בכורות 49 — Soncino English Talmud

¹We 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?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ

^ᵃnote:To each other and therefore one of them can come and claim as follows: ‘If mine died, return my redemption money, and if the child of my neighbour died, return me his five sela's, for I have his authorization’.
^ᵇnote:To a creditor to collect or take possession of one's debt.
^ᶜnote:Since the movables are not in sight, the declaration has the appearance of a falsehood, in case the debtor does not posses the articles at all, and therefore the witnesses seem to be signing falsely.
^ᵈnote:The creditor cannot have an authorization written out in such circumstances, for it has the appearance of a falsehood.
^ᵉnote:V. Sheb. 33b.
^ᶠnote:The case of two women who had never given birth before married to two men is another instance of where the priest receives nothing. And although one child is a first-born in any case, for if one woman gave birth to two males, then one of them is a first-born and if one woman gave birth to a male and a female and the other gave birth to a male alone this one would be a first-born, nevertheless the son is not bound to redeem himself, for he can say to the priest: ‘Perhaps I am not a first-born but the other’.
^ᵍnote:In the Mishnah, why does he not mention this case?
^ʰnote:Because in such a case there is one first-born and he must therefore give five sela's to the priest.
^ⁱnote:As the Tanna in the Mishnah only reports instances of the priest receiving nothing where this applies equally to cases of two women married to one husband and two women married to two husbands.
^ʲnote:Because the offspring is an untimely birth (Rashi). Tosaf. says: The reason is because the Torah makes redemption dependent on the offspring being a month old. The Mishnah here refers to certain cases of first-born.
^ᵏnote:And had been born within the thirty days previously, and therefore though he has already given the redemption money, the priest must return it.
^ˡnote:Who hold in the Mishnah that if the son dies on the thirtieth day, it is considered as if he had died on the previous day.
^ᵐnote:And those that are to be redeemed from a month old (Num. XVIII, 16).
^ⁿnote:Number all the first-born of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward (Num. III, 40).
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘The Wilderness’.
^ᵖnote:That redemption is strictly due only after the thirty days of the child's birth.
^ᵠnote:Whether we make this analogy.
^ʳnote:And if it be from sixty years old and upward (Lev. XXVII, 7). And in Tractate Ar. we draw an analogy between the expression ‘year’ used here and the ‘year’ mentioned in the same chapter in connection with the valuation of one twenty-five years old, to the effect that just as in the former case a valuation exactly on the sixtieth birthday is regarded as a valuation under that period, where it makes the person liable to a larger sum, similarly a valuation exactly on the twenty-fifth birthday is regarded as a valuation under that period, although it means paying a smaller sum of money for the person thus valued. The same principle also applies to the valuation of a child on the thirtieth day, the thirtieth day being counted like the previous day, although this means taking a lenient decision, and we do not draw the analogy between the expressions month used with reference to valuation and month used in the Book of Numbers so that there should be no valuation until after it is thirty days old (Rashi).
^ˢnote:That in the Book of Numbers in connection with the census of the first-born of Israel and that in connection with the law of valuation.
^ᵗnote:Hence we are not able to infer from these verses that redemption of a first-born is due only after thirty days from its birth.
^ᵘnote:As, for example, if the expression ‘month’ had been mentioned in connection with a subject entirely different from that of the law of valuation or that of a first-born.
^ᵛnote:As, for example, here in regard to redemption, where month is mentioned also in connection with the subject of a first-born. We can therefore draw the analogy between the expressions month mentioned in connection with the law of the first-born laid down for generations and month mentioned in connection with the census of the Israelites’ first-born in the wilderness, since both deal with an identical subject.
^ʷnote:And owing to this doubt he says that if the father gave the redemption money, he cannot recover it, but that if he had not given it, he need not give it.
^ˣnote:Var. lec.: Samuel(Asheri).
^ʸnote:So that if the offspring died on the thirtieth day, the mourning ceremonies need not be observed by the father, as one can say that it was an untimely birth. Var. lec. (v. R. Gershom) have the following version: ‘The thirtieth day is considered like the day after’ i.e., there is no prohibition of washing one's clothes or cutting the hair.
^ᶻnote:Of the birth of the first-born.
^ᵃᵃnote:Because it is not usual to redeem within the thirty days.
^ᵃᵇnote:Until the son is informed that the father had said before he died that he had not redeemed him. There is no need for proper witnesses here and a mere statement of not having redeemed suffices, since the presumption that the father had redeemed is not a very strong one, people as a rule not hastening to pay their debts immediately when due. It is not relevant here to say until the priest brings proof that the redemption money had not been paid, for even if he does the son can still maintain that his father gave the five sela's to some other priest.
^ᵃᶜnote:The duty of redeeming this father was on his father who died, and the duty of his son is upon him.
^ᵃᵈnote:The money is considered only as a gift, for there is no obligation to redeem within thirty days.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., after the thirty days.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘The money had been consumed’.
^ᵃᵍnote:If a man gave a woman something and said to her: ‘Be thou betrothed after thirty days’ in which case the marriage is valid (Kid. 59a).

²In this case too, it is the same. And Samuel? — He can answer thus: There [in the case of betrothal] he can effect the betrothal from now whereas here, [in the case of redemption], redemption cannot make it take effect ‘from now. And although we have an established rule that wherever Rab and Samuel differ in ritual law the ruling adopted is that of Rab and in civil cases the ruling adopted is that of Samuel, here, however, the ruling adopted is that of Samuel. We have learnt: If the son dies within thirty days [of his birth] although he has given the priest redemption money, the latter must return it. The reason is because he dies, but if he did not die, the son is considered redeemed! — We are dealing here with the case where the money is still in existence. Come and hear: THE INFANT IS UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF NOT HAVING BEEN REDEEMED UNTIL A PROOF IS BROUGHT THAT IT HAS BEEN REDEEMED! — There too it is a case where the money is in existence. A Tanna recited in the presence of Rab Judah: If one redeems his son within thirty days [of its birth] the son is considered redeemed. He said to him: But did not Samuel rule that the son is not redeemed, and you say that the son is considered redeemed? — Read: ‘The son is not redeemed’. And although we have an established rule that the ruling adopted is that of Rab in ritual matters and is like Samuel, in civil matters, here, however, the decision is in accordance with the ruling of Samuel. IF BOTH THE FATHER AND SON REQUIRE REDEMPTION AS FIRST-BORN, THE FATHER TAKES PRECEDENCE OF HIS SON etc. Our Rabbis taught: If both the father and son require redemption as first-born, the father takes precedence of his son. R. Judah says: His son comes first, for the father's command is upon his father and the command of his son is upon him. Said R. Jeremiah: All [the authorities concerned] agree that where there are only five sela's the father takes precedence of the son, the reason being because the command regarding himself is of more importance. The difference arises, however, in the case where there are five sela's of encumbered property and five sela's of free property. R. Judah holds: An obligation arising from a biblical law [e.g., the duty of redeeming the first-born] is on a par with a loan against a note. Therefore the five sela's due for himself, he [the priest] goes and seizes from the encumbered property and with the five sela's of the free property, he redeems his son [immediately]. But the Rabbis say: An obligation arising from the biblical law is not on a par with a loan against a note, and therefore the command [of redemption] relating to himself takes precedence. MISHNAH. THE FIVE SELA'S OF A FIRST-BORN TAKE THE TYRIAN MANEH AS THEIR STANDARD. AS REGARDS THE THIRTY SHEKELS OF A SLAVE AND LIKEWISE THE FIFTY SHEKELS OF ONE WHO VIOLATES A WOMAN, THE INDEMNITY FOR SEDUCTION AND THE ONE HUNDRED SHEKELS OF ONE WHO SPREADS AN EVIL NAME — IN ALL THESE CASES THE HOLY SHEKEL IS MEANT AND TAKE THE TYRIAN MANEH AS THEIR STANDARD. ALL OF THESE ARE REDEEMED WITH MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SHEKEL PAYMENTS. GEMARA. What is a Tyrian maneh? — Said R. Ashi: The maneh of the Tyrian currency. R. Ammi said: [The Tyrian maneh is] an Arabian denar. R. Hanina said: A Syriac Istira, eight of which are bought for a gold denar and five of which are the amount for the redemption of the first-born.^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ

^ᵃʰnote:Who says that the child is not redeemed. Wherein lies the difference between this case and the case of a betrothal in similar circumstances?
^ᵃⁱnote:Because he can, if he wishes, marry within the thirty days, there being no restriction in this respect.
^ᵃʲnote:Supra 49a.
^ᵃᵏnote:Although the redemption took place within the thirty days. which is contra Samuel's decision above.
^ᵃˡnote:But if proof is forthcoming, the firstborn is redeemed, even within the thirty days, contrary to the opinion of Samuel.
^ᵃᵐnote:Property pledged or in the hands of buyers.
^ᵃⁿnote:The mortgaged property in the hands of buyers, as the mortgaging of the five sela's for the priest came first in the life-time of his father.
^ᵃᵒnote:Because if he gave the free property for his own redemption, then he could no longer redeem his son if the property in the hands of the buyers had been mortgaged before the birth of his son.
^ᵃᵖnote:If he therefore gave the free property, i.e., the property in his own possession to the priest for his son's redemption, then he could no longer redeem himself, for the priest cannot seize mortgaged property from the buyers for his five sela's, as is the case with a loan against a note, where there is created a hypothecary obligation.
^ᵃᵠnote:V. infra n. 9.
^ᵃʳnote:Whom an ox gored to death and for which its owner has to pay thirty shekels. Ex. XXI, 32.
^ᵃˢnote:Deut. XXII, 29.
^ᵃᵗnote:Ex. XXII, 16.
^ᵃᵘnote:Concerning a wife that she did not possess the tokens of virginity. (Deut. XXII, 19).
^ᵃᵛnote:Shekels of pure silver (used for Sanctuary purposes) like the Tyrian shekel and so twice the value of an ordinary current shekel mixed with an abby of copper.
^ᵃʷnote:I.e., whatever is to be redeemed viz., the firstborn and consecrated objects.
^ᵃˣnote:The shekels which came to the Temple treasury in Adar (v. Shek. I) could only be bought in the form of silver half shekels. The same also applies to the second tithes, which could only be redeemed with money, and not with money's worth.
^ᵃʸnote:And this maneh had twenty-five sela's, a sela’ containing four zuz.
^ᵃᶻnote:So Rashi, adding that the seven of the ordinary denars mentioned in the Talmud, each of which has six ma'ah, are the equivalent of ten Arabian denars, the latter denars being light ones. Tosaf. explains that the golden Arabian denar was the equivalent of the five sela's of redemption and that R. Ammi is not referring to the Tyrian maneh.
^ᵇᵃnote:In our edition the text is thrxrx . Rashi has t,hrxrx both forms deriving from the word thrux (Syria). R. Gershom has another form trhxrux deriving from the word ruxrx meaning a middle-man, a coin with which much business is transacted, just as a middle-man is the medium of much business.