Bekhorot 47a (מז.) — the Talmud in English

Alternatively, if you wish, say:

“Recognize”

stands alone, and “recognition of the face”

stands alone.

That is, with regard to testimony concerning which it says “recognition of the face,” testimony including the nose is indeed required; but with regard to a firstborn, concerning whom it says only “recognize,” the forehead without the nose suffices.

It was stated:

If he had sons while he was a gentile and then converted,

and after his conversion fathered two or more sons:

Rabbi Yohanan says:

He has no firstborn with regard to inheritance,

because the son who was born while he was a gentile does not inherit him at all, whereas the one born after him is not a firstborn.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He has a firstborn with regard to inheritance,

and it is the first son born to him after he converted, even though his father had already fathered a son while he was a gentile.

And we explain their reasoning:

Rabbi Yohanan says: He has no firstborn with regard to inheritance,

because

he already had

a

“first fruit of his vigor,”

and that is the son born to him while he was a gentile, whereas the one born after his conversion is not the first fruit of his vigor.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He has a firstborn with regard to inheritance,

because

a gentile who converted is considered like a newborn—

so the first one born to him

is considered the firstborn.

And

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish

followed their respective principles

—they disputed a similar matter concerning fulfillment of the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying:

It was stated:

If he had sons while he was a gentile and then converted, Rabbi Yohanan says: He fulfilled the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying

through those sons.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He did not fulfill the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying.

Rabbi Yohanan said: He fulfilled

the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying, because it is stated [Isaiah 45:18]: “The Creator of the earth and its Maker, He established it;

not

[so that the earth would be]

desolate—

He created it

[the Holy One, blessed be He, but rather]

He formed it to be inhabited,”

and the earth is in fact inhabited through him.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He did not fulfill

the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying, because

a gentile who converted is considered like a newborn.

And it is necessary—

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish needed to dispute both of these laws:

Because

if it had been stated only with regard to the first case,

if they had disputed only their first matter, namely, with regard to a firstborn for inheritance, I would have said:

In this case

it is that

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says

that because a gentile who converted is considered like a newborn, the son born afterward is the firstborn,

because while he was a gentile they were not subject to the laws of inheritance—

but in this case, I might say that he agrees with Rabbi Yohanan, that “

He did not create it to be desolate; He formed it to be inhabited,”

and he established inhabitation for him.

And if it had been stated

only

in this case

[had they disputed only with regard to being fruitful and multiplying], I would have said:

In this case

it is that

Rabbi Yohanan says

that we do not say that a gentile who converted is considered like a newborn, because he had already established inhabitation for himself,

but in this case,

with regard to a firstborn for inheritance,

I might say that he agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that we say: A gentile who converted is considered like a newborn—

Therefore,

it is necessary

that they dispute both matters.

And we challenge Rabbi Yohanan from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

One who had no sons and married a woman who had already given birth—

or who gave birth while she was

still a maidservant and then was emancipated—or who gave birth while she was

still a

gentile and then converted, and after she entered the Jewish people gave birth,

the son is

a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn for the priest.

The Gemara thought that with regard to a firstborn for inheritance, the Mishna specifically mentioned that she gave birth while she was a maidservant or gentile, as it proceeds to explain.

But

to whom did she give birth—

who impregnated her after her emancipation or conversion?

If you say, from

that

Jew who had no sons,

mentioned in the Mishna—

If so, this is difficult:

Why specifically a convert and a maidservant?

Why did the tanna say that because her previous birth took place while she was a maidservant or gentile, the son now born to the man who had no sons is a firstborn for inheritance?

Even a Jewish woman as well—

even if she had given birth while she was a Jewish woman, the son born to a man who had no sons would be his firstborn for inheritance, since we follow the father rather than the mother!?

Rather, is it not from a convert who had sons and then converted, and it teaches “

a firstborn with regard to inheritance”?

That is, the Mishna must necessarily mean: One who had no sons and married a woman who had already given birth. Or even if he had sons, but fathered them while he was a slave or a gentile, from a maidservant or a gentile woman, and then both converted, and she gave birth again, this son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Since a gentile who converted is considered like a newborn, this is found to accord with Resh Lakish, and it is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan!?

