Bikkurim - Chapter 12

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 81) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 22) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

In contrast to the mitzvah of redeeming one’s firstborn son, this obligation is incumbent on both males and females.

If, however, the first issue of the donkey is female, it need not be redeemed.

The Hebrew term seh can refer either to a sheep or a goat, as stated in Halachah 8.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 82) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 23) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Ra’avad objects to this being considered as a separate mitzvah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that he considers the two as separate mitzvot, because Bechorot 13a refers to them as such and draws a parallel between these mitzvot and the mitzvot of yibbum and chalitzah which are accepted as separate mitzvot. Bechorot 1Ob explains the rationale for this mitzvah, since the owner caused a priest a loss (by not redeeming the firstling donkey), the Torah decreed that he suffer financial loss. In his Moreh Nevuchim, Zoe. cit., the Rambam explains that this mitzvah is a safeguard to insure that the mitzvah to redeem the firstling donkeys is observed.

The Hebrew term seh can refer either to a sheep or a goat, as stated in Halachah 8.

I.e., its observance is not limited to Eretz Yisrael, nor to the time when the Temple is standing.

I.e., the initial preference is to redeem the animal rather than behead it.

The verse establishes an association between the redemption of a firstborn son and the redemption of a firstling donkey. Just as the money for the firstborn is given the priest, so to, the seh for the firstling donkey is given him (Radbaz). Nevertheless, as evident from Halachot 5-6, the association is not complete in all of its particulars.

The Rambam clarifies this because from a simple reading of the verse, one might infer that all the firstborn of impure animals must be redeemed. Although all firstborn humans must be redeemed and all firstborn kosher animals must be sacrificed and/or given to a priest, among non-kosher animals, it is only among donkeys that the firstborn is designated as unique and requiring redemption. In his Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 39, the Rambam explains that this mitzvah is also connected with the commemoration of the exodus when God slew the Egyptian firstborn. It is associated with donkeys and not other beasts, because donkeys are a necessity in an agricultural society. Rashi (Exodus 13:13) focused on different dimensions of this concept, stating that a) donkeys are used as an
analogy for the Egyptians, and b) the donkeys assisted the Jews in their redemption, for they carried the wealth of Egypt upon them.

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, asking: “Why can he not give the money he received for the donkey to the priest? Why is it forbidden?” After all, it is permitted to redeem the donkey for its value (Halachah 11 ). The Radbaz explains that initially, if the person would desire to pay the donkey’s worth to the priest, he could have done so. Here, however, he sold the donkey and once it was sold, the money he received is forbidden. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 321:8) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Rama states that if the seller notifies the buyer that it is the first issue of a donkey, stipulates that the buyer will redeem it with a seh, and states that he is selling him the difference between the value of the seh and the value of the donkey, the sale is permitted

I.e., the priest sets aside a seh and redeems the donkey with it. He then takes the seh as his own.

For they say: "Why should I redeem it when I am entitled to keep the seh with which I redeem it?" (Sifei Cohen 321:6).

As soon as the seh was set aside, the holiness of the donkey is transferred to it. Hence, when the seh dies, it is considered that the priest’s property died and the owner is not under any further obligation (Rashi, Bechorot 9a).

For the seh already became the priest’s property [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 1 :4)].

Again since the redemption is already a fait accompli, the priest deserves the seh regardless of what happens to the donkey.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 321:1) states that the mitzvah is “to redeem it
immediately, so as not to postpone the observance of the mitzvah.”

In this, we see a difference between the redemption of a firstling donkey and that of a firstborn son. For the son must be redeemed after 30 days, not before (Chapter 11, Halachah 17).

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 1:7).

This is implied by the Hebrew term erafto that is connected to the Hebrew ore/, meaning “neck.” One must decapitate the animal, severing its neck (ibid.).

The Turei Zahav 321:3 notes that, as stated in Halachah 11, one may redeem the firstling donkey for its value. Hence, if one tells a priest that by giving him a calf or the like, he is redeeming the donkey for its value, the redemption is effective.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 5, and notes, with regard to the definition of this term.

For even if it does not appear to be a seh, it is of that species. Bechorot 12a raises this
question and does not resolve it. Hence, as an initial preference, one should not use such an animal, but after the fact, it is acceptable (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). The Rambam’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 321:3), but the Tur and the Rama differ and maintain that the status of such a redemption is questionable.

This term refers to an animal that was being carried as a fetus when its mother was slaughtered and remained alive despite that slaughter (see Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 5:14). The Rambam’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 321:4), but the Tur and the Rama differ and maintain that the redemption is invalid.

As stated in the previous halachah.

See Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel, ch. 6, which explains the laws governing the use of money received for the sale of the produce of the Sabbatical year in detail.

The sheep purchased with money from the sale of produce of the Sabbatical year is considered as the produce of the Sabbatical year itself. And the produce of the Sabbatical year should not be used for the purchase of a non-kosher animal (Hilchot Shemitah VeYoval 6:10).

As stated in Halachah 21, when redeeming a donkey whose firstling status is questionable, it is necessary to separate a sheep, but one does not have to give it to the priest. Hence, using a sheep for this process is not considered analogous to the purchase of a non-kosher animal with the produce of the Sabbatical year.

See the Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 22) who concludes that when the owner does possess a seh, he must redeem the donkey with the seh rather than pay its value.

See the Or Sameach and the Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) who question whether, after the fact, the redemption of a firstling donkey is effective if one gave less than its worth. One might argue that the priest receiving the article could say: “For me, this is worth the value of the donkey.” Indeed, Hilchot Arachin 7:8 states that when one redeems consecrated property for less than its value, the redemption is valid. This position, however, is not accepted by all authorities. Compare to Chapter 11, Halachah 7.

