There is a son who is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to the requirement of redemption from a priest. There is another who is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance. There is another who is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest. And there is another who is not a firstborn at all, neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to redemption from a priest.Which is the son who is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest? It is a son who came after miscarriage of an underdeveloped fetus, even where the head of the underdeveloped fetus emerged alive; or after a fully developed nine-month-old fetus whose head emerged dead. The same applies to a son born to a woman who had previously miscarried a fetus that had the appearance of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, as that is considered the opening of the womb. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.And the Rabbis say: The son is not exempted from the requirement of redemption from a priest unless his birth follows the birth of an animal that takes the form of a person. In the case of a woman who miscarries a fetus in the form of a sandal fish or from whom an afterbirth or a gestational sac in which tissue developed emerged, or who delivered a fetus that emerged in pieces, the son who follows these is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest. In the case of a son born to one who did not have sons and he married a woman who had already given birth; or if he married a woman who gave birth when she was still a Canaanite maidservant and she was then emancipated; or one who gave birth when she was still a gentile and she then converted, and when the maidservant or the gentile came to join the Jewish people she gave birth to a male, that son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: That son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest, as it is stated: “Whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel” (Exodus 13:2). This indicates that the halakhic status of a child born to the mother is not that of one who opens the womb unless it opens the womb of a woman from the Jewish people. In the case of one who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth; or if he married a woman who converted while she was pregnant, or a Canaanite maidservant who was emancipated while she was pregnant and she gave birth to a son, he is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest, as he opened his mother’s womb, but he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance, because he is not the firstborn of his father or because halakhically he has no father. And likewise, if an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a priest, neither of whom had given birth yet, or an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a Levite, or an Israelite woman and a woman who had already given birth, all women whose sons do not require redemption from the priest, gave birth in the same place and it is uncertain which son was born to which mother; and likewise a woman who did not wait three months after the death of her husband and she married and gave birth, and it is unknown whether the child was born after a pregnancy of nine months and is the son of the first husband, or whether he was born after a pregnancy of seven months and is the son of the latter husband, in all these cases the child is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Due to the uncertainty, he is unable to prove he is the firstborn of either father, and therefore he is not entitled to the double portion of the firstborn. Which is the offspring that is a firstborn both with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest? In the case of a woman who miscarried a gestational sac full of water, or one full of blood, or one full of pieces of flesh; or one who miscarries a mass resembling a fish, or grasshoppers, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, or one who miscarries on the fortieth day after conception, the son who follows any of them is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest.
In the case of a boy born by caesarean section and the son who follows him, both of them are not firstborn, neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to redemption from a priest. Rabbi Shimon says: The first son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance if he is his father’s first son, and the second son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest for five sela coins, because he is the first to emerge from the womb and he emerged in the usual way.
With regard to one whose wife had not previously given birth and then gave birth to two males, i.e., twin males, and it is unknown which is the firstborn, he gives five sela coins to the priest after thirty days have passed. If one of them dies within thirty days of birth, before the obligation to redeem the firstborn takes effect, the father is exempt from the payment due to uncertainty, as perhaps it was the firstborn who died. In a case where the father died and the sons are alive, Rabbi Meir says: If they gave the five sela coins to the priest before they divided their father’s property between them, they gave it, and it remains in the possession of the priest. But if not, they are exempt from giving the redemption money to the priest. Rabbi Yehuda says: The obligation to redeem the firstborn already took effect on the property of the father; therefore, in either case the sons, his heirs, are required to pay the priest. If the wife gave birth to a male and a female and it is not known which was born first, the priest has nothing here, as it is possible that the female was born first.
With regard to two wives of one man, both of whom had not previously given birth, and they gave birth to two males, i.e., each bore one male, and the sons were intermingled, the father gives ten sela coins to the priest even if it is unknown which son was born first, because it is certain that each is firstborn of his mother. In a case where one of them dies within thirty days of birth, if he gave all ten sela coins to one priest, the priest must return five sela to him, because the father was not obligated to redeem the son who then died. And if he gave the redemption payment to two different priests, he cannot reclaim the money from the possession of either priest, as each could claim that the money that he received was for the living child. If one mother gave birth to a male and one gave birth to a female, or if between them they gave birth to two males and one female, and the children were intermingled, the father gives five sela coins to the priest: In the first case because the male might have preceded the female and in the second case because one of the males is certainly firstborn. If the children were two females and a male, or two males and two females, the priest has nothing here, as it is possible the female was born first to each mother. If one of his wives had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth and they gave birth to two males who became intermingled, the father gives five sela coins to the priest, as it is certain that one of them was born to the mother who had not yet given birth. If one of them dies within thirty days of birth the father is exempt from that payment, as it is possible that the one who died was born to the mother who had not yet given birth. In a case of intermingling where the father died and the sons are alive, Rabbi Meir says: If they gave the five sela coins to the priest before they divided their father’s property between them, they gave it, and it remains in the possession of the priest. But if not, they are exempt from giving the redemption payment to the priest. Rabbi Yehuda says: The obligation to redeem the firstborn already took effect on the property of the father. If the wives gave birth to a male and a female the priest has nothing here, as perhaps the female was born to the mother who had not yet given birth.
With regard to two women who had not previously given birth, who were married to two different men, and they gave birth to two males and the sons were intermingled, this father gives five sela coins to a priest and that father gives five sela coins to a priest, as each is certainly firstborn to his mother. In a case where one of them dies within thirty days of birth, if the fathers gave all ten sela coins to one priest, the priest must return five sela coins to them. But if they gave the redemption payment to two different priests they cannot reclaim the money from the possession of either priest, as each could claim that the money that he received was for the living child. If the women gave birth to a male and a female and the children became intermingled, the fathers are exempt, as each could claim that he is the father of the female, but the son is obligated to redeem himself, as he is certainly a firstborn. If two females and a male were born, or two females and two males, the priest has nothing here, as it is possible the female was born first to each mother.
If one woman had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth, and they were married to two men and they gave birth to two males, who then became intermingled, this one whose wife had not previously given birth gives five sela coins to the priest. If the women gave birth to a male and a female the priest has nothing here, as it is possible the female was born to the mother who had not yet given birth. If the firstborn son dies within thirty days of birth, although the father gave five selato the priest, the priest must return it. If the firstborn son dies after thirty days have passed, even if the father did not give five sela coins to the priest he must give it then. If the firstborn dies on the thirtieth day, that day’s halakhic status is like that of the day that preceded it, as the obligation takes effect only after thirty days have elapsed. Rabbi Akiva says: If the firstborn dies on the thirtieth day it is a case of uncertainty; therefore, if the father already gave the redemption payment to the priest he cannot take it back, but if he did not yet give payment he does not need to give it. If the father of the firstborn dies within thirty days of birth the presumptive status of the son is that he was not redeemed, until the son will bring proof that he was redeemed. If the father dies after thirty days have passed the presumptive status of the son is that he was redeemed, until people will tell him that he was not redeemed. If one had both himself to redeem and his son to redeem, his own redemption takes precedence over that of his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: The redemption of his son takes precedence, as the mitzva to redeem the father is incumbent upon his own father, and the mitzva to redeem his son is incumbent upon him.
The five sela coins of the redemption of the firstborn son, with regard to which it is written: “Five shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary” (Numbers 18:16), are calculated using a Tyrian maneh. The silver content of the Tyrian coinage is significantly higher than that of provincial coinage, which is worth one-eighth its value. With regard to the thirty shekels paid to the owner of a Canaanite slave who is killed by an ox (see Exodus 21:32), and the fifty shekels paid by a rapist (see Deuteronomy 22:29) and by a seducer (see Exodus 22:16) of a young virgin woman, and the one hundred shekels paid by the defamer of his bride with the claim that she is not a virgin (see Deuteronomy 22:19), all of them, even those cases where the word shekel is not explicitly written, are paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary, whose value is twenty gera (see Numbers 18:16) and that is calculated using a Tyrian maneh. And all monetary obligations are redeemed, i.e., paid, with coins or with items of the equivalent value of money, except for the half-shekels that are donated to the Temple each year, which must be given specifically as coins.
One may not redeem his firstborn son, neither with Canaanite slaves, nor with promissory notes, nor with land, nor with consecrated items. If the father wrote a promissory note to the priest that he is obligated to give him five sela coins, the father is obligated to give them to him but his son is not redeemed. Therefore, if the priest wished to give back the five sela coins to him as a gift he is permitted to do so. With regard to one who designates five sela coins for redemption of his firstborn son and he lost the coins before he gave them to the priest, the father bears financial responsibility for their loss, as it is stated to Aaron the priest: “Everything that opens the womb in man and animal shall be yours”; and only afterward it says: “You shall redeem the firstborn of man” (Numbers 18:15). This indicates that only after the money shall be in the possession of the priest is the son redeemed.
The firstborn son takes a double portion, i.e., twice the portion taken by the other sons, when inheriting the property of the father, but he does not take twice the portion when inheriting the property of the mother. And neither does he take twice the portion in any enhancement of the value of the property after the death of the father, nor does he take twice the portion in property due the father, as he does in property the father possessed.And neither does a woman take these portions, i.e., any enhancement of the value of the property or the property due the husband, from her husband’s property for payment of her marriage contract upon her divorce or her husband’s death; nor do the daughters take this share of the property for their sustenance, to which they are entitled from their late father’s possessions. Nor does a man whose married brother died childless [yavam] receive these portions, even though he acquires his brother’s portion of their shared father’s inheritance after performing levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. The mishna summarizes: And all of them do not take a portion in any enhancement of the value of the property after the death of the owner, nor do they take a portion in property due the deceased, as they do in property in his possession.
And these are the people whose properties, unlike an ancestral field, do not return to their original owners in the Jubilee Year: The firstborn who inherited his father’s property by the right of primogeniture need not return the extra portion for redistribution among the brothers; and one who inherits his wife’s property need not return it to her family; and one who consummates the levirate marriage with the wife of his brother and gains the right to his brother’s property need not return it for redistribution among the brothers. And likewise, a gift of land need not be returned to the original owners in the Jubilee Year; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The halakhic status of a gift is like that of a sale, and it must be returned. Rabbi Elazar says: All these lands return in the Jubilee Year. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even one who inherits his wife’s property must return the land to the members of her father’s family and should deduct from them the monetary value of the land, as the Gemara will explain.
יֵשׁ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן, בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן, יֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לֹא לַנַּחֲלָה וְלֹא לַכֹּהֵן. אֵיזֶהוּ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן, הַבָּא אַחַר הַנְּפָלִים שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁוֹ חַי, וּבֶן תִּשְׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁוֹ מֵת, וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בוֹ מִצּוּרַת הָאָדָם. הַמַּפֶּלֶת סַנְדָּל, אוֹ שִׁלְיָא, וּשְׁפִיר מְרֻקָּם, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מְחֻתָּךְ, הַבָּא אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן. מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים וְנָשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁכְּבָר יָלְדָה, עוֹדָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, עוֹדָהּ נָכְרִית וְנִתְגַּיְּרָה, מִשֶּׁבָּאת לְיִשְׁרָאֵל יָלְדָה, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יג), פֶּטֶר כָּל רֶחֶם בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ רֶחֶם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים וְנָשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹא יָלְדָה, נִתְגַּיְּרָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת, נִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת, יָלְדָה הִיא וְכֹהֶנֶת, הִיא וּלְוִיָּה, הִיא וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁכְּבָר יָלְדָה, וְכֵן מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת וְיָלְדָה, וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ בֶן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן, בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה. אֵיזֶהוּ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן, הַמַּפֶּלֶת שְׁפִיר מָלֵא דָם, מָלֵא מַיִם, מָלֵא גְנִינִים, הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, הַמַּפֶּלֶת יוֹם אַרְבָּעִים, הַבָּא אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן:
There is a son who is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to the requirement of redemption from a priest. There is another who is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance. There is another who is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest. And there is another who is not a firstborn at all, neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to redemption from a priest. Which is the son who is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest? It is a son who came after miscarriage of an underdeveloped fetus, even where the head of the underdeveloped fetus emerged alive; or after a fully developed nine-month-old fetus whose head emerged dead. The same applies to a son born to a woman who had previously miscarried a fetus that had the appearance of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, as that is considered the opening of the womb. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The son is not exempted from the requirement of redemption from a priest unless his birth follows the birth of an animal that takes the form of a person. In the case of a woman who miscarries a fetus in the form of a sandal fish or from whom an afterbirth or a gestational sac in which tissue developed emerged, or who delivered a fetus that emerged in pieces, the son who follows these is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest. In the case of a son born to one who did not have sons and he married a woman who had already given birth; or if he married a woman who gave birth when she was still a Canaanite maidservant and she was then emancipated; or one who gave birth when she was still a gentile and she then converted, and when the maidservant or the gentile came to join the Jewish people she gave birth to a male, that son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: That son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest, as it is stated: “Whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel” (Exodus 13:2). This indicates that the halakhic status of a child born to the mother is not that of one who opens the womb unless it opens the womb of a woman from the Jewish people. In the case of one who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth; or if he married a woman who converted while she was pregnant, or a Canaanite maidservant who was emancipated while she was pregnant and she gave birth to a son, he is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest, as he opened his mother’s womb, but he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance, because he is not the firstborn of his father or because halakhically he has no father. And likewise, if an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a priest, neither of whom had given birth yet, or an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a Levite, or an Israelite woman and a woman who had already given birth, all women whose sons do not require redemption from the priest, gave birth in the same place and it is uncertain which son was born to which mother; and likewise a woman who did not wait three months after the death of her husband and she married and gave birth, and it is unknown whether the child was born after a pregnancy of nine months and is the son of the first husband, or whether he was born after a pregnancy of seven months and is the son of the latter husband, in all these cases the child is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Due to the uncertainty, he is unable to prove he is the firstborn of either father, and therefore he is not entitled to the double portion of the firstborn. Which is the offspring that is a firstborn both with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest? In the case of a woman who miscarried a gestational sac full of water, or one full of blood, or one full of pieces of flesh; or one who miscarries a mass resembling a fish, or grasshoppers, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, or one who miscarries on the fortieth day after conception, the son who follows any of them is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest.
