וְלָדוֹתֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין, וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹתֵיהֶן חַיָּיבִין. הֶעֱמִיד וְלָדוֹתֵיהֶן תַּחַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן – וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וּוַלְדֵי וַולְדֵי וְולָדוֹת חַיָּיבִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה – פְּטוּרִים, שֶׁאַחֲרָיוּתָן לַנָּכְרִי.

their direct offspring are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn if they give birth to a male, but the offspring of their direct offspring are obligated in the mitzva of the firstborn if they gave birth to a male. If the Jew established their offspring in place of their mothers for collection in case the mothers die, the offspring of their direct offspring are exempt and the offspring of the offspring of their direct offspring are obligated. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even until ten generations, the offspring are exempt, as they all serve as a guarantee for the gentile, because if he does not receive the fixed payment for the animal, he will collect his debt from any offspring born to it or its offspring.

רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, וְעֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין רָחֵל – פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין – חַיָּיב.

A ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. And if the offspring has some of the characteristics of its mother, it is obligated in the mitzva of firstborn.

גמ׳ לְמֵימְרָא, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא נָקַט מָרָא זוּזֵי – בִּרְשׁוּתָא דְּמָרָא קָיְימָא.

The mishna teaches that animals given to a Jew as a guaranteed investment by a gentile are not subject to their offspring being counted a firstborn because they belong to the gentile. The Gemara suggests: Is this to say that since the owner did not yet take the money that will be owed to him, the investment itself stands in the owner’s possession, i.e., the owner is still regarded as such?

וּרְמִינְהוּ: אֵין מְקַבְּלִין צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רִבִּית; אַלְמָא בִּרְשׁוּתָא דִּמְקַבֵּל קָיְימָא!

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this conclusion from a mishna (Bava Metzia 70b): One may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, in which the terms of the transaction dictate that the one accepting the item takes upon himself complete responsibility to repay its value in the event of depreciation or loss, but receives only part of the profit. This is because it is a loan, as the principal is fixed and always returned to the owner, and any additional sum the owner receives is interest. The Gemara remarks: Evidently, the investment stands in the possession of the recipient, as otherwise it would not be considered a loan.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא, וְהָא – דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא.

Abaye said: This is not difficult. This case, i.e., the mishna here, is where the gentile owner of the sheep accepts upon himself the responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation in the market value, and that is why the sheep are considered to still belong to him. And that case, the mishna in Bava Metzia, is where the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation. Therefore, the guaranteed investment stands in the possession of the recipient.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא ״צֹאן בַּרְזֶל״ קָרֵית לֵיהּ? וְעוֹד, מַאי פָּסְקָא?

Rava said to Abaye: If the owner accepted upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, can you call it a guaranteed investment? This case is not a guaranteed investment, as the owner is not guaranteed to receive what he had given; rather, it is a type of joint business venture that is permitted between two Jews. And furthermore, if the term: Guaranteed investment, can refer to two different kinds of investments, then why was it stated without qualification in both mishnayot?

וְעוֹד, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֲבָל מְקַבְּלִין צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִן הַגּוֹי – לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידָהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא, אֲבָל קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי!

Rava continued: And furthermore, even if one grants that this arrangement can be called a guaranteed investment, there is another difficulty. Instead of the tanna teaching in the latter clause of the mishna in Bava Metzia: But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, let the tanna distinguish and teach within the case itself, that of accepting a guaranteed investment from a Jew. He should have taught: In what case is this statement, i.e., that one may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, said? It is in a case when the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, but if the owner accepted upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, one may well enter into such an arrangement.

