051a - יש בכור פרק שמיני בכורות דף נ"א, ע"א

He had a worn zuz with him that would not pass as currency; so he struck him another blow and gave it to him.^[1]

זוזא מאכא - Its stamp had worn away and it was not accepted – that is, it could not be spent in town; the dinar was not worth anything to him.

Thirty for a slave, fifty for the violator and for the seducer, etc.^[2]

Why do I need this again? He already taught it in the first clause!

הא תו למה לי - This clause, “and all of them [are in the holy shekel],” – he already taught it.

It was needed for the violator and for the defamer. You might have thought: since “shekalim” is not written regarding them, say it means plain zuzim;^[3]

משום אונס ומוציא שם רע - It was needed to teach “and all of them are in the holy shekel,” because the first clause did not mention the holy shekel. As for the others, it is obvious that they are sela’im: for redeeming a son it is written (Bamidbar 3) “five shekels per head”; for a slave it is written (Shemos 21) “he shall pay thirty shekels” (the owner of the ox) to his master; and for the seducer it is written (ibid. 22) “he shall weigh out silver.” But for the violator and the defamer “shekel” is not written, and you might have thought that when the first clause says “by the Tyrian maneh” it speaks of each one by its own law: where shekalim are written he pays Tyrian shekalim, and where shekalim are not written he pays Tyrian dinarim. So the last clause teaches “and all of them are in the holy shekel”: they are derived from one another, a fixed sum of money from a fixed sum of money, like Rav Assi’s statement above. Some texts read here: “Are all of them subject to redemption?” – it challenges the Mishnah for using the language of redemption for all of them, as it teaches “and all of them are redeemed,” whereas the term “redemption” applies only to a firstborn. Teach instead: “all those that are redeemed are redeemed with money or its worth” – “all those that are redeemed,” such as a human firstborn, hekdesh and maaser.

it teaches us that they are derived from one another.

Except the shekalim:^[4]

A Tanna taught: Except the shekalim, and maaser, and the re’iyah.^[5]

מעשר שני^[6] - It is redeemed only with minted money, not with goods of equal value; even minted perutos are fine.

והראיון - To buy the olas re’iyah, which is bought for two silver ma’ah, as we say in Chagigah (2a): “the re’iyah – two silver [ma’ah]”; and these two silver pieces must be minted.

The shekalim – as we learned: One may combine shekalim into darkonos^[7] because of the burden of the road.

מצרפין שקלים לדרבונות - The townspeople who send their shekalim to Yerushalayim combine them and buy darkonos with them – these are minted gold coins. Darkonos, yes; other gold, which is not minted, no. In Tractate Shekalim (4a) the reason is explained: lest pearls drop in value, etc. The same applies to any goods of equal value: they might drop in value and hekdesh would lose, but minted coin does not drop.

Maaser – as it is written (Devarim 14) “and you shall bind up the money in your hand”,^[8]

וצרת הכסף - Something that has a form (tzurah, a stamp) on it.

And the re’iyah – Rav Yosef taught: That he should not bring unminted silver to the Azarah.^[9]

ה"ג ראיון תני [נמי] רב יוסף שלא יביא סיגה - [Meaning: not] silver scrap, but only minted coin. And this beraisa of Rav Yosef is brought not to explain but to support.

Mishnah

One may not redeem^[10] [a firstborn son] with slaves, nor with documents, nor with land, nor with hekdesh^[11].

מתני' אין פודין בכור אדם לא בעבדים כו' - Even though we said above (49b) “with money or with its worth.”

ולא בשטרות - If he has a document of debt against his fellow for five sela’im and gives it to the kohen to collect that debt for the redemption of his son, the son is not redeemed.

ולא בהקדישות - It is explained in the Gemara.

If he wrote to a kohen that he owes him five sela’im – he must give them to him, and his son is not redeemed.

כתב לכהן שהוא חייב ליתן לו ה' סלעים - For the redemption of his son.

ובנו אינו פדוי - As we say in the Gemara: lest people say that one may redeem with documents.

Therefore, if the kohen wishes to give it to him as a gift – he may.

לפיכך - Since we said that he must give him five sela’im, if the kohen wishes to give them back and return them to him as a gift, he may; but there is no other remedy.

One who set aside the redemption money for his son and it was lost – he bears responsibility for it, as it says (Bamidbar 18) “shall be yours… you shall surely redeem”:^[12]

יהיה לך ופדה תפדה - When the redemption money is yours, then he will be redeemed. And this verse the Merciful One said to Aharon.

Gemara

Our Mishnah is not according to Rebbi, as it was taught: Rebbi says: with anything one may redeem a human firstborn, except documents.

