the mishna means: Nor may consecrated items be redeemed with any of these items mentioned above, i.e., Canaanite slaves, documents, and land.

§ The mishna teaches: If the father of a firstborn son wrote a promissory note to the priest that he is obligated to give him five sela coins, the father is obligated to give them to him but his son is not redeemed. Ulla says: By Torah law, his son is redeemed when the father gives the money to the priest. If so, what is the reason the Sages said his son is not redeemed? It is a rabbinic decree that was enacted, lest people say that one may redeem a firstborn son with a promissory note that enables the priest to collect a debt from a third party. This is not effective, as the Torah requires redemption with actual money.

A tanna taught a baraita in the presence of Rav Naḥman: His son is redeemed when the father gives the money. Rav Naḥman said to him: This baraita is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, which was recorded as unattributed. And some say: This baraita is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, which was recorded as unattributed. But the Rabbis say his son is not redeemed. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that his son is not redeemed.

§ The mishna further teaches: Therefore, if the priest wished to give back the five sela coins to him as a gift he is permitted to do so. The Gemara comments: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: If the father gave the redemption money for his son to ten priests all at once, i.e., he placed five sela coins in front of a group of ten priests, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave it to them one after the other, he has fulfilled his obligation. If a priest took the redemption money and returned it to the father, the father has fulfilled his obligation.

And this was the practice of Rabbi Tarfon, as he would take the redemption money and return it. And when the Sages heard of this matter they said: This individual has fulfilled this halakha. The Gemara asks: Has he fulfilled only this halakha and nothing more? Certainly, Rabbi Tarfon fulfilled many halakhot. Rather, they meant: This individual fulfilled even this halakha.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥanina, a priest, was accustomed to take the redemption money and return it. On one occasion, he saw that a certain man from whom he had received the redemption money for his son was passing to and fro before him, to hint to Rabbi Ḥanina that he should return the money. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Evidently, you did not conclusively resolve to give the money. This is a bad matter, and therefore his son is not redeemed.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who designates five sela coins for redemption of his son and he lost the money before he gave it to the priest, the father bears financial responsibility for its loss. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “valuation” and “valuation,” from the passage discussing valuations. With regard to a firstborn son it states: “From a month old you shall redeem, according to your valuation” (Numbers 18:16), and it is written with regard to valuations: “And he shall give your valuation on that day” (Leviticus 27:23). Just as one bears financial responsibility to pay for valuations, the same applies to redemption money.

Rav Dimi says that Rabbi Yonatan says: The verse states concerning the redemption of the firstborn: “And every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem, and none shall appear before Me empty” (Exodus 34:20). And therefore this halakha is derived through a verbal analogy between “empty” and “empty,” from the passage discussing the burnt offering of appearance, which every pilgrim must bring on a Festival. With regard to the burnt offering of appearance it states: “And none shall appear before Me empty” (Exodus 23:15). Just as in the case of the burnt offering of appearance one bears financial responsibility for the loss of the offering, so too, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn one bears financial responsibility for its loss as well.

Rav Pappa objects to this: Is it necessary here to cite one verse in support of another verse? The mishna itself cites the verse that is the source of the halakha that the father bears financial responsibility for the redemption money. Rather, Rav Pappa says: The reason for this halakha is the reason that the mishna itself teaches: “Everything that opens the womb in man and animal shall be yours; yet you shall redeem the firstborn of man” (Numbers 18:15).

And when the comment of Reish Lakish was stated, it was stated with regard to the first clause of the mishna (49a), which teaches: If the firstborn son dies after thirty days have passed, even if the father did not yet give five sela coins to the priest he must give them then. From where do we derive this? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “valuation” and “valuation,” from the passage discussing valuations. Just as in a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate so-and-so’s valuation, he must do so even if that individual dies, so too, concerning the redemption of the firstborn the father must pay even though his son died.

Rav Dimi says that Rabbi Yonatan says: It is written with regard to the redemption of the firstborn: “And all the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem, and none shall appear before Me empty” (Exodus 34:20), and it likewise states with regard to the burnt offering of appearance: “And none shall appear before Me empty” (Exodus 23:15). Just as there, in the case of the burnt offering of appearance, if one died after becoming obligated to bring the offering the heirs are obligated to bring his offering, so too here, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, if the obligation already took effect, and the son and the father then died, the heirs are obligated to give five sela coins to a priest.

MISHNA: The firstborn son takes a double portion, i.e., twice the portion taken by the other sons, when inheriting the property of the father, but he does not take twice the portion when inheriting the property of the mother. And neither does he take twice the portion in any enhancement of the value of the property after the death of the father, nor does he take twice the portion in property due the father, as he does in property the father possessed.