We’re on the second page of Tractate Bekhorot, which discusses laws governing firstborn human and animal offspring. The Talmud immediately drops us into a discussion about a complicated case, so let’s quickly review a few basics before diving in: Firstborns belong to God and must be either sacrificed or redeemed (meaning another animal or money is given to the Temple). Firstborn status applies to humans or animals that are male, that are the first issue of their mothers’ wombs, and that are born to or owned by Jews. Firstborn status applies to both kosher animals and donkeys, but these are handled differently. Because donkeys are not kosher, their firstborns are redeemed with a sheep — which is brought to the Temple and sacrificed in place of the firstborn donkey foal.
The opening mishnah of this tractate considers the status of donkey fetuses that are only partially owned by Jews. While Rabbi Yehuda argued that a donkey fetus owned in partnership with a gentile is subject to firstborn status, his colleagues disagree, stating that shared ownership with a gentile always disqualifies an animal from firstborn status. The majority opinion carries the day.
On today’s daf, the Talmud presents a story of a sage who was particularly fastidious in his adherence to the laws of bekhorot (firstborns) for donkeys:
Rav Mari bar Rachel had a certain flock of animals. He would transfer ownership of the ears of the firstborn fetuses to a gentile. But nevertheless he prohibited them from being sheared and used for labor, and gave them to the priests. And ultimately, the animals of Rav Mari bar Rachel died.
Rav Mari is hedging his bets: By transferring a portion of the fetus (its ear) to a gentile, he ensures the donkey foal, when born, does not have firstborn status. Nonetheless, presumably out of an abundance of caution, Rav Mari still treats these animals as firstborns — not using them for labor and giving them to the priests. Why so much caution? The Gemara speculates that Rav Mari was not trying to avoid the obligations of redeeming his firstborns, rather, he was concerned the priests would mishandle the firstborn animals and accidentally break divine law. Through a joint ownership arrangement that abrogated their firstborn status, he ensured this couldn’t happen.
And yet, despite all his special care not to violate God’s law, Rav Mari’s animals routinely died — presumably as divine punishment.
What is the reason that the animals of Rav Mari died as a punishment? It was because he abrogated their sanctity by selling their ears. But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say it is permitted for a person to inflict a blemish on a firstborn animal fetus before it emerges into the air of the world? Here, too, Rav Mari abrogated his firstborn animals’ sanctity by selling their ears before their birth.
By selling the fetuses’ ears, Rav Mari effectively “blemished” the animals. (That is, had they been a kosher species, they would no longer be fit for slaughter.) The Gemara posits that perhaps this is the action that incurred divine punishment. However, the Gemara points out, this “blemish” was inflicted before the animal was born. At least according to Rabbi Yehuda, inflicting a “blemish” on a fetus is not the same as inflicting a blemish on an offering, because a fetus is not (before birth) a fit offering. So, there must be another problem with Rav Mari’s actions:
There, when one inflicts a blemish on a firstborn animal, he abrogates the animal’s sanctity of the altar, as it is no longer fit for an offering, but does not abrogate its sanctity of the priest, as it is still given to the priest. Here, by contrast, when Rav Mari sold his animals’ ears to a gentile, he abrogated even their sanctity of the priest, as the partnership exempts the animals from the obligations of firstborn status entirely.
Rav Mari’s “blemishing” of his donkey fetuses not only invalidated the animals for the altar, it even invalidated them for the priests to use. And that, the Gemara speculates, was enough to incur divine punishment.
However, this is only speculation. The Gemara is not entirely convinced that we have come to the right answer and offers an alternative suggestion for why Rav Mari’s animals died:
And if you wish, say instead that the reason the animals of Rav Mari bar Rachel died is that he himself knew that it was necessary to transfer ownership of the ears of the fetus to the gentile through a complete transaction. And another person would see him transferring ownership of the ears to a gentile and would go and do it himself but not perform a complete transaction, and would think that Rav Mari performed the same matter in abrogating its firstborn status, and would come to experience a mishap with his animal by not treating it with the sanctity of firstborn status.
The concern here is optics. Rav Mari transferred ownership of his fetal donkey ears correctly; but others might have been under the impression that a less complete transaction can still revoke firstborn status of fetal donkeys. As punishment for potentially misleading others into erroneous behavior, Rav Mari’s animals were killed.
This anecdote demonstrates that the rabbis took firstborn status seriously: What rightfully belongs to God must not be taken. Even Rav Mari, who was extra cautious, ended up losing his animals. As the Gemara struggles to demonstrate why he deserved this punishment, it ends up making a case for the significance of this course of study on bekhorot: Even a learned rabbi, who is trying to prevent a potential sin, can inadvertently create real harm.
Read all of Bekhorot 3 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 21, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Curious Minds Welcome. Whatever you're wondering about Judaism, My Jewish Learning has an answer, and it's free because readers like you make it so. Give to open more doors for Jewish discovery.
