Bekhorot 47aבכורות מ״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bekhorot 47a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
47aמ״ז א
1 א

יכיר לחוד והכרת פנים לחוד

The requirement of “He shall recognize” with regard to a firstborn for inheritance, and the recognition of a husband’s face, are discrete matters.

2 ב

איתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר רבי יוחנן אומר אין לו בכור לנחלה ור"ש בן לקיש אומר יש לו בכור לנחלה רבי יוחנן אומר אין לו בכור לנחלה דהא הוה ליה ראשית אונו ור"ש בן לקיש אומר יש לו בכור לנחלה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי

§ It was stated that amora’im engaged in a dispute concerning the case of a man who had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted: Rabbi Yoḥanan says he does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, i.e., a son who is his firstborn after his conversion does not inherit a double portion; and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as this man already had “the first of his strength” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Torah’s description of the firstborn in this context, before he converted. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as the halakhic status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born.

3 ג

ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר ר' יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה ור"ש בן לקיש אמר לא קיים ר' יוחנן אמר קיים (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה ור"ש בן לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי

The Gemara comments: And these amora’im follow their regular line of reasoning, as it was stated: If a man had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yoḥanan says he has fulfilled the aspect of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply expressed in the command: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18), i.e., to increase the inhabitation of the world. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, as the halakhic status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and it is considered as though he did not have children.

4 ד

וצריכא דאי איתמר בהא קמייתא בהא קאמר רשב"ל משום דבהיותו עובד כוכבים לאו בני נחלה נינהו אבל בהא אימא מודה ליה לרבי יוחנן דלא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה והא עבד ליה שבת

The Gemara adds: And it is necessary to state their opinions in both cases. As, if it were stated only in that first case with regard to inheritance, perhaps it is only in that case that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says his opinion that the first son born after conversion inherits a double portion, because in their gentile state they are not subject to the halakhot of inheritance. But with regard to that case, the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, say he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥanan that since the verse states: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited,” and he has indeed performed an action that enables the world to be further inhabited, he has therefore fulfilled the mitzva.

5 ה

ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי יוחנן אבל בהא אימא מודה ליה לר"ש בן לקיש צריכא

And conversely, if their dispute were stated only with regard to this mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, perhaps it is only in this case that Rabbi Yoḥanan says his opinion, due to the verse: “He formed it to be inhabited.” But with regard to that case of inheritance, say he concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that sons born when one was a gentile are disregarded. Consequently, it is necessary to teach their opinions in both disputes.

6 ו

תנן מי שלא היו לו בנים ונשא אשה שכבר ילדה עודה שפחה ונשתחררה עודה עובדת כוכבים ונתגיירה ומשבאתה לישראל ילדה ולדה בכור לנחלה ואינו בכור לכהן

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: We learned in the mishna: One who did not have sons and he married a woman who had already given birth; or if he married a woman who gave birth when she was still a Canaanite maidservant and she was then emancipated; or one who gave birth when she was still a gentile and she then converted, and when the maidservant or the gentile came to join the Jewish people she gave birth to a male, that offspring is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.

7 ז

ילדה ממאן אילימא מישראל שלא היו לו בנים מאי איריא גיורת ושפחה אפילו בת ישראל נמי

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: This maidservant or convert, whose child that was born when she came to join the Jewish people is a firstborn for inheritance, from whom, i.e., from what type of father, did she bear him? If we say she bore him from a Jew who did not previously have sons, the initial subject of this clause of the mishna, why does it make reference specifically to a gentile or a maidservant, indicating that this son is a firstborn for inheritance because the ones born when she was not Jewish are disregarded? The halakha would be the same even with regard to a Jewish woman who had already given birth.

8 ח

אלא לאו מגר שהיו לו בנים ונתגייר וקתני בכור לנחלה

Rather, is the mishna not referring to two distinct cases? The first concerns a man who already had children before converting, and then marries a Jew who has already given birth to children, while the second involves a woman who had children when she was a maidservant or a gentile, and when she became Jewish she bore a child from one like her, a convert who had sons when he was a gentile and then converted. And the mishna teaches that this son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance, which apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

9 ט

לא לעולם מישראל שלא היו לו בנים ואינו בכור לכהן איצטריכא ליה

The Gemara answers: No; actually, her child was born from a Jew who did not have sons, and the reason the mishna makes reference specifically to a gentile or a maidservant is not due to the case of inheritance. Rather, it was necessary for the clause: But is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.

10 י

לאפוקי מדרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר בכור לנחלה ולכהן שנאמר (שמות יג, יב) פטר רחם בישראל עד שיפטרו רחם מישראל קמ"ל דלא

This statement serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: That son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest, as it is stated: “Whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel” (Exodus 13:2), i.e., one is not considered a firstborn unless he opens the womb of a woman from the Jewish people, and therefore the children that she bore before she converted are not considered to have opened her womb. Therefore, the first tanna of the mishna teaches us that he is not a firstborn with regard to redemption, as his mother’s womb was already opened when she was a gentile.

11 יא

ת"ש היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר יש לו בכור לנחלה אמר רבינא ואיתימא רב אחא הא ודאי רבי יוסי הגלילי הוא דאמר פטר רחם בישראל עד שיפטרו רחם מישראל ויליף איהו מינה דידה

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof against Rabbi Yoḥanan from a baraita: If a man had sons when he was a gentile and he converted, and then fathered more sons, he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Ravina says, and some say it is Rav Aḥa who says: This ruling is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that the phrase in the verse “whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel” means it is not a firstborn unless it opens the womb of a woman from the Jewish people. And he derives his halakha, that of a gentile who converted, from her halakha, that of a female convert, that one does not take into account the children born before they converted. Rabbi Yoḥanan may hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

12 יב

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה לוייה שילדה בנה פטור מה' סלעים דאיעבר ממאן אילימא דאיעבר מכהן ומלוי מאי איריא לוייה אפילו ישראלית נמי

§ Rav Adda bar Ahava says: With regard to the daughter of a Levite who gave birth to a firstborn boy, her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela coins to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered to be the son of a Levite and Levites are exempt from this obligation. The Gemara asks: From whom did she become pregnant? If we say that she became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, why does Rav Adda bar Ahava refer specifically to the daughter of a Levite? The halakha would be the same even for an Israelite woman who became pregnant from a priest or a Levite.

13 יג

אלא דאיעבר מישראל (במדבר א, ב) למשפחותם לבית אבותם כתיב

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava must be referring to a case where the daughter of a Levite became pregnant from an Israelite. But if so, why is the son’s status determined by his mother’s status in this instance? After all, it is written: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses” (Numbers 1:2), which indicates that the lineage of a Jewish family follows the father rather than the mother.

14 יד

אמר רב פפא דאיעבר מעובד כוכבים ולא תימא אליבא דמאן דאמר אין מזהמין את הולד אלא אפילו למאן דאמר מזהמין את הולד לוי פסול מיקרי

Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the daughter of a Levite who became pregnant from a gentile. In such a case, the son’s status is determined by that of the mother, and therefore the son is exempt from the redemption of the firstborn. And do not say this is the halakha only according to the one who says that in such a situation one does not disqualify the child at all due to his gentile father, and he is of fit lineage. Rather, even according to the one who says that one does disqualify the child due to the gentile father, nevertheless, one also follows the mother and he is therefore called a Levite of flawed lineage, and is exempt from redemption.

15 טו

מר בריה דרב יוסף אמר משמיה דרבא לעולם דאיעבר מישראל ושאני התם דאמר קרא פטר רחם בפטר רחם תלא רחמנא

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says a different explanation, in the name of Rava: Actually, Rav Adda bar Ahava is referring to a case where the daughter of a Levite became pregnant from an Israelite. And although the son’s status is usually determined by that of the father, there, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, it is different, as the verse states: “Whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel” (Exodus 13:2). This teaches that the Merciful One renders the obligation dependent upon the opening of the womb, and since this firstborn came from the womb of a daughter of a Levite, and not a Levite, the obligation of redemption does not apply.

16 טז

תנן מי שהיו לו בנים ונשא אשה שלא ילדה נתגיירה מעוברת נשתחררה מעוברת

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rav Pappa: We learned in the mishna: One who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth; or a woman who converted while she was pregnant, or a Canaanite maidservant who was emancipated while she was pregnant and she gave birth to a son, he is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

17 יז

וילדה היא וכהנת היא ולויה היא ואשה שכבר ילדה וכן מי שלא שהתה אחרי בעלה ג' חדשים ונשאת וילדה ואין ידוע אם בן ט' לראשון אם בן ז' לאחרון בכור לכהן ואינו בכור לנחלה

And likewise, if an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a priest, neither of whom had given birth yet, or an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a Levite, or an Israelite woman and a woman who had already given birth, gave birth, and it is uncertain which son was born to which mother; and likewise a woman who did not wait three months after the death of her husband and she married and gave birth, and it is unknown whether the child was born after nine months and is the son of the first husband, or whether he was born after seven months and is the son of the latter husband, in all these cases the child is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

18 יח

מכלל דכהונה ולויה פטורין דאיעבר ממאן אילימא דאיעבר מכהן ולוי אי הכי מאי איריא כהנת ולויה אפי' בת ישראל נמי

The Gemara explains the difficulty: From the ruling in the case of one whose child became confused with that of a daughter of a priest or a Levite, by inference one can derive that the daughter of a priest and the daughter of a Levite are exempt from redemption.Now, from whom did she become pregnant? If we say that she became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, if so, why specifically mention the daughter of a priest and the daughter of a Levite? The same halakha would apply even in the case of an Israelite woman who became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, as the son is exempt from redemption because he is also a priest or a Levite.

19 יט

אלא דאיעבר מעובד כוכבים כהנת פטורה והאמר רב פפא בדיק לן רבה כהנת שנתעברה מעובד כוכבים מהו ואמינא ליה לאו היינו דרב אדא בר אהבה דאמר לויה שילדה בנה פטור מחמש סלעים

Rather, if the case is where the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite became pregnant from a gentile, then is the son of the daughter of a priest exempt? But didn’t Rav Pappa say: Rabba tested us on the following matter: With regard to the daughter of a priest who became pregnant from a gentile, what is the halakha? And we said to him: Isn’t this the case discussed by Rav Adda bar Ahava, who says: With regard to the daughter of a Levite who gave birth to a firstborn boy, her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela coins? This ruling was interpreted as referring to one who became pregnant from a gentile.

20 כ

ואמר לי הכי השתא בשלמא לויה בקדושתה קיימא דתניא לויה שנשבית או שנבעלה בעילת זנות נותנין לה מן המעשר ואוכלת

Rav Pappa continues: And Rabba said to me: How can these cases be compared? Granted, if the daughter of a Levite has a child from a gentile, he is considered a Levite with regard to redemption since his mother retains her sanctity. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Levite woman who was captured, leading to a concern that one of her captors might have engaged in sexual intercourse with her, or even if a Levite woman definitely engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, one nevertheless gives her first tithe and she may eat it.

21 כא

אלא כהנת כיון דאי בעיל לה הויא זרה

But with regard to the daughter of a priest, since if a gentile engages in intercourse with her she becomes like a non-priest and may no longer partake of teruma, her son from a gentile should be considered like an Israelite and be obligated in the redemption of a firstborn. If so, in what case does the mishna exempt the son of a daughter of a priest or a daughter of a Levite from redemption?

22 כב

הניחא למר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא דאמר דאיעבר מישראל מוקי לה בדאיעבר מישראל אלא לרב פפא במאי מוקי לה

The Gemara notes: This works out well according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, citing in the name of Rava, who says that Rav Adda bar Ahava, who deems the son of a Levite woman exempt from the obligation of redemption, was referring to a case where she became pregnant from an Israelite. This is because he can interpret the mishna as referring to the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite who became pregnant from an Israelite. But according to the opinion of Rav Pappa, who maintains that the son of a priest’s or Levite’s daughter who became pregnant from an Israelite is subject to the obligation of redemption from a priest, with regard to what case does he interpret the mishna?

23 כג

לעולם דאיעבר מכהן והיא בת ישראל ואמאי קרי לה כהנת דבנה כהן

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is not referring to the daughter of a priest but to a woman who became pregnant from a priest. Therefore, her son is exempt from redemption, and yet she herself is an Israelite woman. And why does the mishna call her the daughter of a priest [kohenet]? Because her son is a priest.