Bekhorot

on him and make it dependent on the wishes of the public.1 Said Amemar: The law is as follows: Even according to him who holds that an interdict by vow imposed on a person in public can be invalidated, a vow made dependent on the wishes of the public cannot be invalidated. But this is only the case with a vow made for a secular purpose, whereas if made for a religious purpose, it can be invalidated,2 a case in point being that of a teacher whom R. Aha prohibited by vow from teaching any longer because he maltreated the children, but whom Rabina reinstated, as there was not to be found one who taught so efficiently. AND ONE WHO MAKES HIMSELF UNCLEAN THROUGH THE DEAD etc. What is the difference between the case here, where merely an undertaking suffices and there [where a priest contracts an illegal marriage] that we impose a votary prohibition on him? — There [in the latter case] his passion overpowers him.3 MISHNAH. THERE IS ONE WHO IS [COUNTED AS] A FIRSTBORN [WITH RESPECT TO] INHERITANCE4 BUT NOT WITH RESPECT TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST;5 A FIRST-BORN WITH RESPECT TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE; A FIRSTBORN [WITH RESPECT BOTH] TO INHERITANCE AND TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST; AND [AS] A FIRST-BORN [IN RESPECT NEITHER] TO INHERITANCE NOR REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST. WHICH IS A FIRST-BORN [IN RESPECT] OF INHERITANCE BUT NOT OF REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST? ONE WHICH FOLLOWS AN UNTIMELY BIRTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH ALIVE6 OR ONE BORN IN THE NINTH MONTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH DEAD,7 OR WHEN A WOMAN DISCHARGES SOMETHING LIKE AN ANIMAL, BEAST OR BIRD.8 THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: [IT IS NOT CONSIDERED AN OPENING OF THE WOMB] UNTIL [THE DISCHARGE] HAS THE FORM OF A HUMAN BEING.9 IF [A WOMAN] DISCHARGES A SANDLE LIKE10 FOETUS OR A PLACENTA11 OR A FOETUS12 HAVING AN ARTICULATED SHAPE, OR IF AN EMBRYO CAME OUT BY PIECES,13 [THE INFANT] WHICH FOLLOWS AFTER THEM IS A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST. IF ONE WHO NEVER HAD CHILDREN PREVIOUSLY MARRIED A WOMAN WHO HAD ALREADY GIVEN BIRTH,14 EVEN IF SHE HAD GIVEN BIRTH WHEN SHE WAS A BONDWOMAN, BUT IS FREE [NOW], OR [HAD BORNE A CHILD] WHEN SHE WAS A HEATHEN BUT HAS SINCE BECOME A PROSELYTE IF AFTER COMING TO THE ISRAELITE SHE BEARS TO HIM, [THE INFANT] IS ALSO CONSIDERED A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST.15 R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS HOWEVER: [THE INFANT] IS 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,16 [INTIMATING] UNTIL THE OPENING OF THE WOMB IS ‘[OF THE CHILDREN] OF ISRAEL’.17 IF ONE HAD CHILDREN ALREADY AND MARRIED A WOMAN WHO HAD NEVER GIVEN BIRTH PREVIOUSLY OR IF SHE BECAME A PROSELYTE18 WHEN PREGNANT OR IF SHE WAS FREED WHEN PREGNANT AND SHE GAVE BIRTH; [IF THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION BETWEEN] HER AND A PRIESTESS,19 [BETWEEN] HER AND A LEVITE'S DAUGHTER,20 [BETWEEN] HER AND A WOMAN WHO HAD ALREADY GIVEN BIRTH;21 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 SINCE THE DEATH OF THE FIRST [HUSBAND] OR IN THE SEVENTH MONTH SINCE SHE MARRIED THE SECOND, IT IS A FIRST-BORN TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST22 BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE.23 course we assume wish him to observe his vow, (Rashi Git. 36a) so as to be free of the illegal union. Tosaf. explains that he must vow with obligation to at least three members of the public whose names must be specified, although they are not present. But if he vowed without explicitly mentioning the names of at least three of the public, then the vow is of no importance. forbidding any benefit to be derived from her. But where this consideration is absent, we rely on an undertaking given by him. withdrew it and its companion anticipated it in coming out, the latter child is considered a first-born with the privileges of inheritance, the former not having prejudiced it in this respect. For although the emergence of the head of an embryo is considered a genuine birth, yet since Scripture calls the first-born who inherits: The beginning of his strength (Deut. XXI, 17) which is interpreted to mean, a child over whose death his father's heart is grieved, and since the untimely birth cannot live, the condition of inheritance i.e., being a first-born over which a father grieves. does not exist. The latter offspring, however, is exempted from the redemption from a priest, for what matters here is the opening of the womb, and this was done by the first offspring. from redemption, but since it is dead, the latter offspring is the first-born as regards inheritance. importance as regards inheritance. of a human being is considered an opening of the womb exempting succeeding offspring from the law of redemption. alone came forth by pieces, this is not considered an opening of the womb if its companion came forth afterwards before the majority of the limbs and pieces managed to emerge, and the latter offspring is regarded also as a first-born to be redeemed from a priest. determined by the father, Scripture saying: ‘The beginning of his strength’, whereas for redemption it is the opening of the womb which is necessary. first-born to be released by redemption. as the Hebrew woman, the gentile woman and the maid-servant have already had children. redemption. The children therefore born when the woman was a gentile or a slave are not accounted as opening the womb. since the opening of the womb was of Israel, after the parents came under the influence of the law of Israel, but not as a first-born in respect of inheritance, since the conception of the infant was not in holiness and it is not therefore eligible for inheritance. mixed and it was not known which was the child of the Israelite. The offspring of a priest is exempt from the law of redemption. could not be identified, we are here informed that the husband of the woman who gave birth for the first time is yet obliged to give five sela's redemption money to the priest, for at all events he has a first-born male son somewhere, whereas in the case of inheritance as he does not know who is the first-born, there can therefore be no first-born privileges of inheritance.