Bekhorot 101

Chapter 101

א זוזא מאכא בהדיה דלא נפיק תקע ליה אחרינא ויהביה ניהליה:
1 a battered zuz which could not be passed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was not accepted in the city and was worth little to him. Inserted in the Bah, v. B.K 37a.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב שלשים של עבד חמשים של אונס ושל מפתה וכו': הא תו למה לי הא תנא ליה רישא
2 [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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the words IN ALL THESE CASES THE HOLY SHEKEL IS MEANT AND TAKE THE TYRIAN MANEH etc. since the Tanna has already mentioned earlier that the coin must be of the Tyrian currency.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אונס ומוציא שם רע איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דלא כתיב בהו שקלים אימא זוזי בעלמא קמ"ל דמילף קא ילפי מהדדי:
3 Has he not mentioned this in an earlier clause? The repetition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the clause and IN THESE CASES etc.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד חוץ מן השקלים: תנא חוץ מן השקלים ומעשר והראיון
4 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being no mention in the Torah that the payment must be in shekels. And although the Mishnah does not 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 kueah with reference to seduction it says: He shall pay silver () . (Ex. XXII, 16) .');"><sup>4</sup></span> I might say that mere zuz are sufficient.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where the expression shekel is mentioned he must pay Tyrian shekels, but where the expression shekel is not mentioned, he can pay even in Tyrian denars (zuz) .');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ה שקלים דתנן מצרפין שקלים לדרבונות מפני משאוי הדרך
5 The Tanna therefore informs us that we infer one from the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By stating: IN ALL THESE CASES etc, it teaches us that all cases in which payment is defined in the Pentateuch 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) .');"><sup>6</sup></span> WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SHEKEL PAYMENTS.
ו מעשר דכתיב (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך והראיון תני רב יוסף שלא יביא סיגה לעזרה:
6 A Tanna taught: With the exception of shekel payments, second tithes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are not redeemed except with stamped money, even stamped perutahs however being permitted.');"><sup>7</sup></span> and the pilgrim's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the appearance' in the Temple of the pilgrim.');"><sup>8</sup></span> burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is bought for two ma'ah which must be in stamped money.');"><sup>9</sup></span> 'Shekel payments', as we have learnt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shek. II, 1.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> 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
7 You may exchange<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'combine'. Several half shekel payments are combined for purposes of exchange. iufrs');"><sup>11</sup></span> shekels for darics<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Persian gold and silver coin. (Jast.) . Some editions have');"><sup>12</sup></span> on account of the burden of the journey.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because their gold coins are stamped, but other coins which are unstamped cannot be sent to Jerusalem. And the same limitation applies to money's worth, in case it drops in value and hekdesh will thus suffer a loss.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח המפריש פדיון בנו ואבד חייב באחריותו שנאמר (במדבר יח, ט) יהיה לך ופדה תפדה:
8 'Second tithes', as it is written:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 25. ,rmu vrum');"><sup>14</sup></span> And bind up the money in thine hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And bind up, the Hebrew word itself suggesting that the money must have a i.e., a stamp. ohdhx ;xfu vdhx');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ט <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מתני' דלא כרבי דתניא רבי אומר בכל פודין בכור אדם חוץ מן השטרות מאי טעמא דרבי
9 'And the pilgrim's burnt-offering'. R'Joseph learnt: In order that one may not bring base metal to the Temple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi has the version 'base metal or non-purified silver', and adds that the Baraitha is 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.');"><sup>16</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>WE MUST NOT REDEEM [A FIRST-BORN OF MAN] WITH SLAVES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the Mishnah says above that one may redeem with money's worth, redemption cannot be effected with slaves etc.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
י דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי (במדבר יח, טז) ופדויו מבן חדש תפדה ריבה בערכך כסף חמשת שקלים מיעט תפדה ריבה
10 NOR WITH NOTES OF INDEBTEDNESS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one has a bond of five sela's against a debtor he cannot give this to the priest in payment of the redemption of his son.');"><sup>18</sup></span> NOR WITH IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, NOR WITH OBJECTS OF HEKDESH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Explained later in the Gemara as meaning that hekdesh has the same rule, i.e., that it cannot be redeemed with slaves, etc.');"><sup>19</sup></span> IF ONE GIVES A WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO A PRIEST THAT HE OWES HIM FIVE SELA'S<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of redemption of his first-born.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יא ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל מאי רבי רבי כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט שטרות
11 
יב ורבנן דרשי כלל ופרט ופדויו מבן חדש כלל בערכך כסף חמשת שקלים פרט פדה תפדה חזר וכלל
12 HE IS BOUND TO GIVE THEM TO HIM, ALTHOUGH HIS SON IS NOT CONSIDERED AS REDEEMED THEREBY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fear it should be said that it is permissible to redeem with notes of indebtedness.');"><sup>21</sup></span> THEREFORE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he has to give the priest a further five sela's. Another explanation is: Since the Torah ruled (v. infra) that one 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.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יג 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
13 IF THE PRIEST WISHES TO GIVE HIM [THE NOTE OF INDEBTEDNESS] AS A GIFT HE IS PERMITTED TO DO SO,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As there is no other way in which the father can recover the money.');"><sup>23</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 15, implying that only when the priest has the redemption money the first-born is redeemed.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יד אמר ליה רבינא למרימר ורבי ריבויי ומיעוטי דריש והא רבי כללי ופרטי דריש במרצע
14 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which says that the redemption of the first-born cannot be effected with slaves etc.');"><sup>25</sup></span> 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.
