Bekhorot — Daf 4a

גמ׳ אינהו פטרי אדם אדם פטר בהמה בהמה פטרה דכתיב (במדבר ג, מה) קח את הלוים תחת בכור בבני ישראל ואת בהמת הלוים תחת בהמתם

אמר אביי הכי קאמר כהנים ולוים פטורין בהמתם מקל וחומר אם הפקיעה בהמתם של לוים בהמה של ישראל במדבר דין הוא שתפקיע את של עצמן

א"ל רבא והא פטרו אינהו קתני

ועוד אם איתא אפילו מבכור בהמה טהורה נפטרו אלמה תנן לא נפטרו מבכור בהמה טהורה אלא מפדיון הבן ופטר חמור

אלא אמר רבא הכי קתני כהנים ולוים פטרו הן עצמן מקל וחומר אם הפקיעה קדושתן של לוים קדושת של ישראל במדבר לא יפקיע את של עצמן

אשכחן אדם בהמה טמאה מנלן אמר קרא (במדבר יח, טו) אך פדה תפדה את בכור האדם ואת בכור הבהמה הטמאה תפדה כל שישנו בבכור אדם ישנו בבכור בהמה טמאה וכל שאינו בבכור אדם אינו בבכור בהמה טמאה

אמר ליה רב ספרא לאביי לדידך דאמרת בהמתם בן לוי דהוה ליה שה דאפקע ליפקע דלא הוה ליה שה דליפקע לא ליפקע

בין לדידך בין לרבא בן חדש דאפקע ליפקע פחות מבן חדש דלא אפקע לא ליפקע

לויה לא תיפקע אלמה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה לויה שילדה בנה פטור מחמש סלעים

הא לא קשיא כדמר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא דאמר פטר רחם בפטר רחם תלה רחמנא

ואהרן שלא היה באותו מנין לא ליפקע דתניא למה נקוד על אהרן שבחומש הפקודים שלא היה באותו מנין

אמר קרא הלוים הוקשו כל הלוים זה לזה

כהנים מנלן כדרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהן (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק

GEMARA. Did they [themselves] exempt?1 [Surely] a man [a Levite] exempted a man [a first-born Israelite]; an animal [of a Levite] exempted an animal [an Israelite's first-born ass]. For it is written: ‘Take the Levites instead of all the first-born among the children of Israel and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle’?2 — Said Abaye: The Mishnah means this: ‘As for priests and Levites, their animals are exempt a fortiori. If the animal [the sheep] of the Levites released the animal of the Israelites in the wilderness,3 it follows a fortiori that it should release their own’.4 Said Raba to him: But does not the Mishnah say: ‘THEY EXEMPT’ meaning the Levites] themselves? And further, if it is [as you state],5 they [the Levites] should be exempted even from [liabilities for] a clean animal?6 Why have we learnt: They [the Levites] are not exempted from the law of the firstling of a clean animal only from the redemption of the first-born male, and the first birth of an ass!7 No, said Raba; the [Mishnah] must be read thus: ‘Priests and Levites exempt themselves [from the redemption of the first-born] a fortiori’. If the holiness of the [non-first-born] Levites canceled the holiness of the first-born Israelite [in the wilderness], should it not cancel that of their own [first-born]? We thus find that man [the Levite first-born is exempt]. Whence do we know that this also applies to an unclean animal?8 The text says: Howbeit the first-born of man shalt thou surely redeem and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.9 Whosoever is required [to redeem] the first-born of a man, is required [to redeem] the firstling of an unclean animal. But whosoever is not required [to redeem] the first-born of a man10 is not required to redeem the firstling of an unclean animal. Said R. Safra to Abaye: According to your interpretation, which is that [the a fortiori argument] also refers to their [the Levites’] animals,11 a Levite who had a sheep [in the wilderness] to release [a first-born of an Israelite ass], could ipso facto release [his own], but he who did not possess a sheep to release [a first-born of an Israelite ass] could not release his own? Further, both according to your interpretation and Raba's,12 [a Levite] of a month old who released [an Israelite first-born of a month old in the wilderness]13 should therefore release [himself from the necessity of redemption,] while [a Levite first-born] less than a month old, who did not release [a first-born Israelite of the same age], should not therefore be able to release himself?14 Also, a Levite's daughter15 who gave birth to a first-born, should not be exempt [from redemption].16 Why then did R. Adda b. Ahaba say: If a Levite's daughter [married to an Israelite] gave birth, her son is exempt from the five sela's?17 — That is no objection, as Mar the son of R. Joseph [explained in the name of Raba who said: [Scripture says]: peter rehem [the opening of the womb]. The Divine Law makes [the duty of the first-born] depend on the opening of the womb.18 But what of Aaron since he was not included in that counting [of the Levites],19 then [the first-born of his asses] should not be released [from redemption]; (for it has been taught: Why is [the word] ‘Aaron’ dotted in the Book of Numbers?20 Because he [Aaron] was not in that numbering [of the Levites]?) — Scripture said ‘The Levites’ implying that all Levites are compared to one another.21 And whence do we know [that] Priests [are included in the term Levite?] — As R. Joshua the son of Levi explained. For said R. Joshua: In twenty-four places Priests are called Levites and the following [instance] is one of them: But22 the Priests the Levites the sons of Zadok.23 first-born of the Israelites in the wilderness, so they should a fortiori exempt their own first-born. wilderness. asses. month old-as only the first-born of a month old were numbered, V. Num. III,40 — how much more so should the Levite first-born of a month old release himself from redemption? less than a month old had to be redeemed? link the son with the mother and not with the father, that is provided the exemption in the wilderness extended to all Levites, even those who were not a month old at the time. first-born of the Israelites. have the purpose of limiting and excluding something. from redeeming the first-born of an ass. This answers all the questions raised above. itself, it also embraces the priests.