Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 49 for kids: The Thirty-Day Question

בכורות מ״ט

🪙 When does a firstborn son’s redemption take effect? This daf asks what happens on the thirtieth day, if the payment was made early, and when a father must redeem both himself and his son.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 49a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 49b 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 49

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 49 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 49a, in English Tab translation (22)
  1. Comes with authorization — The two fathers gave each other authorization. The one who comes to the priest can demand the money either way: if his own son died, the priest must return his payment; if the other father’s son died, he can collect that payment on the other father’s behalf.
  2. An authorization document — Authorization to collect movable property can appear false when the property is no longer present: the respondent may have nothing belonging to the claimant, yet witnesses have signed the document.
  3. When he denied it — Once the borrower has denied owing the lender, the lender cannot write an authorization document for the claim, because it would appear false.
  4. Rav Huna teaches — If the two women married to different men had two boys and a girl whose births were concealed, the priest receives nothing. One boy is certainly a firstborn: either one woman bore both boys, or she bore a boy and a girl and the other woman bore a boy. Even so, each boy can say, “Perhaps the other boy is the firstborn.”
  5. With one man and two wives, this cannot occur — Since one boy is certainly a firstborn, the father must give the priest five sela. The mishna therefore omits this case: in every case it teaches where “the priest receives nothing,” the ruling holds both for one man’s two wives and for two women married to different men.
  6. Mishna: If the son dies within thirty days — This also refers to ordinary cases of boys known to be firstborn.
  7. He must return it — The child is treated as a stillborn, and the obligation to redeem him does not arise until after thirty days.
  8. Like the preceding day — Even if the father paid, the priest must return the money.
  9. From the wilderness — Here it says, “From a month old you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:16), and concerning the firstborn in the wilderness it says, “Number every firstborn male from a month old and upward” (Numbers 3:40).
  10. And upward — This means after thirty days.
  11. He is uncertain — Perhaps the phrase “and upward” in the law of valuations prevents us from deriving the meaning of “from a month old” from the firstborn in the wilderness. In tractate Arakhin, a verbal analogy concerning years teaches that the sixtieth year belongs to the lower age bracket when that is more stringent, and that the fifth and twentieth years also belong to the lower bracket, even when that is more lenient. By the same reasoning, the thirtieth day would belong to the earlier period, even though that is more lenient.
  12. They are — The verses about valuations and the firstborn in the wilderness are two verses teaching the same point, and so do not teach it to the law of redeeming a firstborn son.
  13. Or perhaps, when we say they do not teach — That rule applies to an unrelated subject, such as valuations in relation to the firstborn.
  14. But concerning their own subject — The law of firstborns in the wilderness can teach the law of firstborns in later generations, since both concern firstborns. Because the matter is uncertain, Rabbi Akiva says that if the father paid, he cannot take the money back, but if he did not pay, he need not pay.
  15. Concerning mourning — If a baby dies within thirty days, the father does not observe mourning rites, since the baby may have been a stillborn.
  16. Mishna: Not redeemed — Before thirty days, the son is presumed not to have been redeemed, since people do not ordinarily redeem a son before then. That presumption stands until evidence is brought.
  17. After thirty days, he is presumed redeemed — The priest is seeking payment from someone else, so the burden is on him.
  18. Until they tell him — If people tell the son that his father said on his deathbed that he had not redeemed him, their statement is enough; formal testimony is unnecessary. The presumption that he was redeemed is not strong, since most people do not pay a debt immediately. Nor can the priest be required to bring proof, for the son could say that his father paid a different priest.
  19. Whose redemption was his father’s duty — His deceased father was obligated to redeem him, while he himself is obligated to redeem his own son.
  20. Gemara: Everyone agrees — If a father says that his son should be redeemed immediately, it is not a redemption but merely a gift, since redemption does not apply within thirty days. But if he gives the priest the money within thirty days and says that the redemption should take effect afterward, and the priest still has that very money after thirty days, the son is certainly redeemed—as though the father had given it then.
  21. Were used up — The original coins are no longer there.
  22. To betrothing a woman — If a man gives a woman something now and says, “Be betrothed to me after thirty days,” she is betrothed, as stated in tractate Kiddushin.