אֶלָּא אֲמַר רָבָא: אִידִי וְאִידִי דְּלָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אוּנְסָא וְזוֹלָא. וְהָכָא גַּבֵּי בְכוֹרָה הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: דְּאִילּוּ אָתֵי גּוֹי בָּעֵי זוּזֵי וְלָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ – תָּפֵיס לָהּ לִבְהֵמָה, וְאִי לָא מַשְׁכַּח לָהּ לִבְהֵמָה – תָּפֵיס וְלָדוֹת דִּידָהּ, וַהֲרֵי יַד גּוֹי בָּאֶמְצַע, וְכָל יַד גּוֹי בָּאֶמְצַע – פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

Rather, Rava rejected this explanation and said: Both this case in the mishna here and that case in Bava Metzia are discussing a situation where the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation. And here, with regard to the firstborn, this is the reason that the offspring are exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn: Since, if the gentile comes and wants his money, and the Jew does not give it to him, the gentile will seize the animal, and if he does not find the animal he will seize the offspring, this means that the hand of a gentile is in the middle, i.e., even though the animals stand in the possession of the recipient, the gentile has some degree of ownership over the bodies of the offspring. And there is a halakha: In every case where the hand of a gentile is in the middle, the animal is exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn.

״הֶעֱמִיד וְלָדוֹתֵיהֶן תַּחַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן – וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִים״. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין, וּוַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹתֵיהֶן חַיָּיבִין. וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת נַמִי פְּטוּרִין, וּוַלְדֵי וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת חַיָּיבִין.

§ The mishna teaches: If the Jew established their offspring in place of their mothers for collection in case the mothers die, the offspring of their direct offspring are exempt. The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to animals involved in a guaranteed investment, in a case where the Jew did not establish their offspring in the place of their mothers. Rav Huna says: Their direct offspring are exempt, but the offspring of their direct offspring are obligated. And Rav Yehuda says: The offspring of their direct offspring are also exempt, and the offspring of the offspring of their direct offspring are obligated.

תְּנַן: הֶעֱמִיד וְלָדוֹת תַּחַת אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן – וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת פְּטוּרִין. טַעְמָא דְּהֶעֱמִיד, הָא לָא הֶעֱמִיד – לָא; תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה!

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. We learned in the mishna: If the Jew established their offspring in place of their mothers for collection in case the mothers die, the offspring of their direct offspring are exempt. The Gemara infers: The reason they are exempt is that he established the offspring in place of their mothers; but if he did not establish them in place of their mothers, they are not exempt. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

אָמַר לָךְ רַב יְהוּדָה: הוּא הַדִּין אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הֶעֱמִיד. וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: אֲפִילּוּ הֶעֱמִיד נַמִי,

The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda could have said to you: That inference is incorrect, as the same is true even though he did not establish the offspring in place of their mothers. In that case as well, the offspring of their offspring are exempt. And this is what the mishna is teaching us by stating the halakha in that manner: Even if he established the offspring in place of the mother, only the first two generations of offspring are exempt, but not all successive generations.

דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּגוֹי לְמִיתְפַּס בְּנָהּ – וְהָוֵי כְּמִי דְּלָא הֶעֱמִיד, וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת – פְּטוּרִין, וּוַלְדֵי וַלְדֵי וְלָדוֹת – חַיָּיבִין.

And it is necessary to teach this halakha that although he established the offspring in place of their mothers all successive generations are not exempt, as one might think that it is the normal manner of the gentile to seize not only the direct offspring, but her young of any generation as payment, which would mean that all successive generations are exempt. And therefore the mishna teaches that he is like one who did not establish the offspring in place of the mother, which means that the offspring of the direct offspring are exempt, but the offspring of the offspring of the direct offspring are obligated.

תְּנַן, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה דּוֹרוֹת פְּטוּרִין, שֶׁאַחֲרָיוּתָן לַנָּכְרִי. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: נָחֵית תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְדָרֵי

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna. We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even until ten generations the offspring are exempt, as they serve as a guarantee for the gentile, because if he does not receive the fixed payment for the animal he will collect his debt from any offspring born to it or its offspring. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s use of the term: Even, indicates that he disagrees with the first tanna only with regard to how many generations of offspring are exempt, but both agree that at least some generations are exempt. Granted, according to Rav Yehuda, who says that, in exempting from firstborn status, the first tanna descended to two generational levels,