Bechoros 12
Summary
- The text explains the משנה and גמרא in מסכת בכורות דף י"ב עמוד א about פדיון פטר חמור, defining which animals qualify as a *seh* for redemption and how competing דרשות expand or restrict eligibility. It contrasts פדיון פטר חמור with פדיון הבן through a question from the בית יצחק and an answer from רב שלמה היימן that distinguishes between the Torah’s required form of redemption and the later obligation to give to a כהן. It brings a ירושלים incident involving a *treifah* lamb and the מנחת יצחק’s ruling that a failed *seh* redemption can revert to redemption by value, while noting אחרונים who dispute that reversion. It continues through the גמרא’s attributions and derivations, exploring cases like בן פקועה, נדמה, פסולי המוקדשין, and בהמת שביעית, then returns to כהנים being suspected of not performing redemption when given the donkey, disputes about liability when the separated lamb dies, and ends with a מחלוקת whether פדיון פטר חמור is immediate or tied to thirty days via a comparison to פדיון הבן.
- The משנה teaches that one may not redeem a פטר חמור with an *egel*, a *chayah*, a slaughtered animal, a *treifah*, *kilayim*, or a *koy*. Rabbi Eliezer permits *kilayim* because both parents are from the family of *seh*, but he agrees that a *koy* is excluded because it is a ספק between *behemah* and *chayah*, and a *chayah* cannot be used. The explanation frames the משנה as addressing the preferred method of redeeming with a *seh* and defining which candidates are not treated as a *seh* for that purpose.
- The שואל ומשיב cites the בית יצחק asking why פדיון פטר חמור cannot work through the כהן’s statement “ולדידי שוה לי,” as by פדיון הבן where giving an item equal in value to five *selayim* suffices and even the כהן’s acceptance as worth five *selayim* validates it. Rav Shlomo Heiman answers that פדיון הבן has a single Torah requirement of a monetary obligation of חמש סלעים to the כהן, so the כהן can define what is worth that obligation to him. Rav Shlomo Heiman says פדיון פטר חמור has two elements, the Torah-defined act of redemption that must be either with a *seh* or with the donkey’s value, and a separate rule to give the redemption to a כהן, so the כהן can only say “ולדידי שוה לי” on what he is owed, not on redefining what qualifies as the Torah’s required form of redemption.
- The narrative reports a ירושלים incident in which Rav Yaakov Hillel שליט"א repeatedly sought a firstborn male donkey and eventually redeemed it with a lamb, then bought back the lamb to use its wool for ציצית and to slaughter it while giving זרוע לחיים וקיבה, only to discover the lamb was a *treifah*. The case raises whether the redemption must be repeated because the משנה disqualifies a *treifah*. The text notes that Rashi exemplifies *treifah* as “שנחתכו רגליה מן הארכובה ולמעלה,” and מפרשים suggest either that this indicates a life-ending *treifah* or that it indicates a noticeable defect, yielding a possible distinction between noticeable and internal *treifos*, while the שולחן ערוך and Rambam do not draw such a distinction and disqualify a *treifah* *seh* generally. The מנחת יצחק rules that if redemption fails as a *seh* redemption it can revert automatically to redemption by value, and since the lamb exceeded the donkey’s value it validates the redemption even without intent, analogizing to one who intends to eat שמורה מצה but accidentally uses a different matzah and still fulfills מצוות מצה. The text reports that other אחרונים challenge this reversion because the intent was specifically the *seh* method, and it concludes that all agree not to repeat the redemption with a ברכה.
- The משנה states that if the donkey itself was given to the כהן, the כהן may not keep it unless he separates a *seh* to redeem it. Rashi understands “אין הכהן רשאי לקיימו” as requiring the כהן to redeem immediately, while other ראשונים understand it as barring use of the donkey until redemption is done. The text presents a fundamental מחלוקת אחרונים whether giving the donkey to the כהן accomplishes no מצוה until an actual redemption occurs, or whether the מצוה has two parts such that giving the donkey itself fulfills one component while the redemption remains to be done by the כהן.
- A practical question is raised about someone obligated in both פדיון הבן and פדיון פטר חמור but lacking funds for both חמש סלעים and a lamb. The text says that if giving the donkey to the כהן is itself fulfillment, he should give the donkey to the כהן to accomplish פטר חמור and use funds for פדיון הבן. The alternative view treats giving the donkey as not fulfilling the מצוה, which can shift priority considerations, especially because פטר חמור may apply immediately at birth whereas פדיון הבן applies after thirty days.
- The גמרא attributes the משנה to בן בג בג, who derives the exclusions by comparing “שה” of פדיון פטר חמור to “שה” of קרבן פסח, excluding the listed categories just as they are excluded for פסח. The גמרא challenges whether the comparison would also require זכר תמים בן שנה, and answers that “תפדה תפדה ריבה” expands the eligibility so those additional פסח requirements do not apply. The גמרא then asks whether the expansion would also include the excluded categories, and it answers that “שה שה” still has limiting force, requiring an allocation between the limiting and expanding דרשות.
- The גמרא asks whether a בן פקועה can be used for פדיון פטר חמור. It states that according to Rabbi Meir, who requires a בן פקועה to have its own שחיטה, it is a full *seh* and may be used. It places the question under רבנן, who hold that the mother’s שחיטה renders it permitted without its own שחיטה, creating uncertainty whether it is like a piece of meat or like a living animal for purposes of calling it a *seh*. Mar Zutra rules “אין פודים” and Rav Ashi rules “פודים,” and their exchange ties the dispute to how far the פסח comparison applies and how “תפטר תפטר ריבה” and “שה שה” are each deployed, with the שפת אמת describing this as the shared structural tension driving the מחלוקת.
- The גמרא asks about a נדמה, offspring that does not resemble its parents, and says there is no question according to Rabbi Eliezer because he permits *kilayim* and therefore permits נדמה. It frames the question according to רבנן whether they might exclude *kilayim* yet allow נדמה, or exclude both. A ברייתא states that a cow that gives birth to a goat-like offspring cannot be used, while a sheep that gives birth to a goat-like offspring can be used, but the גמרא ultimately reads the teaching as “זיל בתר אימיה,” treating the offspring as defined by its mother so that פרה שילדה מין עז is treated as an עגל and disqualified even for Rabbi Eliezer. Another teaching defines “איזהו כלאים” in a way that the גמרא reinterprets as “איזהו דומה לכלאים,” indicating that רבנן treat this נדמה like *kilayim*, and after eliminating קדשים, בכור, and מעשר as the intended application, the sugya suggests it would point to פדיון פטר חמור but then rejects that conclusion and re-establishes the reference to מעשר in a case with partial סימנים, leaving the נדמה question for פדיון unresolved.
- The גמרא asks whether פסולי המוקדשין may be used for redemption, and it ties the question to Rabbi Yehuda’s view that a פטר חמור is אסור בהנאה and thus has a קדושה-like status. The text records two understandings, one that the question targets only the *seh* method and one from the שפת אמת that it applies even to the value method, and it presents explanations from the טורי אבן and Rav Hanan about whether any momentary transfer or capacity for קדושה is required. The גמרא answers through a גזירת הכתוב that פסולי המוקדשין are described “כצבי וכאיל,” so just as צבי ואיל cannot be used because they are not *seh*, פסולי המוקדשין cannot be used either, and it concludes that even Rabbi Shimon agrees due to this verse-based linkage.
- The גמרא asks whether one can redeem using an animal with קדושת שביעית, and it states that for a definite obligation one certainly cannot because “לאכלה אמר רחמנא ולא לסחורה,” though the מנחת חינוך says בדיעבד the donkey would be redeemed. It narrows the question to a case of ספק under Rabbi Yehuda, since under Rabbi Shimon there is no obligation of redemption in ספק because פטר חמור is מותר בהנאה, and it asks whether redeeming in ספק counts as “לאוכלה” since the redeemer keeps the animal, or as “סחורה” since the prohibition is not removed until the act. The גמרא brings Rav Chisda that one may not redeem the definite case but may redeem the ספק case, and it adds Rav Chisda’s statement that בהמת שביעית is exempt from בכורה but obligated in מתנות, explaining the exemption as stemming from the requirement of “לאוכלה” where בכור entails burning on the מזבח. A challenge from the חיוב חלה on עיסת שביעית is answered by “לדורותיכם,” and the גמרא rejects learning בכור from חלה because חלה is fundamentally for eating while בכור inherently includes burning.
- A ברייתא rules that if a כהן tells the ישראל “תנה לי ואני אפדנו,” the ישראל may not give him the donkey unless he redeems it in the ישראל’s presence. Rav Nachman in the name of Rav Avahu derives that כהנים were suspected regarding פטרי חמורים. The גמרא explains the chiddush as applying even to a standard כהן, not only one known to be suspect, because “כהנים אמרי היתר,” rationalizing that receiving the lamb entitles them even without performing the redemption.
- The משנה states that if one separated the lamb and it died, Rabbi Eliezer holds the owner remains responsible, like the money of פדיון הבן, while the חכמים exempt liability like redemption of מעשר שני. The גמרא reports testimony of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok that in such a case “שאין כאן לכהן כלום.” The משנה adds that if the donkey dies, Rabbi Eliezer requires burial and says the lamb has no קדושה because it is not yet the כהן’s until delivered, while the חכמים say burial is unnecessary and the lamb is given to the כהן because designation already makes it the כהן’s and the donkey is redeemed.
- Rav Yosef explains Rabbi Eliezer’s liability rule from “אך פדה תפדה,” equating פטר חמור to בכור אדם regarding responsibility until actual delivery to the כהן. Abaye challenges that a full comparison would imply permissibility of benefit like a human firstborn, while Rabbi Eliezer elsewhere requires burial of a dead פטר חמור, and the גמרא rejects reading burial as proof of איסור הנאה by noting burial could be framed as a comparison. Rava resolves that “אך פדה תפדה” creates a comparison only “לפדיון הוקשו” and not for other laws.
- A source states “פדיון הבן אחר שלושים יום” while “פדיון פטר חמור לאלתר,” and the גמרא challenges it with a ברייתא that groups פטר חמור with other thirty-day frameworks as “אין… פחות משלושים.” Rav Nachman initially explains that early redemption is בדיעבד valid for פטר חמור, contrasting it to פדיון הבן, but the sugya revises the contrast by explaining that early פדיון הבן can be valid only when intended to take effect later, not immediately. A further challenge “פטר חמור מצוותו שלשים יום” leads to rejecting an interpretation that there is no issue delaying and instead pushes toward the view that the thirty-day framing is meaningful. The גמרא resolves the contradiction by attributing the thirty-day requirement to Rabbi Eliezer who equates פטר חמור to פדיון הבן, while attributing “לאלתר” to רבנן who do not make that comparison.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions