Bekhorot 3b — the Talmud in English

This is what Rabbi Yohanan said

the following two matters Rabbi Yohanan said]:

a.

Even

if the gentile’s share is a limb which, when removed, would be

a minor defect,

such as when he was a partner in its ear, this exempts it from the firstborn status.

b.

And what we learned

below, 16b:

A ewe

which is a firstling

that gave birth to a species of goat, and a goat

which is a firstling

that gave birth to a species of ewe, is exempt

from the firstborn status; and if it has

in the offspring]

some of the identifying signs

by which it resembles its mother, it is

liable

under the law of the firstborn. And Rabbi Yohanan said concerning this that “liable” means that it is liable to be given to a priest, but it is not offered on the altar, because its transformation into a different species from its mother

is a permanent defect, for slaughtering the firstborn outside

on account of it. And we object:

Granted, what Rabbi Yohanan said, that “even

Rabbi Yohanan’s statement that

a minor defect,”

teaches us in accordance with Rav Huna

who exempted it from the firstborn status even if only the ear of the firstborn belongs to the gentile,

and to exclude the view of Rav Hisda and Rava,

who required partnership in something whose removal leaves it without life.

But

a partial goat-like offspring of a ewe is

a permanent defect; what does he teach us!?

Since it changed

to a different species]

it became a defect

[this is a defect]!? Yet

we learned

it in the Mishna below, 40a:

And its mouth

of the lamb

resembles that of a pig ...

this is a defect.

And if you would say, there—

in the case of its mouth resembling that of a pig—

it changed into something whose species is not subject to firstborn sanctity

for a pig is not subject to firstborn sanctity], but

here—

in the case of a ewe that gave birth resembling a goat—

it changed into something whose species is subject to firstborn sanctity, and such a change we have not yet heard, and Rabbi Yohanan needed to teach us that on account of this one slaughters the firstborn outside; this too cannot be used to resolve it, because:

this—a change into something whose species is subject to the firstborn requirement—was also

that—

a change into something whose species is subject to firstborn sanctity—also

we learned,

for we learned below, 40b, among the defects on account of which one slaughters the firstborn:

One of its eyes

of the lamb

is large

and the other is as usual,

and one

or one]

is small

and the other is as usual,

and the tanna

in the beraita explains: “‘

Large’”

means that the lamb’s eye is

large like that of a calf, and “

small”

means that the lamb’s eye is

small like that of a goose;

and yet:

Granted, “‘

small like that of a goose’” is understandable as a defect, because it changed into something whose species

is understandably a blemish, because it changed into something

is not subject to firstborn sanctity,

for birds are not liable under the law of the firstborn

; but “‘

large like that of a calf’”

is—

its species is subject to firstborn sanctity,

so why is it considered a change on account of which one slaughters it outside!?

But is it not because we say: Since it changed

to a different species,

it became a defect,

and not only when it changed into something whose species is not subject to firstborn sanctity? If so, what do we need Rabbi Yohanan’s novelty for!?

It is written [Leviticus 21:18]: “For any man in whom there is a defect shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or one with a slit nose, or one with unequal limbs”; and the meaning of “one with unequal limbs” is that one of his limbs is larger than its counterpart, such as one eye being large and one eye being small.

And we answer:

No, it is not as you interpreted the Mishna, that because of the change it is exempt from the firstborn status; rather, one may always say that a change into something whose species is subject to firstborn sanctity is not a defect [unless Rabbi Yohanan taught us this novelty], and the reason that one eye large like that of a calf is considered a defect is

—not as you explained the Mishna, that the change itself exempts the animal from the firstborn requirement. It may indeed be said that a change into something whose species is subject to the firstborn requirement is not a blemish, unless Rabbi Yohanan taught us this innovation. Rather, the reason that one eye as large as a calf’s is considered a blemish is

because it became “‘

one with unequal limbs,’”

meaning one whose eye—or one of the other paired limbs—one is larger than its counterpart.

