Bekhorot

and then ceased [from their holiness]. As to Resh Lakish it is well, for the reason stated above.1 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 be2 [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,3 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 refutation4 together with R. Eleazar's statement?5 — 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].6 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.7 A Roman general Controcos8 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,9 whereas in the sum total you only find twenty-two thousand.10 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,11 you count two hundred and one kikkar12 and eleven maneh13 for Scripture writes: A beka’ for every man, that is, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary,14 whereas when the money was given,15 you find only one hundred kikkar, for it is written: And the hundred talents of silver were for casting, etc.?16 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’?17 — He replied to him: ‘Moses our teacher was a trustworthy treasurer and a good arithmetician, only the sacred maneh was double the common’.18 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 casting19 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.20 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,21 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?22 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.23 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?24 Rather deduce then from here:25 And the brass of the offering was seventy talents and two thousand and four hundred shekels.26 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.27 Perhaps, however, a large odd number [of kikkar]28 Scripture records but a small odd number29 it does not record? Rather said R. Hisda, Deduce from here:30 And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh.31 [ was erected etc.’ and not vice versa, as in our version. that it was R. Johanan, the teacher of R. Eleazar, who appeared to him in a dream. corruptions. It is suggested that the name refers either to Quintus or Quietus. V. Hul., Sonc. ed., p. 141, n. 2. 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. 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. 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. hundred and the remaining kikkar and eleven maneh, were the one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekel mentioned, from which hooks were made. seventy-one maneh. counted in terms of kikkar, as there would then be one hundred and twenty maneh in a kikkar. 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.