Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 21, 2019 | 讟状讝 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bekhorot 4

From where do we derive that levites and priests are exempt from the mitzva of redeeming their first born donkeys?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讙诪壮 讗讬谞讛讜 驻讟专讬 讗讚诐 讗讚诐 驻讟专 讘讛诪讛 讘讛诪讛 驻讟专讛 讚讻转讬讘 拽讞 讗转 讛诇讜讬诐 转讞转 讘讻讜专 讘讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转 讘讛诪转 讛诇讜讬诐 转讞转 讘讛诪转诐

GEMARA: In stating: If the priests and Levites rendered exempt the firstborn children and donkeys of the Israelites in the wilderness from being counted firstborns, the mishna indicates that the priests and Levites themselves rendered the animals exempt. The Gemara therefore asks: Did they render the firstborn children and donkeys exempt? With regard to a person, i.e., the Israelite firstborn, the person, i.e., the priests and Levites, rendered them exempt. But with regard to an animal, i.e., the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites, the animal, i.e., the sheep of the priests and Levites, rendered them exempt, as it is written: 鈥淭ake the Levites in exchange for all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the animal of the Levites in exchange for their animals鈥 (Numbers 3:45).

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 讘讛诪转诐 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 讛驻拽讬注讛 讘讛诪转诐 砖诇 诇讜讬诐 讘讛诪讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖转驻拽讬注 讗转 砖诇 注爪诪谉

The Gemara answers: Abaye said this is what the mishna is saying: The firstborn animals of priests and Levites are exempt from firstborn status, and that is derived from an a fortiori inference: If the animals of the Levites, i.e., the sheep of the priests and Levites, rendered the firstborn status of the animals of the Israelites in the wilderness abrogated, it is only logical that the sheep of the priests and Levites should render the firstborn status of the priests鈥 and Levites鈥 own firstborn donkeys abrogated.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 驻讟专讜 讗讬谞讛讜 拽转谞讬

Rava said to him: How can you interpret the a fortiori inference in the mishna as referring to the animals of the priests and Levites? But doesn鈥檛 it teach: They, i.e., the priests and Levites, rendered the firstborn children and donkeys of the Israelites exempt? The reference is clearly to the priests and Levites themselves, not their animals.

讜注讜讚 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 谞驻讟专讜 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 诇讗 谞驻讟专讜 诪讘讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讜驻讟专 讞诪讜专

Furthermore, if it is so that their animals are exempt due to the a fortiori inference, then the priests and Levites should be exempt even from the halakhot pertaining to a male firstborn of a kosher animal, as their firstborn kosher animals rendered the firstborn kosher animals of the Israelites exempt from firstborn status. Why did we learn in the mishna (13a): The priests and Levites were not exempted from the mitzva of the male firstborn of a kosher animal; rather, they were exempted only from redemption of the firstborn son and the firstborn donkey?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 驻讟专讜 讛谉 注爪诪谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 讛驻拽讬注讛 拽讚讜砖转谉 砖诇 诇讜讬诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 诇讗 讬驻拽讬注 讗转 砖诇 注爪诪谉

Rather, Rava said this is what the mishna is teaching: Priests and Levites rendered themselves exempt, and that is derived from an a fortiori inference: If the sanctity of the Levites abrogated the sanctity of the firstborn of the Israelites in the wilderness, should it not abrogate the sanctity of the firstborn Levites themselves?

讗砖讻讞谉 讗讚诐 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讱 驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 讗转 讘讻讜专 讛讗讚诐 讜讗转 讘讻讜专 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讟诪讗讛 转驻讚讛 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘讻讜专 讗讚诐 讬砖谞讜 讘讘讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讘讻讜专 讗讚诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讘讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: We have found a source for the halakha that the Levites鈥 personal status as firstborns is abrogated; from where do we derive that their non-kosher animals, i.e., donkeys, do not have the status of firstborns? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淵et you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:15). The status of the human firstborn is juxtaposed with that of a non-kosher animal, from which the following principle is derived: Anything that applies to a woman鈥檚 firstborn son applies to the firstborn of a non-kosher animal, and anything that does not apply to a woman鈥檚 firstborn son does not apply to a non-kosher animal. Therefore, just as firstborn status does not apply to Levites, it does not apply to their donkeys, and they do not need to be redeemed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讘讛诪转诐 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讛 讚讗驻拽注 诇讬驻拽注 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讛 讚诇讬驻拽注 诇讗 诇讬驻拽注

Rav Safra said to Abaye: According to your opinion, that you say the animals of the Levites did not have firstborn status due to the a fortiori inference, then with regard to a Levite who had a lamb, which abrogated the sanctity of the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites, let the firstborn status of his animals be abrogated. But with regard to one who did not have a lamb that would abrogate their sanctity, the status of his animals should not be abrogated.

讘讬谉 诇讚讬讚讱 讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 讘谉 讞讚砖 讚讗驻拽注 诇讬驻拽注 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 讞讚砖 讚诇讗 讗驻拽注 诇讗 诇讬驻拽注

Rav Safra asked Abaye an additional question: According to both you and Rava, since you agree that the firstborn Levites themselves were exempt from being accorded firstborn status because they rendered the sanctity of the Israelite firstborns abrogated, one should conclude that only a firstborn Levite who was at least one month old, who abrogated the sanctity of the Israelite firstborns (see Numbers 3:15), should have his own firstborn status abrogated. But those firstborn Levites who were less than one month old, who did not abrogate the sanctity of the Israelite firstborns, should not have their own firstborn status abrogated.

诇讜讬讛 诇讗 转讬驻拽注 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讜讬讛 砖讬诇讚讛 讘谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐

Furthermore, the sanctity of a firstborn son born to a female Levite who was married to an Israelite should not be abrogated, as the women were not included among the Levites who were exchanged for the Israelite firstborn. Why, then, does Rav Adda bar Ahava say: With regard to a female Levite who gave birth,her firstborn son is exempt from the obligation of giving five sela coins to the priest to be redeemed?

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 驻讟专 专讞诐 讘驻讟专 专讞诐 转诇讛 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara answers the last question: That is not difficult, as it is in accordance with the statement of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who says: The fact that the Torah states with regard to the sanctity of the firstborn: 鈥淔irstborn of the womb鈥 (Exodus 13:12), indicates that the Merciful One renders the obligations of firstborn status dependent on being the firstborn of the womb, i.e., of the mother. Therefore, the mother鈥檚 status as a Levite is sufficient to exempt the child from firstborn status.

讜讗讛专谉 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讗讜转讜 诪谞讬谉 诇讗 诇讬驻拽注 讚转谞讬讗 诇诪讛 谞拽讜讚 注诇 讗讛专谉 砖讘讞讜诪砖 讛驻拽讜讚讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讗讜转讜 诪谞讬谉

Rav Safra again challenged the opinions of Abaye and Rava: And Aaron, who was not included in that count of the Levites when they were compared to the number of Israelite firstborns and redeemed from their sanctity as firstborns, should not have his own firstborn status abrogated. As it is taught in a baraita: Why do dots appear over the word 鈥淎aron鈥 in the verse in the book of Numbers: 鈥淎ll that were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered鈥 (Numbers 3:39)? It is in order to demonstrate that he was not included in that count of the Levites.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讛诇讜讬诐 讛讜拽砖讜 讻诇 讛诇讜讬诐 讝讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭he Levites鈥 (Numbers 3:45), to teach that all of the Levites were juxtaposed with each other. Therefore, even a firstborn Levite who did not abrogate the sanctity of the Israelite firstborns himself was still abrogated of his own firstborn sanctity.

讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞拽专讗讜 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 讘谞讬 爪讚讜拽

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that priests, including Aaron, were also subject to that halakha? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites, and this is one of them: 鈥淏ut the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok鈥 (Ezekiel 44:15). It is derived from this verse that priests are included in the category of Levites even where they are not mentioned explicitly.

讜诇讚讜专讜转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讜 诇讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讜讛讬讜 讘讛讜讜讬讬转谉 讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the priests and Levites are exempt from their offspring being counted a firstborn for all generations? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the Levites shall be Mine鈥 (Numbers 3:12). The term 鈥渟hall be鈥 indicates that they shall be, i.e., shall remain, in their current state of sanctity. Just as firstborn status did not apply to the priests or the Levites in the wilderness, it does not apply to priests or Levites in subsequent generations.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讗诪专 讻住祝 诇讚讜专讜转 讜谞讗诪专 砖讛 诇讚讜专讜转

搂 Rav Safra (4a) referred to the fact that the sanctity of the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites was abrogated by the lambs of the Levites. The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that this abrogation was accomplished with a lamb? Rav 岣sda says: The word 鈥渟ilver鈥 is stated with regard to the redemption of a woman鈥檚 firstborn son for later generations in the verse: 鈥淎nd their redemption money鈥hall be, according to your valuation, five shekels of silver鈥 (Numbers 18:16). And in addition, the word 鈥渓amb鈥 is stated with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey for later generations in the verse: 鈥淎nd every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb鈥 (Exodus 13:13).

诪讛 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讜 驻讚讜 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讜 驻讚讜 诇讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗祝 砖讛 讛讗诪讜专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讜 驻讚讜 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讜 驻讚讜 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛

Therefore, one can derive that just as concerning silver, which was mentioned with regard to later generations, the Israelites redeemed with it in later generations and they also redeemed with it at that time, as the surplus firstborn in the wilderness were redeemed with five shekels (see Numbers 3:47), so too concerning the lamb, which was mentioned with regard to later generations, they redeemed with it in later generations, and they redeemed with it at that time.

诪讛 诇讻住祝 砖讻谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讘讜 讛拽讚砖讜转 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬

The Gemara rejects the comparison: What is notable about silver? It is notable in that it is also used for redemption in other cases, as one can redeem consecrated property and second-tithe produce with it, which is not the halakha with regard to lambs.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讱 驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 讗转 讘讻讜专 讛讗讚诐 讜讗转 讘讻讜专 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讟诪讗讛 转驻讚讛 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讗讚诐 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讬谉 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讘讻住祝 讗祝 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讘砖讛

Rather, it can be derived from the fact that the verse states: 鈥淵et you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:15). The juxtaposition of the two cases demonstrates that just as with regard to a woman鈥檚 firstborn son you have not distinguished between the halakha for later generations and the halakha for that time, as the redemption is performed with silver in both cases, so too, with regard to the redemption of a non-kosher animal, you should not distinguish between the halakha for later generations and for that time, as it must be performed with a lamb in both situations.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖讛 讗讞讚 砖诇 讘谉 诇讜讬 驻讟专 讻诪讛 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讚注 砖讛专讬 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 注讜讚驻讬诐 讘讗讚诐 讜诇讗 诪谞讛 注讜讚驻讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of the procedure for the redemption of the firstborn donkeys in the wilderness: Rabbi 岣nina says that one lamb of a Levite in the wilderness rendered several firstborn donkeys of the Israelites exempt from the obligations of firstborn status. Abaye says: Know that this is so, as the verse enumerates the surplus of firstborn humans when it says that there were 273 more firstborn Israelites than Levites who needed to be redeemed with silver (see Numbers 3:46); but the verse does not enumerate any surplus of Israelite animals.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞驻讬砖讬 诇讛讜 讘讛诪讜转 讟讜讘讗 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪拽谞讛 专讘 讛讬讛 诇讘谞讬 专讗讜讘谉 讜诇讘谞讬 讙讚

The Gemara asks: From where is this proven? Perhaps the Israelites did not have many animals, and their firstborn donkeys did not outnumber the lambs of the Levites. The Gemara answers: Do not let this possibility enter your mind, as it is written: 鈥淣ow the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of livestock鈥 (Numbers 32:1).

讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 驻砖讜讟讬诐 讚诇讜讬诐 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 诇讘讛讚讬 讘讻讜专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗转 讘讛诪转 讛诇讜讬诐 转讞转 讘讛诪转诐 讘讛诪讛 讗讞转 转讞转 讘讛诪讜转 讛专讘讛

The Gemara challenges: Perhaps even so, the number of ordinary animals of the Levites that were not firstborn corresponded to the number of firstborn animals belonging to the Israelites. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淭ake the Levites in exchange for all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the animal of [behemat] the Levites in exchange for their animals [behemtam]鈥 (Numbers 3:45). The use of the word behemat in the singular indicates that the transaction involved one animal of the Levites in exchange for many animals of the Israelites.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讛诪讛 专讘讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讗讜 讘讛诪讛 转讞转 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讘讛诪转诐 转讞转 讘讛诪转诐 诪讗讬 讘讛诪转 转讞转 讘讛诪转诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讚 驻讟专 讟讜讘讗

The Gemara asks: And say the word behemat is referring to many animals, as in the phrase: 鈥淎nd many animals [uvhema rabba]鈥 (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write either: Behema of the Levites in exchange for behema, or: Behemtam in exchange for behemtam. What is the significance of the phrase behemat the Levites in exchange for behemtam鈥? Learn from it that one lamb of a Levite rendered many donkeys of Israelites exempt.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜驻讜讚讛 讘讜 驻注诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟注诪讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪驻专砖 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讜讚讛 讘讜 驻注诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讛 讗讞讚 砖诇 讘谉 诇讜讬 驻讜讟专 讻诪讛 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

Rava said: We learn in a mishna (9a), as well, a support for Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 statement: And if the priest returns the lamb to him, he may redeem firstborn donkeys with it many times if he repurchases the lamb from the priest each time upon redeeming a donkey. And actually, Rabbi 岣nina is not offering his own opinion, but is rather explaining the reasoning of the mishna, and this is what he is saying: What is the reason that the owner may redeem firstborn donkeys with the same lamb many times? It is because one lamb of a Levite renders exempt several firstborn donkeys belonging to an Israelite.

讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 讘讻讜专讜转 讘诪讚讘专 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讘讻讜专讜转 讘诪讚讘专

搂 It was stated with regard to the sanctity of the firstborn in the wilderness: Rabbi Yo岣nan says that both firstborn animals and firstborn sons born in the wilderness were sanctified, and Reish Lakish says: The firstborn that were born in the wilderness were not sanctified.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 讘讻讜专讜转 讘诪讚讘专 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬拽讚砖讜 讚讻转讬讘 拽讚砖 诇讬 讻诇 讘讻讜专

The Gemara explains the reason for each opinion: Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the firstborn that were born in the wilderness were sanctified, since the Merciful One states they should be sanctified, as it is written prior to the Jews leaving Egypt: 鈥淪anctify to Me all the firstborn鈥 (Exodus 13:2).

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讘讻讜专讜转 讘诪讚讘专 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讻讬 讬讘讬讗讱 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讜讛注讘专转 诪讻诇诇 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 拽讚讜砖

And Reish Lakish says: Although the firstborn in Egypt were sanctified, the firstborn that were born in the wilderness were not sanctified, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall be when the Lord shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites鈥 (Exodus 13:11), and it is written afterward: 鈥淎nd you shall set apart all firstborn of the womb to the Lord鈥 (Exodus 13:12). By inference, it can be derived that initially, before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, those that were born in the wilderness were not sanctified.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讜拽诐 讛诪砖讻谉 讛讬讜 讘诪讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讜注讘讜讚讛 讘讘讻讜专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讜转谉 砖讬爪讗讜 诪诪爪专讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (Zeva岣m 112b): Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted and the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. Clearly, then, the firstborn in the wilderness were sanctified. Reish Lakish said to him: That mishna is referring to those firstborn who left Egypt, who performed the sacrificial service, and not to the ones born in the wilderness.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讘谉 砖谞讛 讘专 诪讬注讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara comments: This too stands to reason, as if you do not say so, is an infant in its first year capable of performing the sacrificial service? Since the Tabernacle was established only a year after the Jewish people left Egypt, clearly the firstborn who performed the sacrificial service at that time were born in Egypt.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛

The Gemara asks: And he who asked it, why did he ask it? Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the firstborn born in Egypt performed the sacrificial service in the first years of the Tabernacle?

讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 讛谞讱 讚诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻拽注讗 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚驻住拽 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 讛谞讱 讚诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 驻拽注讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜

The Gemara answers: This was his difficulty: Granted, if you say that the sanctity of the firstborn did not cease from the time that the mitzva of: 鈥淪anctify to Me all the firstborn鈥 (Exodus 13:2), was given in Egypt, and those born in the wilderness were also sanctified, then with regard to these firstborn who were originally in Egypt, their sanctity also did not lapse. Therefore, they could perform the sacrificial service in the first years of the Tabernacle. But if you say that the sanctity of the firstborn ceased and the firstborn born in the wilderness were not sanctified, then with regard to these firstborn that were originally born in Egypt, their sanctity also lapsed.

讜讗讬讚讱 讚拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖 讚诇讗 拽讚讜砖 诇讗 拽讚讜砖

And the other amora, Reish Lakish, responded: No proof may be derived from here, as those who were sanctified in Egypt were sanctified and did not then lose their sanctity in the wilderness, while those who were not sanctified in Egypt were not sanctified in the wilderness.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讛讜拽诐 讛诪砖讻谉 拽专讘讜 讘讜 诇讛诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讘讻讜专讜转 讜诪注砖专讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘讗讜转谉 砖讬爪讗讜 诪诪爪专讬诐 讜诪讬谞讛 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讛讜讗 讚拽专讜讘 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 拽专讜讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: On the same day that the Tabernacle was established, many types of offerings were sacrificed by the Jewish people, including vow offerings and gift offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings, kosher firstborn animal offerings and animal tithe offerings. If firstborn animal offerings were sacrificed in the wilderness, then evidently the firstborn animals were sanctified in the wilderness. Reish Lakish answered him: This is referring also to those firstborn animals that left Egypt and were already sanctified there. The Gemara comments: And it may be understood from the baraita itself that the opinion of Reish Lakish is correct, as one can infer from it: That day is when the firstborn were sacrificed, but beyond that they were not sacrificed.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讛讜拽诐 讛诪砖讻谉 拽专讘讜 诇讛诐 讬砖专讗诇 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讘讻讜专讜转 讜诪注砖专讜转 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讬诇讱

There are those who say the discussion proceeded as follows: Reish Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: On the same day that the Tabernacle was established, many types of offerings were sacrificed by the Jewish people, including vow offerings and gift offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings, kosher firstborn animal offerings and animal tithe offerings. It may be inferred that on that day, yes, the firstborn animals were sacrificed, but beyond that the firstborn animals were not sacrificed, indicating that the male firstborn animals in the wilderness were not sanctified. The Gemara responds: One can say that the baraita means that from that day onward, all of those offerings were sacrificed.

讜诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讞讜讘讜转 讘讘诪讛 诇讗 拽专讜讘

The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the baraita teaching us? The Gemara answers: It is teaching that from that day onward, yes, the Jewish people brought those offerings, but initially, prior to the establishment of the Tabernacle, they were not brought. Evidently, obligatory offerings such as these were not sacrificed on a private altar; only voluntary offerings were sacrificed on such altars.

转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 拽讚砖讜 讘讻讜专讜转 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜讘诪讚讘专 讜讘讻谞讬住转谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗专抓 讘诪爪专讬诐 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖 诇讬 讻诇 讘讻讜专 讘诪讚讘专 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 诇讬 讻诇 讘讻讜专 讘讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讻谞讬住转诐 诇讗专抓 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讻讬 讬讘讬讗讱 讜讛注讘专转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from a baraita: You are found to be saying that the firstborn of the Jewish people were sanctified in three locations: In Egypt, and in the wilderness, and upon the entry of the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. In Egypt, what does the verse state? 鈥淪anctify to Me all the firstborn鈥 (Exodus 13:2). In the wilderness, the verse states: 鈥淔or all the firstborn among the children of Israel are Mine鈥 (Numbers 8:17). With regard to their entry into Eretz Yisrael, the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be when the Lord shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites鈥and you shall set apart all firstborn of the womb to the Lord鈥 (Exodus 13:11鈥12). This baraita indicates that the firstborn born in the wilderness were sanctified.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讜讝讛专讜 注诇 讛讘讻讜专讜转 诇讬拽讚砖 讜诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讜讘诪爪专讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽讚讜砖 讛讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚拽讚讜砖 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪讛谉 拽讚砖讜 讜诪讛谉 诇讗 拽讚砖讜

The Gemara rejects this proof. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The baraita means that the Jewish people were commanded in three locations with regard to the firstborn, that is, to sanctify them, but they did not sanctify them in practice. The Gemara asks: But according to this, were they not sanctified in Egypt either? Didn鈥檛 we say that they were sanctified even according to Reish Lakish? The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna is saying: They were commanded in three locations to sanctify the firstborn. In some of those cases, i.e., in Egypt and in Eretz Yisrael, they sanctified them, and in some of them, i.e., in the wilderness, they did not sanctify them.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讘诪讚讘专 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 驻拽讚 讻诇 讘讻专 讝讻专 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 讜诇讗 驻住拽讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜

Rav Pappa objects to this: And did they not sanctify them in the wilderness? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淐ount all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward鈥 (Numbers 3:40), a commandment that was fulfilled (see Numbers 3:42)? The firstborn referred to certainly include those born in the wilderness, as this counting occurred in the second year after the exodus from Egypt. Rather, if a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish was stated with regard to this matter, it was stated like this: Rabbi Yo岣nan says the firstborn that were born in the wilderness were sanctified and their sanctity did not cease, and Reish Lakish says they were sanctified only until the time of the counting referred to above,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 4

讙诪壮 讗讬谞讛讜 驻讟专讬 讗讚诐 讗讚诐 驻讟专 讘讛诪讛 讘讛诪讛 驻讟专讛 讚讻转讬讘 拽讞 讗转 讛诇讜讬诐 转讞转 讘讻讜专 讘讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转 讘讛诪转 讛诇讜讬诐 转讞转 讘讛诪转诐

GEMARA: In stating: If the priests and Levites rendered exempt the firstborn children and donkeys of the Israelites in the wilderness from being counted firstborns, the mishna indicates that the priests and Levites themselves rendered the animals exempt. The Gemara therefore asks: Did they render the firstborn children and donkeys exempt? With regard to a person, i.e., the Israelite firstborn, the person, i.e., the priests and Levites, rendered them exempt. But with regard to an animal, i.e., the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites, the animal, i.e., the sheep of the priests and Levites, rendered them exempt, as it is written: 鈥淭ake the Levites in exchange for all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the animal of the Levites in exchange for their animals鈥 (Numbers 3:45).

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 讘讛诪转诐 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 讛驻拽讬注讛 讘讛诪转诐 砖诇 诇讜讬诐 讘讛诪讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖转驻拽讬注 讗转 砖诇 注爪诪谉

The Gemara answers: Abaye said this is what the mishna is saying: The firstborn animals of priests and Levites are exempt from firstborn status, and that is derived from an a fortiori inference: If the animals of the Levites, i.e., the sheep of the priests and Levites, rendered the firstborn status of the animals of the Israelites in the wilderness abrogated, it is only logical that the sheep of the priests and Levites should render the firstborn status of the priests鈥 and Levites鈥 own firstborn donkeys abrogated.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 驻讟专讜 讗讬谞讛讜 拽转谞讬

Rava said to him: How can you interpret the a fortiori inference in the mishna as referring to the animals of the priests and Levites? But doesn鈥檛 it teach: They, i.e., the priests and Levites, rendered the firstborn children and donkeys of the Israelites exempt? The reference is clearly to the priests and Levites themselves, not their animals.

讜注讜讚 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 谞驻讟专讜 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 诇讗 谞驻讟专讜 诪讘讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讜驻讟专 讞诪讜专

Furthermore, if it is so that their animals are exempt due to the a fortiori inference, then the priests and Levites should be exempt even from the halakhot pertaining to a male firstborn of a kosher animal, as their firstborn kosher animals rendered the firstborn kosher animals of the Israelites exempt from firstborn status. Why did we learn in the mishna (13a): The priests and Levites were not exempted from the mitzva of the male firstborn of a kosher animal; rather, they were exempted only from redemption of the firstborn son and the firstborn donkey?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 驻讟专讜 讛谉 注爪诪谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 讛驻拽讬注讛 拽讚讜砖转谉 砖诇 诇讜讬诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 诇讗 讬驻拽讬注 讗转 砖诇 注爪诪谉

Rather, Rava said this is what the mishna is teaching: Priests and Levites rendered themselves exempt, and that is derived from an a fortiori inference: If the sanctity of the Levites abrogated the sanctity of the firstborn of the Israelites in the wilderness, should it not abrogate the sanctity of the firstborn Levites themselves?

讗砖讻讞谉 讗讚诐 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讱 驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 讗转 讘讻讜专 讛讗讚诐 讜讗转 讘讻讜专 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讟诪讗讛 转驻讚讛 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘讻讜专 讗讚诐 讬砖谞讜 讘讘讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讘讻讜专 讗讚诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讘讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: We have found a source for the halakha that the Levites鈥 personal status as firstborns is abrogated; from where do we derive that their non-kosher animals, i.e., donkeys, do not have the status of firstborns? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淵et you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:15). The status of the human firstborn is juxtaposed with that of a non-kosher animal, from which the following principle is derived: Anything that applies to a woman鈥檚 firstborn son applies to the firstborn of a non-kosher animal, and anything that does not apply to a woman鈥檚 firstborn son does not apply to a non-kosher animal. Therefore, just as firstborn status does not apply to Levites, it does not apply to their donkeys, and they do not need to be redeemed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讘讛诪转诐 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讛 讚讗驻拽注 诇讬驻拽注 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讛 讚诇讬驻拽注 诇讗 诇讬驻拽注

Rav Safra said to Abaye: According to your opinion, that you say the animals of the Levites did not have firstborn status due to the a fortiori inference, then with regard to a Levite who had a lamb, which abrogated the sanctity of the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites, let the firstborn status of his animals be abrogated. But with regard to one who did not have a lamb that would abrogate their sanctity, the status of his animals should not be abrogated.

讘讬谉 诇讚讬讚讱 讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 讘谉 讞讚砖 讚讗驻拽注 诇讬驻拽注 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 讞讚砖 讚诇讗 讗驻拽注 诇讗 诇讬驻拽注

Rav Safra asked Abaye an additional question: According to both you and Rava, since you agree that the firstborn Levites themselves were exempt from being accorded firstborn status because they rendered the sanctity of the Israelite firstborns abrogated, one should conclude that only a firstborn Levite who was at least one month old, who abrogated the sanctity of the Israelite firstborns (see Numbers 3:15), should have his own firstborn status abrogated. But those firstborn Levites who were less than one month old, who did not abrogate the sanctity of the Israelite firstborns, should not have their own firstborn status abrogated.

