Comentário sobre Bechorot 1:8

הלוקח עובר חמורו של נכרי – when it is in the womb of its mother and it is a firstling (i.e., male or female). And for this reason, it (i.e., the Mishnah) took [the words], “the fetus of his donkey,” for there is no holy unclean animal with regard to its first-born other than the firstborn of a donkey alone, but since the words are few of the firstborn of the donkey, he decided and permitted it. But all of these other chapters speak of a first born of a pure animal.

Introduction Our mishnah teaches that donkeys owned, or even partially owned, by non-Jews are exempt from the obligation to have their first-born redeemed.

אף על פי שאינו רשאי – to sell to a heathen a large animal, because of work on Shabbat that would be performed by it (see Tractate Avodah Zarah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6 – where the Halakha is established that it is forbidden to sell a heathen a large animal – originally owned by an Israelite).

[An Israelite] who buys a fetus of a donkey belonging to a non-Jew or who sells one to him, although this is not permitted, or who forms a partnership with him, or who receives [an animal] from him to look after or who gives [his donkey] to him to look after, is exempt from the [law of the] bekhor, for it says: [“I sanctified to me all the firstborn] in Israel,” (Numbers 3:13) but not in non-Jews. In order for a Jew to be liable to redeem the first-born of a donkey, a non-Jew cannot have any ownership or partial ownership over the donkey. So if a Jew buys a fetus (assumedly he buys a pregnant donkey) from a non-Jew it is exempt from the laws of the first-born, because it was conceived under non-Jewish ownership. Similarly, if he sells the fetus to the non-Jew, it is exempt. The mishnah notes that selling a donkey to a non-Jew is not permitted because it is forbidden to sell a large animal to a non-Jew (see Avodah Zarah 1:6). Nevertheless, if one does sell the donkey, it is exempt. If a Jew and a non-Jew are partners in owning a donkey it is exempt. If a Jew receives a donkey to take care of, and in return he keeps some of the offspring, or if he gives the donkey to the non-Jew to take care of and the non-Jew keeps some of the offspring, in both of these cases, the donkey is exempt because the non-Jew has some level of ownership over the animal. The exemption of non-Jews from these laws is derived from the word “in Israel,” which means that the law of the bekhor applies only to animals fully owned by Israelites.

והמשתתף לו – even if the portion of the heathen is substantial and known, as for example, the [yet unborn] firstborn’s arm or leg, or that of its mother. Any time that if they would sever from it that limb, the animal remains with a blemish – this is the partnership of the heathen and it is exempt [from redemption].

Priests and levites are exempt through [an argument made by a] kal vehomer: if they exempted the first-born belonging to the Israelites in the wilderness, it follows all the more so that they should exempt their own. In Numbers 3:45 God instructs Moses to take the Levites in place of the first-born and to take the cattle of the Levites in place of the cattle of the first-born. From here the mishnah derives a kal vehomer (a fortiori) argument. If the Levites exempted the cattle of the first-born in the desert, then their own first-born animals are all the more so exempt from the law of the bekhor. Thus animals owned by priests and Levites are exempt from these laws. As we shall see, the same holds for children of priests and Levites.

והמקבל ממנו – that the female donkey belongs to the heathen that an Israelite receives and takes care of it in order that they will divide its offspring, but the body of the animal belongs to the heathen.

פטור מן הבכורה – that fetus that he (i.e., the Israelite) purchased from the heathen or that he sold to the heathen is not holy, for since the heathen has a portion in it or in its mother, as it states (Numbers 3:13): “I consecrated every first-born in Israel, [man and beast, to Myself, to be Mine],” but not of the heathen.

אם פטרו את של ישראל במדבר – the Levites did not exempt the animals of the Israel in the wilderness, that the first-born of the cattle, [the] cattle [of the Levites] replaced [and redeemed] it, as it is written (Numbers 3: 45): “and the cattle of the Levites in place of their cattle,” but rather, this is how it should be read: The Levities released/served as ransom the holiness of the first born of the Israelites in the wilderness, as it is written (Numbers 3:45): “Take the Levites in place of all the first-born among the Israelite people, [and the cattle of the Levites in place of their cattle; and the Levites shall be Mine, the LORD’s],” but if the sanctity of the Levites released/ransomed the sanctity of the Israelites, it is a law that they would release/ransom themselves. But after we learned that the sanctity of the first-born was released/ransomed from the livestock of the Levities, we learned that the released/ransomed of their donkeys are exempt from [the rules governing] the first-born, as it is written (Numbers 18:15): “but you shall have the first-born of man redeemed, and you shall also have the firstling of impure animals redeemed,” all that the first-born of man has, the first-born of impure animals have, and all that the first-born of man doesn’t have, is not found in the first-born of impure animals. But from the first born of pure animals, the Priests and Levites were not exempt, as we learn ahead.

פרה שילדה כמין חמור וחמור שילדה כמין סוס פטור (a cow that gave birth to a donkey of so) – if [the Mishnah] taught [only] “a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts” but did not teach “a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts,” I might say that the cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts is that which is exempt from [their offspring being counted] as a firstborn, because they are not at all similar to each other, for this one (i.e., the cow) has horns and that one (i.e., the donkey) does not have horns, for this one (i.e., the cow), its hoofs are cloven but that one (i.e., the donkey), its hoofs are closed, but a donkey which gave birth to a horse of sorts, I might say that that it (i.e., the horse of sorts) is a red donkey and it is obligated [for its offspring to be counted as a firstborn]. But if it (i.e., the Mishnah) had only taught the concluding clause and did not teach the opening clause, I would say that the donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts is exempt from [its offspring being counted as a firstborn] because a horse is not sanctified with a firstborn, but a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts where both of them are sanctified through the firstborn, I might say that it (i.e., the donkey of sorts) is obligated [for its offspring to be counted as a firstborn. Therefore, both phrases are necessary.

Introduction This mishnah deals with cases where the offspring of an animal is not the same species as the mother.

פטר חמור פטר חמור שני פעמים – one in “Sanctify to me all firstborns” (Exodus 13:12) and the other in (the beginning of the Torah reading for Shabbat Hol HaMoed Passover and Sukkot – beginning with Exodus 33:12 and extending to Exodus 34:26) “See you say to me,” (Exodus 34:20).

If a cow gave birth to a species of donkey, or a donkey gave birth to a species of horse, it is exempt from [the law of] the firstling, for it is said, “the firstling of a donkey,” “the firstling of a donkey,” twice [to teach that the law of the firstling does not apply] until that which gives birth is a donkey and that which is born is a donkey. In order for the owner of the animal to be liable to redeem the first-born donkey, it must be a donkey (at least look like a donkey) and be born from a donkey. If a cow gives birth to a donkey (I don’t really know if this is possible) or a donkey gives birth to a horse (perhaps the reference is to a mule) then there is no liability. This is derived from the fact that the Torah twice states “the first-born of a donkey” once in Exodus 13:12 and again in Exodus 34:20. The Torah repeats itself, according to the midrashic way of thinking, in order to teach that both the mother and the offspring must be donkeys.

מהו באכילה – that is to say, an animal where the birth mother is not similar to the animal born- what is the Halakha with regard to their consumption/eating?

And what is the law with regard to eating them? If a clean animal gave birth to a species of unclean animal, it is permitted to be eaten. But if an unclean animal gave birth to a species of a clean animal, it is forbidden to be eaten, for that which comes out of the unclean is unclean and that which comes out of the clean is clean. When it comes to determining whether an animal is kosher, the status of the animal follows its mother. Anything that comes out of a clean (kosher) animal is clean. So if a cow gives birth to a horse, one can eat the horse, but if a horse gives birth to a cow, the cow is not kosher. This is the matrilineal principle in the animal world. As an aside, some scholars surmise that the source of the idea that a child’s ethnicity/religion is determined by his mother is derived from the idea that an animal’s species is determined by its mother. While there is no conclusive proof of this, it is an intriguing theory.

שהיוצא מן הטמא טמא – and the honey of bees and hornets. It is permitted and is not called that which comes out from the impure, because it does not squeeze/wring it out from their flesh but rather, they bring it into their bodies, since they consume from the flours of the trees and from them the honey is made. But the milk of a human is permitted as I explained, but to suck from the breasts of a woman is prohibited. And all the rest of the milk of impure animals and wildlife, they come from that which is impure and is forbidden.

