Bekhorot 12b — the Talmud in English

Even

for Rabbi Shimon

—who permits deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey, and with regard to whose redemption it is not relevant to deliberate on the principle that one prohibition takes effect upon another—

also

redemption may not be performed with disqualified consecrated animals, because

“a deer and a gazelle” are written concerning them.

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

a firstborn donkey

with an animal of the Sabbatical year,

that is, with an animal purchased with produce of the Sabbatical year, which too becomes subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical year?

The Gemara explains the uncertainty:

A firstborn donkey

certainly [that there is no uncertainty regarding its obligation of redemption]

there is no uncertainty concerning the obligation to redeem it]

is not a matter about which you should raise the question,

for one does not redeem it with an animal of the Sabbatical year, since “The Sabbath produce of the land shall be yours

to eat,”

the Merciful One said [Leviticus 25:6],

,

and not

were the produce of the Sabbatical year designated

for commerce;

and this person who redeems a firstborn donkey and must give it to a priest is found to be purchasing with them a donkey that is not fit for eating.

When you should raise the question,

the dilemma applies only when he redeems with it a

doubtful

firstborn donkey—for example, its mother gave birth to a male and a female, and it is not known which was born first—and as was explained in our Mishna, he sets aside a lamb in order to remove its prohibition, and it remains his.

The Gemara further explains:

And according to Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey is permitted,

you should not raise the question, for

indeed

he does not have

any obligation of redemption at all for a

doubtful

case, as was explained in the Gemara above, 9b.

When you should raise the question according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who requires redemption in a doubtful case in order to remove the prohibition, it is concerning this that you should raise the question:

what

is the law—can he redeem it with it or not? The sides of the uncertainty are:

Shall we say:

since he sets aside a lamb and

does not give it to a priest, but

it remains his,

if so,

“to eat”

we apply to it.

Or perhaps: Since as long as he has not removed its prohibition it is not permitted, [since he requires redemption in order to remove the prohibition],

since he requires redemption in order to remove the prohibition],

it is like commerce

and is forbidden.

Come and hear: For Rav Hisda said:

With an animal of the Sabbatical year one does not redeem the definite case, but one redeems the doubtful case.

And

further

Rav Hisda

said:

An animal of the Sabbatical year,

pure,

is exempt from the firstborn offering, but is obligated in the gifts,

the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw, for a priest, like other animals.

And we explain:

It is exempt from the firstborn offering

because

“to eat,”

the Merciful One said

with regard to the produce of the Sabbatical year,

and not for burning,

whereas the sacrificial fats of the firstborn are burned upon the altar.

And it is obligated in the gifts

because

“

to eat”

we apply to it,

since the gifts are given to a priest for eating.

He raised an objection

from what we learned in tractate Sheviit 9:9:

One who eats from the dough of the Sabbatical year before its

challah has been separated is liable to death,

like anyone who eats from dough whose challah has not been separated.

And why

is dough of the Sabbatical year obligated in challah? But it is stated:

Since, if it becomes impure [if the challah becomes impure],

if the ḥalla becomes impure]

it is destined for burning,

if so,

“to eat,”

the Merciful One said, and not for burning,

and the dough of the Sabbatical year should be exempt from challah!?

And we answer:

Here it is different

with regard to challah,

for it is written

concerning it [Numbers 15:21]: “From the first of your kneading bowls you shall give a gift to the Lord

throughout your generations,”

and we learn that even dough of the Sabbatical year is obligated in challah.

It was taught likewise:

From where is it derived that one who eats from the dough of the Sabbatical year before its challah has been separated is liable to death? As it is stated

“throughout your generations.”

And we object:

And let us learn from it

[let us learn the firstborn offering in the Sabbatical year from challah in the Sabbatical year], to make it obligated in the firstborn offering just as it is obligated in challah!?

And we answer:

There,

with regard to challah,

the primary purpose

of the challah

is for eating,

and only if it becomes impure is it destined for burning; therefore this is not a reason not to obligate the dough in challah from the outset. But

here,

with regard to the firstborn offering, indeed

the primary purpose

of the firstborn

is burning;

therefore an animal of the Sabbatical year is fundamentally exempt from the firstborn offering.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he gave it to a priest,

the priest is not permitted to retain it until he sets aside a sheep in its place:

We already learned

in our Mishna

that which the Sages taught:

An Israelite who had a firstborn donkey in his house, and the priest said to him, “

Give it to me, and I shall redeem it,”

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

the kohen

in his presence,

because priests are suspected of using them without redemption, and before the firstborn donkey is redeemed it is forbidden to derive benefit from it.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

This is to say,

from what we learned in our Mishna and in the beraita, one may learn that

the priests have been suspected with regard to firstborn donkeys

of working with them without redemption. And we object: But it is

obvious

that this is heard from the Mishna and from the beraita; and what did Rav Naḥman come to teach us!?

