Commento su Bekhorot 8:11

יש בכור לנחלה – to take a double portion (see Deuteronomy 21:17).

Introduction Our mishnah deals with the laws concerning the human firstborn. There are two special rules with regard to the human first born: 1) he gets a double portion of his father’s inheritance (see Deuteronomy 21:17); 2) he must be redeemed from the priest for five shekels (see Numbers 18:16). Determining who is a firstborn is, however, different for these two matters. Our mishnah defines what firstborn counts as a firstborn for which of these two laws.

ואינו כבו לכהן – to give to a Kohen his redemption price of five Selas (see Numbers 18:16).

There is one who is [counted as] a firstborn [with respect to] inheritance but not with respect to redemption from a priest; a firstborn with respect to redemption from a priest but not a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance; a firstborn [with respect to both] inheritance and redemption from a priest; and a firstborn [in respect] to neither inheritance nor redemption from a priest. This is an introduction to the remainder of the chapter. When it comes to who is considered a firstborn for the two relevant matters, all possibilities are open.

הבא אחר הנפלים – as for example, that they were twins. One of whom was premature that his months [of fetal development] were not finished for him, and [the other one], whose months [of fetal development] were completed for him, but the premature one whose months [of fetal development] were not finished for him, his head came out alive and he retracted himself, and his [twin] brother preceded him and went out. This latter [of the two] is the first-born for inheritance, for the first one [whose head came out alive] did not cause him to suffer loss, and even though the exodus of the first [fetus] is considered to be a valid birth. And the reason, because it is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): “since he is the first fruit of his vigor,” that [child over whose death] the heart of the father is grieved (see Tractate Niddah 23b) if he (i.e., the child) dies, this excludes the premature [child] whose head came out first, who is not a viable child, [he] is one whom the heart of the father is not grieved for. But in regard to the opening of the womb (i.e., being the first born/first birth), this [latter] child, for the All-Merciful assigned, but the first [child whose head had exited the womb], was the firstborn of the womb.

Which is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance but not to redemption from a priest? One which follows one which was not viable whose head came forth alive, or one born in the ninth month whose head came out dead, or when a woman aborts something that looks like an animal, beast or bird, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: [it is not considered an opening of the womb] until [the abortion] has the form of a human being. This section lists infants that count as being the firstborn for matters of inheritance but do not need to be redeemed from the priest. The first case seems to be that of twins. The first child is not viable, meaning that he is premature. This child’s head emerges from the womb and then it goes back into the womb, after which the other child is born. The child that is born counts as the first born for inheritance, but does not need to be redeemed. A firstborn male needs to be redeemed only if he “opened his mother’s womb” and since the other child opened his mother’s womb, the second child need not be redeemed. However, he does inherit because he is the first child actually born. There are some problems with this interpretation, namely that it is impossible for one of a set of twins to be premature whereas the other is ready to be born. Nevertheless, it seems possible, in my mind, that the rabbis believed that a pregnant woman could become pregnant again and therefore have “twins,” one of whom is more mature than the other. The second case is where a fully mature child (a nine months child) has his head emerge from the womb but is dead. Then his head goes back into the womb and the other twin is born. The live twin counts as the first born for inheritance but since he didn’t open the womb, he need not be redeemed. Finally, if a woman aborts a fetus that has the shape of an animal or bird, the first opinion counts this as “opening the womb” and therefore the next born male need not be redeemed. However, since the miscarriage did not have a human form, it does not count as the first born for matters of inheritance and the second child receives the double portion. This is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. The other sages hold that if the miscarriage does not have a human form it does not count as having opened the womb. The next child is a first-born for both matters.

ובן תשעה מת שיצא ראשו – and went back inside [the womb], and his brother came out [fully first], is the first-born for inheritance. But he is not considered the first, for his father is not grieved for him, but regarding the Kohen [for the redemption of the first-born], he is not the first-born of the womb. Ut if his head came out first alive at the age of nine [months] and afterwards, he was restored [to the womb] and [subsequently] died, he that comes after him also is not the first-born for inheritance.

If [a woman] aborts a sandal or a placenta or a fetus having an articulated shape, or if an embryo came out by pieces, [the infant] which follows after them is a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. In all of these cases the woman aborts something that is considered as having opened the womb, but does not count as a firstborn. Therefore, the next born child receives the double inheritance but does not need to be redeemed. The first case is a “sandal.” This seems to be a flat piece of flesh that resembles a sandal. It seems to either accompany a fetus or once was a fetus. The second case is a placenta that inevitably accompanies a fetus, so it is a sign that there was at some point a fetus. The third case is a fetus that has a human shape, and the fourth case is where the aborted fetus is recognizably human but is cut up into pieces. In all of these cases the fetus counts as having opened the womb, but does not count as being the first born for matters of inheritance.

וכן המפלת בהמה כו' – it is not considered to be exempted from inheritance, for the heart of the father is not grieved for them. But it is the first-born of the womb.

