Bekhorot

: 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.