## Bekhorot Daf 12b

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

לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי, ״צְבִי וְאַיָּל״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.

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


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

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בְּבֶהֱמַת שְׁבִיעִית?

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


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

וַדַּאי — לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, לַאֲכִילָה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא לִסְחוֹרָה. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ — סָפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ סָפֵק, כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

מַאי כֵּיוָן דְּמַפְרֵישׁ טָלֶה וְהוּא לְעַצְמוֹ, ״לְאׇכְלָה״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּכַמָּה דְּלָא מַפְקַע אִיסּוּרֵיהּ לָא מִישְׁתְּרֵי, כִּסְחוֹרָה דָּמֵי?

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


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

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בֶּהֱמַת שְׁבִיעִית אֵין פּוֹדִין בָּהּ אֶת הַוַּדַּאי, אֲבָל פּוֹדִין בָּהּ אֶת הַסָּפֵק.

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


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

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בֶּהֱמַת שְׁבִיעִית פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בַּמַּתָּנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,


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

פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה — ״לְאׇכְלָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בַּמַּתָּנוֹת — דִּ״לְאָכְלָה״ קָרֵינָא בַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: הָאוֹכֵל מֵעִיסַּת שְׁבִיעִית עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ — חַיָּיב מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְאַמַּאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִטַּמְּיָא בַּת שְׂרֵיפָה הִיא, ״לְאׇכְלָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא לִשְׂרֵיפָה!

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


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

שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דִּכְתִיב ״לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם״.

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


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

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מִנַּיִן לָאוֹכֵל מֵעִיסַּת שְׁבִיעִית עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ שֶׁחַיָּיב מִיתָה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם״.

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


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

וְלִגְמַר מִינַּהּ! הָתָם עִיקָּר לַאֲכִילָה, הָכָא עִיקָּר לִשְׂרֵיפָה.

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


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

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.

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


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

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.

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


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּפְרִישׁ פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וָמֵת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, כַּחֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים שֶׁל בֵּן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, כְּפִדְיוֹן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי.

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


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

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.

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


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

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? דִּכְתִיב: ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה וְגוֹ׳״, מָה בְּכוֹר אָדָם חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, אַף בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.

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


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

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?

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


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

לָא, יִקָּבֵר כִּבְכוֹר אָדָם. אֶלָּא, אָדָם בְּכוֹר הוּא דְּבָעֵי קְבוּרָה, פָּשׁוּט לָא בָּעֵי קְבוּרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְפֵק פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — שֶׁמַּפְרִישׁ טָלֶה עָלָיו, וְהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ!

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


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה״, לִפְדִיָּיה הִקַּשְׁיתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר.

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


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

תְּנַן הָתָם: הָעֲרָכִין — בִּשְׁעָתָן, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן — אַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, פִּדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר — לְאַלְתַּר.

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


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

וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר לְאַלְתַּר? וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵין בַּעֲרָכִין, וּבְפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, וּבִנְזִירוּת, וּבְפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר — פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וּמוֹסִיפִין עַד עוֹלָם!

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


###### Bekhorot 12b:26
[Bekhorot 12b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12b:26)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם פְּדָאוֹ — פָּדוּי, מִכְּלָל דִּבְנוֹ אִם פְּדָאוֹ אֵינוֹ פָּדוּי? וְהָאִיתְּמַר: הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, רַב אָמַר: בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי!

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


###### Bekhorot 12b:27
[Bekhorot 12b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/12b:27)

לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ — אֵין בְּנוֹ פָּדוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.