָה״ גַּבֵּי עֲרָכִין, וְלָא גָּמְרִי מִמִּדְבָּר — הָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד,

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


###### Bekhorot 49a:8
[Bekhorot 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:8)

וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד — אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

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


###### Bekhorot 49a:9
[Bekhorot 49a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:9)

אוֹ דִלְמָא: כִּי אֵין מְלַמְּדִין — לְעָלְמָא, אֲבָל לְגוּפַיְיהוּ — מְלַמְּדִין, וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ.

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


###### Bekhorot 49a:10
[Bekhorot 49a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:10)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים לְעִנְיַן אֲבֵילוּת, יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים כְּיוֹם שֶׁלְּפָנָיו. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּאֵבֶל.

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


###### Bekhorot 49a:11
[Bekhorot 49a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:11)

**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.

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


###### Bekhorot 49a:12
[Bekhorot 49a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:12)

**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.

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


###### Bekhorot 49a:13
[Bekhorot 49a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/49a:13)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְנִתְעַכְּלוּ הַמָּעוֹת, רַב אָמַר: בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקִּידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה, הָתָם לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּנִתְעַכְּלוּ הַמָּעוֹת — הָווּ קִידּוּשֵׁי,

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