בכורות 12 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH. WE DO NOT REDEEM A FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS EITHER WITH A CALF, A BEAST OF CHASE, AN ANIMAL RITUALLY KILLED, A TREFAH, KIL'AYIM OR A KOY. R. ELIEZER PERMITS HOWEVER [REDEMPTION] WITH KIL'AYIM BECAUSE IT IS ALSO DESCRIBED AS A LAMB. BUT HE FORBIDS WITH A KOY, BECAUSE ITS NATURE IS DOUBTFUL. IF HE GAVE [THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS] ITSELF TO THE PRIEST, THE LATTER MUST NOT RETAIN IT, UNLESS HE SETS ASIDE A LAMB IN ITS PLACE. GEMARA. Whose opinion does the Mishnah represent? It is that of Ben Bag Bag. For it has been taught: We read here, [in connection with the redemption of a first-birth], the word, lamb, and we read elsewhere, [with reference to the Paschal-offering] the word, lamb, just as there [Scripture] excludes all those named [in the Mishnah above as unsuitable for the Paschal-offering], so here also, it excludes all those named [as unsuitable for the object of redeeming]. [Now you might assume that] just as the Paschal-offering must be a male, without a blemish, and a year old, similarly here, [in connection with the redemption of the first-birth of an ass] it must be a male, without a blemish, and a year old. The text therefore states: ‘Thou shalt redeem’, [and repeats], ‘Thou shalt redeem’ to include [even other than a male etc.]. Now if the repetition: ‘Thou shalt redeem’, ‘Thou shalt redeem’, has for its purpose to include, then why not include also all those [animals named in the Mishnah, as being unsuitable to redeem]? — If this were so, what is the use of [the analogy above between the words], ‘lamb’, ‘lamb’? The question was raised: What is the ruling as regards redeeming a first-birth with a ben peku'ah? According to the opinion of R. Meir, there is no need for you to ask, for since R. Meir said: ‘A ben peku'ah requires ritual slaughter’, it is a perfect lamb. But the question does arise according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that its mother's slaughtering makes it permitted to be eaten [without slaughtering] ‘so that it is like flesh in the pot. Or are we to say that since at the moment it runs and walks, we can describe it as a lamb? — Mar Zutra said: We do not redeem [with it]. Said R. Ashi to Mar Zutra: What is your reason? Is it because you infer this from the Paschal-offering, [which cannot be a hen peku'ah]? Then why not say also, that as in the case of the Paschal-offering it must be a male, without a blemish, and a year old, so here [the animal for redeeming] must be a male, without a blemish and a year old? — [The text]: ‘Thou shalt redeem’ [and its repetition], ‘Thou shalt redeem’, includes [even other than a male etc.]. But if the repetition: ‘Thou shalt redeem’, ‘Thou shalt redeem’, has for its object to include, then why not include also ben peku'ah? If so, what need is there [for the analogy above derived from the words], ‘lamb’, ‘lamb’? The question was raised. What is the ruling as regards redeeming the first-birth of an ass with a nidmeh? You cannot ask according to R. Eliezer, for since according to him we may redeem with kil'ayim, how much more so with a nidmeh? The question does arise, however, according to the opinion of the Rabbis: Do we say that we are forbidden to redeem with kil'ayim, but we may redeem with a nidmeh? Or perhaps, there is no difference, [and in both cases we are forbidden to redeem with them]? Come and hear. ‘If a cow gave birth to something looking like a kid, we do not redeem [with it]. From this we infer that if a ewe gave birth to what looks like a kid, we do redeem [with it]. Now whose opinion does this represent? Shall I assume it is the opinion of R. Eliezer? But do we not also redeem with kil'ayim [according to him]? You must then say that it is the opinion of the Rabbis! — No. You can still maintain that it is the opinion of R. Eliezer; and he teaches us this very thing, that if a cow gave birth to what looked like a kid, we do not redeem with it, and that you should not say, ‘decide according to the offspring itself’, and this is a genuine kid, but we rather say, ‘decide according to its mother’, and therefore it is a calf. Come and hear: For Rabbah b. Samuel learnt: What is kil'ayim? A ewe which gave birth to something that looked like a kid, though its father was a sheep. If the father was a sheep, is it kil'ayim? Is it not nidmeh? — Rather then put it in this way: What is that which is like kil'ayim, so that the Rabbis have placed it on a par with kil'ayim? A ewe which gave birth to what looked like a kid, though its father was a sheep. Now, for what purpose [does the Baraitha say that we liken nidmeh to kil'ayim]? If in respect of dedicating it as a sacrifice, surely [this is not necessary, since] from the text from which we derive the exclusion of kil'ayim [as unsuitable for a sacrifice on the altar], we also derive the exclusion of nidmeh. For it has been taught [Scripture says]: When a bullock or a sheep, intimating the exclusion of kil'ayim; ‘or a goat’ intimates the exclusion of nidmeh. Is it then in order [to exclude nidmeh] from the rule of the firstling? Surely the Divine Law says: But the firstling of an ox implying [that it is not subject to the law of the firstling] until the father is an ox and the offspring is an ox, [obviously excluding nidmeh]. Is it then from the rule of tithing [of animals]? The rule for [both nidmeh and kil'ayim] is expressly derived from the analogy of the words, ‘under’, ‘under’ [mentioned In both cases]. [You must say that it is] with regard to the first-birth of an ass! — No. [The comparison of nidmeh with kil'ayim] can still refer to tithing, and we suppose to a case where the nidmeh possesses certain marks [similar to its mother]. I might in this case assume that we draw an analogy between the ‘passing’ mentioned [in connection with tithing] and the ‘passing’ [mentioned] in connection with a firstling. Therefore, we are told that we rather draw the analogy between ‘under’ mentioned here and ‘under’ mentioned in connection with consecrated sacrifices. The question was raised: What is the ruling as regards [redeeming the first-birth of an ass] with dedicated sacrifices which became unfit [for the altar]? This question does not arise if we accept the opinion of R. Simeon, for since he holds that it is permitted to be used [before its redemption], it is unconsecrated. The question does arise, however, according to the opinion of R. Judah, who says that it is forbidden to be used [before its redemption]. What is the ruling? Since it is forbidden to be used, [do we apply the principle that] one prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists; or perhaps, since [the lamb] does not assume any sanctity, do we say that the redemption has the purpose only of releasing the ass from a mere prohibition? — Said R. Mari the son of Kahana, And is this which is written in connection with these, As the gaze lie and the hart’!, a small matter? [Consequently] just as we do not redeem [the first-birth of an ass] with the gazelle or the hart, [being beasts], similarly, we do not redeem with dedicated sacrifices which became unfit for the altar! Now that you have arrived at this conclusion,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵃnote:Even a lamb.
^ᵇnote:A lamb born from the coupling of a he-goat and a ewe.
^ᶜnote:The offspring of a he.goat and. a hind. There is, therefore, a doubt whether it is to be considered an animal or a beast.
^ᵈnote:Thou shalt redeem with a lamb. (Ex. XIII, 13).
^ᵉnote:Your lamb shall be without a blemish, a male of the first year. (Ex. XII, 5).
^ᶠnote:A calf and a beast are excluded, because the text says: From the sheep and goats. A ritually slaughtered animal is excluded, because the killing must be specifically for the Passover, and kil'ayim is forbidden because a Paschal lamb must be suitable for offering on the altar.
^ᵍnote:An animal taken alive out of the slaughtered mother's womb.
^ʰnote:It is on a par with a ritually slaughtered animal, and, like the latter, we are not permitted to redeem with it a first-birth of an ass.
^ⁱnote:And all those cases enumerated in the Mishnah do not possess the equivalent value of the ass, for otherwise it would be permissible, as mentioned above, to redeem even with boiled herbs.
^ʲnote:And since something must be excluded, we rather include ben peku'ah as unsuitable to redeem with, than the case of a female etc., since, after all, the latter are lambs, whereas hen peku'ah is like a ritually slaughtered animal.
^ᵏnote:An animal suspected to be a hybrid or looking like one. And in this case, although its sire is a ram and its mother a ewe, the offspring looks like some other species.
^ˡnote:If the offspring born from two different kinds of animals is permitted, how much more so this one.
^ᵐnote:For we say it is a calf, with which, as the Mishnah states above, it is forbidden to redeem.
^ⁿnote:As stated in the Mishnah above.
^ᵒnote:Therefore we see that according to the Rabbis it is forbidden to redeem with a nidmeh.
^ᵖnote:But not to deduce therefrom the ruling as regards redemption with offspring which looked like a kid given birth to by a ewe.
^ᵠnote:That nidmeh may not be offered up on the altar as kil'ayim.
^ʳnote:Lev. XXII, 27.
^ˢnote:Num. XVIII, 17.
^ᵗnote:It says in connection with dedicated sacrifices: Then it shall be seven days under its dam (Lev. XXII, 27). And in connection with the tithing of animals the text says: Even of whatsoever passeth under the rod (Lev. XXVII, 32). Just as nidmeh and kil'ayim are invalid to be brought as offerings in the case of consecrated sacrifices, they are similarly unsuitable in connection with the tithing of animals.
^ᵘnote:And that nidmeh is unsuitable to redeem with, as is the case of kil'ayim, which answers the above query.
^ᵛnote:There is no proof from here that the first-birth of an ass can be redeemed with a nidmeh.
^ʷnote:‘Even whatsoever passeth under the rod’, the text in connection with tithing and the text in connection with the firstling, ‘That thou shalt cause to pass (set apart)’. As in the latter case, if it possesses some marks similar to its mother it is liable to the law of the firstling, so too with reference to its tithing.
^ˣnote:In the teaching reported by Rabbah b. Samuel.
^ʸnote:That we exclude nidmeh from animal tithing, comparing it with kil'ayim, even in such circumstance.
^ᶻnote:And had been redeemed. Such an animal even after redemption retains some sanctity in that it may not be used for work and shearing.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., the first-birth of the ass. It can therefore be redeemed, for we apply here the principle that one prohibition cannot take legal hold where another already exists, as there exists no prohibition in the case of a first-birth.
^ᵃᵇnote:The prohibition attaching to the first-birth of an ass cannot be transferred to a dedicated animal unfit for the altar which is liable to the prohibitions regarding its shearing and working with it.
^ᵃᶜnote:As a result of the redemption of the first-birth of an ass.
^ᵃᵈnote:In order to render it permissible to be used, but not that its sanctity shall fall upon the object with which it is redeemed.
^ᵃᵉnote:Deut. XII, 22 with reference to sacrifices which became unfit for the altar.
^ᵃᶠnote:Being beasts of chase, v. Mishnah.

²it 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^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ

^ᵃᵍnote:For although it is permitted according to his view to benefit from the first-birth of an ass, we are, nevertheless, not allowed to redeem it with a dedicated animal which became unfit for the altar.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. XXV, 6.
^ᵃⁱnote:Redeeming the first-birth with an animal bought with the fruits of the sabbatical year is like trading with sabbatical fruits, and, moreover, while the fruits of the sabbatical year may be eaten by means of this redemption, he acquires an ass which cannot be eaten.
^ᵃʲnote:An uncertain birth, e.g. where its mother gave birth to a male and a female and there was a doubt as to whether the male was born first. The Mishnah states above that in such a case, a lamb is set aside and it remains for himself. And according to R. Simeon, since he permits a first-birth of an ass to be used, (v. supra p. 9b), there is no need to set aside a lamb to release the first. birth from any prohibition attaching to it.
^ᵃᵏnote:Unless he sets aside a lamb for redemption.
^ᵃˡnote:The priestly share consisting of the shoulder, jaw and the maw. V. Deut. XVIII, 3.
^ᵃᵐnote:And if it be liable to the law of the firstling, certain portions are burnt on the altar.
^ᵃⁿnote:Sc. the animal.
^ᵃᵒnote:The priestly share of the dough; v. Num. XV, 18ff.
^ᵃᵖnote:Should the dough be liable to hallah on the sabbatical year?
^ᵃᵠnote:Num. XV, 21, implying that even on the sabbatical year, hallah must be given.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., why do we not make an exception in the application of the text ‘For food’, implying, ‘but not for burning’, with reference to a firstling, as we do in the case of hallah.
^ᵃˢnote:And since it is burnt, we apply the text: ‘For food’, with its implication, ‘but not for burning’; whereas it is otherwise In connection with hallah.
^ᵃᵗnote:Since the Mishnah says that he should not give the first-birth to the ‘priest unless the latter redeems it before him.
^ᵃᵘnote:Where we have reason to suspect him. Or, where we actually saw him working the firstling of an ass prior to its redemption, either wilfully or through ignorance of the law on the matter.
^ᵃᵛnote:Not to set aside a lamb to redeem it, as he argues that in any case the lamb remains with him.
^ᵃʷnote:Where if the redemption money is lost, it is not replaced.
^ᵃˣnote:For as R. Eliezer maintains that the Israelite is responsible, it is as if the lamb had not yet been set aside and the Israelite may therefore benefit from it. But the first-birth must be buried, since it is forbidden to use it, as is the case when alive.
^ᵃʸnote:Num. XVIII, 15.
^ᵃᶻnote:Not because it is forbidden to benefit
^ᵇᵃnote:And although with reference to an ass, distinctly a first-birth, he maintains that so long as the lamb is not in the possession of the priest it is not redeemed, he agrees with regard to an uncertain first-birth that he need not give its redemption to the priest but sets aside a lamb, thus implying that the first-birth of an ass is forbidden to be used otherwise. And since we do not compare an unclean animal with the first-born of man in this respect, the same should apply in respect of his responsibility for it. The question therefore remains, what is the reason of R. Eliezer in the opening passage of our Mishnah?
^ᵇᵇnote:The limiting word ‘nevertheless’, indicates that only with regard to the responsibility for redemption is an unclean animal compared with the firstborn of a man.
^ᵇᶜnote:Var. lec.: It has been taught, as the statement which follows is not a Mishnah but a Baraitha.
^ᵇᵈnote:Between the ages of one month and five years, if one said, ‘I vow my valuation’ and he delayed till the age of six, when there is an increased valuation, he still only gives the original valuation, as laid down in Scripture. Some maintain that since a child of that age is not legally permitted to dedicate its valuation to the sanctuary, therefore it means hare that somebody else said, ‘I vow the child's valuation upon myself’.
^ᵇᵉnote:The unspecified vow of a Nazirite, i.e., one bound by a vow to abstain from wine etc., is at least for thirty days.
^ᵇᶠnote:With reference to valuations, as the ages increase the valuation will correspondingly increase, as mentioned in Scripture. A Nazirite also can vow for a period of years and the first-birth of an ass may be redeemed even after the lapse of years and it is not necessary to give more because of the delay.
^ᵇᵍnote:Although he has not carried out properly the religious command of redemption, the animal is redeemed.
^ᵇʰnote:And the difference of opinion only arises when he said, ‘I give the money now but its redemption shall only take effect after thirty days’.