If one who never had children married a woman who had already given birth, even if she had given birth when she was a slave but is now free, or [had given birth] when she was a non-Jew but has since converted, if after coming to the Israelite she gave birth, [the infant] is considered a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [the infant] is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance and for redemption from a priest, as it says: “Whatever opens the womb in Israel” (Exodus 13:2), meaning only if it opens the womb in Israel. In these cases a man who has never had children marries a woman who has had children. This is his firstborn but not hers. In general, this means that the child gets the double inheritance from the father, but does not need to be redeemed because he did not open the mother’s womb. This is true even if the first child was conceived and born while the woman was not Jewish (or not free). Since her first free, Jewish child did not open the womb, he is not the first born for redemption. Rabbi Yose the Galilean holds that the child does not count as having opened his mother’s womb unless he is born while she is Jewish and free. He interprets “opens the womb in Israel” to mean that the child opens the womb of a woman who is alread “in Israel,” of Jewish status.

וחכמים אומרים עד שיהא בו מצורת אדם – it is not considered the firstborn after the womb, and the one who comes after him is a first born for a Kohen (i.e., requiring redemption by his parents). And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

If one had children already and married a woman who had never given birth previously Sections five, six, seven and eight describe cases where the child counts as a firstborn with regard to being redeemed by a priest but not for the sake of inheritance. We will start with section five. In this case, the man has already had kids so the first-born with his next wife cannot be the first born for matters of inheritance.

סנדל (a flat, fish-shaped abortion -see Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4) – a piece of flesh made in the image of a sandal/flat fish, and it lacks the form of limbs, and regularly comes together with the child. But the language of סנדל has explanations/commentaries that are hated and poor.

Or if she converted when pregnant, or if she was freed when pregnant, and she gave birth; If a woman became pregnant for the first time while a non-Jew or a slave and was then converted or freed and then gave birth, since her child was born while she was already an Israelite, the child counts as a first-born for matters of redemption. However, it does not inherit from its father because the child was conceived while the woman was still not a Jew.

או שליא – that there is no placenta without a child but that it is softened. But however, it is the opening of the womb.

ושפיר מרוקם (fully-formed fetus)– a piece of flesh that is has the articulated shape of the form of a fetus. And because it is made like an egg-shell, it is called a sack of a fetus.

If she and a priestess gave birth, she and a Levite’s daughter, she and a woman who had already given birth; This section deals with kids who get mixed up at birth. If a child of a woman who has never given birth is mixed up with a child of a woman who is exempt, such as the son of a priestess, woman of Levite descent or a woman who already gave birth, both children need to be redeemed, because either of them could be the true first born.

And similarly [if a woman] who did not wait three months after her husband's death, married and gave birth and it is not known if the infant was born in the ninth month since the death of the first [husband] or in the seventh month since she married the second, it is a firstborn for redemption from a priest but not a first-born [with respect] to inheritance. A widow should wait three months to remarry after her first husband has died in order to determine whether her next child is the first husband’s or the second’s. If she does not wait, and she becomes pregnant immediately, the child does not inherit from either father, because the “certain” inheritors can claim that the child cannot prove who his father was. The child does need to be redeemed because he is a first-born to his mother. However, he will have to redeem himself when he gets older, because he has no “certain” father who is obligated to do so on his behalf.

והיוצא מחותך – that it is severed limb by limb and in this manner it all came out. But if the head is severed, it was not the first of the womb if his brother preceded and came out before the coming out of most of the limbs of the severed one, and it would be also be a first born for the Kohen.

Which is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest? If [a woman] miscarries a sac full of blood or full of water or full of pieces of flesh; or if [a woman] miscarries something with the shape of fish or locusts or reptiles, or creeping things, or if she discharges on the fortieth day [of conception], [the infant] which follows after [these discharges] is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest. Finally the mishnah lists some cases where the child is a first-born for both matters, even though there might be reason to think otherwise. In all of these cases the woman has either a very early miscarriage or some sort of discharge that does not have the shape of a human fetus. These various types of discharges do not count as having opened her womb and therefore the child born afterwards is considered to be the first-born for both inheritance and redemption.

שכבר ילדה - that in regard to inheritance of the father, it is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): “the first fruit of his vigor”, but regarding the Kohen, the All-Merciful depends upon the opening of the womb (see Exodus 13:2 and 12).

עודה שפחה – even if she is still a heathen maid-servant at her first birth and was freed now. Or [if] she was a heathen and converted but when she came into the hand of an Israelite, she gave birth, also [the child] is a first born for inheritance, for he had not [yet] had children.

רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר בכור לנחלה ולכהן – for the sons that are born while she was a heathen do not open the womb. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi HaGelili.

