Bechorot Daf 12 (בכורות דף י״ב)
Daf: 12 | Amudim: 12a – 12b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (12a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
The fourth mishna of the perek: six disqualified animals, and R’ Eliezer’s two dissents
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין פּוֹדִין לֹא בְּעֵגֶל וְלֹא בְּחַיָּה, לֹא בִּשְׁחוּטָה וְלֹא בִּטְרֵיפָה, וְלֹא בְּכִלְאַיִם וְלֹא בְּכוֹי. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר בַּכִּלְאַיִם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שֶׂה, וְאוֹסֵר בַּכּוֹי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק. נְתָנוֹ לְכֹהֵן — אֵין הַכֹּהֵן רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ שֶׂה תַּחְתָּיו.
English Translation:
MISHNA: One may not redeem a firstborn donkey, neither with a calf, nor with an undomesticated animal, nor with a slaughtered animal, nor with a tereifa, nor with a hybrid of a sheep and a goat, nor with a koy, which is an animal with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is domesticated or undomesticated. And Rabbi Eliezer deems it permitted to redeem a firstborn donkey with a hybrid of a sheep and a goat, because it is a lamb, i.e., that hybrid has the status of a lamb, but prohibits redeeming it with a koy, because its status is uncertain. If one gave the firstborn donkey to a priest, the priest may not keep it unless he first designates a lamb in its stead for redemption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna turns from the value of the redeeming seh to its identity. Six categories are excluded: a calf and a chaya are the wrong species, a slaughtered animal and a tereifa fail the requirement of a living, sound animal, and a kilayim and a koy fail on classification. R’ Eliezer splits the last pair, and his reasoning is instructive — he admits the kilayim because in his view it simply is a seh, and he excludes the koy precisely because nobody can say what it is. A doubt about category is worse, for him, than a mixture of two known categories. The closing clause guards the transaction itself: a kohen handed the donkey may not simply keep it, since the redemption has not yet been performed.
Key Terms:
- שֶׂה = a member of the flock — a lamb or a kid — the only animal fit to redeem a firstborn donkey
- חַיָּה = an undomesticated animal such as a deer, as against a בהמה, a domesticated one
- טְרֵיפָה = an animal bearing a defect that will cause its death within twelve months
- כִּלְאַיִם = a crossbreed, here the offspring of a sheep and a goat
- כּוֹי = an animal whose status as domesticated or undomesticated the Sages could never resolve
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא / ברייתא
Ben Bag Bag’s gezeira shava: שה here and שה at the korban pesach
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? בֶּן בַּג בַּג הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּן בַּג בַּג אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שֶׂה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״שֶׂה״, מָה לְּהַלָּן פְּרָט לְכׇל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ, אַף כָּאן פְּרָט לְכׇל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the first clause of the mishna? It is the opinion of ben Bag Bag, as it is taught in a baraita that ben Bag Bag says: It is stated here, with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey: “And you shall redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb” (Exodus 13:13), and it is stated there, with regard to the Paschal offering: “In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb” (Exodus 12:3). By inference, just as there, with regard to the Paschal offering, the Torah excludes all of these names, i.e., all of these types of animals listed in the mishna, from being fit for sacrifice as a Paschal offering, so too here, with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey, the Torah excludes all of these names.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s standard מאן תנא produces an unusual name. Ben Bag Bag derives the whole disqualification list from a verbal analogy: the Torah says שה of the firstborn donkey’s redemption and שה of the paschal lamb, and whatever cannot serve as a pesach cannot serve here. The move is economical — rather than excluding each species separately, it imports an entire existing body of exclusions from a law already worked out in detail. The price of that economy is the objection that follows immediately.
Key Terms:
- בֶּן בַּג בַּג = a tanna of the late Second Temple period, a disciple of Hillel
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה = a verbal analogy transferring law between two passages sharing a term
- כׇּל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ = all of these names, i.e. the categories of animal listed in the mishna
- קׇרְבַּן פֶּסַח = the paschal offering, whose own requirements for a seh are detailed in Shemot 12
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
If the pesach governs, why not also male, unblemished and in its first year? The doubled תפדה includes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה, אַף כָּאן זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — רִיבָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: If this halakha is derived from the Paschal offering, then perhaps just as there, the Paschal offering must be a lamb that is male, unblemished, and in its first year (Exodus 12:5), so too here, the lamb must be male, unblemished, and in its first year. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “You shall redeem” (Exodus 13:13), and: “You shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20). This repetition serves to include female lambs, blemished lambs, and lambs that are beyond their first year.
קלאוד על הדף:
The obvious danger of Ben Bag Bag’s analogy is that it imports too much. The paschal lamb must be זכר תמים ובן שנה, and none of those restrictions is thought to apply to the redemption of a donkey — indeed the mishna on 9a expressly permitted a female, a blemished animal and one of any age. The answer comes from a second derashah: תפדה is written twice, at Shemot 13:13 and 34:20, and a doubled term functions as a ריבוי, an inclusion. What the analogy would have excluded within the category of seh, the repetition restores.
Key Terms:
- זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה = male, unblemished and in its first year — the requirements of the paschal lamb
- רִיבָּה = it included — a doubled term read as expanding rather than restricting
- תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = the verse teaches — introducing the text that resolves a difficulty
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Then why not include the disqualified species too? Because the gezeira shava must do something
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ רִיבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל הָנֵי נָמֵי? אִם כֵּן, ״שֶׂה״ ״שֶׂה״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If the repetition of the terms “you shall redeem,” “you shall redeem,” serves to include, then even all of these types of animals that are listed in the mishna should be included. The Gemara answers: If so, what purpose does the verbal analogy of “lamb,” “lamb,” between the firstborn donkey and the Paschal offering serve?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses the ribbui in the opposite direction: if תפדה תפדה includes, let it include the calf and the deer as well. The answer is an argument from economy rather than from content — if the inclusion swept away everything, the שה/שה analogy would be entirely idle, and a derashah is not written to accomplish nothing. So the two are assigned complementary domains: the analogy fences out other species, the ribbui widens what counts within the species of seh. This balance will be replayed verbatim in the ben pekua dispute below.
Key Terms:
- מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ = what does it accomplish for him — the objection that a derashah would be left purposeless
- אִם כֵּן = if so — introducing the consequence that refutes a proposed reading
Segment 5
TYPE: איבעיא
First dilemma: may one redeem with a בן פקועה? Framed only on the Rabbanan’s premises
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בְּבֶן פְּקוּעָה? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בֶּן פְּקוּעָה טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, שֶׂה מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. אֶלָּא כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey with a lamb that was removed alive from its mother’s womb after the mother was ritually slaughtered [ben pekua]? The Gemara explains the question: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir you should not raise the dilemma, as since Rabbi Meir says that a ben pekua requires ritual slaughter, it is considered a full-fledged lamb. Rather, you should raise the dilemma according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the slaughter of its mother renders the fetus permitted for consumption, as it is considered part of the mother, which was already slaughtered.
קלאוד על הדף:
A ben pekua is a fetus found alive inside a mother that was validly slaughtered, and its status is the subject of a known tannaitic dispute. The Gemara narrows the dilemma before posing it. For R’ Meir, who requires the ben pekua to undergo its own shechita, it is an ordinary living animal and a full seh — no question arises. The dilemma lives only on the Rabbanan’s view that שחיטת אמו מטהרתו, that the mother’s slaughter already renders it permitted, since on that view it may already count as a slaughtered animal.
Key Terms:
- בֶּן פְּקוּעָה = a fetus removed alive from a validly slaughtered mother
- שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ = its mother’s slaughter renders it permitted, without shechita of its own
- שֶׂה מְעַלְּיָא = a full-fledged seh
Segment 6
TYPE: איבעיא
The two sides: meat in a basket, or an animal that runs about
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּבִישְׂרָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּהַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא רָהֵיט וְאָזֵיל, ״שֶׂה״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ?
