Bekhorot — Daf 49b

הכא נמי לא שנא

ושמואל אמר לך התם בידו לקדשה מעכשיו הכא אין בידו לפדותו מעכשיו ואע"ג דקיימא לן דכל היכא דפליגי רב ושמואל הלכתא כרב באיסורי וכשמואל בדיני הכא הלכתא כוותיה דשמואל

תנן מת בתוך ל' יום אע"פ שנתן לכהן יחזיר לו חמש סלעים טעמא דמת הא לא מת בנו פדוי הכא במאי עסקינן דאיתנהו למעות

תא שמע בחזקת שלא נפדה עד שיאמרו לו שנפדה התם נמי דאיתנהו למעות בעינייהו

תני תנא קמיה דרב יהודה הפודה את בנו בתוך שלשים יום בנו פדוי אמר ליה שמואל אמר אין בנו פדוי ואת אמרת בנו פדוי ואע"ג דקיימא לן כרב באיסורי וכשמואל בדיני הכא הלכתא כותיה דשמואל:

הוא לפדות ובנו לפדות הוא קודם לבנו וכו': תנו רבנן הוא לפדות ובנו לפדות הוא קודם לבנו רבי יהודה אומר בנו קודמו שמצותו על אביו ומצות בנו עליו

אמר ר' ירמיה הכל מודים היכא דליכא אלא חמש סלעים הוא קודם לבנו מאי טעמא דמצוה דידיה עדיף כי פליגי היכא דאיכא חמש משועבדות וחמש בני חורין

ר' יהודה סבר מלוה הכתובה בתורה ככתובה בשטר דמיא ודידיה אזיל וטריף ממשעבדי ובהני חמש בני חורין פריק ליה לבריה

ורבנן סברי מלוה הכתובה בתורה לאו ככתובה בשטר דמיא הלכך מצוה דידיה עדיף:

מתני׳ חמש סלעים של בן במנה צורי

שלשים של עבד חמשים של אונס ושל מפתה ומאה של מוציא שם רע כולם בשקל הקדש במנה צורי וכולן נפדין בכסף ובשוה כסף חוץ משקלים:

גמ׳ מנה צורי אמר רבי אסי מנה של צורי רבי אמי אמר דינרא ערבא רבי חנינא אומר איסתרא סרסיא דמיזדבנא תמניא בדינרא חמש מינייהו לפדיון הבן

In this case too, it is the same. And Samuel?1 — He can answer thus: There [in the case of betrothal] he can effect the betrothal from now2 whereas here, [in the case of redemption], redemption cannot make it take effect ‘from now. And although we have an established rule that wherever Rab and Samuel differ in ritual law the ruling adopted is that of Rab and in civil cases the ruling adopted is that of Samuel, here, however, the ruling adopted is that of Samuel. We have learnt:3 If the son dies within thirty days [of his birth] although he has given the priest redemption money, the latter must return it. The reason is because he dies, but if he did not die, the son is considered redeemed!4 — We are dealing here with the case where the money is still in existence. Come and hear: THE INFANT IS UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF NOT HAVING BEEN REDEEMED UNTIL A PROOF IS BROUGHT THAT IT HAS BEEN REDEEMED!5 — There too it is a case where the money is in existence. A Tanna recited in the presence of Rab Judah: If one redeems his son within thirty days [of its birth] the son is considered redeemed. He said to him: But did not Samuel rule that the son is not redeemed, and you say that the son is considered redeemed? — Read: ‘The son is not redeemed’. And although we have an established rule that the ruling adopted is that of Rab in ritual matters and is like Samuel, in civil matters, here, however, the decision is in accordance with the ruling of Samuel. IF BOTH THE FATHER AND SON REQUIRE REDEMPTION AS FIRST-BORN, THE FATHER TAKES PRECEDENCE OF HIS SON etc. Our Rabbis taught: If both the father and son require redemption as first-born, the father takes precedence of his son. R. Judah says: His son comes first, for the father's command is upon his father and the command of his son is upon him. Said R. Jeremiah: All [the authorities concerned] agree that where there are only five sela's the father takes precedence of the son, the reason being because the command regarding himself is of more importance. The difference arises, however, in the case where there are five sela's of encumbered property6 and five sela's of free property. R. Judah holds: An obligation arising from a biblical law [e.g., the duty of redeeming the first-born] is on a par with a loan against a note. Therefore the five sela's due for himself, he [the priest] goes and seizes from the encumbered property7 and with the five sela's of the free property, he redeems his son [immediately].8 But the Rabbis say: An obligation arising from the biblical law is not on a par with a loan against a note,9 and therefore the command [of redemption] relating to himself takes precedence. MISHNAH. THE FIVE SELA'S OF A FIRST-BORN TAKE THE TYRIAN MANEH AS THEIR STANDARD.10 AS REGARDS THE THIRTY SHEKELS OF A SLAVE11 AND LIKEWISE THE FIFTY SHEKELS OF ONE WHO VIOLATES A WOMAN,12 THE INDEMNITY FOR SEDUCTION13 AND THE ONE HUNDRED SHEKELS OF ONE WHO SPREADS AN EVIL NAME14 — IN ALL THESE CASES THE HOLY SHEKEL15 IS MEANT AND TAKE THE TYRIAN MANEH AS THEIR STANDARD. ALL OF THESE ARE REDEEMED16 WITH MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SHEKEL PAYMENTS.17 GEMARA. What is a Tyrian maneh? — Said R. Ashi: The maneh of the Tyrian currency.18 R. Ammi said: [The Tyrian maneh is] an Arabian denar.19 R. Hanina said: A Syriac Istira,20 eight of which are bought for a gold denar and five of which are the amount for the redemption of the first-born. similar circumstances? life-time of his father. in the hands of the buyers had been mortgaged before the birth of his son. then he could no longer redeem himself, for the priest cannot seize mortgaged property from the buyers for his five sela's, as is the case with a loan against a note, where there is created a hypothecary obligation. current shekel mixed with an abby of copper. shekels. The same also applies to the second tithes, which could only be redeemed with money, and not with money's worth. the equivalent of ten Arabian denars, the latter denars being light ones. Tosaf. explains that the golden Arabian denar was the equivalent of the five sela's of redemption and that R. Ammi is not referring to the Tyrian maneh. R. Gershom has another form trhxrux deriving from the word ruxrx meaning a middle-man, a coin with which much business is transacted, just as a middle-man is the medium of much business.