Overview
Bechorot 10 continues the dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon concerning an unredeemed Peter Chamor, the firstborn donkey. The daf examines whether the donkey is forbidden for benefit before redemption, whether it becomes forbidden after its neck is broken, how much its redemption must be worth, and when prohibited items qualify as “food” for the laws of ritual impurity.
Meat and Milk According to Rabbi Shimon
The daf begins by discussing Rabbi Shimon’s position that meat cooked with milk is forbidden to eat but permitted for benefit. The Gemara asks why a Baraita says that meat and milk can acquire food impurity because they were once fit to be eaten. Since Rabbi Shimon allows the mixture to be given to others, it should already qualify as “food that can be fed to others.” The Gemara answers that the Baraita provides two independent reasons: it may be fed to others, and before the meat and milk were cooked together, each component was fit for Jewish consumption.
Does Prohibition Automatically Make Something Food?
The Gemara considers whether the very fact that an item is prohibited gives it sufficient significance to qualify as food for Tumat Ochlin. At first, the Sages suggest the principle**“its prohibition is its designation”**, meaning that a prohibited item’s legal importance might eliminate the need for someone to intend to use it as food.
Several sources are brought against this idea. The carcass of a kosher bird and the forbidden fat of an animal sometimes require explicit intention before they can acquire food impurity. Rava therefore concludes that prohibition alone does not automatically establish an item’s food status.
A Donkey Slaughtered for Practice
The Gemara explains that the case involves a firstborn donkey slaughtered so that someone could practice shechitah. By slaughtering it for this purpose, the person demonstrates that he treats the carcass as significant. The discussion is compared to a dispute concerning someone who slaughters a raven for practice and whether the blood of that slaughter prepares the bird to receive food impurity.
The Gemara considers whether the raven’s partial kosher characteristics affect its status. According to Rabbi Shimon, the presence of kosher signs can sometimes give an otherwise non-kosher species sufficient food significance without additional intention.
Benefit from Peter Chamor During Its Lifetime
The Gemara returns to the dispute about deriving benefit from a Peter Chamor before redemption. Rabbi Yehudah prohibits benefit, while Rabbi Shimon permits it. The Baraita separately discusses monetary benefit from the donkey and physical benefit, such as working with it or shearing it. Both cases are necessary because one might have thought that either Rabbi Yehudah or Rabbi Shimon would distinguish between profiting from the animal’s value and using its body.
After Arifah
Rav Nachman, quoting Rabbah bar Avuha, rules that Rabbi Shimon agrees that after arifah, when the donkey’s neck has been broken instead of redeeming it, the carcass is forbidden for benefit. This is derived through a comparison between the arifah of a Peter Chamor and that of an Eglah Arufah.
Rav Sheshet challenges this proof, suggesting that the Baraita may follow Rabbi Yehudah. The comparison may be necessary to teach that arifah does not function like redemption. Redemption permits the animal, whereas breaking its neck does not.
The Owner Must Lose for Refusing to Redeem
Rav Nachman brings another proof from Levi’s teaching: since the owner caused the Kohen to lose the redemption lamb by refusing to redeem the donkey, the Torah causes the owner to lose his donkey through arifah. The Gemara explains that this reasoning may fit either opinion. According to Rabbi Yehudah, the owner loses the difference between the donkey’s value and the inexpensive lamb that could have redeemed it. According to Rabbi Shimon, arifah creates an entirely new loss because the animal had previously been permitted for benefit.
Betrothal with a Peter Chamor
The Gemara examines a Mishnah stating that a man who betroths a woman with a Peter Chamor does not effect kiddushin. At first, this appears inconsistent with Rabbi Shimon, who allows benefit from the donkey before arifah.
One explanation is that the Mishnah refers to the donkey after arifah, when everyone agrees that benefit is forbidden. Another explanation says that the Mishnah follows neither opinion in a straightforward way: according to Rabbi Shimon, the entire value should effect kiddushin, while according to Rabbi Yehudah, the value remaining beyond the redemption lamb might still effect kiddushin.
Rabbah bar Avuha, quoting Rav, therefore explains that the donkey was worth only one sela and that the Mishnah follows Rabbi Yehudah together with the opinion that redemption cannot be accomplished with less than one sela. Since no excess value remains after redemption, there is nothing with which to effect kiddushin.
How Soon May the Donkey Be Redeemed?
The Sages derive from the repeated expression “padeh tifdeh” that a firstborn donkey may be redeemed immediately after birth. One might have compared it to a firstborn son, whose redemption takes place only after thirty days, but the repeated wording teaches that Peter Chamor does not require such a waiting period.
How Much Must the Redemption Be Worth?
The first opinion holds that the donkey may be redeemed with a sheep or goat of any value. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehudah requires the redemption animal to be worth at least one sela. He derives this from the verse stating that all sacred valuations must be expressed in the sacred shekel, indicating that a halachic valuation should not be less than one shekel.
Final Summary
Bechorot 10 deepens the dispute over the status of an unredeemed Peter Chamor. Rabbi Yehudah forbids benefit before redemption, while Rabbi Shimon permits it; nevertheless, the Gemara presents strong support that after arifah the donkey is forbidden according to everyone. The daf also clarifies that prohibition alone does not automatically give an object food status, analyzes kiddushin performed with a Peter Chamor, and establishes that the donkey may be redeemed immediately, although the Tannaim disagree about the minimum value of the redemption animal.