The Torah commands in the Book of Shemot (13:13) that if one’s donkey’s firstborn is a male, then the owner must redeem the firstborn donkey by giving a sheep to a Kohen. However, the Torah stipulates that if one chooses not to redeem the donkey, then he must perform “Arifa” – meaning, he must kill the donkey, and he may then not derive any benefit from the animal. He may not sell the carcass, or make any use of any part of it. The Sefer Ha’hinuch explains that this Halacha, forbidding the owner from deriving benefit from the carcass, serves as a penalty, of sorts. Since the owner did not do what he was supposed to do – namely, give the Kohen a sheep in exchange for rights to the donkey – he is penalized by having to kill the donkey and then being denied the opportunity to derive benefit from the carcass. The Ra’abad (Rav Abraham ben David of Posquières, France d. 1198) advanced the controversial view that Arifa is not to be considered a Misva. To the contrary, he writes, one who performs Arifa instead of redeeming his firstborn donkey has committed a sin, and is guilty of denying the Kohen what is owed to him, by insisting on killing the donkey instead of giving the Kohen a sheep. The Rambam and Sefer Ha’hinuch clearly disagree, as they list Arifat Peter Hamor (killing the firstborn donkey) as one of the Misvot Aseh (Biblical affirmative commands). Moreover, the Mishna (Bechorot 13) states, “Misvat Pediya Kodemet Le’misvat Arifa” – “The Misva of redeeming” is preferred over “the Misva of Arifa.” This formulation clearly indicates that Arifa is to be considered a Misva – albeit a less preferred Misva – thus calling into question the Ra’abad’s surprising opinion. The Radbaz (Rav David Ben Zimra, Egypt, 1479-1573) goes so far as to say that even if a Kohen approaches the donkey’s owner and asks for a sheep for the redemption of the donkey, and the owner stubbornly refuses, the owner still performs a Misva by then killing the donkey. The Mishna in Masechet Kiddushin (56) addresses the unusual case of a person who wishes to betroth a woman with a Peter Hamor (firstborn donkey). Such a betrothal, the Mishna rules, is ineffective. The Gemara (57) explains that if Arifa had been performed, and the groom wishes to betroth the bride with the carcass, then the Kiddushin (betrothal) is ineffective because the carcass has no value. As mentioned earlier, no benefit may be derived from the carcass after Arifa, and the carcass therefore has no legal worth. Kiddushin requires giving the bride an object of value, and so it follows that one cannot betroth a woman with the carcass of a Peter Hamor after Arifa. If, however, the Peter Hamor is still alive, having been neither redeemed nor killed, then, the Gemara states, the Kiddushin might be effective, depending on the relative values of the donkey and the sheep. Upon receiving the donkey, the woman must now redeem it by giving a Kohen a sheep. Thus, if the market prices are such that a sheep costs less than a donkey, then the woman is considered as having received an object of value, and the betrothal is valid. If, however, market prices are such that a sheep is worth more than a donkey, then the woman does not benefit at all by receiving the donkey, and the betrothal is therefore ineffective. As mentioned in our discussion of the 22 nd Misvat Aseh (redeeming a firstborn donkey), the reason given for this Misva is that the redemption of the donkey symbolizes the miracle that occurred on the night of the Exodus. The ancient Egyptians are compared to donkeys, as the verse states (Yehezkel 23:20), “Asher Besar Hamorim Besaram” (“whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys”), whereas Beneh Yisrael are compared to a sheep – “Seh Pezura Yisrael” (“Israel are scattered sheep” – Yirmiyahu 50:17). By exchanging a donkey for a sheep, we commemorate the time when the firstborn of Beneh Yisrael were rescued from the plague of the firstborn in Egypt. The redemption of the donkey through a sheep symbolizes G-d’s red