Bekhorot 49b (מט:) — the Talmud in English

Here

with regard to the redemption of the firstborn,

it is likewise no different.

And Shmuel would say to you: There

in the case of a woman’s kiddushin, the kiddushin remains effective even though the money has been consumed, because

he is able to betroth her immediately

if he so wished. But

here,

with regard to redemption,

he is not able

to redeem him immediately,

and therefore the redemption is ineffective if the money has been consumed by the time of the redemption.

The Gemara establishes the halakhic ruling in this matter:

And although it is established that wherever Rav and Shmuel dispute

[wherever Rav and Shmuel disagree],

the halakha follows Rav in matters of prohibition

[in matters of prohibition and permission]

and

the halakha follows Shmuel

in monetary matters

[in monetary law],

here—

with regard to redemption, although it is a matter of prohibition—

the halakha follows Shmuel,

that if the money has been consumed, the son is not redeemed.

And we challenge Shmuel from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

If he died

the son

within thirty days, even though he gave the money to the priest, the priest must return five sela—

and it is implied:

The reason is that he died,

the son, and therefore the priest returns the money;

but if he did not die,

the son,

his son is redeemed—

in accordance with Rav!?

And we answer:

Here,

in our Mishna,

we are dealing with a case where the money is present and intact

[the money remains intact] when thirty days have passed from the son’s birth. In this case, even Shmuel agrees that the son is redeemed, as explained above.

Come and hear

a refutation of Shmuel from the continuation of our Mishna:

If the father died within thirty days,

the son is presumed not to have been redeemed

the son,

until he brings

the son

proof that he was redeemed.

And it is implied: If he brings proof that he was redeemed, his redemption is a valid redemption, in accordance with Rav!?

And we answer:

There too, it is a case where the money is present and intact

[there too, the matter concerns money that is intact].

A tanna taught before Rav Yehuda: One who redeems his son within thirty days—his son is redeemed,

even if the money has been consumed.

He said

Rav Yehuda exclaimed

to

that tanna: But

Shmuel said

that

his son is not redeemed, and

you

said that his son is redeemed!?

Rather,

teach: His son is not redeemed.

And although it is established that the halakha follows Rav in matters of prohibition and Shmuel in monetary matters,

and this is a matter of prohibition, nevertheless

here the halakha follows Shmuel.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he must redeem himself and his son must be redeemed, he takes precedence over his son:

The Sages taught: If he must redeem himself and his son must be redeemed, he takes precedence over his son.

Rabbi Yehuda says: His son takes precedence, for his mitzva is incumbent upon his father, while his son’s mitzva is incumbent upon him,

as explained in the Mishna.

He said,

explaining,

Rabbi Yirmeya: Everyone—

the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda—

agrees

that

where the father has no

money

other than five sela, he takes precedence over his son—

and

what is the reason?

Because his own mitzva

[the mitzva incumbent upon him personally]

takes precedence

over his son’s mitzva incumbent upon him [unlike the apparent meaning of the plain wording of the Mishna, that his mitzva is incumbent upon his father but not upon him, and therefore his son’s mitzva, which is incumbent upon him, takes precedence].

When do they disagree,

the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda?

Where there are five

sela

encumbered

in the possession of a purchaser who bought them from the grandfather,

and five unencumbered

in the father’s possession. Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree as to whom he should give the five unencumbered sela in his possession, as will be explained:

Rabbi Yehuda holds: A loan written in the Torah is considered like a loan written in a document;

therefore, the redemption, which is written in the Torah, is like a documented loan, which can be collected even from purchasers who acquired the property after the grandfather became obligated to redeem his son. Therefore,

his own

[the father’s redemption]

the priest can

go

and collect from the encumbered property

to which it was encumbered.

And

therefore,

with these five unencumbered

in his possession,

he redeems his son

[he redeems his son] and not himself, as Rabbi Yehuda said, “His son takes precedence.” For if he were to redeem himself first from the unencumbered property, he would no longer be able to collect from the encumbered property for his son, since that property was not encumbered for his redemption.

And the Rabbis hold: a loan written in the Torah is not considered like a loan written in a document,

and it follows that from those five sela'im in the purchaser's possession he cannot redeem at all, and he has only five sela'im;

therefore, his mitzva takes precedence.

Mishna:

The five sela'im of

the redemption of the

son

are assessed

in a Tyrian maneh!

For a sela of the redemption of the son is one twenty-fifth of a Tyrian maneh.

The thirty [sela'im] for a slave

which an ox that killed a slave is obligated to pay to his master,

and the fifty

silver [sela'im] in the fine

for rape and

for

seduction

of a virgin girl,

and the hundred

silver [sela'im]

for one who brought an evil name—

all

their liabilities are

in the holy shekel!

For it is a sela. [And although with regard to rape and one who brings an evil name it is not written “shekalim” but rather “silver,” we derive them from the seducer, with regard to whom it is written: “he shall weigh silver according to the dowry for virgins,” as “he shall weigh” is an expression referring to shekalim.]

And the sela mentioned in these cases is one twenty-fifth of a

Tyrian maneh!

And all of them

[all who are obligated to give money]

may be redeemed with money or with something of equivalent monetary value.

And he is not required to give them in actual money, for something of equivalent monetary value is like money.

Except for the shekalim

that are contributed to the Chamber in Adar, for there one may bring only a coin worth half a shekel, and not something of equivalent monetary value.

Gemara:

And we raise the following question:

“Tyrian maneh,”

which we learned in the Mishna—what is it?

Rabbi Asi said: A maneh of Tyre!

That is, one that is current in the country of Tyre, containing twenty-five Tyrian sela'im, each of which is worth four silver zuz.

Rabbi Ami said:

The Tyrian sela of the redemption of the son and of all those cases enumerated in the Mishna is

an Arab dinar

[an Ishmaelite dinar].

Rabbi Hanina said:

The sela of the redemption of the son is worth

an istera suserta

[small sela'im],

eight of which are sold

of

a dinar

of Tyre. And

five

istera

of them

are required

for the redemption of the son!

And he disagrees with the tanna of the Mishna, who requires five Tyrian sela'im, which are twenty dinars.