Bekhorot 5b — the Talmud in English

And

because

this

maneh

would be two hundred forty

[two hundred forty] zuz

?!

Ведь если в мане шестьдесят сэла, а в сэле четыре зузa, значит, ман составляет двести сорок зузов. Но это не так: ман — это двадцать пять сэла, то есть всего сто зузов

Rather, learn three things from this verse:

Learn from it

a.

Learn from it: A sacred maneh

[the maneh discussed by the verse]

was double

in weight, and contained two hundred zuz—

b.

And learn from it: The measures are increased, but they are not increased by more than one-sixth;

that is, that sacred maneh, which was double in weight, was further increased in weight in the days of Ezekiel. It then had the value of sixty shekels, meaning that an addition of one-sixth from the outside was made to the fifty shekels that it should originally have been worth; thus it was worth two hundred forty zuz, instead of two hundred zuz. And from what Ezekiel established—“It shall be for you”—we learn that Ezekiel taught that one may not add more than this.

c.

And learn from it: The one-sixth—

that is added—

is calculated from the outside

[from outside the original measure]. In other words, the addition is one-fifth of the previous measure. When added to the previous measure, it constitutes one-sixth of the total; it does not mean that one adds one-sixth of the existing measure.

Rabbi Hanina said:

I asked Rabbi Eliezer in the Great House of Assembly

[in the great house of study]:

Why are the firstborn donkeys different from the firstborn horses and camels,

in that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded that donkeys be redeemed, but did not command this concerning horses and camels?

He said to him,

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Hanina:

It is a decree of the Torah.

And furthermore,

there is a reason: It is because

they assisted

the

Jewish people when they left Egypt, for there was not a single Jew

who left Egypt

who did not have with him

at the time of his departure

ninety Libyan donkeys of superior quality

[excellent], which were

laden with the silver and gold of Egypt.

Rabbi Hanina continued and said:

And I further asked him

[Rabbi Eliezer]:

It is written [Exodus 17:8]: “And Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim.”

And what is the meaning of the word “

Rephidim”?

And he said to me: It was the name of the place, Rephidim.

The Gemara explains that this interpretation

is a tannaitic dispute

:

As it was taught in a

beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It was the name of the place, Rephidim.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It means that they weakened

themselves

and their hands

from the words of Torah,

and therefore Amalek came against them.

And similarly it says [Jeremiah 47]: “

[Ирмеягу 47]: «

The fathers did not turn toward the children

to save them,

because of the weakening of the hands

[because they weakened their hands].”

Rabbi Hanina continued and said:

And I further asked him:

It is written [Numbers 25:1]: “And Israel settled in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab.”

And what is the meaning of Shittim?

And he said to me: It was the name of the place, Shittim.

This too is a tannaitic dispute:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It was the name of the place, Shittim.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: It means that they engaged in foolish behavior

by committing harlotry with the daughters of Moab.

It is written in that passage: “And they invited”—

they called

—the daughters of Moab—

the people to the sacrifices of their gods.”

And the tannaitic sages differed in their interpretation of “they called”:

Rabbi Eliezer says: They encountered them naked,

for this is implied by the wording “they called”: their bodies encountered the Israelites, in order to inflame their desire.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

The wording is related to a seminal emission,

for they all became men who had experienced a seminal emission.

Mishna:

If a cow gave birth to something resembling a donkey, or a donkey gave birth to something resembling a horse,

and this is called a “likeness,”

it is exempt from the firstborn status—

As it is stated

in the Torah: “

the firstborn of a donkey” [“And every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” Exodus 13:13], “

the firstborn of a donkey” [“And the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” Exodus 34:20]—

twice, indicating that the parent must be a donkey and the offspring must be a donkey.

And what are they

with regard to eating?

A pure animal that gave birth to something resembling an impure animal

is

permitted for eating.

And

an animal

that is impure and gave birth to something resembling a pure animal

is

forbidden for eating;

and this is because:

An offspring of an impure animal

is

impure,

whereas an offspring of a pure animal

is

pure.

Gemara:

We learned there

below, 16b, in the chapter dealing with the laws of the firstborn of a pure animal:

A ewe that gave birth to something of the goat species, or a goat that gave birth to something of the sheep species, is exempt from the firstborn status.

But if it has

in the offspring

some of the signs

by which it resembles its mother, it is

liable

for the firstborn status.

The Gemara asks about that Mishna:

From where are these matters derived?

Rav Yehuda said:

It is written [Numbers 18]: “Every first issue of the womb of all flesh that they offer to the Lord, whether man or animal, shall be yours. But you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of an impure animal you shall redeem. But the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall dash their blood on the altar, and you shall turn their fat into smoke as a fire-offering, a pleasing fragrance to the Lord”—

And

as the verse says “

the firstborn of an ox”—

which it did not need to say, since the verse is discussing firstborn animals— it comes to teach: until

the parent is an ox and its firstborn is an ox;

and “

the firstborn

of a sheep”

comes to teach:

the parent must be a sheep and its firstborn must be a sheep;

and “

the firstborn of a goat”

comes to teach:

the parent must be a goat and its firstborn must be a goat.

One might have thought that even

if

it has some of the signs

by which it resembles its mother, it would be exempt.

The verse therefore states: “

But

the firstborn”—

it makes a distinction

for all instances of “but” and “only” in the Torah serve to exclude.

The Gemara raises an objection from our Mishna, in which we learned: A cow that gave birth to something resembling a donkey is exempt from the firstborn status, as derived from the two occurrences of “first issue of the womb”:

But the tanna

of our Mishna

uses “first issue, first issue”

to derive the law concerning the cow

[the tanna derives from “first issue, first issue” that a cow that gave birth to something resembling a donkey is exempt from the firstborn status]—

That is, our Mishna teaches that a cow that gave birth to something of the donkey species is completely exempt from the firstborn status: both from the law of the firstborn donkey and from the law of the firstborn of a pure animal. The tanna derives all of this from “first issue, first issue,” indicating that this derivation also teaches that it is exempt from the law of the firstborn of a pure animal, since the law of one is learned from the other. If so, why do we need Rav Yehuda’s verse to exempt it from the firstborn of a pure animal!? And we answer:

He—

Rav Yehuda—

speaks in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: “

But the firstborn of an ox”—

until the parent is an ox and its firstborn is an ox; “

the firstborn of a sheep”—

until the parent is a sheep and its firstborn is a sheep; “

or the firstborn of a goat”—

until the parent is a goat and its firstborn is a goat;

and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives from this verse an exemption also from the law of the firstborn donkey;

one might have thought that even if it has some of the signs, the verse states “

but”—

it makes a distinction.

And we explain:

With regard to what do they differ,

the tanna of our Mishna, who derives from “first issue, first issue” an exemption from both the firstborn donkey and the firstborn of a pure animal, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who derives from “but the firstborn” an exemption from the firstborn of a pure animal and from the firstborn donkey?

The tanna of our Mishna holds: The Torah revealed

an exemption

with regard to monetary sanctity

[that is, the law of the firstborn donkey, which does not itself possess sanctity but is subject to redemption by payment],

and

we derive through an a-fortiori inference that

the same law applies to bodily sanctity

[that is, the law of the firstborn of a pure animal, which possesses bodily sanctity].

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds: The Torah revealed the law with regard to bodily sanctity, and

we derive by comparison from an established case that

the same law applies to monetary sanctity; and he derives monetary sanctity from bodily sanctity.

Thus, they differ over whether the derivation is an a-fortiori inference or a comparison based on an established precedent.

The Gemara continues to explain the two methods:

And the tanna of our Mishna—

who derives exemption for the firstborn of a donkey and for the firstborn of a pure animal from “firstborn, firstborn”—

this “

firstborn, firstborn”

what does he do with it?

And we explain:

He requires it for that which Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina taught; for Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said:

Why were the sacrificial portions stated ["

and you shall burn their fats"]

with regard to the firstborn of an ox, the sacrificial portions with regard to the firstborn of a sheep, and the sacrificial portions with regard to the firstborn of a goat?

It is necessary:

For had the Merciful One written

only

with regard to the firstborn of an ox,

I would have said: The Torah stated only with regard to it that, when it is a firstborn, its sacrificial portions are offered,

since it is treated with an increased measure of libations,

for with the ox one brings half a hin of wine, whereas with a sheep and a goat one brings only a quarter of a hin of wine.

And had the Merciful One written only with regard to

a sheep,

I would have said:

Since it is treated with an increased measure of the tail,

which is offered together with the fat upon the altar; can you say the same with regard to an ox and a goat, from which a tail is not offered?

And had the Merciful One written only

with regard to a goat,

I would have said:

Since it is treated with an increased measure in the case of idolatry when committed by an individual,

that is, one who unwittingly worships idolatry brings only a one-year-old female goat, whereas for the other sin-offerings he brings either a goat or a sheep.

And we object:

One cannot be derived from one; let one be derived from two [indeed, it is impossible to learn one from the other, but let one be learned from the two]!?

And we answer:

And is it so that

which one should not be written [which species of the three should Scripture not write]!?

Perhaps you will say:

Let the Merciful One not write with regard to an ox, and let it be derived from these [a sheep and a goat];

what is true of these—

a sheep and a goat—

since they are treated with an increased measure in the case of Paschal offerings,

as it is stated with regard to the Paschal offering [Exodus 12]: “From the sheep and from the goats you shall take”; can you say the same with regard to an ox, which is unfit for the Paschal offering?

Perhaps you will say:

Let the Merciful One not write

with regard to

a sheep, and let it be derived from these [an ox and a goat];

what is true of these,

an ox and a goat,

since they are treated with an increased measure in the case of idolatry committed by the community,

for the community brings a bull as a burnt-offering and a he-goat as a sin-offering when they worshipped idolatry in accordance with the mistaken instruction of the court, as the verse says [Numbers 15:24]: “And it shall be, if it was done inadvertently from the eyes of the congregation [idolatry], then the entire congregation shall make one bull of cattle as a burnt-offering, for a pleasing fragrance to the Lord, with its meal-offering and its libation according to the law, and one he-goat as a sin-offering.”

Perhaps you will say:

Let the Merciful One not write with regard to a goat, and let it be derived from these [an ox and a sheep];

what is true of these, since there is in them a great abundance in relation to the altar,

that is, from an ox and a sheep more is offered upon the altar than from a goat, for with the ox one brings a greater quantity of libations upon the altar than with a goat,

and from the sheep one offers the tail, which is not so with a goat.

Therefore, all of them are necessary.

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili—

who derived from this verse exemption when it changed from its mother, even though Scripture required it to teach about the sacrificial portions in all three—holds that even when it changed from its mother, it can be learned from here—for

if so—

that Scripture came only to teach about the sacrificial portions in all three—

let the verse write “

Only the firstborn of an ox, a sheep, and a goat,” “

firstborn” “

firstborn”

stated with regard to the sheep and goat

why do I need them? Rather, is it not to be inferred from this that it must be that it itself is an ox and its firstborn is an ox,

it itself is a sheep and its firstborn is a sheep, it itself is a goat and its firstborn is a goat.

We further explain:

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

who exempted an animal resembling another species from “the firstborn of an ox,”

this “

the firstborn of a donkey” “

the firstborn of a donkey” twice—

from which the tanna of our Mishna learned exemption when it changed from its mother—

what does he do with it?

He requires it,

with regard to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

for that which was taught: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

Since it is stated “

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

I might understand

from the expression “the impure animal” that redemption is required

even for the firstborn of horses and camels; the verse therefore says: “

and the firstborn of a donkey

you shall redeem with a sheep,” to teach:

I have told you to redeem the firstborn of a donkey,

to redeem it,

but not the firstborn of horses and camels.

And still I say: The firstborn of a donkey

the verse stated should be redeemed specifically

with a sheep,

and not with anything else, whereas

the firstborn of horses and camels may be redeemed with anything,

the verse said must be redeemed specifically

with a sheep,

and not with anything else, whereas

firstborns of horses and camels may be redeemed with anything,