Bejorot 12

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין פּוֹדִין לֹא בְּעֵגֶל וְלֹא בְּחַיָּה, לֹא בִּשְׁחוּטָה וְלֹא בִּטְרֵיפָה, וְלֹא בְּכִלְאַיִם וְלֹא בְּכוֹי. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר בַּכִּלְאַיִם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שֶׂה, וְאוֹסֵר בַּכּוֹי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק. נְתָנוֹ לְכֹהֵן — אֵין הַכֹּהֵן רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ שֶׂה תַּחְתָּיו.

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.

גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? בֶּן בַּג בַּג הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּן בַּג בַּג אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׂה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שֶׂה״, מָה לְּהַלָּן פְּרָט לְכׇל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ, אַף כָּאן פְּרָט לְכׇל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ.

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.

אִי מָה לְהַלָּן זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה, אַף כָּאן זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — רִיבָּה.

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.

אִי ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ רִיבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל הָנֵי נָמֵי? אִם כֵּן, ״שֶׂה״ ״שֶׂה״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?

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?

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בְּבֶן פְּקוּעָה? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בֶּן פְּקוּעָה טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, שֶׂה מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. אֶלָּא כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.

§ 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.

כְּבִישְׂרָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּהַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא רָהֵיט וְאָזֵיל, ״שֶׂה״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ?

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.

מָר זוּטְרָא אָמַר: אֵין פּוֹדִין, וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: פּוֹדִין.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְמָר זוּטְרָא: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? דְּיָלְפַתְּ מִפֶּסַח. אִי מָה לְהַלָּן זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה, אַף כָּאן זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה! ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — רִיבָּה.

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.

אִי ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ רִיבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ בֶּן פְּקוּעָה נָמֵי! אִם כֵּן, ״שֶׂה״ ״שֶׂה״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?

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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בְּנִדְמָה? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, הַשְׁתָּא בְּכִלְאַיִם פָּרְקִינַן, בְּנִדְמָה מִיבַּעְיָא?

§ 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?

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, בְּכִלְאַיִם הוּא דְּלָא פָּרְקִינַן, בְּנִדְמָה פָּרְקִינַן, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

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?

תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז — אֵין פּוֹדִין, הָא רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז — פּוֹדִין. מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — הָא בְּכִלְאַיִם נָמֵי פָּרְקִינַן! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן הִיא?

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?

לָא, לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, גּוּפַהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּפָרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז — אֵין פּוֹדִין. לָא תֵּימָא: זִיל אַבָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ, וְהַאי עֵז מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, אֶלָּא זִיל בָּתַר אִימֵּיהּ — וְהַאי עֵגֶל הוּא.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵיזֶהוּ כִּלְאַיִם? רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, וְאָבִיו שֶׂה. אָבִיו שֶׂה, כִּלְאַיִם הוּא? נִדְמֶה הוּא! אֶלָּא, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּמֵי לְכִלְאַיִם, דְּשַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן כִּי כִלְאַיִם? רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, וְאָבִיו שֶׂה.

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.

לְמַאי? אִי לְקָדָשִׁים — מֵהֵיכָא דִּמְמַעֵט כִּלְאַיִם, מֵהָתָם מְמַעֵט נִדְמֶה, דְּתַנְיָא: ״שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב״ — פְּרָט לְכִלְאַיִם, ״אוֹ עֵז״ — פְּרָט לְנִדְמֶה!

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.

אִי לִבְכוֹר, ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר!

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.

אֶלָּא לְמַעֲשֵׂר, ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים גָּמַר! אֶלָּא לְפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר.

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.

לָא, לְעוֹלָם לְמַעֲשֵׂר, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא ״הַעֲבָרָה״ ״הַעֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר גָּמַר,

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.

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים גָּמַר.

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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין?

§ 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?

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה — חוּלִּין הוּא, כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

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.

מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר?

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.

אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא תָּפֵיס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ, אַפְקוֹעֵי אִיסּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא?

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.

אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא: מִי זוּטַר מַאי דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ, ״כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל״? מָה צְבִי וְאַיָּל אֵין פּוֹדִין, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין אֵין פּוֹדִין!

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.

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי,

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

לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי, ״צְבִי וְאַיָּל״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.

according to Rabbi Shimon as well, perhaps one cannot redeem a firstborn donkey with disqualified consecrated animals, as it is written with regard to them that they are to be treated: “Like the gazelle and like the hart” (Deuteronomy 12:15). Since a gazelle and a hart cannot be used for redemption, so too, disqualified consecrated animals cannot be used for redemption.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בְּבֶהֱמַת שְׁבִיעִית?

