Bekhorot 12a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One does not redeem

the firstborn of a donkey:

Neither with a calf nor with an animal

such as a deer or a stag, but with a sheep, that is, either of the species of goats or of the species of sheep, for these two species are called “sheep

.” Not with a slaughtered animal

and even a sheep—

Nor with a tereifa—

And

not with a mixed-breed,

that is, a sheep that comes from two species; and even one born from a he-goat that mated with a ewe, for both the father and the mother are called sheep.

Nor with a koy.

And Rabbi Elazar

permits with a mixed-breed—

that comes from a sheep—

because it is a sheep, and forbids with a koy because it is a doubt

of a sheep.

If

the Israelite gave

the firstborn of the donkey to a priest, the priest may not retain it

in his possession even for a single hour,

until he sets aside a sheep in its place,

and in the Gemara

the reason will be explained.

Gemara:

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One does not redeem either with a calf or with an animal, neither with a slaughtered animal nor with a tereifa, neither with a mixed-breed nor with a koy:

Whose Mishna is this

[according to whose view is our Mishna]?

It is that of Ben Bag Bag, as it was taught:

Ben Bag Bag says: It is stated here—

with regard to the redemption of the firstborn donkey—“

sheep” [“And the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a sheep”],

[“And you shall redeem a firstborn donkey with a sheep”],

and it is stated there—

with regard to the Paschal offering, Exodus 12:5—“

sheep” [“A flawless male sheep in its first year shall be for you; from the sheep or from the goats you shall take it”], and we learn:

[“A perfect male in its first year shall it be for you; from the sheep or from the goats you shall take it”]. And we learn:

Just as there

with regard to the Paschal offering,

it excludes all these names

that were mentioned in our Mishna, for the Torah said, “From the sheep or from the goats you shall take it”; and a slaughtered animal is not fit for the Paschal offering, for it requires slaughter for the sake of the Passover offering, and mixed-breeds are not brought at all upon the altar.

Here too—

with regard to the redemption of the firstborn donkey—

it excludes all these names

that were mentioned in our Mishna.

If just as there

with regard to the Paschal offering, the sheep must be

a flawless male in its first year, so here too

with regard to the redemption of the firstborn donkey, it is stated that the sheep must be

a flawless male in its first year?

The verse says: “You shall redeem, you shall redeem”—it includes.

If “

you shall redeem, you shall redeem”—

it includes”

even all these

names mentioned in our Mishna—which are disqualified for the Paschal offering—

also

will they be valid for the redemption of the firstborn donkey?

If so, “

sheep, sheep” [a

gzera shava connecting the redemption of the firstborn donkey with the Paschal offering],

what use is it to him

[what does it accomplish for him]? It necessarily comes to exclude all these.

They raised a dilemma:

What is the law concerning redeeming

the firstborn donkey

with a ben pekua

[a sheep found alive in the womb of its slaughtered mother]?

The Gemara explains the dilemma:

According to Rabbi Meir, you need not ask

[there is no room for doubt concerning this], for one redeems with it,

since Rabbi Meir said: A ben pekua requires slaughter,

and if so,

it is a proper sheep.

Rather, when you ask, it is according to the Sages, who say: Its mother’s slaughter purifies it;

and the sides of the doubt are:

Since it is like a slaughtered animal, if so,

it is comparable to meat in a pot

[like meat in a cauldron], that is, it is like a slaughtered animal, and one does not redeem with a slaughtered animal.

Or perhaps: Since, at any rate, it now runs and walks

[since it is now running about], “

sheep”

do we call it?

The amoraim disputed the law of redemption with a ben pekua:

Mar Zutra said: One does not redeem

with it, as he proceeds to explain the reason.

And Rav Ashi said: One redeems

with it.

Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: What is your opinion—that you derive it from the Paschal offering

[what is your reason? Surely it is because you derive it from the Paschal offering], and a ben pekua is not valid for the Paschal offering, for it is a yotzei dofen, and a yotzei dofen is not brought upon the altar,

if

[so, let us also learn]:

Just as there,

with regard to the Paschal offering,

a male, flawless, and in its first year, so here too a male, flawless, and in its first year!?

And we answer: “

You shall redeem, you shall redeem”

includes.

