Bechorot Daf 5 (בכורות דף ה׳)
Daf: 5 | Amudim: 5a – 5b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (5a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The daf opens mid-sentence, completing Reish Lakish’s restated position from 4b.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּפָסְקוּ.
English Translation:
and then their sanctity ceased following the census.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two words finish the sentence 4b broke off in. Reish Lakish’s revised view is that the wilderness firstborn were indeed sanctified — Rav Pappa’s census made that undeniable — but that their sanctity then ceased with the census itself. The printed page break falls in the middle of a clause, a reminder that the pagination was imposed on the text centuries after it was composed.
Key Terms:
- וּפָסְקוּ = and they ceased — the sanctity lapsed
- אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר = if it was stated, this is how it was stated — 4b’s reformulation
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Reish Lakish has a verse; what is Rabbi Yochanan’s source?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, כִּדְאָמַר טַעַם, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן — מַאי טַעְמָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who holds the firstborn were not sanctified following the census until they entered Eretz Yisrael, the reason is as he said, that it is written: “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). But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the firstborn continued to be sanctified following the census, what is the reason, i.e., the source, for his opinion?
קלאוד על הדף:
With the dispute restated, the Gemara audits each side for a scriptural basis. Reish Lakish is covered: וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ followed by וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ ties the setting apart to the entry into the Land, which supports a sanctity that lapses in between. Rabbi Yochanan’s new position — sanctified and never ceasing — needs a source of its own, and the question is left standing for the next segment.
Key Terms:
- כִּדְאָמַר טַעַם = as he stated his reason
- מַאי טַעְמָא = what is the reason — here, the scriptural source
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Elazar supplies the source, prefacing it with a dream of Rabbi Yochanan.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲזַאי בְּחֶילְמָא דְּמִילְּתָא מְעַלַּיְתָא אָמֵינָא, אָמַר קְרָא ״לִי יִהְיוּ״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתָן יְהוּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar said: I saw Rabbi Yoḥanan in a dream, which is a sign that I am saying a proper matter in explaining his opinion. The verse states: “For all the firstborn are Mine: On the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified to Me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and animal, Mine they shall be: I am the Lord” (Numbers 3:13). The additional phrase “Mine they shall be” indicates that they shall be, i.e., shall remain, in their current state of sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer comes with an unusual preface. Rabbi Elazar reports that he saw Rabbi Yochanan in a dream and treats this as confirmation that his reconstruction is sound — a rare moment where the Gemara records not just a teaching but an amora’s confidence in his own reading of a departed master. The source itself is לִי יִהְיוּ in Bamidbar 3:13, read as בַּהֲוָיָיתָן יְהוּ: they shall remain in the state they are in, exactly the durative move made with וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם on 4b.
Key Terms:
- חֲזַאי בְּחֶילְמָא = I saw in a dream
- מִילְּתָא מְעַלַּיְתָא = a proper matter — a sound explanation
- בַּהֲוָיָיתָן יְהוּ = they shall be in their existing state
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
What does Rabbi Yochanan do with Reish Lakish’s verse? He reads it as motivation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, ״וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ… וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: עֲשֵׂה מִצְוָה זוֹ שֶׁבִּשְׁבִילָהּ תִּיכָּנֵס לָאָרֶץ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yoḥanan, with regard to the verse “And it shall be when the Lord shall bring you…and you shall set apart,” what does he do with it? The Gemara answers: That expression is necessary to teach that which the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Perform this mitzva on account of which you will be privileged to enter into Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
Every verse must do some work, so Rabbi Yochanan owes an account of וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ. He gives it to the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who read it not as deferring the mitzva but as supplying an incentive for it: עֲשֵׂה מִצְוָה זוֹ שֶׁבִּשְׁבִילָהּ תִּיכָּנֵס לָאָרֶץ, perform this mitzva on account of which you will enter the Land. The clause that Reish Lakish heard as a condition, Rabbi Yochanan hears as a promise.
Key Terms:
- תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught
- שֶׁבִּשְׁבִילָהּ תִּיכָּנֵס לָאָרֶץ = on account of which you will enter the Land
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Mordechai reports that his academy transmits the dispute with the names reversed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרְדֳּכַי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַתּוּן הָכִי מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ, אֲנַן אִיפְּכָא מַתְנִינַן לַהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ בְּכוֹרוֹת בַּמִּדְבָּר.
English Translation:
Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: You teach the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish in this manner, whereas we teach it in the opposite manner: Rabbi Yoḥanan says the firstborn were not sanctified in the wilderness, and Reish Lakish says the firstborn were sanctified in the wilderness.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Mordechai tells Rav Ashi that the attributions run the other way in his tradition: Rabbi Yochanan denies the sanctity and Reish Lakish affirms it. This is the sort of variant that could unsettle a whole sugya, since both the objections and Rabbi Elazar’s dream-backed explanation were built around the first arrangement. Rav Ashi’s reply in the next segment presses exactly that point.
Key Terms:
- אַתּוּן הָכִי מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ = you teach it this way
- אֲנַן אִיפְּכָא מַתְנִינַן לַהּ = we teach it in the reverse
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Ashi presses: do you reverse the objections too? The variant turns out to be verbal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאָפְכִית נָמֵי תְּיוּבָתָא, וְאָפְכִיתוּ לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ לְהוּ — לֹא הוּצְרְכוּ לִיקְדַּשׁ.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said to him: And do you also reverse the objections raised by one against the other, and do you also reverse that which Rabbi Elazar said, that he saw Rabbi Yoḥanan in a dream and interpreted his opinion to be referring to Reish Lakish instead? Rav Mordekhai said to him: According to my tradition, when Rabbi Yoḥanan stated that the firstborn in the wilderness were not sanctified he meant that they did not need to be consecrated, i.e., one who wished to sacrifice a firstborn lamb did not need to consecrate it, as they were already sanctified as firstborns. And Reish Lakish disagreed.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi asks the structural question — if the names swap, does everything else swap with them, including Rabbi Elazar’s explanation? Rav Mordechai’s answer dissolves the conflict rather than defending it: in his tradition לֹא קָדְשׁוּ means לֹא הוּצְרְכוּ לִיקְדַּשׁ, they did not need to be consecrated, since they were already holy as firstborn. Read that way his Rabbi Yochanan is affirming what the other tradition’s Rabbi Yochanan affirms, and the two versions describe the same position in opposite words.
Key Terms:
- אָפְכִית נָמֵי תְּיוּבָתָא = do you also reverse the objections
- לֹא הוּצְרְכוּ לִיקְדַּשׁ = they did not need to be consecrated
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
If the substance is identical, why report the variant? To teach one must quote his teacher’s language.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דִּידַן! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: חַיָּיב אָדָם לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If so, that is the same as our tradition, that in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion the firstborn that were born in the wilderness were sanctified, and in Reish Lakish’s opinion they were not. For what purpose, then, did Rav Mordekhai inform Rav Ashi of his alternative version of the dispute? The Gemara answers that it teaches us that a person must say what he was taught in the precise language employed by his teacher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks the obvious follow-up — if the two traditions agree, the report was pointless — and answers with a principle about transmission rather than about firstborn. חַיָּיב אָדָם לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ: one must repeat a teaching in his teacher’s own words. Rav Mordechai was not correcting Rav Ashi but discharging an obligation, and the episode is preserved as an illustration of how an oral tradition guards its own wording even where the meaning is not at stake.
Key Terms:
- חַיָּיב אָדָם לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ = a person must repeat a teaching in his teacher’s language
- הַיְינוּ דִּידַן = that is the same as ours
Segment 8
TYPE: מעשה
Kontrokos asks Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai where three hundred Levites went missing.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאַל קוּנְטְרוּקוּס הַשַּׂר אֶת רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: בִּפְרָטָן שֶׁל לְוִיִּם אַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, בִּכְלָלָן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם אֶלֶף, וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת לְהֵיכָן הָלְכוּ?
English Translation:
§ With regard to the abrogation of the sanctity of the firstborn in the wilderness by the Levites, the Gemara relates that Kontrokos the officer asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: In the individual count of each family of Levites you find that there were 22,300 (see Numbers 3:22-34). But in the collective count of the entire tribe you find a total of 22,000, as it is stated: “All the males from a month old and upward, were 22,000” (Numbers 3:39). Where, then, did the other three hundred Levites go?
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf turns to a pair of exchanges between a gentile officer and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, both of them arithmetical challenges to the Torah’s own figures. The first is a genuine discrepancy: the Levite families in Bamidbar 3:22-34 sum to 22,300, but the collective total at 3:39 is 22,000. Three hundred Levites are unaccounted for, and the question is put as a straightforward audit.
Key Terms:
- קוּנְטְרוּקוּס הַשַּׂר = Kontrokos the officer — a gentile official
- בִּפְרָטָן / בִּכְלָלָן = in their individual count / in their collective count
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Those three hundred were themselves firstborn, and a firstborn cannot redeem a firstborn.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ: אוֹתָן שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּכוֹרוֹת הָיוּ, וְאֵין בְּכוֹר מַפְקִיעַ בְּכוֹר. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דַּיּוֹ לַבְּכוֹר שֶׁיַּפְקִיעַ קְדוּשַּׁת עַצְמוֹ.
English Translation:
Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: The total sum includes only those Levites who redeemed the Israelite firstborn. Those additional three hundred Levites were themselves firstborns, and a firstborn Levite cannot abrogate the sanctity of a firstborn Israelite. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Abaye says: It is sufficient for a Levite firstborn to abrogate his own firstborn sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is that the 22,000 is not the tribe’s population but the number available for the exchange. Three hundred Levites were themselves firstborn and so could not stand in for anyone: אֵין בְּכוֹר מַפְקִיעַ בְּכוֹר. Abaye supplies the reasoning in a single word of sufficiency — דַּיּוֹ לַבְּכוֹר שֶׁיַּפְקִיעַ קְדוּשַּׁת עַצְמוֹ, it is enough that a firstborn discharges his own sanctity; he has nothing left over to discharge another’s.
Key Terms:
- אֵין בְּכוֹר מַפְקִיעַ בְּכוֹר = a firstborn does not abrogate a firstborn
- דַּיּוֹ = it is sufficient for him
Segment 10
TYPE: מעשה
The second challenge: the silver collected comes to 201 talents and 11 maneh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד שְׁאָלוֹ: בְּגִיבּוּי כֶּסֶף אַתָּה מוֹצֵא מָאתַיִם וְאַחַת כִּכָּר וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מָנֶה, דִּכְתִיב: ״בֶּקַע לַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳״,
English Translation:
Additionally, Kontrokos asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: With regard to the collection of silver by Moses for the Tabernacle, you find that the total amount is 201 talents and eleven maneh, as it is written that they amassed: “A beka a head, that is, half a shekel, of the shekel of the Sanctuary…for 603,550 men” (Exodus 38:26), which totals 301,775 shekels. This sum equals 201 talents and eleven maneh, as each talent contains 1,500 shekels, or sixty maneh, and each maneh contains twenty-five shekels.
קלאוד על הדף:
Kontrokos now sets up an accounting problem from the Tabernacle census. At a beka — half a shekel — per head for 603,550 men, the total is 301,775 shekels, which at 1,500 shekels to the talent yields 201 talents and 11 maneh. The figure is stated precisely because the next segment will contrast it with a much smaller number recorded as actually given.
Key Terms:
- בֶּקַע לַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת = a beka per head — half a shekel (Shemot 38:26)
- כִּכָּר = a talent — 1,500 shekels, or sixty maneh
- מָנֶה = a maneh — twenty-five shekels in the standard reckoning
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Only one hundred talents were given: was Moshe a thief, a gambler, or bad at arithmetic?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבִנְתִינַת הַכֶּסֶף אַתָּה מוֹצֵא מְאַת כִּכָּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי מְאַת כִּכַּר הַכֶּסֶף לָצֶקֶת וְגוֹ׳״. מֹשֶׁה רַבְּכֶם גַּנָּב הָיָה, אוֹ קוּבְיוּסְטוּס הָיָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ בָּקִי בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹת? נָתַן מֶחֱצָה וְנָטַל מֶחֱצָה, וּמֶחֱצָה שָׁלֵם לֹא הֶחֱזִיר.
English Translation:
But with regard to the giving of the silver to the Tabernacle you find only one hundred talents, as it is written: “And the hundred talents of silver were for casting” (Exodus 38:27). Now, was Moses your teacher a thief, or was he a gambler [kuveyustus], or was he not expert in accounting? He gave half of the money for the Tabernacle and took half for himself, and he did not return even a complete half to the Tabernacle.
קלאוד על הדף:
The accusation is put bluntly and the Gemara records it without flinching. Against 201 talents collected, Shemot 38:27 accounts for only 100 — so Kontrokos offers three explanations, each worse than the last, and notes that the shortfall is not even a clean half. The sharpness of the challenge is what makes the answer worth preserving: a charge against Moshe’s honesty is answered with a unit conversion.
Key Terms:
- קוּבְיוּסְטוּס = a gambler or swindler — a Greek loanword
- גִּזְבָּר = a treasurer
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai: the sanctuary maneh was double the standard one.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ: מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ גִּיזְבָּר נֶאֱמָן הָיָה, וּבָקִי בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹת הָיָה, וּמָנֶה שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ כָּפוּל הָיָה.
English Translation:
Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Moses, our teacher, was a trustworthy treasurer and was expert in accounting, but a maneh of the Sanctuary, which was used to measure the one hundred talents used for the sockets, was double the value of a standard maneh, i.e., fifty shekels instead of twenty-five shekels. Therefore, the one hundred talents given by Moses were equivalent to the two hundred talents that he collected from the Jewish people.
קלאוד על הדף:
The defence is arithmetical rather than rhetorical. Moshe was a trustworthy treasurer and competent at accounts; the apparent shortfall comes from the unit, since the maneh of the Sanctuary was double the common maneh, fifty shekels rather than twenty-five. The hundred talents recorded as given are therefore the two hundred collected, and the books balance. The rest of the amud is spent asking how he knew this.
Key Terms:
- גִּזְבָּר נֶאֱמָן = a trustworthy treasurer
- מָנֶה שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ כָּפוּל = the sanctuary maneh was double
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Achai asks what forced the answer; a second verse closes the escape route.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָוֵי בַּהּ רַב אַחַאי: מַאי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ, ״וַיְהִי מְאַת כִּכַּר הַכֶּסֶף לָצֶקֶת וְגוֹ׳״? הָנָךְ לָצֶקֶת, וְאִינָךְ בֵּי גַזָּא! כְּתַב קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא: ״וְכֶסֶף פְּקוּדֵי הָעֵדָה מְאַת כִּכָּר וְגוֹ׳״.
English Translation:
Rav Aḥai discusses it: What posed a difficulty for Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that forced him to offer this answer? Was it the verse: “And the hundred talents of silver were for casting the sockets of the Sanctuary” (Exodus 38:27)? If so, one can explain that these one hundred talents were designated for casting the sockets, and the other one hundred talents that are not mentioned here were placed in the treasury. The Gemara answers that another verse is written that discusses the total sum collected, and only one hundred talents are mentioned: “And the silver of those that were numbered of the congregation was a hundred talents” (Exodus 38:25).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Achai probes whether there was a difficulty at all. Shemot 38:27 says only that a hundred talents were used for casting the sockets, which leaves room for another hundred sitting in the treasury and no discrepancy to explain. The answer is that a different verse, 38:25, reports the total collected from the congregation as one hundred talents, and that figure cannot be a partial disbursement. The problem is real, so the solution is needed.
Key Terms:
- הָוֵי בַּהּ = he discusses it — probing the difficulty
- בֵּי גַזָּא = the treasury
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
From where did Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai know the sanctuary maneh was doubled?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּדְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ: מָנֶה שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ כָּפוּל הָיָה, מְנָא לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And with regard to that which Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to Kontrokos, that a maneh of the Sanctuary was double the value of a standard maneh, from where does he derive this?
קלאוד על הדף:
The claim did its work, but the Gemara wants its source, and this question drives the next six segments. What follows is a sustained methodological inquiry: two candidate derivations are proposed from how the Torah reports leftover quantities, each is undercut by a plausible alternative reading of the same evidence, and only then is an explicit verse found.
Key Terms:
- מְנָא לֵיהּ = from where does he derive it
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
A first attempt: the 1,775 shekels are counted in small coin rather than rounded to talents.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִילֵימָא מִינֵּיהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּאן שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד מָנֶה — ״וְאֶת הָאָלֶף וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים עָשָׂה וָוִים לָעַמּוּדִים״, וְלֹא מְנָאָן הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא בִּפְרוֹטְרוֹט, וְאִם אִיתָא — מֵאָה וְאֶחָד כִּכָּר וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מָנֶה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
English Translation:
If we say that it is derived from the verse itself that Kontrokos mentioned (Exodus 38:27), then the derivation would be as follows: In addition to the one hundred talents, additional silver coins are mentioned here that equal seventy-one maneh, as it is stated: “And of the 1,775 shekels he made hooks for the pillars” (Exodus 38:28), which is equal to one talent, or sixty maneh, plus an additional eleven maneh, and the verse counted them only using the value of small coins, i.e., shekels, and not in talents. And if it is so that a maneh of the Sanctuary was of equal value to a common maneh, then the verse should have expressed this value using larger coins, writing: 101 talents and eleven maneh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proposed proof turns on accounting style. Shemot 38:28 reports 1,775 shekels used for the hooks, which on the standard maneh would be seventy-one maneh — more than a talent — and the Torah would then be expected to write 101 talents and eleven maneh rather than leaving the sum בִּפְרוֹטְרוֹט, in small coin. That it did not suggests the quantity fell short of a talent, which happens only if the maneh is doubled.
Key Terms:
- בִּפְרוֹטְרוֹט = in small coin — itemised rather than converted to large units
- וָוִים לָעַמּוּדִים = hooks for the pillars (Shemot 38:28)
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
The inference stated: since it was left in small coin, the maneh must be doubled.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, מִדְּלֹא מְנָאָן הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא בִּפְרוֹטְרוֹט, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מָנֶה שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ כָּפוּל הָיָה.
English Translation:
Rather, since the verse counts this value only using the value of small coins, learn from it that a maneh of the Sanctuary was double the value of a standard maneh and equaled fifty shekels. Therefore, the 1,775 shekels mentioned are worth only 35½ maneh, which is less than a full talent, or sixty maneh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The conclusion is drawn explicitly. On a fifty-shekel maneh the 1,775 shekels come to thirty-five and a half maneh, comfortably under the sixty that make a talent, so the Torah’s failure to convert is exactly what one would expect. The reasoning is elegant, and its weakness is that it assumes the Torah converts to large units whenever it can — which the next segment questions.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = learn from it
- חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים = seventy-five — part of the 1,775 shekel figure
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Perhaps the Torah reports round totals in talents and remainders in shekels as a matter of style.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִילְמָא כְּלָלֵי קָחָשֵׁיב בְּכַכְּרֵי, פְּרָטִי לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב בְּכַכְּרֵי!
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps the total amount of shekels does equal the amount of a talent, but the verse calculates the general amounts, i.e., the hundreds of talents, in talents, and the verse does not calculate the details, i.e., any amount less than one hundred talents, in talents, but in shekels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The rejection proposes a different accounting convention rather than a different unit. Perhaps large round sums are given in talents while any remainder is itemised in shekels regardless of its size, in which case the 1,775 shekels tell us nothing about the maneh. The objection is not that the proof is wrong but that the evidence underdetermines the conclusion.
Key Terms:
- כְּלָלֵי / פְּרָטֵי = general totals / itemised details
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
A second attempt from the bronze: seventy talents and 2,400 shekels.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וּנְחֹשֶׁת הַתְּנוּפָה שִׁבְעִים כִּכָּר וְאַלְפַּיִם וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁקֶל״, שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּאן תִּשְׁעִים וְשִׁשָּׁה מָנֶה, וְלֹא מְנָאָן הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא בִּפְרוֹטְרוֹט, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מָנֶה שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ כָּפוּל הָיָה.
English Translation:
Rather, the principle that a maneh of the Sanctuary is double the value of a common maneh is derived from here: “And the brass of the offering was seventy talents and 2,400 shekels” (Exodus 38:29). The Gemara explains: Aside from the seventy talents mentioned, there are an additional ninety-six maneh here, which is equivalent to one talent and an additional thirty-six maneh, and the verse counts them only using the value of small coins. Learn from it that a maneh of the Sanctuary was double the amount of a standard maneh, and that is why the number of shekels mentioned did not equal a full talent.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same argument is retried on a figure that escapes the previous objection. Shemot 38:29 records the bronze as seventy talents and 2,400 shekels, and 2,400 shekels is ninety-six maneh on the standard reckoning — a talent and thirty-six maneh, so the surplus is itself more than a talent and ought to have been converted. Here the remainder is not a small trailing amount, which is precisely the feature the previous objection relied on.
Key Terms:
- נְחֹשֶׁת הַתְּנוּפָה = the bronze of the wave offering (Shemot 38:29)
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
Rejected again: perhaps only large units are expressed in talents.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִילְמָא פְּרָטָא רַבָּה קָא חָשֵׁיב בְּכַכְּרֵי, פְּרָטָא זוּטָא לָא קָחָשֵׁיב בְּכַכְּרֵי!
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof as well: But perhaps the verse is referring to a standard maneh, and the verse calculates a large unit, i.e., tens of talents, in talents, while the verse does not calculate a small unit, i.e., any amount less than ten talents, in talents.
קלאוד על הדף:
The counter-move is the same in form, rescaled. Perhaps the Torah converts to talents only for large quantities — tens of talents — and itemises anything below that threshold, so a remainder worth a talent and a bit would still be written in shekels. Twice now the evidence has proved compatible with a mere convention of expression, and the Gemara abandons the inferential route entirely.
Key Terms:
- פְּרָטָא רַבָּה / פְּרָטָא זוּטָא = a large unit / a small unit
Segment 20
TYPE: דרשה
Rav Chisda finds an explicit verse in Yechezkel defining the maneh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מֵהָכָא, ״וְהַשֶּׁקֶל עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה עֶשְׂרִים שְׁקָלִים חֲמִשָּׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים שְׁקָלִים עֲשָׂרָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁקֶל הַמָּנֶה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״.
English Translation:
Rather, Rav Ḥisda says the claim that a maneh of the Sanctuary was double the size of a standard maneh is derived from here: “And the shekel shall be twenty gera; twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, ten, and five shekels, shall be your maneh” (Ezekiel 45:12). In this verse, Ezekiel defines the various weights used in the Temple and states that each silver shekel consists of twenty gera. In addition, the combination of twenty, twenty-five, ten, and five shekels yields a total sum of sixty shekels, which is the value of a maneh. A maneh, in turn, is equivalent to one hundred dinars.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda ends the search by producing a verse that states the weights outright. Yechezkel 45:12 defines the shekel as twenty gera and then lists twenty, twenty-five, ten and five shekels as constituting the maneh — a sum of sixty. Since a maneh is ordinarily a hundred dinar and a shekel is four dinar, sixty shekels would be 240 dinar, far too many, and the arithmetic of that mismatch is unpacked at the start of 5b.
Key Terms:
- גֵּרָה = a gera — one twentieth of a shekel
- הַמָּנֶה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם = shall be your maneh (Yechezkel 45:12)
- דִּינָר = a dinar — a quarter of a shekel
Amud Bet (5b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The arithmetic of Yechezkel’s verse forces the doubled maneh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא מָאתַן וְאַרְבְּעִין הָוְיָין! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מָנֶה שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ מָנֶה כָּפוּל הָיָה.
English Translation:
But each shekel consists of four dinars, and therefore sixty shekels is equivalent to two hundred and forty dinars, not a maneh, which is generally worth one hundred dinars. Rather, learn from this verse a number of matters: First, learn that the maneh of the Sanctuary to which Ezekiel was referring was a maneh that was double its standard value. Therefore, it was worth fifty shekels, which is equivalent to two hundred dinars.
קלאוד על הדף:
The figures do not reconcile on standard units. Sixty shekels at four dinar each is 240 dinar, where a maneh is a hundred — an impossible equation unless the maneh in question is not the common one. Reading it as a doubled maneh of fifty shekels, worth two hundred dinar, brings the verse within reach, and the remaining gap becomes the subject of the next segment rather than an objection to the reading.
Key Terms:
- מָאתַן וְאַרְבְּעִין = two hundred and forty — dinar
- מָנֶה כָּפוּל = a doubled maneh — fifty shekels
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Three conclusions at once: measures may be increased, by no more than a sixth, reckoned from outside.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַמִּדּוֹת, וְאֵין מוֹסִיפִין יָתֵר עַל שְׁתוּת, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׁתוּתָא מִלְּבַר.
English Translation:
And furthermore, as Ezekiel stated that the maneh will be sixty dinars, not fifty, learn from it that a community may increase measures, but they may not increase them by more than one-sixth. And learn from it that the one-sixth is calculated from the outside, i.e., it is one-sixth of the final sum, which is one-fifth of the previous sum. Therefore, adding one-fifth of the original fifty shekels, which is ten shekels, to the total equals sixty shekels. It is from this sum that the one-sixth from the outside, ten shekels, is calculated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The residual discrepancy between fifty and sixty is turned into law rather than explained away. Yechezkel’s sixty against the doubled maneh’s fifty shows that a community may increase measures, that the increase may not exceed a sixth, and — the finest point — that the sixth is שְׁתוּתָא מִלְּבַר, computed against the final sum rather than the original. Ten added to fifty is a fifth of the old figure but a sixth of the new sixty, and it is the latter that sets the limit. A verse cited to defend Moshe’s bookkeeping ends by fixing the arithmetic of commercial overcharge.