English Translation:
Is it considered like meat that is placed in a pot, i.e., as if it had been slaughtered, in which case it is included in the prohibition against redeeming a firstborn donkey with a slaughtered animal? Or perhaps since now, in any event, it runs along, we call it a lamb.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara states the dilemma in two memorable images. If the mother’s slaughter has already done its work, the creature is כבישרא בדיקולא — like meat sitting in a basket, halachically finished, and therefore caught by the mishna’s exclusion of a שחוטה. But against that stands a plain fact: it רהיט ואזיל, it runs about. Whatever its legal history, it is alive and moving now, and that may be enough to call it a seh. The question is whether status follows the legal fiction or the visible animal.
Key Terms:
- כְּבִישְׂרָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא = like meat in a basket — already effectively slaughtered
- רָהֵיט וְאָזֵיל = it runs along — the observable fact of its being alive
- שְׁחוּטָה = a slaughtered animal, excluded by the mishna
Segment 7
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Mar Zutra forbids, Rav Ashi permits
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָר זוּטְרָא אָמַר: אֵין פּוֹדִין, וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: פּוֹדִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to this issue: Mar Zutra said that one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with a ben pekua, and Rav Ashi said that one may redeem with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma is answered not by resolution but by division. Mar Zutra holds one may not redeem with a ben pekua, aligning it with the excluded שחוטה; Rav Ashi holds one may, following the animal that stands before him. Both are late Babylonian amoraim, and the Gemara records their positions without adjudicating. What follows is their exchange, which reproduces the earlier pesach-versus-ribbui argument point for point.
Key Terms:
- מָר זוּטְרָא = a Babylonian amora of the sixth generation
- רַב אָשֵׁי = head of the yeshiva at Sura and a principal redactor of the Talmud
Segment 8
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Rav Ashi presses Mar Zutra with the pesach argument; Mar Zutra answers with the ribbui
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְמָר זוּטְרָא: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? דְּיָלְפַתְּ מִפֶּסַח. אִי מָה לְהַלָּן זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה, אַף כָּאן זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה! ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — רִיבָּה.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: What is the reason for your opinion? Is it because you derive the halakhot of redeeming a firstborn donkey from the Paschal offering, and a ben pekua is unfit for sacrifice as a Paschal offering? If so, just as there, with regard to the Paschal offering, it must be male, unblemished, and in its first year, so too here, the lamb must be male, unblemished, and in its first year. Mar Zutra responded: The repetition of the terms “you shall redeem,” “you shall redeem,” included a lamb that is not male, unblemished, or in its first year.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi identifies the premise of Mar Zutra’s position — that the disqualifications derive from the paschal lamb — and turns it against him with the same challenge the Gemara raised earlier: if the pesach governs, demand a male, unblemished, first-year animal as well. Mar Zutra gives the same answer the Gemara gave: תפדה תפדה is a ribbui that admits females, blemished animals and older ones. The argument is deliberately recycled, which is itself the point — the dispute is about where the line between the two derashot falls.
Key Terms:
- מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ = what is your reasoning — a request for the premise behind a position
- דְּיָלְפַתְּ מִפֶּסַח = that you derive from the paschal offering
Segment 9
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Rav Ashi: then include the ben pekua too. Mar Zutra: then the gezeira shava is idle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ רִיבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ בֶּן פְּקוּעָה נָמֵי! אִם כֵּן, ״שֶׂה״ ״שֶׂה״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said to him: If the repetition of the terms “you shall redeem,” “you shall redeem,” included additional types of lambs, even a ben pekua is included. Mar Zutra responded: If so, what purpose does the verbal analogy of “lamb,” “lamb,” between the firstborn donkey and the Paschal offering serve? It must be that the term “you shall redeem” does not serve to include those animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The exchange closes exactly as the earlier one did. Rav Ashi argues that a ribbui broad enough to admit blemished and aged animals should admit a ben pekua; Mar Zutra replies that if the inclusion reached that far, the שה/שה analogy would accomplish nothing. Each has taken one side of the balance struck in segment 4 — Rav Ashi reading the ben pekua as a variation within the species, Mar Zutra reading it as falling outside it. The Gemara offers no verdict, and the dispute stands.
Key Terms:
- אֲפִילּוּ בֶּן פְּקוּעָה נָמֵי = even a ben pekua as well — the argument that the inclusion should extend
- שֶׂה שֶׂה מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ = what then does the seh-seh analogy accomplish
Segment 10
TYPE: איבעיא
Second dilemma: may one redeem with a נדמה? Not a question for R’ Eliezer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בְּנִדְמָה? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, הַשְׁתָּא בְּכִלְאַיִם פָּרְקִינַן, בְּנִדְמָה מִיבַּעְיָא?
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey with a lamb whose parents are both sheep but it resembles another animal such as a goat? The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, do not raise the dilemma, as now that it is established that he holds that one may redeem with a hybrid of a goat and a sheep, with regard to a lamb that resembles a goat but is not from a hybrid, is it necessary to state that one may redeem with it?
קלאוד על הדף:
A nidmeh is an animal whose parents are both sheep but which emerges resembling another species — a ewe’s offspring that looks like a goat. It is not a crossbreed; its lineage is pure and only its appearance is anomalous. The Gemara notes at once that R’ Eliezer cannot be the subject of the question: since he permits even a genuine kilayim, whose parentage really is mixed, he will certainly permit a nidmeh, whose parentage is not.
Key Terms:
- נִדְמֶה = an animal of pure parentage that resembles another species
- פָּרְקִינַן = we redeem with it
- מִיבַּעְיָא = is it necessary to ask — the rhetorical dismissal of a question already settled
Segment 11
TYPE: איבעיא
The dilemma per the Rabbanan: is their objection to mixed parentage or to appearance?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, בְּכִלְאַיִם הוּא דְּלָא פָּרְקִינַן, בְּנִדְמָה פָּרְקִינַן, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
English Translation:
Rather, when should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with a hybrid of a sheep and a goat. Do they hold that one does not redeem with a hybrid of a goat and a sheep, but one does redeem with a lamb that resembles another animal? Or perhaps there is no difference between them?
קלאוד על הדף:
The question is what the Rabbanan’s disqualification of a kilayim actually rests on. If they object to the mixture itself — an animal drawn from two species — then a nidmeh, being pure-bred, should be fine. But if they object to an animal that does not present as a seh, then appearance is the criterion and a nidmeh fails too. The Gemara frames it with characteristic economy: או דלמא לא שנא, or perhaps there is no difference between them.
Key Terms:
- לָא שְׁנָא = there is no difference — the proposal that two cases are governed alike
- רַבָּנַן = the Sages, the majority view against R’ Eliezer
Segment 12
TYPE: תא שמע
First attempted resolution: a cow that bore a goat-like animal, implying a ewe’s would qualify
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז — אֵין פּוֹדִין, הָא רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז — פּוֹדִין. מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — הָא בְּכִלְאַיִם נָמֵי פָּרְקִינַן! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן הִיא?
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: With regard to a cow that gave birth to a goat of sorts, one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with the goat of sorts. The Gemara infers: But it can be inferred that with regard to a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts, one may redeem with it. Whose opinion is expressed in the baraita? If we say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he holds that one may redeem even with a hybrid of a sheep and goat, and this ruling would be unnecessary. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, indicating that they hold that one may redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb that resembles another animal?
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita rules that one may not redeem with the offspring of a cow that gave birth to something goat-like. The Gemara reads the specification as pointed: by naming a cow, the baraita implies that a ewe’s goat-like offspring — a true nidmeh — would be usable. And the attribution seems forced toward the Rabbanan, since R’ Eliezer permits even a kilayim and would have no need for the ruling. If that holds, the dilemma is resolved leniently.
Key Terms:
- פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז = a cow that gave birth to a goat of sorts
- תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — introducing a source offered to resolve a dilemma
- אִילֵימָא = if we were to say — introducing an attribution the Gemara will weigh
Segment 13
TYPE: דחיה
Rejected: the baraita is R’ Eliezer, teaching זיל בתר אימיה
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, גּוּפַהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּפָרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז — אֵין פּוֹדִין. לָא תֵּימָא: זִיל אַבָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ, וְהַאי עֵז מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, אֶלָּא זִיל בָּתַר אִימֵּיהּ — וְהַאי עֵגֶל הוּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No, actually the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and it teaches us the halakha itself that one may not redeem using the offspring in a case where a cow gave birth to a goat of sorts, i.e., where the offspring has the appearance of a goat. This is necessary so that you do not say that the halakha should follow the appearance of the offspring itself, and therefore this offspring is a full-fledged goat and should be suitable for redeeming a firstborn donkey. Rather, follow its mother, and this offspring is treated as a calf, which is not suitable for redeeming a firstborn donkey.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proof collapses because the baraita has its own agenda. It really is R’ Eliezer, and its point is not about nidmeh at all but about which parent determines identity. One might have said זיל אבתריה דידיה, follow the offspring’s own appearance, in which case a goat-looking creature born to a cow would be a genuine goat and perfectly usable. The baraita rules זיל בתר אימיה, follow its mother — and its mother is a cow, so this is a calf, disqualified by the mishna’s first word. Nothing follows about a ewe’s offspring, and the dilemma remains open.
Key Terms:
- זִיל אַבָּתְרֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ = follow after it itself, i.e. judge by the offspring’s own appearance
- זִיל בָּתַר אִימֵּיהּ = follow after its mother — maternal lineage determines species
- גּוּפַהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = it teaches us the matter itself, not by inference
Segment 14
TYPE: תא שמע / ברייתא
Second attempt: Rabba bar Shmuel’s baraita, and its immediate reinterpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵיזֶהוּ כִּלְאַיִם? רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, וְאָבִיו שֶׂה. אָבִיו שֶׂה, כִּלְאַיִם הוּא? נִדְמֶה הוּא! אֶלָּא, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּמֵי לְכִלְאַיִם, דְּשַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן כִּי כִלְאַיִם? רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, וְאָבִיו שֶׂה.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita that Rabba bar Shmuel teaches: What is considered an animal that is a hybrid? It is a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and the father of the offspring is a lamb. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: If its father is a lamb, is the offspring a hybrid? It is an animal that resembles an animal of another type. Rather, the baraita means: What animal is similar to a hybrid, and the Rabbis rendered it tantamount to a hybrid, which is unsuitable for redeeming? It is a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and its father is a lamb.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar Shmuel taught a baraita defining a kilayim as a ewe that bore a goat-like offspring whose father is a seh. The Gemara objects at once on the definition: if the father is a seh and the mother a ewe, both parents are sheep and this is not a kilayim at all but a nidmeh. The baraita is therefore re-read as answering a different question — what resembles a kilayim closely enough that the Rabbanan assimilated it to one? If that is its sense, it says a nidmeh is treated as a kilayim, and the dilemma would be resolved strictly.
Key Terms:
- רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל = an amora who transmitted baraitot
- דְּשַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן כִּי כִלְאַיִם = which the Rabbanan rendered equivalent to a kilayim
- אֵיזֶהוּ = which is it — the formula introducing a definition
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
To which law does the baraita refer? Not to kodashim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַאי? אִי לְקָדָשִׁים — מֵהֵיכָא דִּמְמַעֵט כִּלְאַיִם, מֵהָתָם מְמַעֵט נִדְמֶה, דְּתַנְיָא: ״שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב״ — פְּרָט לְכִלְאַיִם, ״אוֹ עֵז״ — פְּרָט לְנִדְמֶה!
English Translation:
Now, to what halakha is this baraita referring? If it is referring to sacrificial animals, i.e., to the fact that such an animal is unfit for sacrifice as an offering, why does the baraita derive its status from that of a hybrid? From the same verse where one derives that the Torah excludes a hybrid as an offering, one can derive that it also excludes an animal that resembles an animal of another type. As it is taught in a baraita that in the verse: “When a bull, or a lamb, or a goat, is brought forth…it may be accepted as an offering…to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27), the words “a bull, or a lamb” are interpreted as excluding a hybrid, and the words “or a goat” are interpreted as excluding an animal that resembles an animal of another type.
קלאוד על הדף:
Before the baraita can settle anything, the Gemara must identify what it governs, and it works through the possibilities by elimination. It cannot concern sacrificial animals, because a single verse already handles both categories: in שור או כשב או עז (Vayikra 22:27), שור או כשב excludes a kilayim and או עז excludes a nidmeh. Where Scripture has already disqualified the nidmeh directly, there is no need to reach it by assimilation to a kilayim.
Key Terms:
- קָדָשִׁים = consecrated animals offered on the altar
- שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב… אוֹ עֵז = an ox or a lamb or a goat (Vayikra 22:27) — read as excluding kilayim and nidmeh respectively
- מְמַעֵט = it excludes
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Not to bechor either: אך בכור שור requires that it be an ox and its firstborn an ox
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי לִבְכוֹר, ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר!
English Translation:
If the baraita is referring to the halakha of a firstborn and teaches that an animal that resembles an animal of another type does not have firstborn status, this is derived from another verse, as the Merciful One states: “But the firstborn of an ox” (Numbers 18:17), which indicates that there is firstborn status only if it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox, but not when the offspring resembles an animal of another type.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second possibility is likewise eliminated by an existing verse. If the baraita meant that a nidmeh does not acquire firstborn status, that is already derived from אך בכור שור (Bamidbar 18:17), read as requiring that both the mother be an ox and her firstborn be an ox. An offspring resembling another species fails that requirement on its own terms, so again nothing is gained by routing the law through the category of kilayim.
Key Terms:
- אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר = but the firstborn of an ox (Bamidbar 18:17)
- עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר = until it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Not to ma’aser either — so it must be peter chamor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַעֲשֵׂר, ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים גָּמַר! אֶלָּא לְפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר.
English Translation:
Rather, perhaps it is referring to the mitzva of the animal tithe and teaches that an animal that resembles an animal of another type is not tithed with the other animals. This ruling is also unnecessary, as it is derived via a verbal analogy from the word: “Under” (Leviticus 22:27), which is stated with regard to sacrificial animals, and the word: “Under” (Leviticus 27:32), which is stated in the context of animal tithe. Rather, the baraita must be referring to the lamb that is used to redeem a firstborn donkey, and it teaches that a lamb that resembles an animal of another type is unfit for use as redemption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third possibility falls the same way: a nidmeh’s exclusion from the animal tithe is already available through a gezeira shava on תחת, the word appearing both in the kodashim passage (Vayikra 22:27) and in the ma’aser beheima passage (Vayikra 27:32). With kodashim, bechor and ma’aser all accounted for, only one subject remains — the redeeming lamb of a peter chamor. If that is right, the Rabbanan treat a nidmeh as a kilayim and the dilemma is answered strictly.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה = the animal tithe, every tenth animal of the year’s young
- תַּחַת תַּחַת = the gezeira shava on the word ‘under’, linking kodashim to ma’aser beheima
- אֶלָּא לְפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר = rather it must concern the firstborn donkey
Segment 18
TYPE: דחיה
Rejected: it does concern ma’aser, in the narrow case of partial characteristics
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, לְעוֹלָם לְמַעֲשֵׂר, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא ״הַעֲבָרָה״ ״הַעֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר גָּמַר,
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No, actually the baraita is referring to the halakha of animal tithe in a case where the animal that resembles an animal of another type has some characteristics of the mother. It was necessary for the baraita to teach that such an animal is not included in the animal tithe, lest you say that it is derived via a verbal analogy from the term: Passing, stated with regard to the animal tithe (see Leviticus 27:32), and the term: Passing, stated with regard to a firstborn animal (see Exodus 13:12), that just as an animal with some characteristics of the mother does have firstborn status (see 16b), so too, such an animal should be included in the obligation of animal tithe.
קלאוד על הדף:
The elimination is undone by narrowing the ma’aser case rather than abandoning it. The baraita speaks of a nidmeh that bears מקצת סימנין, some of its mother’s characteristics, and for such an animal the tithe question genuinely is open. One might have reasoned by a gezeira shava on העברה — passing under the rod at the tithe (Vayikra 27:32) and passing over at the firstborn (Shemot 13:12) — that since partial signs do confer firstborn status, they should likewise bring an animal into the tithe.
Key Terms:
- מִקְצָת סִימָנִין = some of the characteristics of the mother’s species
- הַעֲבָרָה הַעֲבָרָה = the gezeira shava on ‘passing’, linking ma’aser beheima to the firstborn
- מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא = lest you say — the mistaken inference a teaching forestalls
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
The baraita teaches that תחת/תחת governs — so nothing is proven about peter chamor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים גָּמַר.
English Translation:
Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is derived via a verbal analogy from the word “under” that is stated with regard to sacrificial animals and the word “under” that is stated in the context of animal tithe, that an animal with some characteristics of the mother is unfit for animal tithe. The status of such a lamb with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey may not be proven from the baraita.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is that between two competing verbal analogies, the baraita establishes which prevails: תחת/תחת from kodashim, not העברה/העברה from bechor. An animal with partial signs is therefore excluded from the tithe. That gives the baraita a real and necessary job within the law of ma’aser, and it never speaks about the redemption of a donkey at all. The second attempted proof falls with the first, and the nidmeh dilemma is left genuinely unresolved.
Key Terms:
- קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = it teaches us — the ruling the source exists to establish
- גָּמַר = it is derived, by verbal analogy
Segment 20
TYPE: איבעיא
Third dilemma: may one redeem with פסולי המוקדשין?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין?
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey with disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed? It is forbidden to shear or work such animals. Does the principle of: A prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, apply here?
קלאוד על הדף:
Consecrated animals that developed a blemish are redeemed out of their sanctity and become ordinary meat, yet they retain two restrictions: they may not be sheared or worked. The question is whether such an animal can serve as a redeeming seh. The Gemara raises it alongside a general principle of prohibitions — אין איסור חל על איסור, a prohibition does not take effect where one already exists — which will shape how the dilemma is framed.
Key Terms:
- פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין = consecrated animals disqualified by a blemish and redeemed, still barred from shearing and labor
- אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר = a prohibition does not take effect where a prohibition already exists
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
The dilemma arises only for R’ Yehuda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה — חוּלִּין הוּא, כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ 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 it is permitted to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey, its status is non-sacred, and no forbidden status is transferred to the redemption lamb. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited to derive benefit from a firstborn donkey.
קלאוד על הדף:
As with the earlier questions, the Gemara narrows before analysing. R’ Shimon permits benefit from an unredeemed peter chamor, so the donkey is simple chullin and the redemption transfers no forbidden status anywhere; the question of a lamb that is already restricted cannot arise. It is R’ Yehuda’s position — that the donkey is assur b’hana’ah until redeemed — that makes the transfer of status a live issue.
Key Terms:
- אַלִּיבָּא דְּ = according to the opinion of
- חוּלִּין = ordinary, unconsecrated property
- אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה = forbidden to derive benefit from
Segment 22
TYPE: איבעיא
First side: if the issur must transfer, a restricted lamb cannot receive it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר?
English Translation:
What is the halakha? It could be reasoned that since it is prohibited to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey, when he redeems it with a lamb, the forbidden status of the donkey must be able to be transferred to the lamb, which cannot occur in the case of a disqualified consecrated lamb, as a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.
קלאוד על הדף:
One way to understand redemption on R’ Yehuda’s view is as a transfer: the donkey’s forbidden status moves onto the lamb, which is what frees the donkey. If that is the mechanism, then a lamb already carrying its own restrictions cannot serve, because אין איסור חל על איסור — there is no room for a second prohibition to land where one is already resident. On this reading pesulei hamukdashin are disqualified.
Key Terms:
- כֵּיוָן דְּאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה = since it is forbidden in benefit
- חָל = it takes effect, it lands
Segment 23
TYPE: איבעיא
Second side: nothing transfers, so redemption is merely an abrogation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא תָּפֵיס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ, אַפְקוֹעֵי אִיסּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא?
English Translation:
Or perhaps it could be reasoned that since the actual prohibition against deriving benefit from the donkey is not transferred to its object of redemption, i.e., the lamb, as deriving benefit from the lamb is permitted, the act of redemption should be seen as merely an abrogation of the donkey’s forbidden status. The forbidden status is not transferred to the lamb, and consequently the principle that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists does not apply.
קלאוד על הדף:
The alternative reading observes a simple fact about the lamb: benefit from it is entirely permitted once it reaches the kohen. Nothing forbidden has attached to it. If the donkey’s issur is לא תפיס פדיונו, not caught by its redemption object, then the act is not a transfer at all but אפקועי איסורא בעלמא, a bare lifting of status. And a mechanism that moves nothing onto the lamb has no reason to care what the lamb’s own status already is.
Key Terms:
- לָא תָּפֵיס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ = its redemption object does not catch the prohibition
- אַפְקוֹעֵי אִיסּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא = merely an abrogation of the prohibition, with no transfer
Segment 24
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Mari b. Rav Kahana resolves it from כצבי וכאיל
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא: מִי זוּטַר מַאי דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ, ״כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל״? מָה צְבִי וְאַיָּל אֵין פּוֹדִין, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין אֵין פּוֹדִין!
English Translation:
Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, says: Is that which is written with regard to disqualified consecrated animals insignificant? The Torah states that their status is: “Like the gazelle and like the hart” (Deuteronomy 12:15), indicating that just as one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with a gazelle or a hart, so too, one may not redeem a firstborn donkey with disqualified consecrated animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Mari cuts through the analysis with a verse rather than a mechanism. Of redeemed pesulei hamukdashin the Torah says they are eaten כצבי וכאיל, like the gazelle and like the hart (Devarim 12:15) — a comparison meant to describe how freely they may be eaten. Rav Mari reads the comparison as carrying its full weight: a gazelle and a hart are chayot, and the mishna excludes a chaya from redeeming. If these animals are legally like a gazelle, they are excluded for the same reason. His opening rhetorical question — מי זוטר, is what is written about them insignificant? — marks the move as a reminder that an explicit verse outranks a constructed argument.
Key Terms:
- כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל = like the gazelle and like the hart (Devarim 12:15)
- מִי זוּטַר = is it a small thing — a rhetorical appeal to the weight of an explicit verse
- רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא = a Babylonian amora of the later generations
Segment 25
TYPE: גמרא
השתא דאתית להכי — the consequence begins, and runs into 12b
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי,
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this explanation,
קלאוד על הדף:
The formula השתא דאתית להכי signals that a newly established explanation has implications beyond the case that produced it. Rav Mari’s verse was offered to settle the dilemma on R’ Yehuda’s premises, but a verse does not depend on whose premises one is working from. The sentence breaks off here and completes on the next amud, where the consequence for R’ Shimon is drawn out.
Key Terms:
- הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי = now that you have arrived at this — a new explanation’s wider consequence
Amud Bet (12b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The completion: the verse disqualifies pesulei hamukdashin for R’ Shimon as well
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי, ״צְבִי וְאַיָּל״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
English Translation:
according to Rabbi Shimon as well, perhaps one cannot redeem a firstborn donkey with disqualified consecrated animals, as it is written with regard to them that they are to be treated: “Like the gazelle and like the hart” (Deuteronomy 12:15). Since a gazelle and a hart cannot be used for redemption, so too, disqualified consecrated animals cannot be used for redemption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The consequence is that the dilemma is now settled for both tanna’im at once. The earlier analysis had assumed the question could only trouble R’ Yehuda, since for R’ Shimon the donkey is chullin and nothing needs to transfer. But Rav Mari’s disqualification does not rest on transfer at all — it rests on the plain description of these animals as כצבי וכאיל, which holds regardless of what one thinks about the donkey. A chaya cannot redeem, and neither can an animal the Torah places in a chaya’s category.
Key Terms:
- צְבִי וְאַיָּל = gazelle and hart, both chayot and therefore unfit to redeem
- לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי = according to R’ Shimon as well
Segment 2
TYPE: איבעיא
Fourth dilemma: may one redeem with בהמת שביעית?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בְּבֶהֱמַת שְׁבִיעִית?
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey with an animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year, which caused the sanctity of the produce to be transferred to the animal?
קלאוד על הדף:
The last of the four dilemmas concerns an animal bought with the proceeds of shevi’it produce, so that the produce’s sanctity has migrated onto the animal. Such an animal is ordinary in every visible way — it is a living, sound seh — but it carries a restriction on how it may be disposed of. The question is whether that restriction interferes with its use as a redemption object.
Key Terms:
- בֶּהֱמַת שְׁבִיעִית = an animal purchased with produce of the Sabbatical year, bearing its sanctity
- שְׁבִיעִית = the Sabbatical year, whose produce carries kedushat shevi’it
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
For a ודאי firstborn the answer is obvious: לאכלה ולא לסחורה
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַדַּאי — לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, לַאֲכִילָה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא לִסְחוֹרָה. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ — סָפֵק.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies the question: With regard to redeeming a donkey that has definite firstborn status with an animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year, you should not raise the dilemma, as one certainly may not redeem it in this manner, since the owner acquires his firstborn donkey in exchange for the animal that he gives to the priest, and this is prohibited with regard to such an animal. This is because the Merciful One states with regard to the Sabbatical Year: “The rest of the land shall be for you for consumption” (Leviticus 25:6), indicating that the produce may be used for consumption but not for commerce. Rather, when should you raise the dilemma? Raise it in the case of a donkey with uncertain firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara disposes of the easy half first. Shevi’it produce and whatever carries its sanctity are given לאכלה — for eating — and the Sages derive from that word that they may not be used לסחורה, for commerce. Redeeming a certain firstborn donkey is a straightforward exchange: the owner hands over the animal and acquires his donkey. That is commerce, and it is forbidden. The dilemma must therefore concern a case where no exchange takes place.
Key Terms:
- לַאֲכִילָה וְלֹא לִסְחוֹרָה = for eating and not for commerce — the rule governing shevi’it produce
- וַדַּאי = a certain firstborn, as against a doubtful one
- לְאׇכְלָה = for eating (Vayikra 25:6) — the word generating the restriction
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
And only for R’ Yehuda, since R’ Shimon requires no redemption of a safek
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ סָפֵק, כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies further: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon you should not raise the dilemma, as he does not hold that redemption is necessary in the case of a donkey with uncertain firstborn status. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that in such a case the owner of the donkey must designate a lamb for its redemption in order to abrogate its forbidden status, but he is not required to give it to a priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma is narrowed a second time. In the safek case the owner designates a lamb and keeps it, which on R’ Yehuda’s view is required in order to lift the donkey’s prohibition. R’ Shimon, who permits benefit from the outset, sees no need for a safek redemption at all, so for him the question does not arise. The framing is now precise: a doubtful firstborn, per R’ Yehuda, with a lamb that never changes hands.
Key Terms:
- סָפֵק = a doubtful firstborn, where the obligation is uncertain
- דְּלֵית לֵיהּ סָפֵק = he has no safek case, i.e. he requires no redemption for a doubtful firstborn
Segment 5
TYPE: איבעיא
The two sides: no exchange takes place, or the designation is itself a transaction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי כֵּיוָן דְּמַפְרֵישׁ טָלֶה וְהוּא לְעַצְמוֹ, ״לְאׇכְלָה״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּכַמָּה דְּלָא מַפְקַע אִיסּוּרֵיהּ לָא מִישְׁתְּרֵי, כִּסְחוֹרָה דָּמֵי?
English Translation:
What is the halakha? Perhaps since he designates a lamb and it is his, we call this act of redemption “for consumption,” and it is not considered commerce if he does not give it to the priest in exchange for his donkey. Or perhaps, since as long as the lamb does not abrogate the forbidden status of the firstborn donkey it is not permitted to derive benefit from the donkey, when the owner designates the lamb as the replacement of the donkey it is tantamount to engaging in commerce with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Since the owner designates the lamb and retains it, nothing passes to anyone and the transaction looks like no transaction at all — the animal remains in his flock and may still be eaten, so לאכלה is satisfied. Against that stands the function of the designation: until it is performed the donkey is forbidden, and afterwards it is permitted. The owner has purchased a permission with a shevi’it animal, and a purchase, even one with no counterparty, may be סחורה.
Key Terms:
- מַפְרֵישׁ טָלֶה וְהוּא לְעַצְמוֹ = he designates a lamb and it is his own
- כִּסְחוֹרָה דָּמֵי = it resembles commerce
- לָא מִישְׁתְּרֵי = it is not permitted, i.e. the donkey remains forbidden until then
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Chisda’s split ruling: not for a vadai, but yes for a safek
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בֶּהֱמַת שְׁבִיעִית אֵין פּוֹדִין בָּהּ אֶת הַוַּדַּאי, אֲבָל פּוֹדִין בָּהּ אֶת הַסָּפֵק.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from that which Rav Ḥisda says: One may not redeem a donkey with definite firstborn status with an animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year, but one may redeem a donkey with uncertain firstborn status with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda resolves the dilemma exactly along the line the Gemara drew. A certain firstborn may not be redeemed with a shevi’it animal, because that redemption is a genuine exchange with a kohen. A doubtful one may, because the lamb stays where it is and nothing is traded. The ruling confirms that the שביעית restriction attaches to the transfer of the animal, not to the legal effect the designation produces.
Key Terms:
- רַב חִסְדָּא = a Babylonian amora of the third generation, head of the academy at Sura
- אֵין פּוֹדִין בָּהּ אֶת הַוַּדַּאי = one does not redeem the certain firstborn with it
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
A second ruling of Rav Chisda: exempt from bechora, obligated in matanot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בֶּהֱמַת שְׁבִיעִית פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בַּמַּתָּנוֹת.
English Translation:
And Rav Ḥisda says an additional ruling: An animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn, but is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it. These are the gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled when a non-sacred animal is slaughtered,
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda pairs the first ruling with a second on the same animal, and the pairing is deliberate — both turn on the word לאכלה. A shevi’it animal’s own offspring is not subject to the laws of the firstborn, but the animal remains subject to the priestly gifts taken when a chullin animal is slaughtered. The two halves of the ruling pull in opposite directions, and the next segment explains why.
Key Terms:
- מַתָּנוֹת = the priestly gifts from a slaughtered chullin animal: foreleg, cheeks and maw
- פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה = exempt from the obligations of the firstborn
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
The reason for both: לאכלה ולא לשריפה
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה — ״לְאׇכְלָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בַּמַּתָּנוֹת — דִּ״לְאָכְלָה״ קָרֵינָא בַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: It is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn because the Merciful One states with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year that it should be used “for consumption,” but not for burning, and portions of a kosher firstborn animal are burned on the altar. And it is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from it, because we call this case “for consumption,” as the priest eats them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The single principle that produces both halves is a second derashah from לאכלה — for eating, and not for burning. A kosher firstborn’s אמורים are burned on the altar, so subjecting a shevi’it animal’s offspring to bechora would direct sanctified produce toward burning, which the verse excludes. The priestly gifts, by contrast, are eaten by the kohen, and eating is precisely what the verse prescribes. Same word, opposite results, depending on the destination of the item.
