Bekhorot 23

Chapter 23

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

1 <big>MISHNAH: </big>WE DO NOT REDEEM A FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS EITHER WITH A CALF, A BEAST OF CHASE, AN ANIMAL RITUALLY KILLED,1 A TREFAH, KIL'AYIM2 OR A KOY.3

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

2 R'ELIEZER PERMITS HOWEVER [REDEMPTION] WITH KIL'AYIM BECAUSE IT IS ALSO DESCRIBED AS A LAMB. BUT HE FORBIDS WITH A KOY, BECAUSE ITS NATURE IS DOUBTFUL. IF HE GAVE [THE FIRST-BIRTH OF AN ASS] ITSELF TO THE PRIEST, THE LATTER MUST NOT RETAIN IT, UNLESS HE SETS ASIDE A LAMB IN ITS PLACE. <big>GEMARA: </big>Whose opinion does the Mishnah represent?

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

3 It is that of Ben Bag Bag. For it has been taught: We read here, [in connection with the redemption of a first-birth], the word, lamb,4 and we read elsewhere, [with reference to the Paschal-offering] the word, lamb,5

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

4 just as there [Scripture] excludes all those named [in the Mishnah above as unsuitable for the Paschal-offering],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A calf and a beast are excluded, because the text says: From the sheep and goats. A ritually slaughtered animal is excluded, because the killing must be specifically for the Passover, and kil'ayim is forbidden because a Paschal lamb must be suitable for offering on the altar.');">6 so here also, it excludes all those named [as unsuitable for the object of redeeming].

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

5 [Now you might assume that] just as the Paschal-offering must be a male, without a blemish, and a year old, similarly here, [in connection with the redemption of the first-birth of an ass] it must be a male, without a blemish, and a year old. The text therefore states: 'Thou shalt redeem', [and repeats], 'Thou shalt redeem' to include [even other than a male etc.]. Now if the repetition: 'Thou shalt redeem', 'Thou shalt redeem', has for its purpose to include, then why not include also all those [animals named in the Mishnah, as being unsuitable to redeem]? - If this were so, what is the use of [the analogy above between the words], 'lamb', 'lamb'? The question was raised: What is the ruling as regards redeeming a first-birth with a ben peku'ah?7 According to the opinion of R'Meir, there is no need for you to ask, for since R'Meir said: 'A ben peku'ah requires ritual slaughter', it is perfect lamb. But the question does arise according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that its mother's slaughtering makes it permitted to be eaten [without slaughtering] 'so that it is like flesh in the pot.8

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

6 Or are we to say that since at the moment it runs and walks, we can describe it as a lamb?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And all those cases enumerated in the Mishnah do not possess the equivalent value of the ass, for otherwise it would be permissible, as mentioned above, to redeem even with boiled herbs.');">9 - Mar Zutra said: We do not redeem [with it].

ז מר זוטרא אמר אין פודין ורב אשי אמר פודין

7 Said R'Ashi to Mar Zutra: What is your reason? Is it because you infer this from the Paschal-offering, [which cannot be a hen peku'ah]? Then why not say also, that as in the case of the Paschal-offering it must be a male, without a blemish, and a year old, so here [the animal for redeeming] must be a male, without a blemish and a year old? - [The text]: 'Thou shalt redeem' [and its repetition], 'Thou shalt redeem', includes [even other than a male etc.].

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

8 But if the repetition: 'Thou shalt redeem', 'Thou shalt redeem', has for its object to include, then why not include also ben peku'ah? If so, what need is there [for the analogy above derived from the words], 'lamb', 'lamb'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since something must be excluded, we rather include ben peku'ah as unsuitable to redeem with, than the case of a female etc., since, after all, the latter are lambs, whereas hen peku'ah is like a ritually slaughtered animal.');">10 The question was raised. What is the ruling as regards redeeming the first-birth of an ass with a nidmeh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An animal suspected to be a hybrid or looking like one. And in this case, although its sire is a ram and its mother a ewe, the offspring looks like some other species.');">11

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

9 You cannot ask according to R'Eliezer, for since according to him we may redeem with kil'ayim, how much more so with a nidmeh?12 The question does arise, however, according to the opinion of the Rabbis: Do we say that we are forbidden to redeem with kil'ayim, but we may redeem with a nidmeh?

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

10 Or perhaps, there is no difference, [and in both cases we are forbidden to redeem with them]? Come and hear.' If a cow gave birth to something looking like a kid, we do not redeem [with it].13

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

11 From this we infer that if a ewe gave birth to what looks like a kid, we do redeem [with it]. Now whose opinion does this represent? Shall I assume it is the opinion of R'Eliezer?

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

12 But do we not also redeem with kil'ayim [according to him]?14 You must then say that it is the opinion of the Rabbis!15 - No. You can still maintain that it is the opinion of R'Eliezer; and he teaches us this very thing,16 that if a cow gave birth to what looked like a kid, we do not redeem with it, and that you should not say, 'decide according to the offspring itself', and this is a genuine kid, but we rather say, 'decide according to its mother', and therefore it is a calf. Come and hear: For Rabbah B'Samuel learnt: What is kil'ayim?

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

13 A ewe which gave birth to something that looked like a kid, though its father was a sheep. If the father was a sheep, is it kil'ayim? Is it not nidmeh? - Rather then put it in this way: What is that which is like kil'ayim, that the Rabbis have placed it on a par with kil'ayim?

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

14 A ewe which gave birth to what looked like a kid, though its father was a sheep. Now, for what purpose [does the Baraitha say that we liken nidmeh to kil'ayim]? If in respect of dedicating it as a sacrifice,17 surely [this is not necessary, since] from the text from which we derive the exclusion of kil'ayim [as unsuitable for a sacrifice on the altar], we also derive the exclusion of nidmeh. For it has been taught [Scripture says]: When a bullock or a sheep,18 intimating the exclusion of kil'ayim; 'or a goat'18 intimates the exclusion of nidmeh.

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

15 Is it then in order [to exclude nidmeh] from the rule of the firstling? Surely the Divine Law says: But the firstling of an ox19 implying [that it is not subject to the law of the firstling] until the father is an ox and the offspring is an ox, [obviously excluding nidmeh].

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

16 Is it then from the rule of tithing [of animals]?

יז אלא למעשר תחת תחת מקדשים גמר אלא לפטר חמור

17 The rule for [both nidmeh and kil'ayim] is expressly derived from the analogy of the words, 'under', 'under' [mentioned In both cases].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It says in connection with dedicated sacrifices: Then it shall be seven days under its dam (Lev. XXII, 27) . And in connection with the tithing of animals the text says: Even of whatsoever passeth under the rod (Lev. XXVII, 32) . Just as nidmeh and kil'ayim are invalid to be brought as offerings in the case of consecrated sacrifices, they are similarly unsuitable in connection with the tithing of animals.');">20 [You must say that it is] with regard to the first-birth of an ass!21

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

18 - No.22 [The comparison of nidmeh with kil'ayim] can still refer to tithing, and we suppose to a case where the nidmeh possesses certain marks [similar to its mother]. I might in this case assume that we draw an analogy between the 'passing' mentioned [in connection with tithing] and the 'passing' [mentioned] in connection with a firstling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Even whatsoever passeth under the rod', the text in connection with tithing and the text in connection with the firstling, 'That thou shalt cause to pass (set apart) '. As in the latter case, if it possesses some marks similar to its mother it is liable to the law of the firstling, so too with reference to its tithing.');">23

יט קמ"ל תחת תחת מקדשים גמר

19 Therefore, we are told24

כ איבעיא להו מהו לפדות בפסולי המוקדשין

20 that we rather draw the analogy between 'under' mentioned here and 'under' mentioned in connection with consecrated sacrifices.25 The question was raised: What is the ruling as regards [redeeming the first-birth of an ass] with dedicated sacrifices which became unfit [for the altar]?26

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

21 This question does not arise if we accept the opinion of R'Simeon, for since he holds that it is permitted to be used [before its redemption], it is unconsecrated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first-birth of the ass. It can therefore be redeemed, for we apply here the principle that one prohibition cannot take legal hold where another already exists, as there exists no prohibition in the case of a first-birth.');">27 The question does arise, however, according to the opinion of R'Judah, who says that it is forbidden to be used [before its redemption].

כב מאי כיון דאסור בהנאה אין איסור חל על איסור

22 What is the ruling?

כג או דלמא כיון דלא תפיס פדיונו אפקועי איסורא בעלמא הוא

23 Since it is forbidden to be used, [do we apply the principle that] one prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition attaching to the first-birth of an ass cannot be transferred to a dedicated animal unfit for the altar which is liable to the prohibitions regarding its shearing and working with it.');">28

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

24 or perhaps, since [the lamb] does not assume any sanctity,29 do we say that the redemption has the purpose only of releasing the ass from a mere prohibition?30 - Said R'Mari the son of Kahana, And is this which is written in connection with these, As the gaze lie and the hart'!,31

כה השתא דאתית להכי

25 a small matter? [Consequently] just as we do not redeem [the first-birth of an ass] with the gazelle or the hart,32 [being beasts], similarly, we do not redeem with dedicated sacrifices which became unfit for the altar! Now that you have arrived at this conclusion,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter