Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 3, 2019 | 讻状讟 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Bekhorot 47

If a man converts and already had children – is he newborn son after the conversion considered a firstborn for inheritance laws? Can he fulfill his obligation for having children based on the children he had before he converted? A daughter of a levi – her son is exempt from pidyon haben – is this only if the father was not Jewish or even if he was Jewish? In which cases can the son be a firstborn for inheritance and pidyon haben and in which cases for neither (on this last point there is a debate).


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讬讻讬专 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讻专转 驻谞讬诐 诇讞讜讚


The requirement of 鈥淗e shall recognize鈥 with regard to a firstborn for inheritance, and the recognition of a husband鈥檚 face, are discrete matters.


讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讘讙讬讜转讜 讜谞转讙讬讬专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讚讛讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讗砖讬转 讗讜谞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻拽讟谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讚诪讬


It was stated that amora鈥檌m engaged in a dispute concerning the case of a man who had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted: Rabbi Yo岣nan says he does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, i.e., a son who is his firstborn after his conversion does not inherit a double portion; and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as this man already had 鈥渢he first of his strength鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Torah鈥檚 description of the firstborn in this context, before he converted. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as the halakhic status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born.


讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讘讙讬讜转讜 讜谞转讙讬讬专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽讬讬诐 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讬讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽讬讬诐 诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讬讬诐 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻拽讟谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讚诪讬


The Gemara comments: And these amora鈥檌m follow their regular line of reasoning, as it was stated: If a man had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yo岣nan says he has fulfilled the aspect of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply expressed in the command: 鈥淗e did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (Isaiah 45:18), i.e., to increase the inhabitation of the world. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, as the halakhic status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and it is considered as though he did not have children.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讙讬讜转谉 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 谞讞诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛 讜讛讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖讘转


The Gemara adds: And it is necessary to state their opinions in both cases. As, if it were stated only in that first case with regard to inheritance, perhaps it is only in that case that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says his opinion that the first son born after conversion inherits a double portion, because in their gentile state they are not subject to the halakhot of inheritance. But with regard to that case, the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, say he concedes to Rabbi Yo岣nan that since the verse states: 鈥淗e did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited,鈥 and he has indeed performed an action that enables the world to be further inhabited, he has therefore fulfilled the mitzva.


讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 爪专讬讻讗


And conversely, if their dispute were stated only with regard to this mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, perhaps it is only in this case that Rabbi Yo岣nan says his opinion, due to the verse: 鈥淗e formed it to be inhabited.鈥 But with regard to that case of inheritance, say he concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that sons born when one was a gentile are disregarded. Consequently, it is necessary to teach their opinions in both disputes.


转谞谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜谞砖讗 讗砖讛 砖讻讘专 讬诇讚讛 注讜讚讛 砖驻讞讛 讜谞砖转讞专专讛 注讜讚讛 讙讜讬讛 讜谞转讙讬讬专讛 讜诪砖讘讗转讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讬诇讚讛 讜诇讚讛 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: We learned in the mishna: One who did not have sons and he married a woman who had already given birth; or if he married a woman who gave birth when she was still a Canaanite maidservant and she was then emancipated; or one who gave birth when she was still a gentile and she then converted, and when the maidservant or the gentile came to join the Jewish people she gave birth to a male, that offspring is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.


讬诇讚讛 诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讙讬讜专转 讜砖驻讞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬


The Gemara analyzes the mishna: This maidservant or convert, whose child that was born when she came to join the Jewish people is a firstborn for inheritance, from whom, i.e., from what type of father, did she bear him? If we say she bore him from a Jew who did not previously have sons, the initial subject of this clause of the mishna, why does it make reference specifically to a gentile or a maidservant, indicating that this son is a firstborn for inheritance because the ones born when she was not Jewish are disregarded? The halakha would be the same even with regard to a Jewish woman who had already given birth.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讙专 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜谞转讙讬讬专 讜拽转谞讬 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛


Rather, is the mishna not referring to two distinct cases? The first concerns a man who already had children before converting, and then marries a Jew who has already given birth to children, while the second involves a woman who had children when she was a maidservant or a gentile, and when she became Jewish she bore a child from one like her, a convert who had sons when he was a gentile and then converted. And the mishna teaches that this son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance, which apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara answers: No; actually, her child was born from a Jew who did not have sons, and the reason the mishna makes reference specifically to a gentile or a maidservant is not due to the case of inheritance. Rather, it was necessary for the clause: But is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.


诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜诇讻讛谉 砖谞讗诪专 驻讟专 专讞诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖讬驻讟专讜 专讞诐 诪讬砖专讗诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗


This statement serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: That son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest, as it is stated: 鈥淲hatever opens the womb among the children of Israel鈥 (Exodus 13:2), i.e., one is not considered a firstborn unless he opens the womb of a woman from the Jewish people, and therefore the children that she bore before she converted are not considered to have opened her womb. Therefore, the first tanna of the mishna teaches us that he is not a firstborn with regard to redemption, as his mother鈥檚 womb was already opened when she was a gentile.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讘讙讬讜转讜 讜谞转讙讬讬专 讬砖 诇讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 驻讟专 专讞诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖讬驻讟专讜 专讞诐 诪讬砖专讗诇 讜讬诇讬祝 讗讬讛讜 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讚讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof against Rabbi Yo岣nan from a baraita: If a man had sons when he was a gentile and he converted, and then fathered more sons, he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Ravina says, and some say it is Rav A岣 who says: This ruling is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that the phrase in the verse 鈥渨hatever opens the womb among the children of Israel鈥 means it is not a firstborn unless it opens the womb of a woman from the Jewish people. And he derives his halakha, that of a gentile who converted, from her halakha, that of a female convert, that one does not take into account the children born before they converted. Rabbi Yo岣nan may hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讜讬讬讛 砖讬诇讚讛 讘谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讚讗讬注讘专 诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讻讛谉 讜诪诇讜讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诇讜讬讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇讬转 谞诪讬


Rav Adda bar Ahava says: With regard to the daughter of a Levite who gave birth to a firstborn boy, her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela coins to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered to be the son of a Levite and Levites are exempt from this obligation. The Gemara asks: From whom did she become pregnant? If we say that she became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, why does Rav Adda bar Ahava refer specifically to the daughter of a Levite? The halakha would be the same even for an Israelite woman who became pregnant from a priest or a Levite.


讗诇讗 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讬砖专讗诇 诇诪砖驻讞转诐 诇讘讬转 讗讘转诐 讻转讬讘


Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava must be referring to a case where the daughter of a Levite became pregnant from an Israelite. But if so, why is the son鈥檚 status determined by his mother鈥檚 status in this instance? After all, it is written: 鈥淏y their families, by their fathers鈥 houses鈥 (Numbers 1:2), which indicates that the lineage of a Jewish family follows the father rather than the mother.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讙讜讬 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讝讛诪讬谉 讗转 讛讜诇讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讝讛诪讬谉 讗转 讛讜诇讚 诇讜讬 驻住讜诇 诪讬拽专讬


Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the daughter of a Levite who became pregnant from a gentile. In such a case, the son鈥檚 status is determined by that of the mother, and therefore the son is exempt from the redemption of the firstborn. And do not say this is the halakha only according to the one who says that in such a situation one does not disqualify the child at all due to his gentile father, and he is of fit lineage. Rather, even according to the one who says that one does disqualify the child due to the gentile father, nevertheless, one also follows the mother and he is therefore called a Levite of flawed lineage, and is exempt from redemption.


诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讬砖专讗诇 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 驻讟专 专讞诐 讘驻讟专 专讞诐 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗


Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says a different explanation, in the name of Rava: Actually, Rav Adda bar Ahava is referring to a case where the daughter of a Levite became pregnant from an Israelite. And although the son鈥檚 status is usually determined by that of the father, there, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淲hatever opens the womb among the children of Israel鈥 (Exodus 13:2). This teaches that the Merciful One renders the obligation dependent upon the opening of the womb, and since this firstborn came from the womb of a daughter of a Levite, and not a Levite, the obligation of redemption does not apply.


转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜谞砖讗 讗砖讛 砖诇讗 讬诇讚讛 谞转讙讬讬专讛 诪注讜讘专转 谞砖转讞专专讛 诪注讜讘专转


The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rav Pappa: We learned in the mishna: One who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth; or a woman who converted while she was pregnant, or a Canaanite maidservant who was emancipated while she was pregnant and she gave birth to a son, he is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.


讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讻讛谞转 讛讬讗 讜诇讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗砖讛 砖讻讘专 讬诇讚讛 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 砖讛转讛 讗讞专讬 讘注诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜谞砖讗转 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讗诐 讘谉 转砖注讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讗诐 讘谉 砖讘注讛 诇讗讞专讜谉 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛


And likewise, if an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a priest, neither of whom had given birth yet, or an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a Levite, or an Israelite woman and a woman who had already given birth, gave birth, and it is uncertain which son was born to which mother; and likewise a woman who did not wait three months after the death of her husband and she married and gave birth, and it is unknown whether the child was born after nine months and is the son of the first husband, or whether he was born after seven months and is the son of the latter husband, in all these cases the child is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.


诪讻诇诇 讚讻讛讜谞讛 讜诇讜讬讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 讚讗讬注讘专 诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讻讛谉 讜诇讜讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻讛谞转 讜诇讜讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬


The Gemara explains the difficulty: From the ruling in the case of one whose child became confused with that of a daughter of a priest or a Levite, by inference one can derive that the daughter of a priest and the daughter of a Levite are exempt from redemption.Now, from whom did she become pregnant? If we say that she became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, if so, why specifically mention the daughter of a priest and the daughter of a Levite? The same halakha would apply even in the case of an Israelite woman who became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, as the son is exempt from redemption because he is also a priest or a Levite.


讗诇讗 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讙讜讬 讻讛谞转 驻讟讜专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讬拽 诇谉 专讘讛 讻讛谞转 砖谞转注讘专讛 诪讙讜讬 诪讛讜 讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讗诪专 诇讜讬讛 砖讬诇讚讛 讘谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐


Rather, if the case is where the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite became pregnant from a gentile, then is the son of the daughter of a priest exempt? But didn鈥檛 Rav Pappa say: Rabba tested us on the following matter: With regard to the daughter of a priest who became pregnant from a gentile, what is the halakha? And we said to him: Isn鈥檛 this the case discussed by Rav Adda bar Ahava, who says: With regard to the daughter of a Levite who gave birth to a firstborn boy, her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela coins? This ruling was interpreted as referring to one who became pregnant from a gentile.


