Overview
Bechorot 12 continues the laws of Peter Chamor, the firstborn donkey. The daf defines which animals may be used for its redemption, examines unusual cases such as a ben pekuah, a hybrid, an animal resembling another species, disqualified kodashim, and a Shemittah animal, and then discusses whether the owner remains responsible if the designated redemption lamb dies before reaching the Kohen.
Which Animals Cannot Be Used for Redemption?
The Mishnah teaches that a Peter Chamor may not be redeemed with a calf, a wild animal, a slaughtered animal, a treifah, a hybrid, or a koy. The Torah specifically requires a seh, meaning a living sheep or goat. Nevertheless, the redemption animal may be male or female, young or old, unblemished or blemished, because the repeated expression “padeh tifdeh” broadens the range of qualifying sheep and goats.
Rabbi Eliezer permits redemption with a hybrid descended from sheep or goats because it retains the identity of a seh. He does not permit a koy, however, because its classification is uncertain.
The Derivation of Ben Bag Bag
The Gemara identifies the Mishnah with the teaching of Ben Bag Bag. He derives the exclusions through a comparison between the seh used for Peter Chamor and the seh used for the Korban Pesach. Just as a calf, wild animal, slaughtered animal, treifah, hybrid, or koy cannot serve as the Pesach offering, these cannot serve as the redemption animal for Peter Chamor.
The Gemara asks why the redemption animal need not also be male, unblemished, and one year old, like the Korban Pesach. The answer is that the repeated word “tifdeh” includes sheep and goats that would not qualify as korbanot. However, since the Torah still uses the word seh, the essential identity of a living sheep or goat remains necessary.
May a Ben Pekuah Be Used?
The Gemara asks whether a ben pekuah, a living fetus found inside its properly slaughtered mother, may redeem a Peter Chamor.
According to Rabbi Meir, there is no question. Since he requires the ben pekuah to undergo its own shechitah, it is considered an ordinary seh and may be used.
The question is according to the Sages, who hold that the mother’s shechitah permits the fetus. Perhaps such an animal is regarded merely as meat contained in a basket and no longer possesses the full status of a seh. Alternatively, since it is now alive and walking, it may still be called a seh.
Mar Zutra rules that it may not be used, while Rav Ashi permits it. Rav Ashi argues that the expansive term “padeh tifdeh” includes a ben pekuah, while the word seh continues to exclude the specific categories listed in the Mishnah.
May an Animal Resembling Another Species Be Used?
The Gemara next asks whether a nidmeh, an animal born from sheep but resembling a different species, may be used. According to Rabbi Eliezer, who already permits a hybrid, a nidmeh would certainly qualify.
The question is according to the Sages. Perhaps their exclusion applies only to genuine hybrids, while an offspring born entirely from the sheep family remains a seh despite its appearance. Alternatively, a nidmeh may be treated like a hybrid and disqualified.
The Gemara analyzes several sources concerning unusual births and the laws of Ma’aser Behemah, but no simple general proof is established from them.
Disqualified Consecrated Animals
The Gemara asks whether an animal that was consecrated and later redeemed because of a permanent blemish may be used to redeem a Peter Chamor.
According to Rabbi Shimon, one might initially think it should qualify because he permits benefit from such an animal. According to Rabbi Yehudah, the question is more difficult because the animal retains certain restrictions.
Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, rules that disqualified kodashim cannot be used. The Torah compares such animals to a deer and a gazelle. Just as a deer and gazelle cannot redeem a Peter Chamor, neither can redeemed disqualified kodashim. The Gemara concludes that this exclusion applies even according to Rabbi Shimon.
A Shemittah Animal
The Gemara then asks whether an animal subject to the sanctity of Shemittah may be used for redemption. A definite Peter Chamor may not be redeemed with it, because Shemittah produce and property must be used for consumption, not commerce. Using the animal to satisfy a definite monetary obligation resembles commercial use.
The question concerns a doubtful Peter Chamor, where the owner separates a lamb but retains it. Perhaps this is permitted because the lamb remains available for eating. Alternatively, since the donkey remains prohibited until the lamb is designated, the act resembles a commercial redemption.
Rav Chisda rules that a Shemittah animal may not redeem a definite Peter Chamor, but it may redeem a doubtful one.
Shemittah Animals and Other Obligations
Rav Chisda also teaches that a Shemittah animal is exempt from the sanctity of a firstborn kosher animal. The Torah says that Shemittah property is for eating, whereas a firstborn animal is destined for altar service and possible burning, not ordinary consumption.
Nevertheless, a Shemittah animal remains obligated in the priestly gifts of the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach because giving those portions to a Kohen does not prevent their consumption. This is still considered a use of the animal for eating.
Shemittah Dough and Challah
The Gemara challenges Rav Chisda from dough made from Shemittah produce. A person who eats such dough before separating challah is liable to death at the hands of Heaven, even though impure challah would need to be burned.
The Gemara answers that challah is different because the Torah explicitly states that the obligation applies “throughout your generations.” This special verse includes Shemittah dough despite the possibility that the challah may require burning.
The Gemara distinguishes between challah, whose principal purpose is human consumption, and a firstborn animal, whose essential designation is sacrificial.
Suspicion Concerning Kohanim
The Mishnah rules that if the owner gives the firstborn donkey itself to a Kohen, the Kohen may not keep it without first placing a sheep beneath it as redemption.
A Baraita similarly teaches that if a Kohen asks an Israelite to hand him the donkey so that he can redeem it himself, the Israelite should not do so unless the redemption takes place in his presence.
Rav Nachman, citing Rabbah bar Avuha, derives that Kohanim were suspected of improperly retaining firstborn donkeys without redeeming them. Although one might have limited this concern to a Kohen already known to be careless, the teaching establishes that even an ordinary Kohen might rationalize retaining the animal.
If the Redemption Lamb Dies
A new Mishnah presents a dispute concerning someone who designated a lamb for redemption but the lamb died before it reached the Kohen.
Rabbi Eliezer holds that the owner remains responsible for replacing it, just as a father remains responsible for the five sela’im of Pidyon HaBen until they reach the Kohen.
The Sages disagree and compare the lamb to money designated for the redemption of Ma’aser Sheni. Once the redemption has taken effect, the original owner is no longer responsible for its loss.
Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok testified that if the redemption lamb dies, the Kohen has no further claim against the owner.
If the Firstborn Donkey Dies
The Mishnah also discusses the opposite case, where the donkey dies after the lamb was designated.
According to Rabbi Eliezer, the donkey must be buried, but the owner may benefit from the lamb. According to the Sages, the donkey does not require burial, and the lamb belongs to the Kohen.
The Gemara initially suggests that Rabbi Eliezer compares Peter Chamor to Pidyon HaBen in every respect. It rejects that approach and concludes that the repeated expression “padeh tifdeh” establishes the comparison only concerning the owner’s responsibility for completing the redemption, not for every other law.
How Soon May Redemption Take Place?
The Mishnah in Arachin teaches that Peter Chamor may be redeemed immediately, unlike a firstborn son, whose redemption takes place after thirty days.
Another source states that there is no Peter Chamor obligation before thirty days. Rav Nachman resolves the contradiction by explaining that Peter Chamor may be redeemed before thirty days and the redemption is valid. The thirty-day statement refers to the normal deadline or period associated with completing the obligation, not to the validity of an early redemption.
Final Summary
Bechorot 12 defines the animals that may redeem a Peter Chamor and excludes calves, wild animals, slaughtered animals, treifot, hybrids, koy, and redeemed disqualified kodashim. The daf debates the status of a ben pekuah and a nidmeh, permits using a Shemittah animal for a doubtful but not a definite Peter Chamor, and explains why Kohanim may not be trusted to retain the donkey without visible redemption. It concludes with the dispute over whether an owner remains responsible when the designated lamb dies before reaching the Kohen and establishes that Peter Chamor may be redeemed immediately.