Bekhorot 51b — the Talmud in English

And not consecrated property in all these,

that is to say, even consecrated property is not redeemed with slaves, documents, and land.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he wrote to a priest that he owed him

five selaים, he is obligated to give them to him,

and his son is not redeemed:

Ulla said:

By Torah law, his son is redeemed when he gives

the money itself,

and for what reason is his son not redeemed?

Because of

a decree, lest they say that one redeems with a document.

And similarly Rav Sheshet said: His son is redeemed when he gives.

That is to say, by Torah law his son is redeemed when he gives.

A tanna taught before

[the one who taught a beraita before]

Rav Naḥman: His son is redeemed when he gives,

even by rabbinic law.

Rav Naḥman said to him: This—

that which you say, that if he gave, he is redeemed, even by rabbinic law—

is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, the anonymous one. And some say: This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the anonymous one; but the Sages say: His son is not redeemed,

even when he gives, because of the decree of the Sages mentioned above.

And the halakha is: His son is not redeemed,

even when he gives—and this is by rabbinic law.

We learned in the Mishna:

Therefore, if the priest wishes to give him as a gift

[the redemption money with which he redeemed him],

he may:

We learned

in our Mishna

that which the Sages taught

in a beraita:

If he gave it to ten priests at once

he has fulfilled—

And if he gave it to one priest

one after another, he has fulfilled.

The priest took it

for the redemption

and returned it to him, he has fulfilled.

And this was

the practice of Rabbi Tarfon,

the priest,

who would take

five selaים

and return them; and when the Sages heard of the matter, they said: This one fulfilled this halakha.

That is to say, although he returned it, nevertheless he fulfilled the redemption of the son, and our Mishna supports this law of the beraita.

And we wonder about what the Sages said to Rabbi Tarfon: Is it that

this halakha

of the redemption of the son is what Rabbi Tarfon fulfilled,

and nothing more

[is it that apart from this halakha Rabbi Tarfon fulfilled nothing at all]?!

Rather,

the Sages said as follows:

This one fulfilled

[Rabbi Tarfon]

also this halakha

of redemption.

Rabbi Ḥanina,

the priest,

was accustomed to take and return

[he would customarily take the redemption money and afterward return it to the father].

He saw a certain man who was walking

back and forth before him

[Rabbi Ḥanina saw the father of one of the firstborn whom he had redeemed, passing back and forth before him so that he would notice him]—

He said to him

Rabbi Ḥanina said to that father: Apparently

you did not complete and give

[you did not make up your mind to transfer the five selaים to me], and therefore you expect me to return them to you—

If so,

you have done a bad thing

[you have done something bad] and

therefore your son is not redeemed.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one set aside the redemption money of his son and it was lost, he is liable for it:

The Gemara asks:

From where do we know this?

He said

explained

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

It is written [Numbers 18:16]: “And its redeemed one, from a month old, you shall redeem according to your valuation, silver, five shekels,” and

it is derived

“valuation”

[“according to your valuation”] from

“valuation”

from the laws of valuations

[that is, one who says, “My valuation is upon me,” or “The valuation of so-and-so is upon me,” as it is said in the section of valuations [Leviticus 27] several times, “your valuation”]:

What does arakhin have liability until they come into the hand of the treasurer, so too the redemption of the firstborn has liability until it comes into the hand of a priest.

Rav Dimi said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan:

because it is written [Exodus 34:20]: “

Every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem, and they shall not appear before Me empty-handed,”

and he derives “

empty-handed, empty-handed”

from the burnt-offering of appearance [which one is obligated to bring upon appearing on the pilgrimage], regarding which it is stated: “And they shall not appear before Me empty-handed”:

which a person is obligated to bring when he ascends for the pilgrimage, as it is stated with regard to it: “And they shall not appear before Me empty-handed”:

Just as the burnt-offering of appearance has liability,

so too the redemption of the firstborn has liability.

Rav Pappa challenged this:

And does one need another

verse for an existing verse

when behold, in the Mishna a verse was brought to teach that he has liability? And why do I need another verse!?

Rather, Rav Pappa said: This

that he has liability,

as the reason is taught

in our Mishna: “

It shall be yours; only you shall surely redeem,”

and when the teaching of Reish Lakish

and of Rabbi Yonatan

was stated, it was stated concerning the first clause,

which we learned in the first clause [49a]:

If he died after thirty days, even though he did not give,

he shall give.”

And concerning this they asked in the study hall:

From where do we know it?

And

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is derived “

valuation, valuation”

from arakhin.

For we derive in the Sifra: I might have thought that if he said, “The valuation of so-and-so is upon me,” and the person assessed died, he would be exempt; the verse teaches: “He shall value it”—even if he died. And here too, when he died after thirty days, the father became obligated in his redemption.

And

Rav Dimi said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: “

And every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem, and they shall not appear before Me empty-handed,”

and we derive “empty-handed, empty-handed”:

Just as there,

concerning the burnt-offering of appearance,

the heirs are liable,

for it is a mandatory burnt-offering, and concerning a mandatory burnt-offering we learned [at the end of chapter 2 of Kinnim]: “A woman [who gave birth] who brought her sin-offering and died—the heirs shall bring her burnt-offering.”

So too here,

concerning the redemption of the firstborn,

the heirs are liable,

after the father and the son died, as they had become obligated and died.

Mishna:

The firstborn

of the father

takes a double portion of the father’s property, but does not take—

the firstborn of the father—

a double portion of the mother’s property.

a double portion of the mother’s property.

But he does not take

the firstborn

a double portion of the appreciation

by which the property appreciated after the father’s death, before division.

Nor of the anticipated [

namely, property in which their father did not have possession at the time of his death, but which was fit to fall to him as an inheritance and fell to him later]—

as of property in possession [

like property that was in the father’s possession at the time of death].