Key Terms:
- לְאׇכְלָה וְלֹא לִשְׂרֵיפָה = for eating and not for burning
- אֵימוּרִים = the portions of an offering burned on the altar
- דִּלְאָכְלָה קָרֵינָא בַּהּ = we call it for eating, i.e. the case satisfies the verse
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
An objection from shevi’it dough and challah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: הָאוֹכֵל מֵעִיסַּת שְׁבִיעִית עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ — חַיָּיב מִיתָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Shevi’it 9:9): One who eats from dough of produce of the Sabbatical Year before its ḥalla, i.e., the portion of the dough given to the priests, has been separated, is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, just like one who consumes any dough before ḥalla is separated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna in Shevi’it 9:9 rules that one who eats shevi’it dough before its challah has been separated is liable to death at the hand of Heaven, which presupposes that challah applies to such dough. The objection notes that challah is a priestly gift that must be burned if it becomes tamei — so by Rav Chisda’s own reasoning, לאכלה ולא לשריפה should have exempted shevi’it dough from challah entirely.
Key Terms:
- חַלָּה = the portion of dough given to a kohen (Bamidbar 15:20-21)
- עִיסַּת שְׁבִיעִית = dough made from produce of the Sabbatical year
- חַיָּיב מִיתָה = liable to death at the hand of Heaven — the penalty for eating tevel
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Challah is different: לדורותיכם is written
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַמַּאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִטַּמְּיָא בַּת שְׂרֵיפָה הִיא, ״לְאׇכְלָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא לִשְׂרֵיפָה!
English Translation:
But according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, why is dough of produce of the Sabbatical Year subject to the obligation of separating ḥalla? It should not be subject to this mitzva, since if the dough becomes ritually impure after being separated as ḥalla, it is subject to burning, and the Merciful One states: “For consumption,” but not for burning. This is similar to Rav Ḥisda’s claim that a firstborn animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year is not subject to the obligations of firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is textual. The challah passage adds the phrase לדורותיכם, throughout your generations, and the Sages read that inclusion as sweeping in every year without exception — the shemitta year among them. Where Scripture has expressly extended an obligation, the general inference from לאכלה cannot narrow it. The exception is specific to challah and does not travel.
Key Terms:
- לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם = throughout your generations (Bamidbar 15:21) — the inclusion extending challah to shevi’it
- שָׁאנֵי הָכָא = it is different here
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita confirms the derivation explicitly
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דִּכְתִיב ״לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם״.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Here, with regard to ḥalla, it is different, as it is written: “Of the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord a portion for a gift throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:21), which indicates that all dough, including that of produce of the Sabbatical Year, is subject to the mitzva of ḥalla.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reinforces the answer by producing a baraita that states the very derivation just proposed: the liability for eating shevi’it dough before challah is separated is derived from לדורותיכם. The confirmation matters because the answer would otherwise look constructed for the occasion. And the contrast is pointed — no comparable inclusive phrase appears in the laws of the firstborn, which is precisely why Rav Chisda’s exemption there stands.
Key Terms:
- תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי = it is likewise taught in a baraita — confirmation of a proposed derivation
- מִנַּיִן = from where is it derived
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Then learn bechora from challah — no: one is primarily for eating, the other primarily for burning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מִנַּיִן לָאוֹכֵל מֵעִיסַּת שְׁבִיעִית עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ שֶׁחַיָּיב מִיתָה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם״.
English Translation:
This is also taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who consumes dough of produce of the Sabbatical Year before its ḥalla was separated is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Throughout your generations,” which indicates the inclusion of Sabbatical Years as well. By contrast, this formulation is not used with regard to a firstborn animal. Therefore, since portions of a kosher firstborn animal are burned on the altar, an animal that was purchased with produce of the Sabbatical Year is exempt from its offspring being counted a firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
A sharper form of the objection remains: rather than treating challah as an exception, why not learn from it that לאכלה ולא לשריפה is not a real principle at all? The Gemara answers by distinguishing what each obligation is fundamentally for. Challah is עיקר לאכילה — it exists to be eaten by a kohen, and burning is only the misfortune that befalls it if it contracts tum’ah. The firstborn’s אמורים are עיקר לשריפה; burning is not an accident there but the purpose. The verse excludes what is essentially destined for the fire, not what may incidentally reach it.
Key Terms:
- וְלִגְמַר מִינַּהּ = and let him derive from it — the challenge to generalize the exception
- עִיקָּר לַאֲכִילָה = primarily for eating
- עִיקָּר לִשְׂרֵיפָה = primarily for burning
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Back to the mishna: the kohen must redeem it in the owner’s presence
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִגְמַר מִינַּהּ! הָתָם עִיקָּר לַאֲכִילָה, הָכָא עִיקָּר לִשְׂרֵיפָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: And let Rav Ḥisda derive from the halakha of ḥalla that such an animal is subject to its offspring being counted a firstborn, and that the interpretation of: “For consumption” but not for burning, is not applied. The Gemara explains: There, with regard to ḥalla, the primary purpose of the dough is for consumption, and it is burned only if it becomes impure. Here, with regard to a firstborn animal, the primary purpose of the portions that are consumed on the altar is for burning.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s closing clause and notes that it anticipates an explicit baraita. Where a kohen offers to take the donkey and attend to the redemption himself, the Israelite may not hand it over unless the kohen performs the redemption in front of him. The concern is not theoretical: an unredeemed donkey in a kohen’s possession is a forbidden animal in the hands of the one person who has no financial incentive to act.
Key Terms:
- תְּנֵינָא לְהָא = we have learned this — noting that a mishna anticipates a baraita
- פְּדָאוֹ בְּפָנָיו = he redeemed it in his presence
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Nachman: נחשדו הכהנים על פטרי חמורים, and why it needed saying
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נְתָנוֹ לְכֹהֵן כּוּ׳. תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן: ״תְּנֵהוּ לִי וַאֲנִי אֶפְדֵּהוּ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִתְּנוּ לוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן פְּדָאוֹ בְּפָנָיו.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: If the owner gave the firstborn donkey itself to a priest, the priest may keep it only after he designates a lamb in its stead for redemption. This language indicates that there is concern lest the priest will be negligent in redeeming it. The Gemara comments: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: In the case of an Israelite who had a firstborn donkey in his house and the priest said to him: Give it to me and I will redeem it, he may not give the donkey to the priest unless the priest redeems it in his presence.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman, transmitting Rabba bar Avuh, draws the general conclusion: kohanim as a class are suspect regarding firstborn donkeys. The Gemara asks why this needed stating when the baraita says as much, and the answer sharpens it considerably. One might have limited the caution to a kohen with a known record; Rav Nachman extends it to every kohen, because the temptation here is not dishonesty but self-persuasion. The kohen מורה בה היתירא — he rules leniently for himself, reasoning that the lamb would end up in his hands anyway, so what exactly is the harm.
Key Terms:
- נֶחְשְׁדוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים = kohanim are suspect
- מוֹרֶה בָּהּ הֶיתֵּירָא = he rules a leniency for himself in the matter
- דְּמַחְזַק לַן דְּמִיקְּרֵי = where we have a presumption about him that it occurs
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה
The fifth mishna: who bears the loss when the designated lamb dies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת נֶחְשְׁדוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים עַל פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּמַחְזַק לַן דְּמִיקְּרֵי, אֲבָל בִּסְתָמָא לָא — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמוֹרֵה בַּהּ הֶיתֵּירָא.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: That is to say that priests are suspect with regard to using firstborn donkeys without redemption. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? That is exactly what the baraita states. The Gemara explains: Rav Naḥman’s statement is necessary lest you say that this statement of the baraita applies only in a case where we have a presumption that it occasionally happens that this priest uses a firstborn donkey without redeeming it first, but in the case of an ordinary priest, there is no concern for this. Therefore, Rav Naḥman teaches us that this concern is relevant to every priest, as a priest is suspected of granting himself permission to use the firstborn donkey without first redeeming it with a lamb, as in any case the lamb will remain his.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna opens on the financial consequences of a designation gone wrong. R’ Eliezer holds the owner bears אחריות and must supply another lamb, on the model of pidyon haben — where five sela’im lost before delivery must be replaced. The Sages hold he bears none, on the model of ma’aser sheni, where the designation of coins desanctifies the produce at once and the coins are simply the coins. The two analogies encode two views of what a designation accomplishes: a promise still owed, or a completed act.
Key Terms:
- אַחְרָיוּת = financial responsibility for replacement if the item is lost
- חֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן = the five sela’im of pidyon haben
- פִּדְיוֹן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי = the redemption of second tithe onto coins
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה / עדות
The testimony of R’ Yehoshua and R’ Tzadok, and the case of the donkey dying
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּפְרִישׁ פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וָמֵת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, כַּחֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, כְּפִדְיוֹן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי.
English Translation:
MISHNA: In the case of one who designates a lamb for the redemption of a firstborn donkey and the lamb dies, Rabbi Eliezer says: The owner bears financial responsibility and must give the priest another lamb in its place. This is like the case of the five sela for redemption of a firstborn son, where if the money is lost before one gives it to the priest, he must give the priest another five sela. And the Rabbis say: The owner does not bear financial responsibility. This is like the case of money designated for redemption of second-tithe produce, where once the owner designates the money for redemption, the produce is desanctified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna records formal testimony — a category carrying particular weight, since an עדות transmits a received ruling rather than an argument. R’ Yehoshua and R’ Tzadok testified that where the designated lamb dies אין כאן לכהן כלום, the kohen has nothing here, siding with the Sages. The mishna then reverses the case: if the donkey dies after designation, R’ Eliezer says it must be buried and the owner keeps the lamb, while the Sages say no burial is needed and the lamb goes to the kohen. Each tanna is consistent — for R’ Eliezer the redemption was never completed, for the Sages it was completed at the moment of designation.
Key Terms:
- הֵעִיד = he testified — transmitting a received ruling in formal testimony
- אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם = the kohen has nothing here
- יִקָּבֵר = it must be buried — the disposal of an animal forbidden in benefit
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Yosef: R’ Eliezer’s source is the hekesh in אך פדה תפדה
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי צָדוֹק עַל פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר שֶׁמֵּת, שֶׁאֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. מֵת פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִקָּבֵר, וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ שֶׁל טָלֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהִקָּבֵר, וְטָלֶה לַכֹּהֵן.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok testified about a lamb designated for redemption of a firstborn donkey that died, that the priest has nothing here, i.e., in such a case, as the firstborn donkey has already been redeemed, and the owner no longer bears financial responsibility for the dead lamb, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. If after the lamb was designated, the firstborn donkey died, Rabbi Eliezer says: The donkey must be buried, and the owner is permitted to derive benefit from the lamb. And the Rabbis say: It does not need to be buried, and the lamb is given to the priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef grounds R’ Eliezer in the verse that places both redemptions side by side — אך פדה תפדה את בכור האדם ואת בכור הבהמה הטמאה תפדה (Bamidbar 18:15). Since a father whose five sela’im are lost before delivery must replace them, the juxtaposition transfers the same liability to the donkey’s owner. The reading is elegant, and the rest of the sugya consists of the Gemara testing how much else the same juxtaposition would carry with it.
Key Terms:
- אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה = yet you shall surely redeem (Bamidbar 18:15)
- הֶיקֵּשׁ = a juxtaposition of two laws in one verse, transferring details between them
- בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה = the firstborn of a non-kosher animal, i.e. the donkey
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
Abaye: then benefit from the donkey should be permitted, as it is from a firstborn son
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? דִּכְתִיב: ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה וְגוֹ׳״, מָה בְּכוֹר אָדָם חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, אַף בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the owner bears financial responsibility for the lamb if it is designated and dies before the priest receives it? As it is written: “Yet you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:15). It is derived from the comparison between the two cases that just as with regard to redeeming a woman’s firstborn son, the father bears financial responsibility to compensate for the five sela in the event of their loss, so too, with regard to redeeming a firstborn non-kosher animal, the owner bears financial responsibility to compensate the priest in the event of their loss.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye attacks the hekesh with its own logic. A hekesh transfers features in both directions, and an unredeemed firstborn son is plainly permitted in benefit — his father may use his labor freely. If the two are genuinely equated, the donkey should be permitted too, contradicting R’ Eliezer’s own position. And if one were to say R’ Eliezer does permit it, the mishna blocks that escape: he rules the dead donkey must be buried, which normally signals an animal forbidden in benefit.
Key Terms:
- מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה = permitted in benefit
- וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי = and if you would say indeed so — closing off an escape route
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ ודחיה
Rav Yosef: buried like a firstborn son — and the Gemara’s dismissal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי מָה בְּכוֹר אָדָם מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אַף בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מוּתָּר! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתְנַן: מֵת פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִקָּבֵר. מַאי יִקָּבֵר? לָאו דְּאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה?
English Translation:
Abaye said to him: If they are compared, then just as deriving benefit from a woman’s firstborn son is permitted if he has not yet been redeemed, so too, deriving benefit from the firstborn of a non-kosher animal should be permitted prior to redemption, including shearing and working it. And if you would say that indeed Rabbi Eliezer does permit deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey, that is difficult: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if after the lamb was designated the firstborn donkey died, Rabbi Eliezer says: It must be buried? Now, what is the reason that it must be buried? Is it not because deriving benefit from it is prohibited?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef tries to absorb the burial into the hekesh itself: a person who dies is buried, so a donkey equated to a person is buried, and burial carries no implication about benefit. The Gemara dismisses it in a single sentence that exposes the absurdity. Is it only a firstborn son who requires burial while an ordinary man does not? Burial is owed to every person, and nothing in it is specific to firstborn status — so it cannot be what the hekesh transferred.
Key Terms:
- בָּעֵי קְבוּרָה = it requires burial
- פָּשׁוּט = an ordinary person, not a firstborn
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא
And a baraita shows R’ Eliezer himself holds the donkey forbidden
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, יִקָּבֵר כִּבְכוֹר אָדָם. אֶלָּא, אָדָם בְּכוֹר הוּא דְּבָעֵי קְבוּרָה, פָּשׁוּט לָא בָּעֵי קְבוּרָה?
English Translation:
Rav Yosef responded: No, it must be buried like a woman’s firstborn son. There is a mitzva to bury a woman’s firstborn son if he dies, and due to the comparison of the verse, the same applies to a firstborn donkey. The Gemara asks: But according to this answer, does a person who died require burial only if he is a firstborn son, while an ordinary person who is not a firstborn does not require burial? That is certainly not correct. Therefore, no such distinction should exist with regard to a donkey either.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second objection settles the matter from R’ Eliezer’s own words. A baraita records him conceding that an Israelite with a doubtful peter chamor designates a lamb and keeps it — and as the Gemara established on 9b, that designation serves no purpose except to lift the donkey’s prohibition. If R’ Eliezer requires it, he holds the donkey is forbidden in benefit. Rav Yosef’s defence cannot stand, and a different account of the hekesh is needed.
Key Terms:
- וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא = and furthermore it is taught — a second and stronger objection
- מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר = R’ Eliezer concedes
- וְהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ = and it is his — the lamb remains with the owner
Segment 21
TYPE: מסקנא
Rava: לפדייה הקשתיו ולא לדבר אחר
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְפֵק פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — שֶׁמַּפְרִישׁ טָלֶה עָלָיו, וְהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ!
English Translation:
And furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer clearly holds that deriving benefit from a firstborn donkey prior to redemption is forbidden, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer concedes with regard to an Israelite who has a donkey in his house whose status as a firstborn is uncertain, that he designates a lamb for it and the lamb is his. Designating a lamb in this case is necessary only to remove the prohibition against deriving benefit from the donkey.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava supplies the account that survives, and it works by limiting the hekesh rather than defending its full scope. The verse does not say פדה alone but פדה תפדה, and Rava reads the doubling as defining the comparison’s reach: I compared them for the matter of redemption, and for nothing else. Acharayut is a feature of how a redemption is discharged and therefore transfers; the permissibility of benefit is a separate question about the animal’s status and does not. R’ Eliezer can hold both positions without contradiction.
Key Terms:
- לִפְדִיָּיה הִקַּשְׁתִּיו = I compared it with regard to redemption
- וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר = and not with regard to any other matter
- רָבָא = a Babylonian amora of the fourth generation, head of the academy at Mechoza
Segment 22
TYPE: ברייתא
A new topic: the timing of valuations, pidyon haben and peter chamor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה״, לִפְדִיָּיה הִקַּשְׁיתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר.
English Translation:
Rather, Rava says that although the verse compares the status of a firstborn donkey to that of a woman’s firstborn son, this is only with regard to bearing financial responsibility for the lamb, but not with regard to deriving benefit from the donkey. This is because the verse states: “Yet you shall redeem [pado tifde] the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem.” The double verb “pado tifde” indicates that I have compared it with regard to redemption, but not with regard to another matter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes with a sugya on when each redemption is performed. A baraita states three rules together: ערכין are fixed בשעתן, according to the subject’s status at the time of the vow; pidyon haben is after thirty days, as the verse specifies מבן חדש תפדה; and the redemption of a peter chamor is לאלתר, immediately. The third rule is the one the Gemara will find difficult.
Key Terms:
- הָעֲרָכִין בִּשְׁעָתָן = valuations are assessed according to the time of the vow
- לְאַלְתַּר = immediately, without delay
- מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ = from a month old (Bamidbar 18:16) — the source for the thirty days of pidyon haben
Segment 23
TYPE: קושיא
A contradiction: a second baraita puts peter chamor at thirty days
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: הָעֲרָכִין — בִּשְׁעָתָן, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן — אַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר — לְאַלְתַּר.
English Translation:
We learned in a baraita elsewhere: Valuations are determined based on the time of the vow. Therefore, if one vowed to consecrate the valuation of an infant who is less than one month old, he is not obligated to give any money even after the infant is one month old, as an infant less than one month old has no valuation. And with regard to redeeming a woman’s firstborn son, one must give the required sum to the priest after the infant is thirty days old, as it is stated: “And their redemption money, from a month old shall you redeem them” (Numbers 18:16). With regard to redeeming a firstborn donkey, it must be performed immediately.
קלאוד על הדף:
The contradicting baraita groups four subjects — valuations, pidyon haben, nezirut and peter chamor — and rules that none applies to less than thirty. For valuations and pidyon haben that means the subject’s age; for nezirut it means the minimum term of the vow; and for peter chamor it apparently means the donkey’s age. That directly contradicts לאלתר, which placed the redemption at birth.
Key Terms:
- נְזִירוּת = the nazirite vow, whose minimum term is thirty days
- פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים = less than thirty
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא
מוסיפין עד עולם — the upper end is open
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר לְאַלְתַּר? וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵין בַּעֲרָכִין, וּבְפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, וּבִנְזִירוּת, וּבְפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר — פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And must redeeming a firstborn donkey be performed immediately? But one can raise a contradiction from another baraita: The halakhot of valuations, and of redemption of a woman’s firstborn son, and of nazirite vows, and of a firstborn donkey, do not apply to less than thirty days. In other words, the halakhot of valuations, of the redemption of a woman’s firstborn son, and of a firstborn donkey do not apply to a person or animal that is less than thirty days old, and a term of naziriteship is a minimum of thirty days.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s second clause completes the picture: while thirty is the floor, one may add indefinitely. Valuations apply at any age beyond thirty days, a firstborn son or donkey may be redeemed years later, and a nazirite may undertake any term longer than thirty days. Nothing lapses by delay — the obligation simply remains outstanding, which is why the contradiction with לאלתר concerns the proper time rather than the possibility of performance.
Key Terms:
- מוֹסִיפִין עַד עוֹלָם = one may add indefinitely — there is no upper limit
Segment 25
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Nachman: לאלתר means only that an early redemption is valid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמוֹסִיפִין עַד עוֹלָם!
English Translation:
But one may add to this amount forever. Meaning, the halakhot of valuations apply to a person of any age beyond thirty days, the redemption of a woman’s firstborn son and of a firstborn donkey apply even if the firstborn in question is already several years old, and one can vow to be a nazirite for any length of time beyond thirty days. This baraita indicates that a firstborn donkey is not redeemed immediately, but only after thirty days.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman dissolves the contradiction by reading לאלתר as a statement about validity rather than about obligation. The proper time is after thirty days, as the second baraita has it; but one who redeemed at once has nonetheless effected a valid redemption. The distinction is the familiar one between לכתחילה and בדיעבד — between what one should do and what counts once done.
Key Terms:
- אִם פְּדָאוֹ פָּדוּי = if he redeemed it, it is redeemed — valid after the fact
- לְכַתְּחִילָּה / בְּדִיעֲבַד = ab initio, the proper practice / after the fact, what nonetheless counts
Segment 26
TYPE: קושיא
But then an early pidyon haben should be invalid — and Rav says it is valid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם פְּדָאוֹ — פָּדוּי, מִכְּלָל דִּבְנוֹ אִם פְּדָאוֹ אֵינוֹ פָּדוּי? וְהָאִיתְּמַר: הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, רַב אָמַר: בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי!
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman says: When the first baraita states that a firstborn donkey must be redeemed immediately, it means to say that if one redeemed it immediately, it is redeemed, although it should be redeemed only after thirty days ab initio. The Gemara asks: By inference, in the case of a woman’s firstborn son, where the first baraita states that he is redeemed after thirty days, if one redeemed him prior to that time, is he not redeemed? But wasn’t it stated: In the case of one who redeems his son within thirty days of birth, Rav says: His son is redeemed?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman’s reading has an unwanted implication. If לאלתר at the donkey signals bedieved validity, then the plain statement that pidyon haben is after thirty days should mean that an earlier redemption fails. Yet it was stated that Rav holds one who redeems his son within thirty days has validly redeemed him. Either Rav Nachman’s distinction is wrong, or something further must be said about Rav’s ruling.
Key Terms:
- מִכְּלָל = by inference, i.e. the implication of the stated rule
- אֵינוֹ פָּדוּי = he is not redeemed
- הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ = one who redeems his son
Segment 27
TYPE: תירוץ / מסקנא
Rava’s qualification: a redemption said מעכשיו within thirty days does not take effect
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ — אֵין בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that matter that Rava says: Everyone agrees that if one says within thirty days of his son’s birth that he is redeeming him from now, his son is not redeemed. Such a redemption would be effective only if he gave the money on condition that the redemption will take effect after his son turns thirty days old.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is that Rav’s ruling was never unqualified. It was stated in Rava’s name that all agree a father who redeems within thirty days מעכשיו — with effect from now — has not redeemed his son, since the obligation has not yet matured. Rav’s leniency concerns money given on condition that the redemption take effect once the thirty days have passed. So the second baraita’s thirty-day rule holds for pidyon haben in the strict sense, and Rav Nachman’s bedieved reading of לאלתר survives. The daf closes with the distinction intact.
Key Terms:
- מֵעַכְשָׁיו = from now — a redemption taking effect immediately
- דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא = everyone agrees
- עַל תְּנַאי = on condition, i.e. taking effect at a later point