Bechoros, Chapter 8, Mishnah 8. In the previous mishnah, we learned that actual silver is not necessary; rather, anything worth five silver coins is valid for the redemption of a firstborn. Our mishnah comes to qualify this statement and says: not everything is valid for this, and there are things that are invalid for redemption.
The source of the restriction - a generalization, a specification, and a generalization:
The foundation of the restriction is rooted in the drashah known as 'klal u'prat u'klal' (a generalization, a specification, and a generalization): the verse first uses a general term, followed by a specific term, and again a general term. The rule is that even though the general term expands, all things included in it must be similar to the specified detail. This type of drashah appears several times in the Talmud, and particularly in the context of redeeming the firstborn son.
"Upeduyav miben chodesh" - a general term of redemption, and therefore this is a generalization.
"Be'erkecha kesef chameshet shekalim" - a precise value of five silver coins, and therefore this is a specification.
"Tifdeh" - again a general term of redemption, and therefore this is a generalization.
The conclusion of the drashah is that one can redeem with anything, provided that it is similar to the specified detail, the silver coins, in two conditions:
Movable: something that can be moved and handled, like silver coins.
Inherent value (gufo mamon): something that has its own intrinsic value, as opposed to something whose value is derived from something else.
From this, three invalidations arise:
Land: real estate is fixed in the ground and cannot be moved, and in this way it is not similar to money. Since it is not movable, it is invalid for redeeming a son.
Contracts: a promissory note, a check, or a bond that guarantees a future payment are merely pieces of paper containing an obligation. Their value is derived and not intrinsic, and they do not have 'inherent value' (gufo mamon), and therefore they are invalid for redemption.
Slaves: a Canaanite slave and a Canaanite maidservant are equated to land through a drashah. Even though practically speaking they can be moved from place to place, due to this equivalence they are invalid for redeeming a son.
And this is the text of the mishnah: "Ein podin lo ba'avadim, velo bashetarot, velo bekarkaot" - we do not redeem with slaves, nor with contracts and promissory notes whose value is derived, nor with land which is not movable, unlike silver coins.
"Velo bahekdeshot" - nor with consecrated property:
From the wording of the mishnah - "Ein podin lo ba'avadim, velo bashetarot, velo bekarkaot, velo bahekdeshot" - we do not redeem with slaves, nor with contracts, nor with land, nor with consecrated property, the learner might mistakenly think that we have a list of four items before us, but this is not the intention. It is obvious that a person cannot redeem his son with something he has consecrated: if I consecrated an expensive gold goblet, it is no longer mine but belongs to the Temple, and how could I redeem my son with property that is not mine?
The intention of the mishnah is for a case where a person consecrated something that is not fit for the altar. As explained in several places, including Tractate Menachos, it has sanctity of value (kedushat damim) and not inherent sanctity (kedushat haguf): its value is consecrated, but the object itself is not holy. Such an object is designated for bedek habayit, for the maintenance of the Temple, and it can be redeemed with money.
Thus, if I dedicate a gold goblet worth four hundred dollars, I can give the goblet itself or redeem it for its value. If someone else buys the goblet from me for four hundred dollars, the goblet loses its sanctity and becomes chullin, and the money goes to the Temple. If I redeem it myself, I must add a fifth, paying five hundred dollars. The point is that the goblet is desacralized through money.
Regarding this, the Mishnah states: Redeeming hekdesh that has monetary sanctity is done with money, with silver coins and gold bullion, but the three items listed may not be used for this - not a slave, not a promissory note, and not land. "Velo bahekdeshos" - and not with consecrated items - therefore means that we do not redeem consecrated items with these three things either.
Writing a document to a kohen:
From here the Mishnah moves to a new topic: What is the halachah for someone who wants to redeem his son with a promissory note? Although we have already learned that this is not effective, let us examine the process. The father says to the kohen: My son is thirty-one days old and I must redeem him, but I do not have the money on hand today. I am giving you a promissory note, and next week I will give you the five selaim. When the document was handed over, nothing happened, and when he gives him the five selaim a week later - on a Torah level, the kohen has received five selaim and the son is redeemed.