This too is more reasonable

according to this interpretation, from

what we learned

below, 43a, at the beginning of the chapter “These are the defects”:

These are the defects—

which were mentioned with regard to an animal firstborn in the chapter “Concerning these defects,” including one eye being large and one eye being small—

whether

they were

permanent, whether

they were

passing, they

are

disqualify

a human]

the priest from service.

A human has an additional

who is disqualified even when

both his eyes are large

beyond the ordinary for a human, or his eyes are

both small

beyond the ordinary; thus it implies:

With regard to a human it is

that these defects disqualify, because

it is written [Leviticus 22:4]: “

[Leviticus 22:4]:

Any man of the seed of Aaron,”

and we learned from this

that we require a man who is ordinary among the seed of Aaron,

who resembles human beings;

but with regard to an

with regard to an

animal, when

both are large

both are large or

when

both are small as well,

it is not a defect, and if so:

One large and one small—for what reason

is it a defect?

If because of a change,

then

even if both are large

like those of a calf, or

both are small

like those of a goose,

as well

let it be a defect

; rather, is it not because it became “‘

one with unequal limbs’”?

The Gemara rejects the necessity that a defect in one large eye or one small eye is because of “one with unequal limbs”:

No, it is not as you interpreted, but

not as you explained. Rather,

I can always say

that

that because of a change

it

it is a defect when one eye is large like that of a calf or one eye is small like that of a goose.

when one eye is as large as a calf’s or one eye is as small as a goose’s.

And what is difficult for you:

if so,

even if both are large or

or

both are small, let it be a defect? I can say to you that when both are large or both are small, this is not considered a change, for both are large because of excessive health, and both are small because of excessive emaciation—

What is not so

there—

when one eye is large or one eye is small—for you cannot say this, since

if it is because of excessive health—

one eye grew large—

both would have to grow

if the reason that one eye grew large were excessive health, surely both eyes would have to be large], and

if—

one eye is small—

because of excessive emaciation, both would have to

become emaciated

and if the eye became small because of excessive emaciation, surely both would have to become small], and if so, it is a change, and therefore it is a defect.

That female convert whose gentile brothers would give her animals for fattening

there was an incident involving a female convert whose gentile brothers would give her animals on consignment to fatten them]]

; she came before Rava

to ask whether the firstborn offspring born to her, in which she had a share, were liable under the law of the firstborn?

He said to her

Rava:

There is no one who is concerned

with

this view of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A gentile partnership is liable under the law of the firstborn,

and one who receives [animals] from a gentile is liable under the law of the firstborn; rather, we hold that it is exempt from the firstborn status.

Rav Mari bar Rahel had a certain animal; he would transfer their ears to a gentile

Rav Mari bar Rahel had animals, and he would transfer the ears of the firstborns to a gentile], yet he conducted the law of firstborns with them:

He prohibited them for shearing and labor, and gave them to priests, and

even so

the animals of Rav Mari bar Rahel were all destroyed

[despite the fact that he had transferred the animals’ ears to a gentile, and he conducted with the firstborns the prohibition of shearing and labor and gave them to priests, nevertheless all his animals were destroyed]—and he explains it further.

And we object:

But once he prohibited them

Rav Mari

for shearing and labor and

also

gave them to priests,

showing that he conducted the law of firstborns with them, if so,

why

did he transfer their ears to a gentile

[for what purpose did he transfer the animals’ ears to a gentile]!?

And we answer: Because he was concerned

lest they come into a situation of transgression

[lest they come to transgression through them in shearing and labor], and therefore he transferred the ears of the firstborns to a gentile, in order to remove them from firstborn sanctity.

And we object:

If so—

that Rav Mari’s intention in removing them from firstborn sanctity was only for their benefit, so that people would not stumble through them—

why were all the animals of Rav Mari destroyed

[why were all his animals destroyed]!?

And we answer:

Because he removed them from their sanctity

[for in the end, through his transfer of ownership, firstborn sanctity departed from them, and the practice of firstborns which he conducted with them was merely like a practice with unconsecrated animals].

