Bekhorot 96

Chapter 96

א לאו ככתובה בשטר דמיא ודכולי עלמא אית להו דרב פפא דאמר רב פפא מלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין ואינו גובה מן הלקוחות

1 is not on a par with an obligation in a note.1 Again, all agree with the ruling of R'Papa. For R'Papa said: One can claim repayment of a verbal loan from the heirs but not from the purchasers.

ב והכא בחמש ולא בחצי חמש קמיפלגי דר"מ סבר חמש ולא חצי חמש ור' יהודה סבר חמש ואפי' חצי חמש

2 And the point at issue here is whether the [biblical] five sela's rules out a half of five sela's [as a redemption]. R'Meir holds: Scripture says five sela's, thus ruling out a half of five sela's [as redemption]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the inheritors are exempt. For half of their share is considered as belonging to them as vendees and there is thus no inheritance left except two-and-a-half sela's, and the priest is not able to claim this, since a verbal loan cannot be claimed from property in the hands of the buyers.');">2 whereas R'Judah holds: Five sela's and even a half of five sela's.3

ג אי הכי רבי יהודה אומר נתחייבו נכסים נתחייב גברא מיבעי ליה ועוד תניא ר' יהודה אומר האחין שחלקו אם יש עשרה זוז לזה ועשרה זוז לזה חייבין ואם לאו פטורין

3 If this be the case,4 why does [the Mishnah say], R'JUDAH HOWEVER SAYS: THERE IS A CLAIM ON THE PROPERTY? Should it not read as follows: 'There is a claim on the person'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The father. For since we are referring to a case where the father died after the thirty days when there was a duty upon him to redeem, it would have been more appropriate for R. Judah to declare there is a liability standing against the father which the survivors must discharge.');">5

ד מאי עשרה זוז לזה ועשרה זוז לזה אילימא בין דירושה בין דלקוחות וחמש ואפילו חצי חמש אי הכי מאי איריא עשרה אפילו בציר מעשרה נמי

4 And moreover it has been taught: R'Judah says: After the brothers [the heirs] have divided up the property,6 if there are ten zuz7 for one and ten zuz for the other, they must be redeemed from the priest, but if not,8

ה אלא פשיטא עשרה זוז דירושה לזה ועשרה זוז דירושה לזה אלמא חמש ולא חצי חמש סבירא ליה

5 they are exempt. Now what does R'Judah mean by the expression 'ten zuz for one and ten zuz for the other'? Shall I say that he refers to both the portion [that comes to them] as inheritance and to that part regard to which the heirs are considered vendees?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And when R. Judah declares that they are obliged to be redeemed from the priest, he means from the portion of the inheritance, since you say that all hold the view of R. Assi and R. Papa. Consequently we infer from this that R. Judah maintains that one can redeem a first-born with even less than the statutory five sela's of the Bible.');">9

ו אלא דכולי עלמא חמש ולא חצי חמש והכא בדרב אסי ורב פפא קמיפלגי

6 If this be the case, why does R'Judah mention ten zuz, for the same also applies to less than ten zuz?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even for example, if each brother had only eight zuz, making four sela's in all, of which the priest would receive two, as the other half is considered as property bought from each other, the law would be the same. Consequently what need is there for R. Judah to mention specially the figure of ten zuz, for, since the whole of the redemption money cannot be paid, a third or a fourth of the sum is also valid.');">10

ז ואיכא דמתני ליה אסיפא נתחייבו הנכסים דמית האב אימת אילימא דמית לאחר שלשים מכלל דר"מ סבר כי חלקו פטורין הא אישתעבדי להו נכסי

7 Then he certainly means that there are ten zuz [coming] as inheritance to one and ten zuz [coming] as inheritance to the other.11 Consequently we see that he holds that the [biblical] five sela's excludes [redemption with] half the five sela's! Rather [explain thus]: All the authorities concerned agree that the five sela's [of redemption] excludes [a redemption] with half of five sela's, and here they differ on the points raised by R'Assi and R'Papa.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir holds with both R. Assi and R. Papa, and as there is not more than five sela's altogether, the priest takes nothing. for the five sela's of the Bible is strictly meant and one cannot therefore effect redemption with less than this sum. As for R. Judah, if he agrees with R. Assi that in regard to half of the property they are considered vendees, and not with the opinion of R. Papa, that a verbal loan cannot be claimed from property in the hands of buyers. the priest takes the whole. And if he does not agree with the opinion of R. Assi, but holds that in regard to the entire property they are regarded as heirs, then, whether he agrees with R. Papa or not, the priest takes the whole of the five sela's. According to this explanation we therefore interpret the Baraitha as follows: If there are ten zuz altogether for each brother, they must give all their property for redemption, but if there is not property of the value of five sela's, the survivors are exempt from the duty of redemption, for the statutory five sela's exclude a redemption of less than this amount (Rashi) .');">12 Some report this [whole argument] in connection with the latter clause [in our Mishnah as follows]. R'JUDAH SAYS: THERE IS A CLAIM ON THE PROPERTY. Now when did the father die?

ח אלא בתוך שלשים כי חלקו אמאי מחייב ר' יהודה ליזיל לגבי האי לידחייה וגבי האי ולידחייה

8 Shall I say that he died after thirty days? This would imply that R'Meir holds that when the property is divided up they are exempt from redemption. But is not the property pledged for redemption?

ט א"ר ירמיה זאת אומרת שני יוסף בן שמעון שהיו בעיר אחת ולקח אחד מהם שדה מחבירו בעל חוב גובה ממנו דאמר ליה אי בדידך מסיקנא מנתא דידך קא שקילנא ואי בחברך מסיקנא משתעבדא לי מקמי דידך

9 Then we must say that he died within thirty days. But why then does R'Judah make the survivor liable to redemption, for if the priest goes to one his claim can be rejected, and if he goes to the other, his claim can again be rejected? - Said R'Jeremiah: This proves that if there were two men of the name of Joseph B'Simeon in one city and one purchased a field from the other, a creditor can claim from him13 for he can say to him: 'If my claim is against you, I am taking your maneh, and if the claim is against your friend, the property is pledged to me for the debt before your claim'.

י אמר רבא מכדי נכסוהי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה וכולה כלישנא קמא:

10 Said Raba: Now a man's property is surety for him etc. , as in the first version.14 <big>MISHNAH: </big>IF TWO WOMEN15

יא <big>מתני׳</big> שתי נשים שלא בכרו וילדו שני זכרים נותן י' סלעים לכהן מת אחד מהן בתוך שלשים יום אם לכהן אחד נתן יחזיר לו חמש סלעים ואם לשני כהנים נתן אינו יכול להוציא מידם

11 HAD NEVER BEFORE GIVEN BIRTH AND THEY GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, HE [THE FATHER] GIVES TEN SELA'S TO THE PRIEST. IF ONE OF THE CHILDREN DIES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [OF ITS BIRTH], IF HE GAVE THE REDEMPTION MONEY TO ONE PRIEST ALONE, HE RETURNS FIVE SELA'S TO HIM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because since one child died within thirty days of its birth, then clearly the child was an untimely birth and therefore the priest is is not ,n entitled to receive redemption money (Rashi) . According to Tosaf. ');">16

יב זכר ונקבה או שני זכרים ונקבה נותן חמש סלעים לכהן שתי נקבות וזכר או שני זכרים ושתי נקבות אין כאן לכהן כלום

12 BUT IF HE GAVE IT TO TWO PRIESTS, HE CANNOT RECLAIM THE MONEY FROM THEM.17 IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO A MALE AND A FEMALE OR TO TWO MALES AND A FEMALE,18

יג אחת בכרה ואחת שלא בכרה וילדו שני זכרים נותן חמש סלעים לכהן מת אחד מהן בתוך שלשים יום האב פטור

13 HE GIVES FIVE SELA'S TO THE PRIEST.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in any case one child must be a first-born. For if one woman gave birth to two males, the first male is the first-born, and if one woman gave birth to a male and a female, then the other gave birth to a male alone which is therefore the first-born, the male which was born with the female being exempt from the law of the firstborn in case the female came forth first.');">19 IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO TWO FEMALES AND A MALE OR TO TWO MALES AND TWO FEMALES, THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING.20

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

14 IF ONE WOMAN HAD GIVEN BIRTH BEFORE AND THE OTHER HAD NEVER GIVEN BIRTH, AND THEY GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, HE GIVES FIVE SELA'S TO THE PRIEST.21 IF ONE OF THE CHILDREN DIED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [OF ITS BIRTH], THE FATHER IS EXEMPT.22 IF THE FATHER DIES AND THE CHILDREN SURVIVE, R'MEIR SAYS: IF THEY GAVE THE REDEMPTION MONEY BEFORE THE DIVIDING UP [OF THE PROPERTY], IT IS IRRECOVERABLE, BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE EXEMPT, BUT R'JUDAH SAYS: THERE IS A CLAIM ON THE PROPERTY. IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO A MALE AND A FEMALE, THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING. IF TWO WOMEN WHO HAD NEVER BEFORE GIVEN BIRTH MARRIED TWO MEN AND GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, THE ONE FATHER GIVES FIVE SELA'S TO THE PRIEST AND THE OTHER GIVES FIVE SELA'S TO THE PRIEST.

טו שתי נשים של שני אנשים שלא בכרו וילדו ב' זכרים זה נותן חמש סלעים לכהן וזה נותן חמש סלעים מת אחד מהם בתוך שלשים אם לכהן אחד נתנו יחזיר להם חמש סלעים אם לשני כהנים נתנו אינן יכולין להוציא מידם

15 IF ONE OF THE CHILDREN DIED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [OF ITS BIRTH], IF THEY GAVE THE REDEMPTION MONEY TO ONE PRIEST ALONE, HE RETURNS FIVE SELA'S TO THEM,23 BUT IF THEY GAVE THE MONEY TO TWO PRIESTS, THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO CLAIM IT FROM THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For each priest can claim: 'I am retaining the money on account of the living child, as the child on whose behalf I received the money did not die', and the burden of proof is on the claimant, the father.');">24

טז זכר ונקבה האבות פטורין והבן חייב לפדות את עצמו שתי נקבות וזכר או שתי נקבות ושני זכרים אין כאן לכהן כלום

16 IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO A MALE AND A FEMALE, THE FATHERS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE DUTY OF REDEMPTION,25 WHEREAS THE SON MUST REDEEM HIMSELF [AS IN ANY CASE HE IS A FIRST-BORN].

יז אחת בכרה ואחת שלא בכרה של שני אנשים וילדו שני זכרים זה שלא בכרה אשתו נותן חמש סלעים לכהן זכר ונקבה אין כאן לכהן כלום:

17 IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO TWO FEMALES AND A MALE OR TO TWO FEMALES AND TWO MALES, THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of two females and a male, each one can say that one woman gave birth to the female and the other to a male and a female, the female coming forth first. And with reference also to the case of two females and two males, each can say that the woman gave birth to a female first in each case.');">26

יח <big>גמ׳</big> מ"ש שני כהנים דאזיל לגבי האי ומדחי ליה ואזיל לגבי האי ומדחי ליה

18 IF ONE WOMAN HAD GIVEN BIRTH BEFORE AND THE OTHER HAD NEVER BEFORE GIVEN BIRTH, THE WOMEN BELONGING TO TWO HUSBANDS, AND THEY GAVE BIRTH TO TWO MALES, THE ONE WHOSE WIFE HAD NEVER BEFORE GIVEN BIRTH GIVES FIVE SELA'S TO THE PRIEST.

יט כהן אחד נמי ליזיל לגבי האי ולידחייה וליזיל לגבי האי ולידחייה אמר שמואל

19 IF THEY GAVE BIRTH TO A MALE AND A FEMALE, THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING.27 <big>GEMARA: </big>What is the reason that in the case of two priests the redemption money cannot be recovered? Presumably because if he [the father] goes to one priest his claim can be rejected, and if he goes to the other his claim can again be rejected. Why then should we not apply the same principle to the case of one priest, so that if one father goes to the priest the latter can reject his demand [to return the money]28 and if the other goes to the priest, the latter can also reject his demand? - Said Samuel:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter