Bechorot Daf 11 (בכורות דף י״א)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (11a)

Segment 1

TYPE: גמרא

The Rabbanan’s answer, completing 10b: the shekel verse speaks only of affordability in erech vows

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד כְּתִיב.

English Translation:

is written with regard to affordability, i.e., a case where one vows to give the valuation of an individual to the Temple but does not have sufficient funds to fulfill his vow. In such a case, he must pay at least a shekel. It does not apply to other matters.

קלאוד על הדף:

The sentence broken off at the end of the previous daf completes here. R’ Yosei bar Yehuda had grounded his one-shekel floor in וכל ערכך יהיה בשקל הקדש, and the Rabbanan, who permit redemption with any amount, must account for the same verse. Their answer is that it is written בהשג יד — in the passage governing one who vowed an ערך, a Torah-fixed valuation of a person, and cannot afford to pay it. Such a person is assessed according to his means, and the verse sets a shekel as the floor of that assessment. It is a rule about erech vows, not a general standard for every redemption in the Torah.

Key Terms:

• בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד = according to affordability — the reduced assessment for one who cannot pay a full erech
• עֵרֶךְ = a Torah-fixed valuation of a person, pledged to the Temple (Vayikra 27)
• שֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ = the sacred shekel, the standard unit of Torah valuation

Segment 2

TYPE: פסק הלכה

Rav Nachman rules like the Rabbanan; Rav Yosef sets the floor at a scrawny lamb worth a ma’ah

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אֲפִילּוּ פַּטְרוֹזָא בַּר דַּנְקָא, אָמַר רָבָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא גָּדוֹל וְקָטָן.

English Translation:

Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis that one may redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb that is worth even less than a shekel. And how much must the lamb be worth? Rav Yosef says: Even a lean lamb [patruza] that is worth only a ma’a [danka] may be used. Rava says: We learn in the mishna (9a) as well that the owner may give either a big or a small lamb, which supports Rav Yosef’s ruling.

קלאוד על הדף:

With R’ Yosei bar Yehuda’s derivation disposed of, Rav Nachman issues the practical ruling: the halacha follows the Rabbanan, and a lamb worth less than a shekel redeems. Rav Yosef then presses the leniency to its limit with a vivid phrase — even a פטרוזא בר דנקא, a scrawny runt of a lamb worth a single ma’ah, one sixth of a dinar. Rava adds that the mishna on 9a already implied as much when it permitted a seh גדול וקטן, large or small, with no minimum attached.

Key Terms:

• פַּטְרוֹזָא = a scrawny, poorly developed lamb
• דַּנְקָא = a ma’ah, one sixth of a dinar — the smallest practical coin here
• הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים = the halacha follows the Sages, i.e. the Rabbanan against R’ Yosei bar Yehuda

Segment 3

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why Rav Yosef’s ruling was not obvious: two possible disqualifications

Hebrew/Aramaic:

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי לָא? אִי נָמֵי, פַּטְרוֹזָא לָא? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that even a lean lamb worth one ma’a may be used? The baraita states that the lamb may be worth any amount. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that if the lamb is of such little value one may not redeem with it, Rav Yosef states that one may redeem with it. Alternatively, it could be claimed that a lean lamb may not be used for redemption due to its physical state. Therefore, Rav Yosef teaches us that one may redeem a firstborn donkey even with such a lamb.

קלאוד על הדף:

If the baraita already said כל שהוא, any amount, Rav Yosef appears to add nothing. The Gemara identifies two distinct disqualifications he forecloses. One is quantitative: a value this trivial might have been thought to fall below the threshold of a meaningful redemption, so that כל שהוא means any real sum rather than literally any sum. The other is qualitative: a patruza is a defective specimen, and one might have supposed its physical state disqualifies it even if its price does not. Rav Yosef rules out both.

Key Terms:

• פְּשִׁיטָא = it is obvious — the objection that a statement teaches nothing new
• מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא = lest you say — introducing the mistaken notion a ruling forestalls
• כּוּלֵּי הַאי לָא = not to this extent, i.e. so trivial a value should not qualify

Segment 4

TYPE: מעשה

R’ Yehuda Nesia sends his firstborn donkey to R’ Tarfon and asks what he owes

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר, שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה בָּעֵינָא לְמִיתַּב לְכֹהֵן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: עַיִן יָפָה בְּסֶלַע, עַיִן רָעָה בְּשֶׁקֶל, בֵּינוֹנִית בְּרִגְיָא.

English Translation:

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had a firstborn donkey. He sent it before Rabbi Tarfon, and said to him: How much do I need to give a priest for its redemption, i.e., how much must the lamb used for its redemption be worth? Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Didn’t the Sages say: One who has a generous disposition redeems his firstborn donkey with a lamb worth a sela, one who has a miserly disposition redeems his donkey with a lamb worth a shekel, and one who has an intermediate disposition redeems his donkey with a lamb worth a ragya?

קלאוד על הדף:

The daf turns from abstraction to an actual consultation. R’ Yehuda Nesia, the patriarch, owned a peter chamor and sent it before R’ Tarfon with a practical question: how much must the redeeming lamb be worth? R’ Tarfon does not answer with a legal minimum at all, but with a received tradition of graded generosity — עין יפה בסלע, עין רעה בשקל, בינונית ברגיא. The scale measures not obligation but disposition, sorting the generous, the grudging and the ordinary by what each gives.

Key Terms:

• רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה = R’ Yehuda Nesia, the patriarch and grandson of R’ Yehuda HaNasi
• עַיִן יָפָה = a generous eye or disposition
• עַיִן רָעָה = a grudging or miserly disposition
• סֶלַע = a sela, four dinars
• שֶׁקֶל = a shekel, two dinars

Segment 5

TYPE: פסק הלכה

Rava rules for the ragya, and the Gemara explains the word: three dinars, midway between

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא בְּרִגְיָא. וְכַמָּה? תְּלָתָא זוּזֵי. רְגִיל הָכָא וְרָגִיל הָכָא.

English Translation:

Rava said: The halakha is that one must redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb that is worth at least a ragya. The Gemara asks: And how much is the value of a ragya? The Gemara answers: A ragya is worth three dinars, and is called a ragya because it is close to [ragil] here and close to there, i.e., its value is between that of a sela, which is worth fours dinars, and a shekel, which is worth two dinars.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava adopts the middle rung of R’ Tarfon’s scale as the operative halacha. The Gemara then explains the unfamiliar term: a ragya is three dinars, and the name derives from רגיל — it is at home on both sides, sitting between the sela’s four and the shekel’s two. The etymology matters because it confirms the scale is symmetrical: the intermediate disposition gives the arithmetic mean, and the two extremes are equidistant from it.

Key Terms:

• רִגְיָא = a ragya, three dinars — the intermediate sum on the Sages’ scale
• רְגִיל הָכָא וְרָגִיל הָכָא = close to this side and close to that — the etymology of ragya
• זוּזֵי = dinars, the basic silver coin

Segment 6

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

הלכתא אהלכתא — and the resolution: advice to one who asks versus validity for one who acts

Hebrew/Aramaic:

קַשְׁיָא הִלְכְתָא אַהִלְכְתָא! לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן — בְּבָא לִימָּלֵךְ, כָּאן — בְּעוֹשֶׂה מֵעַצְמוֹ.

English Translation:

The Gemara comments: The contradiction between this halakha, that one must give a lamb worth three dinars, and the halakha stated by Rav Naḥman, that one may give a lamb of any monetary value, poses a difficulty. The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, as here the reference is to one who comes to consult; he is told to give a lamb worth three dinars. There, the reference is to one who acts on his own, i.e., one who redeems his donkey without consultation, in which case he has fulfilled his obligation even if the lamb is worth only a ma’a.

קלאוד על הדף:

Two of Rava’s and Rav Nachman’s rulings now stand in apparent conflict: any amount, or three dinars? The resolution is one of the more useful distinctions in the Gemara, because it separates two things a posek is asked to do. To one who comes beforehand and asks — בא לימלך — the answer is three dinars, since a question invites the right answer rather than the minimal one. To one who has already acted on his own — עושה מעצמו — the answer is that his redemption is valid even with a lamb worth a ma’ah. Guidance in advance and validation after the fact need not coincide.

Key Terms:

• קַשְׁיָא הִלְכְתָא אַהִלְכְתָא = one halachic ruling contradicts another
• בָּא לִימָּלֵךְ = one who comes to consult before acting
• עוֹשֶׂה מֵעַצְמוֹ = one who acts on his own initiative, without consulting

Segment 7

TYPE: גמרא

R’ Yitzchak citing Reish Lakish: with no seh available, redeem with money at full value

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וְאֵין לוֹ שֶׂה לִפְדּוֹתוֹ — פּוֹדֵהוּ בְּשׇׁוְיוֹ. לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הָא אָמַר: הִקְפִּידָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה בְּשֶׂה! אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

English Translation:

Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Reish Lakish says: One who has a firstborn donkey but does not have a lamb with which to redeem it may redeem the donkey with a sum of money equal to the donkey’s value and give it to a priest. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn’t he say that the Torah is particular that the donkey be redeemed with a lamb (see 9a)? Rather, clearly it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

קלאוד על הדף:

A new question opens: what if the owner has no lamb at all? R’ Yitzchak transmits Reish Lakish’s ruling that he redeems בשוויו, paying the donkey’s full value in money to the kohen. The Gemara immediately asks whose view this can be. Not R’ Yehuda, who held on 9b that the Torah was particular about a seh — that was the very premise of his position that the donkey is forbidden until redeemed. So the ruling appears to belong to R’ Shimon.

Key Terms:

• בְּשׇׁוְיוֹ = at its full value
• הִקְפִּידָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה בְּשֶׂה = the Torah was particular that it be redeemed with a seh
• רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ = R’ Shimon ben Lakish, an amora of Eretz Yisrael

Segment 8

TYPE: קושיא

Ravina’s first objection: the halacha always follows R’ Yehuda against R’ Shimon

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַב אַחָא מַתְנִי הָכִי, רָבִינָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

English Translation:

The Gemara comments: Rav Aḥa teaches it in this way, that the statement of Reish Lakish was made in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Ravina found this difficult, as wherever there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Acha transmitted the ruling in exactly that form — Reish Lakish following R’ Shimon. Ravina found it untenable, and his first objection is a standing rule of decision rather than a local argument: wherever R’ Yehuda and R’ Shimon are in dispute, the halacha follows R’ Yehuda. A ruling by Reish Lakish that silently adopts R’ Shimon against that rule would be extraordinary.

Key Terms:

• רַב אַחָא = an amora who transmitted the ruling in this form
• רָבִינָא = a later Babylonian amora, among the redactors of the Talmud
• קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ = he found it difficult

Segment 9

TYPE: קושיא

Ravina’s second objection: an anonymous mishna already follows R’ Yehuda

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּסְתַם לַן תַּנָּא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן?!

English Translation:

And furthermore, the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The mishna on 9a states that in a case where the firstborn status of a donkey is uncertain, the owner must redeem it with a lamb to abrogate its forbidden status, and he may then keep the lamb. The Gemara on 9b explains that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that a firstborn donkey is forbidden before its redemption. And you say that Reish Lakish rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

קלאוד על הדף:

The second objection is textual and stronger. The mishna on 9a, which instructs the owner of a safek firstborn to designate a lamb in order to release the donkey, was shown on 9b to presuppose that an unredeemed peter chamor is forbidden in benefit — which is R’ Yehuda’s position. A סתם mishna, taught anonymously, carries decisive weight. If the mishna itself is R’ Yehuda, a ruling that follows R’ Shimon cannot stand.

Key Terms:

• סְתַם מִשְׁנָה = an anonymous mishna, taught without attribution and therefore authoritative
• וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ = and you say — the force of Ravina’s incredulity

Segment 10

TYPE: תירוץ

Ravina’s resolution: the seh is a leniency, so even R’ Yehuda permits redemption at value

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לֹא יְהֵא חָמוּר מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְלֹא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״בְּשֶׂה״ לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלָיו. רַב נַחְמָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף פָּרֵיק לֵיהּ בְּשִׁילְקֵי בְּשׇׁוְיוֹ.

English Translation:

Ravina concludes: Rather, the statement of Reish Lakish is correct even if you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as the halakha of a firstborn donkey should not be more stringent than that of consecrated items. One who redeems a consecrated animal from its consecrated status redeems it with any movable property that is worth its value. And the Torah did not state that one must redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb in order to be stringent with the owner, but in order to be lenient with the owner such that he is not obligated to redeem it at its value, as a lamb is worth less than a donkey. The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Yosef, redeemed a firstborn donkey with boiled vegetables that were worth its value.

קלאוד על הדף:

Ravina rescues the ruling by reframing what R’ Yehuda’s particularity about the seh actually means. Hekdesh — property consecrated to the Temple — may be redeemed with any movable property worth its value; a peter chamor cannot be more stringent than that. And the Torah’s specification of a seh was never a restriction but a concession: לא אמרה תורה בשה להחמיר עליו אלא להקל עליו, allowing a cheap lamb to release an expensive donkey. A leniency cannot be inverted into a bar. The Gemara closes with a precedent: Rav Nachman son of Rav Yosef redeemed one with boiled vegetables at full value.

Key Terms:

• לֹא יְהֵא חָמוּר מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ = it shall not be more stringent than consecrated property
• לְהָקֵל עָלָיו = to be lenient with him — the purpose of specifying a seh
• שִׁילְקֵי = boiled vegetables
• הֶקְדֵּשׁ = property consecrated to the Temple, redeemable with anything of equal value

Segment 11

TYPE: גמרא / איבעיא

Rav Sheizevi citing Rav Huna: a stranger’s redemption is valid — but who then owns the donkey?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַפּוֹדֶה פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, פִּדְיוֹנוֹ פָּדוּי. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פִּדְיוֹנוֹ לַפּוֹדֶה, אוֹ דִלְמָא פִּדְיוֹנוֹ לַבְּעָלִים?

English Translation:

Rav Sheizevi says that Rav Huna says: In the case of one who redeems the firstborn donkey of another, his object of redemption, i.e., the firstborn donkey, is redeemed, despite the fact that the owner did not redeem it. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does his object of redemption belong to the one who redeems it, or perhaps his object of redemption belongs to the owner?

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Sheizevi transmits Rav Huna’s ruling that if someone other than the owner redeems a peter chamor, the redemption takes effect: פדיונו פדוי. That settles the act but opens a question of title. The redeemer laid out the lamb; the owner held the animal. Which of them ends up with a released donkey? The question is raised as an איבעיא, a formal dilemma, and the next several segments frame and resolve it.

Key Terms:

• פִּדְיוֹנוֹ פָּדוּי = his redemption is effective
• אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ = a dilemma was raised before them
• רַב שֵׁיזְבִי = a Babylonian amora who transmits teachings of Rav Huna

Segment 12

TYPE: גמרא

The dilemma arises only for R’ Yehuda, since for R’ Shimon the donkey was always the owner’s

Hebrew/Aramaic:

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

English Translation:

The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon you should not raise the dilemma, since he says that prior to the redemption it is permitted for the owner to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey by using it for labor or renting it out. Therefore, it is the property of the owner, and giving a lamb to the priest does not change this status. When you raise the dilemma, it should be according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey prior to its redemption. If so, it does not belong to the owner initially, and only redeeming the donkey with the lamb allows him to take possession of it.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara narrows the question before answering it. R’ Shimon permits benefit from the unredeemed animal, so the donkey was ordinary property of the owner throughout and a stranger’s payment changes nothing about title — it merely discharges a debt. The dilemma lives only on R’ Yehuda’s premises, where the donkey was forbidden in benefit and therefore not usable property at all. On that view, redemption is the act that first makes the animal available, and the question of who benefits from that act is genuinely open.

Key Terms:

• אַלִּיבָּא דְּ = according to the opinion of
• מָמוֹנָא דִבְעָלִים = the property of the owner
• לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ = you need not raise the dilemma — the case is clear on that view

Segment 13

TYPE: איבעיא

The two horns: is it like hekdesh, where the payer acquires, or unlike it, since the owner keeps the margin?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ מְדַמֵּי לֵיהּ, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״, אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּקָנֵי לְהוּ בְּבֵינֵי וּבֵינֵי, לָא דָּמֵי לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ?

English Translation:

Consequently, one can ask whether the firstborn donkey is compared to consecrated property; and the Merciful One says with regard to redeeming consecrated property: “And he will give the money and it will be assured to him” (see Leviticus 27:19), which indicates that the one who gives the redemption money acquires the item even if he did not consecrate it initially. Or perhaps since the owner may redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb that is worth less than the donkey, he owns the difference between the price of the donkey and the price of the lamb, and therefore it is not similar to consecrated property, where the one who consecrated it does not retain any ownership of the item.

קלאוד על הדף:

The dilemma is now stated precisely. One side compares the donkey to hekdesh, where the Torah says ונתן הכסף וקם לו — whoever pays the redemption money acquires the item, even a stranger who never consecrated it. The other side observes a structural difference: an owner who redeems a peter chamor keeps the דביני ביני, the margin between the donkey’s value and the cheaper lamb, so he never surrendered the animal in the way a consecrator surrenders hekdesh. Retaining an interest is what distinguishes the two cases.

Key Terms:

• וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ = and he shall give the money and it shall be assured to him (Vayikra 27:19)
• דְּבֵינֵי וּבֵינֵי = the in-between — the margin between the donkey’s value and the lamb’s
• לָא דָּמֵי לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ = it is not comparable to consecrated property

Segment 14

TYPE: תא שמע

Rav Nachman’s resolution from a baraita on double payment for theft

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַגּוֹנֵב פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ — מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל לַבְּעָלִים, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו — יֵשׁ לוֹ לְאַחַר מִכָּאן.

English Translation:

Rav Naḥman said: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: In the case of one who steals the firstborn donkey of another before it is redeemed and he is then caught, he pays the payment of double the principal to the owner (see Exodus 22:3). And even though the owner does not have rights to the donkey now, he does have rights to it afterward, i.e., after the redemption.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Nachman resolves the dilemma with a baraita about a different subject entirely. One who steals another’s unredeemed peter chamor pays כפל, the double payment a thief owes, and he pays it to the owner. The baraita even anticipates the obvious difficulty — the owner has no present rights in a forbidden animal — and answers that he has rights in it afterwards, once it is redeemed. That future interest is enough to make him the victim of the theft.

Key Terms:

• תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל = double payment — a thief restores the principal plus its equal (Shemot 22:3)
• תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — introducing a source offered to resolve a dilemma
• יֵשׁ לוֹ לְאַחַר מִכָּאן = he has rights in it afterwards

Segment 15

TYPE: גמרא

The baraita must be R’ Yehuda, since for R’ Shimon the owner has present rights

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אַמַּאי אֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Whose opinion does this follow? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, why does the owner not have rights to it now? Rabbi Shimon holds that it is permitted to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey even before its redemption. Rather, it is obvious that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems it prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey prior to its redemption.

קלאוד על הדף:

Before the proof can work, the baraita must be attributed. Its phrase אין לו עכשיו — he does not have it now — is incoherent on R’ Shimon’s view, for whom the owner may use and rent the donkey at once. The clause only makes sense for R’ Yehuda, who forbids all benefit until redemption. So the baraita speaks on precisely the premises where the dilemma arose.

Key Terms:

• אֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו = he does not have it now — the phrase that fixes the attribution
• פְּשִׁיטָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה = it is obviously R’ Yehuda

Segment 16

TYPE: מסקנא

The decisive proof: hekdesh carries no double payment, so the donkey is not hekdesh

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ מְדַמֵּינַן לֵיהּ, ״וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא מִבֵּית הֶקְדֵּשׁ! וְתוּ לָא מִידֵּי.

English Translation:

And if it enters your mind that we compare it to consecrated property, then why must the thief pay double the principal? Doesn’t the Merciful One state with regard to the double payment of a thief: “And it be stolen from the man’s house” (Exodus 22:6), indicating: But not when it is stolen from the Temple treasury? In such a case the thief does not pay double. Evidently, a firstborn donkey does not have the status of consecrated property, and if another person redeemed it, it still belongs to the owner. The Gemara concludes: And nothing more remains to be said about this issue, as this is a clear proof.

קלאוד על הדף:

The argument closes cleanly. The Torah restricts the thief’s double payment to goods stolen וגנב מבית האיש — from a man’s house — which Chazal read as excluding theft from the Temple treasury; a thief of hekdesh pays no kefel. Since the baraita imposes kefel on one who steals a peter chamor, the donkey cannot have hekdesh status. And if it is not hekdesh, ונתן הכסף וקם לו does not govern it, and a stranger’s redemption leaves title with the owner. The Gemara marks the strength of the proof with ותו לא מידי — there is nothing further to say.

Key Terms:

• וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ = and it be stolen from the man’s house (Shemot 22:6)
• וְלֹא מִבֵּית הֶקְדֵּשׁ = and not from the Temple treasury — hekdesh carries no double payment
• וְתוּ לָא מִידֵּי = and nothing more — the Gemara’s marker of a conclusive proof

Segment 17

TYPE: ברייתא

Returning to the mishna: in what case does the safek lamb enter the pen for ma’aser beheima?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אַחַת בִּיכְּרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּיכְּרָה [כּוּ׳]. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד אָמְרוּ נִכְנַס לְדִיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר?

English Translation:

The mishna states that if a person owned two donkeys, and one had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth, and they gave birth to a male and a female, and it is not clear which donkey gave birth to the male and which to the female, he designates one lamb as redemption due to the uncertainty, as perhaps the one that had not previously given birth was the one that gave birth to the male. The mishna also states that this lamb is tithed with the other non-sacred animals. With regard to this point, the Gemara states that the Sages taught in a baraita: In what case did the Sages say that this lamb enters the pen in order to be tithed?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara now picks up a clause left unexplained since the mishna on 9a, which said the safek lamb the owner retains נכנס לדיר להתעשר — it enters the pen to be counted for the animal tithe. A baraita asks what case that describes, since the ruling presupposes an animal that is fully the owner’s and subject to tithe. The question turns out to require a specific and rather artificial setup, supplied in the next segment.

Key Terms:

• נִכְנָס לְדִיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר = it enters the pen to be tithed — subject to ma’aser beheima
• מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה = the animal tithe, in which every tenth animal is consecrated

Segment 18

TYPE: ברייתא

Not a lamb in the kohen’s hand — rather, ten safek donkeys and ten lambs the owner keeps

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בְּבָא לְיַד כֹּהֵן, שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁנִינוּ: הַלָּקוּחַ וְשֶׁנִּיתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה פָּטוּר מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, אֶלָּא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה סְפֵק פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁמַּפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן עֲשָׂרָה שֵׂיִין, וּמְעַשְּׂרָן, וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ.

English Translation:

You cannot say that this is referring to a case where the lamb had already entered the possession of a priest, as we learned in a mishna (55b): An animal that was purchased by a person or that was given to him as a present is exempt from animal tithe, and this lamb was given as a present to the priest. Rather, it is referring to an Israelite who has ten donkeys in his house whose firstborn status is uncertain, who designates ten lambs for them in order to redeem them due to the uncertainty, and he tithes those lambs as well, and they are his.

קלאוד על הדף:

The baraita rules out the obvious reading first. A lamb that reached the kohen came to him as a gift, and we learned at 55b that הלקוח ושניתן לו במתנה פטור ממעשר בהמה — animals bought or received as gifts are exempt from the animal tithe. So the clause cannot concern the kohen’s lamb. It must concern the owner’s: a Jew holding ten donkeys of doubtful firstborn status designates ten lambs against them, and because each is only a safek the kohen can claim none of them. Ten retained lambs make a full herd of ten, and the tithe applies.

Key Terms:

• הַלָּקוּחַ וְשֶׁנִּיתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה = an animal purchased or received as a gift, exempt from the animal tithe
• סְפֵק פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים = donkeys of doubtful firstborn status
• וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ = and they are his

Segment 19

TYPE: גמרא

The baraita supports Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avuh

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה סְפֵק פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים — מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן עֲשָׂרָה שֵׂיִין, וּמְעַשְּׂרָן, וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ.

English Translation:

The Gemara comments that this baraita supports the statement of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: An Israelite who has in his house ten donkeys whose firstborn status is uncertain designates ten lambs to redeem them, and tithes the lambs, separating one as a tithe, and they all belong to him, as a priest cannot prove that he is entitled to any of the ten.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara notes that the baraita corroborates a ruling already transmitted by Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avuh in identical terms. The principle at work is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה from the mishna itself: each lamb is claimable only on a doubt, the kohen can prove nothing about any of them, and so all ten stay with the owner and form a tithable flock.

Key Terms:

• מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ = it supports him — a baraita corroborating an amoraic ruling
• רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ = a Babylonian amora, a student of Rav

Segment 20

TYPE: גמרא

A second ruling: ten certain firstborn donkeys inherited through a kohen grandfather

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים וַדָּאִין בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁנָּפְלוּ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן, וְאוֹתוֹ אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן נָפְלוּ לוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

English Translation:

And in addition, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: In the case of an Israelite who has ten certain firstborn donkeys in his house that were bequeathed to him from the household of his mother’s father, who was a priest and was therefore exempt from the redemption of firstborn donkeys, but that mother’s father who was a priest had the donkeys bequeathed to him from the household of his mother’s father, who was an Israelite, the donkeys initially required redemption, and the priest should have redeemed them with lambs, though it was permitted for him to keep the lambs for himself.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Nachman now transmits a more intricate case from the same teacher. An Israelite inherits ten certain firstborn donkeys from his mother’s father, who was a kohen — and a kohen owes no redemption, since he would be paying himself. But the chain does not end there: that kohen grandfather had himself inherited the donkeys from his own mother’s father, an Israelite, for whom they genuinely required redemption. The obligation therefore arose, and the kohen could have discharged it by designating lambs and keeping them.

Key Terms:

• פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים וַדָּאִין = certain firstborn donkeys, as against doubtful ones
• שֶׁנָּפְלוּ = which fell to him, i.e. came by inheritance
• אֲבִי אִמּוֹ = his mother’s father

Segment 21

TYPE: גמרא

The ruling: the Israelite heir designates, tithes, and keeps the lambs

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן עֲשָׂרָה שֵׂיִין, וּמְעַשְּׂרָן, וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ.

English Translation:

Therefore, his grandson, who inherits these donkeys and is an Israelite, designates ten lambs for them and tithes them and they are his, as if his grandfather had designated the lambs himself and bequeathed them to him.

קלאוד על הדף:

The conclusion follows from what the kohen grandfather could have done. Since he was entitled to designate lambs and retain them, the law treats the position as though he had, and the Israelite grandson inherits that entitlement along with the donkeys. He designates ten lambs, tithes them, and they are his. The reasoning is a quiet but far-reaching one: an heir inherits not only property but the legal posture of the one he inherits from.

Key Terms:

• מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן = he designates lambs against them
• וּמְעַשְּׂרָן = and he tithes them

Segment 22

TYPE: גמרא

A third, parallel ruling: smoothed tevel inherited through the same chain

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ טְבָלִים מְמוֹרָחִין בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁנָּפְלוּ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן, וְאוֹתוֹ אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן נָפְלוּ לוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל — מְעַשְּׂרָן וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ.

English Translation:

And likewise, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: In the case of an Israelite who has smoothed piles of untithed produce in his house, from which one is obligated to separate teruma for the priests and tithes for the Levites, and it is produce that was bequeathed to him from the household of his mother’s father, who was a priest, and that mother’s father who was a priest previously had it bequeathed to him from the household of his mother’s father, who was an Israelite, he separates teruma and tithes from the produce and it is his, just as if his grandfather who was a priest had tithed the produce, acquired the tithe, and bequeathed it to him as an inheritance.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Nachman gives the same structure a second application. Smoothed piles of untithed produce, from which teruma is owed to kohanim and maaser to levi’im, pass down the identical chain — Israelite great-grandfather, kohen grandfather, Israelite heir. Here too the heir separates the gifts and keeps them, as though the kohen grandfather had separated and acquired them in his lifetime and bequeathed them onward.

Key Terms:

• טְבָלִים מְמוֹרָחִין = untithed produce whose processing has been completed by smoothing the pile
• מֵירוּחַ = smoothing the heap of grain — the act that completes processing and triggers the tithe obligation
• תְּרוּמָה = the priestly portion separated from produce

Segment 23

TYPE: גמרא

וצריכא — why the donkey case alone would not have taught the produce case

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַפְרַישׁ וְקָאֵי.

English Translation:

The Gemara comments that both rulings of Rav Naḥman, i.e., the one concerning firstborn donkeys and the one concerning untithed produce, are necessary. Because had he taught us only the first case, i.e., that of the firstborn donkeys, one could claim that perhaps only in that case the Israelite grandson may keep the lambs; it is considered as if his grandfather who was a priest designated the lambs and acquired them because they stand separated. An act of separation would have been unnecessary, as the priest could have simply declared that his own lambs were serving to redeem the donkeys.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara justifies stating both rulings. Had only the donkeys been taught, one might have confined the principle to them, because there the lambs מפריש וקאי — a kohen owning lambs could simply declare them the redemption, with no act of separation required at all, so the entitlement is as good as exercised. Produce is different: an actual separation must be performed and the portion designated before a kohen acquires anything.

Key Terms:

• וּצְרִיכָא = and both were necessary — neither case could be inferred from the other
• מַפְרִישׁ וְקָאֵי = it stands already separated, requiring no further act

Segment 24

TYPE: גמרא

The counter-consideration: gifts not yet separated are as though not separated

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲבָל הָכָא — מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין, אֵימָא לָא.

English Translation:

But here, with regard to the untithed produce, one must separate the teruma and declare it as such in order for the priest to acquire it. Therefore, perhaps gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled that were not separated are treated as if they were not separated, even if they were already in the possession of a priest. If so, say that it is not considered as if his grandfather who was a priest acquired the teruma.

קלאוד על הדף:

The reason the produce case might have failed is stated as a principle: מתנות שלא הורמו כמי שלא הורמו דמיין. Priestly gifts that have not yet been physically separated do not yet belong to a kohen, even when the produce sits in a kohen’s own house. On that principle the kohen grandfather never acquired the teruma at all, and there would be nothing for the Israelite heir to inherit. Hence the produce case had to be taught in its own right.

Key Terms:

• מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ = priestly gifts that have not been separated out
• כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין = are treated as though they were not separated
• אֵימָא לָא = say it is not so — the mistaken inference the second case forestalls

Segment 25

TYPE: גמרא

And why the produce case alone would not have taught the donkey case

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִי אַשְׁמְועִינַן הָכָא — דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְעַשּׂוֹרֵי מִינֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ, דְּהָא מַנַּח, אֲבָל הָתָם — כֵּיוָן דְּשֶׂה מֵעָלְמָא בָּעֵי אֵתוֹיֵי, וּמַפְרַישׁ וְקָאֵי, אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

English Translation:

And had Rav Naḥman taught us only here, with regard to untithed produce, that it is treated as if his grandfather who was a priest separated the teruma and acquired it, one might claim that this is only because it is possible to tithe the produce from itself, as both the untithed produce and the teruma that will be separated from it lie together. But there, with regard to a firstborn donkey, since one needs to bring a lamb from elsewhere to redeem it, say that the principle that the lamb stands separated and does not require additional separation is not applied. Therefore, it is necessary for both cases to be stated.

קלאוד על הדף:

The צריכא is symmetrical. Had only the produce been taught, one might have confined the principle there, because produce can be tithed מיניה וביה — from itself, since the portion and the pile lie together and nothing need be fetched. A donkey is different: the redeeming lamb is a separate animal that must be brought שה מעלמא, from outside, and one might have supposed that a lamb never brought cannot be treated as though designated. Each case blocks an inference the other would have invited.

Key Terms:

• מִינֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ = from itself — tithing the pile from the pile
• שֶׂה מֵעָלְמָא בָּעֵי אֵתוֹיֵי = he must bring a lamb from elsewhere
• דְּהָא מַנַּח = for it lies there, i.e. the produce is already at hand

Segment 26

TYPE: גמרא

R’ Shmuel bar Natan citing R’ Chanina on buying tevel — the sentence runs into 11b

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נָתָן אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ טְבָלִים

English Translation:

The Gemara discusses a variation of the previous case. Rabbi Shmuel bar Natan says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to one who purchases untithed produce

קלאוד על הדף:

The daf’s final movement opens with a new ruling in the same conceptual family: a purchase that carries produce out of the ordinary obligation to hand priestly gifts over. R’ Shmuel bar Natan transmits R’ Chanina’s teaching about one who buys untithed produce, and the statement breaks off mid-sentence at the turn of the amud. The connection to the preceding rulings is the shared question of when separation must be accompanied by surrender.

Key Terms:

• הַלּוֹקֵחַ = one who purchases
• טְבָלִים = untithed produce, from which gifts have not yet been separated
• רַבִּי חֲנִינָא = an amora of Eretz Yisrael

Amud Bet (11b)

Segment 1

TYPE: גמרא

The completion: smoothed tevel bought from a gentile is tithed, and the portions stay with the buyer

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מְמוֹרָחִין מִן הַגּוֹי, מְעַשְּׂרָן וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ.

English Translation:

that is gathered in smoothed piles, from a gentile, he tithes the piles but they are his, as he is not required to give the teruma to a priest or the tithes to a Levite.

קלאוד על הדף:

The sentence finishes: the produce is bought from a gentile, and the buyer tithes it but keeps everything — no teruma to a kohen, no maaser to a levi. The ruling is striking, since the obligation to separate remains fully in force while the obligation to hand over evaporates. The next two segments unpack how that split is possible, and it turns out to depend entirely on who performed the מירוח.

Key Terms:

• מִן הַגּוֹי = from a gentile
• מְעַשְּׂרָן וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ = he tithes them and they are his
• לֵוִי = a Levite, the recipient of maaser rishon

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא

If the gentile smoothed the piles, there would be no obligation at all

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דְּמָרְחִינְהוּ מַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּמָרְחִינְהוּ גּוֹי — ״דְּגָנְךָ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא דְּגַן גּוֹי!

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: Who smoothed the piles? If we say that a gentile smoothed them, doesn’t the Merciful One state: “Your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17, 18:4), with regard to teruma and tithes, indicating that only grain whose processing is completed by a Jew is subject to the rules of teruma and tithes, but not the grain of a gentile?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara probes the case by asking who completed the processing. If the gentile performed the מירוח, the ruling proves nothing, because the Torah restricts the tithe obligation to דגנך — your grain — and not the grain of a gentile. Such produce would carry no obligation to separate whatsoever, and the ruling’s whole point is that separation IS required while surrender is not.

Key Terms:

• דְּגָנְךָ = your grain (Devarim 12:17, 18:4) — restricting the obligation to a Jew’s produce
• דְּמָרְחִינְהוּ מַאן = who smoothed them — the question that determines the case

Segment 3

TYPE: תירוץ

A Jew smoothed them in the gentile’s domain: separation is required, surrender is not

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא דְּמָרְחִינְהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵרְשׁוּת גּוֹי. מְעַשְּׂרָן, דְּאֵין קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר, וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ — דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: קָאָתֵינָא מִכֹּחַ גַּבְרָא דְּלָא מָצֵית (אִישְׁתַּעֵית) [אִישְׁתַּעוֹיֵי] דִּינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ.

English Translation:

Rather, clearly a Jew smoothed them while they were in the possession of the gentile before purchasing them. Therefore, he tithes them, as a gentile has no capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael that would cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce. But the tithes are still the Jew’s, as he says to the priest: I have come to own this produce on the basis of the rights of a man with whom you cannot engage in litigation, i.e., a gentile, from whom I bought the produce. Since he is not obligated to give teruma or tithes to the priest, I am not required to give them either.

קלאוד על הדף:

The case is reconstructed so that both halves hold. A Jew performed the מירוח while the produce still stood in the gentile’s possession, which triggers the obligation to separate — because אין קנין לגוי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר, a gentile’s ownership of land in Eretz Yisrael cannot strip the land’s produce of its tithe obligation. But the buyer keeps the portions, and the Gemara gives him a line to say to the claiming kohen: קאתינא מכח גברא דלא מצית אישתעויי דינא בהדיה — I derive my title from a man against whom you have no claim in law. Title traced through someone who owed nothing yields nothing owed.

Key Terms:

• אֵין קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל = a gentile has no acquisition in Eretz Yisrael that abrogates the tithe obligation
• לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר = to release from the obligation of tithe
• מִכֹּחַ גַּבְרָא = by the legal power of a man, i.e. deriving title through him

Segment 4

TYPE: משנה

A mishna from Demai: produce deposited with a Kuti or an am ha’aretz keeps its status

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹתָיו אֵצֶל הַכּוּתִי וְאֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ, בְּחֶזְקָתָן לַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְלַשְּׁבִיעִית.

English Translation:

The Gemara cites an additional discussion involving this issue: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Demai 3:4) that with regard to one who deposits his produce with a Samaritan or with one who is unreliable with regard to tithes [am ha’aretz], when they return it to him, the produce retains its presumptive status with regard to the halakhot of tithe and produce of the Sabbatical Year, both of which must be removed from one’s property. The Samaritan or am ha’aretz is not suspected of having exchanged the deposited produce with untithed produce or produce of the Sabbatical Year.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara cites a mishna from Demai to develop the theme. Produce left on deposit with a Kuti or with an am ha’aretz — one not trusted regarding tithes — is returned with its presumptive status intact for both maaser and shevi’it. Neither is suspected of having swapped the deposit for produce of his own, so no new doubt attaches to what comes back.

Key Terms:

• הַמַּפְקִיד = one who deposits an item for safekeeping
• עַם הָאָרֶץ = one not trusted regarding the separation of tithes
• בְּחֶזְקָתָן = in their presumptive status, unchanged
• שְׁבִיעִית = produce of the Sabbatical year, subject to its own restrictions

Segment 5

TYPE: משנה

But produce deposited with a gentile is treated as his own; R’ Shimon says demai

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֵצֶל הַגּוֹי — כְּפֵירוֹתָיו, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: דְּמַאי.

English Translation:

But in the case of one who deposits his produce with a gentile, the produce returned to him is treated as the produce of the gentile, as he presumably exchanged it with his own. Rabbi Shimon says: It is treated as doubtfully tithed produce [demai], as it is uncertain whether the gentile exchanged the produce or not.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna’s second clause changes the presumption. Produce deposited with a gentile is treated כפירותיו, as though it were his own produce, on the assumption that he exchanged it. R’ Shimon dissents and classifies it as דמאי — doubtfully tithed — since the exchange is a supposition rather than a certainty, and demai carries its own lighter regime.

Key Terms:

• כְּפֵירוֹתָיו = like his own produce — presumed exchanged
• דְּמַאי = produce whose tithing is doubtful, governed by a lighter set of rules

Segment 6

TYPE: גמרא

R’ Elazar locates the dispute: not whether to separate, but whether to hand over

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְהַפְרִישׁ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי — לִיתְּנָן לְכֹהֵן. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: וַדַּאי חַלְּפִינְהוּ, וּבָעֵי מִיתְּנַנְהוּ לְכֹהֵן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: דְּמַאי.

English Translation:

The mishna continues: Rabbi Elazar says: Everyone agrees that one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes from the produce that the gentile returned to him. When they disagree it is with regard to giving it to the priest following the separation. The first tanna holds that the gentile certainly exchanged the produce, and therefore the owner needs to give the teruma to the priest. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the produce is treated as demai, so in order to receive teruma, the priest must bring proof that the produce requires tithing.

קלאוד על הדף:

R’ Elazar clarifies that the two tanna’im do not disagree about separation at all — that is required on every view. The dispute concerns what happens next. The tanna kamma, holding the exchange certain, requires the portion to be given to the kohen. R’ Shimon, holding it merely doubtful, treats the produce as demai, in which case the kohen must produce proof before he can collect. The disagreement is about burden of proof, not about obligation.

Key Terms:

• לְהַפְרִישׁ = to separate the priestly and levitical portions
• לִיתְּנָן לְכֹהֵן = to give them to the kohen
• כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי = everyone agrees, there is no dispute on this point

Segment 7

TYPE: קושיא

Abaye challenges Rav Dimi from R’ Chanina’s ruling

Hebrew/Aramaic:

יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: טַעְמָא דִּמְסַפְּקָא לַן אִי חַלְּפִינְהוּ אִי לָא חַלְּפִינְהוּ, הָא וַדַּאי חַלְּפִינְהוּ — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְּבִינְהוּ לְכֹהֵן, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ טְבָלִים מִן הַגּוֹי מְמוֹרָחִין — מְעַשְּׂרָן וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ!

English Translation:

Rav Dimi sat and stated this halakha of Rabbi Elazar. Abaye said to him: The reason that Rabbi Shimon disagrees is that we are uncertain whether the gentile exchanged it or whether he did not exchange it. But if he definitely exchanged it, everyone agrees that he is required to give the teruma and tithes to a priest. Why? But doesn’t Rabbi Shmuel say that Rabbi Ḥanina says: In the case of one who purchases untithed produce from a gentile that is gathered in smoothed piles, i.e., it was completely processed, he tithes and separates teruma from the piles of produce but they are his, and he is not required to give the teruma to a priest?

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Dimi was reciting R’ Elazar’s analysis when Abaye raised a sharp objection. If R’ Shimon’s leniency rests on the uncertainty, then where the exchange is certain all would agree the kohen must be paid. But R’ Chanina ruled earlier on this very daf that one who buys smoothed tevel from a gentile tithes it and keeps everything — a case of certain gentile provenance where nothing is handed over. The two positions appear irreconcilable.

Key Terms:

• רַב דִּימִי = an amora who carried teachings between Eretz Yisrael and Bavel
• טַעְמָא דְּ = the reason is that — isolating what a ruling depends on
• וַדַּאי חַלְּפִינְהוּ = he certainly exchanged them

Segment 8

TYPE: תירוץ

Rav Dimi distinguishes teruma gedola from terumat maaser

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דִּלְמָא כָּאן בִּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, כָּאן בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר!

English Translation:

Rav Dimi said to him: Perhaps here, in the mishna that indicates that he must give the teruma to a priest, it is referring to teruma gedola, i.e., the teruma that is separated from the produce before tithes, whereas there, Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement that he separates tithes from them but they are his is referring to the teruma that is separated from the tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Dimi answers by separating two different priestly portions. תרומה גדולה is taken first, straight from the pile, before any tithes; תרומת מעשר is what the levi separates from the maaser he receives. The mishna requiring surrender to the kohen speaks of the former; R’ Chanina’s leniency speaks of the latter. Once the two are distinguished, both rulings can stand.

Key Terms:

• תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה = the great teruma, separated from the produce before any tithes
• תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר = the tithe of the tithe, separated by the levi from his maaser and given to a kohen
• דִּלְמָא = perhaps — introducing a tentative distinction

Segment 9

TYPE: גמרא

Abaye: you have reminded me — R’ Yehoshua ben Levi’s derivation for exactly that exemption

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אַזְכַּרְתַּן מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מִנַּיִן לַלּוֹקֵחַ טְבָלִים מְמוֹרָחִין מִן הַגּוֹי שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִתְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֶל הַלְוִיִּם תְּדַבֵּר וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם כִּי תִקְחוּ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, טְבָלִים שֶׁאַתָּה לוֹקֵחַ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל — אַתָּה מַפְרִישׁ מֵהֶן תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְנוֹתְנָהּ לַכֹּהֵן, טְבָלִים שֶׁאַתָּה לוֹקֵחַ מִן הַגּוֹי — אִי אַתָּה מַפְרִישׁ מֵהֶן תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְנוֹתְנָהּ לַכֹּהֵן.

English Translation:

Abaye said to him: You reminded me of a statement that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: From where is it derived that one who purchases from a gentile untithed produce that is gathered in smoothed piles is exempt from separating the teruma of the tithe? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And you shall speak to the Levites, and say to them: When you take the tithe from the children of Israel…then you shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). It can be inferred from here that concerning untithed produce that you purchase from the children of Israel, you separate teruma of the tithe from it and give the teruma of the tithe to a priest, but concerning untithed produce that you purchase from a gentile, you do not separate teruma of the tithe from it and give it to a priest.

קלאוד על הדף:

Abaye’s reply is one of the warmer moments in the sugya: אזכרתן מילתא, you have reminded me of something. Rav Dimi’s distinction turns out to have a scriptural basis already taught by R’ Yehoshua ben Levi. The verse addressing the levi’im says כי תקחו מאת בני ישראל — when you take from the children of Israel — and the specification is read as restrictive. Tevel taken from Israelites carries terumat maaser to be given to a kohen; tevel taken from a gentile does not. Rav Dimi’s answer is thereby confirmed from a verse.

Key Terms:

• אַזְכַּרְתַּן מִילְּתָא = you have reminded me of a matter
• כִּי תִקְחוּ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל = when you take from the children of Israel (Bamidbar 18:26)
• רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי = an amora of Eretz Yisrael of the first generation

Segment 10

TYPE: קושיא

The mishna’s last clause: if the lamb dies one may benefit from it — but where did it die?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִם מֵת נֶהֱנִים בּוֹ. דְּמִית הֵיכָא? אִילֵּימָא דְּמִית בֵּי כֹהֵן, וְנֶהֱנֶה בּוֹ כֹּהֵן — פְּשִׁיטָא, מָמוֹנָא דִּידֵיהּ הוּא! אֶלָּא, דְּמִית בֵּי בְעָלִים וְנֶהֱנֶה בּוֹ כֹּהֵן — הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא!

English Translation:

The mishna teaches with regard to the lamb that is used to redeem the firstborn donkey: And if it dies, one may derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Where did it die? If we say that it died in the house of the priest, and the mishna means that the priest may derive benefit from it, isn’t it obvious? The lamb is his property. Rather, perhaps the mishna means that it died in the house of the owner before it was given to the priest, and teaches that the priest may derive benefit from it. Isn’t this also obvious?

קלאוד על הדף:

The daf returns to the mishna of 9a one final time, to its closing words ואם מת נהנין בו. The Gemara cannot find the novelty. If the lamb died in the kohen’s house and the kohen benefits, that is obvious — it is simply his. If it died in the owner’s house and the kohen benefits, that too seems obvious, since the owner designated it precisely so the kohen should have it. Neither reading yields a teaching worth stating.

Key Terms:

• וְאִם מֵת נֶהֱנִין בּוֹ = and if it dies, one may derive benefit from it
• מָמוֹנָא דִּידֵיהּ הוּא = it is his own property
• בֵּי כֹהֵן / בֵּי בְעָלִים = in the kohen’s house / in the owner’s house

Segment 11

TYPE: תירוץ / מסקנא

The novelty: the kohen acquires the lamb from the moment of designation

Hebrew/Aramaic:

סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, כֹּל כַּמָּה דְּלָא מְטָא לִידֵיהּ לָא זְכָה בֵּיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמֵעִידָּנָא דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ, בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּכֹהֵן קָאֵי.

English Translation:

The Gemara responds: It might enter your mind to say that as long as the lamb has not reached the possession of the priest, the priest has not acquired it. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that from the time that the Israelite separated it, it stands in the possession of the priest.

קלאוד על הדף:

The answer supplies a real and practical teaching. One might have assumed that the kohen’s title begins only when the lamb physically reaches his hand, so that a lamb dying in the owner’s yard was never his and its carcass would be the owner’s problem. The mishna rules otherwise: מעידנא דאפרשיה ברשותיה דכהן קאי — from the instant the Israelite set it aside, the lamb stands in the kohen’s possession. Designation, not delivery, transfers ownership, and the loss of an animal that dies before collection therefore falls on the kohen.

Key Terms:

• מֵעִידָּנָא דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ = from the moment he separated it
• בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּכֹהֵן קָאֵי = it stands in the kohen’s domain, i.e. is already his
• לָא מְטָא לִידֵיהּ = it has not reached his hand

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 11 completes the sugya of how much a פטר חמור (peter chamor, firstborn donkey) costs to redeem, then moves outward in widening circles — from the value of the שה (seh, lamb) to who may perform the redemption, to who owns what afterward, and finally to a cluster of rulings about produce and tithes that share the same underlying logic. The daf opens by resolving the challenge left hanging at the end of 10b: R’ Yosei bar Yehuda had derived a one-shekel floor for all redemptions from “וכל ערכך יהיה בשקל הקדש” (and all your valuations shall be in the sacred shekel, Vayikra 27:25), and the Rabbanan answer that this verse speaks בהשג יד — with regard to affordability, setting a minimum only for one who vowed an ערך (erech, a Torah-fixed valuation of a person) and cannot pay the full amount. With that floor removed, Rav Nachman rules that a donkey may be redeemed with a lamb worth less than a shekel, and Rav Yosef pushes the leniency to its limit. The daf then balances that leniency against a competing tradition of graded generosity from R’ Tarfon, resolves the tension through the distinction between one who asks and one who acts, and proceeds to Reish Lakish’s ruling that money may substitute for a lamb entirely. The second half turns structural: a series of rulings by Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avuh about designating lambs for safek firstborns and about inherited obligations, capped by a צריכא (tzricha, a demonstration that both rulings were necessary), and then a parallel discussion of tevel purchased from a gentile that runs to the end of the daf.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• The Rabbanan read “וכל ערכך יהיה בשקל הקדש” as a rule of השג יד (affordability in erech vows), not a universal minimum for redemptions — so no shekel floor applies to peter chamor.
• Rav Nachman rules like the Rabbanan: one may redeem with a seh worth less than a shekel. Rav Yosef specifies even a פטרוזא בר דנקא (patruza bar danka, a scrawny lamb worth a ma’ah, one sixth of a dinar). Rava notes the mishna’s גדול וקטן (large or small) already implies this; the Gemara explains Rav Yosef was needed lest one disqualify the lamb either for its trivial value or for its poor physical condition.
• R’ Yehuda Nesia, owning a peter chamor, consults R’ Tarfon, who gives the Sages’ graded scale: עין יפה בסלע (a generous disposition, a sela, four dinars), עין רעה בשקל (a miserly one, a shekel, two dinars), בינונית ברגיא (an intermediate one, a ragya).
• Rava rules the halacha is a ragya — three dinars, so named because it is רגיל הכא ורגיל הכא, close to each side, sitting between four and two.
• קשיא הלכתא אהלכתא: Rava’s three dinars against Rav Nachman’s “any amount.” Resolved — כאן בבא לימלך, כאן בעושה מעצמו: three dinars is the guidance for one who comes to ask; one who acts on his own has discharged the obligation with a ma’ah-lamb.
• R’ Yitzchak in the name of Reish Lakish: one with no lamb redeems בשוויו, at the donkey’s value, in money. Rav Acha attributed this to R’ Shimon; Ravina objected that halacha follows R’ Yehuda against R’ Shimon and that a סתם mishna follows R’ Yehuda.
• Ravina’s resolution: even R’ Yehuda agrees — לא יהא חמור מן ההקדש (it should not be more stringent than hekdesh) and ולא אמרה תורה בשה להחמיר עליו אלא להקל עליו (the Torah specified a seh to be lenient, not stringent). Rav Nachman son of Rav Yosef redeemed one with שילקי (boiled vegetables) at full value.
• Rav Sheizevi in the name of Rav Huna: redeeming another’s peter chamor is valid. The dilemma — per R’ Yehuda, is the donkey now the redeemer’s, like hekdesh where “ונתן הכסף וקם לו” (Vayikra 27:19), or the owner’s, since the owner retains the דביני ביני (the margin between the donkey’s value and the cheap lamb)?
• Rav Nachman resolves it from a baraita: a thief pays כפל (double payment) to the owner — and since “וגנב מבית האיש” (Shemot 22:6) excludes hekdesh from kefel, the donkey is not hekdesh-like and remains the owner’s. ותו לא מידי.
• The mishna’s נכנס לדיר להתעשר is clarified: since הלקוח ושניתן לו במתנה פטור ממעשר בהמה, it cannot mean a lamb that reached the kohen. Rather, a Jew with ten safek firstborn donkeys designates ten lambs, tithes them, והן שלו — they are his, the kohen having no proof.
• Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avuh rules likewise, and adds the inheritance case: ten certain firstborn donkeys inherited from a maternal grandfather who was a kohen, who had himself inherited them from his own maternal grandfather, a Jew — the heir designates, tithes, and keeps the lambs.
• A parallel ruling for טבלים ממורחין (smoothed piles of untithed produce) inherited through the same chain, followed by a וצריכא: donkeys alone would not teach produce (there the lambs מפריש וקאי, already stand separated, while מתנות שלא הורמו כמי שלא הורמו דמיין), and produce alone would not teach donkeys (there one tithes מיניה וביה, from the produce itself, while a lamb must be brought מעלמא, from elsewhere).

Amud Bet Highlights

• R’ Shmuel bar Natan in the name of R’ Chanina (begun on 11a): one who buys טבלים ממורחין from a gentile tithes them והן שלו — he keeps both the teruma and the maaser.
• Who performed the מירוח (smoothing)? Not the gentile — “דגנך” (your grain) excludes a gentile’s grain and there would be no obligation at all. Rather a Jew smoothed them in the gentile’s domain: the obligation attaches because אין קנין לגוי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר (a gentile has no acquisition in Eretz Yisrael that abrogates maaser), yet the gifts stay with him because he tells the kohen קאתינא מכח גברא דלא מצית אישתעויי דינא בהדיה — I come with the rights of a man you cannot litigate against.
• The mishna in Demai 3:4: produce deposited with a Kuti or an am ha’aretz keeps its presumptive status; deposited with a gentile it is treated כפירותיו, as his own produce. R’ Shimon says דמאי (doubtfully tithed).
• R’ Elazar: all agree separation is required; the dispute is only about giving the portion to the kohen — the tanna kamma holds it was certainly swapped, R’ Shimon holds it is only demai.
• Abaye challenges Rav Dimi: R’ Elazar implies that if the swap were certain, all would require giving it to the kohen — yet R’ Chanina ruled that tevel bought from a gentile is tithed and kept.
• Rav Dimi answers that the mishna concerns תרומה גדולה while R’ Chanina spoke of תרומת מעשר.
• Abaye replies אזכרתן מילתא — you reminded me — citing R’ Yehoshua ben Levi’s derivation from “ואל הלוים תדבר ואמרת אלהם כי תקחו מאת בני ישראל” (Bamidbar 18:26): terumat maaser is owed on tevel taken from Israelites, not from a gentile.
• The mishna’s closing ואם מת נהנים בו is clarified: the novelty is not that the kohen benefits from a lamb in his own house or even in the Israelite’s, but that מעידנא דאפרשיה ברשותיה דכהן קאי — from the moment of separation the lamb stands in the kohen’s possession.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

The shekel floor is rejected: the halacha follows the Rabbanan, and a peter chamor is validly redeemed with a lamb of any value, even a patruza worth a ma’ah. Rava’s ragya of three dinars is not a contradiction but a different register — instruction for one who comes to ask (בא לימלך) rather than a validity threshold for one who acts on his own (עושה מעצמו). Reish Lakish’s allowance of redemption with money at full value is accepted even according to R’ Yehuda, on the principle that the seh was specified as a leniency. The dilemma about redeeming another’s donkey is decisively settled (ותו לא מידי) by the kefel baraita: the donkey is not hekdesh-like and reverts to its owner. The mishna’s tithing clause is resolved by the designation cases, and both of Rav Nachman’s rulings in the name of Rabba bar Avuh are shown necessary by the צריכא. The tevel-from-a-gentile discussion ends with Abaye’s citation of R’ Yehoshua ben Levi’s derivation from “מאת בני ישראל,” and the daf closes by establishing that the kohen acquires the redemption lamb from the moment of separation.

Key Figures

Tannaim: R’ Yosei bar Yehuda, R’ Shimon, R’ Yehuda, R’ Tarfon, R’ Yehuda Nesia, the Rabbanan

Amoraim: Rava, Rav Nachman, Rav Yosef, R’ Yitzchak, Reish Lakish, Rav Acha, Ravina, Rav Sheizevi, Rav Huna, Rabba bar Avuh, Rav Nachman son of Rav Yosef, R’ Shmuel bar Natan, R’ Chanina, Rav Dimi, Abaye, R’ Elazar, R’ Yehoshua ben Levi

One-Line Takeaway

The Torah’s שה was prescribed to make redemption easy, not expensive — so a lamb of any value (or money at full value) discharges the peter chamor, and the wider principle that a lenient specification cannot be turned into a stringency governs the whole daf, from the ragya’s advisory three dinars to the inherited lambs and the tevel bought from a gentile.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf is mostly about a donkey and a lamb — specifically, how cheap a lamb you can get away with when you’re buying your firstborn donkey back from a kohen (a priest). Then it slides into a related question: when produce or animals pass through the hands of someone who isn’t obligated in tithes, who ends up owing what to whom? Underneath both halves is one big idea — the difference between what the law demands and what a decent person actually does.

Finishing Yesterday’s Argument 🧾

Yesterday we left off mid-fight. Everyone agrees a firstborn donkey gets redeemed with a seh (a lamb or a kid) handed to a kohen. The fight was about the price tag.

R’ Yosei bar Yehuda said the lamb has to be worth at least a shekel (two dinars — a dinar is the basic everyday coin, so think of it as two days’ wages). Rava found him a verse to lean on: “every valuation shall be in the sacred shekel.”

Today the Rabbanan — the majority Sages — fire back: that verse isn’t about price floors at all. It’s about השג יד (hasagat yad), which literally means “the reach of the hand,” and basically means “what you can afford.”

Here’s the setup that verse is actually describing. Someone makes a vow to donate a person’s fixed Torah “valuation” to the Temple, and then discovers he genuinely can’t pay the full amount. The Torah gives him a sliding scale based on his means — but sets a floor of one shekel, so there’s a minimum even for the poorest donor.

That’s it. That’s the whole job of the verse. It’s a hardship clause for Temple pledges. It has nothing whatsoever to say about donkeys.

Think of it like… finding a line in your phone contract that says “minimum monthly payment: $10” and then insisting it means every product in the entire store must cost at least ten dollars. No! It’s a rule about that one payment plan, not a price floor for the universe.

The Simple Idea 💡: The “minimum one shekel” verse is a hardship rule for Temple pledges, not a general minimum price — so it can’t set a floor for donkey redemption.

How Scrawny Can the Lamb Be? 🐑

So if that verse is off the table, the Rabbanan win: any amount works. The lamb can be worth whatever it’s worth.

Rav Nachman confirms it — the halacha (the practical law) follows the Rabbanan. Any value at all.

But “any amount” is vague, so Rav Yosef gets specific, and his answer is wonderfully vivid. He says even a פטרוזא בר דנקא (petruza bar danka) works — a scrawny, scraggly little lamb worth a single ma’ah.

How much is a ma’ah? One sixth of a dinar. Sixth. Of one coin. If a dinar is a day’s wage, a ma’ah is roughly an hour’s work. For a whole donkey.

Rava backs him up from the mishna we saw back on daf 9a, which said the redemption lamb may be “large or small.” Small means small. Even this small.

And then the Gemara does that thing it loves to do — it stops and asks: wait, wasn’t that obvious? Why did the mishna have to bother telling us “small” counts?

Two reasons, actually. First, you might have assumed a value that trivial simply doesn’t register as a real transaction — like trying to buy a car with a coupon. Second, you might have thought a scrawny animal in particular is out, not because of its price but because of its sorry condition — that it’s somehow an insult to hand a kohen a sickly runt.

The mishna heads off both worries. Small is small. Scruffy is fine. It counts.

Think of it like… a shop that says “any trade-in accepted toward a new bike.” You might assume that surely doesn’t include the rusted, one-pedalled wreck in your shed. The sign has to clarify: yes, even that one.

The Simple Idea 💡: Even a scrawny lamb worth a sixth of a coin legally redeems a whole donkey — both its tiny price and its sorry condition are fine.

A Prince, a Donkey, and a Sliding Scale 👑

Now a lovely little real-life story, the kind that makes the Gemara feel like a place with actual people in it.

R’ Yehuda Nesia (Nesia means “the Prince” — he was the head of the Jewish community) owned a firstborn donkey. He sent it over to R’ Tarfon with a question attached: how much do I actually have to give the kohen here?

R’ Tarfon didn’t answer with one number. He quoted a teaching from the Sages with three, sorted by character:

A sela is four dinars; a shekel is two. And ragya sits right in the middle at three. The Gemara even tells us where the odd word comes from — רגיל (ragil), meaning “usual” or “regular.” It’s the one that’s “close to this one and close to that one,” nestled between the four and the two.

Notice that nothing here is about affordability. A generous eye and a stingy eye aren’t rich and poor — they’re two ways of showing up to the same obligation. One person asks “what’s the most I can give?” The other asks “what’s the least I can get away with?”

Rava issues the final ruling: a ragya. Three dinars. Be normal.

Think of it like… tipping in a restaurant. Nobody’s arresting you for tipping nothing. But there’s a generous number, a stingy number, and a normal number that decent people land on — and everyone knows which is which.

The Simple Idea 💡: The Sages graded donkey redemption by generosity — four, three, or two dinars — and the ruling lands on three, the ordinary decent amount.

But Wait — Two Rulings That Contradict! ⚖️

Hold on. We just had two “final rulings” in a row and they don’t match.

Rav Nachman said: any amount, even a ma’ah — one sixth of a dinar. Rava said: three dinars. That’s eighteen times more.

The Gemara flags it with a memorable phrase: קשיא הלכתא אהלכתא (kashya hilchata a’hilchata) — “one halacha contradicts another halacha!” It’s not two opinions disagreeing. It’s two verdicts. That’s worse.

The resolution is elegant, and it’s honestly one of the most useful ideas on the whole daf. They’re answering two different questions.

בא לימלך (ba lim’lech) — someone who comes to ask. He’s standing in front of you before he’s done anything, saying “Rabbi, what should I do?” You tell him three dinars, because that’s what a person should do.

עושה מעצמו (oseh me’atzmo) — someone who did it himself. He already handed over the scrawny ma’ah lamb and walked off with his donkey, and now he’s asking whether he’s in trouble. Answer: no. It’s valid. It’s done. The donkey is legitimately his.

So Rava is giving advice in advance. Rav Nachman is giving a verdict after the fact. Both are correct, because a question asked before an act and a question asked after one are simply not the same question.

Think of it like… a friend asking “what should I wear to the wedding?” versus texting you from the parking lot: “I’m in jeans — am I going to be thrown out?” You answer the first one with a suit and the second one with “you’re fine, get inside.”

The Simple Idea 💡: Ask before and you’re told the generous answer; ask after and you’re told the technically-valid one — and neither answer is wrong.

What If You Don’t Own a Lamb? 🥕

New problem. The Torah says to redeem the donkey with a seh. What if you don’t have one and can’t easily get one?

R’ Yitzchak, quoting Reish Lakish, says: redeem it with money equal to the donkey’s full value, and hand that to the kohen.

Notice the shift, though. With a lamb, you can pay a ma’ah for a hundred-dinar donkey. With money, you have to pay the donkey’s whole value. The lamb is a bargain; cash is full price.

The Gemara immediately asks whose opinion this is, because there’s a known dispute. R’ Yehuda holds the Torah was particular: a lamb, specifically, nothing else. R’ Shimon is flexible. So Reish Lakish must be following R’ Shimon, right?

Rav Acha taught it exactly that way. But Ravina had two serious objections.

First, there’s a standing rule: whenever R’ Yehuda and R’ Shimon argue, the halacha follows R’ Yehuda. So why would Reish Lakish rule like the loser?

Second, worse: the mishna on 9a is stated anonymously and already follows R’ Yehuda’s view. An anonymous mishna carries enormous weight — it’s the default setting of the whole system. You don’t casually rule against it.

Ravina’s fix is beautiful. This works even for R’ Yehuda, he says. And he gives two reasons.

לא יהא חמור מן ההקדש — “let it not be stricter than hekdesh.” Hekdesh is property consecrated to the Temple, which is about as serious as Jewish property law gets — and even that can be redeemed with anything of equivalent value. A firstborn donkey can’t possibly outrank the Temple treasury in strictness.

And the clincher: the Torah’s “with a seh” was להקל עליו (lehakel alav — to make it easier for him), not להחמיר עליו (lehachmir alav — to make it harder). The entire point of the lamb option is to let a cheap animal buy back an expensive one. It’s a discount. You can’t take a discount and turn it into a restriction that traps someone with no way out.

Then the Gemara offers a real case, and it’s delightful: Rav Nachman son of Rav Yosef once redeemed a firstborn donkey with boiled vegetables worth the donkey’s full value. Not a lamb. Not even coins. Dinner.

Think of it like… a store coupon that says “swap any old blender for a new one.” The coupon exists to save you money. So if you don’t have an old blender, the store doesn’t say “sorry, no new blender for you, ever.” You just pay the normal price. The coupon was a favour, not a gate.

The Simple Idea 💡: The lamb is a discount, not a requirement — so with no lamb, anything of the donkey’s full value works, even a pot of vegetables.

Can Someone Else Pay for My Donkey? 🎁

Rav Sheizevi, quoting Rav Huna: yes. A stranger can redeem your firstborn donkey and the redemption is valid.

But that raises a much juicier question: who owns the donkey now? The person who paid, or the original owner?

For R’ Shimon, there’s nothing to discuss. He permits benefiting from an unredeemed firstborn donkey, so the animal was never really out of the owner’s hands. It stays his.

The question bites for R’ Yehuda, who forbids benefiting from it before redemption. In his view the donkey is in a kind of frozen state — you own it on paper but can’t use it. So what unfreezes it, and for whom?

Argument A — it’s like hekdesh. With consecrated Temple property the Torah says ונתן הכסף וקם לו (v’natan hakesef v’kam lo) — “he gives the money and it becomes his.” Whoever pays walks off with the item, even a total stranger. If the frozen donkey works that way, the payer takes it.

Argument B — it’s not like hekdesh. Here’s the difference: the owner keeps the דביני ביני (deveini beinei — the “in-between”), meaning the gap in value between the expensive donkey and the cheap lamb. That margin was always his. So he never fully let go. With real hekdesh, the person who consecrated it keeps nothing at all — the item is entirely out of his world.

Rav Nachman settles it with a baraita about theft. If someone steals an unredeemed firstborn donkey, he pays כפל (kefel — double payment, the standard thief’s penalty) to the owner, “and although he doesn’t have it now, he’ll have it later.”

That phrase — doesn’t have it now, will have it later — has to be R’ Yehuda talking, since for R’ Shimon the owner has full use of it right now.

And here’s the punch. If that donkey were legally hekdesh, there would be no double payment at all. The Torah specifies that a thief pays double when the item is stolen מבית האיש (mibeit ha’ish) — “from a man’s house” — and pointedly not from the Temple treasury. Steal from hekdesh and you don’t pay double.

Double payment applies here. Therefore it isn’t hekdesh. Therefore it belongs to the owner, not the payer.

The Gemara stamps it closed with ותו לא מידי — “and there is nothing more to say.” Case closed.

Think of it like… a friend quietly settling your parking ticket. The car doesn’t become his. He did you a favour; you still own the car. And how do we know? Because if someone stole that car, the police report would still list you as the victim.

The Simple Idea 💡: A stranger’s payment frees your donkey but doesn’t buy it — proven by the fact that a thief would owe double to you.

The Ten-Donkey Trick 🐑🐑🐑

Back on daf 9a, the mishna mentioned something odd: the “just-in-case” lamb an owner sets aside can be counted into the pen for מעשר בהמה (ma’aser beheima — animal tithe, where you herd your animals through a gate and every tenth one is marked holy).

A baraita asks: how is that even possible? Animals you bought or received as a gift are exempt from animal tithe. And a redemption lamb goes to a kohen, which means for the kohen it arrived as a gift. So it should be exempt.

The answer is a neat bit of engineering. The case is a Jew with ten doubtful firstborn donkeys — animals where it isn’t clear whether they’re firstborns at all.

He designates ten lambs, one per donkey. But since every case is doubtful, the kohen can’t prove a claim on any single one. And so all ten lambs stay his. They were never given away. They’re homegrown, not gifts — which means they’re fully liable for animal tithe.

Rav Nachman, quoting Rabba bar Avuh, confirms exactly this scenario.

Think of it like… ten sealed envelopes where only some might contain a bill you owe. You set aside ten payments, but nobody can prove which envelope is real — so the money stays in your account, still fully yours, still fully taxable.

The Simple Idea 💡: Lambs set aside for doubtful firstborn donkeys never actually change hands, so they stay the owner’s and count for animal tithe.

The Grandfather Puzzle 👴

Rav Nachman, still quoting Rabba bar Avuh, offers a second case — and it’s a gorgeous piece of legal plumbing. Follow the family tree slowly.

A Jew inherits ten definite firstborn donkeys from his mother’s father, who was a kohen.

But that kohen grandfather had himself inherited those donkeys from his mother’s father — who was a regular Jew.

So trace it: the donkeys genuinely did need redeeming, because they started with an ordinary Jew. Then they passed to a kohen. And here’s the key: a kohen who owns a firstborn donkey redeems it by designating a lamb and paying it to himself, since he’s the kohen. He keeps the lamb.

So grandpa the kohen could have done that and kept ten lambs. Now the Israelite grandson designates ten lambs for the ten donkeys — and the lambs are his, exactly as if grandpa had set them aside and willed them down. Not a gift. Not a purchase. An inheritance-shaped entitlement. Liable for animal tithe.

Version three of the same structure uses טבלים ממורחין (tevalim memorachin) — untithed produce that’s been “smoothed,” meaning piled and finished, which is the moment tithe obligation kicks in. Same grandfather chain, same result: he tithes it and keeps the portions.

And then: וצריכא — “both were necessary.” Neither case alone teaches the other.

From the donkey case alone you’d say it only works there because of מפריש וקאי — the kohen’s lambs are effectively “already separated and standing,” since he could designate them with a word and no real action. Maybe produce, which takes actual work, is different.

From the produce case alone you’d say it only works there because you tithe מיניה וביה — from the pile itself, no outside materials needed. Whereas a redemption lamb has to be brought from elsewhere, which is a bigger step. Maybe that’s too much.

So both are taught, and together they cover the ground.

Think of it like… inheriting a house with a coupon book still in the kitchen drawer. The coupons were never used, but they were the previous owner’s to use — and now they’re yours, unredeemed but real.

The Simple Idea 💡: Entitlements that a kohen grandfather could have claimed pass down the chain, so the grandson’s lambs and produce portions are genuinely his.

Buying Untithed Produce From a Gentile 🌾

Now amud bet, and a shift from animals to grain.

R’ Shmuel bar Natan, quoting R’ Chanina: if you buy smoothed piles of untithed produce from a gentile, you separate the tithes — but you keep them. No teruma handed to a kohen, no maaser handed to a Levi. You take them off and they’re yours.

That sounds strange, so the Gemara probes it: who did the smoothing?

If the gentile did it, there’s no obligation at all. The Torah’s tithe verses say דגנך (deganecha) — “your grain.” Your grain, not someone else’s. If the tithe-triggering moment happened in a gentile’s hands, the obligation never switched on.

So the case must be that a Jew did the smoothing while the produce was still owned by the gentile. Now it’s complicated — the moment happened in Jewish hands.

And here the obligation does attach, for a reason worth savouring: אין קנין לגוי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר — a gentile’s ownership in the Land of Israel cannot cancel the land’s tithe obligation. The obligation is attached to the soil, not only to the person. Ownership changes; the land’s status doesn’t.

But he keeps the portions, and his argument to the kohen is one of the great lines on the daf: קאתינא מכח גברא דלא מצית אישתעויי דינא בהדיה — “I come with the strength of a man you cannot take to court.”

Meaning: I’m standing in the shoes of the previous owner. You had no claim against him. You can’t sue him, you can’t compel him, you couldn’t have collected a grain from him. So you can’t collect from me either. I inherited his position, and his position was immune.

Think of it like… buying a secondhand phone. There’s a bill outstanding — but the shop can’t come after you, because they never had a way to come after the seller either. You bought his legal position along with the phone, and his position included that shield.

The Simple Idea 💡: The land’s tithe obligation survives a gentile’s ownership, but a buyer keeps the portions by standing in the shoes of a seller no kohen could have sued.

Produce Left With Someone Else 📦

A mishna from tractate Demai now, about leaving your produce in someone’s keeping.

Leave it with a Kuti (a Samaritan — a distinct halachic category) or with an am ha’aretz (literally “person of the land,” meaning someone not reliable about tithes), and when you collect it, it keeps its original status. Neither group is suspected of swapping your produce for theirs.

Leave it with a gentile, and it’s treated as his produce — presumed swapped, since he has no reason to preserve the arrangement.

R’ Shimon objects: hold on, we don’t actually know it was swapped. So treat it as דמאי (demai) — the special middle category for produce whose tithe status is genuinely doubtful.

R’ Elazar then sharpens what they’re really fighting about: everyone agrees you must separate the tithes. The dispute is only whether you must hand them over to the kohen.

Think of it like… leaving your coat at two different coat checks. One is run by careful people and you’re confident you’ll get the same coat. The other is chaotic, and the question becomes — do you treat the coat you got back as definitely someone else’s, or just possibly?

The Simple Idea 💡: Produce left with a gentile is presumed swapped, and the practical fight is not over separating tithes but over who gets to keep them.

Abaye’s Objection and the Forgotten Verse 💥

Rav Dimi was reciting R’ Elazar’s teaching out loud, and Abaye stopped him.

Here’s the objection. If R’ Shimon is lenient only because of doubt, then logically, when a swap is certain, everyone should agree the kohen gets the portions. But R’ Chanina just told us that someone who buys from a gentile — a certain case, no doubt at all — keeps everything! Contradiction.

Rav Dimi offers a distinction: maybe the mishna is talking about תרומה גדולה (teruma gedola — the first, main teruma taken off the crop), while R’ Chanina was talking about תרומת מעשר (terumat maaser — the tithe-of-the-tithe, the portion the Levi separates from what he receives). Two different portions, two different rules.

And then comes my favourite moment on the daf. Abaye exclaims אזכרתן מילתא — “you’ve just reminded me of something!”

Because R’ Yehoshua ben Levi derived precisely that distinction from a verse. The Torah tells the Levites: “when you take from the children of Israel” the tithe, separate terumat maaser from it and give it to the kohen.

Read it closely. From the children of Israel. Produce that came to you from a fellow Jew — separate terumat maaser and hand it to the kohen. Produce that came to you from a gentile — that clause doesn’t describe you, and you don’t hand it over.

Rav Dimi reasoned his way to a distinction, and Abaye suddenly remembered the verse that had been sitting there proving it all along.

Think of it like… arguing that a warranty probably only covers items bought from the official store — and then someone digs out the paperwork and there it is in black and white. You were right, and now you’re right with a receipt.

The Simple Idea 💡: Terumat maaser is owed only on produce received from a fellow Jew, exactly as Rav Dimi guessed and the verse confirms.

The Last Line: When Does the Kohen Own It? ⏱️

The mishna ends with a short clause: “and if it dies, one may benefit from it.”

The Gemara pushes on it, because at first it seems to say nothing. Where did it die?

If it died in the kohen’s house and the kohen benefits — obviously! It’s sitting in his home. It’s his.

If it died in the owner’s house and the kohen benefits — also obvious! The Israelite already separated it and designated it. It was never his to keep.

So the Gemara supplies what the line is really doing. You might have thought the kohen only acquires the portion once it physically reaches his hand — that until the handover, it’s in limbo, and if it dies in transit, nobody gets anything.

The mishna rules otherwise: מעידנא דאפרשיה ברשותיה דכהן קאי — from the very instant the Israelite set it aside, it already stands in the kohen’s domain.

Not on delivery. Not on collection. On designation. The moment you separate it and say “this is teruma,” ownership has already moved, even though the physical item hasn’t gone anywhere at all.

Think of it like… buying a gift card for someone. The value transferred the second you bought it, even though the card is still in your coat pocket and won’t reach them until next week. If the shop burns down tomorrow, it was already their money that was lost, not yours.

