Bekhorot 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

MISHNA:

One may not redeem

the firstborn of a donkey:

Neither with a calf nor with a wild animal

such as a deer or a gazelle, but only with a lamb, meaning an animal of the goat species or of the sheep species, for these two species are both called “lamb.”

Nor with a slaughtered animal

even if it is a lamb—

Nor with a tereifa—

And

not with a hybrid,

meaning a lamb produced from two species, even one born from a he-goat that mated with a ewe, since both the father and the mother are called a lamb.

Nor with a koy.

And Rabbi Elazar

permits a hybrid

that is descended from a lamb—

because it is a lamb, but prohibits a koy because it is of uncertain status

as to whether it is a lamb.

If

an Israelite

gave the firstborn of the donkey

to a priest, the priest may not retain it

until he sets aside a lamb in its place,

and the Gemara

will explain the reason.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may not redeem with a calf, nor with a wild animal, nor with a slaughtered animal, nor with a tereifa, nor with a hybrid, nor with a koy:

Whose opinion is our Mishna

[i.e., according to whose approach is our Mishna]?

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

Ben Bag Bag says: It is stated here

—with regard to the redemption of the firstborn of a donkey—

“lamb”

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

and it is stated elsewhere

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

“lamb”

[“You shall have an unblemished male lamb in its first year; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats”], and we learn:

Just as there

with regard to the Paschal offering,

this excludes all these categories

mentioned in our Mishna, since the Torah said, “From the sheep or from the goats you shall take”; and a slaughtered animal is not fit for the Paschal offering, since it must be slaughtered for the sake of the Paschal offering, and hybrids may not be brought upon the altar at all.

So too here

—with regard to the redemption of the firstborn of a donkey—

this excludes all these categories

mentioned in our Mishna.

Perhaps just as there

with regard to the Paschal offering, the lamb must be

an unblemished male in its first year, so too here

with regard to the redemption of the firstborn of a donkey, it should be stated that the lamb must be

an unblemished male in its first year

?

The verse states: “You shall redeem, you shall redeem,” to include.

If

“you shall redeem, you shall redeem”

serves to include

even all these

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

also

would they be fit for redeeming the firstborn of a donkey?

If so, the phrase “lamb, lamb”

[the gzera shava linking the redemption of the firstborn of a donkey to the Paschal offering]

what purpose does it serve

[what does it accomplish]? Necessarily, it comes to exclude all these categories.

They raised a dilemma before them:

What is the law concerning redeeming

the firstborn of a donkey

with a naturally delivered fetus

[a live lamb found in the womb of its slaughtered mother]?

The Gemara explains the uncertainty:

According to Rabbi Meir, you need not raise the dilemma

[there is no room for doubt in this regard], since it may be used for redemption,

for since Rabbi Meir said: A naturally delivered fetus requires slaughter,

if so,

it is a fully valid lamb.

Rather, when you raise the dilemma, it is according to the Rabbis, who say: Its mother’s slaughter purifies it;

and the sides of the uncertainty are:

Since it is regarded as slaughtered, perhaps

it is like meat in a pot

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

Or perhaps: Since, in any event, it now runs and walks

[since it is now running about],

can it be called

a “lamb”?

or not?

The amoraim disputed the law concerning redemption with a naturally delivered fetus:

Mar Zutra said: One may not redeem

with it, as he proceeds to explain the reason.

And Rav Ashi said: One may redeem

with it.

Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: What is your reasoning? Is it that you derive the matter from the Paschal offering

[what is your reason? It is presumably because you derive it from the Paschal offering], and a naturally delivered fetus is unfit for the Paschal offering, since it is a caesarean birth, and a caesarean birth may not be brought upon the altar;

if

[so, let us also derive]:

Just as there,

with regard to the Paschal offering,

the animal must be an unblemished male in its first year, so too here, it must be an unblemished male in its first year!?

And we answer:

“You shall redeem, you shall redeem”

serves to include.

If “you shall redeem, you shall redeem” serves to include,

even a naturally delivered fetus

also

will be fit.

If so, “lamb, lamb”

what purpose does it serve

?

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

[a case such as a ewe that gave birth to an offspring of the goat species, i.e., an offspring of a ewe that resembles a goat]?

what purpose would it serve?

They raised another question: What is the law concerning redeeming with an animal of a different appearance

[for example, a ewe that gave birth to an animal of the goat species, one whose mother is a ewe but which resembles a goat]?

And the Gemara explains the uncertainty:

According to Rabbi Elazar, you need not ask

whether one may redeem with it, for

now, if we redeem with a hybrid

[if one may redeem with a hybrid, according to Rabbi Elazar],

is it necessary to state it concerning a dimage?

[Certainly one may redeem with it].

When you ask according to the Rabbis:

is it the case that

it is only with a hybrid that we do not redeem

according to the Rabbis, but

with a dimage we do redeem; or perhaps: is there no difference?

Come and hear

that one may redeem with a dimage, from what we learned in a beraita:

If a cow gave birth to a goat species, one may not redeem

with it. This implies that it is specifically when its mother is a cow that one may not redeem with it, because it is a calf, of the same species as its mother, rather than a lamb, although it resembles a lamb;

but a ewe

—which is of the species of sheep—

that gave birth to a goat species

one may redeem

with it. But:

Who

is the tanna of this beraita?

If you say it is Rabbi Elazar,

this cannot be said, for

with a hybrid too we redeem

according to Rabbi Elazar, and certainly with a dimage; thus, the tanna would not have needed to teach that one may redeem with a dimage.

Rather, is it not the Rabbis? Thus we have learned that according to the Rabbis one may redeem with a dimage, unlike a hybrid.

And we reject this:

No,

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

it is actually Rabbi Elazar. As for your difficulty—according to Rabbi Elazar, is it not obvious that one may redeem with a dimage?—do not raise it. The novelty of the beraita is not the inference that one may redeem with the offspring of a ewe, but rather

that itself

—the essential ruling of the beraita—

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

with it, because it is a calf and not a lamb. And the novelty is this:

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

is a superior one

[let us not say: 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 may not redeem with a dimage, from this teaching of

Rabba bar Shmuel:

What is a hybrid? A ewe that gave birth to a goat species, and its father was a sheep. But the beraita is seemingly unintelligible. If its father was a sheep, then is it

Rabba bar Shmuel taught:

a hybrid?

But

it is a dimage!?

then

how is it a crossbred animal

Rather, it must be that the beraita means as follows:

What is something similar to a hybrid, which the Rabbis rendered subject to the same law as a hybrid—

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.

And

with regard to what

did we learn in this beraita that the dimage is disqualified?

If it is with regard to sacrificial animals,

to disqualify it from being offered, this cannot be said, for:

From where the Torah excludes a hybrid, from there it excludes a dimage

—that is, why do I need to compare a dimage to a hybrid? Just as there is a verse excluding a hybrid, there is also a verse excluding a dimage;

for it is

taught:

It is written [Leviticus 22:27]: “When an ox, or a sheep, or a goat is born, it shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day onward it may be accepted as an offering made by fire to the Lord,” and we interpret it: “

An ox or a sheep”

excludes a hybrid. “

Or a goat”

excludes a dimage;

thus, the verse explicitly excludes a dimage with regard to sacrificial animals, and there is no need to compare it to a hybrid.

If it is with regard to a firstborn,

perhaps you will say that the beraita concerns exempting a dimage from the law of the firstborn of a pure animal. This too cannot be said, for there is no need to compare it to a hybrid, because

“

Only the firstborn of an ox”

the Merciful One said,

to teach us:

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

thereby excluding a dimage from the firstborn status.

Only the firstborn of an ox”

the Merciful One stated

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the beraita comes

with regard to animal tithe,

to exclude a dimage from the obligation of animal tithe just as it excludes a hybrid. This too cannot be said, for “ under” —“Whatever passes under the rod”— “

under”

—“and it shall be seven days under its mother”—

is derived by means of a verbal analogy,

and from this verbal analogy we learned to exclude both a hybrid and a dimage from the obligation of animal tithe, just as they are disqualified from being offered. If so, why compare it to a hybrid, since a dimage is excluded from the same source as a hybrid?

Rather,

it certainly refers

to the firstborn of a donkey,

that is, the beraita comes to disqualify a dimage from being used to redeem a firstborn donkey, just like a hybrid. Thus we have learned that one may not redeem with a dimage.

And we reject this:

No,

not as you established and interpreted—that the beraita concerns the redemption of a firstborn donkey—but

it is actually with regard to animal tithe,

to exempt a dimage from the obligation of animal tithe;

and

the beraita is dealing with

a case in which it possesses some of the identifying signs

of its mother. It comes to teach us that, nevertheless, it is exempt from animal tithe. And you cannot object: “Under, under” is derived by a verbal analogy from sacrificial animals, and with regard to an offering a dimage is disqualified even if it possesses some identifying signs. This is not difficult:

For

it might enter your mind:

on the contrary, “

passing”

—“Whatever passes under the rod”—

“

passing”

—“And you shall set apart every firstborn that opens the womb for the Lord”—

is derived from the firstborn,

and concerning the firstborn we learned below, on 16b [and it was cited above, on 3b]: “A ewe that gave birth to a goat species is exempt from the firstborn status, but if it possesses some identifying signs, it is obligated.” I might therefore have obligated a dimage possessing some identifying signs in animal tithe, because in those signs it resembles its mother, just as it is obligated with regard to the firstborn.

It teaches us

the beraita:

“Under, under” is derived from sacrificial animals,

and not “passing, passing” from the firstborn. Just as a dimage is disqualified as an offering even when it possesses some identifying signs like its mother,

so too it is exempt from animal tithe.

It was raised before them: What is the law with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey with disqualified consecrated animals [for example, consecrated animals that developed blemishes] that were redeemed and thereby became unconsecrated? And the Gemara explains the uncertainty: According to Rabbi Shimon, you need not ask, for one certainly may redeem with them, since once he says that a firstborn donkey is permitted for benefit, then it is unconsecrated, and one may certainly redeem it with disqualified consecrated animals. When you ask according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a firstborn donkey, before redemption,

“under” is derived by an identical expression from the laws of sacrificial animals,

and not “passing” from the firstborn. Just as an animal of a different appearance is disqualified as a sacrifice even when it has some of the identifying signs of its mother, so too it is exempt from the animal tithe.

is forbidden for benefit—

according to him, the question is:

what

is the law of redemption with disqualified consecrated animals? The sides of the uncertainty are as follows: Shall we say:

since it is forbidden

for the firstborn donkey

for benefit,

then

there is no prohibition

of the firstborn donkey

that takes effect upon another prohibition,

namely, the prohibition of disqualified consecrated animals, since even after their redemption they remain subject to the prohibition against shearing and working them?

Or perhaps: since its redemption is not seized

and the redemption payment does not become forbidden like the firstborn donkey itself, then

it is merely the removal of a prohibition,

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

forbidden for benefit—and according to him there is a doubt:

what

will be the law of the redemption with consecrated animals that have become disqualified? The two sides of the doubt are: Shall we say

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,

one prohibition

of the firstborn donkey

cannot take effect upon another prohibition

of consecrated animals that have become disqualified, since even after their redemption they remain subject to the prohibition against shearing and working them?

Or perhaps: Since its redemption does not become subject to the same prohibition

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

it is merely the removal of a prohibition,

and there is no prohibition here taking effect upon another prohibition.

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said:

Is what is written concerning them “

like a deer and a gazelle”

[Is it a minor matter that the Torah compared animals disqualified from consecration to a deer and a gazelle, as the verse states—in Deuteronomy 12, concerning animals disqualified from consecration: “The impure and the pure shall eat it, like the deer and the gazelle”]!? And we learned:

Just as a deer and a gazelle may not be redeemed

with them,

so too, animals disqualified from consecration may not be redeemed

with them.

The Gemara adds:

Now that you have arrived at this

[now that we have reached this principle] of learning that one may not redeem with animals disqualified from consecration because the Torah compared them to a deer and a gazelle], if so: