047a - יש בכור פרק שמיני בכורות דף מז, ע"א

“He shall recognize” is one thing,^[1] and recognition of the face is another.

יכיר לחוד - For “face” is not written [in the verse], so the forehead is a recognition.

It was stated: If a man had sons while he was a gentile and then converted –

R' Yochanan says: He has no bechor for inheritance,

and R' Shimon ben Lakish says: He has a bechor for inheritance.

R' Yochanan says: He has no bechor for inheritance – for he already had “the first of his strength”;^[2]

and R' Shimon ben Lakish says: He has a bechor for inheritance – a convert is like a newborn child.^[3]

Gentiles are not heirs, to inherit their gentile father after they have converted, [as taught] in the first chapter of Kiddushin (17b).^[4]

And they follow their own reasoning, for it was stated: If a man had sons while he was a gentile and then converted –

R' Yochanan said: He has fulfilled [the mitzvah of] being fruitful and multiplying,^[5]

and R' Shimon ben Lakish said: He has not fulfilled it.

R' Yochanan said: He has fulfilled it – (Yeshayahu 45) “He did not create it for emptiness; He formed it to be inhabited”,^[6]

לא לתוהו בראה - The Holy One, blessed be He, did not create the world for emptiness, but formed it to be inhabited.

and R' Shimon ben Lakish said: He has not fulfilled [the mitzvah of] being fruitful and multiplying – a convert is like a newborn child.

And [both disputes] are needed. For if it were stated only in the first case – in that one R' Shimon ben Lakish says so, because while they were gentiles they were not subject to inheritance; but in this one, say he agrees with R' Yochanan, for “He did not create it for emptiness; He formed it to be inhabited”, and he has helped to inhabit it.

And if it were stated only in this case – in this one R' Yochanan says so, but in that one, say he agrees with R' Shimon ben Lakish. So both are needed.

We learned [in the Mishnah]: One who had no sons and married a woman who had already given birth – while she was still a maidservant and then was freed, while she was still a gentile and then converted – and after she came into Israel she gave birth: her child is a bechor for inheritance and not a bechor for the kohen.^[7]

מי שלא היו לו בנים כו' - I explained it above, in the Mishnah.

She gave birth from whom?

ילדה ממאן - For it teaches that she gave birth after she came into Israel, [and] he is a bechor for inheritance.

If you say from a Yisrael who had no sons – why speak specifically of a convert and a maidservant? Even a born Jewish woman too!

מאי איריא גיורת ושפחה - Which implies that it is for this reason that he is a bechor for inheritance: the sons she had while she was a gentile do not count.

אפי' בת ישראל - Where the earlier sons count as sons, this one too is a bechor for inheritance, for the matter depends on the father and not on the mother.

Rather, is it not from a convert who had sons and converted, and it teaches that [the child] is a bechor for inheritance!

אלא לאו - This [clause] “she gave birth after she came into Israel” does not go back to “one who had no sons”; rather it is a statement on its own: a convert who had sons while she was a gentile, and converted together with her husband, and gave birth after she came under the law of Israel – [the child] is a bechor for inheritance. And this is a refutation of R' Yochanan.

No – really [it is] from a Yisrael who had no sons, and “and not a bechor for the kohen” is what it needed [to teach],

לעולם מישראל שלא היו לו בנים - And for “bechor for inheritance” it did not need to mention a convert; it did so only to teach us that he is not a bechor for the kohen, for the earlier sons are called “opening the womb” – to exclude [the view] of R' Yosi HaGelili.

to exclude [the view] of R' Yosi HaGelili,^[8] who said: [He is] a bechor for inheritance and for the kohen, as it says (Shemos 13) “that opens the womb among Israel” – until they open the womb from Israel.

It teaches us that it is not so.

Come and hear: If a man had sons while he was a gentile and then converted, he has a bechor for inheritance!^[9]

Ravina said, and some say Rav Acha: This is certainly R' Yosi HaGelili, who said “that opens the womb among Israel” – until they open the womb from Israel; and he learns [the man’s case] from hers.

