Bekhorot 12aבכורות י״ב א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bekhorot 12a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
12aי״ב א
1 א

מתני' אין פודין לא בעגל ולא בחיה לא בשחוטה ולא בטריפה ולא בכלאים ולא בכוי ורבי אליעזר מתיר בכלאים מפני שהוא שה ואוסר בכוי מפני שהוא ספק נתנו לכהן אין הכהן רשאי לקיימו עד שיפריש שה תחתיו:

mishna One may not redeem a firstborn donkey, neither with a calf, nor with an undomesticated animal, nor with a slaughtered animal, nor with a tereifa, nor with a hybrid of a sheep and a goat, nor with a koy, which is an animal with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is domesticated or undomesticated. And Rabbi Eliezer deems it permitted to redeem a firstborn donkey with a hybrid of a sheep and a goat, because it is a lamb, i.e., that hybrid has the status of a lamb, but prohibits redeeming it with a koy, because its status is uncertain. If one gave the firstborn donkey to a priest, the priest may not keep it unless he first designates a lamb in its stead for redemption.

2 ב

גמ׳ מתני' מני בן בג בג היא דתניא בן בג בג אומר נאמר כאן שה ונאמר להלן שה מה להלן פרט לכל השמות הללו אף כאן פרט לכל השמות הללו

GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the first clause of the mishna? It is the opinion of ben Bag Bag, as it is taught in a baraita that ben Bag Bag says: It is stated here, with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey: “And you shall redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb” (Exodus 13:13), and it is stated there, with regard to the Paschal offering: “In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb” (Exodus 12:3). By inference, just as there, with regard to the Paschal offering, the Torah excludes all of these names, i.e., all of these types of animals listed in the mishna, from being fit for sacrifice as a Paschal offering, so too here, with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey, the Torah excludes all of these names.

3 ג

אי מה להלן זכר תמים ובן שנה אף כאן זכר תמים ובן שנה ת"ל תפדה תפדה ריבה

The Gemara challenges: If this halakha is derived from the Paschal offering, then perhaps just as there, the Paschal offering must be a lamb that is male, unblemished, and in its first year (Exodus 12:5), so too here, the lamb must be male, unblemished, and in its first year. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “You shall redeem” (Exodus 13:13), and: “You shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20). This repetition serves to include female lambs, blemished lambs, and lambs that are beyond their first year.

4 ד

אי תפדה תפדה ריבה אפי' כל הני נמי א"כ שה שה מאי אהני ליה

The Gemara asks: If the repetition of the terms “you shall redeem,” “you shall redeem,” serves to include, then even all of these types of animals that are listed in the mishna should be included. The Gemara answers: If so, what purpose does the verbal analogy of “lamb,” “lamb,” between the firstborn donkey and the Paschal offering serve?

5 ה

איבעי' להו מהו לפדות בבן פקועה אליבא דר' מאיר לא תיבעי לך דכיון דאר"מ בן פקועה טעון שחיטה שה מעליא הוא אלא כי תבעי לך אליבא דרבנן דאמרי שחיטת אמו מטהרתו

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey with a lamb that was removed alive from its mother’s womb after the mother was ritually slaughtered [ben pekua]? The Gemara explains the question: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir you should not raise the dilemma, as since Rabbi Meir says that a ben pekua requires ritual slaughter, it is considered a full-fledged lamb. Rather, you should raise the dilemma according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the slaughter of its mother renders the fetus permitted for consumption, as it is considered part of the mother, which was already slaughtered.

6 ו

כבישרא בדיקולא דמי או דלמא כיון דהשתא מיהא רהיט ואזיל שה קרינא ביה

Is it considered like meat that is placed in a pot, i.e., as if it had been slaughtered, in which case it is included in the prohibition against redeeming a firstborn donkey with a slaughtered animal? Or perhaps since now, in any event, it runs along, we call it a lamb.

7 ז

מר זוטרא אמר אין פודין ורב אשי אמר פודין

The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to this issue: Mar Zutra said that one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with a ben pekua, and Rav Ashi said that one may redeem with it.

8 ח

א"ל רב אשי למר זוטרא מאי דעתיך דילפת מפסח אי מה להלן זכר תמים ובן שנה אף כאן זכר תמים ובן שנה תפדה תפדה ריבה

Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: What is the reason for your opinion? Is it because you derive the halakhot of redeeming a firstborn donkey from the Paschal offering, and a ben pekua is unfit for sacrifice as a Paschal offering? If so, just as there, with regard to the Paschal offering, it must be male, unblemished, and in its first year, so too here, the lamb must be male, unblemished, and in its first year. Mar Zutra responded: The repetition of the terms “you shall redeem,” “you shall redeem,” included a lamb that is not male, unblemished, or in its first year.

9 ט

אי תפדה תפדה ריבה אפילו בן פקועה נמי א"כ שה שה מאי אהני ליה

Rav Ashi said to him: If the repetition of the terms “you shall redeem,” “you shall redeem,” included additional types of lambs, even a ben pekua is included. Mar Zutra responded: If so, what purpose does the verbal analogy of “lamb,” “lamb,” between the firstborn donkey and the Paschal offering serve? It must be that the term “you shall redeem” does not serve to include those animals.

10 י

איבעיא להו מהו לפדות בנדמה אליבא דרבי אליעזר לא תיבעי לך השתא בכלאים פרקינן בנדמה מיבעיא

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey with a lamb whose parents are both sheep but it resembles another animal such as a goat? The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, do not raise the dilemma, as now that it is established that he holds that one may redeem with a hybrid of a goat and a sheep, with regard to a lamb that resembles a goat but is not from a hybrid, is it necessary to state that one may redeem with it?

11 יא

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבנן בכלאים הוא דלא פרקינן בנדמה פרקינן או דלמא ל"ש

Rather, when should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with a hybrid of a sheep and a goat. Do they hold that one does not redeem with a hybrid of a goat and a sheep, but one does redeem with a lamb that resembles another animal? Or perhaps there is no difference between them?

12 יב

ת"ש פרה שילדה מין עז אין פודין הא רחל שילדה מין עז פודין מני אילימא ר' אליעזר הא בכלאים נמי פרקינן אלא לאו רבנן היא

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: With regard to a cow that gave birth to a goat of sorts, one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with the goat of sorts. The Gemara infers: But it can be inferred that with regard to a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts, one may redeem with it. Whose opinion is expressed in the baraita? If we say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he holds that one may redeem even with a hybrid of a sheep and goat, and this ruling would be unnecessary. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, indicating that they hold that one may redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb that resembles another animal?

13 יג

לא לעולם ר' אליעזר היא גופה קמ"ל דפרה שילדה מין עז אין פודין לא תימא זיל אבתריה דידיה והאי עז מעליא הוא אלא זיל בתר אימיה והאי עגל הוא

The Gemara responds: No, actually the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and it teaches us the halakha itself that one may not redeem using the offspring in a case where a cow gave birth to a goat of sorts, i.e., where the offspring has the appearance of a goat. This is necessary so that you do not say that the halakha should follow the appearance of the offspring itself, and therefore this offspring is a full-fledged goat and should be suitable for redeeming a firstborn donkey. Rather, follow its mother, and this offspring is treated as a calf, which is not suitable for redeeming a firstborn donkey.

14 יד

ת"ש דתני רבה בר שמואל איזהו כלאים רחל שילדה מין עז ואביו שה אביו שה כלאים הוא נדמה הוא אלא איזהו דמי לכלאים דשויוה רבנן כי כלאים רחל שילדה מין עז ואביו שה

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita that Rabba bar Shmuel teaches: What is considered an animal that is a hybrid? It is a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and the father of the offspring is a lamb. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: If its father is a lamb, is the offspring a hybrid? It is an animal that resembles an animal of another type. Rather, the baraita means: What animal is similar to a hybrid, and the Rabbis rendered it tantamount to a hybrid, which is unsuitable for redeeming? It is a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and its father is a lamb.

15 טו

למאי אי לקדשים מהיכא דממעט כלאים מהתם ממעט נדמה דתניא (ויקרא כב, כז) שור או כשב פרט לכלאים או עז פרט לנדמה

Now, to what halakha is this baraita referring? If it is referring to sacrificial animals, i.e., to the fact that such an animal is unfit for sacrifice as an offering, why does the baraita derive its status from that of a hybrid? From the same verse where one derives that the Torah excludes a hybrid as an offering, one can derive that it also excludes an animal that resembles an animal of another type. As it is taught in a baraita that in the verse: “When a bull, or a lamb, or a goat, is brought forth…it may be accepted as an offering…to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27), the words “a bull, or a lamb” are interpreted as excluding a hybrid, and the words “or a goat” are interpreted as excluding an animal that resembles an animal of another type.

