4 min read

Rabbi Meir Told the Idolater How to Redeem a Firstborn Donkey

The crowd wanted a stumble. He asked what redeems a firstborn donkey. Rabbi Meir named a lamb and let the verse stand in the open.

Curated by Arthur · Told by Maggid ·
Table of Contents
  1. The Question Would Not Sit Down
  2. A Samaritan Opened Jacob's Ledger
  3. Fourteen Sons, Then Four Firstborns
  4. Money Crossed the Hall Instead of an Eye
  5. The Lamb Still in the Air

An idolater found Rabbi Meir in the market and smiled like a man who had already won. Donkeys stamped in the dust. Students stood close enough to hear a teacher fail. "The first issue of your donkey, with what is it redeemed?"

Rabbi Meir Told the Idolater How to Redeem a Firstborn Donkey Click for full size

The law was odd enough to trip a bluff. Rabbi Meir did not bluff. He answered from the verse. "The first issue of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb" (Exodus 34:20). A seh (שה), a lamb, stands in for the unclean firstborn. The donkey stays a donkey. The lamb crosses the hand as price.

The trap closed on empty air. Someone laughed. Rabbi Meir did not turn toward the laugh. He waited to see if the verse would be allowed to stand.

The Question Would Not Sit Down

The idolater pressed again. He turned the law, looking for a seam where Jewish practice would look cruel or arbitrary. Each time Rabbi Meir met him with Scripture. A man who lived inside the verses answering a man who wanted those verses to look foolish in front of a crowd.

If this odd corner fell, the mouth that kept the other firstborn laws would start to shake. Rabbi Meir treated the corner as load-bearing. He held it.

A donkey's ear flicked flies. The students did not look at the donkey. They looked at Rabbi Meir's mouth.

A Samaritan Opened Jacob's Ledger

Then a Samaritan took a different angle. He aimed not at a donkey but at Jacob himself. "Do you not say that Jacob is truthful, as it says, 'Give truth to Jacob'?" (Micah 7:20).

Rabbi Meir agreed. The Samaritan struck. Jacob had vowed, "Of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You" (Genesis 28:22). He set aside Levi. Were there not twelve tribes? Was the patriarch shorting Heaven with clever counting?

The market went quieter. A charge against Jacob is a charge against the house that still bears his name. Students shifted their feet. The idolater waited to see if this second trap would land where the first had not.

Fourteen Sons, Then Four Firstborns

Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin spoke in the name of Rabbi Levi. Count Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph whom Jacob lifted to tribal rank (Genesis 48:5). Fourteen, not twelve. The household was not a simple dozen when the vow came due.

The Samaritan did not sit down. "All the more so," he said. "If you add water, add flour." More tribes would mean a bigger tithe. Levi alone would still fall short.

Rabbi Meir had one more cut. There were four mothers. Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah. The firstborn of each is sacred, and sacred things do not produce more sacred things. Deduct those four. Fourteen minus four is ten. Levi is a clean tenth.

The Samaritan's face changed. He had come to catch a cheat. He found a count that held. "Happy are you," he said, "and happy is your nation, that you are found in its midst."

Money Crossed the Hall Instead of an Eye

The crowd thinned. Rabbi Meir walked from the stalls into the study hall. Benches. A teacher standing with one palm open. The argument waiting there sounded like vengeance. "Eye for eye." Some mouths wanted torn flesh matching torn flesh.

A teacher from the school of Rabbi Ishmael spoke the word "giving" as money. "Hand for hand" is a thing passed from hand to hand. Payment. Abaye said a literal blinding could kill a weak man, taking an eye and a life for an eye. Two losses for one wound. The court weighs, appraises, and pays. It does not maim to prove it can read Hebrew.

A student looked from the hall back toward the market. The lamb that had crossed a hand was the same kind of answer. Torah will not leave an unclean firstborn unaddressed, and it will not demand cruelty for a show. Value answers value.

The Lamb Still in the Air

Rabbi Meir left with the donkey-law intact and Jacob's truth uncracked. The idolater had wanted a public stumble. The Samaritan had wanted a cheat in the patriarch. They received a verse, a count, and a blessing they had not come to give.

Outside, a donkey stamped in the dust. Somewhere a lamb was still the price that kept the odd corner standing.


← All myths

From the tradition

Sources

2 sources

The texts behind this telling. Some cards carry a translation of the source; others are our own retelling of it, and each card says which. Every card links out to the original.

Bereshit Rabbah 70:7Bereshit Rabbah

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.The Sefaria Midrash Rabbah, 2022 · CC-BY

Seems straightforward. But a curious question arises, a question that leads us into a fascinating rabbinic debate found in Bereshit Rabbah 70.

The scene opens with an idolater trying to stump Rabbi Meir with a question about redeeming a donkey's firstborn. "The first issue of your donkey, with what is it redeemed?" he asks. Rabbi Meir, quick on his feet, quotes (Exodus 34:20): "The first issue of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb [seh]." The conversation continues, with the idolater pressing Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir deftly navigating each challenge with further scriptural prooftexts. It's evidence of Rabbi Meir's sharp wit and deep knowledge. But that's just the appetizer.

