1)

(a)Discussing a case where a woman gives birth for the first time to a set of twin sons the Mishnah rules that - the father has to pay the Kohen five Sela'im, since one of the twins must have been a B'chor.

(b)If one of the twins ...

1. ... dies within thirty days, or ...

2. ... is a girl - the father is Patur from paying anything ...

(c)... because - based on the principle ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'ayah, the onus of proving that the live boy is the first-born lies with the Kohen.

(d)Despite the fact that the remaining twin is also Patur, the Tana says specifically that the father is Patur - to balance the Reisha with the Seifa, which discusses where the father died.

2)

(a)If the father died, Rebbi Meir maintains that if the twins gave the money to the Kohen before having divided their father's property, that is fine. But if they already divided it - they are Patur.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah argues that - since their father's property was already Meshubad to the Kohen, they are Chayav.

(c)We reject the suggestion that, in the latter case, the father died after thirty days - because on what grounds does Rebbi Meir then disagree with Rebbi Yehudah?

(d)If, on the other hand, the father died within thirty days - why are they Chayav even before dividing it? Why can each one not push off the Kohen on to his brother?

3)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah concludes that the Mishnah must be speaking where the father died within thirty days, and they did not yet divide their father's property. And the reason that Rebbi Meir exempts them from paying is - based on the Din of two Yosef ben Shimons living in the same town who purchased a field jointly.

(b)The Din there is that if a creditor produces a Sh'tar against Yosef ben Shimon - he may claim half the field from their jointly-owned field 'Mah Nafshach'.

(c)The problem Rava has with Rebbi Yirmiyah's ruling, based on the principle that a person's property has the status of a guarantor is that - there where a creditor cannot claim from the person himself, how can he claim from the guarantor?

(d)And he cites a Mishnah in Bava Basra, which rules that if someone lends money against a guarantee, he cannot subsequently claim from the guarantor, which we explain to mean that - one cannot claim from the guarantor before having gone to the debtor (thereby refuting Rebbi Yirmiyah's interpretation of Rebbi Meir).

4)

(a)We therefore try to establish our Mishnah where the twins' father died after thirty days. To answer how Rebbi Meir can argue with Rebbi Yehudah (who holds that the property is then Meshubad to the Kohen), we establish the Mishnah - where he left only five Sela'im.

(b)If their father had left more than five Sela'im - then even Rebbi Meir would agree that they would be Chayav to pay.

5)

(a)We assume that both Tana'im hold like Rav Asi and that a debt that is written in the Torah (such as Pidyon ha'Ben) is not considered as if it is written in a Sh'tar. Rav Asi rules that - brothers who divide their father's property are considered half heirs and half purchasers.

(b)The basis of his Safek is - whether we hold Yesh B'reirah (in which case they are heirs) or Ein B'reirah (in which case they are purchasers).

(c)Heirs do not need to return the property in the Yovel year - purchasers do.

(d)They also agree that a debt that is written in the Torah (such as Pidyon ha'Ben) is not considered as if it is written in a Sh'tar, and in that connection, they both hold like Rav Papa, who holds that - an oral debt may be claimed from the debtors heirs, but not from his purchasers.

6)

(a)We now have a situation where the Kohen could theoretically claim only half of his five Sela'im from the brothers, the half on which they are considered heirs). Rebbi ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah obligates the twins to pay - because the obligation to give five Sela'im extends even to a fraction of that amount, if that is all there is. Whereas Rebbi

2. ... Meir maintains that - there is no obligation to pay the Kohen less than five Sela'im.

(b)One of the two problems with this explanation is why Rebbi Yehudah says that the property has already become Chayav? It is not the property that is Chayav, but the twins (since the father died after thirty days; just that their obligation is reduced to half because of the division. The second problem is - why Rebbi Yehudah states in another Beraisa that, brothers who divided their father's property are Chayav to pay the Kohen only if there are ten Zin (ten Zuzin = two and a half Sela'im) for this one and ten Zin for the other one.

(c)We therefore conclude that everyone agrees that there is no obligation to pay less than five Sela'im, and they argue - when there are exactly five Shekalim in the inheritance like in the previous explanation.

(d)Rebbi Meir now holds like the opinions of Rav Asi and Rav Papa, in which case, the Kohen cannot claim, since he can only claim half of the five Sela'im, to which he is not entitled. Whereas Rebbi Yehudah holds - either that one may claim an oral debt from the purchasers (not like Rav Papa) or that brothers who divide their father's property, are considered heirs (because he holds Yesh B'reirah), and not purchasers. Either way, the Kohen is able to claim the full five Sela'im.

(e)Another version of the Sugya begins - (Nischayvu Nechasim ... Eimas), not by querying the Reisha (Rebbi Meir's statement) - but by querying the Seifa (Rebbi Yehudah's statement). The ensuing Shakla ve'Talya however, follows exactly the same pattern as the first version.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah presents a case where each of a man's two wives gave birth to a B'chor, the father paid within the first thirty days, and then one of them died still within thirty days (and they do not know whose baby it was), then if he paid one Kohen - that Kohen is obligated to refund his money, whereas if he paid to two Kohanim - each one can say to him that it was the other Kohen who must refund the money, since he was the one who received the Pidyon ha'Ben money for the baby who died.

(b)If one of the children was a girl - the father is obligated to pay five Shekalim, since the boy is definitely a B'chor.

(c)If there are two boys and a girl, the father is also obligated ti pay the Kohen five Shekalim - because here too, only one of the boys is definitely a B'chor, whilst the other boy is a younger brother either to the first-born boy or to the first-born girl.

(d)If only one of the children is a boy and other two, girls - the father is Patur from giving anything, since it cannot be proven that the boy is a first-born at all.

8)

(a)The Mishnah rules that if two wives of two men give birth, each to a first-born, one a boy and the other a girl (and they get mixed-up) - both fathers are Patur from paying five Sela'im to the Kohen, since each one can claim that the girl is his.

(b)The son however - will be obligated to redeem himself when he grows up, since he is definitely a B'chor.

(c)If there are two girls and one boy or two girls and two boys, then - even the boy(s) is (are) exempt from redeeming himself (themselves) when he (they) grows (grow) up, since the Kohen will be unable prove that he is (they are) a first-born (firstborns).

9)

(a)The Mishnah finally rules that ...

1. ... if two wives of two men, one of whom has already given birth before and one of whom hasn't, give birth to two boys, who get mixed-up - the one whose wife has not given birth before must give five Sela'aim to the Kohen.

2. ... the same case, only where one of the babies is a boy, and the other, a girl - he is Patur.

10)

(a)In the case in the Mishnah, where two fathers, whose Bechorim got mixed up, paid five Sela'im each to the same Kohen within thirty days, and one of the babies died, the Kohen cannot say to each of the fathers, that it is not his son who died, but the other father's (like the Tana said in the case when they paid to two different Kohanim) - because it speaks where one of them wrote a Harsha'ah for the other, so that the Kohen is forced to refund the money, irrespective of whose baby died.

(b)We reconcile this with a ruling issued by the Neherdai prohibiting writing a Harsha'ah on movables (only on land) - by confining the prohibiting to movables that the debtor denies owing, because, since the 'money' being claimed is not in evidence, and it is possible that the 'money' is not owing in the first place, it appears dishonest for the witnesses to sign such a document. But in a case such as ours, where the debtor does not, or cannot, deny that he owes the money, there is no reason to prohibit the writing of a Harsha'ah.

11)

(a)The Tana does not mention the case of two boys and one girl in the Seifa (in the case of two fathers), like he did in the Reisha (when there is only one father) - because, whenever the Mishnah says that the Kohen does not receive anything, there is no distinction drawn between whether the two women are the wives of one man or of two, as opposed to the case of two sons and a daughter where there is a difference between the wives of one husband (where the husband is obligated to give five Shekalim, since one of the boys is bound to be a first-born of one of his wives) and it would only be in the case of the two wives of two husbands that both fathers would be exempt from paying at all, since each father can claim that his first-born is the girl.