Redemption Money, Conditional Gifts, and Uncollected Debts

How Tosafot defines actual payment in redemption, conditional priestly gifts, and the status of an uncollected debt for a widow's ketubah.

Redemption and the Problem of Notes

The Torah obligates a father to redeem his firstborn son by giving five sela coins to a kohen (priest). If the father writes a promissory note promising five sela, the Mishnah rules that he must pay, but his son is not yet redeemed. A baraita then records a dispute where the Rabbis state that even after writing the note, the son is not redeemed.

Rashi explains that according to the opposing view, the son becomes redeemed once the father hands over the money. Tosafot asks why the baraita needed to state the Rabbis' ruling, when the Mishnah already explicitly taught that a promissory note does not effect redemption.

Tosafot resolves this by clarifying the scope of the Mishnah. Even if the father converted the sum into a formal personal loan (זקפם עליו במלוה), we do not view it as though the priest received the coins and re-lent them. Therefore, if the priest later forgives the debt, the son is still not redeemed until the father actually hands over money.

ואתי מתניתין לאשמועי' דאפילו זקפם עליו במלוה לא הוה כאילו קבלם הכהן וחזר והלוה לו ואם מחלם הכהן אינו פדוי עד שיתן

And the Mishnah comes to teach us that even if he converted them into a loan against him, it is not considered as though the priest received them and lent them back to him; and if the priest forgives them, he is not redeemed until he actually gives. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 51b:3:1)

Conditional Gifts to the Priesthood

A priest is permitted to return the redemption money to the father as a gift. Rabbi Ḥanina, who was a kohen, frequently returned these redemption funds. Once, a father paced back and forth in front of him, hinting that he expected the money back. Rabbi Ḥanina declared that because the father did not give wholehearted payment, his son was not redeemed.

Tosafot is troubled by this ruling. Generally, a gift given on condition that it be returned (מתנה על מנת להחזיר) is considered a valid transfer of ownership. Why should the father's expectation of return invalidate the redemption?

Tosafot explains that Rabbi Ḥanina specifically refused to accept anything less than an absolute gift (מתנה גמורה). Routinely accepting gifts that must be returned degrades the priesthood, resembling a priest who assists at the threshing floor (כהן המסייע בבית הגרנות) to secure gifts. Because the father's behavior demonstrated he gave solely to receive it back, it was not an absolute gift and Rabbi Ḥanina never acquired the coins.

וי"ל דהכא רבי חנינא לא היה רוצה לזכות אלא במתנה גמורה דאסרינן התם לעשות מפני שנראה ככהן המסייע בבית הגרנות

And one can say that here Rabbi Ḥanina did not wish to acquire it except as an absolute gift, for we prohibit acting in that manner there because it appears like a priest assisting at the threshing floor. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 51b:6:2)

Outstanding Debts and Prospective Rights

The Mishnah shifts to inheritance law, stating that a firstborn does not receive a double portion in prospective property as in possessed property (ולא בראוי כבמוחזק), and a woman does not collect her ketubah (marriage contract) from prospective property. Rashi explains ראוי (prospective property) as assets not yet possessed by the father at death, such as a pending inheritance.

Tosafot raises a fundamental challenge based on the principle that an uncollected loan is classified as prospective property regarding inheritance. Does this comparison mean that a widow cannot collect from an uncollected debt owed to her deceased husband?

Citing Rabbeinu Tam, Tosafot answers that although a loan is prospective regarding inheritance, for a widow's ketubah a loan is considered possessed. Furthermore, following the Geonic enactment (תקנת הגאונים) that allows collection from movable property, she collects from debts collected by the heirs whether paid in cash or in land.

אבל רבי פירש דאע"פ שהורע כח הבעל ובכור לענין מלוה דחשבינן ליה לגבייהו ראוי לגבי כתובת אשה מיהא חשיבא מוחזקת

But Rabbeinu [Tam] explained that even though the power of the husband and the firstborn is impaired regarding a loan, because we consider it for them as prospective property, regarding a woman's ketubah at least, it is considered possessed. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 51b:12:1)

Valid redemption requires an actual, unconditional transfer of funds, while debts owed to an estate remain sufficiently possessed to satisfy a widow's ketubah.

Learn Bekhorot 51 on Super Daf