נתגיירה מעוברת – and her husband is with her and she gave birth. Behold that child is a firstborn for a Kohen, for he is the firstborn of the womb for an Israelite, but not for inheritance, for since his conception is not in holiness (because she was not yet a Jewish woman at that time), he is not eligible for inheritance, for he is the seed of an idolater, the All-Merciful declared him free/ownerless, as it is written (Ezekiel 23:20): “[she lusted for concubinage with them, whose members were like those of asses] and whose organs like those of stallions.”

וילדה היא וכהנת – a Jewish woman who had never given birth and daughter of a Kohen who had given birth, and it is not know which of them (i.e., the babies born) was the child of an Israelite woman.

או היא ולויה – for a Levite woman, her son is also exempt from the five Selaim, as we stated in the first chapter (see actually, Tractate Bekhorot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1).

או היא ואשה שכבר ילדה – and it is not known which is her son (as the babies had been mixed up).

כבור לכהן – and the husband of the woman giving birth for the first time is liable for the five Selaim to the Kohen [for redemption of their first-born son], for the male child has [responsibility] all that he has.

ולא לנחלה – for he did not know the son of whom it is.

וכן מי שלא שהתה כו' – he is the first-born for a Kohen. And he will redeem himself. But not for inheritance for he does not know who conceived him. And even like an heir entitled to a single share he was not conceived, for this one (i.e., one child) supersedes him regarding this (i.e., entitlement to being a first-born) and that one (i.e., a different child) supersedes him regarding that (i.e., level of inheritance). But our Mishnah which teaches that he is not [the first-born] for inheritance purposes, it states regarding who comes after him, for the one who comes after him is not the first born for inheritance, for perhaps there is doubt if he is the son after him (see Talmud Bekhorot 47b).

מלא גנינים ([an abortion consisting of] a bag full of a many-colored substance – see also Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3 and Niddah 24b) – many colors. Another explanation – worms. That the fetus is made completely of many small, thin pieces similar to worms.

דגים וחגבים – they are not offspring, for it was not stated about them a creation like a human.

יום ארבעים – from when she became pregnant, it is merely water, and there isn’t an embryo until the day after the fortieth day, for on the fortieth day is the creation of the embryo.

יוצא דופן והבא אחריו – [the second one] through the womb. As for example, that they tore the woman when twins were in her stomach, and after that they removed the first of them through the wall (i.e., by means of Caesarean section, the second left [the womb] through the womb. But to remove an offspring from the woman through the wall [i.e., via Caesarean section] and when the woman would heal, she would once again become pregnant and give birth [naturally]. Maimonides wrote that this is impossible.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with matters relating to a child born of a caesarean section, called in Hebrew one who goes out from the wall.

שניהם אינן בכור – the first [child born] is not a firstborn for [a double-portion of the] inheritance, for we require (Deuteronomy 21:15): “[If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved,] and both the loved and the unloved have born him sons, [but the first-born is the son of the unloved one].” The second is also not the first-born, for we require (Deuteronomy 21:17): “the first fruit of his vigor.” And the first born for a Kohen – the first is not, for we require (Numbers 18:15): “the first issue of the womb.” And the second [child born] is also not the first born for the Kohen [to be redeemed with five Selaim], for [the child] is the first-born of the womb and not the first born for offspring as for example, this one that was the offspring prior to this is not a firstborn.

A fetus extracted by means of a caesarean section and one that follows neither is a first-born for inheritance or a first-born to be redeemed from a priest. According to the first opinion, a child born through a c-section does not count as a first born because he wasn’t actually “born.” He doesn’t inherit, nor does he need to be redeemed because he didn’t open his mother’s womb. However, the next child doesn’t count as the first born either, because he is not his father’s first child. Also, even if the mother survives the c-section and has another child, it is not considered the first-born for redemption, because his mother already had a viable child, even though it didn’t “open her womb.” We should note that in mishnaic times, it would have been exceedingly rare for a woman to survive a c-section. Nevertheless, the mishnah accounts for the possibility.

רבי שמעון אומר הרשון לנחלה – he holds that (Deuteronomy 21:15) “have born [him sons],” that even for that comes out from the wall (i.e., Caesarean section) is implied.

Rabbi Shimon says: the first is a first-born for inheritance and the second is a first-born as regards [the redemption] with five selas. Rabbi Shimon disagrees completely. The first child, born of a c-section, counts as the first for inheritance, because it is its father’s first born. The second child needs to be redeemed because it “opens its mother’s womb.” It must be redeemed from the priest for five selas, which are equivalent to the five shekels mentioned in the Torah.

והשני לחמש סלעים – he holds, [that child] is the firstborn for the womb, even though he is not the first-born for offspring which is a firstborn. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

וילדה שני זכרים נותן חמש סלעים – that one of them is a first-born male.

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.
If one of them dies within thirty days [of birth] the father is exempt.
If the father dies and the sons survive: Rabbi Meir says: if they gave the five sela's before the property was divided up, then what they gave is given; but if not, they are exempt. But Rabbi Judah says: there is a claim on the property.
If she gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing.
This mishnah deals with a case where twins are born, but it is unclear which child came out first.
Section one: One of these boys is certainly the first born and one is certainly not. Therefore, the father pays five selas to the priest, but does not pay twice.
Section two: A child who dies before he reaches thirty days never has a chance to be redeemed and his father is exempt. In this case, since we don’t know if the first or second born died, the father is exempt, because he can say to the priest, “prove to me that the first born survived and I will give you your five selas.” This accords with the general principle that the burden of proof is upon the claimant.
Section three: If the father dies before he has a chance to redeem one of the sons, then legally the sons must redeem themselves. However, the problem is that each son can claim that he is not the first-born and therefore doesn’t need to be redeemed. According to Rabbi Meir, if they already gave five selas to the priest before the property was divided up, then they cannot get their money back. However, if their father’s property was divided up before the five selas were given to the priest, they are exempt because each son can claim that he is not the first born.
Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that there is a debt hanging over the father’s property and that debt must be paid off, regardless of the fact that we don’t know which of the sons is a first born.

האב פטור – that he is able to state that the firstborn died. But when the son died prior to [the age of] thirty days [old], he (i.e., the father) is not liable for the redemption [of the first-born son]. But now when the matter is in doubt for perhaps the first-born son died and he (i.e., the father) is exempt, or perhaps, the one who remains is the [actual] first-born son and he (i.e., the father) is liable [for the child’s redemption]. The Kohen removes [the money] from his fellow, for the burden of proof is upon the claimant. And the same rule applies when the remaining son is exempt from redeeming himself when he will be an adult.

מת האב – after thirty days [of fathering a son].

ואם לאו פטורים – for Rabbi Meir holds that the brothers who divided the possessions of their father, they have the law of the bought property (especially – mortgaged property sold), because there is no retroactive designation (though generally, it is accepted with regard to questions of rabbinic law, but not with regard to maters of Torah law) to each one [of the sons] on his inheritance, but they are as if each purchased from the other his portion and these five Selaim were the obligation of their father as a loan by mouth, but a loan by mouth is not collected/paid from the bought property, therefore, if they divided it up until they didn’t give it, they are exempt.

רבי יהודה אומר נתחייבו הנכסים (i.e., the estate is liable) – for he holds that the brothers who divided [the property] are inheritors and there is retroactive designation to state that each one merited in his portion, and a loan by mouth one collects from the inheritors. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

זכר ונקבה אין כאן לכהן כלום – for one can say that the daughter came out first, and the burden of proof is upon the claimant (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11).

שתי נשים – of one man/husband, and they gave birth to two male [children] in a hiding place, that were mixed up.

Two women who had never before given birth gave birth to two males: he [the father] gives ten selas 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 selas to him, but if he gave it to two priests, he cannot reclaim the money from them.
If they gave birth to a male and a female or to two males and a female, he gives five selas to the priest.
If they gave birth to two females and a male, or to two males and two females, the priest receives nothing.
If one woman had given birth before and the other had never given birth, and they gave birth to two males, he gives five selas to the priest.
If one of the children died within thirty days [of its birth], the father is exempt.
If the father dies and the sons survive: Rabbi Meir says: if they gave the five sela's before the property was divided up, then what they gave is given; but if not, they are exempt. But Rabbi Judah says: there is a claim on the property.
If they gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing.
This mishnah deals with a case where two different women gave birth for the first time and their children got mixed up. Note that this mishnah is very similar to the mishnah concerning animals whose first borns are mixed up (see 2:7).
Section one: In this case both children are certainly first born males, so the father must give ten selas to the priest.
Section two: In this case one of the sons dies before he reaches thirty days. The father should have given only five selas to one priest. If he had already given ten selas to one priest, then he can ask for five back. However, if he had given five selas to one priest and five to another, he can’t recover either, because both priests can claim that their money was used to redeem the living son.
Section three: If the two women gave birth to one male and one female, or between them two males and one female, then there is only one child who is certainly a first born male. The other male may be the younger brother of the first born female. Therefore, he only gives five selas to the priest.
Section four: If there are two females and either one or two males, then it is possible that neither male is a first-born, so the priest receives nothing.
Section five: In this case, one child is certainly a first-born and one is certainly not. Therefore, he gives five selas to the priest.
Section six: This is the same debate we saw in section three of yesterday’s mishnah. For reference, see there.
Section seven: If the two give birth one to a male and one to a female, the priest receives nothing because we can’t be sure that there was a first born male.

אם לכהן אחד נתן – for the redemption of both of them, the Kohen would return to him five Selaim, for the one of them (i.e., the babies) died within thirty days [of birth], and the matter was revealed that he was premature/not a viable birth, and that he took [money] not according to the law.

אין יכול להוציא מידם – for each one of them (i.e., the individual Kohanim) can supersede him and say, “I am taking possession of them (i.e., these five Selaim) for the redemption of the living [child].

או שני זכרים ונקבה – his wives gave birth in a hiding place.