诇讜讬讛 诇讗 转讬驻拽注 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讜讬讛 砖讬诇讚讛 讘谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐

Furthermore, the sanctity of a firstborn son born to a female Levite who was married to an Israelite should not be abrogated, as the women were not included among the Levites who were exchanged for the Israelite firstborn. Why, then, does Rav Adda bar Ahava say: With regard to a female Levite who gave birth,her firstborn son is exempt from the obligation of giving five sela coins to the priest to be redeemed?

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 驻讟专 专讞诐 讘驻讟专 专讞诐 转诇讛 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara answers the last question: That is not difficult, as it is in accordance with the statement of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who says: The fact that the Torah states with regard to the sanctity of the firstborn: 鈥淔irstborn of the womb鈥 (Exodus 13:12), indicates that the Merciful One renders the obligations of firstborn status dependent on being the firstborn of the womb, i.e., of the mother. Therefore, the mother鈥檚 status as a Levite is sufficient to exempt the child from firstborn status.

讜讗讛专谉 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讗讜转讜 诪谞讬谉 诇讗 诇讬驻拽注 讚转谞讬讗 诇诪讛 谞拽讜讚 注诇 讗讛专谉 砖讘讞讜诪砖 讛驻拽讜讚讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讗讜转讜 诪谞讬谉

Rav Safra again challenged the opinions of Abaye and Rava: And Aaron, who was not included in that count of the Levites when they were compared to the number of Israelite firstborns and redeemed from their sanctity as firstborns, should not have his own firstborn status abrogated. As it is taught in a baraita: Why do dots appear over the word 鈥淎aron鈥 in the verse in the book of Numbers: 鈥淎ll that were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered鈥 (Numbers 3:39)? It is in order to demonstrate that he was not included in that count of the Levites.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讛诇讜讬诐 讛讜拽砖讜 讻诇 讛诇讜讬诐 讝讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭he Levites鈥 (Numbers 3:45), to teach that all of the Levites were juxtaposed with each other. Therefore, even a firstborn Levite who did not abrogate the sanctity of the Israelite firstborns himself was still abrogated of his own firstborn sanctity.

讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞拽专讗讜 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 讘谞讬 爪讚讜拽

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that priests, including Aaron, were also subject to that halakha? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites, and this is one of them: 鈥淏ut the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok鈥 (Ezekiel 44:15). It is derived from this verse that priests are included in the category of Levites even where they are not mentioned explicitly.

讜诇讚讜专讜转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讜 诇讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讜讛讬讜 讘讛讜讜讬讬转谉 讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the priests and Levites are exempt from their offspring being counted a firstborn for all generations? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the Levites shall be Mine鈥 (Numbers 3:12). The term 鈥渟hall be鈥 indicates that they shall be, i.e., shall remain, in their current state of sanctity. Just as firstborn status did not apply to the priests or the Levites in the wilderness, it does not apply to priests or Levites in subsequent generations.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讗诪专 讻住祝 诇讚讜专讜转 讜谞讗诪专 砖讛 诇讚讜专讜转

搂 Rav Safra (4a) referred to the fact that the sanctity of the firstborn donkeys of the Israelites was abrogated by the lambs of the Levites. The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that this abrogation was accomplished with a lamb? Rav 岣sda says: The word 鈥渟ilver鈥 is stated with regard to the redemption of a woman鈥檚 firstborn son for later generations in the verse: 鈥淎nd their redemption money鈥hall be, according to your valuation, five shekels of silver鈥 (Numbers 18:16). And in addition, the word 鈥渓amb鈥 is stated with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey for later generations in the verse: 鈥淎nd every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb鈥 (Exodus 13:13).

诪讛 讻住祝 讛讗诪讜专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讜 驻讚讜 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讜 驻讚讜 诇讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讗祝 砖讛 讛讗诪讜专 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讜 驻讚讜 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讜 驻讚讜 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛

Therefore, one can derive that just as concerning silver, which was mentioned with regard to later generations, the Israelites redeemed with it in later generations and they also redeemed with it at that time, as the surplus firstborn in the wilderness were redeemed with five shekels (see Numbers 3:47), so too concerning the lamb, which was mentioned with regard to later generations, they redeemed with it in later generations, and they redeemed with it at that time.

诪讛 诇讻住祝 砖讻谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讘讜 讛拽讚砖讜转 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬

The Gemara rejects the comparison: What is notable about silver? It is notable in that it is also used for redemption in other cases, as one can redeem consecrated property and second-tithe produce with it, which is not the halakha with regard to lambs.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讱 驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 讗转 讘讻讜专 讛讗讚诐 讜讗转 讘讻讜专 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讟诪讗讛 转驻讚讛 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讗讚诐 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讬谉 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讘讻住祝 讗祝 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 诇讚讜专讜转 讘讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讘砖讛

Rather, it can be derived from the fact that the verse states: 鈥淵et you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem鈥 (Numbers 18:15). The juxtaposition of the two cases demonstrates that just as with regard to a woman鈥檚 firstborn son you have not distinguished between the halakha for later generations and the halakha for that time, as the redemption is performed with silver in both cases, so too, with regard to the redemption of a non-kosher animal, you should not distinguish between the halakha for later generations and for that time, as it must be performed with a lamb in both situations.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖讛 讗讞讚 砖诇 讘谉 诇讜讬 驻讟专 讻诪讛 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讚注 砖讛专讬 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 注讜讚驻讬诐 讘讗讚诐 讜诇讗 诪谞讛 注讜讚驻讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of the procedure for the redemption of the firstborn donkeys in the wilderness: Rabbi 岣nina says that one lamb of a Levite in the wilderness rendered several firstborn donkeys of the Israelites exempt from the obligations of firstborn status. Abaye says: Know that this is so, as the verse enumerates the surplus of firstborn humans when it says that there were 273 more firstborn Israelites than Levites who needed to be redeemed with silver (see Numbers 3:46); but the verse does not enumerate any surplus of Israelite animals.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞驻讬砖讬 诇讛讜 讘讛诪讜转 讟讜讘讗 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪拽谞讛 专讘 讛讬讛 诇讘谞讬 专讗讜讘谉 讜诇讘谞讬 讙讚

The Gemara asks: From where is this proven? Perhaps the Israelites did not have many animals, and their firstborn donkeys did not outnumber the lambs of the Levites. The Gemara answers: Do not let this possibility enter your mind, as it is written: 鈥淣ow the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of livestock鈥 (Numbers 32:1).

讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 驻砖讜讟讬诐 讚诇讜讬诐 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 诇讘讛讚讬 讘讻讜专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗转 讘讛诪转 讛诇讜讬诐 转讞转 讘讛诪转诐 讘讛诪讛 讗讞转 转讞转 讘讛诪讜转 讛专讘讛

The Gemara challenges: Perhaps even so, the number of ordinary animals of the Levites that were not firstborn corresponded to the number of firstborn animals belonging to the Israelites. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淭ake the Levites in exchange for all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the animal of [behemat] the Levites in exchange for their animals [behemtam]鈥 (Numbers 3:45). The use of the word behemat in the singular indicates that the transaction involved one animal of the Levites in exchange for many animals of the Israelites.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讛诪讛 专讘讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讗讜 讘讛诪讛 转讞转 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讘讛诪转诐 转讞转 讘讛诪转诐 诪讗讬 讘讛诪转 转讞转 讘讛诪转诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讚 驻讟专 讟讜讘讗

The Gemara asks: And say the word behemat is referring to many animals, as in the phrase: 鈥淎nd many animals [uvhema rabba]鈥 (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write either: Behema of the Levites in exchange for behema, or: Behemtam in exchange for behemtam. What is the significance of the phrase behemat the Levites in exchange for behemtam鈥? Learn from it that one lamb of a Levite rendered many donkeys of Israelites exempt.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜驻讜讚讛 讘讜 驻注诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟注诪讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪驻专砖 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讜讚讛 讘讜 驻注诪讬诐 讛专讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讛 讗讞讚 砖诇 讘谉 诇讜讬 驻讜讟专 讻诪讛 驻讟专讬 讞诪讜专讬诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

Rava said: We learn in a mishna (9a), as well, a support for Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 statement: And if the priest returns the lamb to him, he may redeem firstborn donkeys with it many times if he repurchases the lamb from the priest each time upon redeeming a donkey. And actually, Rabbi 岣nina is not offering his own opinion, but is rather explaining the reasoning of the mishna, and this is what he is saying: What is the reason that the owner may redeem firstborn donkeys with the same lamb many times? It is because one lamb of a Levite renders exempt several firstborn donkeys belonging to an Israelite.

讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 讘讻讜专讜转 讘诪讚讘专 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讘讻讜专讜转 讘诪讚讘专

搂 It was stated with regard to the sanctity of the firstborn in the wilderness: Rabbi Yo岣nan says that both firstborn animals and firstborn sons born in the wilderness were sanctified, and Reish Lakish says: The firstborn that were born in the wilderness were not sanctified.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 讘讻讜专讜转 讘诪讚讘专 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬拽讚砖讜 讚讻转讬讘 拽讚砖 诇讬 讻诇 讘讻讜专

The Gemara explains the reason for each opinion: Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the firstborn that were born in the wilderness were sanctified, since the Merciful One states they should be sanctified, as it is written prior to the Jews leaving Egypt: 鈥淪anctify to Me all the firstborn鈥 (Exodus 13:2).

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讘讻讜专讜转 讘诪讚讘专 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讻讬 讬讘讬讗讱 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讜讛注讘专转 诪讻诇诇 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 拽讚讜砖

And Reish Lakish says: Although the firstborn in Egypt were sanctified, the firstborn that were born in the wilderness were not sanctified, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall be when the Lord shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites鈥 (Exodus 13:11), and it is written afterward: 鈥淎nd you shall set apart all firstborn of the womb to the Lord鈥 (Exodus 13:12). By inference, it can be derived that initially, before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, those that were born in the wilderness were not sanctified.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讜拽诐 讛诪砖讻谉 讛讬讜 讘诪讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讜注讘讜讚讛 讘讘讻讜专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讜转谉 砖讬爪讗讜 诪诪爪专讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (Zeva岣m 112b): Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted and the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. Clearly, then, the firstborn in the wilderness were sanctified. Reish Lakish said to him: That mishna is referring to those firstborn who left Egypt, who performed the sacrificial service, and not to the ones born in the wilderness.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讘谉 砖谞讛 讘专 诪讬注讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara comments: This too stands to reason, as if you do not say so, is an infant in its first year capable of performing the sacrificial service? Since the Tabernacle was established only a year after the Jewish people left Egypt, clearly the firstborn who performed the sacrificial service at that time were born in Egypt.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛

The Gemara asks: And he who asked it, why did he ask it? Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the firstborn born in Egypt performed the sacrificial service in the first years of the Tabernacle?

讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 讛谞讱 讚诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻拽注讗 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚驻住拽 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 讛谞讱 讚诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 驻拽注讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜

The Gemara answers: This was his difficulty: Granted, if you say that the sanctity of the firstborn did not cease from the time that the mitzva of: 鈥淪anctify to Me all the firstborn鈥 (Exodus 13:2), was given in Egypt, and those born in the wilderness were also sanctified, then with regard to these firstborn who were originally in Egypt, their sanctity also did not lapse. Therefore, they could perform the sacrificial service in the first years of the Tabernacle. But if you say that the sanctity of the firstborn ceased and the firstborn born in the wilderness were not sanctified, then with regard to these firstborn that were originally born in Egypt, their sanctity also lapsed.

讜讗讬讚讱 讚拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖 讚诇讗 拽讚讜砖 诇讗 拽讚讜砖

And the other amora, Reish Lakish, responded: No proof may be derived from here, as those who were sanctified in Egypt were sanctified and did not then lose their sanctity in the wilderness, while those who were not sanctified in Egypt were not sanctified in the wilderness.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讛讜拽诐 讛诪砖讻谉 拽专讘讜 讘讜 诇讛诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讘讻讜专讜转 讜诪注砖专讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘讗讜转谉 砖讬爪讗讜 诪诪爪专讬诐 讜诪讬谞讛 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讛讜讗 讚拽专讜讘 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 拽专讜讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: On the same day that the Tabernacle was established, many types of offerings were sacrificed by the Jewish people, including vow offerings and gift offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings, kosher firstborn animal offerings and animal tithe offerings. If firstborn animal offerings were sacrificed in the wilderness, then evidently the firstborn animals were sanctified in the wilderness. Reish Lakish answered him: This is referring also to those firstborn animals that left Egypt and were already sanctified there. The Gemara comments: And it may be understood from the baraita itself that the opinion of Reish Lakish is correct, as one can infer from it: That day is when the firstborn were sacrificed, but beyond that they were not sacrificed.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讛讜拽诐 讛诪砖讻谉 拽专讘讜 诇讛诐 讬砖专讗诇 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讘讻讜专讜转 讜诪注砖专讜转 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讬诇讱

There are those who say the discussion proceeded as follows: Reish Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: On the same day that the Tabernacle was established, many types of offerings were sacrificed by the Jewish people, including vow offerings and gift offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings, kosher firstborn animal offerings and animal tithe offerings. It may be inferred that on that day, yes, the firstborn animals were sacrificed, but beyond that the firstborn animals were not sacrificed, indicating that the male firstborn animals in the wilderness were not sanctified. The Gemara responds: One can say that the baraita means that from that day onward, all of those offerings were sacrificed.

讜诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讞讜讘讜转 讘讘诪讛 诇讗 拽专讜讘

The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the baraita teaching us? The Gemara answers: It is teaching that from that day onward, yes, the Jewish people brought those offerings, but initially, prior to the establishment of the Tabernacle, they were not brought. Evidently, obligatory offerings such as these were not sacrificed on a private altar; only voluntary offerings were sacrificed on such altars.

转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 拽讚砖讜 讘讻讜专讜转 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜讘诪讚讘专 讜讘讻谞讬住转谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗专抓 讘诪爪专讬诐 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖 诇讬 讻诇 讘讻讜专 讘诪讚讘专 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 诇讬 讻诇 讘讻讜专 讘讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讻谞讬住转诐 诇讗专抓 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讻讬 讬讘讬讗讱 讜讛注讘专转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from a baraita: You are found to be saying that the firstborn of the Jewish people were sanctified in three locations: In Egypt, and in the wilderness, and upon the entry of the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. In Egypt, what does the verse state? 鈥淪anctify to Me all the firstborn鈥 (Exodus 13:2). In the wilderness, the verse states: 鈥淔or all the firstborn among the children of Israel are Mine鈥 (Numbers 8:17). With regard to their entry into Eretz Yisrael, the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be when the Lord shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites鈥and you shall set apart all firstborn of the womb to the Lord鈥 (Exodus 13:11鈥12). This baraita indicates that the firstborn born in the wilderness were sanctified.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讜讝讛专讜 注诇 讛讘讻讜专讜转 诇讬拽讚砖 讜诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讜讘诪爪专讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽讚讜砖 讛讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚拽讚讜砖 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪讛谉 拽讚砖讜 讜诪讛谉 诇讗 拽讚砖讜

The Gemara rejects this proof. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The baraita means that the Jewish people were commanded in three locations with regard to the firstborn, that is, to sanctify them, but they did not sanctify them in practice. The Gemara asks: But according to this, were they not sanctified in Egypt either? Didn鈥檛 we say that they were sanctified even according to Reish Lakish? The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna is saying: They were commanded in three locations to sanctify the firstborn. In some of those cases, i.e., in Egypt and in Eretz Yisrael, they sanctified them, and in some of them, i.e., in the wilderness, they did not sanctify them.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讘诪讚讘专 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 驻拽讚 讻诇 讘讻专 讝讻专 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 讜诇讗 驻住拽讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜

Rav Pappa objects to this: And did they not sanctify them in the wilderness? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淐ount all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward鈥 (Numbers 3:40), a commandment that was fulfilled (see Numbers 3:42)? The firstborn referred to certainly include those born in the wilderness, as this counting occurred in the second year after the exodus from Egypt. Rather, if a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish was stated with regard to this matter, it was stated like this: Rabbi Yo岣nan says the firstborn that were born in the wilderness were sanctified and their sanctity did not cease, and Reish Lakish says they were sanctified only until the time of the counting referred to above,

Scroll To Top