Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 47 for kids: Two Firstborn Questions

בכורות מ״ז

👶 This daf asks when a son counts as a firstborn for inheritance and when he counts as a firstborn for redemption. The answers can depend on his parents’ circumstances and how he was born.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 47a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 47b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 47

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 47 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 47a, in English Tab translation (31)
  1. He shall recognize — This is a separate requirement: since the verse does not say “face,” a forehead is enough for recognition.
  2. Gentiles are not subject to inheritance — Children do not inherit their gentile father after they convert, as explained in the first chapter of Kiddushin (17b).
  3. He did not create it to be a waste — The Holy One, blessed be He, did not create the world to be empty; He formed it to be inhabited.
  4. One who did not have sons, etc. — I explained this above in discussing the mishna.
  5. From whom did she give birth? — The mishna says that a son born after she joined the Jewish people is a firstborn for inheritance.
  6. Why specify a convert or a maidservant? — This suggests that he is a firstborn for inheritance because the children she had before becoming Jewish do not count.
  7. Even a Jewish woman — Even if her earlier children count as children, this son is still a firstborn for inheritance, since that status depends on the father, not the mother.
  8. Rather, is it not — The statement that she gave birth after joining the Jewish people does not refer back to a man who had no sons. It is a separate case: a woman who had children while a gentile converted with her husband, then gave birth after joining the Jewish people. That child is a firstborn for inheritance, contradicting Rabbi Yoḥanan.
  9. Actually, the father was a Jew who had no sons — The mishna did not need to specify a convert for inheritance. It did so to teach that her son is not a firstborn for redemption by a priest: her earlier children had already opened her womb. This excludes Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s view.
  10. This statement — Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the child is a firstborn for inheritance. He counts the child as a firstborn for redemption by a priest because, in his view, the womb must be opened while the mother is Jewish.
  11. And he learns — The husband draws an inference.
  12. From her case — Just as her earlier children do not count, so that this child is considered the one who opens her womb under the verse’s reference to the children of Israel, his earlier children do not count either, making this child “the first of his strength.”
  13. A Levite woman — A daughter of a Levite.
  14. Even an Israelite woman too — As we said in the first chapter (3b), priests and Levites are exempt.
  15. By their fathers’ houses — This teaches that family affiliation follows the father’s family, not the mother’s. Why, then, is the child exempt?
  16. Who conceived from a gentile — A gentile father has no lineage recognized in relation to Israel, so the child is associated with his Israelite mother rather than with his gentile father. He is therefore exempt.
  17. Do not say this applies only according to the view that the child is not disqualified — In Yevamot (45a), some hold that the child of a gentile man and a Jewish woman is legitimate because the child follows the mother. On that view, the child is exempt from the payment of five silver coins.
  18. Rather, even according to the view that the child is disqualified — Even if the child is associated with the gentile father, he is exempt: he is considered a Levite with disqualified status, and he retains the designation “Levite.”
  19. With regard to opening the womb — For the payment of five silver coins, the status follows the mother.
  20. One who had sons — I explained this above in discussing the mishna. By saying “she and a priest’s daughter,” the mishna adds that even though he was mixed up with someone exempt, he remains obligated.
  21. This implies that a priest’s daughter is exempt — At this point, the Gemara assumes that “a priest’s daughter” means the daughter of a priest.
  22. Testing — He is testing our knowledge of the laws.
  23. What is the law? — Is her son exempt from firstborn redemption or not?
  24. This is what Rav Adda meant, etc. — Just as a Levite woman is exempt, so is a priest’s daughter.
  25. She retains her sacred status — Although she had intercourse with a gentile, she retains that status. When her son is associated with her, he is like a Levite with disqualified status and is exempt.
