Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 48 for kids: Which Baby Came First?

בכורות מ״ח

👶 When newborn sons are mixed up, how do we know which one needs to be redeemed? This daf asks when five sela coins go to a priest, and what happens if a baby dies within thirty days.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 48a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 48b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 48

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 48 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 48a, in English Tab translation (15)
  1. Mishna: He gives five sela — because one of them is the firstborn.
  2. The father is exempt — because he can say that the firstborn died. The surviving son is likewise exempt. The Mishna says “the father is exempt” because it next discusses a case in which the father died.
  3. They are exempt — as the Gemara explains.
  4. The property became obligated — the father’s property became liable to the priest, as it would to a creditor, and the two sons must pay the debt between them.
  5. The priest has nothing here — the father can say that the female was born first. The priest bears the burden of proof, since one who seeks to take property from another must prove his claim.
  6. Gemara: But his property was already subject to a lien — because this is a full-fledged debt.
  7. And he turns him away — saying, “I am not the firstborn; my brother is.”
  8. Even if they have not divided the property — one cannot say that the priest collects from it because of their father, since the father incurred no obligation. He would collect only because of the sons. Why, then, does the Mishna imply that they must pay if they have not divided the property?
  9. Two people named Yosef ben Shimon — a man held a debt document against one of them, but each denied being the debtor and pointed to the other. If the two bought a field together, the creditor can collect half of it: whichever one owes him, he takes that one’s share. So too, the priest can collect five sela from the brothers’ undivided property: whichever brother is the firstborn, he takes that brother’s share, and the brothers can settle the matter between themselves.
  10. He cannot claim it from them — because each brother turns him away.
  11. He cannot collect, and we understand this to mean that he cannot demand payment from the guarantor first — he must first demand it from the borrower and find that the borrower cannot pay.
  12. The priest collects in this case too — even if they divided the estate, since the property became subject to a lien during the father’s lifetime. Although the debt was not recorded in a document, it can be collected from the heirs if the inheritance is large enough to cover it.
  13. Rav Asi’s ruling — as stated in the first chapter of Bava Kamma (9a).
  14. Half heirs and half purchasers — Rav Asi is uncertain whether the division establishes retroactively that each brother inherited his own share, or whether each acquired his share from the other. He therefore treats them as heirs with regard to half and purchasers with regard to half.
  15. A debt written in the Torah — such as the five sela for redeeming a son, which the Torah grants to the priest.
Tosafot on Bechorot 48a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. But the property was already subject to a lien — At this point, the Gemara assumes that brothers who divide an estate are heirs, and that an oral debt can be collected from heirs. Alternatively, it assumes that an obligation imposed by the Torah is treated like a debt recorded in a document. The conclusion identifies this as a point of dispute.
  2. Everyone accepts Rav Asi’s view — This seems to suggest that Rabbi Meir, like Rav Asi, is uncertain whether division retroactively establishes which property belonged to each brother. Yet elsewhere Rabbi Meir rejects that principle. The distinction is that it can apply when a person states an explicit condition about what will happen later, but not to a division of jointly held property. This also resolves the apparently conflicting rulings of Shmuel.
  3. As Rav Asi said: Brothers who divided an estate are half heirs — Elsewhere, Rav Asi discusses brothers who divide an estate and then have a creditor seize one brother’s share. Rav says their division is undone because they are heirs; Shmuel says the other brother owes him nothing because they are purchasers from each other without a guarantee. Rav Asi treats their status as uncertain, giving the dispossessed brother part of his claim in land and part in money. Tosafot examines alternative explanations of those amounts and objects that one would wrongly make the brothers heirs for only a quarter of the estate. That would affect this mishna even if the estate held ten sela, whereas the Gemara specifies an estate of only five. Tosafot also questions why uncertainty in the law leads to a split rather than leaving the property with its holder. The answer is that the Sages sometimes settle a legal uncertainty by treating each possibility as half true, as they do in other cases; elsewhere they leave either ruling open or assign the decision to the judges.
  4. And everyone agrees that an obligation imposed by the Torah is not like one recorded in a document — This remains true in the conclusion: if everyone accepted both Rav Asi’s view and Rav Pappa’s, the brothers would be exempt because the priest cannot collect half of the required five sela. But a later passage says Rabbi Yehuda treats a Torah obligation like a documented debt. Tosafot therefore explains that the dispute here concerns whether an obligation such as firstborn redemption can be collected from property acquired by purchasers. It does not mean that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the general rule that an ordinary oral loan cannot be collected from such property. Alternatively, Rav Pappa’s ruling here specifically includes obligations imposed by the Torah: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with him and allows collection from purchasers.
  5. An obligation imposed by the Torah — This means an obligation that would not exist without the Torah’s command, such as firstborn redemption, a pledged valuation, or damages. An ordinary oral loan does not become such an obligation merely because the Torah discusses repayment: the borrower would owe what he borrowed even without that verse.
Rashi on Bechorot 48b, in English Tab translation (28)
  1. But not half of five — They are exempt: after the brothers divide the property, half is treated as purchased property, leaving only two and a half sela coins as inheritance. The priest cannot collect from purchased property, because an oral loan cannot be collected from purchasers.
  2. And even half of five — The priest collects the half that remains an inheritance.
  3. If so — If Rabbi Yehuda holds that the priest collects only half, how can he say that the property became obligated?
  4. He should have said the people are obligated — This is the correct reading, not “the property became obligated.” Rabbi Yehuda should have said that the brothers are obligated to pay something, though not the full five sela coins. Even if the father died after thirty days, the priest loses half of what the property owed once the brothers divide it and are treated as purchasers.
  5. The brothers divided the property — Both brothers may be the firstborn.
  6. Ten dinars for this one and ten for that one — That is two and a half sela coins apiece.
  7. If we say this includes both the inherited and purchased portions — Then “they are obligated” means they must pay half of five sela coins, since, on this reading, everyone accepts the rulings of Rav Asi and Rav Pappa. This would show that Rabbi Yehuda requires payment even of half of five.
  8. Even fewer than ten — Even if there were only eight dinars, the priest would take the two sela coins available. If he can collect less than five, he can collect whatever is available; “half of five” would include other portions too. Why, then, does the baraita say they are exempt otherwise?
  9. Rather, clearly, ten dinars of inheritance — Each brother has ten dinars of inherited property, apart from the portion treated as purchased property. Together, the inherited portions total five sela coins.
  10. And here — In the mishna, they disagree about Rav Asi or Rav Pappa. Rabbi Meir accepts both rulings: since all the property totals only five sela coins, the priest cannot collect five from the inherited portion, and he cannot collect less than five. Rabbi Yehuda either accepts Rav Asi’s ruling that half is treated as purchased property but rejects Rav Pappa’s ruling, holding that an oral loan can be collected from purchasers; or he rejects Rav Asi’s ruling and treats all the property as inheritance. Either way, the priest collects all five. Accordingly, the baraita means that if the two brothers’ portions together total ten dinars apiece, they must give all the property; if the total is less than five sela coins, they are exempt, because the requirement is five and not part of five.
  11. Some teach this entire discussion about the latter clause — That is, about Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna.
  12. And one bought a field from the other — Here too, Rabbi Yehuda obligates the brothers even though, because we do not determine retroactively which property each inherited, brothers who divide an inheritance are treated as purchasers.
  13. As in the first version — They disagree about the rulings of Rav Asi and Rav Pappa.
  14. Two women — Both are wives of one man.
  15. And they gave birth to two males — They gave birth while in hiding, and the infants became mixed up.
  16. If he gave the payment to one priest — If the father gave that priest the redemption payments for both infants, the priest returns five sela coins. One infant died within thirty days, revealing that he had not been viable, so the priest took that payment without entitlement.
  17. He cannot recover it from them — Each priest can turn him away, saying that he is holding the payment for the surviving infant.
  18. Or two males and a female — His wives gave birth to these children while in hiding. He gives five sela coins to a priest, because one male is certainly a firstborn: if one woman bore two males, the first is a firstborn; if one bore a male and a female, the other bore a male alone, and he is a firstborn. The male born with the female is exempt, since she may have been born first, and the burden of proof rests on the person seeking payment.
  19. The priest gets nothing here — The females may have been born first, leaving no firstborn male.
  20. The father is exempt — He can say that the son born to the woman who had not previously given birth was the one who died.
  21. They gave the payment before dividing the property — The ruling follows the earlier case, because of the rulings of Rav Asi and Rav Pappa.
  22. A male and a female — The woman who had not previously given birth may have borne the female, leaving no firstborn male.
  23. One of them died — One of the infants died; the priest returns five sela coins to the two fathers, who divide them.
  24. They cannot recover it — Each priest can say that he is holding the payment for the surviving infant, and that the infant for whom he was paid did not die. The person seeking to recover the money bears the burden of proof.
  25. The fathers are exempt — Each can tell the priest that the female is his child.
  26. And the son must redeem himself — because he is a firstborn in any case.
  27. Two females and a male — One woman may have borne a female, and the other a male and a female, with the female born first. The priest therefore receives nothing, since the woman giving birth for the first time may have borne a female. The same applies to two males and two females.
  28. Gemara: Even one priest — If he received payment from both fathers, then when either father comes to him, the priest can turn him away and say, “It was not your son who died, but the other father’s. You have no claim against me.”
Tosafot on Bechorot 48b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Rabbi Meir holds: Five — This differs from the requirement to pay five oxen for a stolen ox, which can mean even five half-oxen. That is restitution, so a person pays what he owes. Here the Torah imposes a mitzva to give five sela coins, which cannot be fulfilled with less than five. Although one may pay ten priests in succession, this case is different: the property is liable for only half of the five.
  2. And if he gave the money to two priests, he cannot recover it from them — If he need not pay before giving, why is this not like a priest who seizes disputed property, from whom it can be recovered? Here the question is less pressing because he does not know which priest to recover it from. But the same difficulty arises when a child dies on the thirtieth day: Rabbi Akiva says that if the father paid, he cannot recover the money, but if he did not pay, he need not do so. The answer is that he initially gave the money as a priestly gift. Even if it later becomes clear that, because of the doubt, the priest could not have claimed it, the money is not recovered from him. The same applies to the case of someone who comes in the middle of the month in the final chapter of Bava Metzia. Although the entire payment would go to the landlord if he came at the beginning of the month, this is not treated like a priest seizing disputed property.
  3. If they gave the money before dividing the property — We need to explain why both clauses present the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 48.