讜讗诪专 诇讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讜讬讛 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜讬讛 砖谞砖讘讬转 讗讜 砖谞讘注诇讛 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讜讗讜讻诇转


Rav Pappa continues: And Rabba said to me: How can these cases be compared? Granted, if the daughter of a Levite has a child from a gentile, he is considered a Levite with regard to redemption since his mother retains her sanctity. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Levite woman who was captured, leading to a concern that one of her captors might have engaged in sexual intercourse with her, or even if a Levite woman definitely engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, one nevertheless gives her first tithe and she may eat it.


讗诇讗 讻讛谞转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬诇 诇讛 讛讜讬讗 讝专讛


But with regard to the daughter of a priest, since if a gentile engages in intercourse with her she becomes like a non-priest and may no longer partake of teruma, her son from a gentile should be considered like an Israelite and be obligated in the redemption of a firstborn. If so, in what case does the mishna exempt the son of a daughter of a priest or a daughter of a Levite from redemption?


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讬砖专讗诇 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘讚讗讬注讘专 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽讬 诇讛


The Gemara notes: This works out well according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, citing in the name of Rava, who says that Rav Adda bar Ahava, who deems the son of a Levite woman exempt from the obligation of redemption, was referring to a case where she became pregnant from an Israelite. This is because he can interpret the mishna as referring to the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite who became pregnant from an Israelite. But according to the opinion of Rav Pappa, who maintains that the son of a priest鈥檚 or Levite鈥檚 daughter who became pregnant from an Israelite is subject to the obligation of redemption from a priest, with regard to what case does he interpret the mishna?


诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讻讛谉 讜讛讬讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讻讛谞转 讚讘谞讛 讻讛谉


The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is not referring to the daughter of a priest but to a woman who became pregnant from a priest. Therefore, her son is exempt from redemption, and yet she herself is an Israelite woman. And why does the mishna call her the daughter of a priest [kohenet]? Because her son is a priest.


讗讬转诪专 讻讛谉 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 讘谉 讞诇诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪转 讛讗讘 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 砖讛专讬 讝讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讘驻讚讬讜谞讜


搂 It was stated that in the case of a priest who married a divorc茅e and then died and left a son who was a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [岣lal] and has the status of a non-priest, Rav 岣sda says: The son is obligated to redeem himself. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: He is not obligated to redeem himself. The Gemara explains: In any case that the father died after thirty days following the birth of the son, at which point the father was already obligated in his redemption, everyone agrees that the son is not obligated to redeem himself, as his father acquired his redemption money, i.e., it is as though he separated five sela coins and took the money for himself, since he is a priest.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪转 讛讗讘 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 讚讛讗 诇讗 讝讻讛 讗讘讬讜 诇驻讚讬讜谞讜 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 注爪诪讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转讬谞讗 诪讻讞 讙讘专讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬转 诇讗砖转注讜讬讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛


They disagree when the father died within thirty days of the birth of the son, before the obligation of redemption had taken effect. Rav 岣sda says the son is obligated to redeem himself, as his father did not acquire his redemption money. Rabba bar Rav Huna says the son is not obligated to redeem himself, as he can say to a priest who demands the redemption money from him: I come due to the strength of a man with whom you cannot enter into judgment, i.e., if my father were alive he would have separated five sela coins and taken the money for himself, and I inherit his claim.


转谞谉 谞转讙讬讬专讛 诪注讜讘专转 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗转讬谞讗 诪讻讞 讙讘专讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬转 诇讗砖转注讜讬讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讙讜讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞讬讬住


The Gemara raises a challenge to the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna: We learned in the mishna: If one married a woman who converted while she was pregnant, having been impregnated by a gentile, the child is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest and must redeem himself. But why is this the halakha? Let this son say to the priest: I come due to the strength of a man with whom you cannot enter into judgment, as his father is a gentile, from whom the redemption money cannot be claimed. The Gemara responds: The case of a gentile is different, as he has no lineage [岣yis], i.e., this man is not considered his father鈥檚 son at all.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讬讗住讬谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻讛谉 砖诪转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞 讘谉 讞诇诇 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 砖诇讗 讝讻讛 讛讗讘 讘驻讚讬讜谞讜 诪转 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 注爪诪讜 砖讛专讬 讝讻讛 讛讗讘 讘驻讚讬讜谞讜


On this matter, the Gemara notes that Rabbi Shimon Yasinia says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda: With regard to a priest who died within thirty days of the birth of his son and left a son who was a 岣lal, the son is obligated to redeem himself, as the father did not acquire his redemption money. If the father died after thirty days following the birth of the son, the son is not obligated to redeem himself, as his father already acquired his redemption money.


讜讻谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 砖讛转讛 讗讞专讬 讘注诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讻讜壮


搂 The mishna teaches: And likewise a woman who did not wait three months after the death of her husband and she married and gave birth and it is unknown whether the son was born after a pregnancy of nine months and is the son of the first husband, or after seven months and is the son of the second husband, the son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.


讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讗 讻驻砖讜讟 砖拽讬诇 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛 讜诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛


The Gemara infers: This son is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance, but he takes a share of the inheritance like an ordinary son. But why is he entitled to any inheritance? Let him go to that son of the first husband and he will reject him, by demanding proof that he is from his family, and likewise let him go to that son of the second husband and he will reject him in the same manner.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讜讛讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛


Rabbi Yirmeya says: This ruling that he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance is necessary only with regard to the son who follows him, born to the second husband, to teach that he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as this son of uncertain status might be his firstborn brother. And when the mishna states: The child is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance, this is what it is saying: This son of uncertain status is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest, and the son who follows him, born to the second husband, is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.


讜诇讻转讘讜 讛专砖讗讛 诇讛讚讚讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讛专砖讗讛 讛讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讛 拽诪谉 讚讘讛专砖讗讛


The Gemara suggests: And let the son with uncertain status and the son who follows him write an authorization to one another, by which each grants the other the right to claim his own share. In this manner they can claim the double portion together, as one of them is certainly the firstborn. And if you would say that the mishna is dealing with a case where there was no authorization, we interpret it later on (see 49a) as referring to a situation where there was an authorization.


诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛


The Gemara answers: The mishna, which indicates that there is no firstborn with regard to inheritance here, supports the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, as Rabbi Yannai says: In a case where two sons of two men became confused and it is unknown who is the father of whom, if the two sons were initially recognized and were ultimately intermingled, each writes an authorization to the other, and the other sons in each family cannot claim that these sons are not their brother.


诇讗 讛讜讻专讜 讜讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛


If they were not initially recognized and were ultimately intermingled, each does not write an authorization to the other, as even initially neither of them had any certain right to their father鈥檚 inheritance. Likewise, in the case of the uncertain son and the one who follows him in the mishna, neither one was ever recognized as his father鈥檚 firstborn. Therefore, writing an authorization is ineffective in claiming any inheritance.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬 讝讛讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜诇讻讛谉 讛诪驻诇转 砖驻讬专 诪诇讗 诪讬诐 诪诇讗 讚诐 诪诇讗 讙谞讬谞讬谉 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜讛诪驻诇转 诇讬讜诐 讗专讘注讬诐 讛讘讗 讗讞专讬讛诐 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜诇讻讛谉


MISHNA: Which is the offspring that is a firstborn both with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest? In the case of a woman who miscarried a gestational sac full of water, or one full of blood, or one full of pieces of flesh; or one who miscarries a mass resembling a fish, or grasshoppers, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, or one who miscarries on the fortieth day after conception, the son who follows any of them is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest.


讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讛讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讜专 诇讗 诇谞讞诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讻讛谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讛砖谞讬 诇讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐


In the case of a boy born by caesarean section and the son who follows him, both of them are not firstborn, neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to redemption from a priest. Rabbi Shimon says: The first son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance if he is his father鈥檚 first son, and the second son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest for five sela coins, because he is the first to emerge from the womb and he emerged in the usual way.


讙诪壮 专讗砖讜谉 诇谞讞诇讛 诇讗 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讘注讬谞谉 诇讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻讟专 专讞诐 讘注讬谞谉


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that neither a son born by caesarean section nor the son who follows him are firstborn, neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to redemption from a priest. The Gemara explains: The first son, born by caesarean section, is not considered the firstborn with regard to inheritance, as we require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淎nd they have borne him children鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), written in the context of inheritance, and a caesarean section is not called a birth. Likewise, with regard to the redemption with five sela coins, this son is also not considered the firstborn, as we require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淲hatever opens the womb鈥 (Exodus 13:2), and he did not open his mother鈥檚 womb.


砖谞讬 诇谞讞诇讛 诇讗 专讗砖讬转 讗讜谞讜 讘注讬谞谉 诇讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽住讘专 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专


Similarly, the second son who follows him is not considered the firstborn with regard to inheritance, as we require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淔or he is the first of his strength, the right of the firstborn is his鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), and this son is not the first. In addition, he is also not considered the firstborn with regard to the redemption of five sela coins, as the tanna of the mishna holds: A firstborn for only one matter, i.e., he opened his mother鈥檚 womb but is not her first child, is not considered a firstborn with regard to redemption.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讛砖谞讬 诇讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 转诇讚 诇专讘讜转 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: The first son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance if he is his father鈥檚 first son, and the second son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest for five sela coins. The Gemara explains: The verse states: 鈥淎nd they have borne him children,鈥 and a caesarean section is not called a birth. Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says with regard to a verse that deals with the ritual impurity of a woman after childbirth: 鈥淏ut if she bears a girl鈥 (Leviticus 12:5), that the apparently superfluous term 鈥渟he bears鈥 serves to include a child born by caesarean section, and the same applies with regard to a firstborn for inheritance.


讜讛砖谞讬 诇讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 拽住讘专 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专


And Rabbi Shimon also rules that the second son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest for five sela coins, as he maintains: A firstborn for only one matter, i.e., one who opened his mother鈥檚 womb but is not her first child, is considered a firstborn with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, despite the fact that he is not his mother鈥檚 first child.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 47

讬讻讬专 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讻专转 驻谞讬诐 诇讞讜讚


The requirement of 鈥淗e shall recognize鈥 with regard to a firstborn for inheritance, and the recognition of a husband鈥檚 face, are discrete matters.


讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讘讙讬讜转讜 讜谞转讙讬讬专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讚讛讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讗砖讬转 讗讜谞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻拽讟谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讚诪讬


It was stated that amora鈥檌m engaged in a dispute concerning the case of a man who had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted: Rabbi Yo岣nan says he does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, i.e., a son who is his firstborn after his conversion does not inherit a double portion; and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as this man already had 鈥渢he first of his strength鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Torah鈥檚 description of the firstborn in this context, before he converted. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as the halakhic status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born.


讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讘讙讬讜转讜 讜谞转讙讬讬专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽讬讬诐 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讬讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽讬讬诐 诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讬讬诐 驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻拽讟谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讚诪讬


The Gemara comments: And these amora鈥檌m follow their regular line of reasoning, as it was stated: If a man had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yo岣nan says he has fulfilled the aspect of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply expressed in the command: 鈥淗e did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (Isaiah 45:18), i.e., to increase the inhabitation of the world. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, as the halakhic status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and it is considered as though he did not have children.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讙讬讜转谉 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 谞讞诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛 讜讛讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖讘转


The Gemara adds: And it is necessary to state their opinions in both cases. As, if it were stated only in that first case with regard to inheritance, perhaps it is only in that case that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says his opinion that the first son born after conversion inherits a double portion, because in their gentile state they are not subject to the halakhot of inheritance. But with regard to that case, the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, say he concedes to Rabbi Yo岣nan that since the verse states: 鈥淗e did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited,鈥 and he has indeed performed an action that enables the world to be further inhabited, he has therefore fulfilled the mitzva.


讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 爪专讬讻讗


And conversely, if their dispute were stated only with regard to this mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, perhaps it is only in this case that Rabbi Yo岣nan says his opinion, due to the verse: 鈥淗e formed it to be inhabited.鈥 But with regard to that case of inheritance, say he concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that sons born when one was a gentile are disregarded. Consequently, it is necessary to teach their opinions in both disputes.


转谞谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜谞砖讗 讗砖讛 砖讻讘专 讬诇讚讛 注讜讚讛 砖驻讞讛 讜谞砖转讞专专讛 注讜讚讛 讙讜讬讛 讜谞转讙讬讬专讛 讜诪砖讘讗转讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讬诇讚讛 讜诇讚讛 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: We learned in the mishna: One who did not have sons and he married a woman who had already given birth; or if he married a woman who gave birth when she was still a Canaanite maidservant and she was then emancipated; or one who gave birth when she was still a gentile and she then converted, and when the maidservant or the gentile came to join the Jewish people she gave birth to a male, that offspring is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.


讬诇讚讛 诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讙讬讜专转 讜砖驻讞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬


The Gemara analyzes the mishna: This maidservant or convert, whose child that was born when she came to join the Jewish people is a firstborn for inheritance, from whom, i.e., from what type of father, did she bear him? If we say she bore him from a Jew who did not previously have sons, the initial subject of this clause of the mishna, why does it make reference specifically to a gentile or a maidservant, indicating that this son is a firstborn for inheritance because the ones born when she was not Jewish are disregarded? The halakha would be the same even with regard to a Jewish woman who had already given birth.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讙专 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜谞转讙讬讬专 讜拽转谞讬 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛


Rather, is the mishna not referring to two distinct cases? The first concerns a man who already had children before converting, and then marries a Jew who has already given birth to children, while the second involves a woman who had children when she was a maidservant or a gentile, and when she became Jewish she bore a child from one like her, a convert who had sons when he was a gentile and then converted. And the mishna teaches that this son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance, which apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara answers: No; actually, her child was born from a Jew who did not have sons, and the reason the mishna makes reference specifically to a gentile or a maidservant is not due to the case of inheritance. Rather, it was necessary for the clause: But is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.


诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜诇讻讛谉 砖谞讗诪专 驻讟专 专讞诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖讬驻讟专讜 专讞诐 诪讬砖专讗诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗


This statement serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: That son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest, as it is stated: 鈥淲hatever opens the womb among the children of Israel鈥 (Exodus 13:2), i.e., one is not considered a firstborn unless he opens the womb of a woman from the Jewish people, and therefore the children that she bore before she converted are not considered to have opened her womb. Therefore, the first tanna of the mishna teaches us that he is not a firstborn with regard to redemption, as his mother鈥檚 womb was already opened when she was a gentile.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讘讙讬讜转讜 讜谞转讙讬讬专 讬砖 诇讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 驻讟专 专讞诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖讬驻讟专讜 专讞诐 诪讬砖专讗诇 讜讬诇讬祝 讗讬讛讜 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讚讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof against Rabbi Yo岣nan from a baraita: If a man had sons when he was a gentile and he converted, and then fathered more sons, he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Ravina says, and some say it is Rav A岣 who says: This ruling is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that the phrase in the verse 鈥渨hatever opens the womb among the children of Israel鈥 means it is not a firstborn unless it opens the womb of a woman from the Jewish people. And he derives his halakha, that of a gentile who converted, from her halakha, that of a female convert, that one does not take into account the children born before they converted. Rabbi Yo岣nan may hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讜讬讬讛 砖讬诇讚讛 讘谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讚讗讬注讘专 诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讻讛谉 讜诪诇讜讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诇讜讬讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇讬转 谞诪讬


Rav Adda bar Ahava says: With regard to the daughter of a Levite who gave birth to a firstborn boy, her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela coins to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered to be the son of a Levite and Levites are exempt from this obligation. The Gemara asks: From whom did she become pregnant? If we say that she became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, why does Rav Adda bar Ahava refer specifically to the daughter of a Levite? The halakha would be the same even for an Israelite woman who became pregnant from a priest or a Levite.


讗诇讗 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讬砖专讗诇 诇诪砖驻讞转诐 诇讘讬转 讗讘转诐 讻转讬讘


Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava must be referring to a case where the daughter of a Levite became pregnant from an Israelite. But if so, why is the son鈥檚 status determined by his mother鈥檚 status in this instance? After all, it is written: 鈥淏y their families, by their fathers鈥 houses鈥 (Numbers 1:2), which indicates that the lineage of a Jewish family follows the father rather than the mother.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讙讜讬 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讝讛诪讬谉 讗转 讛讜诇讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讝讛诪讬谉 讗转 讛讜诇讚 诇讜讬 驻住讜诇 诪讬拽专讬


Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the daughter of a Levite who became pregnant from a gentile. In such a case, the son鈥檚 status is determined by that of the mother, and therefore the son is exempt from the redemption of the firstborn. And do not say this is the halakha only according to the one who says that in such a situation one does not disqualify the child at all due to his gentile father, and he is of fit lineage. Rather, even according to the one who says that one does disqualify the child due to the gentile father, nevertheless, one also follows the mother and he is therefore called a Levite of flawed lineage, and is exempt from redemption.


诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讬砖专讗诇 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 驻讟专 专讞诐 讘驻讟专 专讞诐 转诇讗 专讞诪谞讗


Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says a different explanation, in the name of Rava: Actually, Rav Adda bar Ahava is referring to a case where the daughter of a Levite became pregnant from an Israelite. And although the son鈥檚 status is usually determined by that of the father, there, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淲hatever opens the womb among the children of Israel鈥 (Exodus 13:2). This teaches that the Merciful One renders the obligation dependent upon the opening of the womb, and since this firstborn came from the womb of a daughter of a Levite, and not a Levite, the obligation of redemption does not apply.


转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 讜谞砖讗 讗砖讛 砖诇讗 讬诇讚讛 谞转讙讬讬专讛 诪注讜讘专转 谞砖转讞专专讛 诪注讜讘专转


The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rav Pappa: We learned in the mishna: One who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth; or a woman who converted while she was pregnant, or a Canaanite maidservant who was emancipated while she was pregnant and she gave birth to a son, he is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.


讜讬诇讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讻讛谞转 讛讬讗 讜诇讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗砖讛 砖讻讘专 讬诇讚讛 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 砖讛转讛 讗讞专讬 讘注诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜谞砖讗转 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讗诐 讘谉 转砖注讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讗诐 讘谉 砖讘注讛 诇讗讞专讜谉 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛


And likewise, if an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a priest, neither of whom had given birth yet, or an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a Levite, or an Israelite woman and a woman who had already given birth, gave birth, and it is uncertain which son was born to which mother; and likewise a woman who did not wait three months after the death of her husband and she married and gave birth, and it is unknown whether the child was born after nine months and is the son of the first husband, or whether he was born after seven months and is the son of the latter husband, in all these cases the child is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.


诪讻诇诇 讚讻讛讜谞讛 讜诇讜讬讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 讚讗讬注讘专 诪诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讻讛谉 讜诇讜讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻讛谞转 讜诇讜讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬


The Gemara explains the difficulty: From the ruling in the case of one whose child became confused with that of a daughter of a priest or a Levite, by inference one can derive that the daughter of a priest and the daughter of a Levite are exempt from redemption.Now, from whom did she become pregnant? If we say that she became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, if so, why specifically mention the daughter of a priest and the daughter of a Levite? The same halakha would apply even in the case of an Israelite woman who became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, as the son is exempt from redemption because he is also a priest or a Levite.


讗诇讗 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讙讜讬 讻讛谞转 驻讟讜专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讬拽 诇谉 专讘讛 讻讛谞转 砖谞转注讘专讛 诪讙讜讬 诪讛讜 讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讗诪专 诇讜讬讛 砖讬诇讚讛 讘谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐


Rather, if the case is where the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite became pregnant from a gentile, then is the son of the daughter of a priest exempt? But didn鈥檛 Rav Pappa say: Rabba tested us on the following matter: With regard to the daughter of a priest who became pregnant from a gentile, what is the halakha? And we said to him: Isn鈥檛 this the case discussed by Rav Adda bar Ahava, who says: With regard to the daughter of a Levite who gave birth to a firstborn boy, her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela coins? This ruling was interpreted as referring to one who became pregnant from a gentile.


讜讗诪专 诇讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讜讬讛 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜讬讛 砖谞砖讘讬转 讗讜 砖谞讘注诇讛 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讜讗讜讻诇转


Rav Pappa continues: And Rabba said to me: How can these cases be compared? Granted, if the daughter of a Levite has a child from a gentile, he is considered a Levite with regard to redemption since his mother retains her sanctity. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Levite woman who was captured, leading to a concern that one of her captors might have engaged in sexual intercourse with her, or even if a Levite woman definitely engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, one nevertheless gives her first tithe and she may eat it.


讗诇讗 讻讛谞转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬诇 诇讛 讛讜讬讗 讝专讛


But with regard to the daughter of a priest, since if a gentile engages in intercourse with her she becomes like a non-priest and may no longer partake of teruma, her son from a gentile should be considered like an Israelite and be obligated in the redemption of a firstborn. If so, in what case does the mishna exempt the son of a daughter of a priest or a daughter of a Levite from redemption?


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讬砖专讗诇 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘讚讗讬注讘专 诪讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽讬 诇讛


The Gemara notes: This works out well according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, citing in the name of Rava, who says that Rav Adda bar Ahava, who deems the son of a Levite woman exempt from the obligation of redemption, was referring to a case where she became pregnant from an Israelite. This is because he can interpret the mishna as referring to the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite who became pregnant from an Israelite. But according to the opinion of Rav Pappa, who maintains that the son of a priest鈥檚 or Levite鈥檚 daughter who became pregnant from an Israelite is subject to the obligation of redemption from a priest, with regard to what case does he interpret the mishna?


诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬注讘专 诪讻讛谉 讜讛讬讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讻讛谞转 讚讘谞讛 讻讛谉


The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is not referring to the daughter of a priest but to a woman who became pregnant from a priest. Therefore, her son is exempt from redemption, and yet she herself is an Israelite woman. And why does the mishna call her the daughter of a priest [kohenet]? Because her son is a priest.


讗讬转诪专 讻讛谉 砖诪转 讜讛谞讬讞 讘谉 讞诇诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪转 讛讗讘 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 砖讛专讬 讝讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讘驻讚讬讜谞讜


搂 It was stated that in the case of a priest who married a divorc茅e and then died and left a son who was a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [岣lal] and has the status of a non-priest, Rav 岣sda says: The son is obligated to redeem himself. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: He is not obligated to redeem himself. The Gemara explains: In any case that the father died after thirty days following the birth of the son, at which point the father was already obligated in his redemption, everyone agrees that the son is not obligated to redeem himself, as his father acquired his redemption money, i.e., it is as though he separated five sela coins and took the money for himself, since he is a priest.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪转 讛讗讘 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 讚讛讗 诇讗 讝讻讛 讗讘讬讜 诇驻讚讬讜谞讜 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 注爪诪讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转讬谞讗 诪讻讞 讙讘专讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬转 诇讗砖转注讜讬讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛


They disagree when the father died within thirty days of the birth of the son, before the obligation of redemption had taken effect. Rav 岣sda says the son is obligated to redeem himself, as his father did not acquire his redemption money. Rabba bar Rav Huna says the son is not obligated to redeem himself, as he can say to a priest who demands the redemption money from him: I come due to the strength of a man with whom you cannot enter into judgment, i.e., if my father were alive he would have separated five sela coins and taken the money for himself, and I inherit his claim.


转谞谉 谞转讙讬讬专讛 诪注讜讘专转 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗转讬谞讗 诪讻讞 讙讘专讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬转 诇讗砖转注讜讬讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讙讜讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞讬讬住


The Gemara raises a challenge to the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna: We learned in the mishna: If one married a woman who converted while she was pregnant, having been impregnated by a gentile, the child is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest and must redeem himself. But why is this the halakha? Let this son say to the priest: I come due to the strength of a man with whom you cannot enter into judgment, as his father is a gentile, from whom the redemption money cannot be claimed. The Gemara responds: The case of a gentile is different, as he has no lineage [岣yis], i.e., this man is not considered his father鈥檚 son at all.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讬讗住讬谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻讛谉 砖诪转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞 讘谉 讞诇诇 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 注爪诪讜 砖诇讗 讝讻讛 讛讗讘 讘驻讚讬讜谞讜 诪转 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诇驻讚讜转 注爪诪讜 砖讛专讬 讝讻讛 讛讗讘 讘驻讚讬讜谞讜


On this matter, the Gemara notes that Rabbi Shimon Yasinia says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda: With regard to a priest who died within thirty days of the birth of his son and left a son who was a 岣lal, the son is obligated to redeem himself, as the father did not acquire his redemption money. If the father died after thirty days following the birth of the son, the son is not obligated to redeem himself, as his father already acquired his redemption money.


讜讻谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 砖讛转讛 讗讞专讬 讘注诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讻讜壮


搂 The mishna teaches: And likewise a woman who did not wait three months after the death of her husband and she married and gave birth and it is unknown whether the son was born after a pregnancy of nine months and is the son of the first husband, or after seven months and is the son of the second husband, the son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.


讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讗 讻驻砖讜讟 砖拽讬诇 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛 讜诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讬讚讞讬讬讛


The Gemara infers: This son is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance, but he takes a share of the inheritance like an ordinary son. But why is he entitled to any inheritance? Let him go to that son of the first husband and he will reject him, by demanding proof that he is from his family, and likewise let him go to that son of the second husband and he will reject him in the same manner.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉 讜讛讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛


Rabbi Yirmeya says: This ruling that he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance is necessary only with regard to the son who follows him, born to the second husband, to teach that he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as this son of uncertain status might be his firstborn brother. And when the mishna states: The child is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance, this is what it is saying: This son of uncertain status is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest, and the son who follows him, born to the second husband, is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.


讜诇讻转讘讜 讛专砖讗讛 诇讛讚讚讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讛专砖讗讛 讛讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讛 拽诪谉 讚讘讛专砖讗讛


The Gemara suggests: And let the son with uncertain status and the son who follows him write an authorization to one another, by which each grants the other the right to claim his own share. In this manner they can claim the double portion together, as one of them is certainly the firstborn. And if you would say that the mishna is dealing with a case where there was no authorization, we interpret it later on (see 49a) as referring to a situation where there was an authorization.


诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛


The Gemara answers: The mishna, which indicates that there is no firstborn with regard to inheritance here, supports the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, as Rabbi Yannai says: In a case where two sons of two men became confused and it is unknown who is the father of whom, if the two sons were initially recognized and were ultimately intermingled, each writes an authorization to the other, and the other sons in each family cannot claim that these sons are not their brother.


诇讗 讛讜讻专讜 讜讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛


If they were not initially recognized and were ultimately intermingled, each does not write an authorization to the other, as even initially neither of them had any certain right to their father鈥檚 inheritance. Likewise, in the case of the uncertain son and the one who follows him in the mishna, neither one was ever recognized as his father鈥檚 firstborn. Therefore, writing an authorization is ineffective in claiming any inheritance.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬 讝讛讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜诇讻讛谉 讛诪驻诇转 砖驻讬专 诪诇讗 诪讬诐 诪诇讗 讚诐 诪诇讗 讙谞讬谞讬谉 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜讛诪驻诇转 诇讬讜诐 讗专讘注讬诐 讛讘讗 讗讞专讬讛诐 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜诇讻讛谉


MISHNA: Which is the offspring that is a firstborn both with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest? In the case of a woman who miscarried a gestational sac full of water, or one full of blood, or one full of pieces of flesh; or one who miscarries a mass resembling a fish, or grasshoppers, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, or one who miscarries on the fortieth day after conception, the son who follows any of them is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest.


讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讛讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讗讬谞谉 讘讻讜专 诇讗 诇谞讞诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讻讛谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讛砖谞讬 诇讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐


In the case of a boy born by caesarean section and the son who follows him, both of them are not firstborn, neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to redemption from a priest. Rabbi Shimon says: The first son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance if he is his father鈥檚 first son, and the second son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest for five sela coins, because he is the first to emerge from the womb and he emerged in the usual way.


讙诪壮 专讗砖讜谉 诇谞讞诇讛 诇讗 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讘注讬谞谉 诇讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻讟专 专讞诐 讘注讬谞谉


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that neither a son born by caesarean section nor the son who follows him are firstborn, neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to redemption from a priest. The Gemara explains: The first son, born by caesarean section, is not considered the firstborn with regard to inheritance, as we require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淎nd they have borne him children鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), written in the context of inheritance, and a caesarean section is not called a birth. Likewise, with regard to the redemption with five sela coins, this son is also not considered the firstborn, as we require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淲hatever opens the womb鈥 (Exodus 13:2), and he did not open his mother鈥檚 womb.


砖谞讬 诇谞讞诇讛 诇讗 专讗砖讬转 讗讜谞讜 讘注讬谞谉 诇讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽住讘专 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 诇讗 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专


Similarly, the second son who follows him is not considered the firstborn with regard to inheritance, as we require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淔or he is the first of his strength, the right of the firstborn is his鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), and this son is not the first. In addition, he is also not considered the firstborn with regard to the redemption of five sela coins, as the tanna of the mishna holds: A firstborn for only one matter, i.e., he opened his mother鈥檚 womb but is not her first child, is not considered a firstborn with regard to redemption.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讛砖谞讬 诇讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 转诇讚 诇专讘讜转 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: The first son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance if he is his father鈥檚 first son, and the second son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest for five sela coins. The Gemara explains: The verse states: 鈥淎nd they have borne him children,鈥 and a caesarean section is not called a birth. Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says with regard to a verse that deals with the ritual impurity of a woman after childbirth: 鈥淏ut if she bears a girl鈥 (Leviticus 12:5), that the apparently superfluous term 鈥渟he bears鈥 serves to include a child born by caesarean section, and the same applies with regard to a firstborn for inheritance.


讜讛砖谞讬 诇讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 拽住讘专 讘讻讜专 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讜讬 讘讻讜专


And Rabbi Shimon also rules that the second son is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest for five sela coins, as he maintains: A firstborn for only one matter, i.e., one who opened his mother鈥檚 womb but is not her first child, is considered a firstborn with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, despite the fact that he is not his mother鈥檚 first child.

Scroll To Top