הא - That which teaches “a bechor for inheritance” is R' Yosi HaGelili, who counts him as a bechor regarding the kohen, for [he requires] that they open the womb in Israel.

ויליף איהו - The husband.

מינה דידה - Just as with regard to her the earlier sons do not count and this one is “that opens the womb” written “in Israel,” so with regard to him the earlier ones do not count, and this one is “the first of his strength.”

Rav Adda bar Ahavah said: A Levite woman who gave birth – her son is exempt from the five sela’im.^[10]

לויה - The daughter of a Levi.

She conceived from whom?

If you say she conceived from a kohen or a Levi – why speak specifically of a Levite woman? Even a Yisraelite woman too!

אפילו ישראלית נמי - For we said in our first chapter (3b): The kohanim and the Leviim are exempt.^[11]

Rather, she conceived from a Yisrael – but it is written (Bamidbar 1) “by their families, by their fathers’ house”!^[12]

לבית אבותם - For from here we derive that the father’s family is called a family, and not the mother’s family. So why is he exempt?

Rav Pappa said: She conceived from a gentile.

דאיעבר מעובד כוכבים - Since he has no lineage^[13] in relation to Israel, the son belongs after his Israelite mother more than after his gentile father; therefore he is exempt.

And do not say [this holds only] according to the one who says the child is not “tainted,” but even according to the one who says the child is “tainted” – he is called a disqualified Levi.^[14]

ולא תימא אליבא דמ"ד אין מזהמין את הולד - In Maseches Yevamos (45a) there is one who says: a gentile who has relations with a Jewish woman – the child is fit, for we follow his mother; and therefore he is exempt from the five sela’im.

אלא אפילו למ"ד מזהמין - That we follow the gentile [father] – even so he is exempt, for he is called a disqualified Levi: since he carries the name of Levi, he is exempt.

Mar the son of Rav Yosef said in the name of Rava: Really she conceived from a Yisrael, and it is different there, for the verse says “that opens the womb” – the Merciful One made it depend on the opening of the womb.

בפטר רחם - [With regard to] the five sela’im it goes after the mother.

We learned [in the Mishnah]: One who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth; [or] she converted while pregnant, [or] was freed while pregnant; and she gave birth – she and a kohen’s daughter, she and a Levite woman, she and a woman who had already given birth; and likewise one who did not wait three months after her husband, and married and gave birth, and it is not known whether [the child] is a nine-month child of the first or a seven-month child of the last – [he is] a bechor for the kohen and not a bechor for inheritance.^[15]

מי שהיו לו בנים - I explained it above, in the Mishnah. Since it teaches “she and a kohen’s daughter,” it teaches us a novelty: even though [her child] was mixed up with the exempt one, he is obligated.

By implication, the kohen’s daughter and the Levite woman are exempt.

מכלל דכהנת פטורה - And it is now assumed that “kohen’s daughter” means the daughter of a kohen.

She conceived from whom?

If you say she conceived from a kohen or a Levi – if so, why speak specifically of a kohen’s daughter and a Levite woman? Even a Yisraelite woman too!

Rather, she conceived from a gentile – is a kohen’s daughter exempt?

But Rav Pappa said: Rabbah tested us: A kohen’s daughter who conceived from a gentile – what is [the law]?

בדיק - He was testing us in halachos.

מהו - Is her son exempt from bechorah or not?

And I said to him: Is this not [the ruling] of Rav Adda bar Ahavah, who said: A Levite woman who gave birth – her son is exempt from the five sela’im?

היינו דרב אדא כו' - Just as the Levite woman is exempt, so is the kohen’s daughter exempt.

And he said to me: How can you compare?!

Granted a Levite woman remains in her sanctity, as it was taught: A Levite woman who was taken captive or who had illicit relations – they give her of the tithe and she eats.^[16]

בקדושתה קיימא - Even though she had relations with a gentile; and when we place her son after her, he is like a disqualified Levi and exempt.