נותן חמש סלעים לכהן – whichever way you turn, one of them is a first-born male; if one of the wives gave birth to two male [children], the first one is a first-born, but if one of them gave birth to a male and a female, it is found that her partner gave birth alone to a male, and he is the first born, and the one that is with the female is exempt, perhaps, the female came out first.

אין לכהן כלום – that one is able to say that the girls came out first and there is no first-born male here.

נתנו עד שלא חלקו כו' – as I explained above (in Mishnah 3 of this chapter). And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

זכר ונקבה – one can say that the wife that had not given birth gave birth [first] to a female, and there is no first-born [male].

מת אחד – one of the offspring.

Introduction Today’s mishnah introduces other various scenarios where children become mixed up and it is unclear if one is liable for redemption as a first born.

יחזיר להם חמש סלעים – and the two fathers can divide it, and these words [apply] when one of them wrote a power of attorney/authority to his fellow, for when one of them goes to the Kohen [the other] supersedes him/pushes him aside to stay that your son is the living one.

If two women who had never before given birth married two men and gave birth to two males, the one father gives five selas to the priest and the other gives five selas to the priest. Since both children are first born boys, it is obvious that both fathers must give five selas to a priest to redeem their sons.

זכר ומקבה האבות פטורים – for each one of them (i.e., the fathers) said to the Kohen, the female child is mine.

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 selas to them, but if they gave the money to two priests, they are not able to recover it from them. Since one died before reaching thirty days, only one of the fathers needed to redeem his son. It is uncertain which father must give. If they both gave the five selas to the same priest, the priest must return five selas and they can split it between them. However, if they gave the money to two priests, then each priest can claim that he received the money for the living child and he doesn’t have to return it. The fathers will not be able to recover any money.

והבן חייב לפדות את עצמו – since nevertheless, he is a first-born [male son].

If they gave birth to a male and a female, the fathers are exempt, whereas the son must redeem himself [as in any case he is a first-born]. In this case, the male is definitely a first born but it is unclear who his father is. The father is therefore exempt from redeeming the son. However, the son, who is after all a first born, must redeem himself when he is old enough to do so.

שתי נקבות וזכר – one can say, that the one [wife] gave birth to a female child and the other [wife] to a male child and a female child, but the female child came out first. Therefore, the Kohen does not have anything. And similarly, two male children and two female children (i.e., the female children could have been born first in each case).

If they gave birth to two females and a male or to two females and two males, the priest receives nothing. In this case, it is possible that none of the children is a first born male, and therefore the priest receives nothing.

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.

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.

מת הבן בתוך שלשים יום – we are speaking of certain firstborns.

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.

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).

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.

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].

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.

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.

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.

בחזקת שלא נפדה – for people do not act that they redeem within the thirty [days].

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.

לאחר שלשים בחזקת שנפדה – that a Kohen [who removes something from his fellow and his prerogative is impaired].

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.

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.

חמש סלעים של בן – the Sela that is mention ed in the Torah in every place (see Numbers 18:16), and sometimes in the Torah it is called כסף /silver , one hundred pieces of silver. For this was during the days of Moses that the weight was three hundred and twenty grains of barley-corn, but during [the time of] the Second Temple, they increased it and raised it to the weight of three hundred and eighty-four [grains] of barley-corn. And similarly, we count today for five Selahs of the child [for redemption]. And it was found that five Selahs has the weight of one thousand nine-hundred and twenty intermediate barley-corns of refined silver.

The five selas of a first-born [are paid in] the standard of Tyrian maneh. When we come to reckon how much the father has to pay the priest, the five selas, which are the five shekels mentioned in the Torah, are reckoned in the standard of the Tyrian maneh. A Tyrian sela consists of 14.34 grams of pure silver, so the father would have to give five times this amount.

במנה צורי – that comes from the country of Tyre. But all of the silver coinage of the Torah, as for example, the five Selaim of the son (i.e., the redemption of the first-born son), and the thirty [Selaim] of the slave, and the fifty of the one who wrongs (see Deuteronomy 22:29) and seduces (see Exodus 22:16) , and the one-hundred for the one who slanders, all of them are in the Tyrian coinage which is refined silver. But all of the money which is from the Rabbinic legislation, such as the fines, and the Ketubah of a wife, according to the words of Maimonides, all of them are the money/coinage of the state, for one from eight parts which are in them is silver and seven parts are copper. But my Rabbis taught that the Ketubah/marriage contract of a virgin has the law of silver of the Torah, for it is written (Exodus 22:16): “[If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still weigh out silver in accordance] with the bride-price for virgins,” and the two-hundred clear Zuzim. And the weight of each Zuz is ninety-six barley-corns.

As regards the thirty shekels of a slave and likewise the fifty shekels of the rapist and seducer and the one hundred shekels for one who spreads an evil name in all these cases the payment is in the holy shekel, in the standard of Tyrian maneh. Any payment that is given as a fixed monetary amount in the Torah must be paid out in holy shekel, evaluated according to the standard of the Tyrian maneh, just as is the case with redeeming the first-born. There are four such cases listed here: 1) If an ox kills a slave, the owner of the ox pays the owner of the slave thirty shekels (Exodus 21:32). 2) If a man seduces a virgin, he pays the father fifty shekels (Exodus 22:15-16). 3) If he rapes a virgin, he pays fifty shekels (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). 4) If a husband defames his wife by falsely claiming that she was not a virgin on their wedding day, he is fined 100 shekels (Deuteronomy 22:19).

All of these are redeemed with money or the equivalent of money with the exception of shekel payments. In all cases where something needs to be redeemed, such as a first born son or an item dedicated to the Temple, the redemption can be done either with money or with something of equivalent value. The redemption need not be done just with coins. The exception is the half shekel that is paid on a yearly basis to the Temple in Jerusalem. This half shekel must be paid in coinage.

וכולן נפדין – this is what he said, and all that is redeemed is redeemed in silver or its equivalent, except for Shekel dues. And all that is redeemed such as the first-born of a man and that which is dedicated to the Temple, is redeemed whether with silver or with the equivalent of silver, except for that of Shekel dues, for a person who comes to pay the one-half Shekel needs to give it from clear silver engraved coinage and not equivalent to silver. And Second Tithe also is not redeemed other than with silver coinage that has an engraving and not with that which is equivalent to silver, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:25): “Wrap up the money in your hand ‘and take it with you to the place that the LORD your God has chosen,” – silver money that has upon it a form/shape.

אין פודין – [they do not redeem] the firstborn [male] of a man.

We must not redeem [a first-born] with slaves, nor with notes of indebtedness, nor with immovable properties, nor with objects of hekdesh. While a first born can be redeemed with the equivalent of money (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah), he must be redeemed with things that are similar to money, which is a type of “moveable property.” Thus a firstborn could be redeemed by giving the priest five selas worth of grain, or five selas worth of meat, for example. In contrast, slaves, while obviously moveable, are compared with land, and therefore firstborns cannot be redeemed with either slaves or land. If someone has a debt document in which his fellow owes him five shekels, he cannot use it to redeem his first born, because this debt document is not the same as actual money. It has no inherent value. The word “hekdesh” means property dedicated to the Temple and the word does not really belong here in this mishnah, because one cannot use Temple property to redeem a first born. It is probably here due to the similarity between this mishnah and Bava Metzia 4:9 and Shevuot 6:5. The Talmud interprets it to mean that just as one cannot redeem a first born with slaves, etc., so too one cannot redeem property dedicated to the Temple with these things.

לא בעבדים – even though that we said above (i.e., in the previous Mishnah) with silver or with the equivalent of silver, we don’t redeem [a firstborn male child] with servants.

If one gives a written acknowledgment to a priest that he owes him five selas he is bound to give them to him, although his son is not considered as redeemed. Therefore, if the priest wishes to give him [the note of indebtedness] as a gift he is permitted to do so. A first born must be redeemed by the father actually giving money to the priest. If the father writes a note to the priest that he is liable to give him five shekels, the father has to give the priest five shekels, but this does not count as redeeming his son. The priest can give these five shekels back to the father, because they didn’t count towards the redemption. The priest cannot, however, give back the five shekels used to redeem the son.

ולא בשטרות – that if he has a document on his fellow for five Selaim [owed him] and he gave it to the Kohen, that he (i.e., the Kohen) should collect that obligation/liability with the redemption of his son, his son is not redeemed.

If one set aside the redemption money of his son and it became lost, he is responsible for it, because it says: “Shall be for you [but] you shall surely redeem” (Numbers 18:15). If someone sets aside five shekels to use to redeem his son, and then loses them, he must restore them. This is learned midrashically from the verse in Numbers. The five shekels are only effective for redemption once they have reached the priest’s hands. Before this moment, he is not redeemed.

ולא בהקדשות – that is to say, and not with that which is sanctified [to the Temple] also we don’t redeem them neither with slaves, documents nor with land.

כתב לכהן שהוא חייב לו ה' סלעים – because of the redemption of his [first-born] son.

חייב ליתן לו ובנו אינו פדוי – it is the word of the Torah that his son is redeemed when he gives [the money]. And what is the reason that they said that he must give it and his son or else his son is not redeemed? It is a decree perhaps they will say that the redeem with documents.

לפיכך – that we said that he is required to give him (i.e., to the Kohen) five other Selaim for the redemption of his son.

אם רצה הכהן – [if the Kohen wanted] to return them and to give them (i.e., the five Selaim) to him (i.e., the father) as a gift, he is permitted, but there is no other remedy/ordinance. But even though that the Kohen is permitted to return and give the five Selahim as a gift to the father of the first-born [son], if it is the intention of the father of the son relies that the Kohen will surely return to him the five Selaim, the son is not redeemed, whether the Kohen returned them or whether he didn’t return them. This is how it appears from the Gemara (see Talmud Bekhorot 51b).