Tosafot on Bechorot 49a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. That applies when he denied the claim — This is difficult according to the first version in Bava Kamma, which does not distinguish between a denied and an undenied claim. A similar difficulty arises in Shevuot: a case involving testimony that someone is a priest or a Levite implies that witnesses are liable for withholding testimony about money owed to someone else. Yet they must hear the claim from the claimant himself. The Gemara answers that the claimant gave authorization, then raises the objection from the Sages of Neharde’a and resolves it by distinguishing a denied claim. According to their first version, that case can concern a deposit: since its owner can consecrate it, he can also authorize another to claim it, for the same reason. Our case can instead concern land, following Rabbi, who holds that a firstborn can be redeemed with land. Authorization is written for land, but not for movable property outside the claimant’s possession. Alternatively, Rabbi Natan’s rule may allow one father to collect what the priest owes the other; or one father may have transferred his claim to the other in the presence of all three parties. This last answer needs examination: perhaps the Sages did not establish such a transfer where the claim cannot be enforced in court, just as they did not establish it for a marriage contract collectible only after the husband’s death. Another answer is that if both fathers are present and direct the priest to pay one of them, he must return the money. Authorization is needed only so that one father can collect on his own.
  2. But when he has not denied the claim, we write authorization — Rabbeinu Tam explains why authorization is now written even when the claim has been denied. The Sages of Neharde’a did not allow it because the document appears false, as stated in Bava Kamma; but Ketubot shows that we are not concerned about that appearance. I discussed this at length in Bava Kamma.
  3. If his son died within thirty days, the priest returns the five sela — Rashi explains that the child was a nonviable birth. That explanation is unnecessary: even if we know the pregnancy reached full term, the Torah makes the obligation depend on the child reaching one month of age.
  4. After thirty days, even if he has not paid, he must pay — At the end of Pesachim, we are told that the father recites two blessings at his son’s redemption. If the son has died, it is uncertain whether the father recites Shehecheyanu, since he still merits fulfilling the mitzva. One should not ask why Shehecheyanu is recited at each redemption but not at each circumcision: redemption of a firstborn is less common.
  5. If he died on the thirtieth day, it is like the preceding day; Rabbi Akiva says, etc. — In Yevamot, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that a child who survives thirty days is not a nonviable birth, implying that before then his status is uncertain. The Gemara discusses a child who died within thirty days, after whose death his mother became betrothed. If she is married to an Israelite, she must perform chalitza. Most texts of Shabbat, however, read ‘died on the thirtieth day,’ as does Ri; Rabbeinu Chananel reads this way too. Yet ‘within thirty days’ seems preferable: since the Rabbis here treat the thirtieth day like the preceding day, while Rabbeinu Chananel treats it as uncertain, they and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree about that day as well as earlier days. She’iltot also reads ‘within thirty days.’ Halakhot Gedolot, however, says that on the thirtieth day even a child who yawned and died is not considered nonviable according to the Rabbis; Shabbat’s ruling that such a child is deemed dead by all applies only before then. This supports reading ‘on the thirtieth day’ and taking ‘died’ to include a child who yawned and died: after surviving that long, he is treated like a child who fell from a roof before thirty days. This reading can also stand if the child fell from a roof or was eaten by a lion on the thirtieth day, for perhaps only then do we rely on the Rabbis’ view—and perhaps even observe mourning, since the child is already considered viable.
  6. Like the preceding day — One might ask: Yevamot seems to assume that even before thirty days a child is certainly alive under Torah law. It rules that if a child died within thirty days and his mother then became betrothed to a priest, she does not perform chalitza. The answer may be that there the child fell from a roof or was eaten by a lion, in accordance with the Rabbis who disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in Shabbat; here the child yawned and died, in which case all agree he is deemed dead. Even if our case also concerns a fall, there is no difficulty: regarding mourning, we follow Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s lenient view, whereas for a priest’s wife, who cannot perform chalitza and remain married to him, we rely on the Rabbis and permit her without it. One might further ask why we are so lenient about mourning even for a child treated as certainly viable when there is no alternative, as with a priest’s wife. Semachot, however, says that uncertain children are mourned. That refers to a child whose father is uncertain—either born after nine months to the first husband or after seven to the second. It would be unseemly for neither man to mourn him, since he is certainly the son of one of them.
Rashi on Bechorot 49b, in English Tab translation (13)
  1. Come and hear — A challenge from the mishna: If the father dies within thirty days, the son is presumed not to have been redeemed.
  2. Until he brings proof — This is the correct reading. If he brings proof, he is considered redeemed, which poses a difficulty for Shmuel.
  3. His own redemption — The priest collects the five sela from property sold to others, because the priest’s claim came first. This is what Rabbi Yehuda means by saying that the father’s redemption was his own father’s obligation: those assets became subject to the priest’s claim through his father.
  4. With the five sela of unsold property, he redeems his son — He does so immediately. If he uses that property for his own redemption, he can no longer redeem his son with the sold property, since it may have been sold before his son was born.
  5. Not like a debt recorded in a document — If he uses the unsold property to redeem his son, he can no longer redeem himself, because the priest cannot collect from the buyers.
  6. Tyrian maneh — The Gemara explains this.
  7. The fifty shekels of a rapist and a seducer — That is, the fifty shekels paid by a rapist, and likewise those paid by a seducer.
  8. All are calculated by the Sanctuary shekel — It equals twenty ma’ah coins, reckoned according to Tyrian coinage. The Gemara explains why the mishna repeats this point.
  9. Except for the half-shekels — For the half-shekels brought to the Temple treasury in Adar, only half-shekel coins are accepted.
  10. Tyrian maneh — The coinage used in Tyre: a sela is four zuz, and a zuz has the weight in gold of two and a half peshitin by the iron-weight measure.
  11. Rabbi Ami says — A Tyrian sela is an Arabian Ishmaelite dinar. Its weight was not explained to me, but I found in a responsum of the Babylonian Geonim that seven dinars mentioned throughout the Talmud—each worth six silver ma’ah—equal ten Arabian dinars. In Arabic, these are called magra’ot.
  12. Istira Suserita — Old sela coins.
  13. Sold eight for a dinar — Eight of those coins sell for one dinar.
Tosafot on Bechorot 49b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. His own redemption is collected from liened property, and with the five sela of unsold property he redeems his son — How can the priest collect from sold property when unsold property is available? It would make sense if the man redeemed his son first. But then why could the buyers not recover their loss from the property given to the priest for the son? Their claim must predate the son’s birth; otherwise the priest could have collected from them for the son as well. One answer is that the buyers bought from the man’s father, so they have no claim on property the man acquired himself. Another is that their deed did not include property acquired later, and the man acquired the unsold property afterward. Even when a deed does include later acquisitions, the matter is debated in Bava Batra; without that clause, later acquisitions are not subject to the claim. But if the sold property was acquired by the man himself, how could it secure his own redemption, which became due when he reached adulthood, before he acquired it? One answer is that this case must involve property inherited from his father. Rabbi Yehuda would nevertheless agree that a man’s own redemption takes precedence in a case where he inherited nothing, acquired land after reaching adulthood, and sold it after his son’s birth: the priest could then collect from the buyers for the son. Alternatively, property acquired later does secure the man’s own redemption even without a clause covering later acquisitions, because his obligation continues at every moment. Since it is treated like a documented debt, it is as though it were recorded after he acquired the land.
  2. The five sela for a son — The tanna did not need to list the silver shekels of a guilt offering or valuations. The guilt offering explicitly requires sanctuary shekels, and valuations plainly do too, as Leviticus says, “Every valuation of yours shall be by the sanctuary shekel.”
  3. Rabbi Asi said: A Tyrian maneh — Rashi explains that this is the coinage of Tyre: a sela is four zuz, and a zuz weighs as much as a gold coin weighing two and a half peshitim on an iron scale. He apparently received this measure from his teachers. His explanation here and in his commentary on the Torah suggests that silver and gold dinars have equal weight. Rabbeinu Tam disagrees, because a gold dinar is said to weigh as much as two silver dinars. Rashi also explains Rabbi Hanina’s statement that eight Syrian istira sell for a dinar as referring to the ordinary Talmudic dinar, which he takes to be worth one-eighth of a Tyrian dinar. On that reading, the five sela for redeeming a son would be worth less than one of our peshitim. It also conflicts with the usual terminology: a provincial dinar is generally called a zuz in the Mishnah or a peshita in the Gemara, while an unspecified dinar is generally gold and sells for twenty-five silver zuz. Rather, these sages do not disagree with the mishna; they are explaining its measure in different coins. Rabbi Ami’s Tyrian maneh means five of its sela for a son’s redemption.
  4. Rabbi Ami said: An Arabian dinar — That is, an Arabian dinar equals the five sela for redeeming a son, not, as Rashi explains, that one Tyrian sela equals an Arabian dinar. Rashi also cites a responsum of the Babylonian Geonim saying that seven ordinary silver dinars equal ten Arabian dinars. But an Arabian dinar smaller than an ordinary silver dinar cannot equal a Tyrian sela, which contains four silver dinars. The passage must instead mean gold dinars: an Arabian gold dinar is smaller than a Tyrian gold dinar. The Tyrian one sells for twenty-five silver dinars, and the Arabian one for twenty—the value of five redemption sela.
  5. Rabbi Hanina says: A Syrian istira — Most texts read “Syrian istira”; Rashi has a different form of the word. Either way, the name refers to Syria. It is a Syrian sela, eight of which sell for a Syrian gold dinar. That gold dinar is larger than the Tyrian gold dinar, which sells for twenty-five silver dinars: the Syrian one is worth eight sela of the kind used to redeem a son, or thirty-two silver dinars.

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 49.