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey with an animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year, which caused the sanctity of the produce to be transferred to the animal?

וַדַּאי — לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, לַאֲכִילָה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא לִסְחוֹרָה. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ — סָפֵק.

The Gemara clarifies the question: With regard to redeeming a donkey that has definite firstborn status with an animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year, you should not raise the dilemma, as one certainly may not redeem it in this manner, since the owner acquires his firstborn donkey in exchange for the animal that he gives to the priest, and this is prohibited with regard to such an animal. This is because the Merciful One states with regard to the Sabbatical Year: “The rest of the land shall be for you for consumption” (Leviticus 25:6), indicating that the produce may be used for consumption but not for commerce. Rather, when should you raise the dilemma? Raise it in the case of a donkey with uncertain firstborn status.

וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ סָפֵק, כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara clarifies further: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon you should not raise the dilemma, as he does not hold that redemption is necessary in the case of a donkey with uncertain firstborn status. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that in such a case the owner of the donkey must designate a lamb for its redemption in order to abrogate its forbidden status, but he is not required to give it to a priest.

מַאי כֵּיוָן דְּמַפְרֵישׁ טָלֶה וְהוּא לְעַצְמוֹ, ״לְאׇכְלָה״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּכַמָּה דְּלָא מַפְקַע אִיסּוּרֵיהּ לָא מִישְׁתְּרֵי, כִּסְחוֹרָה דָּמֵי?

What is the halakha? Perhaps since he designates a lamb and it is his, we call this act of redemption “for consumption,” and it is not considered commerce if he does not give it to the priest in exchange for his donkey. Or perhaps, since as long as the lamb does not abrogate the forbidden status of the firstborn donkey it is not permitted to derive benefit from the donkey, when the owner designates the lamb as the replacement of the donkey it is tantamount to engaging in commerce with it.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בֶּהֱמַת שְׁבִיעִית אֵין פּוֹדִין בָּהּ אֶת הַוַּדַּאי, אֲבָל פּוֹדִין בָּהּ אֶת הַסָּפֵק.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from that which Rav Ḥisda says: One may not redeem a donkey with definite firstborn status with an animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year, but one may redeem a donkey with uncertain firstborn status with it.

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בֶּהֱמַת שְׁבִיעִית פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בַּמַּתָּנוֹת.

And Rav Ḥisda says an additional ruling: An animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn, but is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it. These are the gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled when a non-sacred animal is slaughtered,

פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה — ״לְאׇכְלָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בַּמַּתָּנוֹת — דִּ״לְאָכְלָה״ קָרֵינָא בַּהּ.

The Gemara explains: It is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn because the Merciful One states with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year that it should be used “for consumption,” but not for burning, and portions of a kosher firstborn animal are burned on the altar. And it is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it, because we call this case “for consumption,” as the priest eats them.

מֵיתִיבִי: הָאוֹכֵל מֵעִיסַּת שְׁבִיעִית עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ — חַיָּיב מִיתָה.

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Shevi’it 9:9): One who eats from dough of produce of the Sabbatical Year before its ḥalla, i.e., the portion of the dough given to the priests, has been separated, is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, just like one who consumes any dough before ḥalla is separated.

וְאַמַּאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִטַּמְּיָא בַּת שְׂרֵיפָה הִיא, ״לְאׇכְלָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא לִשְׂרֵיפָה!

But according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, why is dough of produce of the Sabbatical Year subject to the obligation of separating ḥalla? It should not be subject to this mitzva, since if the dough becomes ritually impure after being separated as ḥalla, it is subject to burning, and the Merciful One states: “For consumption,” but not for burning. This is similar to Rav Ḥisda’s claim that a firstborn animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year is not subject to the obligations of firstborn status.

שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דִּכְתִיב ״לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם״.

The Gemara answers: Here, with regard to ḥalla, it is different, as it is written: “Of the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord a portion for a gift throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:21), which indicates that all dough, including that of produce of the Sabbatical Year, is subject to the mitzva of ḥalla.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מִנַּיִן לָאוֹכֵל מֵעִיסַּת שְׁבִיעִית עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ שֶׁחַיָּיב מִיתָה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם״.

This is also taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who consumes dough of produce of the Sabbatical Year before its ḥalla was separated is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Throughout your generations,” which indicates the inclusion of Sabbatical Years as well. By contrast, this formulation is not used with regard to a firstborn animal. Therefore, since portions of a kosher firstborn animal are burned on the altar, an animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn.

וְלִגְמַר מִינַּהּ! הָתָם עִיקָּר לַאֲכִילָה, הָכָא עִיקָּר לִשְׂרֵיפָה.

The Gemara challenges: And let Rav Ḥisda derive from the halakha of ḥalla that such an animal is subject to its offspring being counted a firstborn, and that the interpretation of: “For consumption” but not for burning, is not applied. The Gemara explains: There, with regard to ḥalla, the primary purpose of the dough is for consumption, and it is burned only if it becomes impure. Here, with regard to a firstborn animal, the primary purpose of the portions that are consumed on the altar is for burning.

נְתָנוֹ לְכֹהֵן כּוּ׳. תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן: ״תְּנֵהוּ לִי וַאֲנִי אֶפְדֵּהוּ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִתְּנוּ לוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן פְּדָאוֹ בְּפָנָיו.

§ The mishna teaches: If the owner gave the firstborn donkey itself to a priest, the priest may keep it only after he designates a lamb in its stead for redemption. This language indicates that there is concern lest the priest will be negligent in redeeming it. The Gemara comments: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: In the case of an Israelite who had a firstborn donkey in his house and the priest said to him: Give it to me and I will redeem it, he may not give the donkey to the priest unless the priest redeems it in his presence.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת נֶחְשְׁדוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים עַל פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּמַחְזַק לַן דְּמִיקְּרֵי, אֲבָל בִּסְתָמָא לָא — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמוֹרֵה בַּהּ הֶיתֵּירָא.

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: That is to say that priests are suspect with regard to using firstborn donkeys without redemption. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? That is exactly what the baraita states. The Gemara explains: Rav Naḥman’s statement is necessary lest you say that this statement of the baraita applies only in a case where we have a presumption that it occasionally happens that this priest uses a firstborn donkey without redeeming it first, but in the case of an ordinary priest, there is no concern for this. Therefore, Rav Naḥman teaches us that this concern is relevant to every priest, as a priest is suspected of granting himself permission to use the firstborn donkey without first redeeming it with a lamb, as in any case the lamb will remain his.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּפְרִישׁ פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וָמֵת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, כַּחֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, כְּפִדְיוֹן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי.

MISHNA: In the case of one who designates a lamb for the redemption of a firstborn donkey and the lamb dies, Rabbi Eliezer says: The owner bears financial responsibility and must give the priest another lamb in its place. This is like the case of the five sela for redemption of a firstborn son, where if the money is lost before one gives it to the priest, he must give the priest another five sela. And the Rabbis say: The owner does not bear financial responsibility. This is like the case of money designated for redemption of second-tithe produce, where once the owner designates the money for redemption, the produce is desanctified.

הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי צָדוֹק עַל פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר שֶׁמֵּת, שֶׁאֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. מֵת פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִקָּבֵר, וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ שֶׁל טָלֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהִקָּבֵר, וְטָלֶה לַכֹּהֵן.

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok testified about a lamb designated for redemption of a firstborn donkey that died, that the priest has nothing here, i.e., in such a case, as the firstborn donkey has already been redeemed, and the owner no longer bears financial responsibility for the dead lamb, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. If after the lamb was designated, the firstborn donkey died, Rabbi Eliezer says: The donkey must be buried, and the owner is permitted to derive benefit from the lamb. And the Rabbis say: It does not need to be buried, and the lamb is given to the priest.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? דִּכְתִיב: ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה וְגוֹ׳״, מָה בְּכוֹר אָדָם חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, אַף בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.

GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the owner bears financial responsibility for the lamb if it is designated and dies before the priest receives it? As it is written: “Yet you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:15). It is derived from the comparison between the two cases that just as with regard to redeeming a woman’s firstborn son, the father bears financial responsibility to compensate for the five sela in the event of their loss, so too, with regard to redeeming a firstborn non-kosher animal, the owner bears financial responsibility to compensate the priest in the event of their loss.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי מָה בְּכוֹר אָדָם מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אַף בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מוּתָּר! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתְנַן: מֵת פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִקָּבֵר. מַאי יִקָּבֵר? לָאו דְּאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה?

