Bekhorot 47a — the Talmud in English

And if you wish, say: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

“Recognize”

separately, and “recognition of the face”

separately.

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

It was stated:

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

and in his conversion he fathered two sons or more:

Rabbi Yohanan says:

He has no firstborn with regard to inheritance,

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

And we explain their reasons:

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

because

there already was for him

already

“the first of his vigor,”

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

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

because

a convert who converted is considered like a child just born

—the first one born to him will be the firstborn—

so it is considered.

And Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish proceeded

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish

according to their positions

[according to their positions], for they disputed something similar with regard to fulfilling the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying:

For it was stated:

If he had sons while he was a gentile, and he 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]: “He forms the earth and makes it; He establishes it;

not

[so that the earth should be]

a waste—

He created it

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

He formed it to be inhabited,”

and behold, the earth is inhabited through him.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He did not fulfill

the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying, because

a convert who converted is considered like a child just born.

And it is necessary,

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish needed to dispute in these two laws:

Because

if it was stated in the first one,

if they had disputed only in their first dispute, namely, with regard to a firstborn with respect to inheritance, then I would have said:

in this

it is that

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says

that because a convert who converted is considered like a child just born, the one born after him is a firstborn,

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

but in this I would say he agrees with Rabbi Yohanan, for “

He did not create it as a waste; He formed it to be inhabited”

and he made inhabitedness for him.

And if it was stated

only

in this

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

in this

it is that

Rabbi Yohanan says

that we do not say that a convert who converted is considered like a child just born, because he already made inhabitedness for him,

but in this

with regard to a firstborn with respect to inheritance

I would say he agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that we say: a convert who converted is considered like a child just born—

Therefore

it is necessary

that their dispute concern both matters.

And we raise an objection against Rabbi Yohanan from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

One who did not have sons and married a woman who had already given birth—

or she gave birth while

she was still a maidservant and was freed—or she gave birth while

she was still

a gentile and converted, and after she entered into Israelite status she gave birth,

behold, the son is

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

And the Gemara thought that it was with regard to a firstborn concerning inheritance that the Mishna was precise in saying that she gave birth while she was a maidservant or a gentile, as it proceeds to explain.

But

she gave birth from whom

from whom did she conceive after her release or after her conversion?

If you say, from

that

Israelite who did not have sons

mentioned in the Mishna—

If so, there is a difficulty:

Why specifically a female convert and a maidservant,

why did the tan­ nay say that since her previous birth took place while she was a maidservant or a gentile, the son now born from one who has no sons is a firstborn with regard to inheritance, when

even an Israelite woman as well,

even if she had given birth while she was an Israelite woman, the son born from one who has no sons would be his firstborn with regard to inheritance, for we follow not the mother but the father?!

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

a firstborn with regard to inheritance.”

That is, necessarily the intention of the Mishna is: One who did not have 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 from a gentile woman, and then both of them converted and she gave birth again, this son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance. And because a convert who converted is considered like a child just born, it is explicit that this accords with Reish Lakish, and there is a difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan!?

And we answer:

No,

not as you explained, that the latter clause deals with one who impregnated her while she was a maidservant or a gentile, and teaches us that the son born after him is a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Rather:

In fact, she gave birth after her conversion from an Israelite who did not have sons,

and the Mishna did not state this case—that she gave birth while she was a gentile or a maidservant—in order to provide a reason why the one born after him is a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Rather, “

but is not a firstborn for the priest”

it is that

was necessary for it

to teach us. That is, the tan­ nay stated this case to teach us that even so, the one born after him is not the one who opens his mother’s womb, and

to exclude the position of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who says

later in the Mishna that he is

a firstborn with regard to inheritance and for the priest,

because

it is stated “

who opens the womb

in Israel,”

until a womb is opened from an Israelite woman—

And therefore

it teaches us

the first tanna

that it is not so,

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 is not according to Rabbi Yohanan, for it was taught:

If he had sons while he was a gentile, and he converted, he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance,

it is explicitly in accordance with Reish Lakish, for we say that a convert who converted is considered like a child just born!?

He said

he answered,

Ravina, and some say

[there are those who say]

Rav Aḥa son of Rava

is the one who answered:

This

beraita

is certainly Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who says:

since it is written “

who opens the womb in Israel,”

until a womb is opened from an Israelite woman,

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

and he derives his own case from hers

[and Rabbi Yosei the Galilean equates his firstborn with her firstborn]. That is, Rabbi Yosei the Galilean holds that just as when the mother converted, the son born while she was a gentile is not considered a firstborn to release the womb, so too, a son born to a gentile is not considered a firstborn to his convert father, and the one born after him is a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

It was stated above, 4a: Priests and Levites themselves are exempt—from redeeming themselves when they are firstborn—by a kal va-chomer: If the sanctity of the Levites removed the sanctity of Israelites [the firstborn] in the wilderness [as explained in Numbers 3:45: “Take the Levites in place of every firstborn among the Israelites”], would it not remove their own?

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

A female Levite who gave birth,

behold,

her son is exempt from five sela,

and he proceeds to explain it.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

She conceived from whom

[from whom did this female Levite conceive]!?

If you say that she conceived from a priest or from a Levite,

this cannot be said, for

why specifically a female Levite—

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

even an Israelite woman as well

would have a son exempt, because he is a priest or a Levite on account of his father, as we said above, 4a: priests and Levites are exempt.

Rather, she conceived

the daughter of a Levite

from an Israelite,

but this too cannot be said, for if so, there is a difficulty: Why is her son truly exempt? For: “

According to their families, by their fathers’ houses”

is written!?

To teach that the son does not follow his mother to be a Levite and thereby be exempt himself, but follows his father—who is an Israelite—and is obligated in redemption.

He said

he explained,

Rav Pappa:

What are we dealing with here? With a case where

she conceived from a gentile,

who is not related to his father, since his mother is an Israelite; and since she is a female Levite, he is a Levite and is exempt from redemption.

And do not say,

and do not say that this law is stated only

according to the one who says

in Yevamot 45a:

the child born from a gentile who had intercourse with an Israelite woman is not stigmatized.

That is, when a gentile has intercourse with an Israelite woman, the child is fit and is not stigmatized like his gentile father, because we do not follow his father—

But even according to the one who says: “The child is stigmatized,”

that is, a gentile who has intercourse with a Jewish woman—the child is a Jewish mamzer, because we follow his gentile father, nevertheless

he is called an invalid Levite.

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said:

He explained

in the name of Rava: In fact,

it is in a case such as

that she conceived from a Jew that we say that the child is exempt. And as for what is difficult for you: “But ‘according to their families, according to their fathers’ is written”—do not raise this difficulty:

And there it is different,

with regard to redemption,

because the verse says

“the opener of the womb,”

and we learned:

The Merciful One made it dependent upon the opener of the womb,

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

And we raise an objection against Rav Pappa from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

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

or

she converted while pregnant,

or

she was emancipated while pregnant—

or

she gave birth and she was a daughter of a priest [whose son is exempt] at the same time, and the children became intermingled; or

she and a Levite woman gave birth [whose son is exempt]—

or

she and

a woman who had already given birth gave birth,

and the children became intermingled;

and likewise one who did not remain three months after her husband and married and gave birth, and it is not known whether he is a nine-month child of the first or a seven-month child of the latter—

In all these cases, the child is

a firstborn for a priest,

for there must necessarily be a firstborn here, although it is not known which one he is,

but he is not a firstborn for inheritance.

By implication,

we have learned that the child

of a daughter of a priest and of a Levite woman is exempt.

But

from whom did she conceive—from whom did the daughter of the priest or the Levite woman conceive?

If you say that she conceived from a priest or a Levite,

this cannot be said.

For if so,

why specifically a daughter of a priest and a Levite woman,

implying that they themselves are daughters of a priest or a Levite?

Even

a daughter of an Israelite as well

would have a child who is exempt, since “according to their families, according to their fathers” is written.

Rather,

you should explain it as

that she conceived from a gentile,

following the explanation of Rav Pappa in the words of Rav Adda bar Ahava. It follows that what exempts the children is that their mothers are daughters of a priest or Levite. This too cannot be said, for it is well with regard to a Levite woman that this can be explained, but

a daughter of a priest—

who committed adultery and conceived from a gentile—

is she

exempt!?

For Rav Pappa said: Rabbah tested us [

Rava (according to the version of the Rosh) tried and examined our reasoning]:

A daughter of a priest who conceived from a gentile—what is the law?

Is her son exempt from five sela?

And I said to him [and I answered him]:

Is this not the case of 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 this comparable? [is the case under discussion comparable to the proof]!?

Granted, a Levite woman,

who committed adultery and conceived from a gentile,

remains in her sanctity,

and her child is a Levite and is exempt. And this is because

it was taught: A Levite woman who was taken captive

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

or who had intercourse in an adulterous relationship,

which disqualifies a daughter of a priest from eating teruma,

they give her from the first tithe

given to Levites,

and she eats.

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

But a daughter of a priest—

and since

she was had intercourse with

a gentile,

she

became

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

But in the case of a priestly woman,

the situation is different.

Once she has had relations

with a gentile,

she becomes

a

non-priestly woman, as explained in Yevamot 68a: if a priest’s daughter has relations with a gentile, she is disqualified from teruma, as it is stated: “And a priest’s daughter, if she becomes the wife of a non-priest, 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

to explain the words of Rav Adda bar Ahava concerning a Levite woman who gave birth, in a case such as that she conceived from a Jew, and even so she exempts her son because the Merciful One made it dependent upon the opener of the womb—if so, he establishes it also with regard to our Mishna, that the daughter of a priest exempts by a case such as that she conceived from a Jew, for she still remains in her sanctity.

But according to Rav Pappa,

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

with what does he establish it,

the statement in our Mishna that the daughter of a priest exempts her son from redemption, when if she had intercourse with a gentile the sanctity of priesthood left her!?

in our Mishna as well: the priestly woman exempts her son

in

a case

And we answer:

In fact,

our Mishna—which exempts the son of the daughter of a priest from redemption—is dealing with a case such as

that she conceived from a priest, and

even if she is a daughter of an Israelite.

And as for what is difficult for you:

Why is she called “a daughter of a priest”? Say to you: it is because her son is a priest,

on account of his father.

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.