מן המעשר - Maaser rishon is given to the Leviim.

But a kohen’s daughter – once [a gentile] has had relations with her, she becomes a zarah!^[17]

דאיבעלה ליה - With a gentile.

הויא זרה - As we say in Yevamos, in the chapter Almanah LeKohen Gadol (68a): From where do we know that a kohen’s daughter, a Levite woman and a Yisraelite woman with whom a gentile or a slave had relations – that they disqualified her? The verse says “And a kohen’s daughter, if she be married to a stranger” – once one who is disqualified for her has had relations with her, he has disqualified her. And although the Levite woman is also taught there, [that means] he disqualifies her from terumah, that she may not marry a kohen; but from her status as a Levite woman she is not disqualified.

הויא לה זרה - And since she is a zarah, her son is obligated in the five sela’im. Therefore our Mishnah too cannot be established where she conceived from a gentile.

This works well for Mar the son of Rav Yosef in the name of Rava, who said she conceived from a Yisrael – he establishes [the Mishnah] where she conceived from a Yisrael;

הניחא למר בריה דרב יוסף - Who establishes Rav Adda’s [ruling] where she conceived from a Yisrael – he establishes our Mishnah that way too.

but according to Rav Pappa, how does he establish it?

Really she conceived from a kohen, and she is a Yisraelite woman.

לעולם מתניתין דאיעבר מכהן - But a kohen’s daughter who did not conceive from a kohen is not exempt, for we do not follow the mother except with a Levite woman who conceived from a gentile.

And why does it call her a “kohen’s daughter”? Because her son is a kohen.

Tosfos

דבהיותו עובד כוכבים לאו בני נחלה נינהו - The Kuntres^[18] explained: gentiles are not heirs once they have converted. But in the first chapter of Kiddushin (17b) it implies that they are heirs, for we say in Kiddushin that a gentile inherits his father by Torah law. Rather, the “not subject to inheritance” said here means the law of the bechor.

והא עבד ליה שבת - In the chapter HaBa al Yevimto (Yevamos 62a) it says it in other words: that from the start too they were subject to being fruitful and multiplying. It does not mean they were obligated, for in the chapter Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 59b) it is proven that [a gentile] is not commanded about being fruitful and multiplying; rather it means that his offspring are traced after him, and this is “he has helped to inhabit it” said here. And regarding a slave it says in Yevamos (62a) that all agree he has no lineage.

ולא תימא אליבא דמ"ד אין מזהמין כו' - And the one who says “tainted” is the one who places [the child] after the gentile, as the Kuntres explained. He calls it “tainted” because gentiles are tainted, as we said in Shabbos (146a): When the serpent came upon Chavah it cast taint into her, and the taint did not cease from the gentiles. And the one who says that [when] a gentile or a slave has relations with a Jewish woman the child is fit, places him after the gentile; but the one who says the child is a mamzer places him after the Jewish woman, and so mamzerus applies to him. The Kuntres explained the reverse. And as I have explained is proven at the end of the first chapter of Yevamos (17a): In Chalach and Chavor, etc. – R' Yochanan said: And all of them are disqualified. When I said it before Shmuel, he said to me: For he will turn away your son from after Me – your son from a Jewish woman is called “your son,” but your son from a gentile woman is not called “your son” but “her son.” That is: they are not disqualified, since [the child] is traced after the gentile woman, and the Jewish women of that generation became barren. And so it is proven in the first chapter of Yevamos (there) that being called “your son” is what brings about mamzerus for him.

מר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא [אמר] לעולם מישראל - We rule like him in Chullin, at the start of HaZero’a (Chullin 132a), and on this we now rely to exempt the son of a Levite woman or of a kohen’s daughter married to a Yisrael from the five sela’im.