The Simple Idea 💡: Teruma belongs to the kohen from the instant it’s set aside, not from the moment it’s handed over.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• The “minimum one shekel” verse is a hardship clause for Temple pledges, not a universal price floor — so there’s no minimum value for a donkey-redemption lamb.
• Even a scrawny lamb worth a sixth of a coin works. Small price, sorry condition, doesn’t matter.
• The Sages graded it by generosity: a sela (4 dinars) for the generous, a shekel (2) for the stingy, a ragya (3) for the normal person. Ruling: three.
• Two rulings, no contradiction — ask beforehand and you’re told three dinars; act first and ask after and even a ma’ah lamb was valid.
• The lamb is a discount, not a requirement — so with no lamb, pay the donkey’s full value in anything. Rav Nachman son of Rav Yosef once used boiled vegetables.
• A stranger can pay your redemption, but the donkey stays yours — proven because a thief would owe you double, which never happens with Temple property.
• Lambs set aside for doubtful firstborn donkeys never leave your hands, so all ten stay yours and count for animal tithe.
• The grandfather chain: entitlements a kohen grandfather could have claimed — lambs, or portions of untithed produce — pass down to his Israelite grandson intact. Both cases needed teaching; neither implies the other.
• The land’s tithe obligation survives a gentile’s ownership in Eretz Yisrael — but the buyer keeps the portions, because “I come with the strength of a man you cannot take to court.”
• Produce left with a Kuti or am ha’aretz keeps its status; left with a gentile, it’s presumed swapped. Everyone agrees you separate — they argue about giving.
• Terumat maaser is owed only on produce that came from a fellow Jew, as R’ Yehoshua ben Levi derived from “when you take from the children of Israel.”
• Teruma becomes the kohen’s the instant it’s designated — not when it’s delivered.

⚖️ Halacha

Redeeming a Firstling Donkey: How Much Must the Seh Be Worth?

Source in Daf: 11a, Segments 1-6 (Rav Nachman and Rav Yosef on any value; R’ Tarfon’s graded scale to R’ Yehuda Nesia; Rava’s הלכתא ברגיא; the resolution בא לימלך vs. עושה מעצמו)

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 12:12

Hebrew:

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיוּ דְּמֵי פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה זוּזִים וּלְמַעְלָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ דָּמָיו פָּחוֹת מִשְׁלֹשָׁה זוּזִים אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בְּשֶׂה אוֹ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה זוּזִים. וְעַיִן יָפָה לֹא יִפְחֹת מִסֶּלַע. וְעַיִן רָעָה בַּחֲצִי סֶלַע. וּבֵינוֹנִית בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה זוּזִים.

English:

When does the above apply? When the value of the firstling donkey was three zuzim or more. If, however, its worth was less than three zuzim, it may be redeemed only with a seh or with three zuzim. A generous person should not give less than a sela, a parsimonious person should give half a sela, and an average person, three zuzim.

Connection: This is the Rambam’s resolution of the very clash our daf raises. The Gemara has Rav Nachman and Rav Yosef permitting redemption with a seh of any value at all — even a פטרוזא בר דנקא, a scrawny lamb worth a ma’ah — while R’ Tarfon’s scale delivered to R’ Yehuda Nesia sets עין יפה at a sela, עין רעה at a shekel (half a sela, two dinars), and בינונית at three dinars, with Rava concluding הלכתא ברגיא. The Gemara’s own reconciliation is that the graded scale governs one who בא לימלך, who comes to ask what he ought to do, while one who עושה מעצמו, who acts on his own initiative, has discharged the obligation with a seh of any value whatsoever. The Rambam recasts that two-tier structure in monetary terms: the scale is not advice floating free of law but a floor tied to the donkey’s worth. Where the donkey is worth three zuzim or more, redemption follows the rule of the preceding halacha; where the donkey is worth less than three zuzim, one may not redeem with an object of that lesser value but must use either a seh or a full three zuzim. He then preserves R’ Tarfon’s scale intact as the measure of generosity. Note that the Rambam’s reading here is a contested one: the Kesef Mishneh observes that the Ra’avad’s interpretation of our sugya appears closer to the text of the Gemara before us, yet Rav Yosef Karo nonetheless codified the Rambam’s position in the Shulchan Aruch.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 321:5

Hebrew:

אם אין לו שה לפדותו פודהו בשוויו (ואז יכול לפדות בכל דבר) ונותן דמיו לכהן. לא אמרה תורה להחמיר עליו אלא להקל עליו, שאם היה לו פטר חמור ששוה עשרה סלעים יש לו לפדותו בשה שוה דינר. בד”א כשהיו דמי פטר חמור מג’ זוזין ומעלה, אבל אם היו דמיו פחות מג’ זוזין אין פודין אותו אלא בשה או בג’ זוזין. ועין יפה לא יפחות מסלע, ועין רעה בחצי סלע, ובינונית בג’ זוזים. הגה: ופודין בשה אחד כמה פעמים, כגון אם חזר וקנאו מן הכהן, או במקום שיש לו ספק פטר חמור שדינו שמפריש עליו טלה והוא שלו.

English (rendered here; Sefaria has no published English for this siman):

If he has no seh with which to redeem it, he redeems it for its value (and then he may redeem with any object at all) and gives its worth to the kohen. The Torah did not state [seh] in order to be stringent with him but in order to be lenient with him, for if he had a firstling donkey worth ten selaim he may redeem it with a seh worth a dinar. When does this apply? When the value of the firstling donkey was three zuzim or more; but if its value was less than three zuzim, it is redeemed only with a seh or with three zuzim. A generous eye should give no less than a sela, a grudging eye half a sela, and an average one three zuzim. Rema: And one may redeem with a single seh many times over — for example, if he bought it back from the kohen, or in a case of a doubtful firstling donkey, where the law is that he separates a lamb for it and it remains his.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch adopts the Rambam’s reading wholesale, fusing the two halves of our sugya into a single se’if: Ravina’s principle of leniency first, then the three-zuz floor and R’ Tarfon’s scale. The bracketed gloss ואז יכול לפדות בכל דבר, drawn by the Beit Yosef from the Rambam, is the halachic residue of Rav Nachman b. Rav Yosef’s redemption with שילקי — boiled vegetables — at full value. The Rema’s closing note is a practical consequence of the same logic our daf develops: because the seh itself carries no intrinsic sanctity and functions purely as a redemption instrument, one lamb can serve repeatedly, including in the safek cases of the daf’s closing mishna.

Redemption With Money or Any Object at Its Full Value

Source in Daf: 11a, Segments 7-10 (R’ Yitzchak citing Reish Lakish, as reworked by Ravina: לא יהא חמור מן ההקדש; לא אמרה תורה בשה להחמיר עליו אלא להקל עליו; Rav Nachman b. Rav Yosef and the שילקי)

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 12:11

Hebrew:

אִם אֵין לוֹ שֶׂה לִפְדּוֹתוֹ פּוֹדֵהוּ בְּשָׁוְיוֹ וְנוֹתֵן דָּמָיו לַכֹּהֵן. לֹא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שֶׂה לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלָיו. שֶׁאִם הָיָה לוֹ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר שֶׁשָּׁוֶה עֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים יֵשׁ לוֹ לִפְדּוֹתוֹ בְּשֶׂה שְׁוֵה דִּינָר. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה חָמוּר מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדֶּה בְּכֶסֶף בְּשָׁוְיוֹ.

English:

If [the owner of a firstling donkey] does not own a seh to redeem it, he may redeem it for its value, paying its worth to a priest. The Torah did not mention a seh to be stringent with him, but rather to be lenient with him, i.e., if he possessed a firstling donkey worth ten selaim, he could redeem it with a seh that is worth a dinar. [The rationale is that] the redemption of the firstling donkey should not be considered more stringent than [the redemption of] consecrated property, which may be redeemed with its monetary value.

Connection: The Rambam here reproduces Ravina’s two-step argument from our daf almost verbatim, and the order in which he sets it out preserves the Gemara’s logic precisely. The first move is the kal vachomer of לא יהא חמור מן ההקדש: since ordinary consecrated property can be redeemed with money at its value, a firstling donkey cannot be held to a stricter standard that confines redemption to a seh and nothing else. The second move answers the obvious objection — if the Torah specified a seh, why permit money? Ravina’s answer, which the Rambam reproduces as לא אמרה תורה שה להחמיר עליו אלא להקל עליו, is that the word seh is a concession, not a constraint: it lets a man discharge a ten-sela donkey with a one-dinar lamb. Read as a leniency, the specification of seh cannot be turned around and used to bar the money route. The Rambam’s phrase אם אין לו שה also tracks the practical setting of the daf’s incident, where Rav Nachman b. Rav Yosef, lacking a lamb, redeemed with boiled vegetables at full value — any object at all, provided it is worth what the donkey is worth. The Minchat Chinuch concludes from the Rambam’s framing that when the owner does have a seh available, he should use it rather than pay the value.

Redeeming Another Person’s Firstling Donkey — and Who Owns It Afterward

Source in Daf: 11a, Segments 11-16 (Rav Sheizevi citing Rav Huna: פדיונו פדוי; the dilemma resolved from the kefel baraita and וגנב מבית האיש ולא מבית הקדש)

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 12:13

Hebrew:

וְהַפּוֹדֶה פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּדוּי. וְהַחֲמוֹר לִבְעָלָיו.

English:

When a person redeems a firstling donkey belonging to a colleague, the redemption is effective, but the donkey belongs to its owner.

Connection: This single terse halacha codifies both halves of the sugya, in the Gemara’s own sequence. The first clause is Rav Sheizevi’s ruling in the name of Rav Huna: a third party’s redemption takes effect, since the mitzvah is discharged by the act and does not require that the redeemer be the owner. The second clause resolves the dilemma the Gemara immediately raises — having paid, does the redeemer acquire the donkey he has just released from its prohibition? The Gemara answers no, proving the point from the baraita on kefel: a thief who steals a firstling donkey pays the double penalty to the owner, and the derivation from וגנב מבית האיש ולא מבית הקדש establishes that the donkey is ordinary property standing in the owner’s domain, not hekdesh-like property that the payer of redemption money would acquire. The redeemer has performed a mitzvah and parted with his money; he has bought nothing.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 321:7

Hebrew:

ישראל שפדה פטר חמור של חבירו הוא פדוי ופטר חמור הוא לבעליו.

English (rendered here; Sefaria has no published English for this siman):

A Jew who redeemed his fellow’s firstling donkey — it is redeemed, and the firstling donkey belongs to its owner.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch preserves the Rambam’s formulation and therefore the daf’s conclusion without alteration. The practical upshot for an owner is that a third party may redeem on his behalf and the obligation is discharged, but no transfer of the animal follows from the payment.

Ten Lambs for Doubtful Firstlings, and Ma’aser Beheima

Source in Daf: 11a, Segments 17-20 (the baraita; Rav Nachman citing Rabba bar Avuh: he designates ten lambs, tithes them, and they are his; the objection from הלקוח ושניתן לו במתנה פטור ממעשר בהמה)

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 12:23

Hebrew:

מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה טְלָאִים כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן הִפְרִישׁוֹ עַל סְפֵק פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר וּמִתְעַשְּׂרִין כִּשְׁאָר הַבְּהֵמָה. וּמַפְרֵשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר וְהַשְּׁאָר שֶׁלּוֹ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ.

English:

When a person possesses ten lambs, each of them having been separated because of a first issue of a donkey of a doubtful status, they are considered as ordinary property in every context. They should be tithed like other animals. One of them should be separated as the tithe and the others remain his property, as they were previously.

Connection: This is the direct codification of Rav Nachman’s ruling in the name of Rabba bar Avuh. The engine of the halacha is the phrase הרי הן כחולין לכל דבר: because the firstling status of each donkey is only a safek, the lamb separated against it never leaves the owner’s possession and never acquires sanctity. The kohen has no claim on it — המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, as the Rambam states explicitly in the parallel cases at 12:19 and 12:21. Since the lambs are wholly chullin and wholly the owner’s, the ordinary obligation of ma’aser beheima attaches to them just as to any other flock of ten. The Gemara’s own difficulty was precisely the rule our daf cites from Bechorot 55b — הלקוח ושניתן לו במתנה פטור ממעשר בהמה, that an animal acquired by purchase or gift is exempt from animal tithe — and the resolution is that these lambs were never bought or received as a gift at all. They were the owner’s own from the start; the designation for a doubtful firstling changed nothing about their ownership, so the exemption for purchased animals simply does not reach them.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot (Firstlings) 6:10

Hebrew:

הַלּוֹקֵחַ טְלָאִים שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בְּשָׁנָה זוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְּנוּ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה הֲרֵי הֵם פְּטוּרִים מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלְדוּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בִּבְהֵמוֹת וְהֵבִיא זֶה מֵאָה טְלָאִים וְזֶה מֵאָה טְלָאִים וְעֵרְבוּם וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בָּהֶן הֲרֵי הַמָּאתַיִם פְּטוּרִים מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁכָּל טָלֶה מֵהֶן כְּמָכוּר. וְכֵן הָאַחִים שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ טְלָאִים מֵאֲבִיהֶם הֲרֵי הֵן פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

English:

When a person purchases lambs that were born this year or they were given to him as a present, he is not obligated to tithe them. The obligation applies only when the animals are born in his domain. Accordingly, if partners enter into a partnership with regard to animals — one brings 100 and the other brings 100 and they have them intermingle and own them jointly — these 200 are exempt from the requirement to tithe. The rationale is that each of the lambs is considered as having been sold. Similarly, if brothers inherit lambs in their first year of life from their father, they are exempt from the requirement to tithe.

