Bekhorot 97

Chapter 97

א בבא בהרשאה

1 We are dealing here with a case where [the fathers] wrote out a power of attorney.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'.');">1

ב והאמרי נהרדעי לא כתבינן אדרכתא אמטלטלי ה"מ היכא דכפריה אבל היכא דלא כפריה כתבינן:

2 But did not the Nehardeans say: We do not write out a private authorization2 to take possession of movables?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">3 - This is the case only where the debtor denies indebtedness [to the creditor]4

ג זכר ונקבה אין כאן לכהן כלום: תנא רב הונא שני זכרים ונקבה אין כאן לכהן כלום

3 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'.');">6 And our Tanna?7

ד ותנא דידן כיון דבשני אנשים הוא דמשכחת לה באיש אחד ושתי נשים לא משכחת לה לא מתני ליה:

4 - Since this is the case only where there are two husbands but not where there is only one husband and two women,8

ה <big>מתני׳</big> מת הבן בתוך שלשים יום אע"פ שנתן לכהן יחזיר לאחר ל' יום אע"פ שלא נתן יתן מת ביום שלשים כיום שלפניו ר' עקיבא אומר אם נתן לא יטול ואם לא נתן לא יתן:

5 he does not teach this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">9 <big>MISHNAH: </big>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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">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.

ו <big>גמ׳</big> מאי טעמייהו דרבנן גמרי (במדבר יח טז) חדש (במדבר ג מ) חדש ממדבר מה התם ומעלה אף הכא נמי ומעלה

6 <big>GEMARA: </big>What is the reason of the Rabbis?12 - We draw an analogy between the expression 'month'13

ז ור"ע מספקא ליה מדאיצטריך למכתב ומעלה גבי ערכין ולא גמרי ממדבר הוו להו שני כתובים הבאים כאחד

7 and 'month'14 mentioned in the Book of Numbers;15

ח וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

ט או דלמא כי אין מלמדין לעלמא אבל לגופייהו מלמדין ומשום הכי מספקינן ליה

9 just as there [in the latter case] it says 'And upward' s 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 valuation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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');">18

י אמר רב אשי הכל מודים לענין אבילות יום שלשים כיום שלפניו ואמר שמואל הלכה כדברי המיקל באבל:

10 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">21 but where the same subject is dealt with,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">22

יא <big>מתני׳</big> מת האב בתוך שלשים בחזקת שלא נפדה עד שיביא ראיה שנפדה לאחר שלשים יום בחזקת שנפדה עד שיאמרו לו שלא נפדה הוא לפדות ובנו לפדות הוא קודם לבנו רבי יהודה אומר בנו קודמו שמצותו על אביו ומצות בנו עליו:

11 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">25 for Samuel said: The law is in accordance with the authority who is lenient in matters of mourning.

יב <big>גמ׳</big> איתמר הפודה את בנו בתוך שלשים יום רב אמר בנו פדוי ושמואל אמר אין בנו פדוי דכולי עלמא מעכשיו אין בנו פדוי לאחר שלשים יום ואיתנהו למעות ודאי בנו פדוי

12 <big>MISHNAH: </big>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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">28 IF BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON REQUIRED REDEMPTION AS FIRST-BORN, THE FATHER TAKES PRECEDENCE OF HIS SON.

יג כי פליגי לאחר שלשים יום ונתעכלו המעות רב אמר בנו פדוי מידי דהוה אקידושי אשה התם לאו אע"ג דנתעכלו המעות הוו קידושי

13 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. <big>GEMARA: </big>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 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 o betrothal of a woman.33 There [in the case of betrothal] although the money was used, is not the betrothal yet valid?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter