Bekhorot 4
Share this shiur:
Masechet Bekhorot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in loving memory of her father, Arthur Aaron, Asher ben Yaakov Yehuda v’Esther on his first yahrzeit. “You always said Talmud Torah was the best s’char. This one’s for you, Daddy.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Mishna rules that Kohanim and Levites are exempt from bekhora (firstborn male donkeys) based on a kal v’chomer: if they exempted the firstborns of Israelites in the desert, logic dictates that they exempt their own.
The Gemara challenges the Mishna’s premise as the Levites themselves did not exempt the donkeys of the Israelites – they themselves exempted the Israelite firstborn males, and their animals exempted the Israelite firstborn donkeys. Two answers are offered to resolve this question, by both Abaye and Rava. Abaye answers that the Mishna means the livestock of the Levites exempted their own livestock. Rava rejects Abaye’s interpretation on two grounds: first, the Mishna uses the verb “they exempted”, referring to the Levites themselves; second, if Abaye were correct, Levites’ kosher firstborn animals should be exempt from bekhora also, yet a Mishna explicitly teaches that Kohanim and Levites are obligated in the firstborn of kosher animals and exempt only from redeeming their sons (pidyon haben) and firstborn donkey (peter chamor). Rava provides his own answer, explaining that the Levites exempted themselves (their human firstborns) via kal v’chomer from what transpired in the desert where the Levites exempted the Israelite firstborns. To derive their exemption from the firstborn donkey (peter chamor), the Gemara cites a verse equating human firstborns with impure animal firstborns (“האדם ואת בכור הבהמה הטמאה תפדה”), establishing that whoever is exempt from human firstborn is exempt from the redemption of the donkeys.
Rav Safra raises four difficulties against both Abaye and Rava: if the exemption depends on the Levites’ exchange in the desert, what about those who were not involved in the exemption, such as a Levite who did not own animals or was under a month old, or a female Levite, or Aharon? All difficulties are resolved. Three other questions are asked and answered, namely, the source for kohanim being included in this exemption, that this exemption applies for future generations, and that the redemption of a firstborn donkey in the desert was performed specifically with a lamb (seh) just as it is for future generations.
Rav Chanina states that a single lamb belonging to a Levite exempted multiple firstborn donkeys of Israelites in the desert. Abaye attempts to prove this from the fact that Scripture notes how many excess human firstborns there were compared to Levites, but did not mention any excess firstborn animals. After rejecting Abaye’s proof, the Gemara proves this from the precise phrasing “ואת בהמת הלוים תחת בהמתם” – “an animal (single) of the Levites in place of their (Israelites) animals (plural)”, and Rava notes that this aligns with a Mishna ruling that one may redeem with a lamb multiple times, and the Gemara explains that Rabbi Chanina’s statement was meant to give the reason for that Mishna.
There is a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether firstborns were sanctified in the desert. Rabbi Yochanan argues they were sanctified as can be seen in the verse in Shmot 13:2 (“קדש לי כל בכור” – “sanctify to me all the firstborn”), while Reish Lakish argues they were not sanctified until entering the Land as in the verse Shmot 13:12 (“והיו כי יביאך… והעברת” – “and when God will bring you into the land… you shall set apart all firstborn”). Rabbi Yochanan challenges Reish Lakish from two tannaitic sources, but both difficulties against Reish Lakish are resolved. An alternative version suggests that the second difficulty was brought by Reish Lakish to raise a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan’s position. A third source is brought by the Gemara to prove Rabbi Yochanan’s position, but Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak provides an alternative explanation of the source to fit with Reish Lakish.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Bekhorot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in loving memory of her father, Arthur Aaron, Asher ben Yaakov Yehuda v’Esther on his first yahrzeit. “You always said Talmud Torah was the best s’char. This one’s for you, Daddy.”
Bekhorot 4
גְּמָ׳ אִינְהוּ פָּטְרִי?! אָדָם — אָדָם פָּטַר, בְּהֵמָה — בְּהֵמָה פָּטְרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״קַח אֶת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּכוֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת בֶּהֱמַת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״!
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: “Take the Levites in exchange for all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the animal of the Levites in exchange for their animals” (Numbers 3:45).
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם פְּטוּרִין בְּהֶמְתָּם מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר — אִם הִפְקִיעָה בְּהֶמְתָּם שֶׁל לְוִיִּם בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, דִּין הוּא שֶׁתַּפְקִיעַ אֶת שֶׁל עַצְמָן.
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’ and Levites’ own firstborn donkeys abrogated.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא ״פָּטְרוּ״ אִינְהוּ קָתָנֵי!
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’t 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.
וְעוֹד, אִם אִיתָא, אֲפִילּוּ מִבְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה נִפַּטְרוּ! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: לֹא נִפְטְרוּ מִבְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִפִּדְיוֹן הַבֵּן וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר?
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?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם פָּטְרוּ הֵן עַצְמָן מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר, אִם הִפְקִיעָה קְדוּשָּׁתָן שֶׁל לְוִיִּם קְדוּשַּׁת שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, לֹא יַפְקִיעַ אֶת שֶׁל עַצְמָן?
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?
אַשְׁכְּחַן אָדָם, בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה אֵת בְּכוֹר הָאָדָם וְאֵת בְּכוֹר הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה תִּפְדֶּה״, כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּבְכוֹר אָדָם — יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּבְכוֹר אָדָם — אֵינוֹ בִּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה.
The Gemara asks: We have found a source for the halakha that the Levites’ 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: “Yet you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem” (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’s firstborn son applies to the firstborn of a non-kosher animal, and anything that does not apply to a woman’s 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּהֶמְתָּם, בֶּן לֵוִי דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ שֶׂה דְּאַפְקַע — לַיפְקַע, דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ שֶׂה דְּלַיפְקַע — לָא לַיפְקַע!
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.
בֵּין לְדִידָךְ, בֵּין לְרָבָא, בֶּן חֹדֶשׁ דְּאַפְקַע — לַיפְקַע, פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ דְּלָא אַפְקַע — לָא לַיפְקַע!
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.
לְוִיָּה לָא תַּיפְקַע? אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לְוִיָּה שֶׁיָּלְדָה — בְּנָהּ פָּטוּר מֵחֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים?
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?
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר: ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם״ בְּפֶטֶר רֶחֶם תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא.
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: “Firstborn of the womb” (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’s status as a Levite is sufficient to exempt the child from firstborn status.
וְאַהֲרֹן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מִנְיָן — לָא לַיפְקַע! דְּתַנְיָא: לָמָּה נָקוּד עַל ״אַהֲרֹן״ שֶׁבְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים — שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מִנְיָן.
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 “Aaron” in the verse in the book of Numbers: “All that were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered” (Numbers 3:39)? It is in order to demonstrate that he was not included in that count of the Levites.
אָמַר קְרָא: ״הַלְוִיִּם״, הוּקְשׁוּ כׇּל הַלְוִיִּם זֶה לָזֶה.
The Gemara answers that the verse states: “The Levites” (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.
כֹּהֲנִים מְנָלַן? כִּדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מְקוֹמוֹת נִקְרְאוּ כֹּהֲנִים ״לְוִיִּם״, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן: ״וְהַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם בְּנֵי צָדוֹק״.
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: “But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (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.
וּלְדוֹרוֹת מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם״, ״וְהָיוּ״ — בַּהֲוָויָיתָן יְהוּ.
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: “And the Levites shall be Mine” (Numbers 3:12). The term “shall be” 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.
וּמִמַּאי דִּבְשֶׂה? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: נֶאֱמַר כֶּסֶף לְדוֹרוֹת, וְנֶאֱמַר שֶׂה לְדוֹרוֹת.
§ 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 Ḥisda says: The word “silver” is stated with regard to the redemption of a woman’s firstborn son for later generations in the verse: “And their redemption money…shall be, according to your valuation, five shekels of silver” (Numbers 18:16). And in addition, the word “lamb” is stated with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey for later generations in the verse: “And every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 13:13).
מָה כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר לְדוֹרוֹת — בּוֹ פָּדוּ לְדוֹרוֹת, בּוֹ פָּדוּ לְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, אַף שֶׂה הָאָמוּר לְדוֹרוֹת — בּוֹ פָּדוּ לְדוֹרוֹת, בּוֹ פָּדוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה.
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.
מָה לְכֶסֶף — שָׁכֵן פּוֹדִין בּוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי!
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.
אֶלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה אֶת בְּכוֹר הָאָדָם וְאֵת בְּכוֹר הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה תִּפְדֶּה״, מָה בְּכוֹר אָדָם לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בֵּין לְדוֹרוֹת בֵּין לְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה — בְּכֶסֶף, אַף בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין לְדוֹרוֹת בֵּין לְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה — בְּשֶׂה.
Rather, it can be derived from the fact that the verse states: “Yet you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:15). The juxtaposition of the two cases demonstrates that just as with regard to a woman’s 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שֶׂה אֶחָד שֶׁל בֶּן לֵוִי פָּטַר כַּמָּה פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תֵּדַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי מָנָה הַכָּתוּב עוֹדְפִים בְּאָדָם, וְלֹא מָנָה עוֹדְפִין בִּבְהֵמָה.
§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the procedure for the redemption of the firstborn donkeys in the wilderness: Rabbi Ḥanina 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.
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לָא הָוֵי נְפִישִׁי לְהוּ בְּהֵמוֹת טוּבָא? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ! דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה לִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְלִבְנֵי גָד״.
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: “Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of livestock” (Numbers 32:1).
דִּילְמָא אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, פְּשׁוּטִים דִּלְוִיִּם הֲווֹ קָיְימִי לְבַהֲדֵי בְּכוֹרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֶת בֶּהֱמַת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״, בְּהֵמָה אַחַת תַּחַת בְּהֵמוֹת הַרְבֵּה.
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: “Take 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]” (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.
וְאֵימָא בְּהֵמָה רַבָּה? אִם כֵּן, לִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא אוֹ ״בְּהֵמָה תַּחַת בְּהֵמָה״ אוֹ ״בְּהֶמְתָּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״! מַאי ״בֶּהֱמַת… תֵּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חַד פָּטַר טוּבָא.
The Gemara asks: And say the word behemat is referring to many animals, as in the phrase: “And many animals [uvhema rabba]” (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”? Learn from it that one lamb of a Levite rendered many donkeys of Israelites exempt.
אָמַר רָבָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: וּפוֹדֶה בּוֹ פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה. וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא טַעְמָא דְמַתְנִיתִין מְפָרֵשׁ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: מַאי טַעְמָא פּוֹדֶה בּוֹ פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה? מִשּׁוּם דְּשֶׂה אֶחָד שֶׁל בֶּן לֵוִי פּוֹטֵר כַּמָּה פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Rava said: We learn in a mishna (9a), as well, a support for Rabbi Ḥanina’s 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 Ḥanina 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.
אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר.
§ It was stated with regard to the sanctity of the firstborn in the wilderness: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר לִיקְדְּשׁוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״קַדֶּשׁ לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר״.
The Gemara explains the reason for each opinion: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:2).
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר, מִדִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ״, מִכְּלָל דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא קְדוּשׁ.
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: “And it shall be when the Lord shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites” (Exodus 13:11), and it is written afterward: “And you shall set apart all firstborn of the womb to the Lord” (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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָיוּ בָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת וַעֲבוֹדָה בִּבְכוֹרוֹת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם.
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (Zevaḥim 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.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, בֶּן שָׁנָה בַּר מֶיעְבַּד עֲבוֹדָה הוּא?
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.
וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ, מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ?
The Gemara asks: And he who asked it, why did he ask it? Isn’t it obvious that the firstborn born in Egypt performed the sacrificial service in the first years of the Tabernacle?
הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּלָא פָּסֵיק קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ — הָנָךְ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי לָא פָּקְעָא קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּפָסֵק קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ — הָנָךְ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי פָּקְעָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ.
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: “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn” (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.
וְאִידַּךְ: דִּקְדוּשׁ — קְדוּשׁ, דְּלָא קְדוּשׁ — לָא קְדוּשׁ.
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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן, קָרְבוּ בּוֹ לָהֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת, חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, בְּכוֹרוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת. הָכִי נָמֵי — בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם. וּמִינַּהּ: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם הוּא דִּקְרוּב, מִיכָּן וְאֵילָךְ לָא קְרוּב!
Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן קָרְבוּ לָהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת בְּכוֹרוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת. אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם — אִין, מִיכָּן וְאֵילָךְ — לָא! אֵימָא: מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְאֵילָךְ.
There are those who say the discussion proceeded as follows: Reish Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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.
וּמַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם — אִין, מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא. אַלְמָא חוֹבוֹת בְּבָמָה לָא קְרוּב.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע, נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — בְּמִצְרַיִם, וּבַמִּדְבָּר, וּבִכְנִיסָתָן יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאֶרֶץ. בְּמִצְרַיִם מַהוּ אוֹמֵר? ״קַדֶּשׁ לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר״. בַּמִּדְבָּר הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. בִּכְנִיסָתָם לָאָרֶץ הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ… וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ״.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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? “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:2). In the wilderness, the verse states: “For all the firstborn among the children of Israel are Mine” (Numbers 8:17). With regard to their entry into Eretz Yisrael, the verse states: “And it shall be when the Lord shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites…and you shall set apart all firstborn of the womb to the Lord” (Exodus 13:11–12). This baraita indicates that the firstborn born in the wilderness were sanctified.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הוּזְהֲרוּ עַל הַבְּכוֹרוֹת לִיקְדַּשׁ, וְלֹא קָדְשׁוּ. וּבְמִצְרַיִם נָמֵי לָא קְדוּשׁ? הָא קָאָמְרִינַן דִּקְדוּשׁ! הָכִי אָמַר: מֵהֶן קָדְשׁוּ, וּמֵהֶן לֹא קָדְשׁוּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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’t 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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וּבַמִּדְבָּר לֹא קָדְשׁוּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״פְּקֹד כׇּל בְּכֹר זָכָר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״! אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ וְלֹא פָּסְקוּ, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ
Rav Pappa objects to this: And did they not sanctify them in the wilderness? But isn’t it written: “Count all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward” (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 Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish was stated with regard to this matter, it was stated like this: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Bekhorot: Daf 2-4 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Minneapolis, MN, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Bekhorot 4
גְּמָ׳ אִינְהוּ פָּטְרִי?! אָדָם — אָדָם פָּטַר, בְּהֵמָה — בְּהֵמָה פָּטְרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״קַח אֶת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּכוֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת בֶּהֱמַת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״!
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: “Take the Levites in exchange for all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the animal of the Levites in exchange for their animals” (Numbers 3:45).
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם פְּטוּרִין בְּהֶמְתָּם מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר — אִם הִפְקִיעָה בְּהֶמְתָּם שֶׁל לְוִיִּם בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, דִּין הוּא שֶׁתַּפְקִיעַ אֶת שֶׁל עַצְמָן.
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’ and Levites’ own firstborn donkeys abrogated.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא ״פָּטְרוּ״ אִינְהוּ קָתָנֵי!
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’t 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.
וְעוֹד, אִם אִיתָא, אֲפִילּוּ מִבְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה נִפַּטְרוּ! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: לֹא נִפְטְרוּ מִבְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִפִּדְיוֹן הַבֵּן וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר?
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?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם פָּטְרוּ הֵן עַצְמָן מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר, אִם הִפְקִיעָה קְדוּשָּׁתָן שֶׁל לְוִיִּם קְדוּשַּׁת שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, לֹא יַפְקִיעַ אֶת שֶׁל עַצְמָן?
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?
אַשְׁכְּחַן אָדָם, בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה אֵת בְּכוֹר הָאָדָם וְאֵת בְּכוֹר הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה תִּפְדֶּה״, כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּבְכוֹר אָדָם — יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּבְכוֹר אָדָם — אֵינוֹ בִּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה.
The Gemara asks: We have found a source for the halakha that the Levites’ 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: “Yet you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem” (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’s firstborn son applies to the firstborn of a non-kosher animal, and anything that does not apply to a woman’s 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּהֶמְתָּם, בֶּן לֵוִי דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ שֶׂה דְּאַפְקַע — לַיפְקַע, דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ שֶׂה דְּלַיפְקַע — לָא לַיפְקַע!
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.
בֵּין לְדִידָךְ, בֵּין לְרָבָא, בֶּן חֹדֶשׁ דְּאַפְקַע — לַיפְקַע, פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ דְּלָא אַפְקַע — לָא לַיפְקַע!
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.
לְוִיָּה לָא תַּיפְקַע? אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לְוִיָּה שֶׁיָּלְדָה — בְּנָהּ פָּטוּר מֵחֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים?
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?
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר: ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם״ בְּפֶטֶר רֶחֶם תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא.
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: “Firstborn of the womb” (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’s status as a Levite is sufficient to exempt the child from firstborn status.
וְאַהֲרֹן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מִנְיָן — לָא לַיפְקַע! דְּתַנְיָא: לָמָּה נָקוּד עַל ״אַהֲרֹן״ שֶׁבְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים — שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מִנְיָן.
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 “Aaron” in the verse in the book of Numbers: “All that were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered” (Numbers 3:39)? It is in order to demonstrate that he was not included in that count of the Levites.
אָמַר קְרָא: ״הַלְוִיִּם״, הוּקְשׁוּ כׇּל הַלְוִיִּם זֶה לָזֶה.
The Gemara answers that the verse states: “The Levites” (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.
כֹּהֲנִים מְנָלַן? כִּדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מְקוֹמוֹת נִקְרְאוּ כֹּהֲנִים ״לְוִיִּם״, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן: ״וְהַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם בְּנֵי צָדוֹק״.
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: “But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (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.
וּלְדוֹרוֹת מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם״, ״וְהָיוּ״ — בַּהֲוָויָיתָן יְהוּ.
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: “And the Levites shall be Mine” (Numbers 3:12). The term “shall be” 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.
וּמִמַּאי דִּבְשֶׂה? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: נֶאֱמַר כֶּסֶף לְדוֹרוֹת, וְנֶאֱמַר שֶׂה לְדוֹרוֹת.
§ 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 Ḥisda says: The word “silver” is stated with regard to the redemption of a woman’s firstborn son for later generations in the verse: “And their redemption money…shall be, according to your valuation, five shekels of silver” (Numbers 18:16). And in addition, the word “lamb” is stated with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey for later generations in the verse: “And every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 13:13).
מָה כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר לְדוֹרוֹת — בּוֹ פָּדוּ לְדוֹרוֹת, בּוֹ פָּדוּ לְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, אַף שֶׂה הָאָמוּר לְדוֹרוֹת — בּוֹ פָּדוּ לְדוֹרוֹת, בּוֹ פָּדוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה.
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.
מָה לְכֶסֶף — שָׁכֵן פּוֹדִין בּוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי!
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.
אֶלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה אֶת בְּכוֹר הָאָדָם וְאֵת בְּכוֹר הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה תִּפְדֶּה״, מָה בְּכוֹר אָדָם לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בֵּין לְדוֹרוֹת בֵּין לְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה — בְּכֶסֶף, אַף בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין לְדוֹרוֹת בֵּין לְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה — בְּשֶׂה.
Rather, it can be derived from the fact that the verse states: “Yet you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:15). The juxtaposition of the two cases demonstrates that just as with regard to a woman’s 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שֶׂה אֶחָד שֶׁל בֶּן לֵוִי פָּטַר כַּמָּה פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תֵּדַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי מָנָה הַכָּתוּב עוֹדְפִים בְּאָדָם, וְלֹא מָנָה עוֹדְפִין בִּבְהֵמָה.
§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the procedure for the redemption of the firstborn donkeys in the wilderness: Rabbi Ḥanina 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.
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לָא הָוֵי נְפִישִׁי לְהוּ בְּהֵמוֹת טוּבָא? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ! דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה לִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְלִבְנֵי גָד״.
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: “Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of livestock” (Numbers 32:1).
דִּילְמָא אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, פְּשׁוּטִים דִּלְוִיִּם הֲווֹ קָיְימִי לְבַהֲדֵי בְּכוֹרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֶת בֶּהֱמַת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״, בְּהֵמָה אַחַת תַּחַת בְּהֵמוֹת הַרְבֵּה.
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: “Take 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]” (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.
וְאֵימָא בְּהֵמָה רַבָּה? אִם כֵּן, לִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא אוֹ ״בְּהֵמָה תַּחַת בְּהֵמָה״ אוֹ ״בְּהֶמְתָּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״! מַאי ״בֶּהֱמַת… תֵּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חַד פָּטַר טוּבָא.
