Komentarz do Bechorot 8:8
אֵין פּוֹדִין לֹא בַעֲבָדִים, וְלֹא בִשְׁטָרוֹת, וְלֹא בְקַרְקָעוֹת, וְלֹא בְהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. כָּתַב לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים, חַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ וּבְנוֹ אֵינוֹ פָדוּי, לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִתֵּן לוֹ מַתָּנָה, רַשַּׁאי. הַמַּפְרִישׁ פִּדְיוֹן בְּנוֹ וְאָבַד, חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח), יִהְיֶה לָּךְ וּפָדֹה תִפְדֶּה:
Nie odkupujemy [pierworodnej osoby] niewolników, dokumentów lub mienia [ani nie używamy ich do odkupienia] uświęconych przedmiotów. Jeśli napisał do księdza, że jest mu winien pięć selaimów , musi mu je dać, ale jego syn nie zostanie odkupiony - dlatego też, jeśli kapłan chce zwrócić mu [pieniądze] jako dar, ma prawo. Jeśli ktoś odłoży pieniądze na odkupienie swego syna i zostaną one utracone - jest zobowiązany do ich wymiany, jak jest napisane (Lb 18) „To [pierworodny] będzie twoje” [aż] „na pewno odkupisz”.
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
אין פודין – [they do not redeem] the firstborn [male] of a man.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
We must not redeem [a first-born] with slaves, nor with notes of indebtedness, nor with immovable properties, nor with objects of hekdesh. While a first born can be redeemed with the equivalent of money (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah), he must be redeemed with things that are similar to money, which is a type of “moveable property.” Thus a firstborn could be redeemed by giving the priest five selas worth of grain, or five selas worth of meat, for example. In contrast, slaves, while obviously moveable, are compared with land, and therefore firstborns cannot be redeemed with either slaves or land. If someone has a debt document in which his fellow owes him five shekels, he cannot use it to redeem his first born, because this debt document is not the same as actual money. It has no inherent value. The word “hekdesh” means property dedicated to the Temple and the word does not really belong here in this mishnah, because one cannot use Temple property to redeem a first born. It is probably here due to the similarity between this mishnah and Bava Metzia 4:9 and Shevuot 6:5. The Talmud interprets it to mean that just as one cannot redeem a first born with slaves, etc., so too one cannot redeem property dedicated to the Temple with these things.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
לא בעבדים – even though that we said above (i.e., in the previous Mishnah) with silver or with the equivalent of silver, we don’t redeem [a firstborn male child] with servants.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If one gives a written acknowledgment to a priest that he owes him five selas he is bound to give them to him, although his son is not considered as redeemed. Therefore, if the priest wishes to give him [the note of indebtedness] as a gift he is permitted to do so. A first born must be redeemed by the father actually giving money to the priest. If the father writes a note to the priest that he is liable to give him five shekels, the father has to give the priest five shekels, but this does not count as redeeming his son. The priest can give these five shekels back to the father, because they didn’t count towards the redemption. The priest cannot, however, give back the five shekels used to redeem the son.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
ולא בשטרות – that if he has a document on his fellow for five Selaim [owed him] and he gave it to the Kohen, that he (i.e., the Kohen) should collect that obligation/liability with the redemption of his son, his son is not redeemed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
If one set aside the redemption money of his son and it became lost, he is responsible for it, because it says: “Shall be for you [but] you shall surely redeem” (Numbers 18:15). If someone sets aside five shekels to use to redeem his son, and then loses them, he must restore them. This is learned midrashically from the verse in Numbers. The five shekels are only effective for redemption once they have reached the priest’s hands. Before this moment, he is not redeemed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
ולא בהקדשות – that is to say, and not with that which is sanctified [to the Temple] also we don’t redeem them neither with slaves, documents nor with land.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
כתב לכהן שהוא חייב לו ה' סלעים – because of the redemption of his [first-born] son.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
חייב ליתן לו ובנו אינו פדוי – it is the word of the Torah that his son is redeemed when he gives [the money]. And what is the reason that they said that he must give it and his son or else his son is not redeemed? It is a decree perhaps they will say that the redeem with documents.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
לפיכך – that we said that he is required to give him (i.e., to the Kohen) five other Selaim for the redemption of his son.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
אם רצה הכהן – [if the Kohen wanted] to return them and to give them (i.e., the five Selaim) to him (i.e., the father) as a gift, he is permitted, but there is no other remedy/ordinance. But even though that the Kohen is permitted to return and give the five Selahim as a gift to the father of the first-born [son], if it is the intention of the father of the son relies that the Kohen will surely return to him the five Selaim, the son is not redeemed, whether the Kohen returned them or whether he didn’t return them. This is how it appears from the Gemara (see Talmud Bekhorot 51b).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
שנאמר יהיה לך ופדה תפדה – when the redemption will be yours, then your son is redeemed, and this verse (Numbers 18:15) is stated to Aaron.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy