Bekhorot

GEMARA. Said Samuel: [The putting forth of] the head of an untimely birth does not release [the offspring which follows from redemption from a priest].1 What is the reason? [Scripture says]: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life,2 [intimating] that wherever there is the breath of life in the nostrils, the head is of importance. [exempting the successor from redemption]3 but otherwise, the head is not considered of importance. We have learnt: ONE WHO FOLLOWS AN UNTIMELY BIRTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH ALIVE OR ONE BORN IN THE NINTH MONTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH DEAD. At all events the Mishnah says: ‘WHOSE HEAD’?4 — ‘WHOSE HEAD means its greater part.5 Why then not say its greater part? — By rights [the Tanna of our Mishnah] should have stated ‘its greater part’. But as he had to state in the second clause OR ONE BORN IN THE NINTH MONTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH DEAD,6 and he wishes to argue that the reason is because its head was dead but that if its head was alive, the one who follows is not even a first-born [with the privileges] of inheritance,7 he therefore also states in the first clause ‘WHOSE HEAD’. Now what then does the Mishnah inform us? That since he put forth his head it is considered a birth.8 But have we not learnt this already: If the embryo put forth its head, although he withdrew it again, it is considered a birth?9 And should you reply that [the Tanna] teaches us this ruling10 [separately] both for the case of an animal11 and for that of a human being,12 because we do not infer the case of a human being from that of an animal, as the latter has no forepart of female genitals,13 and again we do not infer the case of an animal from that of a human being, as the latter's full face is important — have we not learnt this too14 in a Mishnah: If an infant came forth in the natural way,15 [it is not considered a birth] till the greater part of its head comes forth? And what is the greater part of its head? When its forehead comes forth.16 Shall we then say that this confutes Samuel? — It is indeed a refutation.17 Said R. Simeon b. Lakish: The [emergence of] forehead is regarded as birth18 in all cases except in that of inheritance.19 What is the reason? — But he shall acknowledge the first-born,20 says the Divine Law. But R. Johanan says: Even as regards inheritance.21 What does ‘in all cases’ imply? — It implies what our Rabbis have taught [as follows]: In the case of a proselyte woman, if the forehead of her infant came forth from the womb when she was a heathen and she subsequently became a proselyte,22 we do not subject her to periods of impurity and purity23 and she does not bring the offering for confinement. An objection was raised. [Scripture says]: But he shall acknowledge, [this intimates] the recognition of the face.24 And what is a recognizable face? The full face with the nose!25 — Read: ‘Unto the nose’. Come and hear: Evidence may not be given [in identification of a corpse]26 save by [proof afforded by] the face with the nose,27 Read: Unto the nose. Come and hear: No evidence may be given [by identification of] the forehead without the face or the face without the forehead; it must be by both together with the nose. And Abaye said, or as some say, R. Kahana: Where is the scriptural authority for this? [Scripture says]: The show of their countenance’ doth witness against them.28 It is different with regard to testimony on behalf of a woman,29 as the Rabbis made the law stringent in her case.30 But have the Rabbis indeed made it stringent? Have we not learnt: If they were generally presumed established to permit a woman to re-marry on the evidence of a witness testifying to what he heard from an eye-witness, or from a woman, from a slave or a bondwoman?31 — The Rabbis were only lenient in the end32 but were not lenient in the beginning.33 And if you prefer [another solution] I may say: coming forth, the latter is a firstborn to be redeemed from the priest, because a non-viable birth does not exempt its successor from redemption until the head and the greater part of the body came forth. i.e. a viable birth, then go after its uhpt i.e., its head (uhpt having also the meaning of face, Jast.), regarding the head of importance. but if it is a non-viable birth its head is of no importance for exempting its successor from redemption. contradicting the opinion of Samuel. inferred that if the greater part came forth alive then the latter offspring would not even be a first-born in respect of inheritance, but I could not have deduced that where the head came forth alive the latter offspring loses the privilege of inheritance, which is a well-established rule. It is therefore for this reason that both in the first and second clauses mention is only made of the head, although in the second clause itself the ‘head’ means the head together with the greater part of the body. which follows from redemption, in the second clause it mentions the head on account of the first clause. But if you maintain that the mention of the head in the first clause is not strictly meant, since the head does not release from redemption in the case of non-viable births, then from the second clause we are enabled to make the following inference: The reason why it is not a first-born of inheritance is because its head came forth dead, but if the head came forth alive the successor is not a first-born as regards inheritance, for since an embryo in the ninth month is not an untimely birth, the emergence of the head, even if it is again withdrawn, is considered a genuine birth. a birth, for it is open, whereas in the case of a woman, since the legs cover it, the putting forth of the head is not accounted a birth. impure days from the first day when the forehead came forth (Nid. 28a). Therefore there is no need even in the second clause of the Mishnah to teach us that the putting forth of the head in a human being constitutes a birth, as this is already stated in the Mishnah in Niddah. Why then does the first clause in our Mishnah say ‘its head’? Therefore it must not be on account of the second clause, and the reference to the head in the first clause is meant to be taken exactly. Therefore we can deduce from this clause that the emergence of the head of a non-viable birth is considered a birth, exempting the offspring which follows from redemption, contrary to the opinion of Samuel (R. Gershom). forth (Rashi). . impure. The reason is because the putting forth of the forehead is regarded as a birth and therefore she was confined when she was a heathen, in which state she is not subject to the laws of confinement. Tosaf. observes that R. Simeon b. Lakish needed to inform us that he agrees with the Baraitha. For you might have thought that although the putting forth of the head is regarded as a birth, the coming forth of the rest of the body, when the mother is already a proselyte, should also be regarded as a birth and therefore she should be subject to the laws of confinement. alone is not regarded as a birth. is again a difficulty here as regards R. Johanan's opinion. be sufficient. the evidence to that effect.