Overview
Bechorot 13 concludes the first perek dealing with Peter Chamor, the firstborn donkey, and begins the second perek concerning the firstborn of a kosher animal. The first part clarifies how quickly a Peter Chamor must be redeemed, the preferred relationship between redemption and arifah, and other mitzvot in which one option takes priority over another. The new perek then begins by discussing non-Jewish ownership in a kosher animal and the methods by which Jews and non-Jews acquire property from one another.
When Must a Peter Chamor Be Redeemed?
The preceding source taught that there is no period of less than thirty days for Peter Chamor. Rav Sheshet explains that this does not mean redemption performed earlier is ineffective. Rather, one does not violate any delay-related requirement during the first thirty days.
A Baraita, however, states that the mitzvah is to redeem the donkey throughout the first thirty days, after which the owner must either redeem it or break its neck. The wording initially suggests that one should deliberately retain the donkey for thirty days. The Gemara rejects this and explains that the mitzvah is to perform the redemption at some point during those thirty days.
Rava ultimately distinguishes between the opinions. According to Rabbi Eliezer, who compares Peter Chamor to Pidyon HaBen, the owner bears responsibility for completing the redemption. According to the Sages, who do not make that comparison, early redemption is valid and there is no identical framework of responsibility.
Redemption Takes Priority Over Arifah
The Mishnah teaches that if the owner refuses to redeem the firstborn donkey, he must break its neck from behind and bury it. Nevertheless, redemption is the preferred mitzvah. The Torah states, “If you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck,” indicating that arifah is only the secondary option when redemption is not performed.
The distinction is important because redemption preserves value and gives the Kohen a lamb, while arifah destroys the donkey without providing the Kohen with the intended gift.
Other Mitzvot with a Preferred Option
The Mishnah lists several comparable situations in which one mitzvah takes precedence over another. Regarding a Jewish maidservant, designation as a wife, yi’ud, takes priority over redemption. The Torah first discusses the possibility that her master will designate her, and only then mentions her redemption.
Originally, yibbum took priority over chalitzah because people intended to fulfill the mitzvah properly. Once people began performing yibbum for personal motives rather than for the mitzvah, the Sages ruled that chalitzah should take precedence.
Regarding a field dedicated to the Temple, the original owner has the first opportunity to redeem it. Only if he does not redeem it may it be sold to another person. These cases demonstrate that when the Torah provides two possible resolutions, one may be considered the preferred fulfillment.
Conclusion of the First Perek
With these laws, the Gemara concludes the opening perek concerning the firstborn donkey.
Hadran Alach HaLoke’ach Ubar Chamoro.
Beginning of the Second Perek: Firstborn Kosher Animals
Non-Jewish Ownership Exempts the Firstborn
The new Mishnah discusses a Jew who purchases the fetus of a non-Jew’s cow, sells the fetus of his own cow to a non-Jew, enters a partnership with a non-Jew, or accepts an animal through a shared-profit arrangement. In all these cases, the offspring is exempt from the sanctity of a firstborn animal.
The source is the Torah’s limitation of the mitzvah to firstborn animals “among Israel.” A significant non-Jewish ownership interest prevents the animal from acquiring Bechor sanctity.
Kohanim and Leviim Are Obligated in a Kosher Bechor
The Mishnah adds that Kohanim and Leviim are obligated in the firstborn of a kosher animal. Their exemption applies only to Pidyon HaBen and Peter Chamor.
Their firstborn kosher animals remain sacred because the Leviim’s animals in the wilderness redeemed only the firstborn donkeys of Israel. They did not remove the altar sanctity of kosher firstborn livestock.
Why Begin the Masechta with Peter Chamor?
The Gemara asks why the tractate first discussed the firstborn donkey and only afterward the more sacred firstborn kosher animal, whose holiness is intrinsic.
The Sages of Eretz Yisrael provide two explanations. First, Peter Chamor is especially beloved because of the historical role played by donkeys in carrying the wealth of Egypt during the Exodus. Second, its laws are relatively brief, so the Gemara completed that subject before turning to the longer laws of the kosher firstborn.
Money or Physical Transfer in Transactions with a Non-Jew
Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nachmani teaches in the name of Reish Lakish that transactions between Jews and non-Jews are completed according to the Torah-defined law governing transactions with non-Jews.
If a Jew gives money to a non-Jew for an animal, the Jew acquires it even without physically pulling it into his possession. Consequently, if the animal gives birth afterward, the firstborn is sacred.
Conversely, if a non-Jew gives money to a Jew for an animal, the non-Jew acquires it even before physically taking possession. A subsequently born firstborn is therefore exempt.
Abaye’s Derivation
Abaye derives this distinction from the Torah’s wording, “When you sell an article to your fellow.” Transactions with a fellow Jew are completed through physical transfer. By implication, transactions with a non-Jew are completed through payment.
The Gemara considers whether transactions with non-Jews might require both payment and physical transfer, or whether either one would suffice. It concludes that, like a transaction between Jews, the transaction between a Jew and a non-Jew requires one legally defined act of acquisition, not two.
The Dispute About Meshichah
The Gemara then considers Amemar’s opinion that physical transfer, meshichah, acquires property in transactions with a non-Jew. This depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about the Torah’s standard method of acquisition between Jews.
According to Rabbi Yochanan, money acquires property by Torah law, while the Sages instituted meshichah for transactions between Jews. The Torah’s distinction can therefore assign physical transfer to non-Jewish transactions.
According to Reish Lakish, meshichah itself is the Torah method for Jewish transactions. The Gemara must therefore explain why the Torah separately uses the term “your fellow.” One explanation is that the verse limits the obligation to return overcharges to transactions with fellow Jews and excludes transactions with non-Jews and Hekdesh.
Metal Scraps Containing an Idol
The Gemara challenges the acquisition rules from a case in which a Jew purchases scrap metal from a non-Jew and discovers an idol among the pieces. If he noticed the idol before completing payment, he may return it. If he had already paid and then took possession, he must cast the value of its benefit into the Dead Sea rather than return the idol and appear to sell it.
Several explanations are offered. The parties may have agreed to follow Jewish commercial law. Alternatively, the first case may involve a mistaken transaction because the buyer did not know an idol was included. The second case is more difficult to classify as a mistake because the buyer had already paid and should have inspected the items before taking them.
Rav Ashi and Ravina offer different interpretations of whether payment or meshichah completed the transaction. The sugya demonstrates that the timing of acquisition can determine whether the animal or object remains Jewish-owned and therefore whether Bechor sanctity can take effect.
Keeping One’s Word
Ravina interprets one part of the source as referring to someone who had not yet completed a legal acquisition but had already verbally committed to the transaction. Among Jews, withdrawing from such an agreement may constitute a lack of trustworthiness because Jews are expected to honor their word.
The same presumption is not automatically applied to a transaction with a non-Jew, because the Gemara does not assume the same mutual reliance on verbal commitments.
Final Summary
Bechorot 13 concludes the laws of Peter Chamor by teaching that redemption is preferred to arifah and that the donkey may be redeemed during its first thirty days. The new perek establishes that non-Jewish ownership exempts the firstborn of a kosher animal, while Kohanim and Leviim remain fully obligated in this form of Bechorah. The Gemara then begins a far-reaching discussion of commercial acquisition, examining whether payment or physical transfer completes transactions between Jews and non-Jews and how that determination affects the sanctity of a subsequently born firstborn animal.