Bekhorot 9

Chapter 9

א ופסקו
1 and then ceased [from their holiness].
ב בשלמא ריש לקיש כדאמר טעם אלא לר' יוחנן מאי טעמא
2 As to Resh Lakish it is well, for the reason stated above.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The juxtaposition of the verses in Ex. XIII, 11 and 12.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג אמר ר' אלעזר ר' יוחנן חזאי בחילמא דמילתא מעליתא אמינא אמר קרא לי יהיו בהוייתן יהו
3 But what is the reason of R'Johanan? - Said R'Eleazar: R'Johanan appeared to me in a dream telling me that I said an excellent thing, viz. , Scripture said: Mine shall they be<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. III, 13, indicating that there was no break in their holiness, even in the wilderness.');"><sup>2</sup></span> [denoting] that they [the first-born] shall remain in their status. And what does R'Johanan do with the verses [which follow:] And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee unto the land.
ד ורבי יוחנן והיה כי יביאך והעברת מאי עביד ליה ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל עשה מצוה זו שבשבילה תיכנס לארץ
4 That thou shalt set apart unto the Lord? - That [textual proximity] is required [to deduce] what the School of R'Ishmael taught: Perform this Divine command,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of the firstling.');"><sup>3</sup></span> on account of which you will be worthy to enter the Land. Said R'Mordecai to R'Ashi: You reported it in this manner, we reversed the names; R'Johanan said: Firstlings were not sanctified in the wilderness.
ה אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי אתון הכי מתניתו לה אנן איפכא מתנינן לה רבי יוחנן אמר לא קדשו בכורות במדבר וריש לקיש אמר קדשו בכורות במדבר
5 But Resh Lakish said: Firstlings were sanctified in the wilderness. He thereupon asked him: 'And do you also propose to reverse [the name of the author] of the refutation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it was R. Johanan who refuted Resh Lakish with reference to the Baraitha; 'That day on which the sanctuary was erected etc.' and not vice versa, as in our version.');"><sup>4</sup></span> together with R'Eleazar's statement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he saw R. Johanan in a dream, and will you also alter this to Resh Lakish? Surely, it is more feasible to assume that it was R. Johanan, the teacher of R. Eleazar, who appeared to him in a dream.');"><sup>5</sup></span> - He replied to him: [The words] 'They were not sanctified' [of R'Johanan] mean, there was no need for the firstlings to be sanctified [in the wilderness].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they were holy at birth, as R. Johanan maintains above that the first-born in the wilderness were sanctified.');"><sup>6</sup></span> If so, then it is identical with our version [of the dispute between R'Johanan and Resh Lakish]? - It teaches us that a man must cite a ruling in the exact language of his master.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although there may be no actual difference in the ruling.');"><sup>7</sup></span> A Roman general Controcos<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi and Tosaf. in Hullin ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו אמר ליה ואפכית נמי תיובתא ואפכיתו לה להא דרבי אלעזר א"ל לא קדשו (להו) לא הוצרכו ליקדש
6 questioned R'Johanan B'Zakkai.' In the detailed record of the numbering of the Levites, you find the total is twenty-two thousand three hundred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The families of Gershom numbered seven thousand and five hundred, the families of Kohath numbered eight thousand and six hundred, and the families of Merari numbered six thousand and two hundred, making a grand total of the families of the Levites of twenty-two thousand and three hundred.');"><sup>9</sup></span> whereas in the sum total you only find twenty-two thousand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. III, 39.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ז אי הכי היינו דידן קמ"ל חייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו
7 Where are the [remaining] three hundred? ' He replied to him: ['The remaining] three hundred were [Levite] first-born, and a first born cannot cancel the holiness of a first-born'. What is the reason? said Abaye: Because it is sufficient for a [Levite] first-born to cancel his own holiness.
ח שאל קונטרוקוס השר את רבן יוחנן בן זכאי בפרטן של לוים אתה מוצא עשרים ושנים אלף ושלש מאות בכללן אתה מוצא עשרים ושנים אלף ושלש מאות להיכן הלכו
8 And again he questioned him: 'With reference to the collection of the money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When every Israelite was bidden to give half a shekel.');"><sup>11</sup></span> you count two hundred and one kikkar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A weight of silver or gold, a talent. Now a kikkar contains sixty maneh, a maneh has twenty five sela's or holy shekels, therefore we have one thousand and five hundred shekels in one kikkar. Six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty half shekels collected from the people make three hundred and one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekels. Divide one thousand and five hundred into this, we have two hundred and one kikkar with the remainder of two hundred and seventy-five shekels, i.e., eleven maneh.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ט א"ל אותן שלש מאות בכורות היו ואין בכור מפקיע בכור מאי טעמא אמר אביי דיו לבכור שיפקיע קדושת עצמו
9 and eleven maneh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A weight in gold or silver of twenty-five common shekels.');"><sup>13</sup></span> for Scripture writes: A beka' for every man, that is, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXVIII, 26.');"><sup>14</sup></span> whereas when the money was given,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When Moses rendered the account to the Israelites.');"><sup>15</sup></span> you find only one hundred kikkar, for it is written: And the hundred talents of silver were for casting, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 27.');"><sup>16</sup></span> ?
י ועוד שאלו בגיבוי כסף אתה מוצא מאתים ואחת ככר ואחת עשרה מנה דכתיב (שמות לח, כו) בקע לגלגלת מחצית השקל בשקל הקדש וגו'
10 Was Moses your teacher either a thief or a swindler or else a bad arithmetician? He gave a half, took a half, and did not [even] return a complete half'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a complete half would have been one hundred and a half kikkar and five and a half maneh and he only returned one hundred kikkar. And although Scripture says: 'And of the thousand seven hundred seventy and five shekels he made hooks' and consequently, he returned more than a half, the general did not mention this verse, for he wanted to catch him with words.');"><sup>17</sup></span> - He replied to him: 'Moses our teacher was a trustworthy treasurer and a good arithmetician, only the sacred maneh was double the common'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There were therefore one hundred and twenty maneh in a kikkar. The hundred kikkar were therefore really two hundred and the remaining kikkar and eleven maneh, were the one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekel mentioned, from which hooks were made.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יא ובנתינת הכסף אתה מוצא מאת ככר דכתיב (שמות לח, כז) ויהי מאת ככר הכסף לצקת וגו' משה רבכם גנב היה או קוביוסטוס היה או אינו בקי בחשבונות נתן מחצה ונטל מחצה ומחצה שלם לא החזיר
11 R'Ahi argued: What is his [the general's] difficulty? It says: And the hundred talents that were for casting etc. ; these were used for casting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this would be separate from the two hundred and one kikkar mentioned.');"><sup>19</sup></span> and those others, [the two hundred and one kikkar] were for the treasury! - [Scripture] wrote another verse: And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation, was a hundred talents etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXVIII, 25. And here no mention is made of being used for casting purposes.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יב אמר לו משה רבינו גיזבר נאמן היה ובקי בחשבונות היה ומנה של קודש כפול היה
12 And as to his reply that the sacred maneh was double the common, - whence did he derive this? If you say from it [this very verse], for here we have seventy-one maneh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A maneh containing twenty-five shekels; therefore one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekels make seventy-one maneh.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יג הוי בה רב אחאי מאי קא קשיא ליה ויהי מאת ככר הכסף לצקת וגו' הנך לצקת ואינך בי גזא כתב קרא אחרינא (שמות לח, כה) וכסף פקודי העדה מאת ככר וגו'
13 since Scripture writes: And of the thousand seven hundred seventy and five shekels he made hooks for the pillars and recorded them only in Units [of shekels]. Now if [the value of a sacred maneh] is [not higher], Scripture ought to have written one hundred and one kikkar and eleven maneh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If all maneh consisted of sixty shekels, then seventy-one maneh is one kikkar more, plus eleven maneh.');"><sup>22</sup></span> But since Scripture does not record them except in units [of shekels,] you may deduce from here that the sacred maneh was double the common.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the seventy-one maneh i.e. the one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekels, could not be counted in terms of kikkar, as there would then be one hundred and twenty maneh in a kikkar.');"><sup>23</sup></span> But perhaps it is only the sum total [of a hundred] kikkar that Scripture records but the odd amount [of only one kikkar or so], it does not record?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not of sufficient importance to record in terms of kikkar, but the sacred maneh may still have the same value as the common. Therefore the point would once again arise that Moses received two hundred and one kikkar and, when rendering the account, Scripture only mentions one hundred kikkar. (5) That the sacred maneh was double the common.');"><sup>24</sup></span> Rather deduce then from here:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXXVIII, 29.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יד ודקא"ל מנה של קודש כפול היה מנא ליה
14 And the brass of the offering was seventy talents and two thousand and four hundred shekels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being twenty-five shekels in a maneh.');"><sup>26</sup></span> For here are ninety-six maneh, and Scripture does not record them except in units [of shekels]. Deduce from here, therefore, that the sacred maneh was double the common.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one hundred and twenty maneh in a kikkar, and therefore Scripture could not count this in terms of kikkar.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
טו אילימא מיניה שהרי כאן שבעים ואחד מנה (שמות לח, כח) ואת האלף ושבע מאות וחמשה ושבעים עשה ווים לעמודים ולא מנאן הכתוב אלא בפרוטרוט ואם איתא מאה ואחד ככר ואחת עשרה מנה מיבעי ליה
15 Perhaps, however, a large odd number [of kikkar]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like seventy kikkar, although they cannot be counted in terms of one hundred kikkar.');"><sup>28</sup></span> Scripture records but a small odd number<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like one kikkar; but a sacred kikkar may contain only sixty maneh as the common.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
טז אלא מדלא מנאן הכתוב אלא בפרוטרוט ש"מ מנה של קודש כפול היה
16 it does not record? Rather said R'Hisda, Deduce from here:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the sacred maneh was double the common.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יז ודילמא כללי קחשיב בככרי פרטי לא קא חשיב בככרי
17 And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLV, 12. We therefore see there were sixty shekels in a maneh.');"><sup>31</sup></span> [
יח אלא מהכא (שמות לח, כט) ונחושת התנופה שבעים ככר ואלפים וארבע מאות שקל שהרי כאן תשעים וששה מנה ולא מנאן הכתוב אלא בפרוטרוט שמע מינה מנה של קודש כפול היה
18 
יט ודילמא פרטא רבה קא חשיב בככרי פרטא זוטא לא קחשיב בככרי
19 
כ אלא אמר רב חסדא מהכא (יחזקאל מה, יב) והשקל עשרים גרה עשרים שקלים חמשה ועשרים שקלים עשרה וחמשה שקל המנה יהיה לכם
20 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter