## Bekhorot Daf 51b

###### Bekhorot 51b:1
[Bekhorot 51b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:1)

וְלֹא הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת בְּכׇל אֵלּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the mishna means: **Nor** may **consecrated items** be redeemed **with any of these** items mentioned above, i.e., Canaanite slaves, documents, and land.


###### Bekhorot 51b:2
[Bekhorot 51b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:2)

כָּתַב לְכֹהֵן שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה סְלָעִים חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ כּוּ׳. אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי, מַאי טַעְמָא אֵין בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ פּוֹדִין בִּשְׁטָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the father of a firstborn son **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. **Ulla says: By Torah law, his son is redeemed** when the father gives the money to the priest. If so, **what is the reason** the Sages said **his son is not redeemed?** It is a rabbinic **decree** that was enacted, **lest** people **say** that one may **redeem** a firstborn son **with** a promissory **note** that enables the priest to collect a debt from a third party. This is not effective, as the Torah requires redemption with actual money.


###### Bekhorot 51b:3
[Bekhorot 51b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:3)

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי לִכְשֶׁיִּתֵּן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה (סתימתא) [סְתִימְתָּאָה], וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֵין בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A *tanna* taught** a *baraita* **in the presence of Rav Naḥman: His son is redeemed when** the father **gives** the money. **Rav Naḥman said to him: This** *baraita* is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** which was recorded as **unattributed. And some say: This** *baraita* is **the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,** which was recorded as **unattributed. But the Rabbis say his son is not redeemed.** The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is that **his son is not redeemed.**


###### Bekhorot 51b:4
[Bekhorot 51b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:4)

לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִיתֵּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה — רַשַּׁאי. תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: נְתָנוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים בְּבַת אַחַת — יָצָא, בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה — יָצָא, נְטָלוֹ וְהֶחְזִירוֹ לוֹ — יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further teaches: **Therefore, if the priest wished to give** back the five *sela* coins **to him as a gift** he is **permitted** to do so. The Gemara comments: **We learn** in the mishna **that which the Sages taught** explicitly in a *baraita*: If the father **gave** the redemption money for his son **to ten priests all at once,** i.e., he placed five *sela* coins in front of a group of ten priests, he has **fulfilled** his obligation. If he gave it to them **one after the other,** he has **fulfilled** his obligation. If a priest **took** the redemption money **and returned it to** the father, the father has **fulfilled** his obligation.


###### Bekhorot 51b:5
[Bekhorot 51b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:5)

וְכָךְ הָיָה מִנְהָגוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, שֶׁהָיָה נוֹטֵל וּמַחְזִיר. וּכְשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר אָמְרוּ: קִיֵּים זֶה הֲלָכָה זוֹ. הֲלָכָה זוֹ וְתוּ לָא? אֶלָּא, קִיֵּים זֶה אַף הֲלָכָה זוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And this was the practice of Rabbi Tarfon, as he would take** the redemption money **and return it. And when the Sages heard of** this **matter they said: This** individual **has fulfilled this *halakha*.** The Gemara asks: Has he fulfilled only **this *halakha* and nothing more?** Certainly, Rabbi Tarfon fulfilled many *halakhot*. **Rather,** they meant: **This** individual **fulfilled even this *halakha*.**


###### Bekhorot 51b:6
[Bekhorot 51b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:6)

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא הֲוָה רְגִיל (ושקיל) [דְּשָׁקֵיל] וּמַהְדַּר, חַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָא אָזֵיל וְאָתֵי קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא גְּמַרְתְּ וִיהֵיבְתְּ — מִידַּעַם בִּישׁ, הִילְכָּךְ אֵין בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rabbi Ḥanina,** a priest, **was accustomed** to **take** the redemption money **and return it.** On one occasion, **he saw that a certain man** from whom he had received the redemption money for his son **was passing to and fro before him,** to hint to Rabbi Ḥanina that he should return the money. Rabbi Ḥanina **said to him:** Evidently, **you did not conclusively** resolve to **give** the money. This is **a bad matter,** and **therefore his son is not redeemed.**


###### Bekhorot 51b:7
[Bekhorot 51b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:7)

הַמַּפְרִישׁ פִּדְיוֹן בְּנוֹ וְאָבַד — חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אָתְיָא ״עֵרֶךְ״ ״עֵרֶךְ״ מֵעֲרָכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to **one who designates** five *sela* coins for **redemption of his son and he lost** the money before he gave it to the priest, the father **bears** financial **responsibility for its** loss. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** It is **derived** by means of a verbal analogy between **“valuation” and “valuation,” from** the passage discussing **valuations.** With regard to a firstborn son it states: “From a month old you shall redeem, according to your valuation” (Numbers 18:16), and it is written with regard to valuations: “And he shall give your valuation on that day” (Leviticus 27:23). Just as one bears financial responsibility to pay for valuations, the same applies to redemption money.