Key Terms:
- מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַמִּדּוֹת = one may increase the measures
- שְׁתוּת = a sixth
- שְׁתוּתָא מִלְּבַר = the sixth reckoned from the outside — against the final sum
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Chanina asks Rabbi Eliezer why donkeys alone are redeemed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּבֵית מוֹתְבָא רַבָּא, מָה נִשְׁתַּנּוּ פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹרִים מִפִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים? אָמַר לִי: גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא, וְעוֹד שֶׁסִּיְּיעוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאָתָם מִמִּצְרַיִם, שֶׁאֵין לָךְ כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ עִמּוֹ תִּשְׁעִים חֲמוֹרִים לוּבִים טְעוּנִים מִכַּסְפָּהּ וּזְהָבָהּ שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara returns to discussing the redemption of firstborn donkeys: Rabbi Ḥanina said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer in the great study hall: In what way are firstborn donkeys different from firstborn horses and camels, i.e., other non-kosher animals, which are not redeemed? Rabbi Eliezer said to me: It is a Torah edict. And furthermore, donkeys assisted the Jewish people at the time of their exodus from Egypt, as there was not one member of the Jewish people that did not have ninety Nubian donkeys with him, which were considered to be of superior quality, laden with the silver and gold of the Egyptians.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf returns to peter chamor with a question about the law’s scope: horses and camels are equally non-kosher, so why is the donkey singled out? Rabbi Eliezer gives two answers of quite different kinds — גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב, a decree of the verse that needs no reason, and then a historical one, that donkeys carried Egypt’s silver and gold at the exodus. The first forecloses the question and the second answers it anyway.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב = a decree of the verse — accepted without a reason
- בֵּית מוֹתְבָא רַבָּא = the great study hall
- חֲמוֹרִים לוּבִים = Libyan or Nubian donkeys — a superior breed
Segment 4
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rephidim: a place name, or a hint that they grew slack in Torah?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד שְׁאִלְתִּיו: מַאי לְשׁוֹן ״רְפִידִים״? וְאָמַר לִי: רְפִידִים שְׁמָהּ. כְּתַנָּאֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: רְפִידִים שְׁמָהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: שֶׁרִיפּוּ עַצְמָן מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא הִפְנוּ אָבוֹת אֶל בָּנִים מֵרִפְיוֹן יָדָיִם״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ḥanina continues: And furthermore, I also asked Rabbi Eliezer: What is the meaning of the term: “Rephidim,” in the verse: “Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim” (Exodus 17:8)? And he said to me that Rephidim was its name, i.e., of the location. The Gemara comments that this answer is like one side of a dispute between tanna’im: Rabbi Eliezer says that its actual name was Rephidim. Rabbi Yehoshua says: This moniker is an allusion to the fact that the Jewish people became lax [rippu] with regard to the statements of the Torah in Rephidim, and so it says: “The fathers look not back to their children because of feebleness [rifyon] of hands” (Jeremiah 47:3).
קלאוד על הדף:
The same exchange continues into biblical toponymy, and a pattern emerges in Rabbi Eliezer’s answers. Asked what רְפִידִים means, he replies simply that it was the place’s name. Rabbi Yehoshua reads it as a pun on רִיפּוּ, that they slackened their grip on Torah there, supporting it from Yirmiyahu 47:3, where רִפְיוֹן יָדַיִם describes hands going limp. The disagreement is about whether place names in the Torah carry concealed meaning at all.
Key Terms:
- רְפִידִים = Rephidim — where Amalek attacked (Shemot 17:8)
- רִיפּוּ עַצְמָן מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה = they slackened from words of Torah
- רִפְיוֹן יָדָיִם = feebleness of hands (Yirmiyahu 47:3)
Segment 5
TYPE: מחלוקת
Shittim: likewise a name, or a hint at foolishness.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד שְׁאִלְתִּיו: מַאי לְשׁוֹן ״שִׁטִּים״? וְאָמַר לִי: שִׁטִּים שְׁמָהּ. כְּתַנָּאֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שִׁטִּים שְׁמָהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: שֶׁנִּתְעַסְקוּ בְּדִבְרֵי שְׁטוּת.
English Translation:
And furthermore, I also asked him the following question: What is the meaning of the term “Shittim” in the verse: “And Israel dwelled in Shittim” (Numbers 25:1)? And he said to me that Shittim was its name. The Gemara comments that this answer is like one side of a dispute between tanna’im: Rabbi Eliezer says: Shittim is the actual name of the place. Rabbi Yehoshua says: This moniker is an allusion to the fact that they were engaged in matters of nonsense [shetut], i.e., prostitution and idol worship (see Numbers, chapter 25).
קלאוד על הדף:
The second case runs identically, which is what makes it evidence of a method rather than a one-off. Rabbi Eliezer says שִׁטִּים was the name; Rabbi Yehoshua hears שְׁטוּת, foolishness, alluding to what Israel did there in Bamidbar 25. Two independent tannaim thus hold consistent positions across separate verses, and the Gemara marks the parallel explicitly with כְּתַנָּאֵי.
Key Terms:
- שִׁטִּים = Shittim — where Israel encamped (Bamidbar 25:1)
- דִּבְרֵי שְׁטוּת = matters of foolishness
- כְּתַנָּאֵי = like a dispute of tannaim
Segment 6
TYPE: מחלוקת
A third case: how the people were drawn in at Shittim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וַתִּקְרֶאןָ לָעָם לְזִבְחֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶן״ — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: עֲרוּמּוֹת פָּגְעוּ בָּהֶן, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ כּוּלָּן בַּעֲלֵי קְרָיִין.
English Translation:
The same tanna’im also dispute the meaning of another verse discussing that incident. With regard to the verse: “And they called [vatikrena] the people to the offerings of their gods” (Numbers 25:2), Rabbi Eliezer says: Naked women encountered them, which is how they were convinced to engage in idol worship. Rabbi Yehoshua says that they all became those who experienced seminal emissions [kerayyin] resulting from the lust they experienced.
קלאוד על הדף:
The pair disagree once more, now on וַתִּקְרֶאןָ in Bamidbar 25:2, describing how Israel was drawn into the idolatry at Shittim. Rabbi Eliezer reads the verse as reporting what the women did; Rabbi Yehoshua hears in the word a description of the men’s own state. The disagreement is the same one in a third key — whether the verse reports an event plainly or encodes something about those who fell.
Key Terms:
- וַתִּקְרֶאןָ לָעָם = and they called the people (Bamidbar 25:2)
- זִבְחֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶן = the offerings of their gods — idolatrous sacrifices
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: a cow that bears a donkey-type is exempt, since both bearer and born must be donkeys.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ פָּרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין חֲמוֹר, וַחֲמוֹר שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין סוּס — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַיּוֹלֵד חֲמוֹר וְהַנּוֹלָד חֲמוֹר.
English Translation:
MISHNA: A cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts and a donkey that gave birth to a horse of sorts are exempt from their offspring being counted a firstborn, as it is stated: “And every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 13:13); “and the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 34:20). The Torah states this halakha twice, indicating that one is not obligated unless both the birth mother is a donkey and the animal born is a donkey.
קלאוד על הדף:
The perek’s new mishna turns from history to the identity of the offspring. A cow bearing something donkey-like, or a donkey bearing something horse-like, is exempt from bechora, and the derivation is the repetition of פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר across Shemot 13:13 and 34:20 — said twice so that both the mother and the offspring must be donkeys. A single mention would have left it ambiguous which of the two the verse was describing.
Key Terms:
- פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר = a firstborn donkey — stated twice
- הַיּוֹלֵד / הַנּוֹלָד = the one giving birth / the one born
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה
The eating rule: offspring follows the mother regardless of appearance.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַה הֵם בַּאֲכִילָה? בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, וּטְמֵאָה שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה — אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּמֵא — טָמֵא, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּהוֹר — טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
And what is the halakhic status of offspring that are unlike the mother animal with regard to their consumption? In the case of a kosher animal that gave birth to a non-kosher animal of sorts, its consumption is permitted. And in the case of a non-kosher animal that gave birth to a kosher animal of sorts, its consumption is prohibited. This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna adds a second ruling on the same odd cases, and its logic runs opposite to intuition. A kosher animal that bears something resembling a non-kosher species may be eaten; a non-kosher animal that bears something resembling a kosher one may not. הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּמֵא טָמֵא וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּהוֹר טָהוֹר — what determines status is the mother, not the appearance, and unlike the bechora ruling this one remains fully operative law.
Key Terms:
- הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַטָּמֵא טָמֵא = what emerges from a non-kosher animal is non-kosher
- בַּאֲכִילָה = with regard to consumption
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
The parallel mishna on kosher animals, with the מִקְצָת סִימָנִין exception.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם: רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין עֵז, וְעֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִין רָחֵל — פָּטוּר מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין — חַיָּיב.
English Translation:
GEMARA: With regard to the issue of a kosher animal that gave birth to a donkey of sorts and its firstborn status, the Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there (16b): A ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts are exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. And if the offspring has some of the characteristics of its mother, it is obligated, i.e., subject to the obligations of firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara sets alongside our mishna the ruling of 16b, already encountered on daf 3: a ewe bearing a goat-type is exempt, but if the offspring carries מִקְצָת סִימָנִין, some of its mother’s characteristics, it is obligated. That qualification is what the coming derivation must accommodate — a source is needed both for the exemption and for the exception to it.
Key Terms:
- מִקְצָת סִימָנִין = some of the characteristics — of the mother’s species
- תְּנַן הָתָם = we learned in a mishna there
Segment 10
TYPE: דרשה
Rav Yehuda derives the kosher-animal rule from the threefold בְּכוֹר of Bamidbar 18:17.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר״ — שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר, ״בְּכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב״ — שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא כֶּשֶׂב וּבְכוֹרוֹ כֶּשֶׂב, ״בְּכוֹר עֵז״ — שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא עֵז וּבְכוֹרוֹ עֵז.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda says they are derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to a firstborn kosher animal: “But the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a lamb, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem, they are holy” (Numbers 18:17). The word firstborn seems superfluous in this verse, as it is clear from the context that it is referring to a firstborn. Therefore, the phrase “the firstborn of an ox” is interpreted as teaching that it must be an ox and its firstborn must be an ox in order for firstborn status to apply. Likewise, the phrase “the firstborn of a lamb” teaches that it must be a lamb and its firstborn a lamb, and not another animal. Similarly, the phrase “the firstborn of a goat” teaches that it must be a goat and its firstborn a goat.
קלאוד על הדף:
Our mishna spoke of donkeys, so the kosher animal needs its own source. Rav Yehuda finds it in the apparently redundant repetition of בְּכוֹר in Bamidbar 18:17 — firstborn of an ox, of a lamb, of a goat — reading each as requiring that the species of parent and offspring agree. The word is superfluous on the surface, and a superfluity in a verse is treated as an invitation to derive.
Key Terms:
- אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר = but the firstborn of an ox (Bamidbar 18:17)
- שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר = that it be an ox and its firstborn an ox
Segment 11
TYPE: דרשה
The word אַךְ carves out the exception for partial characteristics.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ״ — חִלֵּק.
English Translation:
One might have thought that even if the offspring has some of the characteristics of the mother it should still be exempt, as it does not entirely resemble the mother. Therefore, the verse states: “But,” indicating that the Torah makes a distinction with regard to this principle, in that it does not apply when the offspring has some of the characteristics of the mother; and the offspring therefore does have firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
Without a further signal the derivation would prove too much, excluding even an offspring that carries some of its mother’s features. אַךְ, a restrictive particle, is read as חִלֵּק — it divides, marking that the requirement of full resemblance does not reach every case. One small word supplies the exception that the mishna of 16b records.
Key Terms:
- אַךְ = but — a restrictive particle
- חִלֵּק = it divided — made a distinction within the rule
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא
But our mishna derived the rule from the donkey verses; why does Rav Yehuda need another?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא תַּנָּא ״פֶּטֶר״ ״פֶּטֶר״ קָנָסֵיב לַהּ, לְפָרָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the tanna of the mishna here cite the verses “firstborn,” “firstborn,” from Exodus (13:13, 34:20), with regard to the case of a cow that gave birth to a donkey of sorts, as teaching that the offspring has no firstborn status? Why, then, does Rav Yehuda resort to interpreting a different verse?
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection notices a redundancy across sources. Our mishna already grounded the resemblance requirement in the doubled פֶּטֶר, and if that derivation works it should serve for kosher animals too, leaving Rav Yehuda’s verse unemployed. The answer, in the next segment, is that Rav Yehuda is not speaking for our mishna at all.
Key Terms:
- קָנָסֵיב לַהּ = he takes it — adduces it as his source
- לְפָרָה = for the cow — our mishna’s case
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Yehuda speaks for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who derives from the kosher animal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר, ״בְּכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא כֶּשֶׂב וּבְכוֹרוֹ כֶּשֶׂב, ״אוֹ בְכוֹר עֵז״ — עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא עֵז וּבְכוֹרוֹ עֵז.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that this interpretation was not suggested originally by Rav Yehuda; rather, he says it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says the phrase “but the firstborn of an ox” indicates that the offspring does not have firstborn status unless it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox. The phrase “the firstborn of a lamb” indicates that the offspring does not have firstborn status unless it is a lamb and its firstborn is a lamb. Likewise, the phrase “or the firstborn of a goat” indicates that the offspring does not have firstborn status unless it is a goat and its firstborn is a goat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution assigns Rav Yehuda to a different tanna. A baraita records Rabbi Yosei HaGelili deriving the resemblance requirement from אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר exactly as Rav Yehuda did, so Rav Yehuda is reporting an existing position rather than competing with our mishna. Two tannaim reach the same halacha from opposite verses, and the Gemara will shortly ask what divides them.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי = Rabbi Yosei HaGelili
- דְּתַנְיָא = as it is taught in a baraita
Segment 14
TYPE: דרשה
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili also uses אַךְ for the partial-characteristics exception.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ״ — חִלֵּק.
English Translation:
One might have thought that even if the offspring has some of the characteristics of the mother this principle that it must be entirely like the mother applies, and it does not have firstborn status. Therefore, the verse states: “But,” indicating that the Torah makes a distinction with regard to this principle, in that it does not apply when the offspring has some of the characteristics of the mother; and the offspring therefore does have firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita completes the parallel: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili too reads אַךְ as חִלֵּק, carving out the offspring that bears some of its mother’s traits. The two derivations are structurally identical, differing only in which verse they start from — which is precisely why the Gemara must now ask what substantive issue could turn on the choice.
Key Terms:
- יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ = one might have thought even — introducing an over-broad inference
- תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = the verse teaches — correcting it
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Our tanna derives from קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים outward to קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? תַּנָּא דִידַן סָבַר: גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter do the tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagree, and therefore derive this halakha from different verses? The Gemara answers: The tanna of our mishna holds that the Merciful One revealed in the Torah that a firstborn donkey, which is subject to sanctity that inheres in its value in that a lamb is given to the priest to redeem it, does not have firstborn status unless it resembles its mother, and the same is true with regard to a kosher firstborn animal, which has inherent sanctity and is sacrificed on the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dispute is about the direction of inference between two grades of sanctity. A firstborn donkey has קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, sanctity residing in its value, since it is redeemed with a lamb rather than offered; a kosher firstborn has קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, inherent sanctity, and goes to the altar. Our tanna starts from the lighter case, taking the Torah’s disclosure there to govern the weightier one as well.
Key Terms:
- קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים = sanctity of value — redeemable
- קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף = inherent sanctity — of the body of the animal
- גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא = the Merciful One revealed
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili runs it the other way, from inherent sanctity outward.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, וְגָמַר קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים מִקְּדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the Merciful One revealed that a kosher firstborn animal, which is subject to inherent sanctity, does not have firstborn status unless it resembles its mother, and the same is true with regard to a donkey, which has sanctity that inheres in its value, and he derives the halakha of sanctity that inheres in its value from the halakha of inherent sanctity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili prefers the weightier case as his starting point, deriving קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים from קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף. Both directions are available in principle, and neither tanna disputes the resulting halacha; what separates them is a judgment about which grade of sanctity is the more natural source for a rule that must cover both.
Key Terms:
- וְהוּא הַדִּין = and the same law applies
- גָּמַר = he derives
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Our tanna needs the repeated בְּכוֹר for the laws of the eimurim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַנָּא דִידַן, הַאי ״בְּכוֹר״ ״בְּכוֹר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for the tanna of our mishna, what does he do with this repetition of the word: “Firstborn,” “firstborn,” employed both with regard to an ox and with regard to a lamb and goat, from which Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives this halakha? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach the halakha of burning the sacrificial portions of the animal on the altar, which is mentioned in this verse: “And you shall make their fat burn” (Numbers 18:17), in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.
קלאוד על הדף:
Since our tanna derives the resemblance rule elsewhere, he must account for the threefold בְּכוֹר that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili uses. He assigns it to a different subject entirely — the burning of the eimurim on the altar, mentioned in the same verse — following Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina. The next several segments unfold that teaching in full.
Key Terms:
- אֵימוּרִין = the sacrificial portions burned on the altar
- מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ = he requires it — for another derivation
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Why are the eimurim stated separately for ox, lamb and goat?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרוּ אֵימוּרִין בִּבְכוֹר שׁוֹר, אֵימוּרִין בִּבְכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב, אֵימוּרִין בִּבְכוֹר עֵז?
English Translation:
As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Why were sacrificial portions stated with regard to a firstborn ox, and the sacrificial portions are mentioned again with regard to a firstborn lamb, and the sacrificial portions are mentioned again with regard to a firstborn goat?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina poses the question that the next four segments answer: the obligation to burn the portions is stated three times, once for each species, and a single general statement would ordinarily suffice. The answer will be a צְרִיכָא — a demonstration that each mention is necessary because no species can be inferred from any other.
Key Terms:
- לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרוּ = why were they stated
- בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר / כֶּשֶׂב / עֵז = firstborn ox / lamb / goat
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
The ox alone would not teach the others: it has greater libations.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּבְכוֹר שׁוֹר — שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בִּנְסָכִים.
English Translation:
It is necessary, as had the Merciful One written the halakha of burning the sacrificial portions on the altar only with regard to a firstborn ox, one might have said only an ox’s sacrificial portions are burned, as an ox offering has more wine libations than a lamb or a goat. Therefore, perhaps the additional obligation of burning the sacrificial portions applies only to an ox.
קלאוד על הדף:
The צְרִיכָא begins by showing why the ox cannot stand for all three. An ox offering carries larger נְסָכִים, wine libations, than a lamb or goat, so a rule stated only of the ox might be read as attaching to that distinction rather than to firstborn offerings generally. Each species will be shown to have some such feature of its own.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכָא = it is necessary — each case must be stated
- נְסָכִים = libations accompanying an offering
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
The lamb has a distinguishing feature too: its tail is among the portions.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֶּשֶׂב — שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בְּאַלְיָה.
English Translation:
Likewise, if this halakha had been written only with regard to a lamb, one might have thought only a lamb’s portions are burned, as it has more sacrificial portions than other animals because its tail is also included.
קלאוד על הדף:
The lamb’s peculiarity is anatomical. Its אַלְיָה, the fat tail, counts among the sacrificial portions, which no other species contributes, so a rule stated only of the lamb might be attributed to that surplus. The argument’s form is now established and applied in turn to the third species.
Key Terms:
- אַלְיָה = the fat tail — a sacrificial portion in a lamb
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
The goat has its own: an individual idolater brings a goat.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעֵז — שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה אֵצֶל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיָחִיד.
English Translation:
Likewise, if it had been written only with regard to a goat, one might have thought the burning of the portions applies only in that case, as it has an increased applicability with regard to the case of an individual guilty of idol worship, who brings a goat as a sin offering; unlike one who commits other sins unwittingly, for which a lamb may be brought.
קלאוד על הדף:
The goat’s distinction is drawn from a different area of law altogether. Where an individual sins through idol worship his sin offering is specifically a goat, an increased applicability no other species has, so once again a rule stated only here might be tied to that feature. With three peculiarities established, no single mention could have generated the other two.
Key Terms:
- עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיָחִיד = idol worship by an individual — whose sin offering is a goat
- נִתְרַבָּה = it has increased applicability
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
Grant that one cannot teach one; why not derive one from the other two?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲדָא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: The halakha with regard to one of these cases, i.e., an ox, lamb, or goat offering, evidently cannot be derived from one of the others. Why not derive one of them from the other two?
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge tightens the standard. A feature unique to a single species blocks inference from that species alone, but a pair might share enough between them to establish the rule for the third, so two mentions and not three would suffice. The Gemara must now show that every possible pair also has something the remaining species lacks.
Key Terms:
- חֲדָא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא = one cannot be derived from one
- תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי = let one be derived from two
Segment 23
TYPE: תירוץ
Lamb and goat share the pesach, so they cannot teach the ox.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּהֵי לָא לִיכְתּוֹב? לָא לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּשׁוֹר, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ — מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבּוּ אֵצֶל פְּסָחִים!
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: With regard to which case shall the Torah not write this halakha? If the Merciful One shall not write it with regard to an ox, and one should derive it from these other cases, that derivation is not valid. What is notable about these offerings, i.e., a lamb and a goat? They are notable in that they have an increased applicability with regard to the Paschal offering, for which a lamb or a goat is suitable but not an ox.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first pair is tested and fails. A lamb and a goat are both eligible for the korban pesach and an ox is not, so the two of them share an applicability the ox lacks and cannot serve as its source. The refutation works on exactly the logic of the individual cases, applied to a combination.
Key Terms:
- פְּסָחִים = paschal offerings — brought from a lamb or goat only
- מָה לְהָנָךְ = what is notable about these — the formula refuting an inference
Segment 24
TYPE: תירוץ
Ox and goat share communal idolatry, so they cannot teach the lamb.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא לִכְתּוֹב בְּכֶשֶׂב, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ — מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבּוּ אֵצֶל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּצִיבּוּר!
English Translation:
If the Merciful One should not write this halakha with regard to a lamb, and one should derive it from these cases of an ox and a goat, that derivation is not valid either. What is notable about these offerings, i.e., an ox and a goat? They are notable in that they have an increased applicability with regard to a case where the entire Jewish community is guilty of unwitting idol worship, as in such a case the community brings an ox as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:24), but not a lamb.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second pair fails on a case from Bamidbar 15:24. Where the entire community errs in idol worship the offerings are an ox for the burnt offering and a goat for the sin offering, with no role for a lamb — so ox and goat again share ground the lamb does not occupy, and cannot generate its rule.
Key Terms:
- עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּצִיבּוּר = communal idol worship — an ox and a goat are brought
Segment 25
TYPE: תירוץ
Ox and lamb share an element of increase at the altar; hence all three are necessary.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא נִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּעֵז, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ — מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד רִבּוּי אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ! הִילְכָּךְ צְרִיכִי.
English Translation:
If the Merciful One shall not write the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions with regard to a goat, and one should derive it from these cases of an ox and a lamb, that derivation is not valid either. What is notable about these offerings, namely, an ox and a lamb? They are notable in that they have an element of increase with regard to the altar, as the libations for an ox are larger than those for a goat; and also the tail of a lamb, but not that of a goat, is a sacrificial portion. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, all three cases are necessary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final pair is refuted by combining the two features already noted — the ox’s larger libations and the lamb’s fat tail — into a single shared category, צַד רִבּוּי אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ, an element of increase with respect to the altar. With every pairing blocked, הִילְכָּךְ צְרִיכִי: all three mentions are necessary, and none is available for any other derivation.
Key Terms:
- צַד רִבּוּי אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ = an element of increase with regard to the altar
- הִילְכָּךְ צְרִיכִי = therefore they are all necessary
Segment 26
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili answers: the verse could have listed the species without repeating בְּכוֹר.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, אִם כֵּן לִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר כֶּשֶׂב וְעֵז״, ״בְּכוֹר״ ״בְּכוֹר״ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא שׁוֹר וּבְכוֹרוֹ שׁוֹר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interpret this verse as teaching that a firstborn must resemble its mother in order to have firstborn status? Isn’t the verse necessary to teach the halakha of burning the sacrificial portions upon the altar? The Gemara answers: If it is so that the verse teaches only that halakha, let the verse write: But a firstborn ox, lamb, or goat. Why do I need the word “firstborn” to be repeated with regard to a lamb, and the word “firstborn” to be repeated again with regard to a goat? Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from here that the mother is not subject to having its offspring counted as a firstborn unless it resembles its mother, e.g., the mother is an ox and its firstborn is an ox?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili accepts that the eimurim need three statements but denies that this consumes the word בְּכוֹר. The Torah could have written אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר כֶּשֶׂב וְעֵז, naming all three species under a single בְּכוֹר, and the eimurim derivation would have been unaffected. That it repeated the word three times leaves a surplus, and the surplus yields his resemblance requirement.
Key Terms:
- לִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא = let the verse write
- לְמָה לִי = why do I need it — pressing a redundancy
Segment 27
TYPE: קושיא
Then what does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili do with the doubled פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, הַאי ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, what does he do with this phrase: “Firstborn of a donkey,” “firstborn of a donkey,” mentioned twice in Exodus, from which the tanna of the mishna derives that the offspring must resemble its mother in order to have firstborn status?
קלאוד על הדף:
The audit runs in the other direction. Our mishna used the repeated פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר for the resemblance rule, and since Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives that elsewhere, his account of the repetition is owed. The Gemara’s assumption throughout is that no repetition is idle.
Key Terms:
- מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ = what does he do with it
Segment 28
TYPE: תירוץ
He uses it to exclude horses and camels from redemption.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה אֶת בְּכוֹר הָאָדָם וְאֵת בְּכוֹר הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּמֵאָה תִּפְדֶּה״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר״ — פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that he requires that phrase for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says that since it is stated: “Yet you shall redeem the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of non-kosher animals you shall redeem” (Numbers 18:15), I would derive that even firstborn horses and camels must be redeemed, as they too are non-kosher animals. Therefore, the verse states: “Firstborn of a donkey,” which indicates I said to you that firstborn status applies to a firstborn donkey, but not to firstborn horses or camels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer returns to the question Rabbi Chanina asked Rabbi Eliezer earlier on this amud, and answers it exegetically rather than by decree. Since אַךְ פָּדֹה תִפְדֶּה speaks of בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה in general, one might redeem any non-kosher firstborn; פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר restricts it — פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים. What Rabbi Eliezer called a גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב is here given a textual mechanism.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי = I might infer
- פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים = firstborn horses and camels
Segment 29
TYPE: קושיא
A remaining objection — perhaps horses and camels are redeemed with something else; the daf breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַעֲדַיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: פִּטְרֵי חֲמוֹר בְּשֶׂה, פִּטְרֵי סוּסִים וּגְמַלִּים בְּכׇל דָּבָר.
English Translation:
And still I can say that the phrase “firstborn of a donkey” merely indicates that firstborn donkeys alone are redeemed by means of a lamb, while firstborn horses and camels are redeemed by means of any other item.
קלאוד על הדף:
One derivation has shown that horses and camels are not redeemed with a lamb, but it has not shown that they are exempt altogether: וַעֲדַיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר, one might still say that they are redeemed with some other item. The second repetition of פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר is presumably what closes this gap, but the daf ends mid-argument and the answer belongs to 6a.
Key Terms:
- וַעֲדַיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר = and still I would say — a residual objection
- בְּכׇל דָּבָר = with any item