However, the Sages were concerned that onlookers would observe only the first part of the action and assume that handing over the document itself effects the redemption, whereas we have learned that a document is not effective for redeeming a son. Because of this, they obligated the one giving the document to pay off his document, and this payment does not serve to redeem the son. In our scenario, the father ends up giving five selaim to pay off the document, and another five selaim to redeem the son, for a total of ten selaim. This is a rabbinic law, designed to prevent error and clarify that a contract of a promissory note is not effective for redeeming a son.
And this is the language of the Mishnah: "Kasav lekohen shehu chayav lo chamesh sela'im" - if he wrote to a kohen that he owes him five selaim - "chayav liten lo, uvno eino faduy" - he is obligated to give it to him, but his son is not redeemed. Once he gave a promissory note, he must pay it, and even after he has given the five selaim, his son is rabbinically not redeemed, since the Sages wanted him to make a second payment, so that everyone would see that one can only redeem a son with cash and not with a promissory note.
"Lefichach im ratzah hakohen liten lo mattanah rashai" - therefore, if the kohen wanted to give him a gift, he may. After the fact, if the kohen feels that he took ten selaim instead of five and wishes to return five to the father as a gift, there is nothing preventing this. In fact, on a basic halachic level, the kohen is permitted to return everything he received for the redemption of the son, since it is in his power to give any gift he desires, and he can accept the five selaim and return them to the father as a gift.
However, even though there is no problem with this on a strictly legal level, there is a concern that if this were to become a set custom - where the father hands over the five selaim as a ceremonial act and the kohen immediately returns them - the father will not fully resolve to transfer ownership of the money. He will assume he is merely performing a ceremony whose payment he will get back, and since he does not truly transfer ownership, the redemption does not take effect. Therefore, a person should not simply receive his money back from the kohen, so that people will not come to think that this is merely a ceremony and not a tangible, real payment.
After the payment is actually made, the kohen is permitted to do as he pleases with the money, and even return the coins to the father. In practice, the custom today in most places is to borrow the five silver coins from a gemach, hand them to the kohen, and after he receives them - buy them back from him in a complete transaction, sometimes even for less than their value, and return them to the gemach. Either way, the transaction is a real transaction, and this is the point of the Mishnah here.
When does the redemption take effect?
The final point in the Mishnah deals with the question of when the redemption of the firstborn actually takes effect and what is required for it. With a firstborn donkey, we learned that from the moment a person separates a lamb and says that it is coming to redeem the donkey, the donkey is redeemed and permitted for use immediately, even though the lamb has not yet reached the hands of a kohen. By contrast, with a firstborn pure animal - a cow, goat, or sheep - there is an obligation to give it to a kohen, and until the kohen receives it, the owner has not fulfilled his obligation.
And what is the law for someone who set aside five selaim for the redemption of his son but did not give them to a kohen? The answer is that the son is not redeemed, since according to the verses, the son is not redeemed until the kohen receives the money in his hand. Therefore, someone who sets aside five selaim for the redemption of his son, just as one sets aside a lamb for the redemption of a firstborn donkey, and those coins are lost, the father must replace them with new coins, because since the kohen never received the money, the child was never redeemed.
The basis for this is derived from the verses: in one verse, the word "yehiyeh" (shall be) is stated in relation to the kohen, meaning that the money must become his, and subsequently it states that he shall surely redeem the child. From this, we derive that the redemption takes effect only when the money is actually his, from the moment the kohen receives it in his hand, and not beforehand.
In summary: In this Mishnah, we learned that based on the derivation of a general rule, a specific rule, and a general rule, it emerges that we may only redeem with something similar to silver coins - movable items with intrinsic monetary value - and therefore slaves, documents, and land are excluded, and they also cannot be used to redeem consecrated items that have monetary sanctity. We further learned that one who writes a promissory note to a kohen is obligated to pay it but his son is not redeemed, that a kohen is permitted to return the redemption money as a gift although one should be careful that it does not appear as a mere ceremony, and that the redemption does not take effect until the kohen receives the money in his hand.