Bekhorot

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