And require that a sheep be given, regardless of the difficulty involved.

A dinar is equivalent to one fourth of a sela.

That a firstling donkey should be redeemed for its value or for a seh.

A zuz is equivalent to a dinar.

The Rambam’s ruling is based on his interpretation of Bechorot I la. Rashi and the Ra’ avad offer a different interpretation of that passage. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Y osef Caro questions the Rambam’s ruling, stating that the Ra’avad’s interpretation appears closer to the version of the Talmud we possess. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 321:5), Rav YosefCaro quotes the Rambam’s view.

Note the Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) who questions whether the mitzvah is incumbent on the owner of the donkey and the person is thus acting as the owner’s agent or whether the mitzvah to redeem it is incumbent on the Jewish people as a whole and any person has the right to observe it. There would be a practical difference between these two views if the owner protested against the other person redeeming his firstling donkey.

The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 321: 19) states that this also applies to women of the priestly and Levitical families. Nevertheless~ this applies only to the donkeys that they personally own. Those owned by their husbands are liable.

And the priests and Levites are exempt from the redemption of their firstborn, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 9 ~

This refers to the second clause. He is forbidden to sell his firstling donkey as a fetus to a gentile, for by doing so, he exempts himself from the mitzvah of redeeming it and thus causes the priesthood a loss. There is, however, no prohibition against purchasing a firstling fetus owned by a gentile {Radbaz).

In general, it is forbidden to enter into a partnership with a gentile (Hilchot Shiluchim VeShutafim 10:5). In particular, this applies in the present instance, for he is depriving the priesthood of the presents due them. Nevertheless, he is not penalized for doing so.

For, as the Rambam concludes, the firstling donkey must belong entirely to a Jew.a

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 321:20) state that, in this regard, the laws that apply to a firstling donkey are the same as those applying to the firstborn of a kosher animal and they are discussed in sec. 320 which deals with that subject.
There the Tur asks why is it necessary for the Rambam to speak of the limbs of an animal when he already mentioned that any small percentage of a partnership in the animal disqualifies it. The Kessef Mishneh explains that in this clause, the Rambam is speaking about an instance where the gentile is not a partner in the entire animal. He owns only a portion of the particular limb or organ in question. Hence, it is necessary to clarify that even in such an instance, he is exempt.

I.e., if such a blemish were to exist in a kosher animal. These blemishes are mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach, ch. 2.

This was a common practice in the Talmudic era. A person would give a colleague a donkey ( or other animal) to raise. As payment for raising it, he is given a half share in the donkey’s offspring. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 1:1).

In which case he would be exempt from redeeming its firstborn.

In which case he would be obligated.

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 321:18) does not mention the option of decapitation, implying that even in this instance, redemption is the preferable option.

This instance is different from that involving the presents of meat given to the priests (Chapter 9, Halachah 13). The rationale is that in this instance, the owner is forbidden to benefit from the firstling donkey unless he redeems it. Hence, he must redeem it rather than risk that transgression. Moreover, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, he does not suffer any loss through this redemption.

A priest who is claiming that he is entitled to the seh for the redemption would have to prove that the conversion took place before the donkey was born. The owner is allowed to keep the seh, for there is no holiness associated with it. The question is only one of amonetary law and is governed by the principle stated by the Rambam.

We inform him, lest he think that the Jews are lax in the observance of sanctified articles (Sifei Cohen 321: 13).

For the mitzvah only applies to the Jewish people.

Exodus 13: 13, 34:20.

The Shulchan A ruch ( Yoreh De ‘ah 315: 6) is more lenient, stating that there is a doubt whether it must be redeemed.

Even though he does not know which one is the firstborn, one of them obviously is. Hence, an obligation exists.

A priest who is claiming that he is entitled to the seh for the redemption would have to prove that the male donkey was born first.

For it is only certain that one of the males was the firstborn. The female could have been born before the second one. See Chapter 11, Halachah 22. Although there is a possibility that the second donkey gave birth to a male first, there is no probability that it did so. Hence the Rambam does not require that a lamb be separated for it. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 321:14) maintain that since there is a possibility that the second male is also a firstborn, the owner should separate a lamb to remove the possibility of any holiness being attached to the donkey, but he may keep the lamb as his own.

Because there is no probability that the donkeys gave birth to a male first. In each instance, it is possible that the donkey gave birth to a female before the male.

The Ra’avad and other commentaries question the Rambam’s logic and ruling,
because this is not the usual instance of a sefek-sefeka. When the situation is analyzed, the only real question is: Was the male born after a female or not? Hence since there is a doubt, it would seem appropriate for a lamb to be separated (and kept by the owner) to remove the possibility of the donkey being holy. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 321:14) follows the Rambam’s view, while the Tur and the Rama require that a lamb be set aside. As Siftei Cohen 321 : 11 writes, since the owner will not suffer a loss by separating a lamb, why shouldn’t he?

For one of the males is definitely a firstborn.

For perhaps the donkey that gave birth previously gave birth to the male.

The fact that originally, there was a claim against them is not significant. Since the owner is allowed to maintain possession, as stated in the above halachot, there is no difference between these lambs and the remainder of his property.

See Hilchot Bechorot, ch. 6, which describes this mitzvah. Since these lambs are ordinary property and are not consecrated, they must be tithed.

For since, they originally belonged to an Israelite, there is an obligation to redeem them.

His grandfather, the priest would not have to give the lambs he set aside to redeem them to another priest, because he himself is entitled to them. He bequeaths that right to his grandson, the Israelite. Hence he may keep them as his own.

For they are not consecrated.