Bechoros 48b

בכורות מ״ח ע״ב

Bekhorot 48b

Learn Bechoros 48b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bechoros 48b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

בכורות 48b: The dispute between רבי מאיר and רבי יהודה about brothers who inherit when the בכור is unknown, and a new משנה about פדיון הבן when babies of two mothers get mixed up.

Overview

The amud opens by finishing the גמרא's explanation of the argument between רבי מאיר and רבי יהודה about brothers who inherit when no one knows which of them is the בכור. The first idea is that a Torah debt is like a מלוה על פה, which can be collected from heirs but not from purchasers. On that basis, the two תנאים would be arguing about whether 'half of five' סלעים can be given. That idea is knocked down by רבי יהודה's wording and by a ברייתא about ten זוז for each brother. So the גמרא concludes that both require a full five, and they argue about the view of רב אסי and רב פפא. A second version attaches the discussion to רבי יהודה's words 'the property became obligated'. In that version, רבי ירמיה learns a rule about a creditor and two men named יוסף בן שמעון, and רבא asks how property can owe when no person does. Then a new משנה lists cases where babies of two mothers get mixed up, and rules when the כהן receives five סלעים, ten, or nothing. The גמרא begins by asking why one כהן must return money when two כהנים do not, and שמואל's answer begins on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (31)

1. StatementA Torah debt counts like an oral loan, and everyone accepts רב פפא
2. ResolutionA proposed explanation of the dispute: can you give half of five
3. Challengeרבי יהודה's wording does not fit
4. ChallengeA second challenge from a ברייתא about ten זוז
5. QuestionWhat does 'ten זוז for each' mean
6. ChallengeIf part of five is enough, why require ten
7. ChallengeThe ten זוז must be inheritance alone, so רבי יהודה requires a full five
8. ResolutionEveryone requires a full five; the real argument is about רב אסי and רב פפא
9. QuestionAnother version: applying the discussion to the property clause, and asking when the father died
10. ChallengeIf the father died after thirty days, רבי מאיר could not exempt them
11. ChallengeIf the father died within thirty days, why does רבי יהודה obligate them?
12. Statementרבי ירמיה's lesson about two men with the same name
13. Challengeרבא: property only backs up the person
14. ConclusionThe rest follows the first version
15. StatementTwo wives give birth to two boys: ten סלעים
16. StatementOne baby dies: one כהן or two
17. StatementMixes with one surely-firstborn boy: five סלעים
18. StatementMixes where every boy may have come after a girl: nothing
19. StatementOne wife had given birth before, one had not: two boys are born
20. StatementIf one of those boys dies within thirty days, the father is exempt
21. StatementThe father dies: רבי מאיר says it depends on whether the brothers divided the estate
22. Statementרבי יהודה: the obligation already rests on the father's property
23. StatementA boy and a girl: the כהן gets nothing
24. StatementTwo men's first-time wives have two boys: each father pays five
25. StatementOne boy dies: one כהן must return five, but two כהנים keep the money
26. StatementTwo fathers with a boy and a girl: fathers exempt, the son redeems himself
27. StatementTwo girls and a boy, or two girls and two boys: the כהן gets nothing
28. StatementTwo men, one wife had given birth before, two boys born
29. StatementSame case, but a boy and a girl were born
30. QuestionWhy can two כהנים refuse to return the money?
31. ChallengeOne כהן should be able to push both fathers away too