Parallel
בכורות 49:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
We are dealing here with a case where [the fathers] wrote out a power of attorney. But did not the Nehardeans say: We do not write out a private authorization to take possession of movables? — This is the case only where the debtor denies indebtedness [to the creditor] but where there is no such denial, we do write. A MALE AND A FEMALE THE FATHERS ARE EXEMPT etc. R. Huna learnt: If they gave birth to two males and a female [in a hiding place and the children became mixed], the priest receives nothing. And our Tanna? — Since this is the case only where there are two husbands but not where there is only one husband and two women, he does not teach this. MISHNAH. IF THE SON DIES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [OF HIS BIRTH] ALTHOUGH HE [THE FATHER] GAVE THE PRIEST [THE FIVE SELA'S], HE MUST RETURN THEM. IF, HOWEVER, HE DIES AFTER THIRTY DAYS, ALTHOUGH HE HAS NOT YET GIVEN THE FIVE SELA'S, HE MUST GIVE THEM. IF HE DIES ON THE THIRTIETH DAY, IT IS AS IF HE DIED ON THE PREVIOUS DAY. BUT R. AKIBA SAYS: IF HE GAVE [THE FIVE SELA'S] HE CANNOT RECLAIM THEM, BUT IF HE HAD NOT YET GIVEN, HE NEED NOT GIVE. GEMARA. What is the reason of the Rabbis? — We draw an analogy between the expression ‘month’ and ‘month’ mentioned in the Book of Numbers; just as there [in the latter case] it says ‘And upward’ so here also in the case of redemption it means ‘and upward’. And [what does] R. Akiba [say to this]? — He is in doubt. For since it was necessary to write ‘and upward’ in connection with the law of valuation and did not leave us to infer this [from the expression ‘and upward’] in the Book of Numbers, we have therefore two verses teaching the same thing, and wherever we have two verses teaching the same thing, they cannot serve as an illustration for other cases. Yet perhaps [on the other hand] we may say that the rule that the two verses which teach the same thing cannot serve as an illustration for other cases only applies to such cases as are totally different, but where the same subject is dealt with, the verses do serve as an illustration and consequently he [R. Akiba] is in doubt. Said R. Ashi: All the authorities concerned agree that as regards the laws of mourning the thirtieth day is counted as being like the previous day, for Samuel said: The law is in accordance with the authority who is lenient in matters of mourning. MISHNAH. IF THE FATHER DIES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, [THE INFANT] IS UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF NOT HAVING BEEN REDEEMED UNTIL PROOF IS BROUGHT THAT IT HAS BEEN REDEEMED. IF THE FATHER, HOWEVER, DIES AFTER THIRTY DAYS, IT IS UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF HAVING BEEN REDEEMED UNTIL HE [THE SON] IS TOLD THAT HE WAS NOT REDEEMED. IF BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON REQUIRED REDEMPTION AS FIRST-BORN, THE FATHER TAKES PRECEDENCE OF HIS SON. BUT R. JUDAH SAYS: HIS SON COMES FIRST FOR THE COMMAND TO REDEEM HIM WAS UPON HIS FATHER, AND THE COMMAND OF HIS SON IS UPON HIM. GEMARA. It has been stated: If one redeems his son within thirty days [of his birth], Rab said: His son is [regarded as] redeemed, whereas Samuel says: His son is not redeemed. Said Rab bah: All [the authorities concerned] agree that if he said that his son's redemption should take effect ‘from now’ his son is not redeemed. Again [if he said to the priest within the thirty days] that the redemption should take effect after the thirty days and the money is still then in existence, the son is certainly regarded as redeemed, [for it is as if he had given it now]. Where they differ is where [he said] after the thirty days and the money had been used [by that time]. [In such a case] Rab said: His son is redeemed, for this is on a par with the law of betrothal of a woman. There [in the case of betrothal] although the money was used, is not the betrothal yet valid?
—