Bekhorot

It was stated: If a priest dies and leaves a son who is a halal1 R. Hisda said: The son is obliged to redeem himself;2 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],3 all agree that the son is not obliged to redeem himself, for his father has acquired possession of his redemption [money].4 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.5 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’.6 We have learnt: OR IF SHE BECAME A PROSELYTE WHEN PREGNANT,7 [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’!8 The case of a heathen is different, because he has no legal relationship. 9 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 one10 and they can reject [his claim]11 and let him go to the sons of the other and they too can reject his claim?12 — Said R. Jeremiah: It would not have been necessary [for the Mishnah] to mention this13 except for the case of the one who follows him,14 the meaning being as follows: He is a first-born to be redeemed from a priest15 and the one who follows him is not a first-born for inheritance.16 But let [both the doubtful son and the one who follows him] write out the power of attorney to one another?17 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,18 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.19 MISHNAH. WHICH IS A FIRST-BORN BOTH [IN RESPECT] OF INHERITANCE20 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 LOCUSTS21 OR REPTILES, OR CREEPING THINGS, OR IF SHE DISCHARGES ON THE FORTIETH DAY [OF CONCEPTION],22 [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 SECTION23 NOR THE INFANT WHICH FOLLOWS24 IS EITHER A FIRST-BORN FOR INHERITANCE OR A FIRST-BORN TO BE REDEEMED FROM A PRIEST. R. SIMEON HOWEVER SAYS: THE FIRST25 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.26 It is also not a first-born [as regards redemption] with five sela's because the condition required [by Scripture] is: Openeth the womb.27 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,28 when he said: [Scripture says], But if she bear,29 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.30 [ from a month (Num. XVIII, 16). his father acquired the redemption money he leaves it to his son, together with his other estate. son might inherit it. 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’. a newly-born child, and therefore it is not a case of claiming on his behalf. imply that he at least receives his share as an ordinary son, even if not as a first-born? 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. by himself. who follows is not the first-born. 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. 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’. 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. them the expression ‘he formed’ rmhh , as it does in connection with man. more than forty days to form. XXI, 15). 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. 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.