Daf Yomi - Rare and Difficult to Perform

Rare and Difficult to Perform

“If He Has No Lamb with Which to Redeem It…”

(Bechoros 11a)

Normally, a donkey that is a firstborn to its mother – a petter chamor – is redeemed with a lamb. But if one possesses no lamb, our daf teaches that one may redeem it with its equivalent [monetary] value, and that is how the Mechaber (Yoreh Dei’ah 321:5) rules.

In our era, opportunities for performance of this mitzvah are very rare. Thus, few are afforded the opportunity to even witness another Jew engaging in the mitzvah of redeeming the firstborn donkey. Therefore, when such events do occur, they are a cause célèbre.

One such case occurred some 30 years ago, when Rabbi Yaakov Hillel, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Ahavas Shalom in Yerushalayim, sought to perform this mitzvah. One can hardly imagine the amount of Talmud Torah that came about in the course of that redemption effort. In fact, most of the Torah discussions centered upon whether or not the pidyon ever took place at all. The occurrence happened thus, as explained at length in Yalkut Petter Chamor, published by Yeshiva Ahavas Shalom after the event:

A Matter of Perseverance

The ceremony of redeeming the firstborn donkey was held in the presence of a large assemblage, albeit after the organizers had failed no less than three previous times to perform the mitzvah. A young female donkey, which was purchased and entrusted to an observant family in a moshav, died while it was pregnant. Another donkey remained alive, but its fetus died. Then a third donkey gave birth to a female. Finally, it was with a fourth donkey that they had the merit to realize their desire to perform the mitzvah when this donkey gave birth to a firstborn male that had to be redeemed.

The Rebbe, the Kohen

The Torah commands us to redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb and give the lamb to a kohen. If the donkey is not redeemed, it must be beheaded. Therefore, immediately after its birth a ceremony was arranged in the presence of many people who witnessed the giving of the lamb to the Rebbe of Toldos Aharon, zt”l, who was a kohen. Rav Hillel bought the lamb back from the Rebbe to slaughter it and observe the mitzvah of giving the gifts to the kohanim.

The next day, lo and behold, the sheep was slaughtered and discovered to be treifah! What a calamity. The Mishna (infra 12a) explicitly states: “It must not be redeemed with a calf…or a treifah.” Is this true?

Even a Treifah?

Let’s start with the easy part. Our Gemara teaches that when a person must redeem a firstborn donkey, he may redeem it in two ways: with its value or with a lamb. Redeeming it with its value means that he must give a kohen the monetary value of the donkey. The donkey may also be redeemed with a lamb, even if its value is less than that of the donkey. Our Mishna says that the donkey must not be redeemed with a treifah lamb. However, if the lamb is equal in value to the donkey, nothing prevents him from using the treifah lamb as money, as a valuable article, to redeem the donkey. Therefore, since in this case the lamb’s value exceeded that of the newly born donkey, apparently there is no reason for the many doubts that arose following the event.

A Treifah Also Has Value

However, some remarked that as the donkey’s owner meant to perform the redemption with the lamb itself and not by means of its value, he therefore did not succeed. As we noted, the mitzvah can be observed in two ways, so the redeemer must have in mind which way he wants to observe the mitzvah. In our case, the redemption with the lamb as a lamb did not succeed as the lamb was found to be treifah, and the person never had in mind to redeem the donkey by means of the lamb’s value.

From then on, the opinions multiplied. Most of the talmidei chachamim contended that it did not matter if he did not have in mind to redeem the donkey with the lamb’s value, but it sufficed that the lamb the kohen received was equal to or greater in value than the donkey. What difference does it make if the redeemer had in mind to redeem the donkey in one way or another? The main point is that the lamb received by the kohen performed its task. On the other hand, others claimed that the redemption was void.

HaMotzi Me’Chavero…

Some talmidei chachamim contended that one should find out what type of treifah rendered the sheep inedible. Some treifos are certain while others were established because of a variety of doubts and suspicions. If the sheep had a sirchah that was ruled to be treifah because of a doubt, then even if another redemption must be performed, the second sheep does not have to be given to a kohen, as someone who wants something from his companion must produce proof. That is, the kohen would have to prove that the first redemption did not succeed. (The process of redemption takes place in the following manner: The donkey’s owner takes a lamb and transfers it to the ownership of the general kehunah tribe, and the donkey is thus redeemed; then he must give the lamb to a kohen.)

Treifah With Certainty

Another contention was that even if the sheep was surely treifah, there is no certainty that our Mishnah means that the redemption by means of a sheep found to be treifah did not succeed. In other words, if a sheep that served for redemption was slaughtered and found to be treifah, it could be that at the time of the redemption it was not treifah and, indeed, we may assume that it was not treifah but was healthy like most sheep. Our Mishna, which rules that the redemption must not be performed with a treifah sheep, means a sheep which, while it was still alive, was known to be treifah (as Rashi and other Rishonim indeed state).

It Didn’t End There

At any rate, despite everything, another redemption was arranged by giving $100 to the Rebbe, equal to the value of the young donkey. Did the halachic discussion stop there? It only continued. Talmidei chachamim started to discuss whether one may perform a redemption with modern paper money…