b. In Mahari t Algazi [10b], a resolution is cited from the innovations of the Rashba in the name of Ramb an, addressing Tosafot’s difficulty with Rashi: It can indeed be understood according to Rashi. Before he considered completing the inference by identical expression from the Paschal offering, he thought that according to Rabbi Meir there was no question, since it was a fully valid sheep. But now that he derives the law by means of the inference by identical expression, according to Rabbi Meir as well one may not redeem with it. It follows from Ramban’s words that the Gemara’s uncertainty as to whether to disqualify it because it is “like meat in a pot” does not mean that this is derived from the Paschal offering, where a slaughtered animal is unfit. Rather, it means that the designation “sheep” does not apply to it, and there is no need to derive this from the Paschal offering; Mar Zutra is the one who disqualifies it because the law is derived from the Paschal offering; and see Rash i in Bava Kamma 78a, s.v. “and not with a slaughtered sheep,” who explained the reason for the Mishna’s ruling concerning a slaughtered animal as being that “it cannot be called a sheep”; but see Tosafot in Bava Kamma 77b, s.v. “this,” who wrote: If you say that a mortally defective animal and a slaughtered animal [with which one may not redeem a firstborn donkey] are excluded from the plain meaning of “sheep,” just as a calf and a wild animal are, this cannot be said. For it was stated in Yoma 49b that even a slaughtered bull is called a bull, and that a slaughtered sheep of the Paschal offering would be called a sheep were it not for the verse “from the time that the sheep is alive,” which implies that the sheep must still be alive; [see the discussion there, where the amoraim dispute whether a slaughtered bull is called a bull. The Gemara asks about the sheep of the Paschal offering, since the implication is that once it has been slaughtered it is no longer called a sheep, and therefore people may not join it or withdraw from it after it has been slaughtered. The Gemara rejects this, explaining that the verse “from the time that the sheep is alive” means “while the sheep is alive.” Mar Zutra then raises an objection from our Mishna, which states that one may not redeem with a slaughtered animal, implying that a slaughtered sheep is not called a sheep. The Gemara answers that a slaughtered animal is disqualified for redemption by means of the inference by identical expression from the Paschal offering]; and see also in Mahari t Algazi 12:2. [According to Ramban’s approach, clarification is needed: How did Rav Ashi know that Mar Zutra had introduced a new rationale that was not mentioned among the two sides of the uncertainty? Perhaps Mar Zutra held that it is like meat in a pot, while according to Rabbi Meir it would in fact be valid; one must say that Rav Ashi heard this from him]. c. Regarding the fundamental difficulty with Rash i, Rashi wrote here, explaining Mar Zutra’s reasoning, that it is based on the phrase “sheep, sheep—what purpose would it serve?” It is reasonable to say that this comes to exclude a fetus found alive inside its slaughtered mother, since it is considered slaughtered and is not a sheep ; But if so, we have actually found grounds to derive this from the Paschal offering only if it is considered slaughtered. According to Rabbi Meir, who does not consider it slaughtered, there is no basis for distinguishing it from a perfect male in its first year, which is not derived from the Paschal offering. It appears that Mar Zutra was the one who gave this resolution.

If “

you shall redeem, you shall redeem”—

it includes,”

even a ben

pekua too

shall be valid.

If so, “

sheep, sheep”

what use is it to him?

They raised a dilemma: What is the law concerning redeeming with a nidmeh

[for example, a ewe gave birth to an animal of the goat species, which is the son of a ewe resembling a goat]?

And the Gemara explains the uncertainty:

According to Rabbi Elazar, you need not ask

whether one may redeem with it, for

now, with kilayim we redeem

[if with kilayim one redeems, according to Rabbi Elazar],

is it necessary to ask about a nidmeh

[certainly one redeems with it].

When you ask according to the Rabbis:

whether

it is only with kilayim that we do not redeem

according to the Rabbis, but

with a nidmeh we do redeem, or perhaps: there is no difference?

Come and hear

that one redeems with a nidmeh, from what we learned in a beraita:

A cow that gave birth to a species of goat—one may not redeem

with it. And it implies: specifically when its mother is a cow, one may not redeem with it, because it is not a lamb but a calf, like its mother’s species, even though it resembles a lamb,

but a ewe

—whose species is a sheep—

that gave birth to a species of goat

one may redeem

with it; but then:

Who

is the author of this beraita?

If you say it is Rabbi Elazar,

this cannot be said, for

with kilayim also we redeem

according to Rabbi Elazar, and all the more so with a nidmeh, and the tanna would not have needed to inform us that one redeems with a nidmeh.

Rather, is it not the Rabbis?

We have thus learned that, according to the Rabbis, one redeems with a nidmeh, unlike kilayim.

And we reject this:

No,

not as you established that this beraita is according to the Rabbis, but

actually, it is Rabbi Elazar

; and as to what is difficult for you—according to Rabbi Elazar, it is obvious that one redeems with a nidmeh—it is not difficult, because the novelty of the beraita is not the inference that one redeems with the goat born from the ewe, but rather

that itself

—the principal law of the beraita—

it teaches us that a cow that gave birth to a species of goat, one may not redeem

with it, because it is a calf and not a lamb; and the novelty is:

Do not say: follow it, itself, and this goat

is excellent

[let it not be said: let us follow the offspring itself and consider it a goat, with which one may redeem]

Rather, follow its mother

[follow its mother],

and this is a calf

and not a goat, and it is unfit for redemption.

Come and hear

that one does not redeem with a nidmeh, from this:

as Rabbah bar Shmuel taught:

What is kilayim? A ewe that gave birth to a species of goat, and its father is a sheep.

And concerning this beraita, which is apparently not understandable: if

its father is a sheep,

then is it

kilayim?

But

it is a nidmeh!

that is, what is a “dimage” that resembles a hybrid and which the Sages said is disqualified like a hybrid? A ewe that gave birth to a goat species, and its father was a sheep.