Abaye said to him: If they are compared, then just as deriving benefit from a woman’s firstborn son is permitted if he has not yet been redeemed, so too, deriving benefit from the firstborn of a non-kosher animal should be permitted prior to redemption, including shearing and working it. And if you would say that indeed Rabbi Eliezer does permit deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey, that is difficult: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if after the lamb was designated the firstborn donkey died, Rabbi Eliezer says: It must be buried? Now, what is the reason that it must be buried? Is it not because deriving benefit from it is prohibited?

לָא, יִקָּבֵר כִּבְכוֹר אָדָם. אֶלָּא, אָדָם בְּכוֹר הוּא דְּבָעֵי קְבוּרָה, פָּשׁוּט לָא בָּעֵי קְבוּרָה?

Rav Yosef responded: No, it must be buried like a woman’s firstborn son. There is a mitzva to bury a woman’s firstborn son if he dies, and due to the comparison of the verse, the same applies to a firstborn donkey. The Gemara asks: But according to this answer, does a person who died require burial only if he is a firstborn son, while an ordinary person who is not a firstborn does not require burial? That is certainly not correct. Therefore, no such distinction should exist with regard to a donkey either.

וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְפֵק פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — שֶׁמַּפְרִישׁ טָלֶה עָלָיו, וְהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ!

And furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer clearly holds that deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey prior to redemption is forbidden, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer concedes with regard to an Israelite who has a donkey in his house whose status as a firstborn is uncertain, that he designates a lamb for it and the lamb is his. Designating a lamb in this case is necessary only to remove the prohibition against deriving benefit from the donkey.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה״, לִפְדִיָּיה הִקַּשְׁיתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר.

Rather, Rava says that although the verse compares the status of a firstborn donkey to that of a woman’s firstborn son, this is only with regard to bearing financial responsibility for the lamb, but not with regard to deriving benefit from the donkey. This is because the verse states: “Yet you shall redeem [pado tifde] the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem.” The double verb “pado tifde” indicates that I have compared it with regard to redemption, but not with regard to another matter.

תְּנַן הָתָם: הָעֲרָכִין — בִּשְׁעָתָן, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן — אַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר — לְאַלְתַּר.

§ We learned in a baraita elsewhere: Valuations are determined based on the time of the vow. Therefore, if one vowed to consecrate the valuation of an infant who is less than one month old, he is not obligated to give any money even after the infant is one month old, as an infant less than one month old has no valuation. And with regard to redeeming a woman’s firstborn son, one must give the required sum to the priest after the infant is thirty days old, as it is stated: “And their redemption money, from a month old shall you redeem them” (Numbers 18:16). With regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey, it must be performed immediately.

וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר לְאַלְתַּר? וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵין בַּעֲרָכִין, וּבְפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, וּבִנְזִירוּת, וּבְפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר — פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים.

The Gemara asks: And must redeeming a firstborn donkey be performed immediately? But one can raise a contradiction from another baraita: The halakhot of valuations, and of redemption of a woman’s firstborn son, and of nazirite vows, and of a firstborn donkey, do not apply to less than thirty days. In other words, the halakhot of valuations, of the redemption of a woman’s firstborn son, and of a firstborn donkey do not apply to a person or animal that is less than thirty days old, and a term of naziriteship is a minimum of thirty days.

וּמוֹסִיפִין עַד עוֹלָם!

But one may add to this amount forever. Meaning, the halakhot of valuations apply to a person of any age beyond thirty days, the redemption of a woman’s firstborn son and of a firstborn donkey apply even if the firstborn in question is already several years old, and one can vow to be a nazirite for any length of time beyond thirty days. This baraita indicates that a firstborn donkey is not redeemed immediately, but only after thirty days.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם פְּדָאוֹ — פָּדוּי, מִכְּלָל דִּבְנוֹ אִם פְּדָאוֹ אֵינוֹ פָּדוּי? וְהָאִיתְּמַר: הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, רַב אָמַר: בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי!

Rav Naḥman says: When the first baraita states that a firstborn donkey must be redeemed immediately, it means to say that if one redeemed it immediately, it is redeemed, although it should be redeemed only after thirty days ab initio. The Gemara asks: By inference, in the case of a woman’s firstborn son, where the first baraita states that he is redeemed after thirty days, if one redeemed him prior to that time, is he not redeemed? But wasn’t it stated: In the case of one who redeems his son within thirty days of birth, Rav says: His son is redeemed?

לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ — אֵין בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי.

The Gemara responds: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that matter that Rava says: Everyone agrees that if one says within thirty days of his son’s birth that he is redeeming him from now, his son is not redeemed. Such a redemption would be effective only if he gave the money on condition that the redemption will take effect after his son turns thirty days old.