Bekhorot 7

Chapter 7

א <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אינהו פטרי אדם אדם פטר בהמה בהמה פטרה דכתיב (במדבר ג, מה) קח את הלוים תחת בכור בבני ישראל ואת בהמת הלוים תחת בהמתם
1 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Did they [themselves] exempt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first-born of asses in the wilderness.');"><sup>1</sup></span> [Surely] a man [a Levite] exempted a man [a first-born Israelite]; an animal [of a Levite] exempted an animal [an Israelite's first-born ass]. For it is written: 'Take the Levites instead of all the first-born among the children of Israel and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. III, 45.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אמר אביי הכי קאמר כהנים ולוים פטורין בהמתם מקל וחומר אם הפקיעה בהמתם של לוים בהמה של ישראל במדבר דין הוא שתפקיע את של עצמן
2 - Said Abaye: The Mishnah means this: 'As for priests and Levites, their animals are exempt a fortiori. If the animal [the sheep] of the Levites released the animal of the Israelites in the wilderness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the redemption of the first-born of an ass.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג א"ל רבא והא פטרו אינהו קתני
3 it follows a fortior that it should release their own'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Levites' own first-born of asses. Similarly, according to Abaye, just as the Levites themselves exempted the first-born of the Israelites in the wilderness, so they should a fortiori exempt their own first-born.');"><sup>4</sup></span> Said Raba to him: But does not the Mishnah say: 'THEY EXEMPT' meaning the Levites] themselves?
ד ועוד אם איתא אפילו מבכור בהמה טהורה נפטרו אלמה תנן לא נפטרו מבכור בהמה טהורה אלא מפדיון הבן ופטר חמור
4 And further, if it is [as you state],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we argue a fortiori with reference to the animals of the Levites.');"><sup>5</sup></span> they [the Levites] should be exempted even from [liabilities for] a clean animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the law of the firstling, for the Levites' clean animals exempted the clean animals of the Israelites in the wilderness.');"><sup>6</sup></span> Why have we learnt: They [the Levites] are not exempted from the law of the firstling of a clean animal only from the redemption of the first-born male, and the first birth of a ass!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 13a.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ה אלא אמר רבא הכי קתני כהנים ולוים פטרו הן עצמן מקל וחומר אם הפקיעה קדושתן של לוים קדושת של ישראל במדבר לא יפקיע את של עצמן
5 No, said Raba; the [Mishnah] must be read thus: 'Priests and Levites exempt themselves [from the redemption of the first-born] a fortiori'. If the holiness of the [non-first-born] Levites canceled the holiness the first-born Israelite [in the wilderness], should it not cancel that of their own [first-born]?
ו אשכחן אדם בהמה טמאה מנלן אמר קרא (במדבר יח, טו) אך פדה תפדה את בכור האדם ואת בכור הבהמה הטמאה תפדה כל שישנו בבכור אדם ישנו בבכור בהמה טמאה וכל שאינו בבכור אדם אינו בבכור בהמה טמאה
6 We thus find man [the Levite first-born is exempt]. Whence do we know that this also applies to an unclean animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that priests and Levites are exempt from the law of the first-born of an ass!');"><sup>8</sup></span> The text says: Howbeit the first-born of man shalt thou surely redeem and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 15.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ז אמר ליה רב ספרא לאביי לדידך דאמרת בהמתם בן לוי דהוה ליה שה דאפקע ליפקע דלא הוה ליה שה דליפקע לא ליפקע
7 Whosoever is required [to redeem] the first-born of a man, is required [to redeem] the firstling of an unclean animal. But whosoever is not required [to redeem] the first-born of a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the Levites and priests who are exempt a fortiori, are therefore also free from redeeming their first-born of asses.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ח בין לדידך בין לרבא בן חדש דאפקע ליפקע פחות מבן חדש דלא אפקע לא ליפקע
8 is not required to redeem the firstling of an unclean animal.
ט לויה לא תיפקע אלמה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה לויה שילדה בנה פטור מחמש סלעים
9 Said R'Safra to Abaye: According to your interpretation, which is that [the a fortiori argument] also refers to their [the Levites'] animals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inferring that the firstling of an ass belonging to a Levite and Priest is also exempt a fortiori.');"><sup>11</sup></span> a Levite who had a sheep [in the wilderness] to release [a first-born of an Israelite ass], could ipso facto release [his own], but he who did not possess a sheep to release [a first-born of an Israelite ass] could not release his own? Further, both according to your interpretation and Raba's,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For both agree that we argue a fortiori that the first-born of a Levite is exempt from redemption.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
י הא לא קשיא כדמר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא דאמר פטר רחם בפטר רחם תלה רחמנא
10 [a Levite] of a month old who released [an Israelite first-born of a month old in the wilderness]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the holiness of a plain (non-first-born) Levite of a month old released from holiness an Israelite first-born of a month old-as only the first-born of a month old were numbered, V. Num. III,40 - how much more so should the Levite first-born of a month old release himself from redemption?');"><sup>13</sup></span> should therefore release [himself from the necessity of redemption,] while [a Levite first-born] less than a month old, who did not release [a first-born Israelite of the same age], should not therefore be able to release himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why therefore does not Scripture state that the first-born Levites in the wilderness who were at the time of counting less than a month old had to be redeemed?');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יא ואהרן שלא היה באותו מנין לא ליפקע דתניא למה נקוד על אהרן שבחומש הפקודים שלא היה באותו מנין
11 Also, a Levite's daughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who married an Israelite.');"><sup>15</sup></span> who gave birth to a first-born, should not be exempt [from redemption].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since females were not included in the count in the wilderness.');"><sup>16</sup></span> Why then did R'Adda B'Ahaba say: If a Levite's daughter [married to an Israelite] gave birth, her son is exempt from the five sela's?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sum of money necessary for the redemption of the first-born.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יב אמר קרא הלוים הוקשו כל הלוים זה לזה
12 - That is no objection, as Mar the son of R'Joseph [explained in the name of Raba who said: [Scripture says]: peter rehem [the opening of the womb]. The Divine Law makes [the duty of the first-born] depend on the opening of the womb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We go therefore by the mother and since she comes of a tribe which is exempt from redemption of the first-born, we link the son with the mother and not with the father, that is provided the exemption in the wilderness extended to all Levites, even those who were not a month old at the time.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יג כהנים מנלן כדרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהן (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק
13 But what of Aaron since he was not included in that counting [of the Levites],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. III, 14 etc. Neither he nor his animals were included and therefore they did not cancel the holiness of the first-born of the Israelites.');"><sup>19</sup></span> then [the first-born of his asses] should not be released [from redemption]; (for it has been taught: Why is [the word] 'Aaron' dotted in the Book of Numbers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. III, 39: All that were numbered of the Levies which Moses and Aaron numbered. For all dottings of a word have the purpose of limiting and excluding something.');"><sup>20</sup></span> Because he [Aaron] was not in that numbering [of the Levites]?) - Scripture said 'The Levites' implying that all Levites are compared to one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All Levites irrespective of age, including anybody performing sacred functions, such as the priests, all were exempt from redeeming the first-born of an ass. This answers all the questions raised above.');"><sup>21</sup></span> And whence do we know [that] Priests [are included in the term Levite? ] - As R'Joshua the son of Levi explained. For said R'Joshua: In twenty-four places Priests are called Levites and the following [instance] is one of them: But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLIV, 15.');"><sup>22</sup></span> the Priests the Levites the sons of Zadok.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We see here therefore that the priests are described as Levites. Similarly where the word 'Levites' is mentioned by itself, it also embraces the priests.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter