Bechoros, Chapter 1, Mishnah 14. We are continuing to discuss situations of doubt. The background to the Mishnah is that we have two pregnant donkeys standing before us - one that has already given birth, meaning it has delivered in the past and this is not its first pregnancy, and one that has not given birth, meaning it has never delivered and this is its first pregnancy. The offspring of the one that has given birth is not subject to the laws of peter chamor (firstborn donkey) at all, while the one that has not given birth - if it delivers a male, that male will be subject to the laws of redemption for a peter chamor.
They gave birth to two males:
A person left the two donkeys at night, and when he returned in the morning, he found two male foals in the enclosure. He does not know which foal belongs to which mother, but it is clear to him that one of the two was born to the donkey giving birth for the first time, and therefore one of them requires redemption, which must be given to a kohen. Therefore, he takes a lamb and says: "Whichever one of them is the firstborn to the donkey giving birth for the first time - let it be redeemed with this lamb". He gives the lamb to the kohen, and he is permitted to derive benefit from both donkeys. This is what the Mishnah says: "Nosen taleh echad l'kohen" - he gives one lamb to a kohen.
They gave birth to a male and a female:
"Im zachar unekevah" - if they gave birth to a male and a female. He returned in the morning and found a male foal and a female foal. Perhaps the one giving birth for the first time is the one that delivered the male, and it is subject to the redemption of a peter chamor; or perhaps her offspring was the female, and there is no obligation of peter chamor here at all. Out of doubt, he must redeem the male, and until he does so, he is forbidden to derive benefit from that donkey; but he is permitted to keep the redemption for himself and does not give the kohen anything, since the kohen cannot prove that the male in the enclosure was born to the donkey giving birth for the first time. This is what the Mishnah says: "Mafrish taleh echad l'atzmo" - he sets aside one lamb for himself. He sets aside a lamb, redeems the donkey with it, and keeps it for himself.
"Upeter chamor tifdeh veseh":
The Mishnah continues and says "Shene'emar" - as it is stated. This wording is slightly misleading: it is not bringing a proof from the verse for the law that was just stated, but rather presenting the fundamental rule of redeeming a peter chamor - "Upeter chamor tifdeh veseh" - and a firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a 'seh'. A 'peter chamor' is the firstborn donkey, and the reference is to the offspring, not the mother. 'Tifdeh' - there is an obligation to redeem it. 'Veseh' - the word 'seh' does not have an exact equivalent in other languages, and it means both sheep and goats: either a goat or a sheep.
"Min hakvasim umin ha'izim" - from the sheep and from the goats. An animal from the sheep family or from the goat family.
"Zachar unekevah" - male or female. It makes no difference whether the redeeming 'seh' is male or female.
"Gadol vekatan" - large or small. It makes no difference whether it is mature or young.
"Tamim uvaal mum" - unblemished or blemished. It makes no difference whether it is unblemished and fit for a sacrifice, or blemished.
It is worth clarifying an important point here: it is permitted to redeem a peter chamor with anything that is equal in value to the peter chamor. If there is no 'seh' on hand, a person may take a silver esrog box worth a hundred dollars, the same value as the foal, and say: "I am transferring the sanctity that is on this peter chamor to the silver esrog box", and he would give the box to the kohen. The kohen will use the box, the owner will use the donkey, and everything is in order. The novelty of the Mishnah - and actually of the verse - is that it is possible to redeem the firstborn donkey with something whose value is less than the value of the donkey, provided that that thing is a 'seh'. That is to say: with a lamb or a sheep, male or female, and so on, it is possible to redeem even if its value is less than the donkey; but with anything else - only when its value is equal to the value of the donkey.
"Upodeh bo pe'amim harbeh":
It is possible to use that same 'seh' itself, that same goat or that same sheep, several times for the redemption of several firstborn donkeys. The intention is not as things sound at first glance: the novelty of the Mishnah is that once the redemption of the peter chamor is done, no sanctity at all remains in the receiving lamb - it is not 'used up' in a way that prevents it from being used an additional time.
Certainly, the intention is not that someone who had three firstborn donkeys born to him in one year can redeem all three of them with one 'seh' and give the kohen a single 'seh'. That is not the case at all: he must give a 'seh' for every peter chamor, and for three firstborn donkeys - three lambs, whether to one kohen or to three kohanim. Rather, this is how things are: he only has one 'seh' in his possession. The kohen comes on Monday, and he redeems the peter chamor on it and gives him the 'seh'. Afterwards, he says to him: I have another two firstborn donkeys, sell me the 'seh'. He buys the 'seh' back from the kohen and uses it a second time, and buys it again for a third time and uses it again. There is no shortchanging of the kohen here, but rather a teaching that one can use the same redemption item three times, since there is nothing prohibiting its use a second and third time.
"Venichnas ladir lehitaser" - and it enters the pen to be tithed:
The simple meaning of the phrase is: that lamb enters the pen to be tithed, to be counted in the tally of the animal tithe. What are we discussing? In the scenario before us, as well as the one in the previous Mishnah, where we have a lamb whose status is in doubt - a person redeemed the holiness of a firstborn donkey whose status was doubtful onto a specific lamb. That lamb is considered one hundred percent his, even though it might belong to the kohen, and it is only because of the principle that "the burden of proof is on the one seeking to extract property from his fellow" that the kohen cannot claim it from him, since he cannot prove that he is entitled to it. One cannot say: "Who knows who it belongs to, and therefore it does not count toward my animal tithe obligation."
What are the requirements of the animal tithe? Every year - let us call it a fiscal year, however we define it - if ten goats or ten sheep or ten cows were born to a person, he brings them all into the pen, and the tenth one to emerge is marked and offered as a sacrifice called a tithe. The owner or the farmer eats it, but the main point of the law is that he is obligated to bring it as a sacrifice.
If fewer than ten were born to him that year - there is no animal tithe obligation.
If nineteen calves were born to him - he brings them all into the pen, and the tenth one to emerge is the tithe, and nothing more.
If twenty were born to him - he counts out number ten and number twenty from the pen, and both are offered as a tithe.
In other words, every tenth one, but only in complete sets of ten.
The point of our Mishnah here is that in a situation of doubt, when a person redeems a donkey whose status is doubtful onto a lamb, that lamb is considered one hundred percent his. If he only had nine lambs and this is the tenth lamb - he now has ten. And since he is in possession of it, and no one can extract it from him, we treat it as absolutely his: it is counted as the tenth and enters the pen. We do not say that he only has his nine definite lambs, but rather all ten are counted, and the tenth one to emerge will be marked for the tithe - and even if it is that same lamb whose status was in doubt. This is a great novelty: a lamb used for the doubtful redemption of a firstborn donkey counts toward the animal tithe, because since no one has the power to extract it from the owner, it is treated as one hundred percent his.
"Ve'im mes neheneh bo" - and if it dies, he may benefit from it:
Finally, the Mishnah says: "Ve'im mes neheneh bo" - and if it dies, he may benefit from it. Who are we discussing? This is not self-evident but requires explanation. We are discussing a person who has a firstborn donkey and redeemed it onto a lamb: from the moment he redeemed it, the donkey is permitted for benefit, and he must give the lamb to a kohen. If there is no kohen available, he keeps the lamb with him with some sort of mark, such as a chain around its neck, and when the kohen arrives, he will give him the lamb, which is his property. If the lamb dies - it still belongs to the kohen, and the carcass must be given to the kohen, and the kohen is permitted to benefit from its hide or feed it to his dogs. The point is that the monetary benefit belongs entirely to the kohen, even though the animal has died.
In summary: In this Mishnah, we learned the laws of doubt regarding a firstborn donkey - two males born to two donkeys, where he gives one lamb to a kohen, and a male and a female, where he separates a lamb for himself. We discussed the rule "ufeter chamor tifdeh veseh" - and a firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and its details: sheep and goats, male and female, large and small, unblemished and blemished, and the novelty that with a lamb one can redeem even for less than the value of the donkey, whereas with other items - only with an equivalent value. We also learned that "podeh bo pe'amim harbeh" - he may redeem with it many times, because no holiness remains in it, and that the lamb enters the pen to be tithed, since the owner is in possession of it and it is considered completely his, and finally - that if the lamb dies, the monetary benefit still belongs to the kohen.