Bekhorot 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Gemara considers interpreting the Mishna as referring to the firstborn donkeys of priests and Levites, and that the Mishna exempted them by means of a kal va-chomer from the priests and Levites themselves, who in the wilderness exempted the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites; and therefore the Gemara wonders:

But

they themselves

—the priests and Levites themselves—

exempted

the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites in the wilderness!? That was not so; rather:

It was the

human

—the firstborn of the Israelites—

human

—the priests and Levites—who indeed

exempted,

whereas it was the

animal

—the firstborn donkeys—of Israel,

the animal

—the sheep—of the Levites that

exempted them,

and not the human firstborn!?

For

it is

written: “

Take the Levites in place of

every

firstborn among the children of Israel, and the animals of the Levites in place of their animals.”

Said

—Abaye answered—

Abaye:

Our Mishna does not derive the exemption of the firstborn donkeys of the Levites from the fact that their persons were exempted in the wilderness. Rather,

this is what it is saying

in our Mishna:

Priests and Levites are exempt with regard to their animals

—their firstborn donkeys—

by means of a kal va-chomer: If the animals of the

the

Levites

exempted the

animals

—the firstborn donkeys—

of the Israelites in the wilderness, it is certainly logical that they should exempt

in the wilderness

those of their own,

and the same law applies for all generations, as we will derive later in the Gemara.

Said

—Rava challenged him—

Rava to him:

But

“if

they exempted,”

it teaches

in our Mishna,

which implies: they themselves

—the priests and Levites themselves—are the ones who exempted them. How, then, can we interpret the Mishna as saying that it was the animals of the Levites that exempted them!?

Furthermore, if it is so

as you say—that because their pure animals exempted the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites, their own firstborn donkeys are consequently exempt—then

even from the firstborn of a pure animal they should be exempt,

the priests and Levites!? And

yet we learned

below, on 14a, with regard to the firstborn of a pure animal: “Priests and Levites are obligated [with regard to the firstborn of a pure animal

! They were not exempted from the firstborn of a pure animal, but only from the redemption of the firstborn human and the firstborn donkey,”

!?

Rather, Rava said:

Our Mishna is not dealing at all with the exemption of priests and Levites from redeeming the firstborn donkey. Rather,

this is what it teaches:

The firstborn of

priests and

the

Levites are themselves exempt

from being redeemed

by means of a kal va-chomer:

If the sanctity of the Levites

displaced the

sanctity of the

firstborn

of Israel in the wilderness, it should not displace

the sanctity of the Levite status within them

the

sanctity of the firstborn

of their own

in the wilderness [and likewise for all generations].

The Gemara continues to explain, according to Rava’s interpretation—that our Mishna is not dealing with the exemption of the firstborn donkeys of priests and Levites, and that this exemption cannot be derived by means of a kal va-chomer, since otherwise their firstborn pure animals would also have been exempt:

We find this with regard to a human,

that is, indeed one can derive from the kal va-chomer that the firstborn of priests and Levites are exempt from redemption; but

with regard to an impure animal,

meaning the firstborn donkeys of priests and Levites—which are also exempt, as explained in the Mishna cited above—

from where do we derive this?

It is necessarily impossible to derive this by means of a kal va-chomer, for if so, their firstborn pure animals should also be exempt!?

And we answer:

The verse says

[Numbers 18]: “

But you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem,”

and we learn from the juxtaposition:

Anyone

who is included in the law of the firstborn human is included in the law of the firstborn of an impure animal, and whoever is not included in the law of the firstborn human

—such as priests and Levites—

is not included in the law of the firstborn of an impure animal.

Rav Safra said to Abaye:

According to you, who say

“their animals,”

according to your interpretation of the statement, “Priests and Levites are exempt by means of a kal va-chomer”—namely, that the animals [their firstborn donkeys] of priests and Levites are exempt by means of a kal va-chomer—let us say:

A Levite who had

in the wilderness

a sheep—

which displaced

the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites—should indeed

be displaced

from redeeming his firstborn donkey—in the wilderness—and this follows from the kal va-chomer that we stated—

but a Levite

who did not have

in the wilderness

a sheep that displaced

the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites

should not be displaced

from redeeming his firstborn donkey in the wilderness!?

Rav Safra added and said to Abaye:

Whether according to you

—according to your view—

or according to Rava,

there is a difficulty:

A firstborn Levite in the wilderness who was already

one month old

at the time the Levites were consecrated,

for

indeed

displaced

an ordinary Israelite like himself from the status of firstborn,

should be displaced

in the wilderness from redemption as well, by means of a kal va-chomer; but

one less than one month old, who did not displace

an ordinary Israelite like himself from firstborn status,

should not be displaced

himself from firstborn status, since no kal va-chomer can be derived with regard to him!?

We still ask: A female Levite

who gave birth

to an Israelite

should not have her son’s

firstborn sanctity displaced, for only the males were counted in the wilderness, and it was they who displaced the sanctity of the firstborn; but we do not find that a female Levite displaced anything in the wilderness!? And

yet Rav Adda bar Ahava said: A female Levite who gave birth to a son is exempt from five sela!?

And we answer:

This is not difficult, in accordance with the statement of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said

in explanation of Rav Adda bar Ahava’s reasoning: When the verse says

“that opens the womb,”

the Merciful One made the law dependent on the opening of the womb.

We still challenge Abaye and Rava:

and Aaron

the priest,

who was not included in that count

in which the Levites were counted in the wilderness, and concerning whom it was stated that they and their animals would redeem the firstborn of Israel and their animals,

should not exempt

his firstborn donkeys from the status of firstborn -

For the kal va-chomer can be effective only with regard to those Levites concerning whom it was stated that they have the power to exempt the firstborn of Israel and their animals; and by means of a kal va-chomer, they likewise have the power to exempt even their own firstborn status and that of their own animals. But Aaron, who was not included in the count and concerning whom this law was not stated—how do we know that he has the power to exempt anything at all?

For

it was

taught in a beraita: Why are there dots over “Aaron in the Book of Numbers”

—that is, the Book of Numbers, 3:39—in the verse: “All those counted of the Levites whom Moses and Aaron counted”? Because

he was not included in that count.

And we answer:

The verse says: “

the Levites”

all the Levites were equated with one another.

We challenge further: We find that the Levites were indeed equated with one another, since the entire passage deals with them. But

kohanim

who were not equated with one another—

from where do we derive this?

And we answer:

In accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said: In twenty-four places

the

kohanim

were called “Levites,”

and this is one of them:

“and the kohanim, the Levites, the sons of Zadok.”