Talking Talmud

A new mishnah! Establishing additional exemptions for the first-born donkey offerings. The initial exemptions took place in the wilderness, and exempted the Levites, because the people themselves were going to be exempted. But other - kosher - animals were still subject to the laws of the first-born (cattle, sheep, and goats). But why are the Levites exempt from the first-born son and the first-born donkey, but subject to the regular, other animals' first-borns? Also, the first-born sanctification seems to have first taken place in the wilderness -- or were they not? (A dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish) Note the original role of the first-born (people), before the kohanim were selected for their role. Then, the sanctification of the first-borns made a different kind of sense.

If one sold a first-born, and had to buy it back, the question is whether that's buying it back for 10x the value of the animal specifically, or just some random large amount. Or maybe it's for 100x. Plus, the concern of blemishes -- and permanent blemishes -- in the first-born (what if it's jointly owned with a non-Jew?). Also, different kinds of blemishes could make the animal look like a pig or a goose or other kinds of mutations that aren't connected to the animal's real appearance.

A new tractate, taking the first-born animals as its major focus: including human first-born sons, first male domesticated animals, and first-born donkeys, commemorating the first-borns who were saved in Egypt. We open with the focus on the donkeys. And, of course, with a new mishnah. The mitzvah applies only to donkeys that are owned fully by Jews. The question is, then, what happens if the donkey is jointly owned, and it lists 5 cases. The Gemara addresses why all of those 5 cases were necessary to spell out (instead of learning from one to the other).

A new mishnah! The last one, to be sure. Taking the mother bird for the fledglings or eggs -- you take the mother bird for the sake of the purification of the person recovering from tzara'at. Meaning, the mitzvah of that purification doesn't make it permitted to take the bird under the circumstances of her being on her chicks/eggs. Also, the philosophical conundrum of one who sends away the mother bird, for which long life is promised, and at the behest of his father, so honoring his parent, for which long life is promised, and then dies on the descent. How to reconcile or resolve this contradiction? [Who's Who: Elisha ben Avuya, aka "Aher"]

New mishnayot! 1 - If you send away the mother bird, and she comes back (even several times), you still have to send her away, if you want the eggs. Plus, when a positive commandment comes together with a negative commandment. Also, the implementation of lashes -- where the obligation begins with the sending of the mother bird away, but once she's been taken without sending her away, then what? Can she be sent away after she wasn't? And practically speaking, lift the bird! (What does that accomplish??).