Bekhorot

We are dealing here with a case where [the fathers] wrote out a power of attorney.1 But did not the Nehardeans say: We do not write out a private authorization2 to take possession of movables?3 — This is the case only where the debtor denies indebtedness [to the creditor]4 but where there is no such denial, we do write.5 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.6 And our Tanna?7 — Since this is the case only where there are two husbands but not where there is only one husband and two women,8 he does not teach this.9 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.10 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.11 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?12 — We draw an analogy between the expression ‘month’13 and ‘month’14 mentioned in the Book of Numbers;15 just as there [in the latter case] it says ‘And upward’ so here also in the case of redemption it means ‘and upward’.16 And [what does] R. Akiba [say to this]? — He is in doubt.17 For since it was necessary to write ‘and upward’ in connection with the law of valuation18 and did not leave us to infer this [from the expression ‘and upward’] in the Book of Numbers, we have therefore two verses19 teaching the same thing, and wherever we have two verses teaching the same thing, they cannot serve as an illustration for other cases.20 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,21 but where the same subject is dealt with,22 the verses do serve as an illustration and consequently he [R. Akiba] is in doubt.23 Said R. Ashi:24 All the authorities concerned agree that as regards the laws of mourning the thirtieth day is counted as being like the previous day,25 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,26 [THE INFANT] IS UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF NOT HAVING BEEN REDEEMED27 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.28 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,29 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.30 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].31 Where they differ is where [he said] after the thirty days and the money had been used [by that time].32 [In such a case] Rab said: His son is redeemed, for this is on a par with the law of betrothal of a woman.33 There [in the case of betrothal] although the money was used, is not the betrothal yet valid? and if the child of my neighbour died, return me his five sela's, for I have his authorization’. posses the articles at all, and therefore the witnesses seem to be signing falsely. 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’. of two women married to one husband and two women married to two husbands. dependent on the offspring being a month old. The Mishnah here refers to certain cases of first-born. money, the priest must return it. day. 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). law of valuation. birth. that of the law of valuation or that of a first-born. 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. had not given it, he need not give it. 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. 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. is valid (Kid. 59a).