Siman 321

It is written: "And every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and if you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck." The Torah did not mandate the sanctity of a firstborn among impure animals except for the donkey. The reasons of the Torah are hidden from us, and we say in Bekhorot (5b): Rabbi Hanina said, I asked Rabbi Eliezer, why are the firstborn of donkeys different from the firstborn of horses and camels? He said to him: It is a decree of the Scripture. And furthermore, because they assisted Israel at the time of their exodus, for there was not a single individual of Israel who did not have with him ninety Lybian donkeys laden with the silver and gold of Egypt; see there. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, commanded to redeem it, for it is not fit for the altar, and therefore if one does not redeem it, it is forbidden for benefit and it is forbidden to use it. Therefore the Torah commanded to break its neck, so that it should not be like the manner of the shechitah of a pure animal, and to bury it.

This is the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of the twelfth chapter of Bikkurim: It is a positive commandment to redeem the firstborn of a donkey with a lamb, and if he does not wish to redeem it, it is a positive commandment to break its neck, etc. Thus far his words. The Ra'avad disagreed with him regarding his making the breaking of the neck a commandment; on the contrary, it is a transgression, and he is called a damager and one who destroys the property of the kohen. And that which they said, "the commandment of redemption precedes the commandment of breaking the neck," is not precise, but rather it used the language of "commandment" regarding breaking the neck as a secondary mention to redemption. Thus far his words. And ostensibly the words of the Ra'avad are perplexing, for at the end of the first chapter of Bekhorot several things were taught with this language: the commandment of redemption precedes the commandment of breaking the neck; the commandment of designation for a Hebrew maidservant precedes the commandment of redemption; the commandment of yibbum precedes the commandment of chalitzah; see there. And behold, all of them are commandments. However, the Ra'avad said this from logical reasoning: why should he destroy a living creature for no reason and cause a loss to the kohen? And from the language of the Mekhilta there is support for the Ra'avad, which says: "And if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck"—since you destroyed the assets of the kohen, your assets shall also be destroyed; see there. But certainly even the intention of the Ra'avad is not that this is an actual transgression, since the Torah gave the choice into his hand, but rather to say that this is not a commandment. And the Rambam took the language of the Mishnah literally, which calls this a commandment (and also in Bekhorot 10b it is like the language of the Mekhilta).

This mitzvah of peter chamor applies in every place and at all times. And even though regarding peter chamor it is written, "And it shall be when the Lord brings you to the land..." etc. "and every peter chamor..." etc., nevertheless, since it is not an obligation of the land but rather a personal obligation, it applies even outside the land (Kiddushin 37). This is its mitzvah: that every Israelite who has a female donkey that has given birth to its firstborn redeems it with a seh from the sheep or from the goats, for both a ewe and a goat are called a seh (Rashi 12a, beginning with "mipnei"), whether male, whether unblemished, whether blemished, whether large, or whether small. And it seems to me that one may redeem it with a one-day-old, even if seven days have not passed since its birth, for the waiting of seven days is only by rabbinic enactment, as I wrote in siman 15, section 10. And behold, the donkey itself may be redeemed when it is one day old, as will be explained. And the seh is given to the kohen and it is complete chullin, and the donkey is also permitted as complete chullin.

From when is one obligated to redeem it? Our sages of blessed memory said at the end of the first chapter of Bekhorot that its mitzvah is from the day it is born until thirty days; he may redeem it whenever he wishes and does not transgress regarding it. However, after thirty days, if he has not redeemed it, he transgresses regarding it. This is implied by the deliberation in the Gemara, see there. Nevertheless, according to the conclusion, it appears that he does not transgress regarding it, and therefore the poskim did not mention this, but rather wrote that he does not fulfill the mitzvah in its proper fashion, for from the Torah one must redeem on the day of its birth. Specifically regarding a firstborn human, the Torah commanded to redeem from thirty days and onward, but not regarding a peter hamor. And one should not ask why the Torah did not concern itself with the doubt of a nefel, for we have already explained in siman 15 that from the Torah the majority of offspring are presumed to be viable. And it appears in my humble opinion that if the born donkey is sick, he is exempt from redeeming it until after seven days, when it has left the presumption of the majority of viable offspring, as I wrote there in section 14, see there.