And we answer:

No,

not as you explained—that the latter clause concerns the man who impregnated her while she was a maidservant or gentile, and teaches us that the son born afterward is a firstborn for inheritance. Rather:

In fact, she gave birth to the Jew who had no sons

after her conversion. The Mishna did not mention this circumstance—that she had given birth while she was a gentile or maidservant—to provide a reason why the one born afterward is a firstborn for inheritance. Rather,

“but is not a firstborn for the priest”

is what

was necessary for it

to teach us. That is, the tanna chose this circumstance to teach us that nevertheless the next son is not the one who opens his mother’s womb,

to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says

later in the Mishna that he is

a firstborn both for inheritance and for the priest,

because

it is stated: “

the one who opens the womb

among Israel,”

until a womb among Israel has been opened—

And therefore,

the tanna comes to teach us

the first tanna’s position,

that this is not so: even a womb that was opened while she was a gentile or maidservant no longer has a firstborn who opens the womb.

but even a womb that was opened while she was a gentile or a maidservant has no further first opening of the womb.

Come and hear

from a beraita that does not accord with Rabbi Yohanan, for it teaches:

If he had sons while he was a gentile and then converted, he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance—this is explicitly in accordance with Resh Lakish, who says that a gentile who converted is considered like a newborn!?

which is explicitly in accordance with Reish Lakish, who says that a convert who converted is considered like a newborn!?

He said—

Ravina answered,

and some say

that

Rav Aḥa son of Rava

answered:

This

beraita

is certainly Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says:

Since it is written, “

the one who opens the womb among Israel,”

until a womb among Israel has been opened,

and if she had a son while she was a gentile and then converted, the one born afterward is a firstborn for the priest—

and he derives his case from hers

[Rabbi Yosei HaGelili equates his firstborn with her firstborn]. That is, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that just as, if the mother converted, the son born while she was a gentile is not considered a firstborn who opens the womb, so too, a son born to a gentile is not considered a firstborn for his father who converted, and the one born afterward is a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

It was stated above, on 4a: Priests and Levites are themselves exempt—from redeeming themselves when they are firstborn—by means of a kal va-chomer: If the sanctity of the Levites removed the sanctity of the Israelites [the firstborn] in the wilderness, as is explained in Numbers 3:45: “Take the Levites instead of every firstborn among the children of Israel,” all the more so should it remove their own.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

A Levite woman who gave birth,

her

son is exempt from five sela,

and the Gemara proceeds to explain this statement.

And we challenge it:

By whom was she impregnated

[by whom was this Levite woman impregnated]!?

If you say she was impregnated by a priest or a Levite,

this cannot be said, for

why specifically a Levite woman—

that is, that she is the daughter of a Levite—when

even a Jewish woman as well

has a son who is exempt because he is a priest or Levite by virtue of his father, as we said above, on 4a: Priests and Levites are exempt.

Rather, she was impregnated—

the daughter of a Levite—

by a Jew.

This too cannot be said, for if so, why is her son actually exempt? After all: “

According to their families, by their fathers’ households”

is written!?

This teaches that the son does not follow his mother and become a Levite, thereby being exempt from redeeming himself; rather, he follows his father, who is an Israelite, and is obligated in redemption.

He said—

Rav Pappa

explained:

Here, with what case are we dealing? With a case in which

she was impregnated by a gentile,

who is not considered the child’s father, since his mother is Jewish. Since she is a Levite woman, he is a Levite and is exempt from redemption.

And do not say,

and do not say that this law applies only

according to the one who says

in Yevamot 45a:

The child born from a gentile who had intercourse with a Jewish woman is not stigmatized.

That is, the child is fit and is not stigmatized like his gentile father, because we do not follow his father—

Rather, even according to the one who says: The child is stigmatized.

That is, when a gentile has relations with a Jewish woman, the child is a Jewish mamzer, because we follow the gentile father, in any event

he is considered an invalid Levi.

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said:

He explained

in the name of Rava: In fact,

it is in a case such as

where she conceived from a Jew that we say that the child is exempt. And as for your difficulty—“But it is written: ‘According to their families, by their fathers’ houses’”—do not raise it:

The situation there is different:

But there is a difference there,

in the matter of redemption,

for the verse says

“the opener of the womb,”

and we learned from this:

the Merciful One made the law dependent on the opener of the womb;

and since he emerged from the womb of a Levite woman, he is exempt.

And we challenge Rav Pappa from the following, for

we learned

in our Mishna:

One who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth,

or

a pregnant convert,

or

a pregnant freedwoman—

or

she gave birth together with a kohenet [whose son is exempt],

and the children became mixed up; or she gave birth together with

a Levite woman

[whose son is exempt]—

or she gave birth together with

a woman who had already given birth,

and the children became mixed up;

and likewise, a woman who did not remain after her husband for three months, but married and gave birth, and it is unknown whether the child was a nine-month child belonging to the first husband or a seven-month child belonging to the second—

in all these cases, the child is

a firstborn for the kohen,

for there is certainly a firstborn here, although it is not known which child it is,

but is not a firstborn for inheritance.

By inference,

we have learned that a child

of a kohenet or a Levite woman is exempt.

But

from whom did she conceive—

from whom did the kohenet or the Levite woman conceive?

If you say that she conceived from a kohen or a Levi,

this cannot be said, for:

If so,

why specifically a kohenet or a Levite woman,

implying that they themselves are daughters of a kohen or a Levi?

Even

if the woman who gave birth had been

a Jewish woman as well,

her child would be exempt, since it is written: “According to their families, by their fathers’ houses.”

Rather,

say that the explanation is

that she conceived from a gentile,

following Rav Pappa’s explanation of the statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava, and it follows that what exempts the children is that their mothers were kohanot or Levite women. This too cannot be said, because although this explanation is possible with regard to a Levite woman,

a kohenet—

who committed adultery and conceived from a gentile—

is she exempt

from redemption!?

But Rav Pappa said: Rabbah tested us [

Rava (according to the version of the Rosh)

was attempting to test and examine our reasoning]:

A kohenet who conceived from a gentile—what is the law

as to whether her son is exempt from five sela?

And I said to him

[and I answered him]: Is it not

the very case addressed by Rav Adda bar Ahava, who said: A Levite woman who gave birth

—from a gentile, as Rav Pappa explained—

her son is exempt from five sela!?

And he said to me: Is that comparable

[is the case under discussion comparable to the proof]!?

Granted, in the case of a Levite woman,

who committed adultery and conceived from a gentile,

she retains her sanctity,

and her child is a Levi and is exempt. This is because

it was taught: If a Levite woman was taken captive

among the gentiles, and there is concern that she had intercourse,

or if she engaged in illicit intercourse

that disqualifies a kohenet from eating teruma,

they give her from the tithe

the first tithe that is given to Levites,

and she eats it.

Thus, she was not disqualified from being a Levite woman.

But in the case of a kohenet,

the issue is that

once she has had intercourse with him

with a gentile,

she becomes

a

non-kohenet, as explained in Yevamot 68a: if a kohen’s daughter has intercourse with a gentile, he disqualifies her from teruma, as it is stated: “And the daughter of a kohen, if she becomes the wife of a non-kohen, she shall not eat of the sacred offerings.” If so, how can she exempt her son from redemption!?

Granted, according to Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said

This works well according to Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said

that Rav Adda bar Ahava’s statement concerning a Levite woman who gave birth should be explained as referring to a case such as

where she conceived from a Jew.

Even so, she exempts her son, because the Merciful One made the law dependent on the opener of the womb. Accordingly,

he establishes it

in our Mishna as well, so that the kohenet exempts her son,

in

a case such as

where she conceived from a Jew,

so that she still retains her sanctity.

But according to Rav Pappa,

who holds that a Levite woman exempts her son only if she had intercourse with a gentile,

how does he establish it

with regard to what we learned in our Mishna—that a kohenet exempts her son from redemption—when, if she had intercourse with a gentile, the sanctity of her priesthood was removed from her!?

And we answer:

In fact,

our Mishna—which exempts the son of a priestly woman from redemption—is dealing with a case

where she conceived from a kohen and

even if

she is the daughter of a non-priestly Israelite.

And as for your difficulty:

Why is she called

a priestly woman?

We can answer: It is because

her son is a kohen,

by virtue of his father.