16 טז

אי לבכור (במדבר יח, יז) אך בכור שור אמר רחמנא עד שיהא הוא שור ובכורו שור

If the baraita is referring to the halakha of a firstborn and teaches that an animal that resembles an animal of another type does not have firstborn status, this is derived from another verse, as the Merciful One states: “But the firstborn of an ox” (Numbers 18:17), which indicates that there is firstborn status only if it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox, but not when the offspring resembles an animal of another type.

17 יז

אלא למעשר תחת תחת מקדשים גמר אלא לפטר חמור

Rather, perhaps it is referring to the mitzva of the animal tithe and teaches that an animal that resembles an animal of another type is not tithed with the other animals. This ruling is also unnecessary, as it is derived via a verbal analogy from the word: “Under” (Leviticus 22:27), which is stated with regard to sacrificial animals, and the word: “Under” (Leviticus 27:32), which is stated in the context of animal tithe. Rather, the baraita must be referring to the lamb that is used to redeem a firstborn donkey, and it teaches that a lamb that resembles an animal of another type is unfit for use as redemption.

18 יח

לא לעולם למעשר וכגון שיש בו מקצת סימנין מהו דתימא העברה העברה מבכור גמר

The Gemara responds: No, actually the baraita is referring to the halakha of animal tithe in a case where the animal that resembles an animal of another type has some characteristics of the mother. It was necessary for the baraita to teach that such an animal is not included in the animal tithe, lest you say that it is derived via a verbal analogy from the term: Passing, stated with regard to the animal tithe (see Leviticus 27:32), and the term: Passing, stated with regard to a firstborn animal (see Exodus 13:12), that just as an animal with some characteristics of the mother does have firstborn status (see 16b), so too, such an animal should be included in the obligation of animal tithe.

19 יט

קמ"ל תחת תחת מקדשים גמר

Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is derived via a verbal analogy from the word “under” that is stated with regard to sacrificial animals and the word “under” that is stated in the context of animal tithe, that an animal with some characteristics of the mother is unfit for animal tithe. The status of such a lamb with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey may not be proven from the baraita.

20 כ

איבעיא להו מהו לפדות בפסולי המוקדשין

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey with disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed? It is forbidden to shear or work such animals. Does the principle of: A prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, apply here?

21 כא

אליבא דר"ש לא תיבעי לך כיון דאמר מותר בהנאה חולין הוא כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר אסור בהנאה

The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, you should not raise the dilemma. Since he says that it is permitted to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey, its status is non-sacred, and no forbidden status is transferred to the redemption lamb. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey.

22 כב

מאי כיון דאסור בהנאה אין איסור חל על איסור

What is the halakha? It could be reasoned that since it is prohibited to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey, when he redeems it with a lamb, the forbidden status of the donkey must be able to be transferred to the lamb, which cannot occur in the case of a disqualified consecrated lamb, as a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

23 כג

או דלמא כיון דלא תפיס פדיונו אפקועי איסורא בעלמא הוא

Or perhaps it could be reasoned that since the actual prohibition against deriving benefit from the donkey is not transferred to its object of redemption, i.e., the lamb, as deriving benefit from the lamb is permitted, the act of redemption should be seen as merely an abrogation of the donkey’s forbidden status. The forbidden status is not transferred to the lamb, and consequently the principle that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists does not apply.

24 כד

אמר רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא מי זוטר מאי דכתיב בהו כצבי וכאיל מה צבי ואיל אין פודין אף פסולי המוקדשין אין פודין

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, says: Is that which is written with regard to disqualified consecrated animals insignificant? The Torah states that their status is: “Like the gazelle and like the hart” (Deuteronomy 12:15), indicating that just as one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with a gazelle or a hart, so too, one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with disqualified consecrated animals.

25 כה

השתא דאתית להכי

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this explanation,