Tractate Bechorot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 17 - the final Mishnah in the chapter, which concludes the topic of redeeming a firstborn donkey. The subject of this Mishnah is what we might call 'Plan B.' Plan A is redeeming the firstborn donkey, but the Torah teaches that there is an alternative. It is stated in the Book of Shemot (13:13): "And every firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck" - you must redeem every firstborn donkey with a lamb, and if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. The word 'oref' means the back of the neck, and here it is used as a verb: to perform an action on the back of the donkey's neck. So we have Plan A and Plan B.
The text of the Mishnah:
"Lo ratzah lifdoto" - If the owner of the donkey does not want to redeem it.
"Orfo bekofitz me'acharav" - He must break its neck using a cleaver, a type of butcher's knife. "Me'acharav" - From the back of the neck and not from the throat where ritual slaughter is performed.
"Vekovro" - The carcass must be buried in the ground, because since it was not redeemed, it is forbidden for any benefit, and no use may be derived from it.
The Mishnah continues: "Mitzvat pediyah kodemet lemitzvat arifah" - Even though there are two options here, Plan A is preferable, and redemption takes precedence over breaking the neck. And as the Mishnah states: "Shene'emar: ve'im lo tifdeh va'arafto" - The verse itself presents breaking the neck as a second alternative, after the person has chosen not to redeem it.
The Rambam understands this literally, and counts two separate mitzvot here out of the 613 Mitzvot: redeeming a firstborn donkey, and breaking its neck when it is not redeemed. The Raavad disagrees and rejects this, because in his opinion, breaking the neck borders on a transgression: the person deprives the kohen and gains nothing, but only suffers a loss.
In any case, although they disagree on whether breaking the neck is technically defined as a mitzvah, everyone agrees that a berachah is recited over redeeming a firstborn donkey, whereas there is no berachah at all for breaking its neck - even according to the Rambam's view - because at best it is a post facto action, and perhaps even less than that.
This concludes the topic of redeeming a firstborn donkey. The remainder of the Mishnah, until the end of the chapter, lists three additional mitzvot that also have a Plan A and a Plan B: the first is preferred, and the second stands as an option for one who does not want the first. We will discuss them in order.
A. Designation and redemption:
The first mitzvah is designation (yiud). This involves a father who has a daughter he cannot afford to support. In the time of the Torah and the Sages, there were no foster families or adoption agencies as there are today, and therefore the solution was to hand the daughter over to someone who would take care of her needs, and she would earn her keep through household chores, with the hope that eventually the master would marry her or marry her to his son. A girl in this situation is called a Hebrew maidservant (amah ivriyah), and marrying her is called designation (yiud), or in the language of the Mishnah: "ye'adah".
A Hebrew maidservant is freed in one of four ways:
Through six years of work - at the end of the six years, her time is up.
Upon reaching adulthood - once she turns twelve and produces signs of physical maturity (two hairs), she is freed in any case. Jewish girls do not serve once they have reached the age of mitzvot and adulthood.
Through designation (yiud) - the master marries her, or his son marries her.
Through redemption (pediyah) - the father obtains money and redeems his daughter to his home.
The method of redemption: Suppose she was handed over for six years, and the father received six thousand dollars. After one year, the father obtained money and wishes to redeem her - he only has to return five thousand dollars, corresponding to the five remaining years (one thousand per year), and thereby he gets his daughter back. We find that there are two mitzvot here: the mitzvah of designation, which falls upon the master, and the mitzvah of redemption, which falls upon the father.
Thus the Mishnah says: "Mitzvas yi'ud kodemes lemitzvas pediyah" - Plan A is yi'ud, the marriage of the master or his son to the girl, which takes effect through the mere declaration of "You are betrothed to me" or "You are designated to me." There is no need for him to give marriage money, a perutah, or a ring, as he has already paid in advance. Yi'ud precedes the mitzvah of redemption, and the father must step aside for this option: as long as the possibility of yi'ud exists, he should not attempt to redeem her. "Shene'emar: asher lo ye'adah vehefdah" - if the master does not marry her, then the father shall redeem her. Yi'ud is the preferred solution, allowing the girl to marry as a permanent arrangement, rather than her father taking her back.
B. Yibum and Chalitzah:
The third mitzvah is yibum (levirate marriage), which precedes the mitzvah of chalitzah. As is known, a man is forbidden to marry his brother's wife, and even if his brother dies and leaves her a widow, the surviving brother can never marry her. There is an important exception to this rule: if the brother dies without leaving any offspring, the widow falls to yibum, and it is a Torah mitzvah for the surviving brother to marry her. In English this is known as "levirate marriage", from the Latin word "levir" - a brother-in-law, meaning the marriage of a brother-in-law.
If the brother-in-law does not wish to marry this woman - and when there are several brothers, any one of them is eligible for this - and none of them wants her, we move to Plan B: chalitzah. The word chalitzah does not have an exact translation, but it means removal, since part of the process is that the widow comes with the yavam (brother-in-law) to the beis din, removes his shoe from his foot, spits on the ground, and says: "So shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house." It turns out that Plan A is for the widow to marry her brother-in-law, and Plan B is that she performs chalitzah and is free to go her own way.
The wording of the verses is as follows: "When brothers dwell together" - two brothers living at the same time, "and one of them dies and has no son" - meaning he has no offspring, "the wife of the deceased shall not marry outside to a strange man" - the widow may not marry an outsider, "her brother-in-law shall come to her and take her as a wife and perform yibum" - rather, the brother-in-law marries her, and they are like husband and wife.
The verse continues: "And if the man does not wish to take his sister-in-law" - if the surviving brother does not want to marry his sister-in-law, "then his sister-in-law shall approach him before the eyes of the elders" - in front of the beis din, "and she shall remove his shoe from his foot" - and this is chalitzah.
