בכורות 4 — Soncino English Talmud

¹GEMARA. Did they [themselves] exempt? [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’? — 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, it follows a fortiori that it should release their own’. Said Raba to him: But does not the Mishnah say: ‘THEY EXEMPT’ meaning the Levites] themselves? And further, if it is [as you state], they [the Levites] should be exempted even from [liabilities for] a clean animal? 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! 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? The text says: Howbeit the first-born of man shalt thou surely redeem and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. 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 man 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, 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, [a Levite] of a month old who released [an Israelite first-born of a month old in the wilderness] 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? Also, a Levite's daughter who gave birth to a first-born, should not be exempt [from redemption]. 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? — 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. But what of Aaron since he was not included in that counting [of the Levites], 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? Because he [Aaron] was not in that numbering [of the Levites]?) — Scripture said ‘The Levites’ implying that all Levites are compared to one another. 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: But the Priests the Levites the sons of Zadok.23^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:The first-born of asses in the wilderness.
^ᵇnote:Num. III, 45.
^ᶜnote:From the redemption of the first-born of an ass.
^ᵈnote:The Levites’ own first-born of asses. Similarly, according to Abaye, just as the Levites themselves exempted the first-born of the Israelites in the wilderness, so they should a fortiori exempt their own first-born.
^ᵉnote:That we argue a fortiori with reference to the animals of the Levites.
^ᶠnote:From the law of the firstling, for the Levites’ clean animals exempted the clean animals of the Israelites in the wilderness.
^ᵍnote:Infra 13a.
^ʰnote:I.e., that priests and Levites are exempt from the law of the first-born of an ass!
^ⁱnote:Num. XVIII, 15.
^ʲnote:E.g., the Levites and priests who are exempt a fortiori, are therefore also free from redeeming their first-born of asses.
^ᵏnote:Inferring that the firstling of an ass belonging to a Levite and Priest is also exempt a fortiori.
^ˡnote:For both agree that we argue a fortiori that the first-born of a Levite is exempt from redemption.
^ᵐnote:If the holiness of a plain (non-first-born) Levite of a month old released from holiness an Israelite first-born of a 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?
^ⁿnote:Why therefore does not Scripture state that the first-born Levites in the wilderness who were at the time of counting less than a month old had to be redeemed?
^ᵒnote:Who married an Israelite.
^ᵖnote:Since females were not included in the count in the wilderness.
^ᵠnote:The sum of money necessary for the redemption of the first-born.
^ʳnote:We go therefore by the mother and since she comes of a tribe which is exempt from redemption of the first-born, we 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.
^ˢnote:Num. III, 14 etc. Neither he nor his animals were included and therefore they did not cancel the holiness of the first-born of the Israelites.
^ᵗnote:Num. III, 39: All that were numbered of the Levies which Moses and Aaron numbered. For all dottings of a word have the purpose of limiting and excluding something.
^ᵘnote:All Levites irrespective of age, including anybody performing sacred functions, such as the priests, all were exempt from redeeming the first-born of an ass. This answers all the questions raised above.
^ᵛnote:Ezek. XLIV, 15.
^ʷnote:We see here therefore that the priests are described as Levites. Similarly where the word ‘Levites’ is mentioned by itself, it also embraces the priests.

²Whence do we know [that the exemptions] apply to all time? The text says: ‘And the Levites shall be mine’; ‘and they shall be’ means that they [the Levites] retain their status [for all time]. And whence [do we know] that [the Levite exempted the Israelite's first-born of asses in the wilderness] with a sheep? — Said R. Hisda: Money is written [in connection with the redemption of the first-born] for all time; and ‘a sheep’ is written [in connection with the redemption of the first-born of an ass] for all time. Just as with the money prescribed for all time, they both redeemed [the first-born] at all times and they redeemed at that particular time [in the wilderness], so with sheep prescribed for all time, they [the Levites] both redeemed [the firstlings] at all times and they redeemed at that particular time [in the wilderness]. But it may be objected , that the case of money is different, because with it we also redeem consecrated objects and the second [year's] tithing! Rather [we deduce from the following]. Scripture said: ‘Nevertheless the first-born of man thou shalt surely redeem and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem’. Just as in the case of the first-born of a man you make no distinction between all time and that particular time [in the wilderness, the redemption in each case being] with money, so [in the case of an unclean animal], you shall not make a distinction between for all time and that particular time, [the redemption in each case being] with a sheep. R. Hanina said: One sheep of a Levite exempted many firstborn of the asses of the Israelites. Said Abaye: The proof is that Scripture numbers the surplus of men [over the Levites] but does not number the surplus [of Israelite] animals [over the Levites’ animals]. But what proof is this? Perhaps they [the Israelites in the wilderness] did not possess many animals [asses] to redeem? — That cannot enter your mind. For it is written: ‘Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle’. Perhaps even so the ordinary [non-first-born animals] of the Levites just corresponded with [the number] of the first-born of the Israelites? — Scripture says: And the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; one Levite animal instead of many [Israelite] animals [firstlings of asses]. But why can we not say that the word [‘cattle’] also implies many [animals?] — If so let Scripture write either ‘cattle instead of cattle’ or ‘their cattle instead of their cattle’. Why does Scripture write ‘cattle of . . . instead of their cattle’? Deduce from this that one [Levite] animal exempted many [Israelite] animals. Said Raba: We have also learnt [R. Hanina's ruling]: And he can redeem with it [the sheep] many times [the first-born of asses]. And R. Hanina? — He explains the reason of the Mishnah and what he means is this: What is the reason that he can redeem with it [the sheep] many times [the first-born of asses]? Because one sheep of a Levite exempted many firstborn of asses belonging to an Israelite. It was stated: R. Johanan said: The first-born in the wilderness were sanctified; Resh Lakish said: The first-born in the wilderness were not sanctified. R. Johanan said that the first-born were sanctified in the wilderness, for the Divine Law said that they should be sanctified, as it is written: Sanctify unto me all the first-born. Resh Lakish said that the first-born were not sanctified in the wilderness, since it is written: And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee [into the land of the Canaanites] and it says subsequently: That thou shalt set apart [unto the Lord all that openeth the womb]. From this you can infer that previously [to their entering the land], it [the first-born] was not sanctified. R. Johanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish's [view]: Before the Sanctuary was erected, the High places were permitted and the service [was performed] by the first-born! — He replied to him: [The service was performed] by those [first-born] who departed from Egypt. It also stands to reason. For if you will not say so, is a one year old capable of performing the service? And [R. Johanan] how could he raise such a question at all? — This was his [R. Johanan's] objection [to Resh Lakish's view]. You would be right if you said that the holiness [of the first-born] did not cease [in the wilderness], because then those [first-born] also originally born [in Egypt], did not have their holiness canceled. But if you say that their holiness ceased, then those [firstborn] originally born in Egypt, should also have had their holiness canceled? And [what says] the other [to this]? — Those who were holy [the first-born of Egypt], remained holy and those who were not hitherto holy, [did not become] holy. He [R. Johanan] raised an objection: On the day on which the Sanctuary was erected, votive-offerings, freewill-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, firstlings and the tithe of cattle, were sacrificed in Israel! — Here, also, it refers to those [firstborn] who departed from Egypt. And [from the Baraitha] itself we can deduce this: ‘On that day [firstlings] were sacrificed’, but after that, [in the wilderness], there was no sacrifice [of firstlings]. Some there are who say, Resh Lakish cited against R. Johanan the following: ‘That day on which the Sanctuary was erected, votive-offerings, freewill-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, firstlings, tithe of cattle were sacrificed in Israel’, as much as to say ‘on that day’ but after that [in the wilderness], there was no [sacrifice of firstlings]! — R. Johanan replied: Amend [the Baraitha] thus: ‘From that day and onward’. And what does he tell us here? — That from that day [these sacrifices] were permitted but not at first, from which we are to infer that obligatory sacrifices were not sacrificed on a High place. Come and hear: ‘Consequently in three places were the firstborn sanctified for Israel: in Egypt, in the wilderness, and when they entered the Land. With reference to the first-born in Egypt, what does Scripture say? Sanctify unto me all the firstling. With reference to the firstling in the wilderness Scripture says: For the first-born of the children of Israel are mine. With reference to [the first-born] when they entered the Land, [Scripture] says: And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee [into the land of the Canaanites] . . . That thou shalt set apart! Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: [This passage means] that in three places the Israelites were commanded concerning the sanctification of the first-born but they were not [actually] sanctified. And were not also the [first-born] in Egypt sanctified? Did we not say that they were holy? — This is what the [passage] means: In some [of the three places referred to], [the first-born] were sanctified, and in some, they were not sanctified. R. Papa demurred: And were not the first-born sanctified in the wilderness? Behold it is written: Number all the first-born males of the children of Israel. Rather [if the above dispute was] stated, it was stated as follows: R. Johanan said: They [the first-born] were sanctified and did not cease [from their holiness]. But Resh Lakish said that they were sanctified [temporarily]^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ

^ˣnote:For priests and Levites.
^ʸnote:And not limited to the wilderness.
^ᶻnote:Num. III, 45.
^ᵃᵃnote:Perhaps the verse ‘And the cattle of the Levites instead of all the firstlings among the cattle of the children of Israel’, (Num. III, 41.) means that the first-born of the Levite's ass exempted the Israelite's firstling of an ass, but not the sheep, (R. Gershom).
^ᵃᵇnote:Num. XVIII, 16.
^ᵃᶜnote:Ex. XIII, 13.
^ᵃᵈnote:To this analogy between ‘money’ and ‘sheep’.
^ᵃᵉnote:Whereas we do not as a rule redeem sacred objects with a sheep. Consecrated objects are redeemed with money. V. Lev. XXVII, 15 and the second year's tithes are also redeemed with money, V. Deut. XIV, 25.
^ᵃᶠnote:Num. XVIII, 15.
^ᵃᵍnote:Of first-born Israelites who had to be redeemed with money. And since Scripture does not mention the surplus of Israelite animals over the Levites’ animals, we can infer that one Levite sheep exempted many Israelite animals.
^ᵃʰnote:And this being the case, one Levite sheep did not have to redeem many first-born of asses.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ibid. XXXII, I.
^ᵃʲnote:So that there was no surplus and there is thus no evidence that the firstlings of the Israelites outnumbered the plain Levites’ animals.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ibid. III, 45.
^ᵃˡnote:Infra 9a. If the sheep which he gave to the priest as a redemption for the first-born of an ass, comes back to him either through the priest selling or giving it as a present to him, he can redeem another first-.born of an ass with the same sheep.
^ᵃᵐnote:Since the Mishnah just cited teaches his ruling, then his is superfluous.
^ᵃⁿnote:Both of men and animals and certainly those born in Egypt.
^ᵃᵒnote:And Only the first-born in Egypt and those who were born when they entered the land were sanctified.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ex. XIII, 2.
^ᵃᵠnote:Ibid. XIII, II, 12.
^ᵃʳnote:In the wilderness.
^ᵃˢnote:And the above verse ‘Sanctify unto me all the first-born’ will refer to those born in Egypt.
^ᵃᵗnote:Zeb. 112b.
^ᵃᵘnote:Improvised and temporary altars.
^ᵃᵛnote:We therefore see that the first-born in the wilderness, were sanctified contrary to the ruling of Resh Lakish.
^ᵃʷnote:But the first-born born in the wilderness were not sanctified.
^ᵃˣnote:Since only one year had elapsed since the departure from Egypt and the erection of the Sanctuary.
^ᵃʸnote:Surely there could be only one explanation of the Mishnah in Zebahim.
^ᵃᶻnote:That the first-born born in the wilderness were also sanctified.
^ᵇᵃnote:For a period, namely, those first-born born in the wilderness.
^ᵇᵇnote:And therefore the question is raised, according to Resh Lakish, how were the first-born permitted to offer sacrifices.
^ᵇᶜnote:And their holiness never ceased.
^ᵇᵈnote:The firstborn born in the wilderness.
^ᵇᵉnote:We therefore see that the first-born in the wilderness were sanctified contrary to the ruling of Resh Lakish.
^ᵇᶠnote:Because, as Resh Lakish says, the first-born in the wilderness either of men or cattle were not sanctified and those of cattle offered on the day the Sanctuary was erected, were born in Egypt.
^ᵇᵍnote:Which is contrary to the view of R. Johanan.
^ᵇʰnote:For the first-born were sanctified in the wilderness.
^ᵇⁱnote:An improvised and temporary altar. Obligatory offerings are e.g. sin-offerings, firstlings, etc.
^ᵇʲnote:Ex. XIII, 2.
^ᵇᵏnote:Num. VIII, 17.
^ᵇˡnote:Ex. XIII, 11, 12. We see therefore that contrary to the view of Resh Lakish the firstlings were sanctified in the wilderness.
^ᵇᵐnote:Until they entered the land.
^ᵇⁿnote:For this was agreed by all the above.
^ᵇᵒnote:Those born in the wilderness.
^ᵇᵖnote:Num. III, 40. The male first-born were to be numbered from a month and upwards and this took place in the wilderness.
^ᵇᵠnote:After being numbered in the wilderness.