Bekhorot 49b — the Talmud in English

Here

concerning redemption

also makes no difference.

And Shmuel could say to you: There

in the betrothal of a woman the betrothal is effective even though the money has been consumed, because

it is in his power to betroth her now

if he wanted, but

here

concerning redemption, behold,

it is not in his power

to redeem him now,

and therefore the redemption is not effective if the money was consumed before the time of redemption.

The Gemara establishes the halakhic ruling in this matter:

And although we hold that wherever Rav and Shmuel disagree

[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

concerning redemption, although it is a matter of prohibition,

the halakha follows Shmuel,

for if the money was consumed, the son is not redeemed.

And we challenge Shmuel from the fact that

we learned

in our Mishna:

[The son] died

[the son]

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

and it implies:

The reason is that he died

the son, that he must return [the money];

but if he did not die,

the son,

his son is redeemed—

and this is according to Rav!?

And we answer:

Here

in our Mishna,

with what are we dealing? With the money being extant

[the money exists] when thirty days from the son’s birth passed; and in this even Shmuel concedes that the son is redeemed, as was explained above.

Come and hear

that it is not according to Shmuel, from the continuation of our Mishna:

The father died within thirty days,

with the presumption that the son was not redeemed

the son,

until he brings

the son

proof that he was redeemed.

And it implies: If he brings proof that he was redeemed, his redemption will be a redemption, and this is according to Rav!?

And we answer:

There too, it is when the money is extant

[there too, it is speaking of a case where the money is extant].

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

even if the money was consumed.

Said

Rav Yehuda, astonished,

to him,

to that tanna: But

Shmuel said

that

his son is not redeemed, and

you

said that his son is redeemed!? Rather, thus

teach:

His son is not redeemed.

And although we hold according to Rav in matters of prohibition and according to Shmuel in monetary matters,

and here this is a matter of prohibition, nevertheless

here the halakha follows Shmuel.

We learned in the Mishna:

He is to redeem himself and his son is to be redeemed; he takes precedence over his son:

The Sages taught: He is to redeem himself and his son is to be redeemed; he takes precedence over his son.

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

as is explained in the Mishna.

Said

explaining

Rabbi Yirmeya: Everyone—

the first tanna and Rabbi Judah—

agrees that

where he has no

nothing

to the father

except five sela, he takes precedence over his son—and

what is the reason?

Because his mitzva

[his mitzva is upon himself]

[the mitzva incumbent upon him personally]

is preferable

to his son’s mitzva upon him [and not as the plain implication of the wording of the Mishna, that his mitzva is upon his father and not upon him, and therefore his son’s mitzva, which is upon him, takes precedence].

When do they disagree

the first tanna and Rabbi Judah?

Where there are five

sela

encumbered

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

and five unencumbered

in the father’s possession; and Rabbi Judah and the Sages disagree over to whom he should give the five unencumbered [sela] in his possession, as he proceeds to explain:

Rabbi Judah holds: A loan written in the Torah is comparable to one written in a document,

and therefore: The redemption that is written in the Torah has the status of a loan in a document, which he collects even from purchasers who bought them after the grandfather became obligated in the redemption of his son. If so,

his

[the father’s redemption] the kohen can indeed

go

the kohen

and collect from encumbered properties

to which they became encumbered—and

therefore,

with these five unencumbered

that he has

he redeems his son

[he redeems his son] and not himself, as Rabbi Judah said, “His son takes precedence,” for if he redeems himself first from the unencumbered properties, he will no longer be able to collect from the encumbered properties for his son, since they did not become encumbered for his redemption.

[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 prescribed in the Torah is not considered like one written in a document,

and it follows that from those five selaim in the buyer’s possession he cannot redeem at all, and he has only five selaim,

therefore his mitzva is preferable.

Mishna:

The five selaim of

the redemption of the

son

are assessed

in a Tyrian maneh!

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

Thirty [shekels] of a slave

which a bull that killed a slave is obligated to give to his master,

and fifty

silver as a fine

for rape and

of

seduction

of a virgin girl,

and one hundred

silver

for one who brings an evil name—

all

their obligations

are in the holy shekel!

For it is a sela. [And although in the case of rape and of one who brings an evil name, “shekels” is not written, but only “silver,” we derive them from the case of seduction, concerning which “he shall weigh out silver according to the bride-price of virgins” is written, for “he shall weigh out” is an expression of shekels].

And the sela mentioned in them is one twenty-fifth of that

in a Tyrian maneh!

And all of them

[all those obligated to give money],

are redeemed with money and with an item of equal monetary value.

And he is not obligated to give them with actual money, for an item of equal monetary value is like money.

Except for the shekels

that are contributed to the chamber in Adar. For there they bring only a half-shekel coin, and not an item of equal monetary value.

Gemara:

And we raise it as a difficulty:

“a Tyrian maneh”

which we learned in the Mishna—what is it?

Rabbi Asi said: A maneh of Tyre!

For it circulates in the country of Tyre, and it contains twenty-five Tyrian selaim, each one of which is worth four silver zuz.

Rabbi Ami said:

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

an Arab dinar

[Ishmaelite].

Rabbi Hanina said:

The sela of the redemption of the son is worth

an istera susarta

[small selaim],

eight of which are sold

of them

for a dinar

Tyrian. And

five

istera

of them,

we require

for the redemption of the son!

And he disputes with the tanna of the Mishna, who requires five Tyrian selaim, which are twenty dinars.