Bechorot Daf 4 (בכורות דף ד׳)
Daf: 4 | Amudim: 4a – 4b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (4a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The mishna’s wording is challenged: the Levites exempted the people, but it was their animals that exempted the animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אִינְהוּ פָּטְרִי?! אָדָם — אָדָם פָּטַר, בְּהֵמָה — בְּהֵמָה פָּטְרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״קַח אֶת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּכוֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת בֶּהֱמַת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״!
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens by catching the mishna in an imprecision. פָּטְרוּ is plural and personal — they exempted — yet the verse it rests on separates the two exchanges carefully: the Levites themselves stood in for Israel’s firstborn sons, while בֶּהֱמַת הַלְוִיִּם, the animals of the Levites, stood in for Israel’s animals. A person cannot redeem a donkey, so the mishna’s single verb is doing work the verse divides in two, and the whole amud is the attempt to say what the kal vachomer actually claims.
Key Terms:
- קַח אֶת הַלְוִיִּם = take the Levites (Bamidbar 3:45)
- בֶּהֱמַת הַלְוִיִּם = the animal of the Levites — exchanged for Israel’s animals
- פָּטְרוּ = they exempted — the mishna’s plural, personal verb
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye reads the inference as being about the Levites’ animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye rescues the mishna by relocating its subject. The kal vachomer is not about the Levites but about their flocks: if a Levite’s lamb could abrogate the sanctity of an Israelite’s firstborn donkey, it can surely abrogate the sanctity of a Levite’s own. The reading is neat because it keeps the animal exchange in the animal column, matching the verse — but it requires הֵן to mean their livestock, and that is where Rava will press.
Key Terms:
- הִפְקִיעָה = abrogated — removed sanctity before it could attach
- דִּין הוּא = it is only logical — the formula concluding a kal vachomer
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Rava’s first objection: the mishna says they exempted, not their animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא ״פָּטְרוּ״ אִינְהוּ קָתָנֵי!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s first objection is textual and blunt. The mishna’s word is פָּטְרוּ, they exempted, and a tanna describing an exchange of livestock would not write it that way. Abaye’s reading may produce a coherent argument, but it is not the argument the mishna made, and Rava will not accept an interpretation that survives only by rewriting the verb.
Key Terms:
- וְהָא … קָתָנֵי = but it teaches — objecting from the source’s own wording
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Rava’s second objection: the reading would exempt kosher firstborn too, against the mishna on 13a.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד, אִם אִיתָא, אֲפִילּוּ מִבְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה נִפַּטְרוּ! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: לֹא נִפְטְרוּ מִבְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִפִּדְיוֹן הַבֵּן וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The second objection is the decisive one, because it tests Abaye’s reading for over-generation. If a Levite’s animal exempts by virtue of having exempted Israel’s animals in the wilderness, the same should hold for kosher firstborn, whose sanctity the Levites’ kosher animals equally displaced. Yet the mishna on 13a states flatly that kohanim and levi’im were exempted only from pidyon haben and peter chamor — never from the firstborn of a kosher animal. A reading that proves more than the mishna allows has proved itself wrong.
Key Terms:
- בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה = the firstborn of a kosher animal — offered, not redeemed
- פִּדְיוֹן הַבֵּן = redemption of a firstborn son
- פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר = a firstborn donkey, redeemed with a lamb
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s rereading: the Levites exempted themselves, by their own sanctity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava keeps the mishna’s personal verb and changes what the inference is about. The Levites’ קְדוּשָּׁה displaced the sanctity of Israel’s firstborn sons in the wilderness; it follows that it displaces their own. Everything now runs through personal status rather than through livestock, which is why the exemption reaches only the two firstborns tied to persons — the son and, as the next segment shows, the donkey that the Torah links to him.
Key Terms:
- קְדוּשָּׁה = sanctity — here the Levites’ own consecrated status
- הֵן עַצְמָן = they themselves
Segment 6
TYPE: דרשה
The donkeys are derived from the juxtaposition of firstborn son and non-kosher animal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s reading explains the people but leaves the donkeys unexplained, and the answer is a juxtaposition rather than a second inference. אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה sets the firstborn of man and the firstborn of a non-kosher animal in a single verse and a single verb, and the Gemara reads that as a rule of correspondence in both directions: whatever holds of one holds of the other, and whatever fails of one fails of the other. The Levite’s exemption from pidyon haben therefore carries his donkey with it automatically.
