Parallel
בכורות 12:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
it may be that even according to the opinion of R. Simeon, [it is forbidden to redeem with it], since the text says in connection with them: ‘As the gazelle and the hart’. The question was raised: What is the ruling as regards redeeming with an animal bought with the fruits of the sabbatical year? With reference to an ass, distinctly a first-birth, there is no need for you to ask, since the Divine Law says [that the fruits of the sab batical year are]: For food, implying, but not to trade therewith. The question does arise regarding the uncertain [first-birth of an ass]. And according to the opinion of R. Simeon you need not ask, because he holds there is no uncertain [first-birth of an ass which requires redemption]. The question does arise, however, according to the opinion of R. Judah. What is the ruling? Since he sets aside a lamb and it remains for himself, we can apply to it [the designation]: ‘For food’? Or perhaps, since as long as the ass's prohibition is not canceled it is not permitted, it is like trading [with the fruits of the sabbatical year]? — Come and hear: For R. Hisda said: If an animal has been purchased with the fruits of the sabbatical year, we are not permitted to redeem with it an ass, distinctly a first-birth, but it is permitted to redeem therewith an uncertain first-birth. R. Hisda further said: An animal bought with the fruits of the sabbatical year is not liable to the law of the firstling. It is subject, however, to the law of the gifts [which are the prerogative of the priest]. It is not liable to the law of the firstling, because the Divine Law says: ‘For food’, implying, but not for burning. And it is subject to the law of gifts, for we can apply to it [the designation], ‘For food’. An objection was raised from the following: If one eats from the dough of the sabbatical year before the hallah has been taken, he incurs the guilt of death [at the hands of Heaven]. But why? Since, if it became levitically unclean, it is fit for burning, and the Divine Law says: ‘For food’, implying, but not for burning? — The case is different here, for it says: Throughout your generations. It has been taught to the same effect: Whence do we derive that if one eats from the dough of the sabbatical year before its hallah is taken, he incurs the guilt of death? Because it is said: ‘Throughout your generations’. But why not derive [that the firstling bought with the fruits of the sabbatical year is liable to the law of the firstling],from the case [of hallah]? — In the case of hallah [its separation] is mainly ‘for the eating [of the priests], [except when it receives uncleanness], but in the case of the firstling, [the portion for the altar] is mainly for burning. IF HE GAVE IT TO THE PRIEST etc. We have learnt here that which our Rabbis have taught: ‘If an Israelite had a first- birth of an ass in his house and the priest said to him, "Give it to me and I will redeem it", he should not give it to him, except [the priest] redeem it in his presence’. R. Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah the son of Abbuha: ‘This proves that the priests are suspected of neglecting the redemption of the first-births of asses’. Surely [this deduction] is evident? — You might have assumed that this is the case only where he is known to be suspected, but generally we do not suspect the priest. He therefore informs us that he usually decides that it is a legitimate act. MISHNAH. IF ONE SETS ASIDE [A LAMB] FOR THE REDEMPTION OF THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS AND IT DIED, R. ELIEZER SAYS: HE IS RESPONSIBLE AS IS THE CASE WITH THE FIVE SELA'S IN CONNECTION WITH THE REDEMPTION OF THE FIRST-BORN. BUT THE SAGES SAY: HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE, AS IS THE CASE WITH THE REDEMPTION OF THE SECOND [YEAR'S] TITHING. R. JOSHUA AND R. ZADOK TESTIFIED CONCERNING THE REDEMPTION OF THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS WHICH DIED THAT THE PRIEST RECEIVES NOTHING [IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES] — IF THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS DIED [AFTER THE LAMB FOR REDEMPTION HAD BEEN SET ASIDE], R. ELIEZER SAYS: IT SHALL BE BURIED, BUT THE LAMB MAY BE USED, WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY: IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE BURIED AND THE LAMB BELONGS TO THE PRIEST. GEMARA. Said R. Joseph: What is the reason of R. Eliezer? — Because Scripture writes: Nevertheless the first-born of man shalt thou surely redeem [and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem]. Just as in the case of the first-born of a man, he is responsible [if the redemption money is lost], similarly, in the case of the first-birth of an unclean animal, he is responsible [if the redemption lamb dies] — Said Abaye to him: [If the comparison be correct, then] as in the case of the first-born of a man, it is permitted to benefit [from his work before redemption], so in the case of an unclean animal, it should be permitted to benefit from it. And should you assume that this is so, have we not learnt in a Mishnah: IF THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS DIES, R. ELIEZER SAYS: IT SHALL BE BURIED? What does he mean by the phrase IT SHALL BE BURIED? Does he not mean that it is forbidden to use it? — No, It means,it shall be buried as in the case of the first-born of a man. But [am I to infer that on]y] a first-born of a man requires burial, but that a plain Israelite does not require burial? And moreover, it has been taught: R. Eliezer agrees that if an Israelite has an uncertain first-birth of an ass in his house, he sets aside a lamb on its behalf and it is his? — Rather, said Raba; [the following is the reason of R. Eliezer]. Scripture says: Nevertheless the first-born of man shalt thou surely redeem. Scripture implies, ‘I have compared [an unclean animal with the first-birth of a man] in connection with [the responsibility for] redemption, but not as regards any other matter. We have learnt elsewhere [in a Mishnah]: Valuations are according to their period; the redemption of the first-born takes place after thirty days and the redemption of the first-birth of an ass takes place immediately. But does the redemption of the first-birth of an ass take place immediately? Against this I quote the following in contradiction: The period of valuation or redemption of the first-born, or Naziriteship, or redemption of the first-birth of an ass, is in no case less than thirty days. But we can extend the time in each of these cases indefinitely! — Said R. from it, but owing to the fact that an unclean animal is compared with the first-born of man; and usually a dead first-born receives burial. Nahman: [The statement above, that the redemption of a first-birth takes place immediately means] to inform us that if he redeemed it, it is redeemed. This would imply that in the case of his first-born son, if he redeemed him within the thirty days he is not redeemed? Has it not been stated: If one redeems his son within the thirty days, Rab holds: his son is redeemed? — But surely has it not been stated in this connection: Raba said: All authorities agree [that if he said that the first-born should be redeemed] from now [before the expiry of the thirty days], then his son is not redeemed?28
—