Bekhorot 4b — 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 status of firstborn from themselves, and they also removed the status of firstborn from their donkeys’ firstborns,

but

how

do we know for all generations

that the Levites are exempt from the firstborn status?

And we answer:

The verse says:

“And the Levites shall be Mine”,

“shall be”

in their state they shall remain.

The Gemara asks concerning the wording of the question above: “A son of a Levite who had a sheep, which he removed”—for from this it is implied that the redemption of the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites in the wilderness was with a sheep belonging to the Levites:

And from where

do we know that the redemption of the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites in the wilderness, with an animal of the Levites, was specifically with a sheep belonging to the Levites, and not with their other animals?

He said—

that is, he explained—

Rav Hisda: In that section concerning the redemption of the firstborn through the Levites, it is explained that the firstborn of Israel exceeded the ordinary Levites who redeemed them, and concerning those for whom no corresponding redeemer was found, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded that they be redeemed with five shekels.

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 is with

silver

for all generations

in the redemption of a son,

and it is stated that redemption is with

a sheep

for all generations

in the firstborn of a donkey—

Just as the silver stated for all generations, with it they redeemed for all generations

and also

with it they redeemed at that time,

for the surplus firstborn were redeemed with silver,

so too the sheep stated for all generations, with it they redeemed for all generations

and also

with it they redeemed at that time

the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites.

And we refute this:

What is there concerning silver? It is used to redeem consecrated property and second tithe;

can you say the same concerning a sheep, with which only a firstborn donkey is redeemed? And from where do we know that with it they also redeemed in the wilderness?

Rather,

from here we learn that the redemption of the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites was with a sheep of the Levites, because

the verse says:

“But you shall surely redeem the firstborn

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

and we learn from the comparison:

Just as in the case of the firstborn of man, you did not distinguish between all generations and that time,

for both of them were

with silver—

so too in the case of an impure animal, you shall not distinguish in it between all generations and that time,

so that both of them would be

with a sheep.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: One sheep of a son of Levi

in the wilderness

redeemed many firstborn donkeys of Israelites.

Abaye said: Know

that this is so, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Ḥanina:

For the verse counted the surplus in the case of man,

that is, concerning the firstborn of Israel whom the Levites redeemed, the verse counted how many the firstborn exceeded the Levites, and commanded how to redeem them,

but it did not count

the verse

a surplus in the case of animals.

That is, the verse did not say what to do with those firstborn donkeys of Israel for whom no corresponding sheep was found in the hands of the Levites. Necessarily, there is no concept of a surplus here, because with one sheep they exempted many firstborn donkeys.

And we challenge Abaye’s proof:

From where

do we know that the surplus were not counted because the calculation was not one-for-one? For

perhaps

the reason is that

they did not have many

Israelite

animals

[so very many], that is, perhaps the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites did not exceed the sheep of the Levites!?

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

that the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites did not exceed the sheep of the Levites,

for

this

is written [Numbers 32:1]:

“And abundant livestock belonged to the sons of Reuben and to the sons of Gad.”

“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 ordinary ones

[ordinary sheep]

of the Levites were equal in number to the firstborn

donkeys

of Israel,

[they were equal in number to the firstborn donkeys of Israel]. That is, although Israel had abundant livestock, nevertheless they redeemed only their firstborn donkeys and not their ordinary ones, whereas Levi redeemed with his ordinary ones. It is therefore entirely possible that the number of the ordinary animals of the Levites was equal to the number of the firstborn of Israel.

Therefore the Gemara brings another source for the words of Rabbi Ḥanina:

For

the verse says

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

“And the animal

[singular]

of the Levites in place of their animals

[of the Israelites],” and it implies:

one animal in place of many animals.

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

And say

that “the animal” is interpreted as it is stated [Jonah 4], concerning Nineveh, the great city:

“And much cattle”

which necessarily means many animals!?

And we answer:

If so,

the verse should not have varied its wording between the animal of the Levites and that of Israel, but rather:

Let the verse write either

“one animal in place of one animal”

or

“their animals in place of their animals.”

What

is “the animal in place of their animals”?

Certainly

learn from it one

animal

redeemed many

[animals].

Rava said:

We too have learned this:

that in the wilderness several firstborn donkeys were redeemed with one sheep, as we learn below, 9a:

“And he redeems with it”—

with the sheep—

many times.

That is, a person can redeem a firstborn donkey with a sheep, then return and purchase it from the priest and redeem another firstborn donkey with it; necessarily, the reason is that in the wilderness one sheep redeemed many firstborn donkeys.

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Ḥanina, who said this on his own initiative and did not cite the Mishna:

And Rabbi Ḥanina

himself

explains the reason of the Mishna, and this is what Rabbi Ḥanina is saying

:

Why does he redeem with it many times? Because one sheep of a son of Levi exempts many firstborn

donkeys of Israelites.

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

It was stated:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The firstborn were sanctified—

of man, for the service that belonged to the firstborn until the Tabernacle was erected, and for redemption; and likewise the firstborn of animals, to be offered and redeemed—those

born in the wilderness,

and not only the firstborn 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 in the wilderness they were not sanctified.

And the Gemara explains:

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

the Merciful One commanded that they be sanctified,

as it is written

“Sanctify to Me every firstborn.”

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

“And it shall be when He brings you

the Lord to the land of the Canaanite,”

and it is written afterward

[after it]

“Then you shall transfer

every opener of the womb to the Lord,”

which implies that initially

—before their entry into the Land—

it was not sanctified.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish

from that which we learned in Zevaḥim 112b:

Before the Tabernacle was erected, the

the

private altars

[an altar that every person makes for himself, even on the top of his roof]

were permitted, and the service

was performed

by the firstborn;

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

He said to him

Reish Lakish to Rabbi Yoḥanan: The service was performed

by those

firstborn

who left Egypt.

It is also logically evident

that until the Tabernacle was erected, 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 so, but it was performed by firstborn born in the wilderness, and the Tabernacle was erected already in the second year after their departure from Egypt, at which point the service by the firstborn ceased, then is a firstborn

but say that it was performed by firstborn born in the wilderness—yet the Tabernacle was erected in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, at which point service by the firstborn ceased—if so, was a firstborn

one year old fit to perform the service

[and is a one-year-old firstborn, born in the wilderness before the Tabernacle was erected, fit to perform the service]? Necessarily, the firstborn were those who were born in Egypt and were grown.

And we ask:

And the one who raises this difficulty

to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

what did he raise it for

[what was difficult to Rabbi Yoḥanan? Surely it necessarily does not refer to firstborn born in the wilderness]!?

And we explain:

This is what was difficult to him—

to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Granted, if you say that their sanctity did not cease

[this would be satisfactory if the law of the sanctification of the firstborn did not cease upon their departure from Egypt], then one can say that

those who were initially

also did not have their

sanctity cease

[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 were initially also—

their sanctity would have ceased,

[but according to your view, that the law of sanctification of the firstborn ceased upon their departure from Egypt, then even those who had already been sanctified in Egypt should, by law, lose their sanctity]. If so, who were the firstborn who served during the first year after their departure from Egypt!!

And the other one—

and the reasoning of Reish Lakish is—

what was sanctified

already in Egypt

remains sanctified

[remains in its sanctity],

what was not sanctified was not sanctified

[whoever was not sanctified was not sanctified].

He raised an objection to him

to Reish Lakish from a beraita of Seder Olam:

For it was taught there:

“On the same day that the Tabernacle was erected, vows and freewill offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings, firstborn and tithes were brought for them among Israel;”

and it is explained that they offered firstborn in the wilderness, showing that the firstborn were sanctified in the wilderness!?

And we answer:

Here

in this beraita we are also dealing

with those

firstborn of pure animals

who left Egypt.

And not only that, but:

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 day”

is when they were brought—

indeed, firstborn were brought, but

from then onward,

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

firstborn were not brought

firstborn, because the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness.

There are those who say: Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

Reish Lakish was the one who challenged Rabbi Yoḥanan from this beraita of Seder Olam and proved according to his view that the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness:

For it was taught there:

“On the same day that the Tabernacle was erected, vows and freewill offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings, firstborn and tithes were brought for them among Israel,”

and it implies:

“On that day”—

yes,

but

from then onward,

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

And Rabbi Yoḥanan answered him:

No,

not as you interpreted it, that from then onward they were no longer brought, but

say: From that day

—when the Tabernacle and altar were erected—

onward

they offered firstborn.

And the Gemara explains according to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

And what does this teach us

this beraita:

From that day

—when the Tabernacle and altar were erected—

no,

indeed firstborn were brought, but

initially not

were firstborn brought, nor sin offerings and guilt offerings,

thus

[that is, to teach us] that

obligatory offerings on a private altar

—of an individual—

were not brought.

at a private altar.

Come and hear

in accordance with the words 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 to Me every firstborn.”

In the wilderness, it says [ [A0004]]Numbers 8:17:

Numbers 8:17]: "

“For every firstborn among the children of Israel is Mine.”

Upon their entering the Land, it says:

“And it shall be, when He brings you

Hashem into the land of the Canaanite”...

“and you shall cause to pass over

every first issue of the womb.”

It is thus explained that the firstborn were sanctified in the wilderness, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan, and it is difficult for Reish Lakish!?

He said,

answered

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak:

In reality, the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness, for this is the intent of the beraita:

“In three places they were commanded concerning the firstborn, to be sanctified

when they would enter the Land,

but they were not sanctified

until they entered the Land.”

And we challenge this:

But

if

in Egypt—

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

also the firstborn were not sanctified,

but they were commanded to be sanctified!?

For we have said that

in the opinion of everyone

the firstborn were sanctified

in Egypt, and necessarily the beraita is to be understood literally!?

And we answer:

This is what it says: Some of them were sanctified and some of them were not sanctified,

in some of the three places they were sanctified immediately, and in some they were commanded to become sanctified upon entering the Land.

Rav Pappa raises an objection

to Reish Lakish:

But

if

the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness

as Reish Lakish says!?

And it is written, “

Count every male firstborn

among the children of Israel, from one month old and above,” and they were commanded to redeem them; yet those who were one month old had not left Egypt [for this counting was in the second year after their departure], and nevertheless they were sanctified!?

Rather, if it was stated—

the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish—

this is what was stated:

Rabbi Yohanan says: They were sanctified

the firstborn in the wilderness,

and

thereafter

they did not cease.

And Reish Lakish said: They were sanctified

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