English translation — בא ג

Talk 3<pg>59</pg>

A.

"And every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and if you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck"<sup>1</sup>,

And in Rashi's commentary on the phrase "and you shall break its neck" — "He breaks its neck from behind with a cleaver and kills it.

He caused a loss of the priest's money, therefore he shall lose his money."

And behold, at first glance Rashi explains here two different matters:

(a)

What is the meaning of arifah

("and you shall arp it")

— "he arps it<sup>2</sup>

with a kofitz<sup>3</sup>

from behind it and kills it",

that is, the killing of the firstborn donkey must be in a special manner,

"he arps it with a kofitz etc.'"

(b)

the reason for the mitzvah of arifah — "he caused a loss to the property of the kohen, therefore he shall lose his property".

And it is puzzling,

why did Rashi combine the two matters in one dibur

[for it is not his way elsewhere<sup>4</sup>,

that he separates different matters

(even in explaining a single word)

in two separate dibburim].

Furthermore: what Rashi wrote "he arps it with a kofitz from behind it and kills it" its source is in the

(anonymous)

Mishnah<sup>5</sup>

("If he did not wish to redeem it,

he arps it with a kofitz<sup>6</sup>

from behind it and buries it")

which everyone agrees,

whereas the reason for arifah,

"he caused a loss etc. therefore he shall lose his property",

is the view of Levi

(in a baraita brought in the Gemara<sup>7</sup>),

"Levi taught: he caused a loss etc.'"

And in the Mechilta here it states: "And if you do not redeem it, you shall decapitate it,

from here they said⁸

the commandment of redemption precedes the commandment of decapitation.

Another interpretation,

And if you do not redeem it and decapitate it: if you do not redeem it, decapitate it, because you have caused loss to the priest's property, so too your property shall be lost",

from the simple language of the Mechilta it seems that they are two opinions⁹,

and this reason for decapitation

("because you have caused loss etc.")

is not according to all opinions,

[And as explained in the commentaries¹⁰,

that according to the first Tanna, decapitation is a commandment like redemption, except that the commandment of redemption precedes; whereas according to the other interpretation, decapitation of a firstborn donkey is not a commandment,

but rather a punishment and fine upon the owner of the donkey for not having redeemed it with a lamb

(according to the opinion of Levi in the baraita)],

And based on this, a more detailed explanation is required of what Rashi combined the two matters — the explanation of decapitation

(which is according to all opinions)

with the reason for decapitation

(which is only according to the view of Levi,

and the second opinion in the Mechilta)

— in one phrase¹¹.

2.

And this will be understood by prefacing the question — why<pg>60</pg>

Rashi brings a reason for the arifah at all,

and Rashi on the Torah is not a book of reasons for the commandments,

and he only comes to explain the plain meaning of the verse,

and in the vast majority we do not find that Rashi explains the reason for the commandments¹².

And it can be said,

that the necessity in our case to find a reason

(also according to the plain meaning)

for the commandment of arifah,

is because of the unique manner of the killing of the firstborn donkey,

"and you shall arif it" specifically:

The killing of a donkey by decapitation — "they decapitate it with a cleaver from behind" — is a death connected with suffering and pain,

because by decapitation from behind with a "cleaver"

("a large knife"¹³)

they break the bone of the neck, etc.¹⁴.

And it is puzzling: even if it is necessary to kill the firstborn donkey

(because "every first issue of the womb is the Lord's"¹⁵,

and just as a firstborn of a kosher animal must be sacrificed to the Lord¹⁶,

so too a firstborn donkey that one did not wish to redeem must be killed),

nevertheless,

why must its death be in such a manner¹⁷?

And behold, the caution regarding "cruelty to animals" is a matter understood by simple logic

(even by "a five-year-old studying Scripture").

And furthermore: it is explicit earlier in the portion of Bereishis¹⁸

that "it was not permitted to man and his wife to kill a creature and eat meat"

(for to Adam and Eve the killing of a creature was not permitted even for eating),

and from this it is understood,

that even when it was later permitted

(to Noah¹⁹),

there must be caution not to cause pain to the animal,

for this is simply the reason for the prohibition of a limb from a living animal²⁰,

and therefore the slaughter of an animal for eating is with a knife

(as brought in Rashi earlier in the portion of Vayeira²¹).

And therefore,

after Rashi explains what is arifah — "he strikes it from behind with a cleaver and kills it" — he must continue and explain the reason for this²²

: "He caused the loss of the kohen's money, therefore he should lose his money."

Explanation of the matter:

This that the owner of the donkey does not want to redeem it is only a "loss"

(damage)

alone,

since he has no benefit and profit from this,

for before its redemption it is forbidden in benefit²³

(and as Rashi wrote in his commentary on the previous phrase "he gives a lamb to the priest and a firstborn donkey is permitted in benefit",

that simply Rashi's intention is,

that the redemption by means of a lamb is what permits the firstborn donkey in benefit²⁴),

and furthermore,

that if he does not redeem it,

he must kill it²⁵

— and if so, what<pg>61</pg>

benefit does he have in the absence of redemption of the donkey?

On the contrary,

if he would redeem it with a lamb he would profit,

for the value of the lamb is less than the value of the donkey²⁶

— and if so, there is in the absence of redemption of the donkey only a loss of the money of the priest

(to prevent from him the lamb),

without any benefit and pleasure for himself,

and this is the opposite of kindness and mercy.

And therefore they punish him,

measure for measure,

that not only is his donkey killed,

but furthermore,

that "they chop its neck with a cleaver from behind and kill it",

that killing in this manner emphasizes that it is an act of loss only,

"he will lose his money",

and by this he will take to heart the cruelty in his conduct etc.

3.

In this way one can also explain the precise wording of Rashi "he caused a loss of money of a kohen, therefore he will lose his money": the language of the baraisa⁷

is "therefore his money will be lost"

[and similarly in the Mechilta the language is "your property will be lost"],

while Rashi changed and wrote "he will lose²⁷

his money".

And according to the above, it must be said:

The simple difference between the two expressions — "his money will be lost" or "he will lose his money" — is: "his money will be lost" refers to the object of "his money",

since he caused the money of the priest to be lost,

therefore also his money is lost

[And according to this, it can be said that it is in the manner of a payment obligation,

since he caused a loss in his fellow's money,

a payment obligation applies

(and a lien)

on his money,

and something similar in our case,

since he caused the loss of the priest's money,

therefore an obligation of "loss" applies to his money]

; however "he will lose his money" refers to the person,

and in this expression the punishment on the person is more emphasized,

that he must lose his money.

And this is the reasoning of Rashi who changed to "he should lose his money",

for according to his method,

the main injustice in the absence of redemption of a firstborn donkey,

is not the monetary aspect in this

(that he caused a loss in the money of the kohen),

but rather the cruelty of the person,

that his intention is only to cause loss to the kohen's money without benefit and pleasure for himself,

and "therefore he should lose his money",

that he needs to feel a matter of loss in his money.

And based on this, perhaps one may add further,

that the language "he should lose his money" in Rashi here means not only that he suffers a loss in his money,

but rather that he causes loss and damage to his money,

that he needs to cause his money to be lost with his own hands,

that the act of decapitation

(the causing of loss to his money)

needs to be done by the owner of the donkey himself.

That is: since he behaved cruelly with the money of a kohen,

"he caused the loss of the kohen's money",

therefore his punishment,

that he

(himself)

must perform a cruel act with his own money,

"he will cause the loss of his money".

D.

And behold, it has been stated numerous times²⁸,

that even though in his commentary on the Torah,

Rashi comes only to explain the plain meaning of the verse,

nevertheless, there are also hinted in it "wondrous matters"²⁹

in the other parts of the Torah,

and also in the manner of halachah.

<pg>62</pg>

And so it is to be said in our discussion,

that according to the above in the exact wording of Rashi "he will lose his money",

one can learn the definition of the obligation of decapitation according to halacha.

Behold, regarding the redemption of a firstborn donkey it is stated in the Gemara³⁰

"One who redeems the firstborn donkey of another, his redemption is redeemed",

and in Minchat Chinuch³¹

he investigated what is the law regarding the decapitation of a firstborn donkey,

if it is possible to decapitate the firstborn donkey of another.

And behold, in the Minchas Chinuch there, he raised a difficulty based on the reason that it is impossible for a person to damage his fellow's property,

for since if the owners wish they can redeem the donkey at any time,

behold when he beheads it he is damaging his fellow's property.

However, there is to examine this based on what Rashi says in the Gemara³²,

"Therefore his property should be lost,

the court compels him to behead it after thirty [days]",

behold according to Rashi after thirty days the court compels him to behead it,

and since that is so,

prima facie there is room to say,

that after thirty it is permitted to behead the firstborn donkey of his fellow,

and there is in this the law of damaging his fellow's property

(since he no longer has the choice to redeem,

for the court compels him to behead after thirty).

However, based on what we learned above regarding the intent of Rashi's language "Therefore his property should be lost",

it is understood that this is the obligation of the owners,

that the owner of the donkey must behead

(to lose)

his property,

and his fellow cannot merit in the fulfillment of this obligation.

And one may add further,

behold, regarding the redemption of the firstborn donkey of another, there is a discussion among the commentators on the reason for the matter,

that in Tosafot³³

it is stated that the commandment of redemption is not an obligation of the owner

(and it is like the redemption of consecrated property,

that any person can redeem consecrated money,

not only the owners who consecrated it),

but according to the view of several commentators³⁴,

behold, the redemption of a firstborn donkey is an obligation of the owner,

and redemption by another is effective on the grounds of

(acquisition and)

agency.

And according to the above in Rashi's method in his commentary on the Torah,

it seems to me,

that all this is only regarding redemption,

but regarding decapitation,

it would not avail even if he explicitly appoints another as agent,

for the obligation of decapitation is a punishment upon the person,

which must be done with his own hands

(as above),

for only in this is his punishment fulfilled.

H.

And still there is a difficulty to Rashi*34

"he caused a loss of money of a kohen",

for at first glance,

there is here no loss of money of a kohen,

but only prevention of profit,

that he was supposed to give a lamb to a kohen and did not give it,

but he did not lose money

(that he already had)

anything*35.

At first glance one could say,

that also prevention of profit is called loss*36

(at least according to the simple explanation*37).

But<pg>63</pg>

It is a bit difficult to explain the language "he caused the loss of the money of a kohen" in this way,

which implies that it speaks of money that the kohen has already acquired,

and if the intention is only to prevent profit, it should have said "he caused a loss to a kohen" and the like

(and not "he caused the loss of the money of a kohen").

And therefore it seems to me,

that according to Rashi in the plain sense of the verse,

the right of the kohen is not only in the redemption of the firstborn donkey,

but in the firstborn donkey itself,

and if so, Rashi's intention in "he caused the loss of the money of a kohen" is not about preventing the profit of the sheep,

but about the firstborn donkey itself.

Explanation of the matter:

According to the simple meaning, it implies,

that the definition of the redemption of the firstborn donkey is,

that which one redeems the donkey from the kohen,

that the firstborn donkey belongs to the kohen,

except that the Torah said that we do not give the firstborn donkey itself to the kohen, but rather we need to redeem it from his hand,

by means of giving a lamb in place of the donkey.

And as is proven from the plain sense of the verses in the portion of Korach

(that only there is it explicitly explained in the manner of the giving

(of the redemption of the son and the redemption of the firstborn donkey)

to the priest)

: "Every first issue of the womb of all flesh, which they bring to the Lord, among man and among beast, shall be yours,

but you shall surely redeem the firstborn of man and the firstborn of an unclean beast you shall redeem",

behold it is explicit that "every first issue of the womb of all flesh etc. among man and among beast shall be yours"

(to the priest),

except that afterwards the verse excludes the firstborn of man and the firstborn of an unclean beast, that they themselves are not given to the priest but only their redemption.

And it follows,

that the definition of the redemption of the firstborn donkey is

— the redemption of the donkey from the hand of the priest,

for essentially, immediately from when it is born — "yours it shall be",

that it belongs to the priests,

except that the Torah commanded Israel to redeem it from the priest

(and also it made it easy for Israel,

that he can redeem it with a lamb).

And this is the explanation of Rashi's wording⁴¹

"He caused a loss<pg>64</pg>

of the money of the kohen",

meaning, one who does not want to redeem the donkey,

behold he causes a loss of the money of the kohanim,

because

(according to the simple explanation)

the firstborn donkey — "shall be yours",

and even though the Torah commanded Israel to redeem it,

behold nevertheless the kohanim have a right in this donkey as the redemption money

(that is).

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Ki Seitzei and Shabbos Parshas Ki Savo 5741)