004a - הלוקח עובר חמורו פרק ראשון בכורות דף ד, ע"א

Do they themselves exempt?!^[1]

A person exempted a person;

did an animal exempt an animal?

For it is written: take the Leviim in place of every firstborn among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Leviim in place of their cattle [במדבר ג, מה].

Abaye said: this is what it means: kohanim and Leviim — their animals are exempt by a kal vachomer.^[2]

if the animals of the Leviim removed the obligation from the animals of Israel in the wilderness, it is right that they should remove it from their own.

Rava said to him: but it teaches “they exempted” — they themselves?^[3]

And further, if it were so, they should have been exempted even from the firstborn of a tahor animal?

ועוד אם איתא - that we expound a kal vachomer with regard to an animal — the Leviim should have been exempted from the firstborn of a tahor animal, for their own tahor animals removed the obligation from the animals of Israel.

Why then did we learn: they were not exempted from the firstborn of a tahor animal, but only from the redemption of the son and from a peter chamor?

אלמה תנן כו' - in the second chapter (below 13).

Rather Rava said: this is what it teaches: kohanim and Leviim exempted themselves by a kal vachomer:^[4]

אלא אמר רבא - with regard to an animal the Rabbanan did not expound a kal vachomer, since it was necessary to compare the firstborn of a tamei animal to the firstborn of a man — that whoever is not included in the firstborn of a man is not included in the firstborn of a tamei animal, as below. Learn from it that with regard to an animal this kal vachomer was not given to be expounded. And this is what our Mishnah says: kohanim and Leviim are exempt themselves from the redemption of the son by a kal vachomer.

if the sanctity of the Leviim removed the sanctity of Israel in the wilderness, shall it not remove their own?!

אם הפקיעה - the sanctity of the ordinary Leviim removed the sanctity of the firstborn of Israel in the wilderness; it is right that it should remove the sanctity of bechorah that is in them — as it says below: the firstborn of the Leviim removed only their own.

We have found a person. A tamei animal — from where do we know it?^[5]

בהמה טמאה מנא לן - that kohanim were exempted from peter chamor.

The verse says: but you shall surely redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of the tamei animal you shall redeem [במדבר יח, טו].

whoever is included in the firstborn of man is included in the firstborn of a tamei animal; and whoever is not included in the firstborn of man is not included in the firstborn of a tamei animal.

כל שאינו בבכור אדם - such as the Leviim and the kohanim, who were exempted by the kal vachomer.

Rav Safra said to Abaye: according to you, who said “their cattle” —^[6]

לדידך דאמרת בהמתם - that he expounds the kal vachomer with regard to an animal as well.

a Levi who had a lamb, who removed the obligation — let it be removed for him;

בן לוי דהוה ליה שה - in the wilderness, who removed the obligation from the firstborn donkeys that were there.

but one who had no lamb with which to remove it — let it not be removed for him?

Both according to you and according to Rava: a one-month-old, who removed, let it be removed for him;^[7]

בין לדידך ובין לרבא - for you both expound the kal vachomer with regard to the firstborn of a man — for once you expound it with regard to an animal, all the more so with regard to a man; for if you do not expound a kal vachomer in it, from where do we know a man? And once you expound it, one may object: a firstborn Levi one month old — since we find with an ordinary Levi one month old that he removed the sanctity of the firstborn of the children of Israel, for all of them were counted from one month old and upward, as it is written from one month old and upward — let the firstborn himself be removed; and the firstborn Leviim who were a month old, it is right that they should exempt themselves by a kal vachomer from the ordinary Leviim a month old, who removed the sanctity of the firstborn of Israel — a kal vachomer for the month-old ones themselves.

one less than a month old, who did not remove — let it not be removed for him?

בכור פחות מבן חדש - who did not remove — an ordinary Levi like him did not remove the sanctity of an Israelite firstborn; let his own sanctity not be removed. And why were the firstborn of the Leviim in the wilderness who were less than a month old not redeemed with money?

A Levi woman — let it not be removed for her?^[8]

לויה שילדה - to an Israelite — let the sanctity of her son as a firstborn not be removed, for only males were counted in the wilderness, and females removed nothing at all.

Why then did Rav Adda bar Ahavah say: a Levi woman who gave birth — her son is exempt from the five selaim?

This is not difficult, in accordance with Mar the son of Rav Yosef in the name of Rava,

who said: the opener of the womb — the Torah made it depend on the opening of the womb.

בפטר רחם תלה רחמנא - for a bechor; and since the womb is that of this Levi woman, we follow the mother with regard to the five selaim. If we find that all Leviim are exempt — even those less than a month old who were in the wilderness, who removed nothing — the son of a Levi woman is exempt as well.

And Aharon, who was not in that count — let it not be removed for him?^[9]

ואהרן שלא היה באותו מנין - neither he nor his animals, who did not remove the obligation from the firstborn of Israel; let his firstborn donkeys not be removed.

For it was taught: why are there dots over “Aharon” in Chumash Hapekudim? Because he was not in that count.

The verse says: the Leviim — all the Leviim are compared to one another.^[10]

הוקשו כו' - now all the objections have been resolved.

Kohanim — from where do we know it?

In accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: in twenty-four places the kohanim are called Leviim, and this is one of them: and the kohanim, the Leviim, the sons of Tzadok (Yechezkel 44).^[11]

Tosafos

דין הוא שתפקיע את של עצמן - that is the reading; and if one reads שתפקע, one does not read את.

והא פטרו אינהו קתני - from the first clause, which teaches “and the kohanim and the Leviim are exempt”, there is no difficulty at all, for one may explain that it means they are exempt from sanctifying their firstborn donkeys, and not that they themselves are exempt. But “they exempted” implies that they exempted themselves.

ועוד אם איתא - that we expound a kal vachomer with regard to an animal, the Leviim should be exempt from the firstborn of a tahor animal too, for their own tahor animals removed the obligation from Israel’s tahor animals. And if you should ask: if so, below, where it takes “one lamb of a Levi exempted many firstborn donkeys of Israel”, why did it not take a tahor animal? For one cannot say that with a tahor animal one lamb did not exempt many firstborn of Israel’s tahor animals, but only with firstborn donkeys, while with a tahor animal they counted one against one — for it says that what the Leviim’s animals exempted of Israel’s, whether tamei or tahor, is derived from the cattle in place of their cattle, and below it derives “one animal in place of many animals”, which implies both tamei and tahor. One may answer: Rabbi Chanina below took what can apply nowadays. And further one may explain that the Mishnah below comes to give the reason that one redeems and redeems again, namely because one lamb of a Levi exempted many firstborn donkeys of Israel in the wilderness; but what one lamb of a Levi exempted in the wilderness of many firstborn of Israel’s tahor animals applied only at that time, since nowadays they have no redemption but carry sanctity of the body. And if you should ask: and Abaye, what does he hold — why did they not make the kal vachomer with a tahor animal? One may answer: he holds that with regard to a tahor animal, which carries sanctity of the altar, it is not apt to say that they exempt their own by a kal vachomer from their exempting those of Israel, since kohanim and Leviim are closer to the side of the altar than Israel.

אם הפקיעה קדושה של לוים כו' - and if you should ask: what kind of kal vachomer is this? Surely it was the ordinary Leviim who removed the obligation from the firstborn of Israel, whereas the firstborn of the Leviim removed nothing at all, as below; so how does he make a kal vachomer about a firstborn Levi, whom we never find to have removed anything? One may answer: this is how the kal vachomer is precise — the sanctity of being a Levi, whereby a Levi removed the sanctity of the firstborn of Israel; if so, a firstborn Levi, it is right that his own Levi status should remove his own. And so Rashi explained; and for this reason it says below that a firstborn does not remove a firstborn — the Levi status of a Levi does not remove two firstborn statuses, his own and that of Israel. And if you should ask: what is Rava’s reason for not holding Abaye’s kal vachomer about an animal, when it is a complete kal vachomer? And Rashi explained that this is the reason they do not expound a kal vachomer with regard to an animal: because it was necessary to compare the firstborn of a tamei animal to the firstborn of a man, to teach that whoever is not included in the firstborn of a man is not included in the firstborn of a tamei animal, as below — learn from it that with regard to an animal the kal vachomer was not given to be expounded. But the language does not bear his explanation, for from its saying “we have found a man; a tamei animal, from where?” it implies that the comparison was needed to teach about a tamei animal, and not to reveal about a tahor one that they do not make the kal vachomer. And further, perhaps the comparison was needed for what we expound below in the sugya, that with the firstborn of a tamei animal you should not distinguish between later generations and that time with respect to a lamb; and for later generations too there is a practical difference, as in that exposition from which they derive that one redeems and redeems again, just as in the wilderness one lamb of a Levi exempted many firstborn donkeys of Israel. And further it was needed for Rabbi Eliezer, who expounds at the end of our chapter (Bechoros 12b): just as with the firstborn of a man he is answerable for it, so with the firstborn of an animal he is answerable for it. And it seems to me that this is Rava’s reason: that specifically with a man, where the sanctity of being a Levi brings about the removal of the firstborn status, it is apt to make a kal vachomer; but with an animal, where the sanctity of the Leviim’s lamb does not bring about the removal of the animal’s firstborn status, since there is no sanctity in it, it is not apt to make a kal vachomer.

דין הוא שתפקיע של עצמו - Rashi explained that according to Rava the Mishnah’s “are exempt” deals with the redemption of the son. And it is difficult, for we are dealing with a peter chamor. And Rabbeinu Tam explained: this is what the Mishnah says — kohanim and Leviim are exempt from the redemption of a peter chamor; what is the reason? Because they themselves are exempt by a kal vachomer; and therefore we learn a tamei animal from its being compared to a man. And the wording “this is what it says” is somewhat difficult on this explanation.

דלא הוה ליה שה דאפקע לא לפקע - and if you should ask: in any case the kal vachomer still holds — if a Levi’s lamb exempted the firstborn donkeys of Israel, all the more so those of the other Leviim who had no lamb? One may answer: this is no kal vachomer. Scripture did not say to take the animal of this Levi in place of the animal of another Levi, but in place of the animal of an Israelite. And in any case, with his own, where he has one, we do make the kal vachomer.

בן חדש דאפקע ליפקע - it does not mean a firstborn Levi one month old who removed an Israelite firstborn, let his own be removed — for a firstborn does not remove a firstborn. Rather this is what it means: a one-month-old, in whom the Levi status has the power to remove the firstborn status of Israel, let his own firstborn status be removed, since one like him among the ordinary Leviim removes the firstborn status of Israel. But one who was less than a month old at that time — his own firstborn status is not removed, even though he later became a month old; and likewise for the firstborn from then onward, since at that time he did not remove, so too for later generations, as it expounds shortly: and they shall be — they shall remain as they are.

בפטר רחם תלה רחמנא - Rashi explained: since the womb is that of this Levi woman, if you find that all the Leviim are exempt, even one less than a month old, the son of a Levi woman is exempt. This implies that he means to resolve the objection about a Levi, and the objection about a Levi a month old, with the answer “the Torah made it depend on the womb”, up to the answer that all the Leviim are compared to one another. But it does not imply so; rather, it is entirely resolved by the answer of the opener of the womb: a Levi who is less than a month old has no deficiency in him except that he is less than a month old, and he is a Levi; and since the Torah made it depend on the opening of the womb, what he is — a Levi — makes him a Levi, even though his father is not a Levi.

ואהרן שלא היה באותו מנין - Rashi explained: neither he nor his animals, who did not remove the firstborn of Israel — let his own firstborn donkeys not be removed. This implies that he means likewise to ask that his own firstborn status should not be removed; but it is impossible to say so, for Aharon was not a firstborn, since Miriam was three years older than he, as it says in the Midrash (at the beginning of parshas Shemos), just as Aharon was three years older than Moshe. And if you should ask: what is more difficult to him about Aharon than about the three hundred firstborn of the Leviim who were not counted among the twenty-two thousand, as below? One may answer: granted that with regard to the twenty-two thousand they were not counted, because it is enough for a firstborn to exempt himself — in any case they were counted in the census of the Leviim; but Aharon was not counted at all.

1. 1. The daf opens on the objection to the Mishnah’s kal vachomer, carried over from 3b. The Leviim replaced the firstborn of Israel in the wilderness — but Leviim replaced firstborn people, and Levite cattle replaced Israelite cattle. Two separate substitutions, so a kal vachomer from one to the other does not run.
2. 2. Abaye’s reading: the Mishnah’s kal vachomer is about animals, not people — Levite cattle exempted Israelite cattle, so all the more so their own.
3. 3. Rava’s two objections. First, the Mishnah says the Leviim exempted themselves, not their animals. Second, and decisively: if the kal vachomer worked for animals, it would exempt them from the firstborn of tahor animals too — and a Mishnah further on says it does not.
4. 4. Rava’s own reading, which stands: the kal vachomer is about people only. The Leviim’s own persons displaced the sanctity of Israel’s firstborn in the wilderness, so all the more so their own firstborn are displaced.
5. 5. With people settled, the exemption from peter chamor still needs a source. The verse supplies it by tying the two together: whoever is out of the one is out of the other.
6. 6. Rav Safra now presses Abaye’s reading with a series of objections, each of the same shape: if the exemption rests on having actually displaced something in the wilderness, then a Levi who displaced nothing should not be exempt.
7. 7. The second objection, and it touches Rava too. The census in the wilderness counted Leviim from one month old, so a Levi less than a month old displaced nothing — and on this reasoning his own firstborn sanctity should not have been displaced either.
8. 8. The third objection: women were not counted at all, so a Levi woman displaced nothing. Rav Adda bar Ahavah nonetheless rules her son exempt from the five selaim — answered by the principle that the firstborn obligation follows the womb, so the mother’s status decides.
9. 9. The fourth objection: Aharon was not included in the census — the dots over his name in the verse mark the point — so he displaced nothing.
10. 10. The answer that disposes of all of them at once: the verse calls them the Leviim as a single body, so the exemption belongs to the tribe as a whole and not to each individual by what he personally displaced.
11. 11. Kohanim are not Leviim by tribe-name, so their exemption needs its own source: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s count of twenty-four places where Scripture calls kohanim Leviim.