Bekhorot 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

And we still ask: Indeed, we have learned by means of a

kal va-chomer

that the Levites in the wilderness removed the sanctity of their own firstborn, and also removed the sanctity of their firstborn donkeys,

but from where do we know for future generations

that Levites are exempt from the firstborn obligation?

And we answer:

The verse says:

“And the Levites shall be Mine”

;

“shall be” means: they shall remain as they are.

The Gemara asks about the wording of the earlier objection: “A Levite’s son who had a lamb, which he used to remove [the sanctity of the firstborn donkey],” as this implies that the redemption of the Israelites’ firstborn donkeys in the wilderness was performed with a lamb belonging to the Levites:

And from where [do we know] that it was with a lamb

, meaning: from where do we know that the redemption of the Israelites’ firstborn donkeys in the wilderness was performed with a Levite animal specifically with a lamb belonging to the Levites, and not with their other animals?

He said

—

Rav Ḥisda explained:

In that passage concerning the redemption of the firstborn through the Levites, it is stated that the Israelite firstborn outnumbered the non-firstborn Levites who redeemed them, and for those for whom no corresponding redeemer was found, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded that they be redeemed with five shekels.

It is stated

that redemption with

silver for future generations

applies to the redemption of a son,

and it is stated

that redemption with

a lamb for future generations

applies to a firstborn donkey—

Just as the silver stated with regard to future generations was used for redemption in future generations

, and also

was used for redemption at that time

, as the surplus firstborn were redeemed with silver,

so too, the lamb stated with regard to future generations was used for redemption in future generations

, and also

was used for redemption at that time

, to redeem the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites.

And we refute this:

What is the special feature of silver? It is used to redeem consecrated property and second tithe

, whereas,

with regard to a lamb, you can say that it is used to redeem only a firstborn donkey; and from where do we know that it was used for redemption in the wilderness as well? Rather

, from here we learn that the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites were redeemed with a lamb belonging to the Levites, because

the verse says:

“Only you shall redeem the firstborn of man

and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem”

, and we learn from the juxtaposition:

Just as, with regard to the firstborn of man, you did not distinguish between future generations and that time

, as both were redeemed

with silver—

so too, with regard to an impure animal, you shall not distinguish between future generations and that time

, as both shall be redeemed

with a lamb.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: One lamb belonging to a Levite

in the wilderness

redeemed several firstborn donkeys belonging to Israelites.

Abaye said: Know

that this is indeed so, as Rabbi Ḥanina stated:

For the verse counted the surplus among human beings

, meaning that with regard to the Israelite firstborn whom the Levites redeemed, the verse counted how many firstborn exceeded the number of Levites, and commanded how they were to be redeemed,

but it did not count

the

surplus among animals

, meaning that the verse did not state what should be done with those Israelite firstborn donkeys for which no corresponding lamb was found among the Levites. Necessarily, there was no concept of a surplus in this matter, because one lamb redeemed several firstborn donkeys.

And we challenge Abaye’s proof:

From where

, from where do you know that the surplus was not counted because the calculation was not one-to-one? Perhaps

maybe the reason was that

the Israelites

did not have very many

among them

animals

—that is, perhaps the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites did not outnumber the lambs of the Levites!?

And we answer:

It should not enter your mind

that the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites did not outnumber the lambs of the Levites,

for

it

it is written

[Numbers 32:1]:

“And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had abundant livestock.”

Nevertheless, we ask and refute Abaye’s proof:

Perhaps, even so, the non-firstborn

[ordinary lambs]

of the Levites stood opposite the firstborn donkeys

of the

Israelites

, [that is, they were equal in number to the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites]. In other words, although the Israelites had abundant livestock, they redeemed only their firstborn donkeys and not their non-firstborn animals, whereas Levi redeemed with his non-firstborn animals. It is therefore entirely possible that the number of the Levites’ non-firstborn animals equaled the number of the Israelites’ firstborn animals.

The Gemara therefore brings another source for Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement:

For

the verse says

concerning the redemption by the Levites’ animals of the Israelites’ firstborn donkeys:

“And the animal

[singular]

of the Levites in place of their animals

[of the Israelites],” and this implies:

one animal in place of many animals.

And we ask: How do we infer from the word “animal” that it is singular?

But say

that “animal” is understood as it is in the verse [Jonah 4:11] concerning Nineveh, the great city: “And

many animals

,” which necessarily refers to many animals!?

And we answer:

If so

, the verse need not have varied its wording between the animals of the Levites and those of the Israelites. Rather, it should have written either

“an animal in place of an animal”

in place of an animal,”

or

“their animals in place of their animals,”

why

“

animal in place of their animals”?

We learn from this that one

animal

redeemed many

[animals].

Rava said:

We too have learned this

—that several firstborn donkeys were redeemed in the wilderness with one lamb—from what we will learn later, on page 9a:

“And he redeems with it”

—with the lamb—

“many times.”

That is, a person may redeem a firstborn donkey with a lamb, then buy it back from the kohein and redeem another firstborn donkey with it. Necessarily, the reason is that in the wilderness one lamb redeemed many firstborn donkeys.

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Ḥanina stated this on his own authority and did not cite the Mishna:

And Rabbi Ḥanina

also

explains the rationale of the Mishna, and this is what he said

—Rabbi Ḥanina:

Why does he redeem with it many times? Because one lamb belonging to a Levite exempts several firstborn

donkeys of the Israelites.

It is written [Exodus 13]: “Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first issue of every womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast, it is Mine... And it shall be when the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanite, as He swore to you and to your fathers, and gives it to you. Then you shall transfer every first issue of the womb to the Lord, and every first issue of an animal that you have, the males shall be for the Lord. And every firstborn donkey...”

It was stated:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The firstborn were sanctified

—the human firstborn, for the service that was performed by the firstborn until the establishment of the Tabernacle, and for redemption; and likewise the firstborn of animals, to be offered and redeemed—those

born in the wilderness

, and not only the firstborn who were born in Egypt.

And Reish Lakish said: The firstborn were not sanctified

who were born

in the wilderness

, but only those who left Egypt, concerning whom it was said, “Sanctify to Me every firstborn,” but those born in the wilderness were not sanctified.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The firstborn were sanctified in the wilderness, for

the Merciful One—the Torah—

the Merciful One said that they should be sanctified, as it is written

“Sanctify to Me every firstborn.”

And Reish Lakish said: The firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness, as it is written

:

“And it shall be when He brings you

and it is written afterward

[immediately after it],

“You shall transfer

every first issue of the womb to the Lord,”

from this it follows that initially

—before they entered the Land—

it was not sanctified.

Rabbi Yoḥanan challenged Reish Lakish

from that which we learned in Zevaḥim 112b:

Before the Tabernacle was established, the

the

private altars

[an altar that each person made for himself, even on the roof of his house]

were permitted, and the service

was performed

by the firstborn;

this demonstrates that the firstborn were sanctified before they entered the Land!?

He said to him

—Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: The service was performed

by those

firstborn

who left Egypt.

It is also reasonable

that before the Tabernacle was established, the service was performed by firstborn who had already been born in Egypt, and not by those born in the wilderness.

For if you do not say this

, but rather that it was performed by firstborn who were born in the wilderness, the Tabernacle was already established in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, at which point the service by firstborn ceased. If so, could a firstborn

one year old be fit to perform the service

[that is, could a one-year-old firstborn who was born in the wilderness before the Tabernacle was established be fit to perform the service]? Necessarily, the firstborn were those who had been born in Egypt and were already grown.

And we ask:

And the one who raised this objection

to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

what did he raise it for

[what difficulty did Rabbi Yoḥanan find, since necessarily the reference cannot be to firstborn born in the wilderness]!?

And we explain:

This is what was difficult

to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Granted, if you say that their sanctity did not cease

[it would be understandable if the law of sanctifying the firstborn did not cease when they left Egypt], then one can say that

those who had been so from the outset also did not lose

their

sanctity

[those who had already been sanctified in Egypt did not lose their sanctity], and they were the ones who served for an additional year in the wilderness.

But if you say that their sanctity ceased

and those born in the wilderness were not sanctified, then

those who had been so from the outset also

lost their sanctity

, [but according to your view, since the law of sanctifying the firstborn ceased when they left Egypt, even those who had already been sanctified in Egypt should have lost their sanctity], and if so, who were the firstborn who served during the first year after the Exodus from Egypt !!