And we answer:

It might have entered your mind: This applies

that one may not give him the firstborn donkey only

where we have established that he is called

that is, the priest is established for us as one who is suspected, because we saw him suspected in this matter—

But in an unspecified case, no —

And

this teaches us

Rav Naḥman

who rules in it

every priest

permissively, [that is, he rules that it is permitted to use it without redemption, because he reasons: Why should I redeem it? After all, the redemption will be mine, since I am a priest], and therefore it is forbidden for every priest to give him a firstborn donkey.

он разрешает пользоваться им без выкупа, поскольку считает: зачем мне выкупать его, если выкуп будет моим, ведь я коэн], и поэтому любому коэну запрещено отдавать осла-первенца.

Mishna:

One who separates the redemption of a firstborn donkey, and

before he gives it to a priest

the redemption lamb dies,

the lamb of the redemption:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The Israelite

is liable for it

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

like the five sela of a son,

a firstborn, as was explained in the Mishna below [51a]: One who separates the redemption money of his son and it is lost is liable for it; and there it is derived from a verse.

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

because the law of the redemption of a firstborn donkey is

like

the law of

the redemption of second tithe,

and just as, with second tithe, he is not liable for it if it was lost after its separation and before he brought the redemption money to Jerusalem as commanded, so too, with the redemption of a firstborn donkey, if the redemption lamb died before it came into the hand of a priest as commanded, he is not liable for it.

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

before it came into the hand of a priest,

that there is not here

anything at all for the priest,

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

If the firstborn

of the

donkey

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

Rabbi Eliezer says: It must be buried,

the firstborn donkey, because since, according to Rabbi Eliezer, he is liable for the lamb, it is as though he did not separate it, and the prohibition against benefit from the firstborn donkey was not removed

; and

the Israelite

is permitted to benefit from the lamb,

meaning, he is permitted to use the lamb, since this is like one who did not separate it.

And the Sages say:

The firstborn donkey

does not need to be buried,

because from the time of its separation the priests acquired it, and it has already been redeemed with a lamb, and its prohibition has been removed

; and

the

lamb

shall be given

to a priest,

for the priestly tribe already acquired it from the time of the redemption.

Gemara:

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

Said

—explained

Rav Yosef: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer?

Because

it is written: “

You shall surely redeem

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

Just as the firstborn of man is liable for it,

even after he has separated five sela for his redemption,

so too, the firstborn of an impure animal is liable for it,

even after he has separated a lamb for its redemption.

Said

—he raised an objection

to him, Abaye:

Since you compare them, let us say:

Just as the firstborn of man is permitted to benefit from

before redemption,

so too, the firstborn of an impure animal is permitted

to benefit from before redemption. But Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the firstborn of an impure animal is forbidden to benefit from before redemption!?

And if you would say, so too,

that Rabbi Eliezer did not hold like Rabbi Yehuda, but like Rabbi Shimon, who permits benefit from a firstborn donkey before redemption—this cannot be said, for:

And did we not learn

in our Mishna

if a firstborn donkey dies

before the redemption came into 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 say

that it is forbidden to benefit from it, and therefore it must be buried? It follows that before the redemption—that is, according to Rabbi Eliezer, before it came into the hand of a priest—the firstborn donkey is forbidden to benefit from! It is thus clear that Rabbi Eliezer too holds like Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids benefit from it, and if so, we should likewise forbid benefit from the firstborn of man on the basis of the comparison.

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,”

you should

not

interpret as being because of the prohibition against benefit, but rather

it must be buried like the firstborn of man,

because the comparison that the Torah made between an impure animal and the firstborn of man was effective to teach that a firstborn donkey—before redemption—requires burial like the firstborn of man, which requires burial.

And we challenge this: How is it possible to learn from the comparison to the firstborn of man that a firstborn donkey requires burial!?

Rather [is it not that]

разве

it is the firstborn man who requires burial,

whereas a

non-firstborn man does not require burial, so that you say: The Torah compared it to the firstborn of man in order to learn the law of burial from the firstborn of man, yet the law of burial is not connected to its being firstborn at all!?

And furthermore, it is taught

explicitly that Rabbi Eliezer forbids benefit from a firstborn donkey before redemption, and the difficulty again arises: Why should we not compare it to the firstborn of man with regard to this matter?

For it is taught:

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

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

and it is his,

because the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. It is thus clear that, according to Rabbi Eliezer, a firstborn donkey is forbidden to benefit from; for if not, since it is his, he would not need to separate a lamb, as explained above on 9b.

Rather, Rava said:

Rabbi Eliezer indeed forbids benefit from it, and therefore it must be buried. And as for what is difficult for you—why do we not compare the firstborn of an impure animal to the firstborn of man and permit benefit from it before redemption—:

Because the verse says: “ You shall surely redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem,” and the word “surely” comes to exclude: I compared it to it with regard to redemption, but not with regard to anything else,

such as permitting benefit from a firstborn donkey.

We learned there:

You shall only redeem; you shall surely redeem

Valuations

are valued

at their time,

meaning, one who takes upon himself the valuation of a person [“His valuation is upon me”—that is, “I undertake his valuation”], the payment of the valuation is according to the rate established by the Torah [Leviticus 27] for the person valued at the time of the valuation. If, at the time of the valuation, he valued one who was from one month old until five years old, and the rate established for him by the Torah is five sela, but he delayed paying his valuation until after he had already become six years old, when the rate established by the Torah for valuing him is twenty shekels, nevertheless the one who made the valuation pays only according to the value of the person valued at the time of the valuation.

And the redemption of the son

its time is

after thirty days,

for the Torah said [Numbers 18:16]: “And its redeemed one, 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 the time of

And we challenge:

And

if the time of

the redemption of a firstborn donkey

is immediately!?

And we cast against it

from what we learned in a baraita:

For valuations, for the redemption of the son, for naziriteship, and for a firstborn donkey, there is no [valid time] before thirty days,

meaning, one does not make a valuation at all of someone who is less than thirty days old,

and one does not redeem the son before he is thirty days old, and a person cannot accept naziriteship upon himself for less than thirty days,

and one does not redeem the firstborn donkey before it reaches thirty days—

And they add in all these until the end of time, meaning, one makes a valuation of every person, whatever his age; one redeems the son from thirty days onward forever, and although he delays the time of redemption he need not add more; a person may accept naziriteship upon himself for as long as he wishes; and he redeems his firstborn donkey with a lamb even if he greatly delayed its redemption, and need not add to its redemption—

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:

We have learned that there is no redemption of a firstborn donkey before thirty days, unlike what is explained in the earlier baraita, that the redemption of a firstborn donkey is immediate!?

Said —he answered Rav Naḥman: The statement that we learned in the first baraita, “And the redemption of a firstborn donkey is immediate,” does not mean that he is obligated to redeem it immediately, but rather to say that if he redeemed it,

within thirty days, it is

redeemed,

but he has not fulfilled the principal mitzva of redemption.

То, что мы учили в первой барайте: «выкуп осла-первенца производится сразу», не означает, что человек обязан немедленно его выкупить. Это

means that if he redeemed it

within thirty days, it is

And we challenge this interpretation:

By implication,

if so, we learn from here that if he redeemed his son within thirty days, he has not redeemed him,

for we learned: The redemption of the son is after thirty days, while the redemption of a firstborn donkey is immediate; and since “immediate” with regard to the firstborn donkey means that its redemption is valid after the fact immediately, it follows by implication that with regard to the redemption of the 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 disputes Samuel, who said: His son is not redeemed]. And if it is as you say, this is difficult for Rav, who says that his son is redeemed!?

And we answer:

Was it not stated concerning it,

did we not learn concerning that dispute between Rav and Samuel:

Rava said: Everyone agrees—

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

From now

the redemption shall take effect,”

his son is not redeemed,

and 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 is not contradicted by the baraita, in which it is explained that his son is not redeemed immediately even after the fact, for Rav too concedes this.

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—

Следовательно, Раву не трудно возразить из барайты, в которой сказано, что сын не выкуплен сразу даже задним числом: Рав также признает это.

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.