בכורות 5:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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. [^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ

^ᵃnote:The juxtaposition of the verses in Ex. XIII, 11 and 12.
^ᵇnote:Num. III, 13, indicating that there was no break in their holiness, even in the wilderness.
^ᶜnote:The law of the firstling.
^ᵈnote:That it was R. Johanan who refuted Resh Lakish with reference to the Baraitha; ‘That day on which the sanctuary was erected etc.’ and not vice versa, as in our version.
^ᵉnote:That he saw R. Johanan in a dream, and will you also alter this to Resh Lakish? Surely, it is more feasible to assume that it was R. Johanan, the teacher of R. Eleazar, who appeared to him in a dream.
^ᶠnote:Since they were holy at birth, as R. Johanan maintains above that the first-born in the wilderness were sanctified.
^ᵍnote:Although there may be no actual difference in the ruling.
^ʰnote:Rashi and Tosaf. in Hullin 27b read Contricon. There are a number of variants in the reading of this name, owing to corruptions. It is suggested that the name refers either to Quintus or Quietus. V. Hul., Sonc. ed., p. 141, n. 2.
^ⁱnote:The families of Gershom numbered seven thousand and five hundred, the families of Kohath numbered eight thousand and six hundred, and the families of Merari numbered six thousand and two hundred, making a grand total of the families of the Levites of twenty-two thousand and three hundred.
^ʲnote:V. Num. III, 39.
^ᵏnote:When every Israelite was bidden to give half a shekel.
^ˡnote:A weight of silver or gold, a talent. Now a kikkar contains sixty maneh, a maneh has twenty five sela's or holy shekels, therefore we have one thousand and five hundred shekels in one kikkar. Six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty half shekels collected from the people make three hundred and one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekels. Divide one thousand and five hundred into this, we have two hundred and one kikkar with the remainder of two hundred and seventy-five shekels, i.e., eleven maneh.
^ᵐnote:A weight in gold or silver of twenty-five common shekels.
^ⁿnote:Ex. XXXVIII, 26.
^ᵒnote:When Moses rendered the account to the Israelites.
^ᵖnote:Ibid. 27.
^ᵠnote:For a complete half would have been one hundred and a half kikkar and five and a half maneh and he only returned one hundred kikkar. And although Scripture says: ‘And of the thousand seven hundred seventy and five shekels he made hooks’ and consequently, he returned more than a half, the general did not mention this verse, for he wanted to catch him with words.
^ʳnote:There were therefore one hundred and twenty maneh in a kikkar. The hundred kikkar were therefore really two hundred and the remaining kikkar and eleven maneh, were the one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekel mentioned, from which hooks were made.
^ˢnote:And this would be separate from the two hundred and one kikkar mentioned.
^ᵗnote:Ex. XXXVIII, 25. And here no mention is made of being used for casting purposes.
^ᵘnote:A maneh containing twenty-five shekels; therefore one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekels make seventy-one maneh.
^ᵛnote:If all maneh consisted of sixty shekels, then seventy-one maneh is one kikkar more, plus eleven maneh.
^ʷnote:And therefore the seventy-one maneh i.e. the one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekels, could not be counted in terms of kikkar, as there would then be one hundred and twenty maneh in a kikkar.
^ˣnote:It is not of sufficient importance to record in terms of kikkar, but the sacred maneh may still have the same value as the common. Therefore the point would once again arise that Moses received two hundred and one kikkar and, when rendering the account, Scripture only mentions one hundred kikkar. (5) That the sacred maneh was double the common.
^ʸnote:Ibid. XXXVIII, 29.
^ᶻnote:There being twenty-five shekels in a maneh.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., one hundred and twenty maneh in a kikkar, and therefore Scripture could not count this in terms of kikkar.
^ᵃᵇnote:Like seventy kikkar, although they cannot be counted in terms of one hundred kikkar.
^ᵃᶜnote:Like one kikkar; but a sacred kikkar may contain only sixty maneh as the common.
^ᵃᵈnote:That the sacred maneh was double the common.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ezek. XLV, 12. We therefore see there were sixty shekels in a maneh.