MISHNAH. 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,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