Bekhorot 95

Chapter 95

א <big>מתני׳</big> מי שלא בכרה אשתו וילדה שני זכרים נותן ה' סלעים לכהן מת אחד מהן בתוך שלשים יום האב פטור

1 <big>MISHNAH: </big>IF A MAN'S WIFE HAD NEVER BEFORE GIVEN BIRTH AND SHE GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, HE GIVES FIVE SELA'S TO THE PRIEST.1

ב מת האב והבנים קיימים ר"מ אומר אם נתנו עד שלא חלקו נתנו ואם לאו פטורין ר' יהודה אומר נתחייבו נכסים זכר ונקבה אין כאן לכהן כלום:

2 IF ONE OF THEM DIES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [OF BIRTH] THE FATHER IS EXEMPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From redeeming the survivor with five sela's, as he can maintain that it was the first-born which died and the priest is in the position of a claimant. A similar exemption applies to the surviving son, and the reason why the Mishnah refers to the father is because it wishes to mention in a later clause: IF THE FATHER DIES etc.');">2 IF THE FATHER DIES AND THE SONS SURVIVE, R'MEIR SAYS: IF THEY GAVE THE FIVE SELA'S BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS DIVIDED UP, IT IS IRRECOVERABLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they cannot demand the return of the five sela's as they are legally bound to pay the redemption money which is considered a debt on the property. Lit., 'they have given'.');">3 BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE EXEMPT. BUT R'JUDAH SAYS: THERE IS A CLAIM ON THE PROPERTY. IF SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A MALE AND A FEMALE, THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING.4

ג <big>גמ׳</big> דמית האב אימת אילימא דמית לאחר ל' יום בהא אמר ר"מ כי חלקו פטורין והא אשתעבדן להו לנכסי

3 <big>GEMARA: </big>When did the father die? Shall I say that he died after thirty days [from the offspring's birth]?5 Would R'Meir say in this case that when they have divided up [the property] they are exempt from the five sela's?

ד אלא דמית בתוך ל' יום מ"ש כי חלקו דאזיל לגבי האי ומדחי ליה דאזיל לגבי האי ומדחי ליה כי לא חלקו נמי ליזיל לגבי האי ולידחייה וליזיל לגבי האי ולידחייה

4 [How can this be] seeing that the property is mortgaged to the priest [for the five sela's]?6 Then you must say that he died within the thirty days.

ה א"ר ירמיה זאת אומרת שני יוסף בן שמעון שהיו בעיר אחת ולקחו שדה בשותפות בעל חוב גובה אותה מהם דאמר ליה אי בדידך מסיקנא מנתא דידך קא שקילנא ואי בחברך מסיקנא מנתא דחברך קא שקילנא

5 What then is the reason why where they have divided up [the property the sons are exempt]? [Presumably] because if he [the priest] goes to one, his claim can be rejected,7 and if he goes to the other, his claim can again be rejected! Why then should not the same apply to the case where they did not divide up the property, for if [the priest] goes to one, his claim can be rejected and if he goes to the other, his claim can be rejected? - Said R'Jeremiah: This proves that if there were two men of the name of Joseph B'Simeon in one city8

ו אמר רבא מכדי נכסי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה מי איכא מידי דלדידיה לא מצי תבע ליה ולערב מצי תבע ליה והתנן המלוה את חבירו על ידי ערב לא יפרע מן הערב וקי"ל דלא יתבע מן הערב תחלה

6 and they purchased a field in partnership, a creditor can claim it from them, for he can say to either: 'If my claim is against you, I am taking your maneh, and if my claim is against your friend, I am taking the maneh of your friend'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And here also the priest seizes the five sela's, his debt, from the joint property and says to them: 'If you are the first-born, I am taking from your portion, and if your brother is the first-born, I am taking from his portion, and you can settle the matter among yourselves'.');">9 Said Raba: Let us see. A man's property is surety for him.10 Can there be a case where one is not able to claim against a man himself and can yet make a claim on his surety? Have we not learnt: If one loans money to his neighbour through a surety, he cannot collect from the surety.11 And it was established by us that the expression 'He cannot collect' meant that he cannot collect first from the surety?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until he claims from the debtor and the latter has not the means to pay. We therefore say that the first claim is on the debtor. Here, since the father died within the thirty days of the offspring's birth, the priest's claim cannot be made on the actual debtor, and therefore it cannot be made on his surety, i.e., his property.');">12

ז אלא אמר רבא לעולם שמת לאחר ל' יום ואי דאיכא נכסי טובא ה"נ דשקיל והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דליכא אלא חמש סלעים

7 But no, said Raba. I may still say that he [the father] died after thirty days; and if there is much property, then indeed [the priest] takes his due.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the property was pledged for the five sela's during the father's life-time, and although the loan is only verbal, the priest can claim from the heirs if there is sufficient inheritance to meet the debt.');">13 The case before us, however, is one in which e.g. , there are only five sela's.

ח ודכולי עלמא אית להו דרב אסי דאמר רב אסי האחין שחלקו מחצה יורשין ומחצה לקוחות ודכולי עלמא מלוה הכתובה בתורה

8 Now all the authorities concerned agree with the ruling of R'Assi. For R'Assi said: After the brothers [heirs] have divided up the estate, with regards to a half of it they are considered as heirs14 and with regards the other half, they are considered purchasers15 from one another. Moreover, all agree that a [pecuniary] obligation arising from a rule of the Torah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the duty of redeeming the first-born, valuation and civil damages. Tosaf. adds that this refers only to cases where without a specific command of the Torah, I might not have imposed any liability.');">16

Previous Chapter Next Chapter