Bekhorot 4a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Gemara considers it reasonable to explain the Mishna as dealing with the firstborn donkeys of kohanim and Levites, and that the Mishna exempted them by means of a kal va-chomer from the kohanim and Levites themselves, whom, in the wilderness, the firstborn donkeys of Israel had exempted; and therefore the Gemara wonders:

But

they [the kohanim and Levites themselves]

—the priests and Levites themselves—

exempted

the firstborn donkeys of Israel in the wilderness!? But this was not so; rather:

the

human [the firstborn of Israel]

—the firstborn of the Israelites—

human [the kohanim and Levites] indeed

—the priests and Levites—who indeed

exempted, whereas

the

animal [the firstborn donkeys]

—the firstborn donkeys—of Israel,

animal [the sheep] of the Levites

—the sheep—of the Levites that

exempted

and not the human!?

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

[and thereby] 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 says

in our Mishna:

The kohanim and Levites are exempt with regard to their animals [the firstborn donkeys of theirs]

—their firstborn donkeys—

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

the

Levites

exempted the

themselves [the firstborn donkeys]

—the firstborn donkeys—

displaced the

in the wilderness of Israel, it is logical that they should displace in the wilderness

those of their own,

and this is likewise the law for the generations, as we will derive below in the Gemara.

Said

[and] objected

Rava to him:

But “

if they

exempted”

it teaches

in our Mishna,

which implies: they [the kohanim and Levites themselves] exempted, and how shall we explain that the intention of the Mishna is that their animals, the animals of the Levites, exempted

the firstborn donkeys of Israel!?

And furthermore, if it is so

as you say—that since their pure animals exempted the firstborn donkeys of Israel, therefore their firstborn donkeys are exempt—if so,

they should even be exempt from the firstborn of a pure animal [they should be exempt], the kohanim and Levites!?

And

yet why do we learn

below, with regard to the firstborn of a pure animal: “The kohanim and Levites are liable [for the firstborn of a pure animal]

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

alone!?

Rather, Rava said:

Our Mishna is not dealing at all with the exemption of kohanim and Levites from the redemption of the firstborn donkey, but rather:

this is what it teaches:

The firstborn of the

kohanim and

the

Levites themselves are 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 will not displace

the sanctity of the Levites in them

the

sanctity of the firstborn

of their own

in the wilderness [and likewise for the generations].

The Gemara continues to explain, according to Rava’s explanation—that our Mishna is not dealing with the exemption of the firstborn donkeys of kohanim and Levites, and that this exemption cannot be learned by a kal va-chomer, since the firstborn of pure animals were not also exempt:

We find it with regard to a human,

that is, indeed it can be learned from the kal va-chomer that the firstborn of the kohanim and Levites are exempt from being redeemed; but

an impure animal,

that is, the firstborn donkeys of kohanim and Levites—which are also exempt, as explained in the Mishna brought above—

from where do we know it?

For necessarily we cannot learn them by a kal va-chomer, since if so, their firstborn of pure animals would also be exempt!?

And we answer:

The verse says [Numbers 18]: “

[Numbers 18]: “

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

and we learned from the juxtaposition:

Everyone

who is included in the firstborn of man is included in the firstborn of an impure animal, and everyone who is not included in the firstborn of man

such as kohanim and Levites

is not included in the firstborn of an impure animal.

Rav Safra said to Abaye:

According to you, who say “

their animals,”

according to your method, by which you explain what we learned—“kohanim and Levites are exempt by means of a kal va-chomer”—namely, that the animals [the firstborn donkeys] of kohanim and Levites are exempt by means of a kal va-chomer; if so, let us say:

A son of a Levite who had

in the wilderness

a sheep—

which displaced [which displaced]

the firstborn donkeys of Israel—indeed

should displace

his firstborn donkey—the firstborn donkey of that Levite in the wilderness—from being redeemed, by this kal va-chomer that we have stated—

but a son of a Levite

who did not have

in the wilderness

a sheep that displaced

the firstborn donkeys of Israel

should not displace

his firstborn donkey in the wilderness!?

Rav Safra added and said to Abaye:

Both according to you

[according to your method]

and according to Rava,

you must ask:

A firstborn Levite in the wilderness who was already

a month old

at the time the Levites were sanctified,

who indeed

indeed

displaced

an ordinary person like himself among the firstborn of Israel,

should displace

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

one less than a month old who did not displace

an ordinary person like himself among the firstborn—

should not displace

himself from the firstborn status, for one cannot learn a kal va-chomer concerning him!?

And we still ask:

A female Levite

who gave birth to a child from an Israelite

should not have displaced

the sanctity of her firstborn son, for only the males were counted in the wilderness, and these displaced the sanctity of the firstborn, but we do not find that a female Levite displaced anything in the wilderness!? And

yet why did Rav Adda bar Ahava say: A female Levite who gave birth—her son is exempt from five sela!?

And we answer:

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

in explaining the reason of Rav Adda bar Ahava: When the verse says

“the opener of the womb,”

the Merciful One made it dependent on the opener of the womb.

And we still raise an objection against Abaye and Rava:

and Aaron

the priest,

who was not in that census

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

not to be exempted

his firstborn donkeys from the firstborn status —

For the kal va-chomer can be effective only with regard to those Levites concerning whom it was said that they had the power to exempt the firstborn of Israel and their animals, and by a kal va-chomer they have the power to exempt even their own firstborn status and their own animals; but Aaron, who was not in the census and concerning whom this law was not stated, from where do we know that he had any power to exempt at all!?

But

behold,

it was taught:

“Why are dots placed 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 in that census.”

And we answer:

The verse says: “

the Levites”

all the Levites were equated with one another.

We raise another objection: We find that the Levites were indeed equated with one another, since the entire passage deals with them, but

the priests

who were not equated with one another—

from where do we know it?

And we answer:

As in the statement of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi! For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places the

the

priests are called “

Levites,”

and this is one of them: “

and the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok.”