## Bekhorot Daf 51a ###### Bekhorot 51a:1 [Bekhorot 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:1) זוּזָא מָאכָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּלָא נָפֵיק, תְּקַע לֵיהּ אַחֲרִינָא וְיַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **an impaired dinar with him, which was not** in **circulation,** and his victim did not want to accept it from him. Ḥanan the wicked then **struck him another** time, rendering himself liable to pay an additional fine of one-half a dinar, **and gave him** the full dinar as payment for both strikes. ###### Bekhorot 51a:2 [Bekhorot 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:2) שְׁלֹשִׁים שֶׁל עֶבֶד, חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל אוֹנֵס וְשֶׁל מְפַתֶּה וְכוּ׳. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא! **William Davidson Edition - English:** § The mishna teaches: The **thirty** shekels paid to the owner **of** a Canaanite **slave** who is killed by an ox, and the **fifty** shekels paid **by a rapist and by a seducer,** and the one hundred shekels paid by the defamer are all paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary, which is calculated based on one hundred Tyrian dinars. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **this additional** mention of: All are paid in the shekel of the Sanctuary, which is calculated based on one hundred Tyrian dinars? The *tanna* of the mishna already **taught this** in **the first clause.** ###### Bekhorot 51a:3 [Bekhorot 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:3) אוֹנֵס וּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ ״שְׁקָלִים״, אֵימָא זוּזֵי בְּעָלְמָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמֵילָף קָא יָלְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara explains: It **was necessary** to state the cases of **the rapist and the defamer,** as it might **enter your mind to say: Since** the term **shekels is not written with regard to them,** but only “money,” **say** that one pays **merely dinars,** and not shekels, which are worth four dinars. Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us that** the *halakhot* of all these cases **are derived from one another,** and in all of them, the payment is in the shekel of the Sanctuary. ###### Bekhorot 51a:4 [Bekhorot 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:4) חוּץ מִן הַשְּׁקָלִים. תָּנָא: חוּץ מִן הַשְּׁקָלִים, וּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְהָרֵאָיוֹן. **William Davidson Edition - English:** § The mishna further teaches: And all monetary obligations are redeemed, i.e., paid, with coins or with items of the equivalent value of money, **except for the** half-**shekels** that are donated to the Temple each year, which must be given specifically as coins. The Gemara notes that it is **taught** in a *baraita*: All monetary obligations are redeemed with coins or with their equivalent value, **except for the** half-**shekels, and** second **tithe, and the** money for **appearance,** i.e., the two silver *ma’a* that every man must bring to the Temple to purchase burnt offerings of appearance on the pilgrimage Festivals, all of which must be given as coins. ###### Bekhorot 51a:5 [Bekhorot 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:5) שְׁקָלִים — דִּתְנַן: מְצָרְפִין שְׁקָלִים לְדַרְבּוֹנוֹת, מִפְּנֵי מַשּׂאוֹי הַדֶּרֶךְ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara elaborates: The *halakha* that the half-shekel payment dues to the Temple cannot be paid using items of equivalent value is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Shekalim* 2:1): When people who live far from Jerusalem wish to send to Jerusalem the shekels that have been levied from their community, **they** may **combine** their **shekels** and exchange them **for darics [*darbonot*],** which are large gold coins, **due to** the hardship of **carrying on the journey.** Instead of carrying large amounts of shekels, the agents who deliver the funds will bring a much lighter burden of gold coins with them. They may exchange them only for coins, not for items of equivalent value. ###### Bekhorot 51a:6 [Bekhorot 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:6) מַעֲשֵׂר — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ״, וְהָרֵאָיוֹן — תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא סִיגָה לָעֲזָרָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** Second **tithe** may not be redeemed with items of equivalent value, **as it is written: “And bind up [*vetzarta*] the money in your hand”** (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as referring to money that has a form [*tzura*] engraved on it, i.e., a coin. **And** with regard to **the** money for **appearance,** this is as **Rav Yosef teaches, that one may not bring** a lump of silver full of **base** metals **to the** Temple **courtyard.** ###### Bekhorot 51a:7 [Bekhorot 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:7) **מַתְנִי׳** אֵין פּוֹדִין לֹא בַּעֲבָדִים, וְלֹא בִּשְׁטָרוֹת, וְלֹא בְּקַרְקָעוֹת, וְלֹא בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. כָּתַב לְכֹהֵן שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן חֲמִשָּׁה סְלָעִים — חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ, וּבְנוֹ אֵינוֹ פָּדוּי. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִיתֵּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה — רַשַּׁאי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **MISHNA:** **One may not redeem** his firstborn son, **neither with** Canaanite **slaves, nor with** promissory **notes, nor with land, nor with consecrated items.** If the father **wrote** a promissory note **to the priest that he is obligated to give** him **five *sela*** coins, the father is **obligated to give** them **to him but his son is not redeemed. Therefore, if the priest wished to give** back the five *sela* coins **to him as a gift** he is **permitted** to do so. ###### Bekhorot 51a:8 [Bekhorot 51a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:8) הַמַּפְרִישׁ פִּדְיוֹן בְּנוֹ, וְאָבַד — חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״ וּ״פָדֹה תִפְדֶּה״. **William Davidson Edition - English:** With regard to **one who designates** five *sela* coins for **redemption of his** firstborn **son and he lost** the coins before he gave them to the priest, the father **bears** financial **responsibility for their** loss, **as it is stated** to Aaron the priest: “Everything that opens the womb in man and animal **shall be yours”; and** only afterward it says: **“You shall redeem** the firstborn of man” (Numbers 18:15). This indicates that only after the money shall be in the possession of the priest is the son redeemed. ###### Bekhorot 51a:9 [Bekhorot 51a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:9) גּמ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בַּכֹּל פּוֹדִין בְּכוֹר אָדָם, חוּץ מִן הַשְּׁטָרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? **William Davidson Edition - English:** **GEMARA:** The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: One can redeem** a woman’s **firstborn son with anything** worth five shekels **except for** promissory **notes.** This is different from the mishna, which also excludes Canaanite slaves and land. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason for Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion? ###### Bekhorot 51a:10 [Bekhorot 51a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:10) דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי, ״וּפְדוּיָו מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ תִּפְדֶּה״ — רִיבָּה, ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ כֶּסֶף חֲמֵשֶׁת שְׁקָלִים״ — מִיעֵט, ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — רִיבָּה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara answers that **he interprets** verses using the method of **amplifications and restrictions,** and this is how he interprets the verse: “And its redemption from one month you shall redeem, according to the valuation of five silver shekels by the shekel of the Sanctuary” (Numbers 18:16). Concerning the phrase **“and its redemption from one month,”** since it does not specify that only certain items can be used for the redemption, the verse **amplified** the category of items that can be used to redeem the firstborn, intimating that many different items can be used. Then, with the phrase **“according to the valuation of five silver shekels,”** the verse **restricted** the category to items that are similar to silver shekels. Then, with the phrase **“You shall redeem,”** the verse **again amplified** the category. ###### Bekhorot 51a:11 [Bekhorot 51a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:11) רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה, רִיבָּה הַכֹּל. מַאי רַבִּי? רַבִּי כֹּל מִילֵּי, וּמַאי מַיעֵט? מַיעֵט שְׁטָרוֹת. **William Davidson Edition - English:** According to the hermeneutical principle that when a verse **amplified and** then **restricted and** then **amplified, it amplified** the relevant category to include **everything** except the specific matter excluded in the restriction. The Gemara elaborates: **What** has **it amplified?** Almost **everything. And what** has **it restricted? It restricted** only promissory **notes,** which are the most fundamentally dissimilar to silver shekels. ###### Bekhorot 51a:12 [Bekhorot 51a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:12) וְרַבָּנַן דָּרְשִׁי כְּלָל וּפְרָט: ״ופְדוּיָו מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ״ — כָּלַל, ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ כֶּסֶף חֲמֵשֶׁת שְׁקָלִים״ — פָּרַט, (פדה) ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — חָזַר וְכָלַל. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara explains the reasoning of the Rabbis: **And the Rabbis expound** verses through the method of **a generalization and a detail.** They expound the verse as follows: The phrase **“and its redemption from one month”** is **a generalization** which suggests that many different items can be used to redeem the firstborn. Then, the phrase **“according to the valuation of five silver shekels”** is **a detail,** which suggests that only items that are similar to silver shekels can be used. Then, with the phrase: **“You shall redeem,”** the verse **again makes a generalization.** ###### Bekhorot 51a:13 [Bekhorot 51a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:13) כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט. מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ — דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן. יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת — שֶׁאֵין מִטַּלְטְלִין, יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים — שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת, יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת — שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן. **William Davidson Edition - English:** Based on this exegetical method, whenever a verse has **a generalization and** then **a detail and** then **a generalization,** the principle is that **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items that are **similar to the detail.** In this case, **just as the detail,** i.e., silver shekels, **is explicitly something that is movable and has intrinsic monetary** value, **so too, anything that is movable and has intrinsic monetary** value can be used. This **excludes land, which is not movable property;** it **excludes** Canaanite **slaves, who are** halakhically **compared to land;** and it **excludes** promissory **notes,** because **even though they are movable property they do not have intrinsic monetary** value. ###### Bekhorot 51a:14 [Bekhorot 51a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:14) אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְמָרִימָר: וְרַבִּי, רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי דָּרֵישׁ? וְהָא רַבִּי כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי דָּרֵישׁ בְּמַרְצֵעַ! **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Ravina said to Ameimar:** Does **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi really **expound** verses through the method of **amplifications and restrictions? But doesn’t Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **expound** verses through the method of **generalizations and details with regard to an awl?** ###### Bekhorot 51a:15 [Bekhorot 51a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:15) דְּתַנְיָא: ״מַרְצֵעַ״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַרְצֵעַ, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הַסּוֹל וְהַסִּירָא וְהַמַּחַט וְהַמַּקְדֵּחַ וְהַמַּכְתֵּב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״ — לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּלְקָח בַּיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״מַרְצֵעַ״ — מָה מַרְצֵעַ מְיוּחָד שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, אַף כֹּל שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת. **William Davidson Edition - English:** This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The Torah provides the process by which a Hebrew slave who has already completed his six years of servitude may continue on as a slave of his master: “And you shall take the **awl** and put it through his ear and in the door” (Deuteronomy 15:17). From this verse, **I have** derived **only** that **an awl** can be used; **from where** do I know **to include the thorn of a palm, and a thorn, a needle, and a gimlet, and a stylus** for writing on wax, as valid tools for piercing his ear? **The verse states: “And you shall take,”** which indicates that **anything that can be taken by hand** is a valid tool. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** Not all these items can be used. Rather, since the verse specifies an **“awl,”** only items similar to an awl can be used; **just as an awl is distinct** in that it is fashioned **of metal, so too, anything** fashioned **of metal** can be used. ###### Bekhorot 51a:16 [Bekhorot 51a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:16) וְאָמְרִינַן: בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי, ורבי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And we say** with regard to this dispute: **About what do they disagree? Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **expounds** verses using the method of **generalizations and details, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, expounds** verses using the method of **amplifications and restrictions.** ###### Bekhorot 51a:17 [Bekhorot 51a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:17) אִין בְּעָלְמָא רַבִּי כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי דָּרֵישׁ, וְהָכָא כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. **William Davidson Edition - English:** Ameimar answers: **Yes, generally** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **expounds** verses using the method of **generalizations and details, but here,** with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, **this is the reason** he expounds the verses using the method of amplifications and restrictions: He holds **in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.** ###### Bekhorot 51a:18 [Bekhorot 51a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:18) דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בְּמַיִם״ ״בַּמַּיִם״ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, אֵין זֶה כְּלָל וּפְרָט, אֶלָּא רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** When defining which fish it is permitted to eat, the verse states: “This you may eat, from whatever is in the water, anything that has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the streams” (Leviticus 11:9). The verse first states the general term **“in the water,” “in the water,”** mentioning it **twice,** and only afterward mentions the details, i.e., “in the seas and in the streams.” When the general and detailed phrases are ordered in this way, they **are not** expounded as **a generalization and a detail,** but **rather** the verse **amplified and restricted.** Similarly, although Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi generally expounds verses using the method of generalizations and details, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, since the verse mentions the two general terms first and mentions the specific detail only afterward, he expounds it using the method of amplifications and restrictions. ###### Bekhorot 51a:19 [Bekhorot 51a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:19) וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: כִּדְאָמְרִינַן בְּמַעְרְבָא, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁתֵּי כְלָלוֹת הַסְּמוּכִים זֶה לָזֶה — הַטֵּל פְּרָט בֵּינֵיהֶם, וְדוּנֵם בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **the Rabbis,** why do they expound the verse about the redemption of a firstborn as a generalization and a detail? The Sages **say:** This is **like they say in the West,** Eretz Yisrael: **Wherever you find two generalizations juxtaposed to each other,** followed by a specific detail, **place** the **detail between** the two generalizations **and** thereby **expound them as a generalization and a detail** followed by another generalization. ###### Bekhorot 51a:20 [Bekhorot 51a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51a:20) וְלֹא בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. פְּשִׁיטָא, לָאו דִּידֵיהּ נִינְהוּ! אֵימָא: **William Davidson Edition - English:** § The mishna teaches: **And** one may **not** redeem a firstborn **with consecrated items.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious?** Consecrated items **are not his.** The Gemara answers: **Say** that