Bekhorot — Daf 51b

ולא הקדשות בכל אלו:

כתב לכהן שהוא חייב לו חמשה סלעים חייב ליתן לו כו': אמר עולא דבר תורה בנו פדוי מ"ט אין בנו פדוי גזירה שמא יאמרו פודין בשטר

תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן בנו פדוי לכשיתן א"ל רב נחמן זו דברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה סתימתא ואמרי לה זו דברי רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סתימתא אבל חכמים אומרים אין בנו פדוי והלכתא אין בנו פדוי:

לפיכך אם רצה הכהן ליתן לו במתנה רשאי: תנינא להא דת"ר נתנו לעשרה כהנים בבת אחת יצא בזה אחר זה יצא נטלו והחזירו לו יצא

וכך היה מנהגו של רבי טרפון שהיה נוטל ומחזיר וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו קיים זה הלכה זו הלכה זו ותו לא אלא קיים זה אף הלכה זו

רבי חנינא הוה רגיל ושקיל ומהדר חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה קא אזיל ואתי קמיה אמר ליה לא גמרת ויהיבת מידעם ביש הילכך אין בנו פדוי:

המפריש פדיון בנו ואבד חייב באחריותו: מנלן א"ר שמעון בן לקיש אתיא ערך ערך מערכין

רב דימי א"ר יונתן (שמות לד, כ) וכל בכור בניך תפדה ולא יראו פני ריקם ויליף ריקם ריקם מעולת ראייה מה עולת ראייה חייב באחריותו אף פדיון הבן חייב באחריותו

מתקיף לה רב פפא קרא לקרא אלא א"ר פפא הא כדקתני טעמא (במדבר יח, טו) יהיה לך אך פדה תפדה

וכי איתמר דריש לקיש ארישא איתמר מת לאחר שלשים יום אע"פ שלא נתן יתן מנא לן א"ר שמעון בן לקיש אתיא ערך ערך מערכין

רב דימי א"ר יונתן וכל בכור בניך תפדה ולא יראו פני ריקם מה להלן יורשין חייבין אף כאן יורשין חייבין:

מתני׳ הבכור נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האב ואינו נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האם ואינו נוטל בשבח ולא בראוי כבמוחזק

: And objects of hekdesh cannot be redeemed with all these.1 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.2 [And Rab Shesheth ruled likewise: His son is redeemed after payment].3 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.4 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,5 he has discharged his duty of redemption. If he gave [the five sela's] one after the other,6 he has discharged his duty. If [the priest] took the redemption money and returned it to him, he has discharged his duty.7 And this was the custom of R. Tarfon.8 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. Hanina8 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.9 He said to him: ‘You have not given genuinely.10 You did11 something wrong.12 Consequently your son is not redeemed’.13 IF ONE SET ASIDE THE REDEMPTION [MONEY] FOR HIS SON AND IT BECAME LOST, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. How do we know?14 — Said R. Simeon b. Lakish: We draw an analogy between [the term] ‘valuation’ used in connection with the redemption of the first-born15 and [the word] ‘valuation’ used in connection with the law of valuations.16 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,17 and we draw an analogy between [the word] ‘empty’ and [the word] ‘empty’ used in connection with the burnt-offering of appearance before the Lord18 [thus]: just as one is responsible for the burnt-offering of appearance,19 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?20 — 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.21 How do we know?22 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.23 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 there24 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.25 HE ALSO DOES NOT TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE.26 NOR DOES HE TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF WHAT WILL FALL DUE [TO THE ESTATE]27 AS HE DOES OF WHAT IS HELD IN POSSESSION. the son is not redeemed, it is possible that R. Nahman holds that what the Mishnah means by the expression ‘ALTHOUGH HIS SON IS NOT REDEEMED is that the son is not redeemed unless payment is made, and that if the priest enters the note as a loan against him, we do not say that it is as if the priest received it and then later lent him the money, or if the priest remits the five sela's, the son is still not redeemed unless the father pays. R. Nahman therefore informs us that the Sages maintain that the son is not redeemed in such circumstances even after payment of the note. each priest only receives half a sela’, yet since altogether he gave the full redemption money, his son is redeemed. priests, but not to them all simultaneously only to one after the other. Mishnah (R. Gershom). redeemed’. scriptural verse in support of this ruling, v. infra. that until the money is in the hands of the Temple treasurer the valuation money is still regarded as hullin (secular), for which the person who vows is responsible if it is lost or stolen, as it says ‘And he shall give’, implying that the money must be actually given if the law of valuation is to be carried out. responsible if it is lost. For since Scripture forbids the pilgrim to appear empty in the Temple, if the offering is lost and he does not bring another, then he would be appearing ‘empty’ before the Lord. But from the word ‘empty’ used in connection with a first-born, I could not have inferred that he is responsible for it if lost, as the word ‘before me’ is not to be taken literally, since a first-born is not brought to the Temple but given to the priest, and I would therefore have said that the mere setting aside of the first-born suffices, there being no further responsibility. additional verse to support the one already quoted in the Mishnah? one says ‘I vow the value of So-and-so’, if the latter dies he is bound to pay. And similarly here, if the first-born dies after thirty days, the father is bound to give the five sela's. second share is assessed in money and divided between the heirs.