What is Rebbi’s reason?

He expounds inclusion and exclusion:^[13] (Bamidbar 18) “And its redemption, from a month old you shall redeem” – it included; “according to your valuation, five shekels of silver” – it excluded; “you shall redeem” – it included.

גמ' מיעט - Money, and nothing else.

It included, excluded and included – it includes everything.

What did it include? It included all things. And what did it exclude? It excluded documents.

מיעט שטרות - Since they are not considered anything [of value].

And the Rabbanan expound general and particular:^[14] “And its redemption, from a month old” – a general; “according to your valuation, five shekels of silver” – a particular; “you shall redeem” – it returned and generalised.

תפדה חזר וכלל - And even though this “you shall redeem” is written before the particular, we nevertheless judge it as general and particular, as we say below.

A general, a particular and a general – you judge only what is like the particular: just as the particular is explicitly something movable whose body is money, so too anything movable whose body is money.

This excludes land – which is not movable; it excludes slaves – who are likened to land;^[15] it excludes documents – which, although they are movable, their body is not money.

שהוקשו לקרקעות - “And you shall bequeath them” etc. (Vayikra 25).

Ravina said to Mareimar: And does Rebbi expound inclusion and exclusion? But Rebbi expounds general and particular regarding the awl!^[16]

As it was taught: (Devarim 15) “An awl” – I have only an awl; from where do I include the sol, the thorn, the needle, the drill and the stylus? The verse says (Devarim 15) “and you shall take” – to include anything that is taken by hand. These are the words of Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehudah.

הסול - “Broca” in Old French (a spike).

הסירא - A thorn.

מכתב - A stylus.

Rebbi says: “An awl” – just as an awl is distinctive in being of metal, so too anything of metal.

And we said:^[17] In what do they disagree?

ואמרינן - In Tractate Kiddushin (21a).

Rebbi expounds general and particular; Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehudah expounds inclusion and exclusion.

במאי קא מיפלגי רבי דריש כללי ופרטי - “And you shall take” is a general, “an awl” is a particular, “and put it through his ear” returned and generalised: just as the particular is explicitly of metal, so too anything of metal.

ורבי יוסי ב"ר יהודה דריש ליה ברבויי ומיעוטי - What did it include? It included all things. And what did it exclude? It excluded a caustic drug (sam).

Yes – generally Rebbi expounds general and particular, but here it is as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.

הכא - The reason he expounds inclusion and exclusion here is as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught at the end of Eilu Treifos (Chullin 87a): wherever “in the water, in the water” is said twice – that is, wherever two generals are said next to each other with a particular after them, as here: “This you may eat of all that is in the water: whatever has fins and scales in the water” – these are two generals, implying that in all waters we require fins and scales; and a particular is written after them, “in the seas and in the rivers,” implying that in seas and rivers, which flow, we require fins and scales, but creatures that grow in gathered water may be eaten without fins and scales – this is not general and particular: we do not judge it as general and particular, but place the particular between them and judge it by inclusion and exclusion. Here too, “And its redemption, from a month old” is a general and “you shall redeem” returned and generalised: these are two generals adjacent to each other, with the particular after them; therefore we expound them by inclusion and exclusion.

As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: (Vayikra 11) “In the water,” “in the water”^[18] – twice: this is not general and particular, but inclusion and exclusion.

And the Rabbanan say: as we say in the West:^[19] Wherever you find two generals adjacent to each other, place the particular between them and judge them as general and particular:

ורבנן - Who expound them by general and particular – they hold as we say in the West.

Nor with hekdesh:^[20]

Obvious! They are not his!

Say:^[21]

Tosfos

והראיון תני רב יוסף כו' - The Kuntres (Rashi) explains that we read: “Rav Yosef also taught: that he should not bring sigah” – silver scrap, but only minted coin – and that this beraisa of Rav Yosef comes not to explain but to support. But this does not seem right: why bring a beraisa to support a beraisa? Furthermore, it should then have said not “that he should not bring” but “he should not bring.” Furthermore, it implies, like the other items, that a reason is given for each one. Therefore it seems that it comes to explain a different reason: if he were to bring goods of equal value, he might sometimes bring an ingot or silver scrap that is not worth two silver ma’ah, and they would not sell him a good olas re’iyah for that sigah as they would if he had brought minted silver.

כתב לכהן שהוא חייב לו חמש סלעים - In Kesubos, at the beginning of HaNosei (102a), this is cited in connection with the dispute of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about “I owe you a maneh by document.”^[22] The Kuntres explains there: for example, he wrote it in a document and gave it to him in front of witnesses, and they disagree whether it counts as an admission, since a matter put in a document is strengthened, even though he did not say “you are my witnesses.” Rabbeinu Tam explains: for example, he came to obligate himself with that document although he owes him nothing. The whole sugya needs to be settled, and I have explained it there.

אימא ולא הקדשות בכל אלו - In Pesachim (35b) and in HaZahav (Bava Metzia 54a) this is cited regarding hekdesh that was redeemed onto land,^[23] that it is not redeemed, from what is written “he shall give the money and it shall be his”; this implies that they expound it from that verse. But it is impossible to say so, for in Toras Kohanim, in the section Im Bechukosai, it is expounded from “and every valuation shall be in the holy shekel,” as the Kuntres explains there. He did not trouble to bring there more than one of the verses in which money is written regarding hekdesh. Similarly we find in many places that he does not bring the main derivation everywhere, as is brought in Kiddushin (3b): “in her youth, in her father’s house” – all the profit of youth belongs to her father – even though it is written regarding the annulment of vows; and likewise in Gittin (21b): “a scroll” – a scroll cuts her off and nothing else cuts her off – a derivation that does not exist for the Rabbanan but only for Rabbi Yosi HaGelili.

Notes

1. 1. This line ends the story begun at the foot of the previous amud (050b): Chanan the Wicked struck a man on the ear, and Rav Huna ruled that he must give him half a zuz.
2. 2. Quoted back from the Mishnah (049b), which lists the fixed sums of the Torah – five sela’im for a firstborn son, thirty for a slave killed by an ox, fifty from the violator and from the seducer, a hundred from one who defames his bride – and ends: all of them in the holy shekel, by the Tyrian maneh.
3. 3. A shekel (sela) is worth four zuz (dinarim). Had the fifty and the hundred been plain zuzim, the violator and the defamer would pay only a quarter as much.
4. 4. Quoted back from the Mishnah (049b): all these payments may be made in money or in goods of equal value (shaveh kesef), except the shekalim, which must be given in coin.
5. 5. Re’iyah: the olah brought by every pilgrim who appears in the Beis HaMikdash on a festival; its minimum value is two silver ma’ah (Chagigah 2a).
6. 6. Maaser sheni, the second tithe, is set aside in years 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the shemittah cycle and eaten in Yerushalayim. It may be redeemed for coins, which are taken up to Yerushalayim and spent on food there.
7. 7. Darkonos (here darbonos): gold coins. Each town gathered its half-shekel contributions and exchanged the many silver coins for a few gold ones to lighten the journey to Yerushalayim (Mishnah Shekalim 2:1) – but only for minted coins.
8. 8. Devarim 14:25, on redeeming maaser sheni. “Ve-tzarta” (bind up) is read as tzurah, a stamped image: the money must be a coin bearing a stamp.
9. 9. Sigah: unminted silver – bullion or scrap. Rashi reads the line as support for the rule that the re’iyah money must be coin; Tosfos below explain it as a separate reason.
10. 10. Pidyon haben: a firstborn son is redeemed when he is thirty days old by giving a kohen five sela’im (Bamidbar 18:16).
11. 11. Hekdesh: property consecrated to the Beis HaMikdash, either for its upkeep or as an offering.
12. 12. Bamidbar 18:15. “Shall be yours” is said to the kohen: the son is redeemed only once the money reaches him (Rashi).
13. 13. Ribui u-miut (inclusion and exclusion): when a broad term is followed by a narrow one and then by a broad one again, everything is included except what is least like the narrow term.
14. 14. Klal u-prat u-klal (general, particular, general), one of Rabbi Yishmael’s thirteen rules of exposition: it includes only things like the particular, far less than ribui u-miut.
15. 15. Canaanite slaves are likened to land by Vayikra 25:46, “You shall bequeath them to your children” – the language of an ancestral estate – so in many laws they are treated like land.
16. 16. The awl used to pierce the ear of a Hebrew servant who wishes to stay with his master (Shemos 21:6; Devarim 15:17).
17. 17. The discussion is in Kiddushin 21b.
18. 18. Vayikra 11:9: “whatever has fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the rivers” – “in the water” appears twice, two general terms side by side, with the particular after them.
19. 19. Maarava, “the West”: the sages of Eretz Yisrael.
20. 20. Quoted back from our Mishnah: a father may not redeem his firstborn son by giving the kohen consecrated property.
21. 21. The sentence continues at the top of the next amud (051b).
22. 22. Kesubos 102a: Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about one who writes in a document “I owe you a maneh” – whether that writing alone makes him liable.
23. 23. Hekdesh “redeemed” onto land is not redeemed, since Vayikra 27:19 says “he shall give the money” – money, not land (Pesachim 35b; Bava Metzia 54a).