טו 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
15 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 16.');"><sup>26</sup></span> is an amplification; According to thy estimation of the money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 16.');"><sup>26</sup></span> is a limitation, and Shalt thou redeem<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek. rightly deleting the words 'shalt thou redeem' of cur. edd.');"><sup>27</sup></span> is a further amplification. [The text therefore here] amplifies and limits and then amplifies again. It therefore includes all.
טז ואמרינן במאי קא מיפלגי רבי דריש כללי ופרטי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי
16 What does it include by amplifying? - All things.
יז אין בעלמא רבי כללי ופרטי דריש והכא כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל
17 And what does the text exclude by limiting? - It excludes notes of indebtedness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they are of no value.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
יח דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא י״א, ט׳) במים במים שתי פעמים אין זה כלל ופרט אלא ריבה ומיעט
18 But the Rabbis [his disputants] interpret the Bible texts on the lines of generalizations and specifications, [thus]: 'And those tha 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And although the general statement 'Shalt thou redeem' comes before the specification, we nevertheless expound the texts on the lines of a general statement followed by specification. vkjb');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יט ורבנן אמרי כדאמרינן במערבא כ"מ שאתה מוצא שתי כללות הסמוכים זה לזה הטל פרט ביניהם ודונם בכלל ופרט:
19 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.
כ ולא בהקדשות: פשיטא לאו דידיה נינהו אימא
20 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture saying (Lev. XXV, 46) in connection with slaves: And ye shall take them as an inheritance, the term (inheritance) being applied to immovable property.');"><sup>30</sup></span> and notes of indebtedness are excluded because, although they are movables, they are not in themselves money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On these two methods of expositions v. Shebu., Sonc. ed., p. 12, n. 3.');"><sup>31</sup></span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 17.');"><sup>32</sup></span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 21a.');"><sup>33</sup></span> Wherein do they differ? Rabbi interprets [the biblical text] on the lines of generalizations and specifications,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Then thou shalt take' is a general statement, 'An awl' is a specification, 'And thrust it through his ear' is again a general statement.');"><sup>34</sup></span> whereas R'Jose son of R'Judah interprets on the lines of amplifications and limitations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The amplification includes everything which can bore the ear, and the limitation only excludes poison as a means of boring the ear.');"><sup>35</sup></span> - Yes, elsewhere Rabbi interprets [biblical texts] on the lines of generalizations and specifications. The case however is different here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to the redemption of the first-born.');"><sup>36</sup></span> 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';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 9.');"><sup>37</sup></span> the repetition is not to be interpreted as a general statement followed by a specification, but as an amplification and a limitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The texts 'These may ye eat of all that are in the waters' and 'Whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters' are two 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.');"><sup>38</sup></span> And the Rabbis? They say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who expounded the biblical texts on the lines of generalizations and specifications.');"><sup>39</sup></span> it was explained in the West [Palestinian colleges]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. (v. R. Gershom) : 'Said Rabina as it was explained, etc.'.');"><sup>40</sup></span> Wherever you find two general statements in proximity, place the specification between them and interpret them on the lines of generalizations and specifications.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the fact that the specification follows the two generalisations makes no difference.');"><sup>41</sup></span> NOR WITH OBJECTS OF HEKDESH. Surely this is obvious,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we cannot redeem the first-born with consecrated objects.');"><sup>42</sup></span> since they do not belong to him! Read
Previous ChapterNext Chapter