## Bekhorot Daf 11a

###### Bekhorot 11a:1
[Bekhorot 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:1)

בְּהֶשֵּׂג יָד כְּתִיב.

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:2
[Bekhorot 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:2)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:3
[Bekhorot 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:3)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:4
[Bekhorot 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:4)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:5
[Bekhorot 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:5)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:6
[Bekhorot 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:6)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:7
[Bekhorot 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:7)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:8
[Bekhorot 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:8)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:9
[Bekhorot 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:9)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:10
[Bekhorot 11a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:10)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:11
[Bekhorot 11a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:11)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:12
[Bekhorot 11a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:12)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:13
[Bekhorot 11a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:13)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:14
[Bekhorot 11a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:14)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:15
[Bekhorot 11a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:15)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:16
[Bekhorot 11a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:16)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:17
[Bekhorot 11a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:17)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:18
[Bekhorot 11a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:18)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:19
[Bekhorot 11a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:19)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:20
[Bekhorot 11a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:20)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:21
[Bekhorot 11a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:21)

מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן עֲשָׂרָה שֵׂיִין, וּמְעַשְּׂרָן, וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ.

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:22
[Bekhorot 11a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:22)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:23
[Bekhorot 11a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:23)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַפְרַישׁ וְקָאֵי.

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:24
[Bekhorot 11a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:24)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:25
[Bekhorot 11a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:25)

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

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


###### Bekhorot 11a:26
[Bekhorot 11a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/11a:26)

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נָתָן אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ טְבָלִים

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses a variation of the previous case. **Rabbi Shmuel bar Natan says** that **Rabbi Ḥanina says:** With regard to **one who purchases untithed produce**