A firstborn donkey is redeemed by giving a lamb to a priest, allowing the owner to keep and work the donkey as normal. One of the mishnahs on today’s daf (there are several!) addresses what happens when either the donkey or the lamb dies unexpectedly during this process.
When the designated lamb dies:
Rabbi Eliezer says: The owner bears financial responsibility (and must give a lamb in its place) …
The rabbis say: The owner does not bear financial responsibility (and need not give a lamb in its place) …
When the donkey dies:
Rabbi Eliezer says: The donkey must be buried, and the owner is permitted to derive benefit from the lamb.
The rabbis say: It does not need to be buried, and the lamb is given to the priest.
In the first case, the redemption lamb dies. In the second case, it is the firstborn donkey. In both cases, there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis about what should happen next.
At first blush, the data here are confusing. Why in the first case (dead lamb) does Rabbi Eliezer think there is a financial responsibility after the death of the animal to supply a new lamb to the priests? And yet in the second case (dead donkey), it is the rabbis who see a lingering financial responsibility for supplying a lamb to the priests?
The key to understanding their positions is their fundamental disagreement over this question: When has the obligation of redemption been fulfilled? Is it when the lamb is designated (the rabbis)? Or when the lamb is delivered (Rabbi Eliezer)?
Let’s look first at the case in which the lamb dies. If delivery is part of the obligation (as Rabbi Eliezer holds), the owner is still on the hook for designating another lamb and bringing it to the priest — in order to complete the redemption. The rabbis, on the other hand, rule that because designation alone completes the redemption, should the lamb meet its demise before delivery, no further steps are required.
When it is the donkey that dies, the disagreement turns on the same principle. Rabbi Eliezer, believing that redemption is complete only after delivery, holds that the owner cannot benefit from the carcass of the unredeemed donkey. That is why it must be buried. However, the lamb, which is no longer needed to stand in the place of the donkey, can be put to productive use.
In the case of a deceased donkey, the rabbis hold that the donkey was redeemed before it died by virtue of the designation of the lamb. Therefore, the owner can benefit from its carcass without restriction. The death of the donkey has no impact on the status of the lamb, which must still be brought to a priest.
Just because a disagreement is apparently simple, doesn’t mean it’s easy to understand. In this case, the mishnah supplied the positions, but did not fully explain them, making it confusing on first read. When you encounter such a mishnah, there are several things you can do to try to make sense of it. Sometimes, organizing the positions into a simple chart or grid can be helpful. Then, try to figure out if there is one principle driving the different positions. Often, the Gemara or talmudic commentators can supply that information. But they are often drawing inferences — just as you would be.
Read all of Bekhorot 12 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 30, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
The post Bekhorot 12 appeared first on My Jewish Learning.
Source: My Jewish Learning
