Bechoros 8:5 - 8:6

מת אחד – one of the offspring.

יחזיר להם חמש סלעים – and the two fathers can divide it, and these words [apply] when one of them wrote a power of attorney/authority to his fellow, for when one of them goes to the Kohen [the other] supersedes him/pushes him aside to stay that your son is the living one.

זכר ומקבה האבות פטורים – for each one of them (i.e., the fathers) said to the Kohen, the female child is mine.

והבן חייב לפדות את עצמו – since nevertheless, he is a first-born [male son].

שתי נקבות וזכר – one can say, that the one [wife] gave birth to a female child and the other [wife] to a male child and a female child, but the female child came out first. Therefore, the Kohen does not have anything. And similarly, two male children and two female children (i.e., the female children could have been born first in each case).

אחת בכרה ואחת שלא בכרה וכו'. אין כאן לכהן כלום – for one can say that the one giving birth for the first time gave birth to a female child.

מת הבן בתוך שלשים יום – we are speaking of certain firstborns.

יחזיר – for he was not a viable birth/premature, and he is not liable for redemption [of the first-born son] until after thirty days (see also Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 4) and Talmud Arakhin 51b).

מת בשיום שלשים כיום שלפניו – and even though he had given him (i.e., the Kohen) [the money], he should return it, for we learn [through an analogy of a Gezerah Shavah] of [comparing the usage of] חודש חודש in the Book of Numbers, it is written here (Numbers 18:16): “Take as their redemption price, from the age of one month up,” and it is written (Numbers 3:40): “[The LORD said to Moses:] Record every first-born male of the Israelite people from the age of one-month up,” [the word ומעלה] implying after the thirtieth day [so also in the other verse].

רבי עקיבא אומר אם נתן לא יטול – for Rabbi Akiba doubts if it is necessary to have the Torah write, ומעלה/and up (i.e., implying after the thirtieth day) regarding valuations , for he doesn’t derive it from the Book of Numbers, for there would be two [similar] verses coming as one and we don’t learn them; therefore, if he gave [the money to the Kohen], he should not take it back. But if he had bot given, he should not give it. For the burden of proof is incumbent upon the claimant (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11). And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

בחזקת שלא נפדה – for people do not act that they redeem within the thirty [days].

לאחר שלשים בחזקת שנפדה – that a Kohen [who removes something from his fellow and his prerogative is impaired].

הוא קודם לבנו – everyone admits that whenever he has five Selaim that are mortgaged and five [Selaim] that are free-standing, Rabbi Yehuda holds that a loan that is written in the Torah is like that which is written in the document, and his five Selaim, that his father was liable for, the Kohen can go and snatch them from mortgaged property, for his mortgage of the Kohen takes precendence, and that is what is said, that his Mitzvah (i.e., of redeeming his first-born son) is upon his father, that is to say, that from his father, the properties were mortgaged. But these free-standing five [Selaim] are redeemed for his son immediately, for if he gives free-standing [money] because of his redemption, furthermore, his son does not redeem, for perhaps the bought property was mortgaged prior to the birth of his son. But the Rabbis hold that the loan that is written in the Torah is not like that which is written in the document, for if he gives free-standing money for his son, he (i.e., the son) cannot redeem it further, for the Kohen is not able to snatch mortgaged property, therefore, his Mitzvah (i.e., of redeeming his first-born son) is preferable. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.