שנאמר יהיה לך ופדה תפדה – when the redemption will be yours, then your son is redeemed, and this verse (Numbers 18:15) is stated to Aaron.

ולא בנכסי האם – the usufruct property (i.e., the wife’s personal property from which her husband is entitled to benefit – brought into the marriage from her father’s home and that is not included in her marriage contract, and property that she inherits or receives as a gift after her marriage) of the mother, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): “since he is the first fruit of his vigor, the birthright is his due,” implying that it refers to that which is his (i.e., the father’s), that is to say, with his property, “the birthright is his due,” but not the property of his wife.

Introduction The first-born takes a double share in the inheritance. Our mishnah mentions several limitations on this halakhah.

ואינו נוטל פי שים בשבח – if the property [of the father] grew in value after the death of the father prior to their dividing it, the first born does not take a double portion of the increased value/amelioration. But rather, they assess the property, what it was worth at the time of the death of the father and the first-born [son] takes a double portion of them alone, as it states (Deuteronomy 21:17): “and allot to him a double portion of all he possesses,” of what belonged to the father at the time of [his] death.

The first-born takes a double share of the father's estate but he does not take a double share of the mother’s estate. The first born takes a double share in his father’s estate, but not in his mother’s, should the sons inherit from their mother.

ולא בראוי (what is coming due to the estate [as he does of what is held in possession]) – in the property, for their father did not hold in possession at the time of his death, but other than what was appropriate to fall to him in inheritance, but what fell to them after a time, the first-born does not take from them a double portion.

He also does not take a double share of the improvement in the value of the estate. If the value of the father’s estate has gone up from the time of the father’s death before the division of the estate, the first born takes his double share only from the value of the estate at the time of death. For instance, if there are three sons, the first born will take half of the estate. If the estate is worth 1,000 at death, he takes 500 and the other sons take 250 each. But if the estate goes up 300 in value from death to division, he only takes 100 of the added value.

ולא האשה בכתובתה – in the growth that accrued . But if the property [value] is not equivalent at the time of the death of her husband in order to the measure [of what is written] in her Ketubah, but afterwards it increased [in value], she does not take for her Ketubah settlement other than what they were worth [at the time of his death], and even though in general, the creditor collects the increase in value, this is one of the leniencies of the Ketubah that they taught here. And she does not take what is coming due to the estate as she does of what is held in possession.

Nor from what will fall due [to the estate] as he does of what is held in possession. If there is money or property that will eventually belong to his father but does not belong to the father at the time of his death, the first born son does not take a double share of it. For instance, let’s say the father dies before his own father dies. When the grandfather dies, the grandsons will inherit the part of the estate that their father would have inherited. Out of this part the first born grandson does not take a double portion.

ולא הבנות – [the daughters do not] take maintenance/alimentation after the death of their father according to the conditions of her (i.e., the wife’s) Ketubah (see Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 4, Mishnah 11), but the female children, they will be yours, but from me they may dwell in my house and are supported from my property. Not from the increase in value of the property nor from that which is appropriate to come after death. Since the maintenance of the daughters is from the conditions of the Ketubah, they are like the Ketubah itself.

Nor can a woman claim with her ketubah [from these], Nor can daughters claim their support. Nor can a yavam make a claim [from these]. None of these take from the improvement in the value of the estate, nor of what will fall to the estate as they do of what is now held in possession. There are three other instances where collection is limited in the same way that the first born’s collection is limited. 1: A woman collecting her ketubah payment from her husband’s estate. 2: Girls being maintained by the money left over from their father’s estate. 3: A man (yavam) who has performed yibbum (levirate marriage) with his dead brother’s wife. The yavam inherits all of his brother’s property. He would also inherit his brother’s portion of his father’s estate, but he would only take from his father’s estate and not his mother’s. Similarly, he would not take his brother’s share from the improvement. Finally, he would only take his brother’s share of his father’s estate if his father dies first, and they don’t have time to divide up the property before his brother dies and he does yibbum.

ולא היבם – [the levir] who takes a portion of the [property] of the dead when he performs levirate marriage with his wife, he does not take the portion of his brother, neither from the increase [in value] nor form that which is coming due to the estate [over time]. What is the reason? The All-Merciful calls him “the first born (Deuteronomy 25:6): “The first son that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother,” like the first-born son; just as the first-born does not take from the increase nor that which is appropriate to come [to him], so too the levir does not take neither the increase in value nor what is appropriate to come (i.e., what is expected to accrue to the estate).

וכולן אינן נוטלין בשבח – He teaches this again [in the Mishnah] to include increase that comes of its own accord/automatically, as for example, grain that was ruined when his father died and now it made ears of corn, or dates in the budding stage and they now became large dates. For if the Mishnah had only taught the first clause, I would think that the firstborn does not take a double-portion of the increase in value, that they words refer to the increase that his brother was busy with as for example the manuring of the fields and the crushing of the earth and the hoeing.

ולא בראוי כבמוחזק – to include [as well] if the father of their father was alive at the time of the death of their father, that the property would be appropriate to them [via inheritance] when he would die, even though that certainly, it would eventually fall to them, and even if he has another son, these would take the portion of their father, for I might think that it is like what is held in possession. Hence, this is not the case. For if only from the first clause of the Mishnah, I might think that what is appropriate according to what is taught in the first clause, the first born does not take, as for example, when the property of the brother of their father who did not have children fell to them at the time of the death of their father, it is not appropriate other than from doubt, for perhaps he will not have issue.

הבכורה – does not return [to the original owner] in the Jubilee year, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): “a double portion, I make an analogy [of nearby verse fragments] of the two parts one to another, just as one part, his plain heir’s right does not return in the Jubilee year for it is an inheritance, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): “When he wills the property to his sons,” even the part of is first-born son is [his] inheritance.

Introduction According to Leviticus 25, if a person grows poor and sells his ancestral lands, the lands return to him during the Jubilee year. From here we can learn that if a person receives land as an inheritance and then he sells that land, the land is returned to him during the Jubilee year.

והיורש את אשתו – for this [anonymous] Tanna/teacher holds that this is from the Torah, (Numbers 27:11): “[If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property] to his nearest relative in his own clan, and he shall inherit it,” from here, [we learn] that the husband inherits his wife [who dies first].

The following do not return [to their owners] in Jubilee year: Our mishnah deals with cases where a person inherits land, it does not go back to its original owners to be divided up again during the Jubilee, in the same way that land that a person inherits does not leave his possession during the Jubilee.

והמיבם את אשת אחיו – and he took his brother’s portion, it is a complete inheritance and he doesn’t return to the rest of the brothers in the Jubilee year. For the All-Merciful calls him a first born (Deuteronomy 25:6): “The first son [that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel,] the firstborn status does not return in the Jubilee year as we have derived.

The share of the first-born, The extra portion that a son receives for being the first born. When the Jubilee year comes, this portion stays with the first born.

והמתנה כדברי ר' מאיר – it is something sold, that the All-Merciful stated that it be returned in the Jubilee year, but an inheritance and a gift is not [returned[.

[The inheritance of] one who inherits his wife's [estate] One who inherits his wife’s estate. Although this is not his own ancestral land, when the Jubilee years comes, it stays with him and does not go back to his wife’s family.

וחכמים אומרים מתנה כמכר – as it is written (Leviticus 25:13): “In this year of jubilee, each of you shall return to his holding.” But it is an extraneous verse, for it has already been stated (Leviticus 25:10): “Each of you shall return to his holding [and each of you shall return to his family],” but it (i.e., the extraneous verse] comes in order to include the gift that it comes.

[And of] one who performs yibbum with his sister-in-law As we learned in mishnah nine, when a brother performs yibbum, he inherits his brother’s estate. Again, this property stays with him at the Jubilee.

רבי אליעזר אומר כולן חוזרים ביובל – He holds like the Rabbis who state that the word תשובו /shall return [to his holding] includes the gift. And these all of them are a gift. The firstborn – to give him a “double portion” (Deuteronomy 21:17) the All-Merciful calls a gift. And the person who inherits his wife, the inheritance of the husband is according to the Rabbis. And the one who performs levirate marriage on the wife of his [deceased] brother (who died without fathering any children), the All-Merciful calls him a first-born, for just as the first-born portion returns, so the levir returns [his portion].

And a present, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: a present is like a sale. There is a debate over whether a present is restored during the Jubilee year. According to Rabbi Meir, if a person gives a piece of land to someone else as a present, the land does not revert to its original owner during the Jubilee year. The other sages disagree and hold that a present is just like a sale.

היורש את אשתו יחזיר לבני משפחה – Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka holds that the inheritance of the husband of his [deceased] wife is from the Torah, and here, what are we dealing with? As For example, that his wife had bequeathed to him a cemetery, but because of the blemish/discredit to the family, the Rabbis stated that they should consider the cost and return the graves to the members of the family.

Rabbi Elazar says: all of these return in the Jubilee. Rabbi Elazar takes a more radical approach and holds that all of this property returns during the Jubilee to its original owners.

וינכה להם מן הדמים – the cost of the grave of his wife. For he, at any rate, is responsible for her burial. But the Halakha is according to the Sages that a gift is like a sale, and according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka , for a husband whose wife bequeathed him a cemetery takes the money and returns the cemetery to the members of the family, and deducts from the monies the cost of his wife’s grave.

R. Johanan ben Berokah says: if one inherits his wife's estate, he returns it to the members of the family and he deducts from the purchase money. Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah disagrees with Rabbi Meir as well and holds that a man must return his wife’s inheritance to her family at the Jubilee. However, he seems to hold that the family pays him back for the property. From this amount, he should reduce the amount that he benefited by owning the property for the years that he owned it. In this way, he doesn’t unduly profit.