Key Terms:
- אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה = yet you shall surely redeem (Bamidbar 18:15)
- בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה = a non-kosher animal — in practice the donkey
- כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ … אֵינוֹ = whatever applies to one applies to the other, and what does not, does not
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Safra’s first challenge to Abaye: what of the Levite who owned no lamb?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּהֶמְתָּם, בֶּן לֵוִי דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ שֶׂה דְּאַפְקַע — לַיפְקַע, דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ שֶׂה דְּלַיפְקַע — לָא לַיפְקַע!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Safra now tests Abaye’s reading for a different defect — not over-generation but under-generation. If the exemption flows from the act of having displaced Israel’s donkeys, it should attach only where that act occurred, so a Levite who owned a lamb would be exempt and a Levite who owned none would not. An exemption that depends on the accident of livestock ownership is not the categorical rule the mishna states.
Key Terms:
- שֶׂה = a lamb — the animal used to redeem a firstborn donkey
- לַיפְקַע / לָא לַיפְקַע = let it be abrogated / let it not be abrogated
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
A challenge to both Abaye and Rava: the census counted only from one month old.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בֵּין לְדִידָךְ, בֵּין לְרָבָא, בֶּן חֹדֶשׁ דְּאַפְקַע — לַיפְקַע, פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ דְּלָא אַפְקַע — לָא לַיפְקַע!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second challenge is aimed at both readings at once, since both ground the exemption in an act of displacement. The wilderness census enumerated Levites מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ וָמַעְלָה, from one month old and upward, so an infant younger than that displaced nobody. On either account he should retain his firstborn sanctity — and nobody holds that he does.
Key Terms:
- בֶּן חֹדֶשׁ = one month old — the census threshold (Bamidbar 3:15)
- בֵּין לְדִידָךְ בֵּין לְרָבָא = according to both you and Rava
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
A third challenge: the לְוִיָּה was never in the exchange, yet her son is exempt.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְוִיָּה לָא תַּיפְקַע? אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לְוִיָּה שֶׁיָּלְדָה — בְּנָהּ פָּטוּר מֵחֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The third challenge moves from age to sex. Only male Levites were counted and exchanged, so a woman of Levite descent displaced nothing at all; her son by an Israelite should be fully obligated. Yet Rav Adda bar Ahava rules he is exempt from the five sela — a ruling with real practical reach, since it governs pidyon haben in every generation and not merely the wilderness.
Key Terms:
- לְוִיָּה = a woman of Levite descent
- חֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים = five sela — the redemption price of a firstborn son
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Answered by פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם: the Torah pegs firstborn status to the mother’s womb.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר: ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם״ בְּפֶטֶר רֶחֶם תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer removes the case from the displacement logic altogether. Mar son of Rav Yosef, in Rava’s name, notes that the Torah speaks of פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם, the opening of the womb, and reads that as making the mother’s status decisive. The son of a Levite woman is therefore exempt not because anyone displaced anything but because the sanctity never attached — which is why this is the one challenge the Gemara answers on its own terms rather than by appeal to a juxtaposition.
Key Terms:
- פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם = the opening of the womb (Shemot 13:12)
- תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One made it dependent
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
The fourth challenge: Aharon, marked by scribal dots, was outside the count.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַהֲרֹן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מִנְיָן — לָא לַיפְקַע! דְּתַנְיָא: לָמָּה נָקוּד עַל ״אַהֲרֹן״ שֶׁבְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים — שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מִנְיָן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The last challenge is the sharpest because the Torah itself flags the anomaly. A baraita explains the dots written over אַהֲרֹן in Bamidbar 3:39 as marking that he was not included in the Levite count — a rare instance of the masoretic text carrying an interpretive signal on its surface. Aharon displaced no Israelite firstborn, so on both readings his own firstborn sanctity should have remained.
Key Terms:
- נָקוּד = dotted — scribal points marking a word for exposition
- חוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים = the Book of Numbers, literally the book of countings
- אוֹתוֹ מִנְיָן = that count — the census of Levites
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Answered from הַלְוִיִּם: all Levites are juxtaposed to one another.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר קְרָא: ״הַלְוִיִּם״, הוּקְשׁוּ כׇּל הַלְוִיִּם זֶה לָזֶה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer abandons the individual accounting and makes the exemption tribal. The verse’s definite הַלְוִיִּם is read as placing every Levite alongside every other, so the status attaches to membership rather than to participation. This quietly repairs the earlier challenges too — the lambless Levite and the month-old infant are covered by the same principle — and turns what looked like a ledger of exchanges into a single categorical rule.
