## Bekhorot Daf 12a

###### Bekhorot 12a:1
[Bekhorot 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:1)

**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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:2
[Bekhorot 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:2)

**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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bekhorot 12a:3
[Bekhorot 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:3)

אִי מָה לְהַלָּן זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה, אַף כָּאן זָכָר תָּמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ — רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:4
[Bekhorot 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:4)

אִי ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ רִיבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל הָנֵי נָמֵי? אִם כֵּן, ״שֶׂה״ ״שֶׂה״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Bekhorot 12a:5
[Bekhorot 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:6
[Bekhorot 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:6)

כְּבִישְׂרָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּהַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא רָהֵיט וְאָזֵיל, ״שֶׂה״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 12a:7
[Bekhorot 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:7)

מָר זוּטְרָא אָמַר: אֵין פּוֹדִין, וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: פּוֹדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:8
[Bekhorot 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:9
[Bekhorot 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:9)

אִי ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ רִיבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ בֶּן פְּקוּעָה נָמֵי! אִם כֵּן, ״שֶׂה״ ״שֶׂה״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:10
[Bekhorot 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:10)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בְּנִדְמָה? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, הַשְׁתָּא בְּכִלְאַיִם פָּרְקִינַן, בְּנִדְמָה מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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?


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

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, בְּכִלְאַיִם הוּא דְּלָא פָּרְקִינַן, בְּנִדְמָה פָּרְקִינַן, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


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

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bekhorot 12a:13
[Bekhorot 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:13)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:14
[Bekhorot 12a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:14)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bekhorot 12a:15
[Bekhorot 12a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:15)

לְמַאי? אִי לְקָדָשִׁים — מֵהֵיכָא דִּמְמַעֵט כִּלְאַיִם, מֵהָתָם מְמַעֵט נִדְמֶה, דְּתַנְיָא: ״שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב״ — פְּרָט לְכִלְאַיִם, ״אוֹ עֵז״ — פְּרָט לְנִדְמֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:16
[Bekhorot 12a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:16)

אִי לִבְכוֹר, ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:17
[Bekhorot 12a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:17)

אֶלָּא לְמַעֲשֵׂר, ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים גָּמַר! אֶלָּא לְפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:18
[Bekhorot 12a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:18)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם לְמַעֲשֵׂר, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא ״הַעֲבָרָה״ ״הַעֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר גָּמַר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:19
[Bekhorot 12a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:19)

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים גָּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Bekhorot 12a:20
[Bekhorot 12a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:20)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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?


###### Bekhorot 12a:21
[Bekhorot 12a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:21)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה — חוּלִּין הוּא, כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ 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 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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:22
[Bekhorot 12a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:22)

מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:23
[Bekhorot 12a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:23)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא תָּפֵיס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ, אַפְקוֹעֵי אִיסּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:24
[Bekhorot 12a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:24)

אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא: מִי זוּטַר מַאי דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ, ״כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל״? מָה צְבִי וְאַיָּל אֵין פּוֹדִין, אַף פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין אֵין פּוֹדִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bekhorot 12a:25
[Bekhorot 12a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12a:25)

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Now that you have arrived at this** explanation,