Parallel
בכורות 5
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and then ceased [from their holiness]. As to Resh Lakish it is well, for the reason stated above. But what is the reason of R. Johanan? — Said R. Eleazar: R. Johanan appeared to me in a dream telling me that I said an excellent thing, viz., Scripture said: Mine shall they be [denoting] that they [the first-born] shall remain in their status. And what does R. Johanan do with the verses [which follow:] And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee unto the land . . . That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord? — That [textual proximity] is required [to deduce] what the School of R. Ishmael taught: Perform this Divine command, on account of which you will be worthy to enter the Land. Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi: You reported it in this manner, we reversed the names; R. Johanan said: Firstlings were not sanctified in the wilderness. But Resh Lakish said: Firstlings were sanctified in the wilderness. He thereupon asked him: ‘And do you also propose to reverse [the name of the author] of the refutation together with R. Eleazar's statement? — He replied to him: [The words] ‘They were not sanctified’ [of R. Johanan] mean, there was no need for the firstlings to be sanctified [in the wilderness]. If so, then it is identical with our version [of the dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish]? — It teaches us that a man must cite a ruling in the exact language of his master. A Roman general Controcos questioned R. Johanan b. Zakkai. ‘In the detailed record of the numbering of the Levites, you find the total is twenty-two thousand three hundred, whereas in the sum total you only find twenty-two thousand. Where are the [remaining] three hundred?’ He replied to him: [‘The remaining] three hundred were [Levite] first-born, and a first born cannot cancel the holiness of a first-born’. What is the reason? said Abaye: Because it is sufficient for a [Levite] first-born to cancel his own holiness. And again he questioned him: ‘With reference to the collection of the money, you count two hundred and one kikkar and eleven maneh for Scripture writes: A beka’ for every man, that is, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary, whereas when the money was given, you find only one hundred kikkar, for it is written: And the hundred talents of silver were for casting, etc.? Was Moses your teacher either a thief or a swindler or else a bad arithmetician? He gave a half, took a half, and did not [even] return a complete half’? — He replied to him: ‘Moses our teacher was a trustworthy treasurer and a good arithmetician, only the sacred maneh was double the common’. R. Ahi argued: What is his [the general's] difficulty? It says: And the hundred talents that were for casting etc.; these were used for casting and those others, [the two hundred and one kikkar] were for the treasury! — [Scripture] wrote another verse: And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation, was a hundred talents etc. And as to his reply that the sacred maneh was double the common, — whence did he derive this? If you say from it [this very verse], for here we have seventy-one maneh, since Scripture writes: And of the thousand seven hundred seventy and five shekels he made hooks for the pillars and recorded them only in Units [of shekels]. Now if [the value of a sacred maneh] is [not higher], Scripture ought to have written one hundred and one kikkar and eleven maneh? But since Scripture does not record them except in units [of shekels,] you may deduce from here that the sacred maneh was double the common. But perhaps it is only the sum total [of a hundred] kikkar that Scripture records but the odd amount [of only one kikkar or so], it does not record? Rather deduce then from here: And the brass of the offering was seventy talents and two thousand and four hundred shekels. For here are ninety-six maneh, and Scripture does not record them except in units [of shekels]. Deduce from here, therefore, that the sacred maneh was double the common. Perhaps, however, a large odd number [of kikkar] Scripture records but a small odd number it does not record? Rather said R. Hisda, Deduce from here: And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh. [
—
Now would not this [maneh] be two hundred and forty [denars]? Therefore deduce from this that the sacred maneh was double [the common]. And further deduce from here that we may add to the measures, but not more than a sixth part. And still further deduce from here, that the sixth part added, is a sixth of the total. Said R. Hanina: I asked [R. Eliezer] in the great School of Learning [Beth Hamidrash:] ‘Why were the first-born of asses different from the first-born of horses and camels?’ — He replied: ‘It is a decree of Scripture’. Moreover, they [the asses] helped the Israelites when they departed from Egypt, for there was not an Israelite who did not possess ninety Libyan asses laden with the silver and gold of Egypt. I also asked him: ‘What does the word "Rephidim" signify?’ And he told me: ‘Rephidim was the name [of a place]’. There is a difference between Tannaim. R. Eliezer says: ‘Rephidim’ was the name [of a place], but R. Joshua says, it means that they relaxed [rifu] their hold on the words of the Law. And so Scripture says: The fathers shall not look back to their children for [rifyon] feebleness of hand. And I asked him further: ‘What is the meaning of the word "Shittim"?’ And he told me: ‘Shittim was the name [of a place]’. Here too Tannaim differ. R. Eliezer says: ‘Shittim’ was the name of the place, whereas R. Joshua says, it means that they gave themselves up to lust. ‘And they called to the people unto the sacrifices of their gods’. R. Eliezer says, this verse means that they [the Israelites] came into contact with naked bodies. But R. Joshua says they all became polluted. MISHNAH. IF A COW GAVE BIRTH TO A SPECIES OF ASS, OR AN ASS GAVE BIRTH TO A SPECIES OF HORSE, IT IS EXEMPT FROM [THE LAW OF] THE FIRSTLING, FOR IT IS SAID: FIRSTLING [PETER] OF AN ASS’, ‘FIRSTLING [PETER] OF AN ASS’, TWICE [TO TEACH] [THAT THE LAW OF THE FIRSTBORN DOES NOT APPLY] UNTIL THAT WHICH GIVES BIRTH IS AN ASS AND THAT WHICH IS BORN IS AN ASS. AND WHAT IS THE LAW WITH REFERENCE TO EATING THEM? IF A CLEAN ANIMAL GAVE BIRTH TO A SPECIES OF UNCLEAN ANIMAL, IT IS PERMITTED TO BE EATEN. BUT IF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL GAVE BIRTH TO A SPECIES OF A CLEAN ANIMAL, IT IS FORBIDDEN TO BE EATEN, FOR THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE UNCLEAN IS UNCLEAN AND THAT WHICH GOES FORTH FROM THE CLEAN IS CLEAN. GEMARA. We have learnt elsewhere: If a ewe gave birth to a species of goat or a goat gave birth to a Species of ewe, it is exempt from [the law of] the firstling. But if the offspring possesses some marks [resembling the mother], it is subject to [the law of] the firstling. Whence is this proved? Said Rab Judah: Scripture says: ‘But the firstling of an ox’, meaning that it [the animal] should be an ox and its firstling must be an ox; ‘Firstling of a sheep’, indicating that [the animal] should be a sheep and its firstling must be a sheep; ‘Firstling of a goat’, indicating that [the animal] ‘Firstling of a goat’ , indicating that [the animal] should be a goat and its firstling must be a goat. You might think that even if it [the offspring] possesses some marks [similar to the mother]? There the text stated ‘ak’ [but], intimating that there is a distinction. But does not the Tanna [of our Mishnah] derive the ruling [for the exemption] of a cow [which gave birth to a species of ass] from ‘peter’ [firstling[ ‘peter’ [firstling]. — He [R. Judah] follows the view of R. Jose the Galilean. For it was taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: ‘But the firstling of an ox’: [the law of the firstling does not apply] until it [the animal] is an ox and its firstling is an ox; ‘firstling of a sheep’: [the law of the firstling does not apply] until it [the animal] is a sheep and its firstling is a sheep; ‘firstling of a goat’: [the law of the firstling does not apply] until it [the animal] is a goat and its firstling is a goat. You might think that even if it [the offspring] possesses some marks [similar to its mother]? The text states ‘ak’ intimating that there is a distinction. Wherein do they differ? — Our Tanna [in the Mishnah] holds that the Divine Law informs us in that case of that which is consecrated for its value [that a change in the offspring exempts it from the law of the firstling], and the same applies to an object consecrated as such. But R. Jose the Galilean maintains that the Divine Law informs us in connection with an object consecrated as such [that a change in the offspring exempts it from the law of the firstling] and the same principle applies in connection with an object which is consecrated for its value. And we derive an object which is consecrated for its value from an object which is consecrated as such. And our Tanna — what does he make of ‘bekor’ [firstling], ‘bekor’ [firstling]. — He requires it for R. Jose b. Hanina's [explanation]. For R. Jose b. Hanina said: Why does Scripture mention ‘emurim’ in connection with the firstling of an ox, emurim in connection with the firstling of a sheep, emurim in connection with the firstling of a goat? It is necessary. For if the Divine Law had written ‘emurim’ in connection with the firstling of an ox [only], [I might have said], the reason [for the emurim was] because there was an increased drink offering. [And if the Divine Law had written ‘emurim’] in connection with the firstling of a sheep [only], [I might have said] the reason [for the ‘emurim’] was because of the fat-tail which was included [to be sacrificed together with the emurim]. [And if the Divine Law had written ‘emurim’] in connection with the firstling of a goat [only], [I might have said] the reason [for the ‘emurim’ was] because a goat was included as a suitable offering in the case of the sin of idolatry committed by an individual. You could not have derived ‘emurim’ in connection with any single case [of a firstling of an ox, firstling of a sheep or firstling of a goat] from any other single case. [Perhaps] you could derive however ‘emurim’ in a single case [of a firstling mentioned] from the remaining two cases? in connection with what case should the Divine Law have omitted to write ‘emurim’? Should the Divine Law not have written [‘emurim’] in connection with the firstling of an ox, and should we have proceeded to derive this from the remaining two cases, [the firstling of a sheep and the firstling of a goat quoted above], [I might have raised the objection] that the two cases [mentioned where emurim was written], were dif ferent, for a sheep and a goat are included as suitable to be brought as Passover sacrifices. Or should the Divine Law have omitted [emurim] in connection with the firstling of a sheep and should we then have derived this from the remaining two cases [of the firstling of an ox and the firstling of a goat], [I might have raised the objection] that the cases [of an ox and a goat] were different, for they are included as suitable offerings for the sin of idolatry committed communally. Or should the Divine Law have omitted [emurim] in connection with the firstling of a goat and should we then have derived this from the remaining two cases [of the firstling of an ox and the firstling of a sheep], [I might have raised the objection] that the cases [of an ox and a sheep] were different, for they have the [common] point of an increased offering upon the altar. Therefore, all the three cases [to which the verse refers] are necessary. And R. Jose the Galilean? — [His answer is:] If so, let the Divine Law write: ‘But the firstling of an ox, sheep and goat’. What need is there for the words ‘bekor’ ‘bekor’? Hence you must deduce from here [the teaching also] that both [the animal] and its firstling must be an ox. And R. Jose the Galilean, what does he do with the texts ‘peter hamor’ ‘peter hamor’? — He requires this for what was taught. R. Jose the Galilean says: Because it is said in the Scriptures: Howbeit the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem, I might infer from the text that even the first-born of horses and camels [are liable to the law of the first-born]. Therefore, there the text stated ‘peter hamor’. I have only spoken to you [says Scripture] of firstlings of asses but not of the firstlings of horses and camels. I can still maintain, however, that the firstlings of asses are to be redeemed with a sheep but the firstlings of horses and camels may be redeemed with any object.43
—