יוֹצֵא דֹפֶן וְהַבָּא אַחֲרָיו, שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָן בְּכוֹר לֹא לַנַּחֲלָה וְלֹא לַכֹּהֵן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הָרִאשׁוֹן לַנַּחֲלָה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי לְחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים:
In the case of a boy born by caesarean section and the son who follows him, both of them are not firstborn, neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to redemption from a priest. Rabbi Shimon says: The first son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance if he is his father’s first son, and the second son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest for five sela coins, because he is the first to emerge from the womb and he emerged in the usual way.
מִי שֶׁלֹּא בִכְּרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְיָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים, נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, הָאָב פָּטוּר. מֵת הָאָב וְהַבָּנִים קַיָּמִים, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אִם נָתְנוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָלְקוּ, נָתָנוּ. וְאִם לָאו, פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר נִתְחַיְּבוּ נְכָסִים. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם:
With regard to one whose wife had not previously given birth and then gave birth to two males, i.e., twin males, and it is unknown which is the firstborn, he gives five sela coins to the priest after thirty days have passed. If one of them dies within thirty days of birth, before the obligation to redeem the firstborn takes effect, the father is exempt from the payment due to uncertainty, as perhaps it was the firstborn who died. In a case where the father died and the sons are alive, Rabbi Meir says: If they gave the five sela coins to the priest before they divided their father’s property between them, they gave it, and it remains in the possession of the priest. But if not, they are exempt from giving the redemption money to the priest. Rabbi Yehuda says: The obligation to redeem the firstborn already took effect on the property of the father; therefore, in either case the sons, his heirs, are required to pay the priest. If the wife gave birth to a male and a female and it is not known which was born first, the priest has nothing here, as it is possible that the female was born first.
שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא בִכְּרוּ וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים, נוֹתֵן עֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, אִם לְכֹהֵן אֶחָד נָתַן, יַחֲזִיר לוֹ חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים. אִם לִשְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים נָתַן, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה אוֹ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבָה, נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן. שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וְזָכָר אוֹ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּשְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת, אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. אַחַת בִּכְּרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְּרָה וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים. נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, הָאָב פָּטוּר. מֵת הָאָב וְהַבָּנִים קַיָּמִין, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אִם נָתְנוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָלְקוּ, נָתָנוּ. וְאִם לָאו, פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נִתְחַיְּבוּ נְכָסִים. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם:
With regard to two wives of one man, both of whom had not previously given birth, and they gave birth to two males, i.e., each bore one male, and the sons were intermingled, the father gives ten sela coins to the priest even if it is unknown which son was born first, because it is certain that each is firstborn of his mother. In a case where one of them dies within thirty days of birth, if he gave all ten sela coins to one priest, the priest must return five sela to him, because the father was not obligated to redeem the son who then died. And if he gave the redemption payment to two different priests, he cannot reclaim the money from the possession of either priest, as each could claim that the money that he received was for the living child. If one mother gave birth to a male and one gave birth to a female, or if between them they gave birth to two males and one female, and the children were intermingled, the father gives five sela coins to the priest: In the first case because the male might have preceded the female and in the second case because one of the males is certainly firstborn. If the children were two females and a male, or two males and two females, the priest has nothing here, as it is possible the female was born first to each mother. If one of his wives had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth and they gave birth to two males who became intermingled, the father gives five sela coins to the priest, as it is certain that one of them was born to the mother who had not yet given birth. If one of them dies within thirty days of birth the father is exempt from that payment, as it is possible that the one who died was born to the mother who had not yet given birth. In a case of intermingling where the father died and the sons are alive, Rabbi Meir says: If they gave the five sela coins to the priest before they divided their father’s property between them, they gave it, and it remains in the possession of the priest. But if not, they are exempt from giving the redemption payment to the priest. Rabbi Yehuda says: The obligation to redeem the firstborn already took effect on the property of the father. If the wives gave birth to a male and a female the priest has nothing here, as perhaps the female was born to the mother who had not yet given birth.
שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁל שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא בִכְּרוּ וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים, זֶה נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן, וְזֶה נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן. מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, אִם לְכֹהֵן אֶחָד נָתְנוּ, יַחֲזִיר לָהֶן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים. אִם לִשְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים נָתְנוּ, אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, הָאָבוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וְהַבֵּן חַיָּב לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ. שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת וְזָכָר אוֹ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים וּשְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת, אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם:
With regard to two women who had not previously given birth, who were married to two different men, and they gave birth to two males and the sons were intermingled, this father gives five sela coins to a priest and that father gives five sela coins to a priest, as each is certainly firstborn to his mother. In a case where one of them dies within thirty days of birth, if the fathers gave all ten sela coins to one priest, the priest must return five sela coins to them. But if they gave the redemption payment to two different priests they cannot reclaim the money from the possession of either priest, as each could claim that the money that he received was for the living child. If the women gave birth to a male and a female and the children became intermingled, the fathers are exempt, as each could claim that he is the father of the female, but the son is obligated to redeem himself, as he is certainly a firstborn. If two females and a male were born, or two females and two males, the priest has nothing here, as it is possible the female was born first to each mother.
אַחַת בִּכְּרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְּרָה שֶׁל שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים, וְיָלְדוּ שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים, זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִכְּרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ, נוֹתֵן חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים לַכֹּהֵן. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. מֵת הַבֵּן בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לַכֹּהֵן, יַחֲזִיר (לוֹ חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים). לְאַחַר שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן, יִתֵּן. מֵת בְּיוֹם שְׁלשִׁים, כְּיוֹם שֶׁלְּפָנָיו. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אִם נָתַן, לֹא יִטּוֹל. וְאִם לֹא נָתַן, לֹא יִתֵּן. מֵת הָאָב בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדָּה, עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנִּפְדָּה. לְאַחַר שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, בְּחֶזִקַת שֶׁנִּפְדָּה, עַד (שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה) שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדָּה. הוּא לִפָּדוֹת וּבְנוֹ לִפָּדוֹת, הוּא קוֹדֵם אֶת בְּנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּנוֹ קוֹדְמוֹ, שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ עַל אָבִיו, וּמִצְוַת בְּנוֹ עָלָיו:
If one woman had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth, and they were married to two men and they gave birth to two males, who then became intermingled, this one whose wife had not previously given birth gives five sela coins to the priest. If the women gave birth to a male and a female the priest has nothing here, as it is possible the female was born to the mother who had not yet given birth. If the firstborn son dies within thirty days of birth, although the father gave five sela to the priest, the priest must return it. If the firstborn son dies after thirty days have passed, even if the father did not give five sela coins to the priest he must give it then. If the firstborn dies on the thirtieth day, that day’s halakhic status is like that of the day that preceded it, as the obligation takes effect only after thirty days have elapsed. Rabbi Akiva says: If the firstborn dies on the thirtieth day it is a case of uncertainty; therefore, if the father already gave the redemption payment to the priest he cannot take it back, but if he did not yet give payment he does not need to give it. If the father of the firstborn dies within thirty days of birth the presumptive status of the son is that he was not redeemed, until the son will bring proof that he was redeemed. If the father dies after thirty days have passed the presumptive status of the son is that he was redeemed, until people will tell him that he was not redeemed. If one had both himself to redeem and his son to redeem, his own redemption takes precedence over that of his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: The redemption of his son takes precedence, as the mitzva to redeem the father is incumbent upon his own father, and the mitzva to redeem his son is incumbent upon him.
חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן, בְּמָנֶה צוֹרִי. שְׁלשִׁים שֶׁל עֶבֶד, וַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל אוֹנֵס וְשֶׁל מְפַתֶּה, וּמֵאָה שֶׁל מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע, כֻּלָּם בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ, בְּמָנֶה צוֹרִי. וְכֻלָּן נִפְדִּין בְּכֶסֶף, וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶסֶף, חוּץ מִן הַשְּׁקָלִים:
The five sela coins of the redemption of the firstborn son, with regard to which it is written: “Five shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary” (Numbers 18:16), are calculated using a Tyrian maneh. The silver content of the Tyrian coinage is significantly higher than that of provincial coinage, which is worth one-eighth its value. With regard to the thirty shekels paid to the owner of a Canaanite slave who is killed by an ox (see Exodus 21:32), and the fifty shekels paid by a rapist (see Deuteronomy 22:29) and by a seducer (see Exodus 22:16) of a young virgin woman, and the one hundred shekels paid by the defamer of his bride with the claim that she is not a virgin (see Deuteronomy 22:19), all of them, even those cases where the word shekel is not explicitly written, are paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary, whose value is twenty gera (see Numbers 18:16) and that is calculated using a Tyrian maneh. And all monetary obligations are redeemed, i.e., paid, with coins or with items of the equivalent value of money, except for the half-shekels that are donated to the Temple each year, which must be given specifically as coins.
אֵין פּוֹדִין לֹא בַעֲבָדִים, וְלֹא בִשְׁטָרוֹת, וְלֹא בְקַרְקָעוֹת, וְלֹא בְהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. כָּתַב לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים, חַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ וּבְנוֹ אֵינוֹ פָדוּי, לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִתֵּן לוֹ מַתָּנָה, רַשַּׁאי. הַמַּפְרִישׁ פִּדְיוֹן בְּנוֹ וְאָבַד, חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח), יִהְיֶה לָּךְ וּפָדֹה תִפְדֶּה:
One may not redeem his firstborn son, neither with Canaanite slaves, nor with promissory notes, nor with land, nor with consecrated items. If the father wrote a promissory note to the priest that he is obligated to give him five sela coins, the father is obligated to give them to him but his son is not redeemed. Therefore, if the priest wished to give back the five sela coins to him as a gift he is permitted to do so. With regard to one who designates five sela coins for redemption of his firstborn son and he lost the coins before he gave them to the priest, the father bears financial responsibility for their loss, as it is stated to Aaron the priest: “Everything that opens the womb in man and animal shall be yours”; and only afterward it says: “You shall redeem the firstborn of man” (Numbers 18:15). This indicates that only after the money shall be in the possession of the priest is the son redeemed.
הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם. וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּשֶּׁבַח, וְלֹא בָרָאוּי כְּבַמֻּחְזָק. וְלֹא הָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ, וְלֹא הַבָּנוֹת בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן, וְלֹא הַיָּבָם. וְכֻלָּן אֵין נוֹטְלִין בַּשֶּׁבַח, וְלֹא בָרָאוּי כְּבַמֻּחְזָק:
The firstborn son takes a double portion, i.e., twice the portion taken by the other sons, when inheriting the property of the father, but he does not take twice the portion when inheriting the property of the mother. And neither does he take twice the portion in any enhancement of the value of the property after the death of the father, nor does he take twice the portion in property due the father, as he does in property the father possessed. And neither does a woman take these portions, i.e., any enhancement of the value of the property or the property due the husband, from her husband’s property for payment of her marriage contract upon her divorce or her husband’s death; nor do the daughters take this share of the property for their sustenance, to which they are entitled from their late father’s possessions. Nor does a man whose married brother died childless [yavam] receive these portions, even though he acquires his brother’s portion of their shared father’s inheritance after performing levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. The mishna summarizes: And all of them do not take a portion in any enhancement of the value of the property after the death of the owner, nor do they take a portion in property due the deceased, as they do in property in his possession.
אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן חוֹזְרִין בַּיּוֹבֵל, הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְהַיּוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהַמְיַבֵּם אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְהַמַּתָּנָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מַתָּנָה כְּמֶכֶר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כֻּלָּן חוֹזְרִין בַּיּוֹבֵל. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר, הַיּוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, יַחֲזִיר לִבְנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה וִינַכֶּה לָהֶם מִן הַדָּמִים:
And these are the people whose properties, unlike an ancestral field, do not return to their original owners in the Jubilee Year: The firstborn who inherited his father’s property by the right of primogeniture need not return the extra portion for redistribution among the brothers; and one who inherits his wife’s property need not return it to her family; and one who consummates the levirate marriage with the wife of his brother and gains the right to his brother’s property need not return it for redistribution among the brothers. And likewise, a gift of land need not be returned to the original owners in the Jubilee Year; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The halakhic status of a gift is like that of a sale, and it must be returned. Rabbi Elazar says: All these lands return in the Jubilee Year. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even one who inherits his wife’s property must return the land to the members of her father’s family and should deduct from them the monetary value of the land, as the Gemara will explain.