And the other one

, and Reish Lakish’s reasoning is:

One who was sanctified

already in Egypt

remains sanctified

[he retains his sanctity],

and one who was not sanctified was not sanctified

[one who was not sanctified did not become sanctified].

He challenged him

—Reish Lakish—from a beraita of Seder Olam:

For it was taught there:

“On the very day that the Tabernacle was established, vows and freewill offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings, firstborn and tithes were brought for Israel;

” and it is clear that they offered firstborn in the wilderness. This demonstrates that the firstborn were sanctified in the wilderness!?

And we answer:

Here

too, the beraita is speaking

of those

firstborn of kosher animals

who left Egypt.

Moreover:

And from it

, on the contrary, from this beraita one can learn that the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness, for this is what it implies:

“On that very day”

they were brought

—indeed, firstborn were offered, but

“from then onward,”

after all the firstborn who had left Egypt had been offered on that day, again

firstborn were not brought

, because the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness.

Some say: Reish Lakish challenged Rabbi Yoḥanan

, meaning that Reish Lakish challenged Rabbi Yoḥanan from this beraita of Seder Olam and demonstrated according to his own position that the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness:

For it was taught there:

“On the very day that the Tabernacle was established, vows and freewill offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings, firstborn and tithes were brought for Israel,”

and this implies:

“On that very day”

yes, but

“from then onward”

firstborn were not brought, because the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness!?

And Rabbi Yoḥanan answered him:

He said:

No

, this is not as you interpreted it—that from then onward they were no longer brought. Rather,

say: “From that day”

—the day on which the Tabernacle and the altar were established—

“and onward”

, they offered firstborn.

And the Gemara explains according to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

What does this teach us

, this beraita? It teaches that

“from that day”

—the day on which the Tabernacle and the altar were established—

no

, indeed, firstborn were brought, but

“initially, they were not

brought,” neither firstborn nor sin offerings and guilt offerings,

therefore

[that is, it teaches us] that

obligatory offerings

—of an individual—

were not brought

at a private altar.

Come and hear

in support of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from a beraita that we learned:

“You therefore find that the firstborn were sanctified for Israel in three places: in Egypt, in the wilderness, and when Israel entered the Land;

for:

In Egypt, what does it say?: "

Sanctify every firstborn."

In the wilderness, it says [

Numbers 8:17]: "

For every firstborn among the children of Israel is Mine."

Upon their entry into the Land, it says: "

And it shall be, when He brings you

the Lord to the land of the Canaanite"...

and you shall transfer

every one that opens the womb."

It is therefore clear that the firstborn were consecrated in the wilderness, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan, and this is difficult for Reish Lakish!?

He said

he answered

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Actually, the firstborn were not consecrated in the wilderness, for this is the meaning of the beraita:

In three places they were commanded regarding the firstborn, to consecrate them

when they would enter the Land,

but they were not consecrated

until they entered the Land.

The Gemara raises an objection to this:

And

if

in Egypt—

which is one of the three places mentioned in the beraita—

they too were not consecrated,

but were merely commanded to consecrate them!?

But we have said that

according to everyone

the firstborn were consecrated

in Egypt, and necessarily the beraita is to be understood according to its plain meaning!?

The Gemara answers:

This is what it is saying: Some of them were consecrated, and some of them were not

, meaning that in some of the three places they were consecrated immediately, while in another they were commanded to be consecrated upon their entry into the Land.

Rav Pappa raises an objection

to Reish Lakish:

And

if

the firstborn were not consecrated in the wilderness,

as Reish Lakish says!?

But it is written: "

Count every male firstborn among the children of Israel

from one month of age and upward," and they were commanded to redeem them. Yet those who were one month old had not left Egypt [as this counting took place in the second year after their Exodus], and nevertheless they were consecrated!?

Rather, if it was stated—

the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish—

it was stated as follows:

Rabbi Yohanan says: They were consecrated

in the wilderness,

and

again

they did not cease.

And Reish Lakish said: They were consecrated

in the wilderness when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, "Count every male firstborn"—