###### Bekhorot 51b:8
[Bekhorot 51b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:8)

רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: ״וְכֹל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה וְלֹא יֵרָאוּ פָנַי רֵיקָם״, וְיָלֵיף ״רֵיקָם״ ״רֵיקָם״ מֵעוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה, מָה עוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, אַף פִּדְיוֹן הַבֵּן חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Dimi says** that **Rabbi Yonatan** says: The verse states concerning the redemption of the firstborn: **“And every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem, and none shall appear before Me empty”** (Exodus 34:20). **And** therefore this *halakha* is **derived** through a verbal analogy between **“empty”** and **“empty,” from** the passage discussing **the burnt offering of appearance,** which every pilgrim must bring on a Festival. With regard to the burnt offering of appearance it states: “And none shall appear before Me empty” (Exodus 23:15). **Just as** in the case of the **burnt offering of appearance one bears** financial **responsibility** for the loss of the offering, **so too,** with regard to the **redemption of the firstborn one bears** financial **responsibility** for its loss as well.


###### Bekhorot 51b:9
[Bekhorot 51b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: קְרָא לִקְרָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא — ״יִהְיֶה לָּךְ... אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa objects to this:** Is it necessary here to cite one **verse in** support of another **verse?** The mishna itself cites the verse that is the source of the *halakha* that the father bears financial responsibility for the redemption money. **Rather, Rav Pappa says:** The reason for **this** *halakha* is **the reason that** the mishna itself **teaches:** “Everything that opens the womb in man and animal **shall be yours; yet you shall redeem** the firstborn of man” (Numbers 18:15).


###### Bekhorot 51b:10
[Bekhorot 51b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:10)

וְכִי אִיתְּמַר דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ — אַרֵישָׁא אִיתְּמַר: מֵת לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן — יִתֵּן. מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אָתְיָא ״עֵרֶךְ״ ״עֵרֶךְ״ מֵעֲרָכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And when** the comment **of Reish Lakish was stated,** it **was stated with regard to the first clause** of the mishna (49a), which teaches: If the firstborn son **dies after thirty days** have passed, **even if** the father **did not** yet **give** five *sela* coins to the priest **he must give** them then. **From where do we** derive this? **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** It is **derived** by means of a verbal analogy between **“valuation”** and **“valuation,” from** the passage discussing **valuations.** Just as in a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate so-and-so’s valuation, he must do so even if that individual dies, so too, concerning the redemption of the firstborn the father must pay even though his son died.


###### Bekhorot 51b:11
[Bekhorot 51b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:11)

רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: ״וְכֹל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה וְלֹא יֵרָאוּ פָנַי רֵיקָם״, מָה לְהַלָּן יוֹרְשִׁין חַיָּיבִין, אַף כָּאן יוֹרְשִׁין חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Dimi says** that **Rabbi Yonatan** says: It is written with regard to the redemption of the firstborn: **“And all the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem, and none shall appear before Me empty”** (Exodus 34:20), and it likewise states with regard to the burnt offering of appearance: “And none shall appear before Me empty” (Exodus 23:15). **Just as there,** in the case of the burnt offering of appearance, if one died after becoming obligated to bring the offering **the heirs are obligated** to bring his offering, **so too here,** with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, if the obligation already took effect, and the son and the father then died, **the heirs are obligated** to give five *sela* coins to a priest.


###### Bekhorot 51b:12
[Bekhorot 51b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/51b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בַּשֶּׁבַח, וְלֹא בְּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The firstborn** son **takes a double** portion, i.e., twice the portion taken by the other sons, **when** inheriting **the property of the father, but he does not take twice** the portion **when** inheriting **the property of the mother. And neither does he take** twice the portion **in** any **enhancement** of the value of the property after the death of the father, **nor** does he take twice the portion **in** property **due** the father, **as** he does **in** property the father **possessed.**