The main course comes when a Samaritan confronts Rabbi Meir. This time, the question digs into the very integrity of Jacob himself. The Samaritan asks: "Do you not say that Jacob is truthful, as the verse says 'Give truth to Jacob'?" (Micah 7:20). Rabbi Meir, of course, agrees. But then comes the zinger: "But did he not say: 'Everything that You will give me I will tithe to You'?"

Here's where it gets interesting. The Samaritan points out that Jacob only separated the tribe of Levi as a tithe. But were there only ten tribes to tithe from? If you count all twelve, shouldn't Jacob have set aside closer to 1.2 tribes? Was Jacob, dare we say, fudging the numbers?

Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin, quoting Rabbi Levi, steps in to defend Jacob. He responds by pointing out that there weren't just twelve tribes. Remember Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph? (Genesis 48:5) tells us that Jacob adopted them, declaring, "Ephraim and Manasseh will be for me like Reuben and Simeon." So, fourteen tribes. But the Samaritan is relentless. "All the more so," he argues, "if you add water, add flour!" In other words, adding more tribes should mean an even bigger tithe!

Rabbi Meir, however, has one final, brilliant counter-argument. He points out that there were four matriarchs. The firstborn is considered sacred, and sacred things don't produce more sacred things. So, we deduct one tribe for the firstborn of each matriarch. That brings us back to ten tribes, making Levi a perfect tithe!

It's a clever solution, relying on both textual interpretation and a bit of theological reasoning. The Samaritan is so impressed that he exclaims, "Happy are you, and happy is your nation, that you are found in its midst!"

So, what do we take away from this? It's more than just a clever debate. It shows us how the rabbis grappled with difficult questions, using their knowledge of Torah and tradition to find meaning and defend the integrity of our ancestors. And sometimes, the most profound insights come from the most unexpected places.

Full source
Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 338:1Yalkut Shimoni on Torah

Translation of the source text.Torat Emet (Yalkut Shimoni) · CC-BY-NC

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: Scripture says "if he cause a blemish" (Leviticus 24:19) -- "giving" means nothing other than money. But then "as he caused a blemish in a man" would also mean money, yet that is bodily injury! The school of Rabbi Ishmael expounds a superfluous verse: since it is written, "and if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he has done... so shall it be done to him," why do I need "so shall it be given"? Learn from it: money. Why do I need "as he caused a blemish in a man"? Since it wished to write "so shall it be given," it also wrote "as he caused a blemish in a man." The school of Rabbi [Hiyya] taught: Scripture says "hand for hand" (Deuteronomy 19:21), a thing given from hand to hand -- and what is that? Money. But then "foot for foot" would also be so, yet [that is bodily]! The school of Rabbi Hiyya expounds a superfluous verse: since it is written, "and you shall do to him as he purposed" (Deuteronomy 19:19), and if it should enter your mind that it is literal, why do I need "hand for hand"? Learn from it: money. Why "foot for foot"? Since it wrote "hand for hand," it wrote "foot for foot." Abaye said: it comes from what the school of Hezekiah taught: "an eye for an eye" -- and not an eye and a life for an eye; for if it should enter your mind that it is a literal eye, sometimes you would find an eye and a life for an eye, for while blinding his eye his soul departs. And what is the difficulty? Perhaps we assess him: if he can withstand it, we do it; if not, we do not. And once we assessed that he can withstand it and we did it and his spirit departed, if he dies, let him die -- did we not learn: if they assessed him and he died under his hand, he is exempt? (Exodus 21:25) Rav Zevid in the name of Rava said: Scripture says "wound for wound," to give pain in place of damage; for if it should enter your mind that it is literal, just as this one had pain, and so on. And what is the difficulty? Perhaps there is a delicate person who has more pain; what is the practical difference? To give him the difference between them. Rav Papa in the name of Rava said: Scripture says "and he shall surely heal" (Exodus 21:19), to give healing in place of damage; for if it should enter your mind that it is literal, just as this one needs healing, and so on. What is the difficulty? Perhaps there is a person whose flesh heals quickly and one whose flesh does not heal quickly; what is the practical difference? To give him the difference between them. Rav Ashi said: it comes by analogy of "in place of" with "in place of": it is written here "an eye in place of an eye," and it is written there "because (in place of which) he humbled her" (Deuteronomy 22:29); just as there it is money, so too here it is money. It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: "an eye for an eye" -- literal. Literal, can it enter your mind? Does Rabbi Eliezer not hold like all those Tannaim? Rather, it means that we assess [the value] not by the injured party but by the one who caused the injury. Rabbi Yitzchak said: it says, "if a ransom be laid upon him" (Exodus 21:30), and behold the matter is an inference from minor to major: if where it imposed death it imposed only money, here where it did not impose death, all the more so it should impose only money. Rabbi Eliezer says: "an eye for an eye" -- I might understand, whether intending or not intending, he pays only money; therefore Scripture excludes the one who intends to cause a blemish, that he pays only money, as it is said, "and if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor" (Leviticus 24:19), a general statement; "an eye for an eye," a specific; in a specific-and-general there is in the general only what is in the specific; when it says "as he caused a blemish in a man" (Leviticus 24:20), it generalized again. If general like the first general? You say no; rather it is general-specific-general, and you judge only according to the specific: just as the specific spells out fixed blemishes, chief limbs, visible, and intentional, paying only money, so all such cases; Scripture says "as he cause a blemish," [teaching] until he intends to cause him a blemish.

Full source