Bekhorot 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

Even

—

—

also

one may not redeem with animals that are disqualified as consecrated offerings, because

.

They raised a question before them: What is the law regarding redeeming

a firstborn donkey

,

.

:

A firstborn donkey

there is no uncertainty concerning the obligation to redeem it]

is not the subject of the question,

for it may not be redeemed with an animal purchased with seventh-year produce, since “The Sabbatical-year produce of the land shall be yours

"

the Merciful One stated [Leviticus 25:6],

,

and not

were the fruits of the Sabbatical year designated

,

.

,

a firstborn donkey that is

,

.

:

And according to Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that one may derive benefit from a firstborn donkey,

this is not the subject of the question, for

he

does not have

any obligation of redemption in a case of an

,

.

,

:

what

:

:

since he separates a lamb and

does not give it to the kohen, but

,

"

"

.

Or perhaps: Since, as long as he does not remove its prohibition, it is not permitted [

,

it is considered commerce

.

:

.

And

further

:

said:

said: An animal purchased with seventh-year produce

that is fit for consumption

is exempt from the firstborn obligation but is liable for the gifts

.

:

It is exempt from the firstborn obligation

"

"

the Merciful One stated

concerning seventh-year produce,

,

.

And it is liable for the gifts

because

"

"

,

.

They raise an objection from a source

:

One who eats from dough made with seventh-year produce before its

portion of ḥalla has been separated is liable to death,

.

But why

:

Since if it becomes impure [

if the ḥalla becomes impure]

,

"

"

,

!?

:

This case is different

concerning ḥalla,

as it is written

concerning it [Numbers 15:21]: “From the first portion of your kneading, you shall give an offering to the Lord

,

.

:

"

".

:

And let us derive it from there [

!?

:

There,

concerning ḥalla,

the primary

purpose of the ḥalla

is for eating,

and it is designated for burning only if it becomes impure. Therefore, this is not a reason to exempt the dough from the fundamental obligation of ḥalla. But

here,

concerning the firstborn,

the primary

purpose of the firstborn

is burning. Therefore, an animal purchased with seventh-year produce is fundamentally exempt from the firstborn obligation.

.

:

,

:

We already learned

in our Mishna

:

"

",

he may not give it to him unless the kohen redeems it

the kohen

in his presence,

.

:

,

that from what we learned in our Mishna and in the beraita, one can infer that

the kohanim were suspected concerning firstborn donkeys

of working with them without redemption. And we ask:

Is it obvious

!?

:

One might have said: This applies

only when one may not give the firstborn donkey to the kohen

,

—

But in an unspecified case, no—

and

this teaches us that

Rav Naḥman

who rules in this matter:

every priest

rules leniently, [that is, he rules that it is permitted to use the animal without redemption, because he reasons: Why should I redeem it? The redemption will belong to me, since I am a priest,] and therefore it is forbidden for any priest to give him a firstborn donkey.

Mishna:

With regard to one who sets aside the redemption of a firstborn donkey, and

before he gives it to a priest

the lamb

of redemption dies:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The Israelite

is responsible for it;

he must redeem it with another lamb in order to give it to a priest, because the law of the redemption of a firstborn donkey is

like that of the five sela of a firstborn son,

as explained below in the Mishna [51a]: One who sets aside the redemption money for his son and it is lost is responsible for it, and there it is derived from a verse.

And the Sages say: He is not responsible for it,

because the law of the redemption of a firstborn donkey is

like the

law of

the redemption of second tithe:

just as, with regard to second tithe, one is not responsible for it if it is lost after it has been set aside and before he has brought the redemption money to Jerusalem as prescribed, so too, with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey, if the redemption dies before it reaches a priest as prescribed, he is not responsible for it.

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok testified concerning the redemption of a firstborn donkey that died

before it reached a priest,

that there is

nothing at all for the priest—

that is, the Israelite is no longer required to redeem it in order to give it to a priest, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages that he is not responsible for it.

If the firstborn

of

the donkey

itself dies after the redemption and before he gives the redemption to a priest:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It must be buried,

the firstborn donkey, because since, according to Rabbi Eliezer, he is responsible for the lamb, it is as though he had not set it aside and the prohibition against deriving benefit from the firstborn donkey has not been removed

; and

the Israelite

is permitted to derive benefit from the lamb,

that is, he may use the lamb, since it is as though he had not set it aside.

And the Sages say:

The firstborn donkey

does not need to be buried,

because from the moment it was set aside the priests acquired it, and it has already been redeemed with a lamb, so its prohibition has been removed

; and

the

lamb

shall be given

to a priest,

because the priestly tribe acquired it from the moment of the redemption.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who sets aside the redemption of a firstborn donkey and it dies, Rabbi Eliezer says he is responsible for it, like the five sela of a firstborn son:

Rav Yosef explained:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer?

Because

it is written: “

You shall only redeem; you shall surely redeem

the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem.” The verse juxtaposes the redemption of the firstborn of an impure animal with the redemption of a human firstborn, in order to teach:

Just as one is responsible for a human firstborn,

even after he has set aside the five sela for his redemption,

so too, one is responsible for the firstborn of an impure animal,

even after he has set aside a lamb for its redemption.

He said;

Abaye raised an objection to him:

Since you juxtapose them, let us say:

Just as a human firstborn is permitted to derive benefit from

before redemption,

so too, the firstborn of an impure animal is permitted

to derive benefit before redemption. Yet Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the firstborn of an impure animal is forbidden to derive benefit before redemption. This is difficult!

And if you would say: So too,

that Rabbi Eliezer does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, but rather in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who permits deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey before its redemption—this cannot be said, for:

And did we not learn

in our Mishna:

If a firstborn donkey dies

before the redemption reaches the hand of a priest,

Rabbi Eliezer says: It must be buried;

and

what is the meaning of

“it must be buried”?

Is it

not

to indicate

that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, and therefore it must be buried? It is thus evident that before the redemption—that is, according to Rabbi Eliezer, before it reaches the priest—the firstborn donkey is forbidden to derive benefit. It is therefore clear that Rabbi Eliezer also agrees with Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids deriving benefit from it; if so, the same juxtaposition should lead us to forbid deriving benefit from a human firstborn.

And we answer: Rabbi Eliezer actually holds like Rabbi Shimon, who permits benefit from a firstborn donkey, and what we learned in our Mishna, “it must be buried,”

And we answer: Rabbi Eliezer actually agrees with Rabbi Shimon, who permits deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey, and what we learned in our Mishna, “it must be buried,”

does not

mean that it is because of the prohibition against deriving benefit. Rather,

it must be buried like a human firstborn,

because the juxtaposition made by the Torah between an impure animal and a human firstborn teaches that a firstborn donkey, before redemption, requires burial, just as a human firstborn requires burial.

We raise an objection to this: How can one derive from the juxtaposition to a human firstborn that a firstborn donkey requires burial?

Rather, [is it the case that]

only a human firstborn requires burial,

whereas an ordinary

human does not require burial? Are you saying that the Torah juxtaposed it with a human firstborn in order to derive the law of burial from a human firstborn, when the law of burial has no connection whatsoever to its firstborn status? This is difficult!

And furthermore, it is taught

And furthermore, it is taught explicitly

that Rabbi Eliezer forbids deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey before redemption. The difficulty thus returns: Why should we not juxtapose it with a human firstborn with regard to this matter?

As it is taught:

Rabbi Eliezer concedes that, in the case of an Israelite who has a doubtful firstborn donkey in his house, he sets aside a lamb for it,

in order to remove its prohibition—and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda above, 9b, that redemption is required to remove the prohibition—

and it is his,

since the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. It is thus clear that, according to Rabbi Eliezer, a firstborn donkey is forbidden to derive benefit from: otherwise, since it is his, he would not need to set aside a lamb, as explained above, 9b.

Rather, Rava said:

Rabbi Eliezer indeed forbids deriving benefit from it, and therefore it must be buried. And as for your difficulty—why do we not juxtapose the firstborn of an impure animal with a human firstborn to permit deriving benefit from it before redemption—:

Because

the verse says: “

You shall only redeem; you shall surely redeem

the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem,” and the word “only” comes to exclude:

I juxtaposed it with regard to redemption, but not with regard to anything else,

such as permitting deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey.

We learned there:

And the redemption of the son

Valuations

are assessed

at their time:

that is, one who undertakes the valuation of a person [“His valuation is upon me”] pays the valuation according to the amount fixed by the Torah [Leviticus 27] for the person being valued at the time of the valuation. If, at the time of the valuation, he assessed someone who was between one month and five years old, and the amount fixed for him by the Torah was five sela, but he delayed paying his valuation until after he had already become six years old, when the amount fixed by the Torah for one who assesses him is twenty shekels, nevertheless the one who undertook the valuation pays only according to the valuation of the person being valued at the time of the valuation.

And the redemption of a firstborn son

has its time

after thirty days,

as the Torah states [Numbers 18:16]: “And its redemption, from one month old, you shall redeem.”

And the time of

the redemption of a firstborn donkey

is

immediately

from the time it is born.

And we raise a difficulty:

But

is the time of

the redemption of a firstborn donkey

really

immediately!?

And we can juxtapose this with what we learned in a beraita:

With regard to valuations, the redemption of a firstborn son, naziriteship, and a firstborn donkey, there is no period of less than thirty days,

that is, one does not assess anyone who is less than thirty days old at all, one may not redeem a son before he is thirty days old, and one may not undertake naziriteship for a period of less than thirty days, and one may not redeem a firstborn donkey before it reaches thirty days—

And one may add

in all these cases

forever:

that is, one assesses any person at any age; one redeems a son from thirty days onward forever, and although one delays the time of redemption, he need not add anything; a person may undertake naziriteship for as long as he wishes; and he redeems his firstborn donkey with a lamb even if he delayed its redemption for a long time, and he need not add anything to the redemption—

We have thus learned that there is no redemption for a firstborn donkey before thirty days, contrary to what was explained in the earlier beraita, that the redemption of a firstborn donkey is immediately. This is difficult!

Rav Naḥman said;

he answered:

This that we learned in the first beraita, “And the redemption of a firstborn donkey is immediately,” does not mean that one is obligated to redeem it immediately. Rather, it

means that if he redeemed it

within thirty days, it is

redeemed,

but he has not fulfilled the fundamental mitzva of redemption.

We raise a difficulty against this interpretation:

By inference,

then we should learn from here

that if he redeemed his son

within thirty days, he

has not redeemed him,

for we learned: the redemption of a firstborn son is after thirty days, whereas the redemption of a firstborn donkey is immediately. Since “immediately” with regard to a firstborn donkey means that its redemption is valid after the fact immediately, it follows that with regard to the redemption of a firstborn son it is not valid even after the fact until after thirty days—

And it was stated

below, 49a:

One who redeems his son within thirty days—Rav says: His son is redeemed [and in this he disagrees with Shmuel, who said: His son is not redeemed]. If so, the difficulty is directed against Rav, who says that his son is redeemed!

And we answer:

Was it not stated concerning this

that we learned regarding that dispute between Rav and Shmuel:

Rava said: Everyone agrees—

whether according to Rav or according to Shmuel—that if the father of the firstborn said, “

From now

the redemption shall take effect,”

his son is not redeemed; they disagree only when he said, “The redemption shall take effect after thirty days,” and the money had been consumed and was no longer present in the priest’s possession when the time of redemption arrived—

and if so, Rav’s opinion is not contradicted by the beraita, which indicates that the son is not redeemed immediately even after the fact, since Rav too concedes this.