The Gemara asks: And say the word behemat is referring to many animals, as in the phrase: “And many animals [uvhema rabba]” (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”? Learn from it that one lamb of a Levite rendered many donkeys of Israelites exempt.
אָמַר רָבָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: וּפוֹדֶה בּוֹ פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה. וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא טַעְמָא דְמַתְנִיתִין מְפָרֵשׁ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: מַאי טַעְמָא פּוֹדֶה בּוֹ פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה? מִשּׁוּם דְּשֶׂה אֶחָד שֶׁל בֶּן לֵוִי פּוֹטֵר כַּמָּה פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Rava said: We learn in a mishna (9a), as well, a support for Rabbi Ḥanina’s 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 Ḥanina 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.
אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר.
§ It was stated with regard to the sanctity of the firstborn in the wilderness: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר לִיקְדְּשׁוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״קַדֶּשׁ לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר״.
The Gemara explains the reason for each opinion: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:2).
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר, מִדִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ״, מִכְּלָל דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא קְדוּשׁ.
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: “And it shall be when the Lord shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites” (Exodus 13:11), and it is written afterward: “And you shall set apart all firstborn of the womb to the Lord” (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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָיוּ בָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת וַעֲבוֹדָה בִּבְכוֹרוֹת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם.
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (Zevaḥim 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.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, בֶּן שָׁנָה בַּר מֶיעְבַּד עֲבוֹדָה הוּא?
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.
וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ, מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ?
The Gemara asks: And he who asked it, why did he ask it? Isn’t it obvious that the firstborn born in Egypt performed the sacrificial service in the first years of the Tabernacle?
הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּלָא פָּסֵיק קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ — הָנָךְ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי לָא פָּקְעָא קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּפָסֵק קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ — הָנָךְ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי פָּקְעָא לֵיהּ קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ.
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: “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn” (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.
וְאִידַּךְ: דִּקְדוּשׁ — קְדוּשׁ, דְּלָא קְדוּשׁ — לָא קְדוּשׁ.
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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן, קָרְבוּ בּוֹ לָהֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת, חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, בְּכוֹרוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת. הָכִי נָמֵי — בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם. וּמִינַּהּ: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם הוּא דִּקְרוּב, מִיכָּן וְאֵילָךְ לָא קְרוּב!
Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן קָרְבוּ לָהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת בְּכוֹרוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת. אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם — אִין, מִיכָּן וְאֵילָךְ — לָא! אֵימָא: מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְאֵילָךְ.
There are those who say the discussion proceeded as follows: Reish Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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.
וּמַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם — אִין, מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא. אַלְמָא חוֹבוֹת בְּבָמָה לָא קְרוּב.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע, נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — בְּמִצְרַיִם, וּבַמִּדְבָּר, וּבִכְנִיסָתָן יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאֶרֶץ. בְּמִצְרַיִם מַהוּ אוֹמֵר? ״קַדֶּשׁ לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר״. בַּמִּדְבָּר הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. בִּכְנִיסָתָם לָאָרֶץ הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ… וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ״.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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? “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:2). In the wilderness, the verse states: “For all the firstborn among the children of Israel are Mine” (Numbers 8:17). With regard to their entry into Eretz Yisrael, the verse states: “And it shall be when the Lord shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites…and you shall set apart all firstborn of the womb to the Lord” (Exodus 13:11–12). This baraita indicates that the firstborn born in the wilderness were sanctified.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הוּזְהֲרוּ עַל הַבְּכוֹרוֹת לִיקְדַּשׁ, וְלֹא קָדְשׁוּ. וּבְמִצְרַיִם נָמֵי לָא קְדוּשׁ? הָא קָאָמְרִינַן דִּקְדוּשׁ! הָכִי אָמַר: מֵהֶן קָדְשׁוּ, וּמֵהֶן לֹא קָדְשׁוּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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’t 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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וּבַמִּדְבָּר לֹא קָדְשׁוּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״פְּקֹד כׇּל בְּכֹר זָכָר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״! אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ וְלֹא פָּסְקוּ, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ
Rav Pappa objects to this: And did they not sanctify them in the wilderness? But isn’t it written: “Count all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward” (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 Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish was stated with regard to this matter, it was stated like this: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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,