If an unclean fish swallowed a clean fish, it is permitted to be eaten. But if a clean fish has swallowed an unclean fish, the latter is forbidden to be eaten, because it is not [the clean fish's] growth. The rule works differently if the animal coming out of another animal was not born but rather swallowed. If a clean fish swallows an unclean fish, and the unclean fish is found in the clean fish’s stomach, one may not eat the unclean fish. The opposite also holds true if one finds a clean fish in the stomach of an unclean fish, it may be eaten.

דג טמא שבלע דג טהור – even though we did not see it that it swallowed it, for since most fish breed with their own kind, it is like it swallowed in our presence.

נותן טלה אחד לכהן – in redemption. For whichever way you look at it, one of them is a firstborn.

Introduction This mishnah introduces the complication of a donkey that gives birth to twins and it is unknown which came out first the male donkey, in which case the owner would be liable to redeem the donkey, or a female donkey, in which case the owner would not be liable. In addition the mishnah presents scenarios where several donkeys give birth and it is unknown whether the donkey the first-borns were male or female.

זכר ונקבה - and it is not known if the male came out first and he is the firstborn, or the female came out first, and there isn’t here the law of the firstborn.

If a donkey that had never before given birth gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the priest. In this case, while we don’t know which donkey was born first, it is certain that a male was born first. Therefore, he must give one lamb to the priest to redeem the donkey.

מפריש טלה – because of doubt, and he releases from him the holiness of the redemption of the donkey.

[If it gave birth to] a male and a female, he sets aside one lamb [which he keeps] for himself. Here he doesn’t know whether the first born was the male, in which case he must redeem it by giving a lamb to the priest, or if it was the female, in which case he is exempt. He must set aside a lamb to redeem the donkey, but he need not give the lamb to the priest. This is because the priest cannot prove that the owner was liable, and there is a rule in monetary matters the burden of proof is upon the claimant. So the lamb stays with its owner.

והוא לעצמו- that he himself will consume the lamb and he will not give it to the Kohen, for the Kohen is like someone who removes something from his fellow, and the proof is upon him to bring witnesses that the male came out first. But there is no prohibition, for even the firstling of a complete donkey that was redeemed with a young sheep, furthermore there is no sanctity neither with him or that which he redeems it with. But rather where there is theft, if he does not give a lamb to the Kohen, that is his (i.e., the Kohen’s) money, but here there is no theft for there is a doubt.

If two donkeys that had never before given birth gave birth to two males, he gives two lambs to the priest. In this case, even if we don’t know which donkey gave birth to which male offspring, we know that each one had a male. He must give two lambs to the priest.

שתי חמורות וילדו כו' – a male and female, he gives one lamb to a Kohen because of the male [firstborn]. Or, two males and one female, that one gave birth to a male and one gave birth to a male and female, or alternatively, one gave birth to two males and one gave birth to a female, we give one lamb to the Kohen for certainly there is one male that is definitely a firstborn, but regarding the other where there is a doubt lest the female was born first, we set aside a lamb and it is for himself.

[If they gave birth to] a male and a female or two males and a female, he gives one lamb to the priest. If the two donkeys gave birth to one male and one female or two males and one female (one had twins) then we can be sure that at least one male was a first-born. The other male might be a first-born, or it might not. The mishnah teaches that since this other male is only doubtfully a first-born he can use one lamb to redeem both the certain first-born and the doubtful first-born. The lamb must be given to a priest.

שני זכרים ושני נקבות – they are of doubt, for perhaps each one of them gave birth to a male and a female, and perhaps the females came out first, therefore, the Kohen does not have anything here, but he designates for them two lambs to release them from their sin and they are for themselves (i.e., the owners), such My teachers explained. But Maimonides holds that there is nothing for the Kohen her and even a lamb for himself he does not have to separate/dedicate, because there is in each one [of these donkeys] a great down when they gave birth to two females and one male, for perhaps one of the two of them gave birth to two females and the other gave birth to a male. Or perhaps, this one gave birth to a female, and the other [gave birth to] a male and afterwards a female, or a female and afterwards a male. mal And similarly there are many doubts with [offspring of] two males and two females, therefore even one lamb for himself he does not designate/separate, and the explanation of my Rabbis is the essential principle.

