Bekhorot 102

Chapter 102

א ולא הקדשות בכל אלו:
1 And objects of hekdesh cannot be redeemed with all these.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., slaves, bonds etc.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב 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
2 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where he actually gives the priest nothing, or with a bond on which the father claims against his neighbour.');"><sup>2</sup></span> [And Rab Shesheth ruled likewise: His son is redeemed after payment].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>3</sup></span> A Tanna recited before R'Nahman: His son is redeemed after payment.
ג 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:
3 R'Nahman said to him: This is the teaching of R'Jose son of R'Judah whose opinion has been reported anonymously. But the Sages say: His son is not redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf, points out that although this is apparently what the Mishnah says, viz., that he gives him the five sela's and yet 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.');"><sup>4</sup></span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Putting the five sela's before them all and then going his way (Rashi) . R. Gershom adds that although this meant that each priest only receives half a sela', yet since altogether he gave the full redemption money, his son is redeemed.');"><sup>5</sup></span> he has discharged his duty of redemption. If he gave [the five sela's] one after the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To one priest. So Rashi. Maimonides appears to refer this to ten priests i.e., that he gave the money between ten priests, but not to them all simultaneously only to one after the other.');"><sup>6</sup></span> he has discharged his duty. If [the priest] took the redemption money and returned it to him, he has discharged his duty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The halachah will therefore be in accordance with the ruling of the Mishnah, since the Baraitha here supports the Mishnah (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ד 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
4 And this was the custom of R'Tarfon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was a priest.');"><sup>8</sup></span> 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'.
ה 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
5 And did he only observe this law and no other? - 'This teacher observed even this law'. R'Hanina<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was a priest.');"><sup>8</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that he should see him and refund his redemption money.');"><sup>9</sup></span> He said to him: 'You have not given genuinely.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'you have not determined and given'.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו 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:
6 You did<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted in the text with Rashi and Tosaf.');"><sup>11</sup></span> something wrong.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In giving the redemption money with the expectation of getting it refunded.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ז המפריש פדיון בנו ואבד חייב באחריותו: מנלן א"ר שמעון בן לקיש אתיא ערך ערך מערכין
7 Consequently your son is not redeemed'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'If I return the money to you'. Another explanation is: 'Even if I do not return the money, your son is not redeemed'.');"><sup>13</sup></span> IF ONE SET ASIDE THE REDEMPTION [MONEY] FOR HIS SON AND IT BECAME LOST, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. How do we know?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he is responsible for the redemption money. The question is asked in spite of the fact that the Mishnah cites a scriptural verse in support of this ruling, v. infra.');"><sup>14</sup></span> - Said R'Simeon B'Lakish: We draw an analogy between [the term] 'valuation' used in connection with the redemption of the first-born<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And those that are redeemed according to thy valuation, Num. XVIII, 16.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ח 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
8 and [the word] 'valuation' used in connection with the law of valuations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he shall give thy valuation on that day etc. (Lev. XXVII, 23) . This verse is explained in Hul. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXIV, 20.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ט מתקיף לה רב פפא קרא לקרא אלא א"ר פפא הא כדקתני טעמא (במדבר יח, טו) יהיה לך אך פדה תפדה
9 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And none shall appear before me empty (Ex. XXIII, 15) .');"><sup>18</sup></span> [thus]: just as one is responsible for the burnt-offering of appearance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is an obligatory offering and is no less binding than an offering which one vows of for which he is 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.');"><sup>19</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is there not a biblical verse adduced in the Mishnah to confirm this ruling? What need therefore is there for an additional verse to support the one already quoted in the Mishnah?');"><sup>20</sup></span> - No, said R'Papa.
י 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
10 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 49a.');"><sup>21</sup></span> How do we know?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he is bound to give the redemption money even after the death of his son.');"><sup>22</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of valuations, if one says: 'I vow my value', and he dies, the heir must pay the valuation money, and if 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.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יא רב דימי א"ר יונתן וכל בכור בניך תפדה ולא יראו פני ריקם מה להלן יורשין חייבין אף כאן יורשין חייבין:
11 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the pilgrim's burnt-offering of appearance before the Lord.');"><sup>24</sup></span> 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].
יב <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הבכור נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האב ואינו נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האם ואינו נוטל בשבח ולא בראוי כבמוחזק
12 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE FIRST-BORN TAKES A DOUBLE SHARE OF THE FATHER'S ESTATE BUT HE DOES NOT TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF THE MOTHERS ESTATE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The property of which the husband has the usufruct only, without responsibility for deterioration or loss.');"><sup>25</sup></span> HE ALSO DOES NOT TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it has improved in value since the father's death and before the division. The increase in value of the first-born's second share is assessed in money and divided between the heirs.');"><sup>26</sup></span> NOR DOES HE TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF WHAT WILL FALL DUE [TO THE ESTATE]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But was not in the possession of the father at his death.');"><sup>27</sup></span> AS HE DOES OF WHAT IS HELD IN POSSESSION.