Parallel
בכורות 47:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
[The phrase] ‘But he shall acknowledge’ is one thing and the phrase ‘The show of their countenance’ is another. It has been stated: If he had children while he was a heathen and he became a proselyte, R. Johanan says: He cannot have a first-born [with the privileges of] inheritance, whereas R. Simeon b. Lakish says: He can have a first-born with respect to inheritance. R. Johanan holds that he cannot have a first-born with respect to inheritance, for he already had ‘the beginning of his strength’, whereas R. Simeon b. Lakish says that he can have a first-born [now] with the privilege of inheritance, because a stranger who became a proselyte is like a newly-born child. And they both follow their own line of reasoning elsewhere. For it has been stated: If he had children while he was a heathen and he became a proselyte, R. Johanan says: He has already fulfilled the command of propagation, whereas R. Simeon b. Lakish says: He has not fulfilled the command. R. Johanan says: He has fulfilled [the command]: Since it is written, He [God] hath created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited, whereas R. Simeon b. Lakish says: He has not fulfilled the command of propagation, for a stranger who became a proselyte is like a newly-born child. And it is necessary [to state both these instances where R. Johanan and R. Simeon differ]. For if [the difference of opinion between them] had been stated only in the first case, we might have said that only there does R. Simeon b. Lakish hold that he can have a first-born as regards inheritance because heathens are not legal heirs, but here we might have thought that he agrees with R. Johanan that [we apply] ‘He hath created it not in vain, he formed it to inhabit it’, for he has helped to people the earth [by the children he had previously]. And if [the difference of opinion between them] had been stated only in the second case, we might have said that only in that case does R. Johanan hold this opinion, but with reference to the first case [of inheritance] we might have thought that he agreed with R. Simeon b. Lakish. It was therefore necessary [to mention that they differ in both instances]. We have learnt: IF ONE WHO NEVER HAD CHILDREN BEFORE, MARRIED A WOMAN WHO HAD ALREADY GIVEN BIRTH PRE VIOUSLY OR ONE WHO HAD GIVEN BIRTH WHEN SHE WAS A BONDWOMAN BUT IS NOW FREED, OR ONE WHO GAVE BIRTH WHEN SHE WAS A HEATHEN AND HAS SINCE BECOME A PROSELYTE, AND IF WHEN SHE CAME TO THE ISRAELITE SHE BORE A FIRST-BORN THE INFANT IS CONSIDERED A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN TO BE REDEEMED FROM A PRIEST. Now from whom did she give birth? Shall I say from an Israelite who had no children? Why then should [the Mishnah] mention a proselyte and a bondwoman, since this would be the case even with a daughter of Israel? Then you must say that she gave birth from a stranger who had children and became a proselyte; and yet it says: THE INFANT IS A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE, [which confutes R. Johanan's opinion]! — No. I may still say that [the Mishnah] means that she gave birth from an Israelite who had no children, and it has to inform us that the infant is not a first-born to be released by redemption, to exclude the ruling of R. Jose the Galilean who said: THE INFANT IS BOTH A FIRST-BORN WITH RESPECT TO INHERITANCE AND ALSO ONE WHO MUST BE REDEEMED FROM A PRIEST, BECAUSE IT IS SAID IN THE SCRIPTURES: OPENETH THE WOMB AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [IMPLYING] UNTIL THE OPENING OF THE WOMB IS OF [THE CHILDREN OF] ISRAEL. [The Mishnah] therefore informs us that it is not so. Come and hear: If he had children when he was a heathen and he became a proselyte, the infant has the status of a first-born [with respect] to inheritance? — Said Rabina, or, as some say, R. Aha b. Raba: This is certainly the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean, who holds: [Scripture says] ‘WHOSOEVER OPENETH THE WOMB, UNTIL THE OPENING OF THE WOMB IS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, and we infer the case of the husband from that of the woman. R. Adda b. Ahabah said: If a Levite's daughter gave birth, her son is not subject to the law of redemption [from a priest] with five sela's. Now from whom did she conceive? Shall I say that she conceived from a priest or a Levite? Why then mention a Levite's daughter, since this is the case even with an Israelite's daughter? Again you should say that she conceived from an Israelite. But is it not written: After their families, by house of their fathers? — Said R. Papa: The case here then is where she conceived from a gentile. And you should not say that this holds good only for him who maintains that the child is not rejected [as the child of a gentile]; but even according to him who holds that the child is rejected, the son of a Levite's daughter is exempted, for it is called an unfit Levite. Mar son of R. Joseph reported in the name of Raba: I may say still [that the Levite's daughter] conceived from an Israelite, and the case is different there [with reference to redemption from a priest], as Scripture says: ‘Whatsoever openeth the womb’: the Law makes it depend on the opening of the womb. We have learnt: IF ONE HAD CHILDREN ALREADY AND MARRIED A WOMAN WHO HAD NEVER GIVEN BIRTH PREVIOUSLY, OR IF SHE BECAME A PROSELYTE WHEN PREGNANT OR WAS FREED WHEN PREGNANT AND SHE GAVE BIRTH, OR [IF CONFUSION AROSE BETWEEN] HER AND A PRIESTESS, BETWEEN HER AND A LEVITE'S DAUGHTER, BETWEEN HER AND A WOMAN WHO HAD ALREADY GIVEN BIRTH; AND LIKEWISE IF A WOMAN WHO DID NOT WAIT THREE MONTHS AFTER HER HUSBAND'S DEATH MARRIED AND GAVE BIRTH AND IT IS NOT KNOWN IF THE INFANT WAS BORN IN THE NINTH MONTH AFTER THE DEATH OF THE FIRST HUSBAND OR IN THE SEVENTH MONTH SINCE SHE MARRIED THE SECOND, THE CHILD IS A FIRST-BORN TO BE REDEEMED BY A PRIEST BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE. We infer from this that the priestess and the Levite's daughter are not subject to the law of redemption. Now from whom did she conceive? Shall I say that she conceived from a priest or a Levite? Why mention [in the Mishnah] the cases of a priestess and a Levite's daughter, since the case is the same with a daughter of an Israelite? Again you should say that she conceived from a gentile. But is a priestess [in such circumstances] exempt [from redeeming her son]? Has not R. Papa said: Raba examined us [in laws] as follows: ‘If a priestess conceived from a gentile, what is the ruling’? And I answered him: ‘Is this not analogous to the ruling of R. Adda b. Ahaba Who said: If a Levite's daughter gave birth, her son is not subject to the law of redemption with five sela's’? And he said to me: But is the analogy correct? This is no difficulty as regards the case of a Levite's daughter, for she retains her sacred status. For it has been taught: If a Levite's daughter was made a captive or if she had intercourse of a licentious character, we nevertheless give her of the tithe and she may eat. But in the case of a priestess, as soon as she has intercourse with a gentile, she becomes a ‘stranger’? This might be right according to Mar son of R. Joseph who said that the Levite's daughter conceived from an Israelite; we can then explain that the Mishnah also refers to a case where the priestess conceived from an Israelite. But according to R. Papa, how will you explain the Mishnah? — I may still say that she conceived from a priest, she herself however being a daughter of an Israelite and the reason why [the Mishnah] describes her as a priestess is because her son is a priest. 35
—