004b - הלוקח עובר חמורו פרק ראשון בכורות דף ד, ע"ב

And for later generations, from where do we know it?^[1]

ולדורות מנא לן - that the firstborn of kohanim and Leviim are exempt; for from this kal vachomer we learn only about the wilderness.

The verse says: and the Leviim shall be Mine (Bamidbar 3:12) — shall be: they shall remain as they are.

And from where that it was with a lamb?^[2]

וממאי דבשה - that with a Levi’s lamb the firstborn donkeys of Israel were exempted, as you said above: a Levi who had a lamb, who removed the obligation, let it be removed for him.

Rav Chisda said: money is stated for later generations,

כסף לדורות - with the firstborn of a man (Bamidbar 18:16): and his redemption, from a month old you shall redeem, at your valuation, in money, five shekels.

and a lamb is stated for later generations.

שה לדורות - (Shemos 13:13) and the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb.

Just as the money stated for later generations — with it they redeemed for later generations and with it they redeemed at that time,

so too the lamb stated for later generations — with it they redeemed for later generations and with it they redeemed at that time.

בכסף פדו בכורים באותה שעה - as it is written (Bamidbar 3:47): and you shall take five shekels per head.

What of money — with it one redeems consecrated property and maaser sheni?^[3]

הקדשות - (Vayikra 27:15) and if the one who consecrated it will redeem his house, and so forth; and maaser sheni, as it is written (Devarim 14:25) and you shall put it into money. Therefore with it they redeemed the firstborn in the wilderness, as for later generations — but say the same of a lamb, with which consecrated property is not redeemed?

Rather, 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].

Just as with the firstborn of a man you did not distinguish between later generations and that time with respect to money,

so too with a tamei animal, do not distinguish between later generations and that time with respect to a lamb.

Rabbi Chanina said: one lamb of a Levi exempted many firstborn donkeys of Israel.^[4]

Abaye said: know that it is so, for Scripture counted the surplus among people and did not count a surplus among animals.

תדע - that the firstborn of Israel’s animals were not counted — since Scripture did not count a surplus among animals as it counted among people, two hundred and seventy-three.

From where?

Perhaps they simply did not have very many animals?

דלא הוו - that Israel did not have as many animals as the Leviim.

It should not enter your mind,

for it is written: and the children of Reuven and the children of Gad had very much cattle (Bamidbar 32:1).

Perhaps even so, the ordinary animals of the Leviim stood against the firstborn animals of Israel?^[5]

ודילמא אפילו הכי - that the children of Reuven had much cattle — even so, there was no surplus among the animals such that the firstborn of Israel’s animals should exceed the ordinary animals of the Leviim.

The verse says: and the cattle of the Leviim in place of their cattle [במדבר ג, מה] — one animal in place of many animals.

But say it means many, as in and much cattle (Yonah 4)?

ואימא - that this which is written, the cattle of the Leviim, implies many animals, as we find with Nineveh (Yonah 4) and much cattle — it follows that “cattle” implies many.

If so, let the verse write either “an animal in place of an animal” or “their animals in place of their animals”. What is “the cattle in place of their cattle”?

אם כן - that the cattle of the Leviim and those of Israel both imply many — let the verse write them alike; since the verse varied its language, learn from it that one exempted many.

Learn from it: one exempted many.

Rava said: we too have learned it.^[6]

תנינא - in our Mishnah: and one redeems with it many times — that if he bought it back from the kohen after giving it to him, he redeems another firstborn donkey with it.

And one redeems with it many times.

And Rabbi Chanina was explaining the reason of the Mishnah.

ורבי חנינא - who said “one lamb of a Levi”, and so forth — he was explaining the reason of the Mishnah, and this is what he said, and so forth.

And this is what he said: what is the reason that one redeems with it many times?

Because one lamb of a Levi exempts many firstborn donkeys of Israel.

It was stated: Rabbi Yochanan said: the firstborn were sanctified in the wilderness;^[7]

and Reish Lakish said: the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness.

לא קדשו בכורות - that were born in the wilderness.

Rabbi Yochanan said they were sanctified in the wilderness, for the Merciful One said they should be sanctified,

as it is written: sanctify to Me every firstborn (Shemos 13).

And Reish Lakish said they were not sanctified in the wilderness,

from what is written: and it shall be when Hashem brings you (Shemos 13),

and it is written after it: and you shall set apart —

from which it follows that beforehand they were not sanctified.

