<b>And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanite (Exod. 13:5).</b> <b>(S</b>cripture mentions) five nations though there were (in fact) seven nations.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. Mekhilta (Lauterbach), p. 161.</i> <i>Which he swore unto thy fathers to give thee</i> (ibid.). Where did that occur? When he assured Abraham: <i>In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying: “Unto thy seed have I given this land”</i> (Gen. 15:18). When he swore unto Isaac: <i>Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee</i>, etc. (ibid. 26:3), and when he swore unto Jacob: <i>The land whereupon thou liest, to thee will I give it</i> (ibid. 28:13). <i>Thou shalt keep this service</i> (Exod. 13:5). That is, just as you performed this service in Egypt, so you must perform it in the generations to come. Where did He assure us that it would be? <i>And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning which I lifted up My hand</i> (ibid. 6:8). <i>Into the land of the Canaanite</i> (ibid. 13:11). Why did Canaan deserve to have the land called by his name? When Canaan heard that the Israelites were approaching, he departed from that place. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Because you left that place, the land will be called by your name, and I will give you a land as beautiful as your own. What land was this? Africa. <i>And it shall be given to thee</i> (ibid.). This is written lest one should claim: “I inherited it from my ancestors.”
<i>And thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the womb</i> (ibid. 12). <i>Set apart</i> means to put aside, as in the matter of an inheritance. <i>Then ye shall cause his inheritance to be set apart unto his daughter</i> (Num. 27:8). Simeon the son of Azzai said: Why does Scripture mention <i>Thou shalt set apart all that openeth the womb</i> (Exod. 13:12)? Since it states elsewhere: <i>Whatsoever passeth under the rod</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">Word-play on <i>haavarta</i> (“set apart”) and <i>yavaor</i> (“passeth under”).</i> <i>the tenth shall be holy unto Me the Lord</i> (Lev. 27:32). Does this say (I might deduce) that this includes an orphaned animal? Since the word <i>set aside</i> is used in the former verse, just as in the latter verse, one may not sanctify the priests’ share of the offering except during the life of its mother, so in this instance one may not sanctify the priests’ share except during the lifetime of its mother. If this is so, then just as the latter verse refers only to male animals, so the former verse applies only to male animals. Hence, when Scripture says <i>Whatsoever passeth under the rod</i>, it means (to include) male and female. <i>All that openeth the womb</i> indicates that a prematurely born offspring is exempted from the law of the firstborn. The one that is born after the premature offspring is also considered not to be the firstborn.
<i>Which thou hast</i>. This excludes the animals that are still in the embryonic state when sold to a gentile. Is the one who purchases an animal in the embryonic state obligated to consecrate it? Scripture answers this question with the verse <i>All the firstling males that are born of thy flock and thy herd, those thou shalt sanctify unto the Lord</i> (Deut. 15:19). (This tells us no.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">The embryo was conceived before the sale was made.</i>) <i>The males shall be the Lord’s</i> (Exod. 13:12). R. Yosé stated: You learn from this that if an ewe, which had not given birth previously, bears twin males, they both belong to the priest, since it is said: <i>The males shall be the Lord’s. Every firstling of an ass, thou shalt redeem with a lamb</i> (Exod. 13:12); but not with a calf or with a wild beast, or with a ritually slaughtered animal, or with hybrids, or with a <i>koy</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">An antelope or bearded deer. The rabbis were in doubt as to whether it is considered a domesticated animal or a wild beast.</i> The firstling of an ass you may redeem, but not with any other animal. What is meant by <i>Thou shalt surely redeem</i>? You may redeem the firstling of an ass with any impure animal only if it is to be sanctified for the purpose of the upkeep of the Temple.
<i>If thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck</i> (Exod. 13:13). We learn from this that the commandment of redemption takes precedence over the commandment of the breaking of the heifer’s neck.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">Since the lamb is mentioned earlier in the verse.</i> Why is one commanded to break its neck? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: You have deprived the priests of their property by not redeeming it, and so you must deprive yourself of your property and not benefit from it. Whence do we know that it is forbidden to use it? In this verse <i>break the neck</i> is mentioned, and <i>break the neck</i> is likewise mentioned in reference to the heifer, as it is written: <i>And shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley</i> (Deut. 21:4). Just as the breaking of the heifer’s neck prohibits the use thereof, so it is forbidden to use it in this instance.
<i>All the firstborn of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem</i> is a general statement, and <i>According to thy evaluation, five shekels of silver</i> (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, <i>The firstborn of man shalt thou redeem</i> (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.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">The sixth of Rabbi Ishmael’s thirteen rules.</i> 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. <i>All the firstborn of man among thy sons</i> (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 <i>All that openeth the womb that is a male—thou shalt redeem</i>. 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: <i>All the firstborn among thy sons thou shalt redeem?</i> 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.