Bekhorot — Daf 51a

זוזא מאכא בהדיה דלא נפיק תקע ליה אחרינא ויהביה ניהליה:

שלשים של עבד חמשים של אונס ושל מפתה וכו': הא תו למה לי הא תנא ליה רישא

אונס ומוציא שם רע איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דלא כתיב בהו שקלים אימא זוזי בעלמא קמ"ל דמילף קא ילפי מהדדי:

חוץ מן השקלים: תנא חוץ מן השקלים ומעשר והראיון

שקלים דתנן מצרפין שקלים לדרבונות מפני משאוי הדרך

מעשר דכתיב (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך והראיון תני רב יוסף שלא יביא סיגה לעזרה:

מתני׳ אין פודין לא בעבדים ולא בשטרות ולא בקרקעות ולא בהקדשות כתב לכהן שהוא חייב ליתן חמשה סלעים חייב ליתן לו ובנו אינו פדוי לפיכך אם רצה הכהן ליתן לו במתנה רשאי

המפריש פדיון בנו ואבד חייב באחריותו שנאמר (במדבר יח, ט) יהיה לך ופדה תפדה:

גמ׳ מתני' דלא כרבי דתניא רבי אומר בכל פודין בכור אדם חוץ מן השטרות מאי טעמא דרבי

דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי (במדבר יח, טז) ופדויו מבן חדש תפדה ריבה בערכך כסף חמשת שקלים מיעט תפדה ריבה

ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל מאי רבי רבי כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט שטרות

ורבנן דרשי כלל ופרט ופדויו מבן חדש כלל בערכך כסף חמשת שקלים פרט פדה תפדה חזר וכלל

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון יצאו קרקעות שאין מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאף על פי שמטלטלין אין גופן ממון

אמר ליה רבינא למרימר ורבי ריבויי ומיעוטי דריש והא רבי כללי ופרטי דריש במרצע

דתניא (דברים טו, יז) מרצע אין לי אלא מרצע מנין לרבות הסול והסירא והמחט והמקדח והמכתב ת"ל (דברים טו, יז) ולקחת לרבות כל דבר שנלקח ביד דברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה רבי אומר מרצע מה מרצע מיוחד של מתכת אף כל של מתכת

ואמרינן במאי קא מיפלגי רבי דריש כללי ופרטי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי

אין בעלמא רבי כללי ופרטי דריש והכא כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא י״א, ט׳) במים במים שתי פעמים אין זה כלל ופרט אלא ריבה ומיעט

ורבנן אמרי כדאמרינן במערבא כ"מ שאתה מוצא שתי כללות הסמוכים זה לזה הטל פרט ביניהם ודונם בכלל ופרט:

ולא בהקדשות: פשיטא לאו דידיה נינהו אימא

a battered zuz which could not be passed.1 [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?2 Has he not mentioned this in an earlier clause? The repetition3 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 cases4 I might say that mere zuz are sufficient.5 The Tanna therefore informs us that we infer one from the other.6 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SHEKEL PAYMENTS. A Tanna taught: With the exception of shekel payments, second tithes7 and the pilgrim's8 burnt-offering.9 ‘Shekel payments’, as we have learnt.10 You may exchange11 shekels for darics12 on account of the burden of the journey.13 ‘Second tithes’, as it is written:14 And bind up the money in thine hand.15 ‘And the pilgrim's burnt-offering’. R. Joseph learnt: In order that one may not bring base metal to the Temple.16 MISHNAH. WE MUST NOT REDEEM [A FIRST-BORN OF MAN] WITH SLAVES,17 NOR WITH NOTES OF INDEBTEDNESS,18 NOR WITH IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, NOR WITH OBJECTS OF HEKDESH.19 IF ONE GIVES A WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO A PRIEST THAT HE OWES HIM FIVE SELA'S20 HE IS BOUND TO GIVE THEM TO HIM, ALTHOUGH HIS SON IS NOT CONSIDERED AS REDEEMED THEREBY.21 THEREFORE,22 IF THE PRIEST WISHES TO GIVE HIM [THE NOTE OF INDEBTEDNESS] AS A GIFT HE IS PERMITTED TO DO SO,23 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.24 GEMARA. Our Mishnah25 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 month26 is an amplification; According to thy estimation of the money26 is a limitation, and Shalt thou redeem27 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.28 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.29 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,30 and notes of indebtedness are excluded because, although they are movables, they are not in themselves money.31 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,32 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:33 Wherein do they differ? Rabbi interprets [the biblical text] on the lines of generalizations and specifications,34 whereas R. Jose son of R. Judah interprets on the lines of amplifications and limitations.35 — Yes, elsewhere Rabbi interprets [biblical texts] on the lines of generalizations and specifications. The case however is different here,36 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’; 37 the repetition is not to be interpreted as a general statement followed by a specification, but as an amplification and a limitation.38 And the Rabbis? They say39 it was explained in the West [Palestinian colleges]:40 Wherever you find two general statements in proximity, place the specification between them and interpret them on the lines of generalizations and specifications.41 NOR WITH OBJECTS OF HEKDESH. Surely this is obvious,42 since they do not belong to him! Read since the Tanna has already mentioned earlier that the coin must be of the Tyrian currency. mention the holy shekel in connection with the other cases enumerated, the word shekel is used in the Scriptures with reference to them. In connection with the first-born Scripture says, Five shekels by the poll (Num. III, 47). With reference to a Slave it says: He shall give the master thirty shekels. (Ex. XXI, 32). And with reference to seduction it says: He shall pay silver ( kueah ). (Ex. XXII, 16). mentioned, he can pay even in Tyrian denars (zuz). have the same rule i.e., payment in shekels on the Tyrian standard in accordance with the ruling of R. Assi above. Some editions have the following reading: ‘ALL OF THESE ARE REDEEMED etc. But are all these redeemable (since redemption only applies to a first-born and not to cases like the thirty shekels of a slave etc.?) — This is what (the Mishnah) means: And all of these cases which can be redeemed, viz., the first-born of man and consecrated objects’. (Sh. Mek). same limitation applies to money's worth, in case it drops in value and hekdesh will thus suffer a loss. adduced by R. Joseph to support the previous Baraitha but not to explain it. Tosaf., however, says that R. Joseph's Baraitha explains the previous Baraitha as follows: The reason why it is forbidden to bring a pilgrim's burnt-offering from money's worth is because sometimes he may bring base metal or non-purified silver which will not possess the value of two silver ma'ah, and as a result he will not be able to purchase a good burnt-offering. slaves etc. son. with slaves, etc. cannot redeem with notes of indebtedness, therefore the priest cannot remit his debt, and there is no other remedy except making the bond a gift to the father. the texts on the lines of a general statement followed by specification. vkjb (inheritance) being applied to immovable property. general statement. boring the ear. general statements intimating that in all waters, in order that the fish may be eaten, we require them to possess fins and scales. This is followed by a specification ‘In the seas’ and ‘In the rivers’, implying that only in flowing waters do we require fins and scales, but in gathered waters we can eat fish without fins and scales. And whenever we have two statements in close proximity as is the case here, we do not interpret the biblical text on the lines of a general statement and specifications but of amplifications and limitations (v. Hul. 66b). Similarly, in the case of redemption, since the two general statements are in close proximity and the specification subsequently follows (v. p. 351, supra n. 7), Rabbi interprets the texts on the lines of amplification and limitation.