Bechoros Daf 49 בכורות דַף 49

The next Mishnah states that if a firstborn son dies within thirty days, אף על פי שנתן לכהן יחזיר – even if [the father] already gave the redemption money to a Kohen, he returns it, because the child was a נפל and exempt from פדיון. If he died after thirty days, even if the father had not given the money, he must give it now, since the obligation came into effect. If he died on the thirtieth day itself, the Tanna Kamma says כיום שלפניו – it is like he died the previous day, and even if the money was already given, it is returned. Rebbe Akiva says: אם נתן לא יטול – if he already gave it, he may not take it back, ואם לא נתן לא יתן – but if he did not give yet, he does not give. The Rabbonon derive a gezeirah shavah (חדש חדש) from the counting and redemption of firstborns in the מדבר, which included all firstborns from a month "ומעלה" – and above, implying more than thirty days old. Rebbe Akiva holds since the Torah wrote "ומעלה" again regarding ערכין, they are שני כתובים הבאים כאחד – two pesukim which come together to teach one concept, from which we cannot derive elsewhere. He was uncertain if this applies to bechor, which is the same concept as the Torah’s passage.

Amoraim discuss: הפודה את בנו בתוך שלשים יום – if one redeems his son within thirty days, before the obligation came into effect, Rav says בנו פדוי – his son is redeemed, but Shmuel says אין בנו פדוי.

All agree if the father stipulated the bechor should be redeemed מעכשיו – “from now,” he is not redeemed, since the obligation did not yet come into effect. If he said the פדיון should take effect after thirty days, and the money is still present, all agree the son is redeemed. They argue where he said the פדיון should take effect after thirty days, ונתעכלו המעות – and the money was consumed within thirty days. Rav says he is redeemed, מידי דהוה אקידושי אשה – just as the halachah regarding marrying a woman, where the kiddushin is effective even if the money is consumed before the stipulated time. Shmuel differentiates: התם בידו לקדשה מעכשיו – there, it is in his power to marry her now, whereas the bechor cannot be redeemed now, within thirty days. Although the halachah generally follows Rav באיסורי – in prohibitory halachos, the halachah here follows Shmuel.

The Mishnah states: הוא לפדות ובנו לפדות – If he himself needs to be redeemed as a bechor, and his son needs to be redeemed, the Tanna Kamma says: הוא קודם לבנו – he precedes his son and redeems himself first. Rebbe Yehudah says his son takes precedence, שמצותו על אביו – because [his own] mitzvah is primarily incumbent on his own father, ומצות בנו עליו – and his son’s mitzvah is primarily incumbent upon him. Rebbe Yirmiyah clarifies that where he only has five selaim, all agree he redeems himself, דמצוה דידיה עדיף – because a mitzvah for [redeeming] himself is superior to a mitzvah for [redeeming] someone else. They argue where he has five personal selaim, and five selaim of property sold to another. Rebbe Yehudah holds: מלוה דכתיב בתורה ככתובה בשטר דמיא – a debt written in the Torah (e.g., the פדיון הבן obligation) is like it is written in a שטר. Therefore, he redeems his son with his own money, and his own פדיון is collected from his sold property (since his obligation existed before the property was sold). The Rabbonon hold a Biblical debt is not considered written in a שטר, and cannot be collected from sold property. Since he has only five selaim, he redeems himself.