And there is a doubt if one redeemed it on the first day of its birth and gave the redemption to the kohen and the donkey died within seven days, if he is obligated to return the seh to him, for it was revealed retroactively that it was a nefel, or if the kohen can say that it was not a nefel and died for some other reason, or if he can say that this which the Torah obligated you to redeem immediately when it is born is a complete obligation even if it is a nefel. For in truth, this was not explained anywhere, whether the obligation of the Torah is even when it will not live seven days, or if the obligation is because the majority of offspring are viable and presumably it will live seven days. And it appears that he is unable to extract it from the hand of the kohen. However, if he did not give it within seven days and it died within seven days, he is exempt from redeeming it. However, if it died after seven days, it is simple that he is obligated to redeem it, just as with a firstborn of man who died after thirty days, as was explained in siman 305 that he is obligated to redeem him, and the same applies to an animal after seven days, for seven days for an animal is like thirty days for a man (as appears in my humble opinion). And in section 11 it will be explained that the opinion of the Tur is not so.

Our Sages, of blessed memory, received a tradition that when the Torah required redemption specifically with a lamb, this is when one redeems it not for its value; but when one redeems it for its value, one may redeem it with anything, for the peter hamor is no more stringent than consecrated property. The Torah only specified a lamb to be lenient upon him, for if he had a peter hamor worth ten sela’im, he may redeem it with a lamb worth a dinar (Gemara 9). Nevertheless, one who comes to consult at the outset, we tell him that he should not redeem it with a lamb worth less than three dinars (Tur). And so they said in the Gemara (11): A generous eye is with a sela, a stingy eye is with a shekel, a medium eye is with a regi'a. Rava said: The halacha is like a regi'a. And how much is that? Three zuz, common here and common there, meaning less than a sela and more than a shekel. And this is for one who comes to consult, but for one who acts on his own, even a patroza bar danka, meaning a lean lamb worth only a sixth of a dinar, [is valid]. See there.

The Rambam there wrote, and this is his wording: The Torah did not say etc. he may redeem it with a lamb worth a dinar etc. In what case does this apply? When the value of the peter chamor was three zuzim or more; but if its value was less than three zuzim, one only redeems it with a lamb or with three zuzim. A generous eye should not give less than a sela, a stingy eye a half-sela, and a medium eye three zuzim. Thus far his words. And so it is in the Shulchan Aruch, section 5. And it appears that the Rambam had a different version of the text in the Gemara.

The sages taught in the Mishnah (12): One may not redeem with a calf, nor with a wild animal, nor with a slaughtered animal, nor with a tereifah, nor with kilayim, nor with a koy, for all of these are not included in the category of "seh." And even a slaughtered seh is not included in the category of "seh," and even though in every other place a slaughtered animal is also called by the same name as when it was alive, it is different here because we derive "seh" "seh" from the Pesach offering, as it is written: "And if the household be too small for a seh," and one may only be counted for the Pesach offering until the time of its slaughter (Pesachim 89), and we derive from it (Yoma 49). And it is obvious that this rule that one may not redeem with any of these refers to not using them in place of the seh, but according to their value, one may redeem with anything, as I have written. And it appears that one may also redeem with money, since we derive this from consecrated property.

One does not redeem with a lamb of disqualified consecrated animals, as it is written regarding them, "as the gazelle and as the hart," and they do not have the law of a lamb (Bekhorot 12a). I wonder at the Rambam, who omitted this. And one does not redeem with a lamb that was purchased with the fruits of the shevi'it, for the fruits of shevi'it are forbidden for commerce, and the redemption is like commerce. This applies specifically to a certain peter hamor, but a doubtful peter hamor may be redeemed with it (ibid.). And it appears to me that the reason is that since with a doubtful peter hamor one does not give the lamb to the kohen but rather retains it for himself, it does not appear like commerce at all.

There is another inquiry from the Gemara there whether one may redeem with a "resembling" animal, meaning that it is not shaatnez but nevertheless resembles another species; for in the case of sanctified animals for the altar it is disqualified, and here it was an inquiry that was not resolved. Nevertheless, the Rambam wrote there: One may not redeem with a lamb that resembles another, but if he redeemed it, it is redeemed. Thus far his words. However, the Tur ruled that it is a matter of doubt, see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work that the reasoning of the Rambam is because it is only a sanctity of value and the redemption money is not sanctified, therefore they were lenient regarding it, see there. And I do not understand: does the Rambam have the power to resolve that which remained in doubt in the Gemara? And it seems to me regarding his reasoning that, behold, certainly if the redemption were not effective at all, he would not have ruled that after the fact it is redeemed; but surely for its monetary value it is simple that one may redeem with it, as it is no worse than other objects. Therefore, after he redeemed with it and handed it over to the kohen, we say the burden of proof is on the claimant, for perhaps we establish that one may redeem with it like a lamb. And this is what he wrote, "and if he redeemed it, it is redeemed," meaning that he does not need to add to its value. And regarding a ben pekuah, the Rambam ruled that one may redeem with it ab initio, and the Tur ruled that one may not redeem with it, and this is a dispute in the Gemara there.

This is the wording of the Tur: And a hybrid is a question that was not resolved, therefore one does not redeem with it except according to its value, and if he redeemed with it, it is a matter of doubt. Therefore, if the peter chamor died before he gave the redemption to the kohen, he shall not give him the redemption and the peter chamor shall be buried. And if after he gave the redemption to the kohen the peter chamor died, it shall be buried and the redemption shall remain with the kohen since he is the possessor. Thus far his words. And regarding this, it is not relevant to say "if a kohen seized it, we remove it from his hand," for behold, it was incumbent upon him to redeem it, and had he given him a complete lamb and the peter chamor died, the lamb would have remained in his hand; if so, when he gave him the hybrid, why should it be any less? And if so, this is not relevant to all the doubts where, according to the opinion of the Rosh, if a kohen seized it, we remove it from his hand (Derishah, and the difficulty of the Taz, subsection 5, is answered, and also the Taz's intention was such, see there). And the reason that when it died before he gave it into the hand of the kohen he does not need to give it to him is because he can say to the kohen: perhaps the redemption did not take effect upon it at all, for perhaps we hold that one does not redeem with it. And it appears to me that this is when it died before seven days, but after seven, behold, he became obligated in redemption, as I wrote in section 5. But from the wording of the Tur it does not imply so, for he should have specified; therefore it appears that he holds that even afterwards he does not need to redeem when it dies, and it is not similar to a firstborn of man who died after thirty where the obligation is incumbent upon his father to redeem him, but here the Torah gave him the alternative of breaking the neck, and when it dies, this is its breaking of the neck (and according to what I wrote regarding the opinion of the Rambam, the Rambam would not disagree with the Tur, and examine this closely).

We learned in a Mishnah (9a): And one may redeem with it many times. Rashi explained: That if the kohen went back and gave it to the Israelite, and he has firstborn donkeys, he may redeem them with it. Thus far his words. And the Bartenura wrote similarly. And seemingly there is no novelty in this, for behold it is complete chullin, and why should he not redeem with it many times? And it must be said that this itself it comes to teach us, that there is no sanctity in it and they may redeem with it. However, the Tosafot there (4a) wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Tam that it refers to the cases of doubt in the Mishnah there, that one may redeem many doubtful firstborn donkeys with one lamb, see there. Meaning to say, that for certain ones which he must give to the kohen, he is obligated to give a lamb for every firstborn donkey; but for the doubtful ones, where he separates and takes for himself and only needs to remove their prohibition, he may redeem many with one lamb. And Rashi and the Bartenura hold that even to remove their prohibition one requires a lamb for each one. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote according to both explanations.

And know that the Rambam omitted this law entirely, and his reason is that he follows his consistent view in the Commentary on the Mishnah, where he explained this with an entirely different explanation. For thus we learned there: As it is said, "and the firstling of a donkey," etc., male and female, large and small, unblemished and blemished; one redeems with it many times; it enters the pen to be tithed. This is the wording of the Rambam: "And many times it enters the pen to be tithed" means the redemption of a doubtful peter chamor that it is possible to tithe with it; for if he has ten males, each of them a doubtful peter chamor for which he must set aside one lamb, he sets aside ten lambs for them and they are liable for maaser, etc. And that which it said "many times" means that this will happen many times, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he explains that "many times" does not refer to the preceding "one redeems with it," but rather to the following "enters the pen to be tithed." And "one redeems with it" refers to the preceding, meaning that one redeems whether with a male or with a female, whether with a large, etc. Therefore, he did not bring this law in his composition, for according to him this law does not exist at all, and even for doubts, one requires one lamb for every doubt.

And behold, I do not understand all the words of our teachers, for in the Gemara (4a) it is explicitly explained that even with one lamb one can redeem several peter hamors of an Israelite, etc. The verse says, "and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle"—one animal instead of many animals, etc. Rava said: We also learned this in a Mishnah: and he may redeem with it many times. And Rabbeinu Chananel explains the reason of the Mishnah, and this is what he says: What is the reason he may redeem with it many times? Because one lamb of a Levite exempted several peter hamors of the Israelites, see there. And now, is it not explicit that this refers to certain peter hamors, just as it was in the wilderness? And all the more so is it difficult according to the Rambam regarding his explanation which is against the Gemara. And it is true that from the Mishnah further on (9a), where we learned: "His two donkeys that had not previously given birth and they gave birth to two males, he gives two lambs to the kohen," it is explicitly explained that one needs one lamb for every certain peter hamor. And for this reason, Rashi was forced to explain that it refers to after its retrieval from the kohen, and Rabbeinu Tam explained it refers to a doubtful peter hamor. However, in any event, from this sugya it is proven otherwise, and it requires great study. (And according to Rashi and Tosafot, it can be said: since it is explicitly proven from the Mishnah that one is required for each one, and it is likewise explained from the plain meaning of the verses, "and the peter hamor you shall redeem with a lamb," and likewise in Korach it is written, "and the firstborn of the impure animal you shall redeem," they hold that the Gemara compares the lamb that he retrieved from the kohen according to the explanation of Rashi, and doubts according to the explanation of Rabbeinu Tam, to the certain ones in the wilderness; but according to the Rambam, it is very difficult).

Immediately when one designates the lamb in place of the peter chamor, he has fulfilled the mitzvah even before giving it to the kohen, and therefore he recites the blessing then, "who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us regarding the redemption of a peter chamor." Immediately, the peter chamor becomes chullin and it is permitted to derive benefit from it, and if it dies, it shall not be buried. The kohen acquires the lamb immediately and it is under the responsibility of the kohen, for if it dies in the possession of the owner before they gave it to the kohen, the owner is not liable for its responsibility. And so we learned in the Mishnah (12b): One who designates the redemption of a peter chamor and it dies, they are not liable for its responsibility like the redemption of ma'aser sheni. And it is not similar to the redemption of the son, but regarding the matter of the blessing, it is similar to the redemption of the son and not to the firstborn of a pure animal, for there no blessing is required (as the Taz wrote in subsection 7 and the Perishah, see there). For all designations from his pocket that were previously his, such as the money for the redemption of the son and the redemption of a peter chamor, or that which was mixed with his own, such as the designation of terumot and ma'asrot and challah, a blessing is applicable. But the firstborn of a pure animal was never his, and immediately when it is born it is recognizable on its own, and therefore no blessing is required. And regarding the blessing of shehecheyanu, it appears that one does not need to recite it, and it is not similar to the redemption of the son, in which there is joy.

One who redeems the peter hamor of his fellow, his redemption is valid even though he acted without the knowledge of the owner. It is not similar to terumah, which requires the knowledge of the owner as it is written, "so shall you also set apart," but regarding peter hamor the expression "you" is not written. Nevertheless, the peter hamor remains the property of its owner. And even though prior to the redemption it was forbidden for benefit, and this other person through his redemption permitted it for benefit, and one who redeems from the hand of hekdesh, the hekdesh becomes the property of the redeemer—it is not similar. For hekdesh one redeems at its value, whereas for peter hamor one redeems with a lamb worth much less than its value, as I have written. If so, the owner always has a portion in it even before the redemption (Gemara 11a). And he does not need to return to him even the value of the lamb. And even if he redeemed it with another object at its value, he does not need to return to him the value, for "who sought this from his hand," and he has caused his own loss.

The Rambam wrote there in law 4: A peter chamor is forbidden for benefit until it is redeemed, and if one sold it before redemption, its proceeds are forbidden. And if it died before redemption or if he performed arifah, it must be buried because it is forbidden for benefit; even after its arifah, since it was not redeemed. Therefore, if he did not redeem it and gave the peter chamor itself to a kohen, it is forbidden for the kohen to use it until he redeems it with a seh and takes the seh for himself, or performs arifah and it is buried. And the kohanim are suspected regarding this matter; therefore, it is forbidden for an Yisrael to give a peter chamor to a kohen unless the kohen redeems it in his presence. If he set aside the redemption for a peter chamor and the seh died before he gave it to the kohen, he is not liable for its replacement, and he gives the carcass to the kohen to benefit from it. If the peter chamor died after he redeemed it, he gives the lamb to the kohen, and it is permitted for benefit for it has already been redeemed. Thus far his words.

And behold, that which he ruled that its value is forbidden is explained in the Gemara (11a). The Ra'avad wondered what the difference is between this and all other forbidden benefits whose value is not captured. However, in truth, it is not comparable, for here it is impossible to say its value is forbidden absolutely, since it is in his power to redeem it and it becomes permitted. Perforce, the intention is this: its value is forbidden until he redeems it. And if so, since it has a remedy, it is automatically not similar to all other forbidden benefits. Furthermore, perforce this buyer knew that it was a peter hamor and prior to redemption, for if not so, it would be a mistaken transaction. And since he knew, and there is a remedy for this through redemption, how could we permit it to him without redemption? Shall a sinner be rewarded? (See Pitchei Teshuva subsection 1 in the name of the Noda BiYehuda, and in my humble opinion it appears as I have written).

This is the wording of the Tur: A peter hamor may be sold before one redeems it, provided that he informs the buyer that it is a peter hamor and he will redeem it. Even though the buyer will only redeem it with any seh whatsoever, and this one sells it to him at its value for a high price, minus the value of the seh of any kind with which he must redeem it, nevertheless, everything it is worth beyond the seh of any kind is permitted for benefit. However, if he sold it at its value to one who does not know it is a peter hamor, who will not redeem it, the money is forbidden. Thus far his words. And this is from the words of the Rosh, who wrote: And what is the case of the benefit of its money? For example, where he sells it to one who does not know, etc., see there. And it is not understood what was difficult for him regarding "what is the case of the benefit of its money," for it is understood in its plain sense that he sold it and took money. Rather, it seems to me that he was also troubled by the difficulty of the Ra'avad that we brought, and therefore he explained that here it is a different matter, similar to what we explained. And this is the explanation: for if the prohibition were absolute, its law would be like all forbidden benefits; but here we are dealing with a case where he sold it and did not inform him that it is a peter hamor, and it is a mistaken transaction. And even though according to this the language of "prohibition" is not applicable, but rather the language of "robbery," nevertheless the matter is so: that here, even when there is no mistaken transaction—namely, when he sold it to a gentile or to a wicked person who is not concerned with the prohibition—nevertheless the money is forbidden for benefit. For since there is a permission through redemption, they did not permit the money as with all forbidden benefits. But to sell it and inform him that it is a peter hamor and that he should redeem it is permitted even ab initio. And we do not say that since for the time being it is forbidden for benefit it is not subject to sale, for it is not so, as we have already clarified in other places that even forbidden benefits have owners. And that which the Tur wrote, that he should sell it minus the value of the seh, he taught the common way of the matter, for why should he pay him also for what he must spend on the seh (and so wrote the Derisha and the Taz in subsection 5). But if he desires to pay for the whole of it, why should we protest against him for what he wishes to lose for himself.

And according to this, the words of the Rambam should also be interpreted in such a manner, that he sold it to him and did not inform him that it was a peter chamor. And so it is implied from the words of our teacher, the Rema, in section 8, who on the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef—who wrote "and if he sold it before redemption its proceeds are forbidden," which is the wording of the Rambam—wrote, and this is his wording: And specifically where he sold it without specification, but if he informed the buyer that it is a peter chamor and he is selling him what it is worth more than the seh with which he will redeem it, its proceeds are permitted, and even ab initio it is permitted to sell it in such a manner. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote the wording of the Tur upon the wording of the Rambam. But nevertheless, it appears to me that in the Rambam this is not the intention, but rather as I have written, and only our teacher, the Rema, was not concerned with this since for the halacha it is all one, and such is his way in every place.

A peter chamor, before it is redeemed, is forbidden to be shorn in order to benefit from its hair, and likewise it is forbidden to perform any labor or any work with it. If the shearing is for the benefit of the donkey, such as if its hair was tangled or if it has a wound in the place of the hair, it is permitted to shear it in order to save it from pain, but the hair is forbidden for benefit and must be buried. A peter chamor that the owners do not wish to redeem nor to give to a kohen, one strikes it with a kofitz on its neck until it dies and buries it entirely in its skin and its hair. One does not kill it with a staff, nor with a reed, nor with a sickle, nor with a saw, nor with an ax, but rather with a kofitz, for this is the manner of arifah, as it is written in the Torah, "and you shall break its neck." And all the more so that one should not slaughter it, nor cut the neck with a knife. It is also forbidden to bring it into a room and lock it before it until it dies, as it is said, "and you shall break its neck," and there is no arifah except with a kofitz opposite its neck. Rashi explained kofitz as a large knife (10a) with which one butchers meat (Beitzah 28a, s.v. Rabbi Yehuda). In the Aruch, entry katzatz, he explained: a large and wide knife whose sharpness protrudes from its middle; and on "with ax and hammers," the Targum wrote "with a kofitz," see there. It has already been explained that the mitzvah of redemption precedes the mitzvah of arifah, and according to the opinion of the Ra'avad, there is a transgression in arifah, as I wrote in section 2.

An Israelite who has a doubt regarding a peter chamor shall set aside a lamb for it to remove its prohibition and may keep it for himself. Similarly, an Israelite who inherited a definite peter chamor from his maternal grandfather who was a kohen, and that kohen had inherited it from his maternal grandfather who was an Israelite, sets aside a lamb and it is his; for this Israelite who inherits from the kohen need not do more than what the kohen would have needed to do. And the reason we required that the kohen inherit it from his maternal grandfather who was an Israelite is that otherwise, the kohen would be exempt from peter chamor, as has been written; but when he inherits it from an Israelite, he is obligated in it just like the one who bequeathed it to him, except that he was able to keep it for himself since he is a kohen. And so too, his daughter's son who is an Israelite can inherit this power from him to keep it for himself since he is his heir, such as in a case where he did not leave behind sons.

Kohanim and Levites are exempt from the redemption of the peter chamor, as it is said: "The firstborn of man and the firstborn of impure animals you shall redeem." Anyone who is subject to the firstborn of man is subject to the firstborn of impure animals, and whoever is exempt from the firstborn of man is exempt from the firstborn of impure animals. Kohanim and Levites are exempt from the firstborn of man, as I wrote in siman 305. Likewise, a daughter of a Kohen or a daughter of a Levite are exempt, as I wrote. Therefore, if there are peter chamors in their nichsei melug, they are exempt; even though the husband consumes the usufruct, nevertheless the principal belongs to her and it is like a partnership. However, a husband is obligated regarding his own, and it is not similar to the firstborn of man which is dependent upon the opening of the woman's womb, whereas peter chamor is dependent upon the owners. Likewise, one who enters a partnership with a Kohen or a Levite regarding donkeys is exempt from peter chamor. Similarly, the partnership of a gentile exempts it, but it is forbidden to do so since there is a remedy through redemption or breaking the neck. This is not similar to the firstborn of a pure animal, where it is a mitzvah to enter a partnership with him since there is no remedy for it except through a blemish, and who is to say that a blemish will occur in it.

A Kuti who set aside the peter chamor of his donkey, we inform him that it is not holy and it is absolute chullin, and it is permitted for shearing and labor. And why do we inform him? So that he should not say that Jews treat holiness with contempt. And a cow that gave birth to a cow-like species was explained in siman 315. And a convert whose donkey gave birth to its firstborn and he does not know if it was before he converted or after he converted, he sets aside a lamb for it and it is his. And likewise, one who purchases a donkey from a Kuti and it gave birth to a male and he does not know if it had previously given birth or not, he sets aside a lamb for it and it is his.

A female donkey that had not previously given birth and gave birth to two males, one gives one lamb to the kohen, just as with a pure animal. A male and a female is a case of doubt, and he sets aside a lamb for himself, for in order to discharge the sanctity, since perhaps the male emerged first, he sets aside a lamb; but to the kohen he does not need to give it, for perhaps the female emerged first, and the burden of proof is upon the one who seeks to extract from his fellow. And two female donkeys that had not previously given birth and gave birth to two males, he gives two lambs to the kohen. A male and a female, the male is for the kohen. Two males and a female, one is for the kohen, and for the second he sets aside a lamb for himself. Two males and two females, or two females and a male, the Tur wrote that he sets aside two lambs for himself, and the Rambam exempts entirely, and his reason has not been clarified (see Shach and Taz). One had previously given birth and one had not previously given birth and they gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the kohen; a male and a female, he sets aside a lamb for himself, and everything is as with a pure animal.