Rather,

necessarily, this is the intent of the beraita:

What is similar to kilayim, which the Rabbis made like kilayim,

that is, what is a “nidmeh” that resembles kilayim and which the Sages said is disqualified like kilayim:

a ewe that gave birth to a species of goat, and its father is a sheep.

But

for what purpose

—with regard to what—did we learn in this beraita that the nidmeh is disqualified?

If it is for sacred offerings,

to disqualify it for sacrifices, this cannot be said, for:

from where the verse excludes kilayim, from there it excludes a nidmeh

; that is, why do I need to compare a nidmeh to kilayim? Just as there is a verse excluding kilayim, so there is a verse excluding a nidmeh;

d

for

it was taught:

It is written [Leviticus 22:27]: “An ox, or a sheep, or a goat, when it is born, it shall be seven days under its mother, and from the eighth day onward it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire to Hashem,” and we expound: “

An ox or a sheep”

excluding kilayim. “

Or a goat”

excluding a nidmeh;

thus, the verse explicitly excludes a nidmeh with regard to sacred offerings, and there is no need to compare it to kilayim.

If it is for a firstborn,

should you say that the beraita is dealing with exempting a nidmeh from the law of the firstborn of a pure animal, this too cannot be said, for there is no need to compare it to kilayim, because “

Only the firstborn of an ox”

the Merciful One said,

to teach us:

until it itself is an ox and its firstborn is an ox,

and to exclude a nidmeh from the firstborn status.

Rather,

should you say that the beraita comes

for animal tithe

—to exclude a nidmeh from the obligation of animal tithe, like kilayim—this too cannot be said, for: “

Under”

[“Everything that passes under the rod”]

under

[“And it shall be seven days under its mother”]

is derived from sacred offerings by a gezera shava,

and from this gezera shava we learned to exclude both kilayim and a nidmeh from the obligation of animal tithe, just as they are disqualified for sacrifices. If so, why do we need to compare it to kilayim, since from the same source from which we exclude kilayim we exclude a nidmeh?

Rather,

it certainly is

for the firstborn donkey:

that is, the beraita comes to disqualify a nidmeh from being used to redeem the firstborn donkey, like kilayim—we have thus learned that one does not redeem with a nidmeh.

And we reject this:

No,

not as you established and explained that the beraita deals with the redemption of the firstborn donkey, but

actually, for animal tithe,

to exempt a nidmeh from the obligation of animal tithe,

and

the beraita deals with

a case in which it has some of the signs

that make it resemble its mother, and it teaches us that, nevertheless, it is exempt from the tithe. And this is not difficult for you: surely “under, under” is derived from sacred offerings, and with regard to a sacrifice a nidmeh is disqualified even if it has some of the signs; this is not difficult:

For

you might have said:

on the contrary, “

passing”

[“Everything that passes under the rod”]

passing

[“And you shall cause every firstborn that opens the womb to pass to Hashem”]

is derived from the firstborn,

and concerning the firstborn we learned below, on 16b [and it was brought above, on 3b]: “A ewe that gave birth to a species of goat … is exempt from the firstborn status, but if it has some of the signs, it is obligated”; and I would have obligated for animal tithe a nidmeh that has some of the signs by which it resembles its mother, just as it is obligated with regard to the firstborn—

it teaches us

the beraita:

“Under, under” is derived from sacred offerings,

and not “passing, passing” from the firstborn; and just as a nidmeh is disqualified for a sacrifice even if it has some of the signs of its mother, so it is exempt from animal tithe.

They raised a question before them:

What is the law concerning redeeming

the firstborn donkey

with disqualified sacred property

[for example, sacred offerings that became blemished] that were redeemed and became ordinary property?

And the Gemara explains the uncertainty:

According to Rabbi Shimon, you need not ask

whether one certainly redeems with them, for

since he said

that the firstborn donkey

is permitted for benefit,

if so,

it is ordinary property,

the firstborn donkey, and one may certainly redeem it with disqualified sacred property.

When you ask according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said

that the firstborn donkey, before redemption,

is forbidden for benefit—

and according to him, one must be uncertain:

what

will be the law of the redemption with disqualified sacred property? The sides of the uncertainty are: shall we say

since it is forbidden

the firstborn donkey

for benefit,

if so,

there is no prohibition

of the firstborn donkey

that takes effect upon a prohibition

of disqualified sacred property, since even after its redemption there is a prohibition of shearing and working it?

Or perhaps: since its redemption is not seized

and the redemption does not become forbidden like the firstborn donkey itself, if so,

it is merely the removal of a prohibition,

and there is here no prohibition that takes effect upon a prohibition.

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said:

Is what is written concerning them a minor matter "

like deer and gazelle"

(And is it a minor matter that the Torah likened disqualified consecrated animals to deer and gazelle, as the verse says—Deuteronomy 12, concerning disqualified consecrated animals—“the impure and the pure shall eat it like the deer and like the gazelle”]?! And we learned:

Just as deer and gazelle are not redeemed

with them,

so too, disqualified consecrated animals are not redeemed

with them.

The Gemara adds:

Now that you have arrived at this

{now that we have arrived at this measure—to learn that one does not redeem with disqualified consecrated animals because the Torah likened them to deer and gazelle}; if so: