Parallel
בכורות 51
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
a battered zuz which could not be passed. [He wanted to give him half a zuz from it. The other had no change.] So he gave him another box on the ear and handed to him the whole zuz. THE THIRTY SHEKELS OF A SLAVE, LIKEWISE THE FIFTY SHEKELS OF ONE WHO VIOLATES A WOMAN AND THE INDEMNITY OF FIFTY SHEKELS FOR SEDUCTION, etc. Why does he mention this again? Has he not mentioned this in an earlier clause? The repetition is needed on account of the cases of one who violates a woman and one who spreads an evil name. I might have thought that since shekalim is not written in connection with these cases I might say that mere zuz are sufficient. The Tanna therefore informs us that we infer one from the other. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SHEKEL PAYMENTS. A Tanna taught: With the exception of shekel payments, second tithes and the pilgrim's burnt-offering. ‘Shekel payments’, as we have learnt. You may exchange shekels for darics on account of the burden of the journey. ‘Second tithes’, as it is written: And bind up the money in thine hand. ‘And the pilgrim's burnt-offering’. R. Joseph learnt: In order that one may not bring base metal to the Temple. MISHNAH. WE MUST NOT REDEEM [A FIRST-BORN OF MAN] WITH SLAVES, NOR WITH NOTES OF INDEBTEDNESS, NOR WITH IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, NOR WITH OBJECTS OF HEKDESH. IF ONE GIVES A WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO A PRIEST THAT HE OWES HIM FIVE SELA'S HE IS BOUND TO GIVE THEM TO HIM, ALTHOUGH HIS SON IS NOT CONSIDERED AS REDEEMED THEREBY. THEREFORE, IF THE PRIEST WISHES TO GIVE HIM [THE NOTE OF INDEBTEDNESS] AS A GIFT HE IS PERMITTED TO DO SO, IF ONE SET ASIDE THE REDEMPTION MONEY OF HIS SON AND IT BECAME LOST, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, BECAUSE IT SAYS: SHALL BE THINE [BUT] THOU SHALT SURELY REDEEM. GEMARA. Our Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi. For it has been taught: Rabbi says: We may redeem a first-born of man with all things except notes of indebtedness. What is the reason of Rabbi? — He interprets the Bible texts on the lines of amplifications and limitations [as follows]: And those that are to be redeemed from a month is an amplification; According to thy estimation of the money is a limitation, and Shalt thou redeem is a further amplification. [The text therefore here] amplifies and limits and then amplifies again. It therefore includes all. What does it include by amplifying? — All things. And what does the text exclude by limiting? — It excludes notes of indebtedness. But the Rabbis [his disputants] interpret the Bible texts on the lines of generalizations and specifications, [thus]: ‘And those that are to be redeemed’ is a general statement: ‘According to thy estimation of the money’, is a specification, ‘Shalt thou redeem’ again is a general statement. We have therefore here a general statement and a specification, and again a generalization, in which case we include in the general statement only such things as are similar to those specified. As therefore the specification explicitly mentions a movable object and that which is itself money, so everything [with which we may redeem] must be a movable object and that which is itself money. Immovable properties are therefore excluded [as being proper to redeem with] because they are not movables. Slaves are also excluded, as they are compared with immovable properties, and notes of indebtedness are excluded because, although they are movables, they are not in themselves money. Said Rabina to Meremar: But does Rabbi interpret [Bible texts] on the lines of amplifications and limitations? Does not Rabbi interpret [Bible texts] on the lines of generalizations followed by specifications in connection with [the law of boring a slave's ear with] an awl? For it was taught: [Scripture says], An awl, I have here [mentioned] only an awl [wherewith to bore a slave's ear]. Whence do we include a prick, thorn, needle, borer or stylus? The text states: Then thou shalt take, thus including every object which can be taken in the hand. This is the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah. Rabbi, however, says: ‘An awl’; just as an awl is exclusively of metal, so anything [used for boring a slave's ear] must be of metal. And we stated elsewhere: Wherein do they differ? Rabbi interprets [the biblical text] on the lines of generalizations and specifications, whereas R. Jose son of R. Judah interprets on the lines of amplifications and limitations. — Yes, elsewhere Rabbi interprets [biblical texts] on the lines of generalizations and specifications. The case however is different here, as a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught, [Scripture says]: ‘In the waters, in the waters’; the repetition is not to be interpreted as a general statement followed by a specification, but as an amplification and a limitation. And the Rabbis? They say it was explained in the West [Palestinian colleges]: Wherever you find two general statements in proximity, place the specification between them and interpret them on the lines of generalizations and specifications. NOR WITH OBJECTS OF HEKDESH. Surely this is obvious, since they do not belong to him! Read