נותנים לה מעשר ואוכלת - We do not give a share to a woman at the threshing floor, but we distribute to them in their homes, as it says in the chapter Nos’in Al HaAnusah (Yevamos 99b).^[19]

אלא כהנת כיון דאיבעילה [ליה] הויא לה זרה - And even the sanctity of a Levite woman leaves her, and she is worse off than a Levite woman married to a kohen who was taken captive: for although [the latter] is disqualified from terumah, her sanctity does not leave her with regard to the five sela’im. But a kohen’s daughter, whose sanctity comes from her own person – when she is profaned, her sanctity leaves her completely.

Notes

1. 1. Continued from the previous amud (Bechoros 46b): “And if you wish, say: ‘He shall recognize’ is one thing…” The verse (Devarim 21:17) “he shall recognize the firstborn” is fulfilled by recognizing the forehead, whereas identifying a dead man for testimony requires the full face with the nose.
2. 2. Devarim 21:17: “for he is the first of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” The bechor for inheritance is the father’s first child; R' Yochanan holds the sons born before the conversion already were that.
3. 3. A convert is regarded as a newborn: his earlier family ties lapse with the conversion, so the sons born before it do not count, and the first son born afterwards is his bechor.
4. 4. Kiddushin 17b. A convert does not inherit his gentile father by Torah law, because his tie to his old family has lapsed. Tosfos below discuss this.
5. 5. The mitzvah of peru u’revu, being fruitful and multiplying, is fulfilled by having a son and a daughter. The question is whether children born before the conversion count.
6. 6. Yeshayahu 45:18. From here the Sages learn the mitzvah to settle the world (sheves); R' Yochanan holds that children born even before conversion have helped to settle it.
7. 7. Our Mishnah (Bechoros 46a). The child is the father’s first, so he is a bechor for inheritance; but the mother’s womb was already opened by children born before she became Jewish, so he is not a bechor for the kohen. Rashi notes that he explained it there.
8. 8. R' Yosi HaGelili reads “opens the womb among Israel” to mean that the womb must be opened while the mother is Jewish; births before her conversion do not count, so this child would be a bechor for the kohen too.
9. 9. A beraisa that states the case of the dispute outright and rules like Reish Lakish, against R' Yochanan.
10. 10. Pidyon haben: a firstborn son is redeemed from a kohen for five sela’im; kohanim and Leviim are exempt. Rav Adda rules that the son of a Levite woman is exempt, since the exemption depends on the mother who opened the womb.
11. 11. Bechoros 3b: the kohanim and Leviim are exempt from the redemption of the firstborn.
12. 12. Bamidbar 1:2. Tribal lineage follows the father; the son of a Yisrael is a Yisrael and should be obligated.
13. 13. Chayis: legal lineage. A gentile father has none in relation to a Jewish child, so the child is attributed to his mother.
14. 14. Yevamos 45a: a child of a gentile and a Jewish woman – one view holds he is fit, following his mother; the other, that he is “tainted” (treated after the gentile father). Rav Pappa says that even on the second view he carries the name of a Levi, as a disqualified Levi, and is exempt.
15. 15. Our Mishnah (Bechoros 46a). In each case the child opened his mother’s womb as a Jewish woman, so he is a bechor for the kohen; but the father already had sons, or the father is in doubt, so he is not a bechor for inheritance. In “she and a kohen’s daughter” two babies were mixed up.
16. 16. Maaser rishon, the first tithe, is given to the Leviim. A Levite woman who was captured or had illicit relations still keeps her Levite status and may receive it.
17. 17. A zarah: a kohen’s daughter with whom one forbidden to her has had relations is disqualified from the priestly status (Vayikra 22:12; Yevamos 68a), so her son would not be exempt.
18. 18. “Kuntres” is the name Tosfos use for Rashi’s commentary.
19. 19. Yevamos 99b. Tithes are not handed out to a woman at the threshing floor, lest she be divorced and no longer entitled while still taking a share; but they are sent to her at home.