Parallel
בכורות 47
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
—
It was stated: If a priest dies and leaves a son who is a halal R. Hisda said: The son is obliged to redeem himself; but Rabbah son of R. Huna said: The son is not obliged to redeem himself. ‘Wherever the father dies after thirty days [from the son's birth], all agree that the son is not obliged to redeem himself, for his father has acquired possession of his redemption [money]. The point at issue however is where the father dies within the thirty days. R. Hisda says: The son is obliged to redeem himself, since the father did not acquire possession of his redemption. But Rabbah son of R. Huna said: The son is not obliged to redeem himself, for he can say to the priest: ‘I come on the strength of a man with whom you cannot go to law’. We have learnt: OR IF SHE BECAME A PROSELYTE WHEN PREGNANT, [THE INFANT] IS A FIRST-BORN TO BE REDEEMED FROM A PRIEST. But why so? Why cannot [the son] say [to the priest who claims]: ‘I come on the strength of a man [a gentile] with whom you cannot go to law’! The case of a heathen is different, because he has no legal relationship. It has been stated: R. Simeon Yasinia reported in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: If a priest dies within thirty days [of the birth of his child] and leaves a son who is a halal, the son is obliged to redeem himself, for the father did not acquire possession of his redemption. If he dies, however, after thirty days [from the son's birth] the son is not obliged to redeem himself, for the father acquired possession of his redemption and the son inherited the redemption money. AND LIKEWISE A WOMAN WHO DID NOT WAIT THREE MONTHS AFTER HER HUSBAND'S DEATH etc. [The Mishnah says that] he is not a first-born inheritance, implying however that he takes his share as a plain son [i.e., a non first-born]. But why should this be so? Let him go to [the sons] of this one and they can reject [his claim] and let him go to the sons of the other and they too can reject his claim? — Said R. Jeremiah: It would not have been necessary [for the Mishnah] to mention this except for the case of the one who follows him, the meaning being as follows: He is a first-born to be redeemed from a priest and the one who follows him is not a first-born for inheritance. But let [both the doubtful son and the one who follows him] write out the power of attorney to one another? And should you say that the Mishnah [which says that he is not a first-born of inheritance] refers to a case where no power of attorney was given, is not [the Mishnah] explained later [in this chapter] as referring to a case where a power of attorney was written out, [thus proving that the power of attorney here does not help at all]? — [The Mishnah] supports the opinion of R. Jannai. For R. Jannai says: If the children [belonging to two women and two husbands] were identified in the beginning but in the end became mixed, they can write out a power of attorney to each other, but if they were not identified in the beginning and in the end became mixed, they cannot write out a power of attorney to each other. MISHNAH. WHICH IS A FIRST-BORN BOTH [IN RESPECT] OF INHERITANCE AND OF REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST? IF [A WOMAN] DISCHARGES A SAC FULL OF WATER OR FULL OF BLOOD OR AN ABORTION CONSISTING OF A BAG FULL OF MANY-COLOURED SUBSTANCE; IF [A WOMAN] DISCHARGES SOMETHING LIKE FISH OR LOCUSTS OR REPTILES, OR CREEPING THINGS, OR IF SHE DISCHARGES ON THE FORTIETH DAY [OF CONCEPTION], [THE INFANT] WHICH FOLLOWS AFTER [THESE DISCHARGES] IS A FIRST-BORN BOTH [IN RESPECT] OF INHERITANCE AND OF REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST. NEITHER A FOETUS EXTRACTED BY MEANS OF THE CAESAREAN SECTION NOR THE INFANT WHICH FOLLOWS IS EITHER A FIRST-BORN FOR INHERITANCE OR A FIRST-BORN TO BE REDEEMED FROM A PRIEST. R. SIMEON HOWEVER SAYS: THE FIRST IS A FIRST-BORN OF INHERITANCE AND THE SECOND IS A FIRST-BORN AS REGARDS THE REDEMPTION WITH FIVE SELA'S. GEMARA. The first is not a first-born of inheritance because the condition required by Scripture is: And they have borne him. It is also not a first-born [as regards redemption] with five sela's because the condition required [by Scripture] is: Openeth the womb. The second offspring is not a first-born of inheritance because the condition required [by Scripture] is: ‘The first-fruits of his strength’. He is also not a first-born as regards redemption with five sela's because [the Tanna in the Mishnah] holds: A firstborn in one respect only [i.e., as regards the womb alone] is not considered a [legal] first-born. R. SIMEON HOWEVER SAYS: THE FIRST IS A FIRST-BORN FOR INHERITANCE AND THE SECOND IS A FIRST-BORN AS REGARDS REDEMPTION WITH FIVE SELA'S. R. Simeon here follows his line of reasoning elsewhere, when he said: [Scripture says], But if she bear, intimating the inclusion of a foetus extracted by means of the caesarean section. And the second is a first-born as regards redemption with five sela's because he holds: A firstborn in one respect only is considered a [legal] first-born. [
—