[If they gave birth to] two females and a male or to two males and two females the priest receives nothing. If there were two females, then there is a possibility that the first born of each donkey was a female, no matter how many males were also born. Thus he need not give any lambs to the priest. However, the Tosefta notes that he must set aside one lamb and redeem the males that were born and might have been first-borns. He keeps this lamb for himself, as he did in section two.

זכר ונקבה מפריש טלה אחד לעצמו – for perhaps that one (i.e., donkey) that did not give birth gave birth to a female.

Introduction The first part of this mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. In these cases two animals give birth, one which had previously given birth and one which had not. The second half of the mishnah begins to discuss the lamb used to redeem the donkey.

שנאמר ופטר חמור תפדה בשה – every young lamb by implication, young lamb of lambs or young goats, a young male or a young female lamb, etc.

If one donkey had given birth before and one had not given birth before and they gave birth to two males, he gives one lamb to the priest. Since both donkeys gave birth to a male, it is certain that the donkey that had never given birth before gave birth to a male. So the owner is liable to give one lamb to the priest.

ופודה בו פעמים רבות - if the Kohen returned and they gave him [the redemption animal].

[If they gave birth to] a male and a female, he sets aside one lamb [which he keeps] for himself. If the two donkeys gave birth to a male and a female, then we don’t know whether the donkey which had never before given birth gave birth to the male, in which case it must be redeemed, or whether the other donkey gave birth to the male, in which case it is not a first-born. This is another case where there is doubt about whether the owner owes a lamb to the priest. As in the cases in yesterday’s mishnah, he sets aside a lamb to redeem the male donkey who might need to be redeemed, but he need not give the lamb to the priest, because the priest cannot prove that the male was a first-born.

נכנס לדיר להתעשר – as for example, an Israelite who had ten donkeys who were doubtful first issues of the womb and he separated/dedicated ten lambs and they are his, behold they enter the pen to a place where they bring in animals there to be tithed, and we tithe them in the manner that we tithe the rest of the animals, and the same law applies that if he had a doubt regarding one first-born donkey or two [and he separated/dedicated for them one or two young sheep] that it would enter the pen with the rest of his sheep to be tithed.

For it says, “And the firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 34:20), [the lamb can come either] from the sheep or the goats, male or female, large or small, unblemished or blemished. This verse is brought here not to prove the sections which immediately precede it, but to bring Scriptural proof that a first-born of a donkey must be redeemed with a lamb. As long as this lamb is from a sheep or a goat, it can be used, no matter what type of lamb it is.

ואם מת נהנים בו – what he separated/dedicated for redemption of the first-born donkey, if it died at the hand of the owners prior to coming into the hand of the Kohen, the Kohen derives benefit from even though it didn’t reach his hand while living, for from the time that he (i.e., the owner) separated it, it was in the domain of the Kohen.

He can redeem with the same lamb many times. He can use one lamb to redeem as many donkeys as he wants, and thereby derive benefit from the donkey by taking away its sacred status. In other words, if he doesn’t give the lamb to the priest, he can keep using it to redeem other donkeys. However, there is a mitzvah to give the priest a lamb for each donkey being redeemed.

[And the lamb] enters the pen to be tithed. If an Israelite owns a lamb that he used to redeem a donkey, the lamb counts as far as tithing for that year goes. When he goes to count the lambs born in that year, this lamb too enters the pen to be counted.

If it dies [before he gives it to the priest], he can benefit from it. If the lamb dies he can derive benefit from its corpse. According to the Talmud, this means that the priest derives the benefit from the corpse, because from the time the lamb was set aside it belongs to the priest, even though it was still in the Israelite’s house.

ולא בחיה – a deer or a ram.

Introduction This mishnah provides limits as to what type of animal can be used to redeem the first-born of a donkey.

ולא בשחוטה – a slaughtered young sheep/goat.