Therefore, the Mishnah says: "Mitzvas yibum kodemes lemitzvas chalitzah" - Plan A is yibum, that they marry each other and she does not remain a widow, thereby establishing a name for the deceased brother; and Plan B, if not, is chalitzah.
The continuation of the Mishnah follows the view of the Tanna Abba Shaul, who maintains that one who performs yibum with his sister-in-law for improper reasons - meaning for any motive other than for the sake of the mitzvah, such as a desire to acquire his brother's inheritance, or to marry into the widow's prominent family - commits an act bordering on an illicit relationship (giluy arayos), and the child is almost like a mamzer (even though he is not technically one). Therefore, Abba Shaul says: "Barishonah shehayu miskavnim leshem mitzvah" - originally, those who married their sisters-in-law intended to establish a name for their deceased brother, and this is a mitzvah. "Ve'achshav she'ein miskavnim leshem mitzvah" - nowadays, already in the times of the Mishnah, the brother does not have the mitzvah in mind but rather other considerations. "Amru: mitzvas chalitzah kodemes lemitzvas yibum" - it is better to perform chalitzah and not yibum, so the widow will be freed from any connection to the family, remarry, and continue with her life, even though this causes great sorrow to the deceased brother that a name will not be established for him.
In practice, the halachah is fundamentally not decided like Abba Shaul but like the Sages, who maintain that even if one performs yibum not for the sake of the mitzvah, but because he wants to be married to this woman with all that it implies - whatever the motive may be, the marriage is valid and has no inherent flaw, and the child is not a mamzer. Therefore, the Sages would say here that the mitzvah of yibum is Plan A and not chalitzah, even during the time of the Mishnah.
Nevertheless, in later generations the Sages changed their approach and determined that since in practice people perform yibum for improper reasons, we no longer practice yibum. Therefore, the Rema rules that nowadays there is no yibum at all: the beis din does not permit yibum even when the couple wishes to marry, and chalitzah is the only option. The widow will find herself a new husband and live happily, and although this causes sorrow to the deceased brother whose name will not be built up, the abundance of pitfalls in the opposite path is the deciding factor.
C. Redeeming Hekdesh:
The final case in the Mishnah deals with redeeming hekdesh (consecrated property). As was explained at length in Tractate Menachos, when someone consecrates something suitable to be offered on the altar - it is endowed with kedushas haguf (inherent sanctity), and becomes sanctified in its very substance. But when someone consecrates something that is unfit to go up on the altar and cannot be offered as a sacrifice - it is endowed with kedushas damim (monetary sanctity), a sort of external sanctity, where only its value is sacred. Therefore, its value can be transferred to something else and deconsecrated, and this is indeed what must be done.
The standard practice: when a person dedicates his property to the Beis Hamikdash, whether land or an object - for example, someone who succeeded in trading baseball cards and says, "Hashem has been good to me, I hereby dedicate my Babe Ruth rookie card" - they ask in the Beis Hamikdash what they should do with this card. The answer: they sell it at auction, and the money is used for bedek habayis, the maintenance of the Beis Hamikdash - for the workers' salaries, renovations, and the needs of the visitors.
When monetary sanctity (kedushas damim) takes effect on an item, whether land or an object, there are two ways to transfer it to a non-sacred status (chullin):
Option A: The owner himself brings money and transfers the sanctity from the object or land to the money, and the money goes to the Beis Hamikdash.
Option B: If the owner does not want to do this, the object is sold to another buyer, and the money paid for it receives the sanctity. The object or land becomes chullin and is permitted for any use, while the money goes to the Beis Hamikdash.
The question is what is preferred: that the original owner redeems it, or that any person is equal in this regard. The Mishnah establishes here, as is its way in the other sections, that Plan A is the one who dedicated it himself, and Plan B is anyone else. This is its wording: "Mitzvas geulah ba'adon - hu kodem lechol adam" - 'geulah' here is the redemption of an object that was dedicated and removing it to chullin while giving its value to the Beis Hamikdash, and first and foremost this is incumbent upon the original owner, who has priority over any other person who wants to buy the land or the object. "Shene'emar: ve'im lo yiga'el venimkar be'erkekha" - if the owner chose not to redeem it, the object is sold to another person for its value; and once the buyer gives the value of the dedicated object, the object becomes chullin, and the money becomes sacred and serves the Beis Hamikdash.
A logical reasoning stands at the foundation of the owner's priority: one who redeems his own property does not only give the value of the hekdesh, but also adds a fifth (chomesh). How so? If that Babe Ruth card, or the land he dedicated, was worth four million shekels - when he redeems them he adds a fifth million, and even though the market price is four million, he pays five. Similarly, one who dedicates a pencil worth four shekels pays five to redeem it. Because of this, the addition is called a 'fifth', since he adds a fifth part to the four, and in our modern terms this translates as a 25% surcharge. Thus, the hekdesh receives five when the owner redeems, compared to four when someone else redeems, and hence the preference that he performs the redemption. And if he chose not to do so, anyone is permitted to redeem it, and the redemption is done at the fair market price of the dedicated item.
In summary: This Mishnah teaches one principle that repeats across four mitzvos: there is a preferred Plan A and an alternative Plan B. For a firstborn donkey - redemption takes precedence over breaking its neck; for a Hebrew maidservant - designation for marriage (yi'ud) takes precedence over redemption; for a yevamah - yibbum takes precedence over chalitzah (and according to Abba Shaul, and in practice according to the Rema's ruling today, chalitzah has become the only way); and for hekdesh - the dedicating owner has priority over any other person in redemption, which includes the addition of the chomesh. In each of the mitzvos, the Tanna learned this from the wording of the verse itself, which presents the alternative with the words "and if not".