Midrash sur Les Nombres 18:16

7) (Vayikra 27:24) "In the Yovel year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought": I might think, to the Temple treasurer, from whom it was bought (by the last purchaser); it is, therefore, written "to the one who has the holding in the land (i.e., the original owner). (In that case let it be written [only] "to the one who has the holding in the land." Why state "to the one from whom it was bought'? (For I might think that) a field which went out to the Cohanim on the Yovel and was sold by the Cohein (who acquired it), and was consecrated by the buyer — I might think that when the second Yovel arrived, it reverted to the original owner (whose field of holding it was before he consecrated it); it is, therefore, written "to the one from whom it was bought" (namely, the Cohein who sold it, [as opposed to the original owner, who consecrated it]). (Vayikra 27:25) ("And all of your valuations (concerning which it is written "shekalim") shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary; twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") "And all of your shekels shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary": There is no valuation less than a sela (the same as a shekel). "according to the shekel of the sanctuary": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 27:27) "and he shall redeem," I might think, with servants, deeds, and land; it is, therefore written "with the shekel of the sanctuary." This tells me only of the shekel of selaim of the sanctuary. Whence do I derive for inclusion anything that is (of monetary value and is) movable? From "and he shall redeem." If so, why is it written "with the shekel of the sanctuary"? To exclude servants, deeds, and land.

8) "twenty gerah shall the shekel be": Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the value of the shekel), he may do so? From "shall be" (connoting the possibility of a change). I might then think that if he wishes to decrease (the value) he may do so. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 20:6) "It is (twenty gerah"), (i.e., at least twenty gerah).

A firstborn human must be redeemed when thirty days old;¹³Firstborn boys are redeemed through the pidyon ha-ben ceremony at the end of thirty days. As indicated above, those born by Caesarean section are exempt. if it survives less than this it is considered a premature child and is exempt from this regulation. The firstborn beast must be redeemed on the eighth day; if it survives less than this it is considered a premature birth. In reference to a human, it is written: And their redemption money—from a month old shalt thou redeem them (Num. 18:16), while in regard to beasts, it is written: But from the eighth day and henceforth it may be accepted (Lev. 22:27). That is, after one is able to lead it to the Temple, since it is said: And thither you shall bring your burnt offerings (Deut. 12:6). In the case of the firstborn of your flock and herds, Scripture says: Thou shalt redeem. This implies that one may redeem the offering from the priest whenever (he wishes). (But if that is so)¹⁴Etz Joseph omits the parenthesized words. Why does the Scripture say: Thou shalt sanctify to the Lord? So that you receive a reward for so doing. But even if you should not sanctify it, it is consecrated, nevertheless, to the Lord, since as Scripture says: It is mine. Why then does Scripture decree Thou shalt sanctify it? In order that you may be rewarded for doing so (voluntarily).

All the firstborn of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem is a general statement, and According to thy evaluation, five shekels of silver (Num. 18:16) is a particular statement. And nothing may be attributed to the general statement that is not included in the particular. But when another general statement follows the preceding verse, The firstborn of man shalt thou redeem (Num. 18:15), we have an instance of a general statement and a particular one followed by another general statement, which must be considered to include anything resembling that which is stated in the particular.²²The sixth of Rabbi Ishmael’s thirteen rules. In this case the particular statement stipulates movable property that has no permanency, and so the general statement must refer to movable property that has no permanency. From this the sages concluded that the firstborn of man may be redeemed with anything except slaves, bonds, or land, for they have permanency. All the firstborn of man among thy sons (Exod. 13:13). If a man has five wives who were virgins, and they gave birth to five sons, must he redeem them all? Yes, for All that openeth the womb that is a male—thou shalt redeem. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The firstlings are the priest’s property and are not considered as a gift. Why did Scripture need to say: All the firstborn among thy sons thou shalt redeem? To point out that if a man’s father did not redeem him, he must redeem himself. From this you learn that a man is obligated to teach his son the Torah, but if the father does not instruct him, he must study by himself. This may be deduced logically from the subject of redemption.

"and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck": From here they ruled: The mitzvah of redemption takes precedence to the mitzvah of breaking the neck. "if you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck": Since you have caused a loss to the Cohein, you, too, shall suffer a loss. And whence is it derived that benefit may not be derived from it? It is written here "breaking," and elsewhere (in respect to the heifer of the broken neck [Devarim 21:4]), "breaking." Just as there, no benefit may be derived (from the heifer), so, here, (in respect to the first-born of an ass). "among your sons shall you redeem": What is the intent of this? It is written (Numbers 18:16) "And redemption from one month" — general. "according to the monetary valuation, five shekalim" — particular. (In sum,) general-particular: (the rule is:) The general contains only what is (specifically) in the particular. And (Exodus 13:13) "Every human first-born among your sons shall you redeem" reverts to the general. __ But perhaps (instead of reversion to the general) it is added to the first generalization (i.e., "And his redemption from one month, etc.", where the rule is as indicated above)? Would you say that? Rather, (it is perceived as) general-particular-general, where the rule is: The general is of the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable, not mortgaged, and of monetary value in itself, so I will include all such property (as valid for redemption of one's son.) From here they ruled: All is valid for the redemption of a man's first-born, except for bondsmen, bills, land, and consecrated property.

(Numb. 3:40:) “And the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Enroll every [first-born] male….’” Let our master instruct us: When an infant is born at six months, does one profane the Sabbath for it?⁹⁰Numb. R. 4:3. Thus have our masters taught: When an infant is born at six months one does not profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, or move it from place to place; however, its mother does lean over it to suckle it.⁹¹TShab. 15[16]:5; Shab. 135a. And in the case of one moving it on the Sabbath, it is as though he were moving a stone. [When there is] doubt [whether it is] an nine-month infant or a eight-month infant, one does not profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, or move it from place to place. [When there is] doubt [whether it is] a nine-month infant or a eight-month infant, one does not profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, or move it from place to place. [When there is] doubt [whether it is] a seven-month infant or an eight-month infant, one does not profane the Sabbath for it, etc. But if it is a sure thing that it is [an infant of] seven months, one does profane the Sabbath for it, because it is capable of life. However, in the case of one born at eight [months], it is not capable of life. For that reason one does not profane the Sabbath for it. They asked R. Abbahu, “Where is it shown that one born at seven months will live?”⁹²yYev. 4:2 (5d); Gen. R. 14:2; 20:6. He said to them, “In the Greek⁹³YWNYT. Cf. Gk.; Iones. language zeta⁹⁴This letter name sounds like word, zete, a Gk. pres. pl. imperative, which means, “live.” is hepta (the greek number seven); eta⁹⁵This letter sounds like the Gk. word, ite, a pres. pl. imperative, which means, “go.” The corresponding imperfect form (ete) is even closer. is okto (the greek number eight).” Now which is [an infant] of eight months? Anyone whose hair and nails are undeveloped. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “Whoever does not live thirty days has not [completed] his months, but is a miscarriage.”⁹⁶Shab. 135b; Yev. 36b, 80b. And how much did the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel depend on the words of Torah, because the first-born were only redeemed after thirty days, as so is it written (in Numb. 18:16), “And their redemption money — from a month of age [and older] you shall redeem them.”

(Numb. 3:40:) AND THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES: ENROLL EVERY [FIRST-BORN] MALE…. Let our master instruct us: When an infant is born at eight months, does one profane the Sabbath for it?¹¹²Tanh., Numb. 1:18; Numb. R. 4:3. Thus have our masters taught: When an infant is born at eight months one does not profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, or move it from place to place; however, its mother does lean over it to suckle it.¹¹³TShab. 15[16]:5; Shab. 135a. And in the case of one moving it on the Sabbath, it is as though he were moving a stone. <When there is> doubt <whether it is> an eight-month infant or a seven-month infant, one does not profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, or move it from place to place. But if it is a sure thing that it is <an infant of> seven months, one does profane the Sabbath for it, cut its umbilical cord, bury its placenta, and move it from place to place. And why does one profane the Sabbath for one born, when it is born at seven <months from conception>? Because it is capable of life. However, in the case of one born at eight <months>, it has not <completed> its months and is not capable of life. For that reason one does not profane the Sabbath for it. They asked R. Abbahu: Where is it shown that one born at seven months will live?¹¹⁴yYev. 4:2 (5d); Gen. R. 14:2; 20:6. He said to them: In the Greek¹¹⁵YWNYT. Cf. Gk.; Iones. language zeta¹¹⁶This letter name sounds like word, zete, a Gk. pres. pl. imperative, which means, “live.” is hepta (the Greek number seven); eta¹¹⁷This letter sounds like the Gk. word, ite, a pres. pl. imperative, which means, “go.” The corresponding imperfect form (ete) is even closer. is okto (the Greek number eight). Now which is <an infant> of eight months? Anyone whose hair and nails are undeveloped. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: whoever does not live thirty days has not <completed> his months, but is a miscarriage.¹¹⁸Shab. 135b; Yev. 36b, 80b. And on what did the knowledge of Rabban [Simeon ben] Gamaliel depend? On the word of Torah, because the first-born were only redeemed after thirty days, [as stated] (in Numb. 18:16): AND THEIR REDEMPTION MONEY — FROM A MONTH OF AGE <AND OLDER> YOU SHALL REDEEM THEM. Therefore, the Holy One said to Moses that the first-born should only be redeemed FROM A MONTH OF AGE <AND OLDER>. Where is it shown? From what they have read on the matter (in Numb. 3:40): AND THE <LORD SAID UNTO MOSES: > ENROLL EVERY FIRST-BORN MALE AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL A MONTH OF AGE AND OLDER….

(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the womb of all flesh": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This ("which they offer") implies that both an animal and a blemished (beast) are excluded (from redemption); it is, therefore, written ("in man) and in beast" — to include a blemished (beast) in redemption, (as a blemished man is included). "in man and in beast"; What obtains with the man (i.e., redemption) obtains with his beast" — to exclude Levites: Redemption not obtaining with them, it does not obtain with their (unclean) beast (i.e., an ass). And the first-born of a man is likened to the first-born of a beast, and the first-born of a best to the first-born of a man. Just as with the first-born of a beast, a miscarriage is exempt from the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with the first-born of a man. Just as the (redemption money) for a man is given to a Cohein in whichever place he (the man) wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. For I would think that since it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices," then even if he were distant from it, he must exert himself and bring it (the first-born beast) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written "in man and in beast." Just as the redemption money for a man may be given to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. And just as the first-born of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before redemption [viz. Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born of a beast. (Ibid. 15) "but redeem shall you redeem": This is what was asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it to be redeemed and fed to the dogs? R. Tarfon expounded, "but redeem shall you redeem, etc." You redeem the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and you do not redeem the clean, neither alive nor dead. "and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast. I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) "And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep." The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem"? If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) "And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem." The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). "And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem": "money, five shekalim" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From "And his redemption, etc." I might think, (his redemption) with anything. It is, therefore, written "And his redemption" — general; "money, five shekalim" — particular. "general-particular." (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., "money," literally). "you shall redeem" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first "general" (viz. Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem," (so that we have an instance of general particular.) Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that "general.") We have, then, an instance of general-particular-general (as stated above). And (the rule is:) We follow the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable property, worth money, so, the general is of that nature — whence they ruled: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with bondsmen, writs, and land. Rebbi says: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is twenty gerah": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 27:25] "Twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the amount) he may do so? From "it shall be." I might think that if he wishes to decrease, he may do so. It is, therefore, written "shall be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "But the first-born of an ox": It must look like an ox. "a sheep": It must look like a sheep. "a goat": It must look like a goat — to exclude a hybrid or a nidmeh (superficially similar). "you shall not redeem": I might think that if he redeemed it, it remains redeemed; it is, therefore, written "They are consecrated." R. Yoshiyah says: Why is this ("they are consecrated") written? (i.e., it is already written [Shemot 13:2] "Consecrate unto Me every first-born") To include a (beast-) tithe and the Paschal lamb as requiring one spilling (of blood on the altar), something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Devarim 12:27) "and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled out" — to include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring one spilling. What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? To include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring smoking of the fats, something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation) is not needed. For it follows a fortiori, viz.: If other offerings, which are not similar in their applications of blood, are similar in their smoking of fats, then the tithe and the Pesach, which are similar (in a first-born) in their application of blood, how much more so should they be similar in their smoking of fats! What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? What we have mentioned heretofore (i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as requiring one spilling of blood). "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are four (i.e., one on the north-east corner and one on the south-west corner.) — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and Pesach), where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! Or, conversely, if in a place (first-born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats are decreased, blood is increased (to two applications that are four), then in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased, how much more so should blood be increased (to more than two applications that are four)! It is, therefore, written (of the other offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) "And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle … roundabout" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! What, then, is the intent of "Their blood shall you sprinkle"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall you smoke": Does Scripture speak of an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled, or also with the fats of the rib cage? — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-vis the first-born, where blood is decreased, how much more so should fats be decreased! How, then, am I to understand "and their fats shall you smoke"? As referring to an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled. "a fire-offering": Even though you consign it to the wood pile, it is not acceptable until it is consumed by the fire. "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It is My pleasure that I have spoken and My will has been done. (Ibid. 18) "And their flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon answered and said: For two days and one night. There was a certain disciple there, who had come to serve in the house of study first, R. Yossi Haglili by name. He asked him: My master, how do you know this? R. Tarfon: First-born is kodshim (consecrated) and peace-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein. Just as a sin-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so, a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing that is a lower-order offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering). R. Yossi: My master, I will learn a thing from a thing and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (sin-offering), and I will not learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein from a thing which is not a gift to the Cohein (peace-offerings). R. Tarfon kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up and said to him: My son, this is how I expound it; "and its flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast." Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Just as these are eaten for one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra 7:16) so, first-born. R. Akiva: My son, this is how I expound it: "And their flesh shall be for you as wave-breast." There is no need to add (Ibid.) "for you shall it be." It ("for you shall it be') is adding another "being" (of one day), that it (first-born) be eaten for two days and one night (— like peace-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)? Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (In sum,) you are not to learn as per the latter version (that of R. Yossi), but as per the former version, viz.: "And their flesh (that of first-born) shall be for you, etc." Scripture hereby comes to liken first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. What, then, is the intent of (the redundant) "for you shall it be"? To include a blemished first-born as reverting to the Cohein, something which was not spelled out in the all of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-born may be eaten) for two days and one night. You say for two days and one night, but perhaps it is for a day and a night? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it (the first-born), year in year," which implies that it may be eaten for two days and one night (i.e., the last day of the preceding year and the first day of the next year and the intervening night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "All the terumah of the holy things, which the children of Israel will separate": There are sections which generalize in the beginning and specify at the end; (others) which specify in the beginning and generalize at the end; and this one generalizes in the beginning (18:8) and generalizes at the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies in the middle. "have I given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you as an everlasting statute": that it continue for all the succeeding generations. "It is a covenant of salt forever before the L-rd": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with something (salt), which preserves, and which, furthermore, preserves other things.