We do not redeem with a calf, a wild animal, an animal slaughtered, a terefah, kilayim (a mixed or a koy. The redemption must be done with a lamb, one born of a sheep or a goat. A calf, born of a cow or a wild animal cannot be used. The lamb must be alive when used to redeem the donkey. It cannot be either slaughtered or a terefah (died without being properly slaughtered). Kilayim is a mixed breed. Here it refers to an animal born of a mix between a sheep and a goat. According to the first opinion, a kilayim is not a lamb. A koy is an animal which the rabbis couldn’t identify as either a domesticated or a wild animal (see Hullin 6:1). Since its status is not known, it cannot be used to redeem the first-born donkey.

ולא בטריפה – as for example, that its feet were cut off from the knee and above.

Rabbi Eliezer permits [redemption] with kilayim because it is a lamb. But he forbids with a koy, because its nature is doubtful. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with regard to the kilayim. Since both a sheep and a goat have offspring that are called “lambs (seh)” this animal can be used. He agrees, however, that a koy cannot be used.

כלאים – a he-goat that comes upon a ewe.

If he gave [the first-born of a donkey] itself to the priest, the latter may not keep it, until he sets aside a lamb in its place. He cannot simply give the first-born donkey to the priest. If he does so, the priest must return it to him, until the Israelite sets aside a lamb to redeem the donkey. At this point, the priest may keep the donkey, if the Israelite wants him to have it.

מפני שהוא שה – whether a ewe or whether a goat, they are called a young goat/young sheep. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

כוי – it is a creature of its own, doubtfully wildlife and doubtfully an animal.

נתנו לכהן- the actual first-born donkey.

עד שיפריש שה תחתיו- and this for himself. But afterwards he can use the first-born donkey. But because the Kohanim were suspected in this matter of not separating a young sheep in its place, therefore, an Israelite who gives a first-born donkey to a Kohen does not move from there until the Kohen redeems it in his presence.

בחמש סלעים של פדיון הבן – for they are liable for it (i.e., the five Selas for the redemption price of the first-born male).

If one sets aside [a lamb] for the redemption of the first-birth of a donkey and it died: Rabbi Eliezer says: he is responsible as is the case with the five selas for the redemption of the first-born. But the sages say: he is not responsible, as is the case with the redemption of the second tithe. In this case the lamb used to redeem the first-born of a donkey dies before it can be given to the priest. Rabbi Eliezer says that he must separate a new lamb and give it to the priest. This is the same rule as would apply if he lost the five selas that he must give to the priest in order to redeem his first-born son. To Rabbi Eliezer the donkey is not redeemed until the owner actually gives the lamb to the priest. Until that point the lamb belongs to the owner and if it dies, it is his loss. The other rabbis hold that once the lamb is set aside, the first-born of the donkey has been redeemed. The lamb has now taken the place of the donkey and the only thing missing is giving it to the priest. If the lamb dies now, it is the priest’s loss and he need not give another lamb to the priest. This is the same rule as applies to money used to redeem second tithe produce. Once the produce has been redeemed it is non-sacred and the money is holy. If the money is lost, he need not go back and redeem it again.

כפדיון מעשר שני – that if he lost it, he is not liable for it (i.e., to replace the redemption of the Second Tithe). For that money, the All-Merciful made him liable to eat in Jerusalem and it left him. And the reason of Rabbi Eliezer is that we found that Scripture made an analogy between the first-born of the donkey and the first born of a human, as it states (Exodus 34:20): “But the firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep; [if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck.] And you must redeem every first-born among your sons.” But the Sages state (Numbers 18:15): “But you shall have the fist-born of man redeemed, and you shall also have the firstling of unclean animals redeemed.” For redemption, the analogy was made but not for another thing.

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testified concerning the redemption of the first-born of a donkey which died that the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances]. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testify that the halakhah is in accordance with the sages. If the lamb dies after it has been set aside to redeem the first-born donkey, the priest doesn’t receive anything. However, it seems that the priest would receive the corpse, because after all, the lamb was already his.

ואין כאן לכהן כלום – and he (i.e., the Kohen) is not liable for it, according to the Rabbis. And such is the Halakha.

If the first-born of a donkey died [after the lamb for redemption had been set aside]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it shall be buried, but the lamb may be used. But the sages say: it does not need to be buried and the lamb belongs to the priest. If the first born of the donkey dies after the lamb has been set aside, Rabbi Eliezer believes that the donkey was still holy. Therefore, it must be buried and one cannot derive any benefit from its corpse. However, the holiness of the donkey had not yet been transferred to the lamb, because this only happens when the lamb is given to the priest. Therefore, the lamb can still be used. Note that this is consistent with Rabbi Eliezer’s position above. The other rabbis hold that as soon as the lamb is set aside, it takes on the holiness of the donkey. Therefore, it the donkey dies it need not be buried. The lamb, however, must be given to the priest because as soon as he set it aside, it belongs to the priest.

מת פטר חמור – after he (i.e., the owner) set aside the redemption, but he had not as yet given it to the Kohen.

רבי אליעזר אומר יקבר – for since he is liable for the lamb, it is like someone who had not separated it.

ומותר – an Israelite [is permitted] in deriving benefit from the lamb, for it is like someone who did not separate it.

אין צריך להקבר – that from the time that I will separate the lamb, it becomes the property of the Kohen and the sanctity of the firstborn ass is released.

קופיץ (hatchet) – a large knife like a small ax that the butchers cut with it the meat.

Introduction Our mishnah begins by discussing a person who does not wish to redeem his first-born donkey by giving a lamb to the priest. It continues by dealing with a variety of other issues in which one way of performing a mitzvah takes priority over another way.

ועורפו – that is that he cuts off its head from the border of the neck.

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. Exodus 13:13 states that if he doesn’t redeem the first-born donkey he must break its neck. This is done with a large knife. After he breaks its neck, he must bury it, because he may not derive any benefit from the corpse.

וקוברו – because it is prohibited to derive benefit after breaking the neck [of the heifer].

The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). Clearly, the Torah prefers that one redeem the first-born donkey, rather than break its neck. Associative thinking now brings the mishnah to discuss other cases where there is a preferred way of performing the mitzvah.

מצות יעידה – regarding a Hebrew maidservant.

The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). When a man buys a young slave girl, he has an option of either betrothing her to himself, or letting her be redeemed from slavery. Priority is given to marrying her, rather than letting her be redeemed by someone else. Indeed, it seems likely that the sale of a young girl was meant to be a marital type arrangement and the master would allow her to be redeemed only if he did not want to marry her. Allowing her to be redeemed was, in essence, an annulment of the original agreement.

בראשונה שהיו מתכוונים לשם מצוה – and they (i.e., the Sages) would say the dead husband’s brother (brother-in-law who marries his wife) , for the sake of beauty, for the sake of money, they would come in contact with illicit sexual behavior that was not in the place [of the fulfillment] of the commandment [of levirate marriage]. But this is not the Halakha, but rather since the prohibition of marrying the wife of one’s brother has no effect from her, when his brother died without children, behold, she is completely permitted to him, and even a sister-in-law (i.e., widow of a brother who died without issue) for the sake of beauty or for the sake of money.

The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. Yibbum is levirate marriage, and halitzah is the release from levirate marriage. Clearly, the Torah prefers that the brother marry his dead brother’s wife, and only if he refuses to do so, is halitzah provided as an option. However, the priority of yibbum over halitzah is only in a case where the brother marries his widowed sister-in-law in order to have a child on behalf of his deceased brother. If he does so just because he wants to have relations with her, for his own enjoyment, then, the rabbis claim, it would be better for them to do halitzah. The mishnah presents this as a type of “good old days” scenario. In the “good old days” men had religious intentions when they performed yibbum. In those times, yibbum was preferable. Now they are just plain old sleeping with their dead brother’s wife, and therefore we should encourage halitzah.

מצות גאולה באדון – who decides by lottery the donation of an animal to the Temple treasury, the commandment of its redemption is by the owner prior to all individuals, because he adds the one-fifth.

The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27). If one dedicates an unclean animal to the Temple, such as a horse, then the animal must be redeemed and the money goes to the Temple’s treasury. Anyone can redeem the animal and thereby it becomes his. However, the first right to redeem the animal belong to the owner who dedicated it in the first place. Only if he does not wish to do so, is someone else allowed to come along, redeem the animal and thereby acquire it for himself.