בכורות 47:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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. [^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘profane’. One unfit for the priesthood on account of his father's illegitimate connection.
^ᵇnote:Because he is on a par with an Israelite and is therefore subject to the law of the first-born.
^ᶜnote:The period from which redemption of a first-born takes place, Scripture saying: And those that are to be redeemed from a month (Num. XVIII, 16).
^ᵈnote:For even if the father had set aside the five sela's, being a priest he could have taken them for himself. Since therefore his father acquired the redemption money he leaves it to his son, together with his other estate.
^ᵉnote:For since he died before the redemption was due, his father did not acquire the redemption money at all so that the son might inherit it.
^ᶠnote:‘Because if my father were alive, you could not claim the five sela's. For if he died within the thirty days of my birth, there is no obligation to redeem, and if after the thirty days, then my father acquired possession of the redemption money, seeing that he was a priest himself and I have inherited it. Consequently coming in his place. I claim exemption’.
^ᵍnote:And she had never born children previously.
^ʰnote:Since a gentile is not subject to the law of the first-born.
^ⁱnote:As far as the first-born is concerned the heathen father has no legal relationship, because a proselyte is considered as a newly-born child, and therefore it is not a case of claiming on his behalf.
^ʲnote:E.g., of the first husband.
^ᵏnote:Maintaining that he is a son of the second husband.
^ˡnote:The children of the second husband can assert that he was the son of the first. Why therefore does the Mishnah imply that he at least receives his share as an ordinary son, even if not as a first-born?
^ᵐnote:That he is not a first-born for inheritance.
^ⁿnote:The son concerning whom there is a doubt whether he was born in the ninth month of the first husband or in the seventh month of the second husband does not even receive the portion of an ordinary son, for each of the sons on both sides can reject his claim. The Mishnah here however refers to the son who follows the doubtful one.
^ᵒnote:The doubtful son in any case has opened the womb and is therefore a first-born in this respect, to be redeemed later by himself.
^ᵖnote:Because his other brothers can say to him that the doubtful son was the son of their father and that therefore the one who follows is not the first-born.
^ᵠnote:Concerning the share of each so that the doubtful son can claim the first-born's share in either case, as follows: ‘If I am a first-born then give it to me for my own sake, and if my brother is a first-born, then give it to me for my brother's sake’, because one of the two must be a first-born.
^ʳnote:When they all come to inherit, each can reject the claim of the other, maintaining that he is not his brother. They therefore write out a power of attorney to each other, and approach the inheritors of the two fathers and say to each of them: ‘If I am your brother, give me my share, and if this one is your brother, give me his share’.
^ˢnote:And the Mishnah here also refers to a case where the children who became mixed were never originally identified as to who was the first-born, so that no-one acquired any claim on the estate as a first-born. This therefore confirms the opinion of R. Jannai, v. B.B. 127a.
^ᵗnote:Receiving a double share of the estate.
^ᵘnote:Because fish and locusts are not regarded as offspring because Scripture in Genesis does not use in connection with them the expression ‘he formed’ rmhh , as it does in connection with man.
^ᵛnote:Because until the morrow of the fortieth day of conception the foetus is considered as mere water, an embryo taking more than forty days to form.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘one who is brought out from the side’ (of his mother).
^ˣnote:By way of the womb.
^ʸnote:The foetus extracted by means of the caesarean section.
^ᶻnote:Implying that in the case of inheritance the offspring must be born in the normal way, by way of the womb (Deut. XXI, 15).
^ᵃᵃnote:Ex. XIII, 2.
^ᵃᵇnote:In Nid. 40a where it says that one born by means of the caesarean section is regarded as a genuine birth, for which the mother must observe the pure and impure periods of confinement. Therefore when it says: And they have borne etc., a caesarean birth is also regarded as a genuine birth, this being inferred from the former case.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. XII, 5.
^ᵃᵈnote:As for example here, the second offspring is only the first-born of the womb and is yet considered a legal first-born, whereas the first offspring, although it is the first of the males and the offspring, is nevertheless not considered a genuine first-born, as a primary condition is absent, i.e., that of being the first to open the womb, Scripture making a legal first-born depend on the opening of the womb.