דמעיקרא - in the wilderness; and this sanctify to Me every firstborn Reish Lakish establishes as referring to Egypt. But in the wilderness they were not sanctified, from what is written when He brings you, and then and you shall set apart every opener of the womb.

Rabbi Yochanan raised an objection against Reish Lakish:^[8]

before the Mishkan was erected, bamos were permitted,

בבמות - each one built an altar and brought offerings upon it; and once the Mishkan was erected they were forbidden, as it is written (Vayikra 17:4) and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, and so forth.

and the service was performed by the firstborn.

ועבודה בבכורות - the firstborn of Israel would bring the offerings, and from then on the kohanim. It follows that the firstborn were sanctified.

He said to him: in those who came out of Egypt.

So too it stands to reason,

for if you do not say so,

דאי לא תימא הכי - but rather in those born in the wilderness.

is a one-year-old fit to perform the service?!

בן שנה בר עבודה - for from the time they came out of Egypt until the Mishkan was erected was but a single year.

And he who asked it — why did he ask it?^[9]

This is what was difficult to him:

granted, if you say that their sanctity was never interrupted, then those from the outset also did not lose their sanctity;

דלא פסיק קדושת בכורות - that those born in the wilderness were sanctified — one may say that those from the outset stand in their sanctity, and so forth.

but if you say that their sanctity was interrupted, then those from the outset also lost their sanctity?

And the other holds: what was sanctified was sanctified; what was not sanctified was not sanctified.

He raised an objection: on that day when the Mishkan was erected, there were offered for them in Israel: vows and freewill offerings, chataos and ashamos, firstborn and tithes.^[10]

Here too: in those that came out of Egypt.

And from it:

ומינה - one may infer that the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness — for it teaches “on that day”, from which it follows that from then on nothing was offered, since on the first day they offered all the firstborn animals that came out of Egypt.

“On that day” they were offered; from then on they were not offered.

Some say: Reish Lakish raised the objection against Rabbi Yochanan:^[11]

on that day when the Mishkan was erected, there were offered for them in Israel: vows and freewill offerings, chataos and ashamos, firstborn and tithes.

“On that day”, yes; from then on, no.

Say: from that day onward.

And what does it teach us?

From that day, yes; beforehand, no.

מעיקרא לא - that not everyone could make an altar to offer his own firstborn upon it, for obligatory offerings were not brought on a private bamah.

It follows that obligatory offerings were not brought on a bamah.

Come and hear: you find that you say, in three places the firstborn were sanctified for Israel:^[12]

in Egypt,

and in the wilderness,

and when Israel entered the Land.

In Egypt what does it say?

Sanctify to Me every firstborn (Shemos 13:13).

In the wilderness it says: for Mine is every firstborn among the children of Israel (Bamidbar 8:17).

When they entered the Land it says: and it shall be when He brings you — and you shall set apart.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: in three places they were warned that the firstborn should be sanctified, and they were not sanctified.^[13]

הוזהרו לקדש - and it applies only when they enter the Land.

And in Egypt too they were not sanctified?

במצרים לא קדוש - this is said in astonishment: but all agreed above about those that came out of Egypt.

But we have said that they were sanctified!

This is what he said: some of them were sanctified, and some of them were not sanctified.

Rav Pappa objects: and in the wilderness they were not sanctified?^[14]

But it is written: count every firstborn male of the children of Israel (Bamidbar 3:40)?

והכתיב פקוד כל בכור זכר - from a month old and upward; and one a month old was certainly born in the wilderness, for this episode took place in the second year.

Rather, if it was stated, this is how it was stated:

Rabbi Yochanan said: they were sanctified and were not interrupted;^[15]

and Reish Lakish said: they were sanctified,

Tosafos

מה לכסף שכן פודין בו הקדש ומעשר שני - although consecrated property is redeemed with a lamb and with anything, apart from a slave, land and a document, as we say in the chapter Yesh Bechor (below, Bechoros 51a), that is on the ground that anything worth money is like money, and not on the ground of a lamb. But a peter chamor is redeemed with a lamb of any value, and with anything else at its worth, as it says below.

ופודה בו פעמים הרבה - Rashi explained: if he bought it back from the kohen after giving it to him, he redeems another peter chamor with it. And Rabbeinu Tam explains that it refers to a doubtful case, below in our chapter (Bechoros 9a), where the first clause teaches: one that had given birth before and one that had not, and it bore a male and a female — he separates a lamb and it is his own; and in that doubtful case, which never left his hand, it needed to teach that he redeems another doubtful case with it many times. And so it implies that it refers to a doubtful case, since it teaches after it “it enters the pen to be tithed”, which the Gemara establishes as a doubtful case. But with a certain case it is not possible to say that he redeems and redeems again as long as it is in the Israelite’s hand and he has not given it, for we learned below in our chapter (Bechoros 9a): two she-donkeys that had not given birth before and bore two males — he gives two lambs to the kohen.

לא קדשו בכורות (נמי) במדבר - neither the firstborn of a man nor the firstborn of an animal. And as for what it asked above, that they should be exempt even from the firstborn of a tahor animal, since their own tahor animals removed the obligation from Israel’s tahor animals — that is not according to Reish Lakish, on his present reasoning. However, according to the conclusion below, that they were sanctified in Chumash Hapekudim and afterwards lapsed, it is fine.

אותו היום - from then on they were not offered. And although vows and freewill offerings were offered from then on, it took “on that day” on account of the firstborn.

אלא אי איתמר כו' - according to this conclusion, those objections above were not stated. And the like of this is found at the beginning of Hacholetz (Yevamos 35b, and there) regarding a pregnant widow, and in the first chapter of Chagigah (7a), and in the chapter Hamapeles (Niddah 24a) regarding “his face crushed”; and in many places there are a great many.

1. 1. The daf opens on the last step of the previous sugya. The kal vachomer only showed that the Leviim were exempt in the wilderness; a verse is needed to carry the exemption forward to every later generation.
2. 2. The second half of the question: granted the Leviim exempted the firstborn donkeys of Israel, was it really done with a lamb — the redemption the Torah prescribes for a peter chamor?
3. 3. The attempted proof by analogy with money is rejected, because money has a wider role than a lamb does: it redeems consecrated property and maaser sheni, so nothing follows from it about a lamb.
4. 4. Rabbi Chanina’s striking ruling, and the subject of the next stretch of the daf: a single lamb could redeem any number of firstborn donkeys. Abaye’s proof is from the census — Scripture counted the 273 firstborn Israelites left over, but never counted a surplus of animals, which suggests the animals were never matched one for one.
5. 5. The proof is pressed twice: perhaps Israel simply had fewer animals, or perhaps the numbers happened to match. The verse’s own wording settles it — singular against plural.
6. 6. Rava finds the same ruling in our Mishnah’s statement that one redeems with the lamb many times, and the Gemara reads Rabbi Chanina as having been explaining that clause all along.
7. 7. A new and substantial dispute: were the firstborn born in the wilderness holy at all, or did the sanctity lapse between Egypt and the entry into the Land? Rabbi Yochanan says it held; Reish Lakish reads the verse as taking effect only on entering the Land.
8. 8. Rabbi Yochanan’s objection, from the beraisa about the period before the Mishkan: the service was performed by the firstborn, which presupposes that firstborn were holy.
9. 9. The objection is answered — those were the firstborn of Egypt — and the Gemara then explains why it was worth asking in the first place: if sanctity lapsed for those born in the wilderness, it should have lapsed for the earlier ones too.
10. 10. A second objection, from the beraisa about the day the Mishkan was erected. Read one way it supports Reish Lakish, since it implies that firstborn were offered on that day and not afterwards.
11. 11. The same beraisa is now reported as Reish Lakish’s objection against Rabbi Yochanan, with the opposite reading: not “on that day and no longer”, but “from that day onward” — teaching that before the Mishkan, obligatory offerings could not be brought on a private bamah.
12. 12. A third source, listing three separate occasions on which the firstborn were sanctified — which on its face settles the question against Reish Lakish, since the wilderness is one of the three.
13. 13. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak turns the beraisa around: being commanded is not the same as the sanctity taking effect. On his reading the three verses are three warnings, and the sanctity itself waited for the Land.
14. 14. Rav Pappa’s objection to that reading: the census counted firstborn from a month old, in the second year, so those were born in the wilderness and were plainly treated as firstborn.
15. 15. The dispute is therefore restated: both now agree the firstborn were sanctified in the wilderness, and the question becomes whether that sanctity then continued or lapsed. Reish Lakish’s position runs on to 5a.