Key Terms:
- הוּקְשׁוּ = they were juxtaposed — treated as one category for a given law
- הַלְוִיִּם = the Levites — the definite form read as inclusive
Segment 13
TYPE: דרשה
Kohanim are included: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s twenty-four places.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֹּהֲנִים מְנָלַן? כִּדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מְקוֹמוֹת נִקְרְאוּ כֹּהֲנִים ״לְוִיִּם״, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן: ״וְהַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם בְּנֵי צָדוֹק״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna exempted kohanim as well as levi’im, but every derivation so far has spoken of Levites. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi supplies the bridge with a broad philological observation — in twenty-four places Scripture calls kohanim לְוִיִּם — and offers Yechezkel 44:15 as one instance. Kohanim are thus inside the category wherever the Torah legislates about Levites, and Aharon in particular is covered twice over, by this and by the juxtaposition just established.
Key Terms:
- בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מְקוֹמוֹת = in twenty-four places
- וְהַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם בְּנֵי צָדוֹק = the priests the Levites, the sons of Tzadok (Yechezkel 44:15)
Amud Bet (4b)
Segment 1
TYPE: דרשה
The exemption holds for all generations, from וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְדוֹרוֹת מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם״, ״וְהָיוּ״ — בַּהֲוָויָיתָן יְהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Everything on 4a concerned a single historical exchange, which leaves open whether the exemption expired with the wilderness generation. The answer is drawn from the tense of a verb: וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם, and the Levites shall be Mine, read as בַּהֲוָויָיתָן יְהוּ — they shall remain in the state they are in. What began as an accounting of one census becomes a permanent feature of tribal status.
Key Terms:
- וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם = and the Levites shall be Mine (Bamidbar 3:12)
- בַּהֲוָויָיתָן יְהוּ = they shall be in their existing state
- לְדוֹרוֹת = for all generations
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
How do we know the wilderness redemption was done with a lamb? Rav Chisda proposes a verbal analogy.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִמַּאי דִּבְשֶׂה? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: נֶאֱמַר כֶּסֶף לְדוֹרוֹת, וְנֶאֱמַר שֶׂה לְדוֹרוֹת.
English Translation:
§ 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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Safra’s argument on 4a assumed the Levites’ lambs were the redeeming instrument, and the Gemara now asks where that comes from. Rav Chisda answers with a גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה built on parallel structure: silver is named for redeeming a firstborn son in later generations, and a lamb is named for redeeming a firstborn donkey in later generations. The two are to be read together.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה = a verbal analogy between two verses sharing a term
- כֶּסֶף = silver — the five shekels of pidyon haben
- שֶׂה = a lamb — the instrument for redeeming a firstborn donkey
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
The analogy spelled out: what redeemed for later generations also redeemed at that time.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה כֶּסֶף הָאָמוּר לְדוֹרוֹת — בּוֹ פָּדוּ לְדוֹרוֹת, בּוֹ פָּדוּ לְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, אַף שֶׂה הָאָמוּר לְדוֹרוֹת — בּוֹ פָּדוּ לְדוֹרוֹת, בּוֹ פָּדוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The inference runs from the known case to the unknown. Silver is prescribed for later generations and was demonstrably used in the wilderness, where the 273 surplus firstborn were redeemed at five shekels each; the lamb is likewise prescribed for later generations, so it too should have served at that time. The argument’s strength is its symmetry, and that symmetry is exactly what the next segment attacks.
Key Terms:
- לְדוֹרוֹת / לְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה = for later generations / at that time
- בּוֹ פָּדוּ = with it they redeemed
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
The analogy fails: silver is unique in redeeming hekdesh and maaser sheni too.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה לְכֶסֶף — שָׁכֵן פּוֹדִין בּוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is a standard פִּירְכָא, showing the two sides of the analogy are not truly comparable. Silver is not merely one redemption instrument among others; it redeems consecrated property and second-tithe produce as well, so its use in the wilderness may follow from that general potency rather than from any rule about firstborn. A lamb has no such range, and what is proved of the versatile case cannot be transferred to the narrow one.
Key Terms:
- מָה לְכֶסֶף = what is notable about silver — the formula refuting an analogy
- הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת = consecrated property
- מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי = second tithe, redeemable with silver and eaten in Yerushalayim
Segment 5
TYPE: דרשה
The same juxtaposition used on 4a supplies the answer instead.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having lost the analogy, the Gemara falls back on the verse that did duty on 4a. אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה binds the firstborn son and the non-kosher animal into one clause, and the rule of correspondence now yields a different consequence: since no distinction was drawn between eras for the son, redeemed with silver in both, none may be drawn for the donkey, redeemed with a lamb in both. One verse has now settled both who is exempt and by what means redemption occurs.
Key Terms:
- לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ = you did not distinguish — between eras
- הֶיקֵּשׁ = juxtaposition — two subjects joined in one verse and equated
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Chanina: one Levite lamb exempted many Israelite donkeys; Abaye’s proof from the counted surplus.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chanina makes the redemption radically non-numerical — a single lamb could clear any number of donkeys. Abaye’s supporting argument is a piece of detective work on what the Torah bothers to count: it records a surplus of 273 firstborn sons over the available Levites and prescribes silver for them, yet reports no surplus of animals at all. Silence where a count would be expected is itself evidence, and it points to an exchange that never needed matching one to one.
Key Terms:
- עוֹדְפִים = the surplus — the 273 unmatched firstborn sons
- תֵּדַע = know it — introducing supporting evidence
- פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים = firstborn donkeys
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Perhaps there simply were not many animals; answered from מִקְנֶה רַב.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לָא הָוֵי נְפִישִׁי לְהוּ בְּהֵמוֹת טוּבָא? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ! דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה לִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְלִבְנֵי גָד״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The obvious rejoinder is that silence about a surplus may mean there was none — perhaps the Levites’ lambs happened to outnumber Israel’s firstborn donkeys. The Gemara rejects it from the description of Reuven and Gad as possessing מִקְנֶה רַב, a very great multitude of livestock, in Bamidbar 32:1. The wilderness generation was not short of animals, so the absence of a recorded surplus needs a different explanation.
Key Terms:
- מִקְנֶה רַב = a great multitude of livestock (Bamidbar 32:1)
- לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ = do not let it enter your mind
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Perhaps the Levites’ ordinary animals made up the numbers; answered from the singular בֶּהֱמַת.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּילְמָא אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, פְּשׁוּטִים דִּלְוִיִּם הֲווֹ קָיְימִי לְבַהֲדֵי בְּכוֹרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֶת בֶּהֱמַת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״, בְּהֵמָה אַחַת תַּחַת בְּהֵמוֹת הַרְבֵּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A subtler objection: perhaps the count balanced because all the Levites’ animals, not only their firstborn, stood opposite Israel’s firstborn donkeys. The answer is grammatical. The verse reads בֶּהֱמַת הַלְוִיִּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם, singular against plural, and the Gemara hears in that asymmetry precisely what Rabbi Chanina claimed — one animal set against many.
Key Terms:
- פְּשׁוּטִים = ordinary animals — those without firstborn status
- בֶּהֱמַת … בְּהֶמְתָּם = the animal of … their animals — singular against plural
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Could בֶּהֱמַת be collective? The verse’s phrasing rules it out.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא בְּהֵמָה רַבָּה? אִם כֵּן, לִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא אוֹ ״בְּהֵמָה תַּחַת בְּהֵמָה״ אוֹ ״בְּהֶמְתָּם תַּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״! מַאי ״בֶּהֱמַת… תֵּחַת בְּהֶמְתָּם״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חַד פָּטַר טוּבָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The grammatical reading is tested against a counter-example, since בְּהֵמָה can carry collective force, as in Yonah 4:11. The Gemara answers from what the verse declined to write: had a simple exchange been meant, either both nouns could have been singular or both plural. The deliberate mismatch is the point, and the conclusion is stated flatly — חַד פָּטַר טוּבָא, one exempted many.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵמָה רַבָּה = many animals — the collective sense (Yonah 4:11)
- חַד פָּטַר טוּבָא = one exempted many
Segment 10
TYPE: ראיה
Rava supports from the mishna on 9a and recasts Rabbi Chanina as its explanation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava finds the same principle already in a mishna: a lamb repurchased from the kohen may redeem donkey after donkey, פּוֹדֶה בּוֹ פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה. The move he then makes is more interesting than the proof — Rabbi Chanina is not advancing a view of his own but supplying the mishna’s reasoning, explaining why one lamb has this reach. A statement that looked like an independent report of wilderness history becomes the ground of a standing halacha.
Key Terms:
- אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא = we too have learned it — adducing a mishna in support
- פּוֹדֶה בּוֹ פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה = he redeems with it many times
- טַעְמָא דְמַתְנִיתִין = the reasoning of the mishna
Segment 11
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish dispute whether firstborn were sanctified in the wilderness.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf now opens its largest question, and it is historical rather than procedural: during the forty years between Egypt and the Land, did firstborn sanctity operate at all? Rabbi Yochanan says it did; Reish Lakish says it did not. The stakes are considerable, since the entire wilderness exchange of Levites for firstborn presupposes that there was sanctity to displace.
Key Terms:
- קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת = the firstborn were sanctified
- אִיתְּמַר = it was stated — introducing an amoraic dispute
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yochanan’s reason: the command was given and never withdrawn.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר לִיקְדְּשׁוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״קַדֶּשׁ לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan’s argument is the simpler one. קַדֶּשׁ לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר was said in Egypt without limitation of time or place, and a standing command continues until something revokes it. Nothing in the wilderness narrative revokes it, so the sanctity ran throughout.
Key Terms:
- קַדֶּשׁ לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר = sanctify to Me every firstborn (Shemot 13:2)
- רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר לִיקְדְּשׁוּ = the Merciful One said they should be sanctified
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Reish Lakish’s reason: the command is tied to entry into the Land.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר, מִדִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ״, מִכְּלָל דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא קְדוּשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish reads a different verse and finds a condition attached. וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ, and it shall be when He brings you into the land, is followed immediately by וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ, and you shall set apart — which he takes to mean that the setting apart begins with the entry. If the obligation waits on arrival, then during the wilderness years it was not yet in force.
Key Terms:
- וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ = and it shall be when He brings you (Shemot 13:11)
- וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ = and you shall set apart (Shemot 13:12)
- מִכְּלָל דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא קְדוּשׁ = by inference, initially they were not sanctified
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Yochanan objects from the firstborn performing the service before the Tabernacle.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָיוּ בָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת וַעֲבוֹדָה בִּבְכוֹרוֹת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection comes from a mishna in Zevachim: before the Tabernacle stood, private altars were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn. That presupposes firstborn who were consecrated for it. Reish Lakish’s reply narrows the referent rather than denying the mishna — those were the firstborn who came out of Egypt, sanctified there, and nothing follows about those born afterwards.
Key Terms:
- בָּמוֹת = private altars, permitted before the Mishkan stood
- עֲבוֹדָה בִּבְכוֹרוֹת = the service performed by the firstborn
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Reish Lakish’s answer is reinforced: an infant cannot perform the service.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, בֶּן שָׁנָה בַּר מֶיעְבַּד עֲבוֹדָה הוּא?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara adds a practical consideration that makes Reish Lakish’s reading not merely possible but necessary. The Mishkan was erected a year after the exodus, so any firstborn born in the wilderness was at most an infant, and an infant cannot perform sacrificial service. Whoever served must have been born in Egypt, whichever side of the dispute one takes.
Key Terms:
- בֶּן שָׁנָה = a one-year-old
- הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא = this too stands to reason
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
If the answer is that obvious, why was the objection raised at all?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ, מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns on its own narrative and asks why a challenge with so plain an answer was brought. The question is characteristic: an objection that collapses on inspection is treated as evidence that it was never really about what it appeared to be about, and the next segment reconstructs what Rabbi Yochanan was actually pressing.
Key Terms:
- וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ = and he who asked it, why did he ask it?
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
The real objection: if sanctity lapsed in the wilderness, it lapsed for the Egyptian firstborn too.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reconstruction shows the objection was about continuity, not about identity. Rabbi Yochanan’s point is that sanctity is not the sort of thing that switches off and on: if it ceased during the wilderness years, it ceased for everyone, including those consecrated in Egypt, who would then have had nothing left with which to serve. The mishna about the firstborn performing the service therefore tells against Reish Lakish however one identifies the individuals.
Key Terms:
- פָּסֵיק קְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ = their sanctity ceased
- פָּקְעָא = lapsed — fell away
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
Reish Lakish distinguishes: those sanctified stayed sanctified; those never sanctified did not become so.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִידַּךְ: דִּקְדוּשׁ — קְדוּשׁ, דְּלָא קְדוּשׁ — לָא קְדוּשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish’s answer is a single clause doing precise work. דִּקְדוּשׁ קְדוּשׁ, דְּלָא קְדוּשׁ לָא קְדוּשׁ — his claim was never that sanctity was revoked, only that it failed to attach to those born later. Nothing lapses; the Egyptian firstborn keep what they received and serve, while the wilderness-born simply never acquired it.
Key Terms:
- דִּקְדוּשׁ קְדוּשׁ = those who were sanctified were sanctified
- דְּלָא קְדוּשׁ לָא קְדוּשׁ = those who were not sanctified were not sanctified
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
A baraita on the Tabernacle’s first day lists firstborn offerings; the inference cuts both ways.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita records that on the day the Mishkan was erected, Israel offered vows, gift offerings, sin and guilt offerings, firstborn and tithes. Rabbi Yochanan presses it as evidence that firstborn were sanctified in the wilderness, and Reish Lakish again assigns the animals to those brought out of Egypt. The Gemara then notes that the baraita’s own emphasis on that day may favour Reish Lakish, since it implies the offerings did not continue thereafter.
Key Terms:
- נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת = vow offerings and gift offerings
- חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת = sin offerings and guilt offerings
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
A second recension reverses the exchange: Reish Lakish objects and Rabbi Yochanan answers.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי preserves the same baraita being used by the other side. Here it is Reish Lakish who presses the restrictive inference — that day yes, thereafter no — and Rabbi Yochanan who answers by rereading the phrase as מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְאֵילָךְ, from that day onward. That a single source can be deployed in opposite directions is itself instructive about how such baraitot are argued from.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי = there are those who say — an alternative transmission
- מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְאֵילָךְ = from that day onward
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
On that reading, the baraita teaches that obligatory offerings were not brought on a private altar.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם — אִין, מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא. אַלְמָא חוֹבוֹת בְּבָמָה לָא קְרוּב.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the baraita means from that day onward, it is no longer reporting a one-day event and must be teaching something else. The Gemara finds it in the implied contrast with what came before: these offerings began with the Mishkan because חוֹבוֹת בְּבָמָה לָא קְרוּב, obligatory offerings were not brought on a private altar, which had been restricted to voluntary ones.
Key Terms:
- חוֹבוֹת = obligatory offerings
- בָּמָה = a private altar
Segment 22
TYPE: ראיה
A baraita naming three places the firstborn were sanctified, with a verse for each.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The strongest support for Rabbi Yochanan is a baraita that enumerates three occasions of sanctification and attaches a verse to each: Egypt, with קַדֶּשׁ לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר; the wilderness, with כִּי לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; and the entry into the Land, with וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ. The middle item is precisely what Reish Lakish denies, and it is named explicitly.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת = in three places
- כִּי לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר = for every firstborn is Mine (Bamidbar 8:17)
Segment 23
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rereads the baraita as three commands, not three compliances.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak saves Reish Lakish by shifting the baraita from what happened to what was commanded — הוּזְהֲרוּ, they were warned, in three places. Pressed on whether this would also deny sanctification in Egypt, which even Reish Lakish grants, he refines it: commanded in three places, complied with in some and not in others. The reading is strained and the Gemara does not pretend otherwise, which is why Rav Pappa’s objection lands so hard.
Key Terms:
- הוּזְהֲרוּ = they were commanded, or warned
- מֵהֶן קָדְשׁוּ וּמֵהֶן לֹא קָדְשׁוּ = in some they sanctified and in some they did not
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa objects from the wilderness census, forcing the dispute to be restated — and the daf breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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
English Translation:
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
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa’s objection is decisive against the previous answer: פְּקֹד כׇּל בְּכֹר זָכָר commanded a census of the firstborn, and Bamidbar 3:42 records that it was carried out, in the second year, necessarily including those born after Egypt. Sanctity in the wilderness cannot be denied outright. The dispute is therefore restated in gentler terms — Rabbi Yochanan that they were sanctified and the sanctity never ceased, Reish Lakish that they were sanctified but only until the census — and the daf breaks off mid-sentence, with Reish Lakish’s position completed on 5a.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף לַהּ = he objects to it
- פְּקֹד כׇּל בְּכֹר זָכָר = count every firstborn male (Bamidbar 3:40)
- קָדְשׁוּ וְלֹא פָּסְקוּ = they were sanctified and did not cease