QUESTION: The Gemara asks about whether one may redeem a Peter Chamor with an animal of "Pesulei ha'Mukdashin," an animal that was designated as a Korban but became invalid and was redeemed. According to Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that Pidyon transfers the Kedushah of the Peter Chamor to the lamb, can Kedushah be transferred to an animal that cannot be used fully by its owner due to its status of Kedushah as Pesulei ha'Mukdashin? The Gemara concludes that one may not use such an animal for Pidyon, because the verse that discusses Pesulei ha'Mukdashin mentions "Tzvi" and "Ayal." Just as a Tzvi and Ayal may not be used for Pidyon Peter Chamor (since the Torah specifies that a lamb be used), Pesulei ha'Mukdashin also may not be used.

The Gemara's answer is not clear. Even if Pesulei ha'Mukdashin are equated to a Tzvi and Ayal, that does not preclude using them to redeem a Peter Chamor when their value is the same as that of the donkey. A lamb is unique only in that it may be used for Pidyon even when it is worth less than the Peter Chamor. Any object may be used for the Pidyon when it is equal in value to the donkey.

The Gemara should be left with a question of whether one may use a lamb of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin that is worth the same as the donkey, or whether he may not use such a lamb since certain prohibitions (Gizah and Avodah) apply and the Kedushah of Peter Chamor cannot be transferred to it! (TUREI EVEN in his introduction; SEFAS EMES)

ANSWER: The Gemara is not asking whether one may redeem a firstborn donkey with an animal of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin that has the same value as the donkey. The fact that Kedushah cannot be transferred to an object that has restricted usage cannot prevent the Pidyon from taking effect, because the value of the animal of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin is being used for the Pidyon, and not the actual animal itself. The value includes only the part of the Pesulei ha'Mukdashin that indeed is usable (since the part that may not be used has no value).

Rather, the Gemara is asking whether an animal of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin may be used when its value is less than that of the donkey. Does a lamb of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin qualify as a lamb for Pidyon, with the unique law that it may be used even if its value is not equal to that of the donkey, or do the restrictions of usage of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (Gizah and Avodah) make this lamb different from ordinary lambs?

The Gemara concludes that just as a Tzvi and Ayal may not be used for Pidyon when their value is less than that of the donkey, a lamb of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin may not be used unless it is has the same value as the donkey. (NIMUKEI HA'GRIV; YESHU'OS YAKOV YD 321, cited by SHEMEN ROKE'ACH)

QUESTION: The Gemara asks about whether one may redeem a Peter Chamor with a lamb that is a "Nidmeh." A "Nidmeh" is the offspring of a sheep but has the appearance of a goat (or the offspring of a goat but has the appearance of a sheep). The offspring is different from the mother, even though both are called "Seh," since the word "Seh" includes both sheep and goats.

According to Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that one may redeem a Peter Chamor with a crossbreed (Kil'ayim), it is obvious that one may redeem a Peter Chamor with a Nidmeh. If an animal that is a crossbreed may be used even though only its mother is a Seh, then certainly a Nidmeh may be used, since both the mother and the Nidmeh are a Seh. The Gemara's question is according to the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Eliezer and maintain that one may not redeem a Peter Chamor with an animal of Kil'ayim. Is a Nidmeh like Kil'ayim and it may not be used, or is a Nidmeh considered a Seh and it may be used?

The ROSH (1:15) writes that since the Gemara's question remains unanswered, one may not redeem a Peter Chamor with a Nidmeh. If one did use a Nidmeh for the Pidyon, and, after he gave the Nidmeh to the Kohen, the donkey died, the donkey must be buried, since the Nidmeh might not have been effective in removing its Kedushah. Nevertheless, the Nidmeh remains with the Kohen out of doubt.

The Rosh writes that even though the Halachah is that if a Kohen seizes a Safek Bechor from a Yisrael, the Bechor is taken away from the Kohen and given back to the Yisrael (see Rosh to Bava Metzia 1:13), if the Kohen did not seize it but it was given to him by the owner, the Kohen becomes the new owner and the previous owner must prove that it was definitely not a Bechor if he wants to claim it back from the Kohen. Accordingly, one who gave a Nidmeh to a Kohen cannot claim it back if the Peter Chamor dies.

The Rosh cites another example of this law from the Gemara in Bava Metzia (79a). The Gemara there quotes Rebbi Nasan who says that if one hired, and paid for, a ship that sank halfway through its journey, he is not entitled to receive in return the rental money, because there is a doubt about whether he was obligated to pay or not. However, if he did not yet pay, the owner of the ship cannot demand the money from him.

The SHACH (in TAKFO KOHEN #62) states that this seems to contradict the ruling of the REMA (YD 315:1) that even if the Yisrael erroneously gives a Safek Bechor to a Kohen because he thought he was obligated to do so, and he later finds out that he was exempt, the Kohen still must return the animal. Why is this different from the ruling in the case of a Nidmeh, or the case of the hired ship, where the Halachah is that the property need not be returned since it was given by the owner and was not seized by the recipient?

(a) The URIM V'TUMIM (in KITZUR TAKFO KOHEN, p. 41) answers that the money given in advance for a hired ship (that sank) is not considered to have been given by mistake, because there was no certainty that the ship would not sink. At the time the money was given, no mistake was made. In contrast, there is no need whatsoever to give a Safek Bechor to a Kohen, and thus the act of giving it to a Kohen was a mistake.

(b) The SHEMEN ROKE'ACH answers that it is not considered a mistake to give the Nidmeh to a Kohen, because even if he would have known that one cannot redeem a Peter Chamor with a Nidmeh, he still would have been required to give a proper Seh to the Kohen. He must fulfill some sort of "Nesinah," giving, and thus the giving of the Nidmeh is not considered a mistake. The mistake arises only later, when the donkey dies after the Nidmeh was given to the Kohen.

In contrast, when a Safek Bechor is given to a Kohen, even the actual act of Nesinah was a mistake, because there was no need to give anything to the Kohen. Therefore, the Nidmeh stays with the Kohen, because -- at the time of the Nesinah -- there was no mistake. The Safek Bechor, however, is returned to the Yisrael, because even at the time of Nesinah a mistake was made. (D. BLOOM)

QUESTION: The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Tzadok who testified that when a Peter Chamor dies (in the possession of the Yisrael), the Kohen receives nothing. RABEINU GERSHOM and others point out that Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Tzadok were "testifying" in accordance with the opinion of the Chachamim, who maintain that when the Peter Chamor dies in the possession of the owner, he has no responsibility to give anything to the Kohen.

However, the Gemara earlier (11b) teaches that the Kohen is entitled to the lamb that was separated as Pidyon for the donkey, even when the lamb dies in the possession of the Yisrael. This is because the lamb becomes the property of the Kohen at the moment it is designated as Pidyon. Why, then, do Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Tzadok here rule, according to the Chachamim, that "the Kohen receives nothing"?

ANSWER: CHIDUSHEI REBBI MEIR SIMCHAH answers that Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Tzadok do not mean that the Kohen receives absolutely nothing. Rather, they mean that besides the lamb that he receives, he is not entitled to receive any other Pidyon. (See also TIFERES YISRAEL.)