If one woman had given birth and the other had not - [being the wives] of two men and they then give birth to two boys [who became mixed up] - the one whose wife had not given birth gives five <i>selaim</i>to a priest. If they gave birth to a boy and a girl the priest receives nothing. If the boy dies within thirty days, even if he already gave [the money] to the priest, (the five <i>selaim</i>) returns (to him). [If he dies] after thirty days - even if he hasn't given yet he must give. If he dies on the thirtieth day it is like the day before. Rabbi Akiva says: if he gave already he cannot take it back, but if he hasn't given yet he does not have to give. If the father died within thirty days it is assumed [the son] was not redeemed until he brings proof that he was redeemed. After thirty days, it is assumed he was redeemed until (they testify) that he was not redeemed. If he has to redeem [both] himself and his son - he comes before his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: his son comes first because his obligation is on his father, while his son's obligation is on him.
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
אחת בכרה ואחת שלא בכרה וכו'. אין כאן לכהן כלום – for one can say that the one giving birth for the first time gave birth to a female child.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If one woman had given birth before and the other had never before given birth, the two women belonging to two husbands, and they gave birth to two males, the one whose wife had never before given birth gives five selas to the priest. In this case, two men each have one wife and one wife has previously given birth and one has not. If they both give birth to a male, it is obvious that the husband of the wife who has never given birth owes five selas.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
מת הבן בתוך שלשים יום – we are speaking of certain firstborns.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing. If one woman gives birth to a boy and the other to a girl, the priest doesn’t receive anything because it is possible that the boy was born to the woman who had already given birth.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
יחזיר – for he was not a viable birth/premature, and he is not liable for redemption [of the first-born son] until after thirty days (see also Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 4) and Talmud Arakhin 51b).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If the son dies within thirty days although he gave the priest [the five selas], he must return them. This section refers to a son who is certainly a first born. If he dies before he is thirty days old, then there was never any obligation for him to be redeemed, and if the father has already given the money to the priest, the priest must return it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
מת בשיום שלשים כיום שלפניו – and even though he had given him (i.e., the Kohen) [the money], he should return it, for we learn [through an analogy of a Gezerah Shavah] of [comparing the usage of] חודש חודש in the Book of Numbers, it is written here (Numbers 18:16): “Take as their redemption price, from the age of one month up,” and it is written (Numbers 3:40): “[The LORD said to Moses:] Record every first-born male of the Israelite people from the age of one-month up,” [the word ומעלה] implying after the thirtieth day [so also in the other verse].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If he dies after thirty days, although he has not yet given the five selas, he (the must give them. If the son dies after thirty days, the father is still obligated to redeem his son. In other words, the obligation to redeem comes into existence when the son hits thirty days. The fact that the son has died before the father gave the money to the priest does not annul this obligation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
רבי עקיבא אומר אם נתן לא יטול – for Rabbi Akiba doubts if it is necessary to have the Torah write, ומעלה/and up (i.e., implying after the thirtieth day) regarding valuations , for he doesn’t derive it from the Book of Numbers, for there would be two [similar] verses coming as one and we don’t learn them; therefore, if he gave [the money to the Kohen], he should not take it back. But if he had bot given, he should not give it. For the burden of proof is incumbent upon the claimant (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11). And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If he dies on the thirtieth day, it is as if he died on the previous day. But Rabbi Akiva says: if he gave [the five selas] he cannot reclaim them, but if he had not yet given, he need not give. According to the first opinion, the obligation to redeem doesn’t exist until the thirty days are completed. Therefore, if the son dies on the thirtieth day, the priest does not receive the five selas and if he has already received them he must return them. Rabbi Akiva says that the status of the thirtieth day is doubtful. If the father has already given the money, then the priest does not need to return it. But if the father has not yet given the money, then the priest cannot make his claim.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
בחזקת שלא נפדה – for people do not act that they redeem within the thirty [days].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If the father dies within thirty days, [the infant] is under the presumption of not having been redeemed until proof is brought that he has been redeemed. If the father dies after thirty days, the infant is under the presumption of having been redeemed until he [the son] is told that he was not redeemed. The obligation for the son to be redeemed doesn’t change just because his father dies. However, there is a chance that we don’t know if the father had given the money or not. Therefore, we must make an educated guess. If the father dies within thirty days after his son’s birth, the assumption is that he did not redeem his son, because this would not be typical. Therefore, the son must redeem himself, unless he can prove that his father already did. If, however, the father dies after thirty days, we can assume that he did redeem his son, and the son is exempt, unless people know that he was not redeemed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
לאחר שלשים בחזקת שנפדה – that a Kohen [who removes something from his fellow and his prerogative is impaired].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If both he and his son need to be redeemed, the father takes precedence over his son. Rabbi 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. If a man grows up and then has a son, and realizes that he himself has not yet been redeemed, he must first redeem himself and then his son. Perhaps this is because his debt is longer overdue. Alternatively, the reason may be that if he doesn’t redeem himself, who will? Rabbi Judah disagrees. First the father must redeem his son, because that is a mitzvah incumbent upon him. Only afterwards, when he has enough money, must he redeem himself, for his redemption was supposed to be his father’s mitzvah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
הוא קודם לבנו – everyone admits that whenever he has five Selaim that are mortgaged and five [Selaim] that are free-standing, Rabbi Yehuda holds that a loan that is written in the Torah is like that which is written in the document, and his five Selaim, that his father was liable for, the Kohen can go and snatch them from mortgaged property, for his mortgage of the Kohen takes precendence, and that is what is said, that his Mitzvah (i.e., of redeeming his first-born son) is upon his father, that is to say, that from his father, the properties were mortgaged. But these free-standing five [Selaim] are redeemed for his son immediately, for if he gives free-standing [money] because of his redemption, furthermore, his son does not redeem, for perhaps the bought property was mortgaged prior to the birth of his son. But the Rabbis hold that the loan that is written in the Torah is not like that which is written in the document, for if he gives free-standing money for his son, he (i.e., the son) cannot redeem it further, for the Kohen is not able to snatch mortgaged property, therefore, his Mitzvah (i.e., of redeeming his first-born son) is preferable. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