Connection: This is the rule the Gemara imports from Bechorot 55b to challenge Rabba bar Avuh, codified in its own place. The Rambam states the principle in its broadest form — the tithe obligation attaches only to animals born in the owner’s own domain, so that purchase, gift, partnership and even division of an estate all generate an exemption because each animal is then כמכור, as though sold. Laid beside 12:23, the two halachot together reproduce the Gemara’s resolution exactly: the ten lambs designated against doubtful firstlings fall outside this exemption because no acquisition ever occurred. They were born in the owner’s domain and remained his throughout; the designation was an act of caution, not a transaction.

Donkeys Inherited Through a Kohen Grandfather

Source in Daf: 11a, Segments 21-25 (the inheritance chain: an Israelite inheriting from a kohen maternal grandfather who himself inherited from an Israelite maternal grandfather; the parallel case of smoothed tevel and the וצריכא)

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 12:24

Hebrew:

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים וַדָּאִין בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן וְאוֹתוֹ אֲבִי אִמּוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נָפְלוּ לוֹ מִבֵּית אֲבִי אִמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן עֲשָׂרָה שֵׂיִין וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ וְחַיָּבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.

English:

When an Israelite possesses at home ten donkeys whose status as firstlings is definite, which he inherited from his maternal grandfather who was a priest, who in turn inherited them from his maternal grandfather who was an Israelite, he should separate ten se’in for them. They, however, may be kept as his own, and hence he is obligated to tithe them.

Connection: The Rambam devotes the closing halacha of all of Hilchot Bikkurim to this baraita from our daf, and the placement is itself a statement: the chain case is the limit case that tests every principle in the chapter. Each link matters. The donkeys were definite firstlings in the hands of the Israelite great-grandfather, so a real obligation attached. They then passed to a kohen, who may keep the seh he separates since he is both obligor and recipient. When they descend a further generation to an Israelite heir, the obligation to separate revives — the donkeys are still ודאין — but the entitlement travels with the inheritance: what the kohen grandfather could have kept, the Israelite grandson inherits the right to keep. Hence מפריש עליהן עשרה שיין והן שלו, he separates ten lambs and they remain his. And because the lambs are fully his own chullin rather than a gift or acquisition, the closing clause חייבין במעשר follows directly from the reasoning of 12:23 above. The Gemara develops the identical structure for smoothed tevel inherited along the same chain, and its וצריכא explains why both versions had to be taught; no source was located codifying the tevel version as a separate halacha, so only the donkey case is cited here.

Buying Smoothed Tevel From a Gentile

Source in Daf: 11a Segment 26 and 11b, Segments 1-9 (R’ Shmuel bar Natan citing R’ Chanina: מעשרן והן שלו; דגנך ולא דגן גוי and the question of who performed the מירוח; אין קנין לגוי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר; R’ Yehoshua ben Levi’s derivation from ואל הלוים תדבר… כי תקחו מאת בני ישראל)

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 1:10

Hebrew:

עַכּוּ”ם שֶׁקָּנָה קַרְקַע בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא הִפְקִיעוּהָ מִן הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הִיא בִּקְדֻשָּׁתָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וּלְקָחָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵינָהּ כְּכִבּוּשׁ יָחִיד אֶלָּא מַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּמֵבִיא בִּכּוּרִים. וְהַכּל מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּאִלּוּ לֹא נִמְכְּרָה לְעַכּוּ”ם מֵעוֹלָם.

English:

When a gentile purchases land in Eretz Yisrael, he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot. Instead, its holiness is still intact. Therefore, if a Jew purchases this land from [the gentile], it is not considered as a private conquest. Instead, he should separate the terumot and the tithes and bring the first fruits. All these [obligations] are Scriptural in origin, as if it was never sold to a gentile.

Connection: This is the codification of אין קנין לגוי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר, the principle our daf invokes as the reason produce remains subject to tithing notwithstanding an intervening period of gentile ownership. The land’s sanctity is not a function of who holds title, so a gentile’s purchase suspends nothing. That is precisely why our sugya cannot rest on ownership alone and must go on to ask who performed the מירוח — the smoothing of the heap — since it is that act, and not the identity of the owner, that fixes liability.

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 1:11

Hebrew:

פֵּרוֹת הָעַכּוּ”ם שֶׁגָּדְלוּ בְּקַרְקַע שֶׁקָּנָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִם נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּם בְּיַד עַכּוּ”ם וּמֵרְחָן הָעַכּוּ”ם פְּטוּרִין מִכְּלוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר “דְּגָנְךָ” וְלֹא דְּגַן עַכּוּ”ם. וְאִם לְקָחָן יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְלְשׁוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתָּן וּגְמָרָן יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּבִין בַּכּל מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּמַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְנוֹתְנָהּ לַכֹּהֵן. וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וּמוֹכְרָהּ לַכֹּהֵן. וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לַלֵּוִי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וְלַכֹּהֵן בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר אֲנִי בָּאתִי מִכֹּחַ אִישׁ שֶׁאֵין אַתֶּם יְכוֹלִין לִטּל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ לֹא יִתֵּן תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לַכֹּהֵן כִּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר “כִּי תִקְחוּ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר” טֶבֶל שֶׁאַתָּה לוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אַתָּה מַפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְנוֹתְנָהּ לַכֹּהֵן. אֲבָל טֶבֶל שֶׁאַתָּה לוֹקֵחַ מִן הָעַכּוּ”ם אֵין אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לַכֹּהֵן הַתְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא מוֹכְרָהּ לַכֹּהֵן וְלוֹקֵחַ דָּמֶיהָ.

English:

[The following laws apply with regard to] produce belonging to a gentile that grew on land that he purchased in Eretz Yisrael. If all the work involving the produce was completed in the possession of a gentile and the gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap, they are exempt, because [the verse] mentions “your grain,” [thus excluding] the grain of a gentile. If a Jew purchases [the produce] after it was harvested but before the tasks involved with it were completed, and they were completed by a Jew, all [of the agricultural obligations apply] according to Scriptural Law. He must separate the great terumah and give it to a priest, and [separate] the terumat ma’aser and sell it to a priest. The first tithe belongs to him, because he can tell a Levite with regard to the tithes and a priest with regard to the terumat ma’aser: “I am coming in the stead of a person from whom you could not have collected anything.” Why do we say that he should not give the terumat ma’aser to a priest as [he gives him] the great terumah? Because with regard to terumat ma’aser it is written: “When you take the tithes from the children of Israel.” [Implied is that from] untithed produce that you purchase from a Jew, you should separate terumat ma’aser and give it to a priest, but from untithed produce that you purchase from a gentile, you need not give the priest the terumat ma’aser you separate from it. Instead, you sell it to the priest and take the money.

Connection: This halacha is a near-complete transcription of the closing sugya of our daf. Every element is here. The exemption when the gentile performed the מירוח rests on דגנך ולא דגן עכו”ם, the derivation our daf uses to establish that it is the act of smoothing, not bare ownership, that fixes the obligation. The reciprocal case — the Jew buys produce already detached but not yet smoothed, and smooths it himself — generates full Torah-level liability, which is exactly the scenario R’ Shmuel bar Natan in the name of R’ Chanina addresses. And the ruling that the buyer keeps ma’aser rishon and sells rather than gives the terumat ma’aser is R’ Yehoshua ben Levi’s derivation on our daf, reproduced with the same proof text: כי תקחו מאת בני ישראל את המעשר (Bamidbar 18:26) restricts the claim to tevel taken from a Jew. The Rambam even preserves the Gemara’s underlying argument in direct speech — אני באתי מכח איש שאין אתם יכולין ליטול ממנו כלום, I stand in the place of a man from whom you could have collected nothing — which is the claim the buyer advances to retain what would otherwise be the Levi’s and the kohen’s portion. Note, however, that the portion must still be separated even though it is retained; what R’ Yehoshua ben Levi’s derivation exempts is the requirement to hand it over, not the requirement to separate.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 331:4

Hebrew:

פירות העובד כוכבים שגדלו בקרקע שקנה בארץ ישראל, אם נגמרה מלאכתן ביד העובד כוכבים ומרחן העובד כוכבים פטורין מכולם. ואם לקחן ישראל אחר שנתלשו קודם שתגמר מלאכתן וגמרן ישראל חייבים, ומפריש תרומה ומעשר ראשון ותרומת מעשר ומשייר לעצמו מעשר ראשון והוא שלו, מפני שהוא אומר ללוי אני באתי מכח איש שאין אתה יכול ליטול ממנו. (והתרומת מעשר מוכר לכהן ונוטל דמיה).

English (rendered here; Sefaria has no published English for this siman):

Produce of a gentile that grew on land he purchased in Eretz Yisrael: if its work was completed in the gentile’s hands and the gentile smoothed it, it is exempt from everything. But if a Jew bought it after it was detached, before its work was completed, and the Jew completed it, it is liable; he separates terumah, ma’aser rishon and terumat ma’aser, and retains ma’aser rishon for himself, and it is his, because he says to the Levi: I have come in the stead of a man from whom you could not have taken anything. (Rema, from the Tur: And the terumat ma’aser he sells to a kohen and takes its value.)

Connection: Contrary to what one might expect, the Shulchan Aruch does treat this material — not in Zeraim, which has no Shulchan Aruch, but in Yoreh De’ah 331, a very long siman devoted to terumot and ma’asrot. Se’if 4 reproduces our daf’s conclusion in the Rambam’s formulation, including the buyer’s claim against the Levi. Se’if 3 codifies אין קנין לגוי, and se’ifim 6-7 work through the reciprocal cases of who performed the מירוח that the daf raises. It should be noted that these are laws the Shulchan Aruch records rather than laws it expects readers outside Eretz Yisrael to practise, and the Shach’s observation at 331:11 that in our era the obligation in Eretz Yisrael is itself only Rabbinic reflects that distance.

When the Kohen Acquires the Lamb

Source in Daf: 11b, Segments 10-11 (on the mishna’s ואם מת נהנים בו): מעידנא דאפרשיה ברשותיה דכהן קאי

Rambam — Hilchot Bikkurim 12:5

Hebrew:

הִפְרִישׁ פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וּמֵת הַשֶּׂה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתְּנֶנּוּ לַכֹּהֵן אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ. וְיִתֵּן הַנְּבֵלָה לַכֹּהֵן לֵהָנוֹת בָּהּ. מֵת פֶּטֶר הַחֲמוֹר אַחַר שֶׁפָּדָהוּ, יִתֵּן הַטָּלֶה לַכֹּהֵן וּמֻתָּר בְּהֲנָיָתוֹ שֶׁכְּבָר נִפְדָּה.

English (rendered here; the published translation of this halacha was not retrieved):

If he separated the redemption of a firstling donkey and the seh died before he gave it to the kohen, he does not bear responsibility for it, and he gives the carcass to the kohen to derive benefit from it. If the firstling donkey died after he redeemed it, he gives the lamb to the kohen, and benefit from it is permitted, since it has already been redeemed.

Connection: This halacha is the practical expression of the principle the Gemara states at the close of 11b as מעידנא דאפרשיה ברשותיה דכהן קאי — from the moment of designation the lamb already stands in the kohen’s domain. Because the kohen acquires at designation rather than at delivery, two consequences follow, and the Rambam gives both. First, if the lamb dies in the interval before handover, the owner bears no אחריות: the loss falls on the kohen, who owned it already, and the owner need only pass on the carcass, from which the kohen may derive benefit since a redemption lamb carries no sanctity. Second, if the donkey dies after redemption, the redemption stands, the lamb still goes to the kohen, and benefit from the donkey’s carcass is permitted — the very ruling the mishna records as ואם מת נהנים בו. The Shulchan Aruch states the same at YD 321:6, adding that for this reason the blessing על פדיון פטר חמור is recited at the moment of separation and not at handover: the mitzvah is complete when the lamb is designated.

Summary of Rulings

A note on scope: several of these laws are live today. Peter chamor applies בכל מקום ובכל זמן, in every place and every era (Bikkurim 12:1; YD 321:1), so the rulings on value, on redemption with money, on a third party redeeming, and on when the kohen acquires are fully practical wherever a Jew owns a she-donkey that gives birth. Ma’aser beheima, by contrast, is not practised in the absence of the Temple, and terumot and ma’asrot apply only in Eretz Yisrael, where their present obligation is Rabbinic. The Rambam nonetheless records all of them in full, as he does throughout Zeraim, for when the Temple is rebuilt.