Bekhorot 51b (נא:) — the Talmud in English

And not consecrated property in all these cases,

meaning that even consecrated property may not be redeemed with slaves, promissory notes, or land.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he wrote to a koen that he owed him

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

but his son is not redeemed:

Ulla said:

By Torah law, his son is redeemed once he gives

the actual money,

and for what reason is his son not redeemed?

Because of the

decree, lest people say that one may redeem with a promissory note.

And Rav Sheshet likewise said: His son is redeemed once he gives.

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

A tanna taught before

[one who taught a beraita taught it before]

Rav Naḥman: His son is redeemed once he gives the money,

even by rabbinic law.

Rav Naḥman said to him: This—

the matter you are saying, that if he gives the money he is redeemed, even by rabbinic law—

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

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

And the halakha is: His son is not redeemed,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

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

[the money with which he redeemed him],

he is permitted:

We already learned

in our Mishna

that which the Sages taught

in a beraita:

If he gave the money to ten kohanim simultaneously,

he has fulfilled his obligation—

If he gave it to one koen

successively, he has fulfilled his obligation.

The koen took it

for the redemption

and returned it to him, he has fulfilled his obligation.

And this was

the practice of Rabbi Tarfon,

the koen:

He would take

five sela

and return them. When the Sages heard of the matter, they said: This man has upheld this halakha.

That is, although he returned the money, the redemption of the firstborn was nevertheless valid, and our Mishna supports this law of the beraita.

And the Gemara wonders at what the Sages said to Rabbi Tarfon: Is it this

halakha

of the redemption of the firstborn that Rabbi Tarfon upheld,

and nothing more

[as though, besides this halakha, Rabbi Tarfon upheld nothing at all]!?

Rather,

the Sages said as follows:

This man upheld

[Rabbi Tarfon]

this halakha as well,

the halakha of redemption.

Rabbi Ḥanina,

the koen,

was accustomed to take the money and return it

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

He saw a certain man who was going

back and forth before him

[Rabbi Ḥanina saw the father of one of the firstborn whom he had redeemed, walking 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 resolve the matter and give

[you did not firmly decide to transfer the five sela to me], and therefore you are waiting for me to return them to you—

If so,

you have done something bad

[you have done something wrong] and

therefore your son is not redeemed.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

The Gemara asks:

From where do we know this?

He said

explaining,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

It is written [Numbers 18:16]: “And its redemption, from one month of age you shall redeem it, according to your valuation, for five shekels of silver.”

And it is derived from the word

“valuation”

[in the phrase “according to your valuation”]

“valuation”

from the laws of valuations

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

The person who consecrates an erek is liable for it until it reaches the treasurer, so too, the father is liable for the redemption of the firstborn until it reaches the kohen.

Rav Dimi said that Rabbi Yonatan said:

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” from “empty-handed”

from the offering of appearance

that one is obligated to bring every offering of appearance when ascending on the pilgrimage, as it is stated with regard to it: “And they shall not appear before Me empty-handed”:

Just as one is liable for the offering of appearance,

so too, one is liable for the redemption of the firstborn.

Rav Pappa raised an objection to it:

But is another

verse needed to establish a verse

that is already extant? The Mishna itself brought a verse to teach that he is liable for it; why do I need another verse?

Rather, Rav Pappa said: This

that he is liable for it

is as the reason is taught

in our Mishna:

“It shall be yours, but you shall surely redeem”;

and when the statement of Reish Lakish

and of Rabbi Yonatan

was stated, it was stated with regard to the first clause,

as we learned in the first clause (49a):

“If he died after thirty days, even though he had not given”

he shall give.”

And concerning this they asked in the beit-midrash:

From where do we know this?

And

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is derived

by the expression “valuation, valuation”

from the laws of valuations.

For we derive in the Torat Kohanim: One might have thought that if one says, “The valuation of so-and-so is incumbent upon me,” and the person dies, he should be exempt; therefore, the verse states: “He shall value him”—even if he died. Here too, when he died after thirty days, the father became liable for his redemption.

And

Rav Dimi said that Rabbi Yonatan said:

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

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

Just as there,

with regard to the offering of appearance,

the heirs are liable,

since it is an obligatory offering, and with regard to an obligatory offering we learned (at the end of chapter 2 of Kinnim): “A woman who brought her sin-offering and died—the heirs shall bring her burnt-offering.”

So too here,

with regard to the redemption of the firstborn,

the heirs are liable,

after the father and the son, who had been obligated, both died.

Mishna:

The firstborn

of the father

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

the firstborn

of the mother—

a double portion of the mother’s property.

And he does not take

the firstborn

a double portion of the appreciation

by which the property increased after the father’s death and before its division.

Nor of property destined to be acquired [

that is, property of 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 did fall to him later]—

as property already possessed [

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