Bekhorot

Now would not this [maneh] be two hundred and forty [denars]?1 Therefore deduce from this that the sacred maneh was double [the common].2 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.3 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’.4 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.5 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.6 ‘And they called to the people unto the sacrifices of their gods’.7 R. Eliezer says, this verse means that they [the Israelites] came into contact with naked bodies.8 But R. Joshua says they all became polluted.9 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’,10 ‘FIRSTLING [PETER] OF AN ASS’,11 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?12 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:13 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’,14 meaning that it [the animal] should be an ox and its firstling must be an ox; ‘Firstling of a sheep’,15 indicating that [the animal] should be a sheep and its firstling must be a sheep; ‘Firstling of a goat’,16 indicating that [the animal] ‘Firstling of a goat’ ,16 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]?17 There the text stated ‘ak’ [but],18 intimating that there is a distinction.19 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].20 — 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’:21 [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]?22 The text states ‘ak’ intimating that there is a distinction.23 Wherein do they differ?24 — Our Tanna [in the Mishnah] holds that the Divine Law informs us in that case of that which is consecrated for its value25 [that a change in the offspring exempts it from the law of the firstling], and the same applies to an object consecrated as such.26 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 Tanna27 — what does he make of ‘bekor’ [firstling], ‘bekor’ [firstling].28 — He requires it for R. Jose b. Hanina's [explanation]. For R. Jose b. Hanina said: Why does Scripture mention ‘emurim’29 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.30 [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].31 [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?32 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.33 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.34 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.35 Therefore, all the three cases [to which the verse36 refers] are necessary. And R. Jose the Galilean?37 — [His answer is:] If so,38 let the Divine Law write: ‘But the firstling of an ox, sheep and goat’. What need is there for the words ‘bekor’ ‘bekor’?39 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’?40 — 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,41 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 asses42 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 shekel. an addition to the two hundred denar which constitute the sacred maneh of twenty per cent, making a total of two hundred and forty denar. This addition of forty denar makes therefore a sixth part of the sum total, i.e., a sixth ‘from the outside’, although not a sixth part of the value of the sacred maneh as such, as forty denar would be a fifth part of two hundred denar. bodies, met naked bodies in order to stimulate sexual desire. (firstling) which in each case is superfluous, as it is clearly dealing with the subject of a firstling. having limiting qualifications. species applies equally to a sheep whose offspring changes? the firstling should certainly only apply where the offspring resembles its mother, as since it is irredeemable, the offspring should be required all the more to resemble its mother. shalt make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire, which verse refers to all the three cases of firstlings mentioned in the text. If Scripture had written ‘emurim’ in connection with one of the firstlings mentioned, I could have inferred the rest. on the altar. offspring must be of the same species, how does he then explain the references to ‘emurim’ in connection with the three cases of firstlings mentioned above?