—
: And objects of hekdesh cannot be redeemed with all these. IF ONE WRITES OUT TO A PRIEST THAT HE OWES HIM FIVE SELA'S, HE IS BOUND TO GIVE THEM TO HIM etc. Said ‘Ulla: According to the biblical law, his son is redeemed after payment; why then [does the Mishnah say that] his son is not redeemed? It is a precaution in case people might say that it is permissible to redeem with notes of indebtedness. [And Rab Shesheth ruled likewise: His son is redeemed after payment]. A Tanna recited before R. Nahman: His son is redeemed after payment. R. Nahman said to him: This is the teaching of R. Jose son of R. Judah whose opinion has been reported anonymously. (Some Say: This is the teaching of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, whose opinion has been reported anonymously.) But the Sages say: His son is not redeemed. And the Law is that his son is not redeemed. THEREFORE IF THE PRIEST WISHES TO GIVE HIM [THE NOTE OF INDEBTEDNESS] AS A GIFT, HE IS PERMITTED TO DO SO. [The Mishnah here] teaches what our Rabbis have taught [elsewhere]: If one gave [the five sela's] to ten priests simultaneously, he has discharged his duty of redemption. If he gave [the five sela's] one after the other, he has discharged his duty. If [the priest] took the redemption money and returned it to him, he has discharged his duty. And this was the custom of R. Tarfon. He used to take the five sela's and then return them. When the Sages heard of this they said: ‘This [teacher] has observed this law’. And did he only observe this law and no other? — ‘This teacher observed even this law’. R. Hanina was in the habit of taking [the five sela's] and returning them. Once he saw a man who [after giving him the five sela's] kept on coming before him. He said to him: ‘You have not given genuinely. You did something wrong. Consequently your son is not redeemed’. IF ONE SET ASIDE THE REDEMPTION [MONEY] FOR HIS SON AND IT BECAME LOST, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. How do we know? — Said R. Simeon b. Lakish: We draw an analogy between [the term] ‘valuation’ used in connection with the redemption of the first-born and [the word] ‘valuation’ used in connection with the law of valuations. R. Dimi reported in the name of R. Johanan: Scripture says: And all the first-born of thy sons thou shalt redeem and none shall appear before me empty, and we draw an analogy between [the word] ‘empty’ and [the word] ‘empty’ used in connection with the burnt-offering of appearance before the Lord [thus]: just as one is responsible for the burnt-offering of appearance, so one is responsible for the redemption money of the first-born. To this R. Papa demurred: Is there need for a biblical verse to support another biblical verse? — No, said R. Papa. The reason [why he is responsible] is as stated: [Scripture says]: Shall be thine shalt thou surely redeem. And when the explanation of Resh Lakish was stated, it was stated in connection with an earlier clause [in the Mishnah]: If the son died after thirty days although he has not yet given the redemption money, he is bound to give it. How do we know? Said R. Simeon b. Lakish: We draw an analogy between [the word] ‘valuation’ used in connection with the redemption of the first-born and the word ‘valuation’ used in connection with the law of valuations. R. Dimi reported in the name of R. Johanan: [Scripture says]: ‘All the first-born of thy sons thou shalt redeem and none shall appear before me empty’: say just as there the heirs are responsible for the burnt-offering [it being an obligatory burnt-offering], so here the heirs are responsible [for the redemption money if the father and son die]. MISHNAH. THE FIRST-BORN TAKES A DOUBLE SHARE OF THE FATHER'S ESTATE BUT HE DOES NOT TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF THE MOTHERS ESTATE. HE ALSO DOES NOT TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE. NOR DOES HE TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF WHAT WILL FALL DUE [TO THE ESTATE] AS HE DOES OF WHAT IS HELD IN POSSESSION.
—