And we object to this:

But Rav Yehuda said: It is permitted for a person to inflict a defect in a firstborn before it emerges into the air of the world,

and the Gemara assumes that it is likewise permitted to transfer the ear of the fetus; if so, why were all his animals destroyed!?

And we answer:

There—

when he himself inflicts a defect in the firstborn—

from altar sanctity

indeed

he removes it,

but

from priestly sanctity he does not remove it,

for a blemished animal is given to a priest—but

here—

when he transferred the ear of the firstborn to a gentile— \-

it is

even from priestly sanctity that he removes it,

for in a firstborn in which there is a gentile partnership there is no law of the firstborn at all.

And if you wish, say that this is why Rav Mari’s animals were all destroyed:

A gentile acquires only with money and not through pulling, and one who transfers an ear to a gentile must receive payment from the gentile; through pulling alone the gentile does not acquire the animal’s ear.

For

Rav Mari bar Rahel knew how to transfer ownership

of the firstborn’s ear

with a complete acquisition,

namely, he received money from them,

but

nevertheless one must be concerned that

another person might see it and go and do it, thinking: “Rav Mari merely did a thing”

perhaps another person would see his action and would not know that he had received money from the gentile, but would think that he transferred ownership to him merely through speech]

and come through it to a situation of transgression

[and a transgression would result from this], that another person would transfer his firstborn to a gentile without receiving payment, and would conduct himself with the firstborn—which had not been removed from firstborn sanctity—as with an unconsecrated animal; and therefore all his animals were destroyed.

a. It is written [Numbers 3:40, after the Levites from one month old and above had been counted]: “And the Lord said to Moses, Count every firstborn male of the children of Israel, from one month old and above, and take the number of their names. And you shall take the Levites for Me—I am the Lord—in place of every firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites in place of every firstborn among the livestock of the children of Israel”.

“And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying. Take the [ordinary] Levites in place of every firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites in place of their livestock [in place of the firstborn of their livestock; however, the livestock was not counted], and the Levites shall be Mine—I am the Lord. And for the redemption of the two hundred and seventy-three who are extra beyond the Levites, from the firstborn of the children of Israel. [That is, the number of Israelite firstborn exceeded the number of ordinary Levites—which was

twenty-two thousand—by this number, and so you shall redeem them:] And you shall take five five-shekel portions per head; in the sacred shekel you shall take twenty gerah to the shekel”.

b. The twenty-two thousand Levites who came in place of the Israelite firstborn were only the ordinary Levites, whereas together with their firstborn their number was greater; and it is explained in the Gemara below, 5a, that those firstborn sufficed to have the sanctity of their Levite status remove their own sanctity, but they did not also remove the sanctity of the Israelite firstborn.

c. The method of

Ras"

hi in his commentary on the Pentateuch is that the livestock of the Levites did not redeem the firstborn of the pure animals of Israel, but only their firstborn donkeys;

but the method of the

Tosafot—see their words, 4a, s.v. “And furthermore”—is that the livestock of the Levites also removed the sanctity of the firstborn of the pure animals of Israel.

In any event, neither the lamb with which the firstborn donkeys were redeemed nor the animal that redeemed the firstborn of the pure animals was subjected to anything, and they remained the property of the Levites.

d. One lamb of a Levite redeemed several firstborn donkeys of Israel; and according to the Tosafot’s method, one animal of the Levites exempted several firstborn pure animals of Israel.

Mishna:

Kohanim and Levites are exempt

from firstborn status—and the amoraim disagree in the Gemara whether the Mishna is discussing the exemption of the kohanim and Levites themselves from the redemption of the firstborn, or whether the Mishna is discussing the exemption from redeeming their firstborn donkeys—

by a kal va-chomer: If they exempted those of

Israel in the wilderness, it is logically certain that they exempt those of themselves;

and the Gemara interprets it.