  26. From the tithe — The first tithe is given to Levites.
  27. Who had relations with him — With a gentile.
  28. She becomes a non-priest — As stated in Yevamot: A priest’s daughter, a Levite woman, or an Israelite woman who has relations with a gentile or a slave is disqualified. The verse says, “If a priest’s daughter becomes a stranger’s wife”: relations with someone forbidden to her disqualify her. Although a Levite woman is also listed there, she is disqualified from receiving terumah because she can no longer marry a priest; she does not lose her status as a Levite.
  29. She becomes a non-priest — Since she is no longer a priest’s daughter for this purpose, her son requires redemption for five selaim. Thus the mishna also cannot be explained as a case in which she conceived by a gentile.
  30. This works for Mar, son of Rav Yosef — He explains Rav Adda’s case as one in which she conceived by a Jewish man, and he can explain the mishna the same way.
  31. Actually — The mishna concerns a woman who conceived by a priest. But a priest’s daughter who did not conceive by a priest is not exempt from redeeming her son. We follow the mother’s status only in the case of a Levite woman who conceived by a gentile.
Tosafot on Bechorot 47a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. Because as gentiles they are not subject to inheritance law — Rashi explains that gentiles do not inherit after conversion. But Kiddushin 17b says that a gentile inherits his father by Torah law. Here, then, “not subject to inheritance law” means not subject to the law of the firstborn’s double portion.
  2. But he has fulfilled “inhabited” — Yevamot 62a puts it differently, saying that gentiles, too, have children for the purposes of procreation. It cannot mean they are obligated in the commandment, since Sanhedrin 59b shows they are not. Rather, their children are considered their descendants; that is how they have helped inhabit the world. Yevamot says that everyone agrees a slave has no legally recognized lineage.
  3. And do not say this follows only the one who says they do not taint the child — The view that they do taint the child assigns a child of a gentile father and Jewish mother to the gentile father. The term “taint” alludes to the impurity attributed to gentiles in Shabbat 146a. Thus, the view that such a child is fit assigns the child to the gentile father; the view that the child is a mamzer assigns the child to the Jewish mother, making mamzer status possible. Rashi explains the reverse. But Yevamot 17a supports this reading: Shmuel cites “he shall turn your son away” to teach that a Jewish woman’s child is called your child, while a gentile woman’s child is called hers. Thus, the latter children were not disqualified as Jews; the Jewish women of that generation had hidden themselves. That passage also shows that being called “your child” is what makes mamzer status possible.
  4. Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said in Rava’s name: It is always from a Jewish man — We follow his ruling in Chullin 132a. On this basis, we now exempt the son of a Levite woman or a priest’s daughter married to a Jewish man from the five-shekel redemption payment.
  5. They give her tithe, and she may eat it — Tithe is not distributed to a woman at the threshing floor, but it may be given to her at home, as stated in Yevamot 99b.
  6. But a priest’s daughter, once she has had relations with him, becomes a non-priest — Even the status that would exempt a Levite woman is lost to her. She is worse off than a Levite woman married to a priest who was taken captive: although that woman becomes ineligible to eat teruma, she retains her status regarding the five-shekel redemption payment. A priest’s daughter, however, derives her priestly status from her own birth, and when she is disqualified, she loses that status entirely.
Rashi on Bechorot 47b, in English Tab translation (24)
  1. A ḥalal son — He is treated like a non-priest and is obligated in firstborn redemption.
  2. After thirty days — The obligation to redeem him has taken effect, as it is written, “You shall redeem them from the age of one month” (Numbers 18:15–16).
  3. For his father acquired his redemption money — Had the father redeemed him, he could have set aside the money and kept it himself, since he was a priest. Having acquired that money, he passes it to his son with the rest of his property.
  4. The father did not acquire it — The father was never obligated to redeem him. The son became obligated only after his father died and must pay another priest.
  5. For he can say to him — This ḥalal son can tell the priest: “My claim comes through a priest against whom you could make no claim.” Had his father redeemed him, he would have kept the redemption money himself.
  6. She converted while pregnant — She had never given birth before, so this child is a firstborn who must be redeemed from a priest.
  7. Why not say, ‘My claim comes through a man’ — A man who would not be subject to this claim?
  8. For he has no lineage — In relation to Jews, the gentile father has no recognized familial connection to the child. The child cannot claim through him, since a convert is regarded as a newborn.
  9. This ruling is needed only — The mishna’s statement that he is not a firstborn for inheritance refers to the son born after the child of uncertain parentage. The uncertain son himself receives nothing: the first husband’s son tells him, “You are not our father’s son,” and the second husband’s son says the same.
  10. This is what ‘a firstborn for a priest’ means — The child of uncertain parentage must redeem himself either way, since he opened his mother’s womb. The son born after him to the second husband is not a firstborn for inheritance, because his brothers can say, “The uncertain son may be our father’s son, so you are not the firstborn.”
  11. Let them write authorizations to each other — The uncertain son and the son born after him could each authorize the other to claim his share. One could then demand the firstborn’s portion either for himself, if he is the firstborn, or for his brother, if his brother is.
  12. And if you say the mishna concerns a case without authorization — It would mean that, if they did not write authorizations, neither can claim the firstborn’s inheritance.
  13. But later we establish that it concerns authorization — Shmuel says it concerns someone who comes with an authorization. Clearly, authorization does not help in this case.
  14. This supports Rabbi Yannai, who says, ‘They were recognized and later mixed up’ — For example, two women married to different men had children whose parentage was known, but the children were later mixed up. When they come to inherit, their brothers can reject each one, saying, “You are not our brother.”
  15. They write authorizations to each other — Each authorizes the other to claim his share of his father’s property. The authorized claimant can tell each family’s heirs, “If I am your brother, give me my share; if he is, give me his share.” But if their parentage was never known, they cannot do this, because neither ever had an established claim to his father’s property. So too in the mishna: neither son was ever known to be the firstborn or held an established firstborn claim. Rabbi Yannai’s ruling appears in Bava Batra 127a.
  16. A gestational sac — The actual membrane surrounding the fetus.
  17. Ganinim — Colors.
  18. And grasshoppers — These are not considered offspring. The reason, explained in Niddah 22b, is that Scripture does not speak of their formation as it does of human formation.
  19. On the fortieth day — From conception, it is still merely fluid; formation of the fetus occurs the following day.
  20. A boy born by caesarean section and the son after him — The second is born through the womb, yet neither is a firstborn. The Gemara explains why.
  21. ‘They bear him sons’ is required — Inheritance requires birth in the usual way.
  22. Firstborn in one respect — The second son is the first to open the womb but is not the first child, since a son was born before him.
  23. Following his own reasoning, for he says — In Niddah 40a, he interprets “If she bears a female” to include caesarean birth as a valid birth, with the prescribed days of impurity and purity. He therefore also counts it as a birth for the phrase “they bear him sons.”
  24. Firstborn in one respect — The second son, who is the first to open the womb, is a firstborn for redemption from a priest. The first son is the first child and first male, but is not a firstborn for redemption, because Scripture makes that depend on opening the womb.
Tosafot on Bechorot 47b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. The son must redeem himself — His father had not acquired the redemption money, so the son must redeem himself even though his father had never become obligated to redeem him. The same is true in the Mishnah’s cases of a woman who converted or was freed while pregnant. But Kiddushin derives from “you shall redeem” that a woman, whom no one else is commanded to redeem, is not commanded to redeem herself. Why is this son different, when no one else was commanded to redeem him? A woman could never have a father obligated to redeem her; this son would have had such a father if his father had been an Israelite.
  2. The first is not a firstborn for inheritance; we require “they bear him sons” — Rashi seems to derive this from the word “bear.” But Niddah excludes a caesarean-born child from the mother’s prescribed days of impurity and purity based on “when a woman conceives and bears a male”: she must give birth through the place where she conceived. The word “bears” alone does not establish that. Rather, here “birth” is interpreted by comparison with that verse. Rabbi Shimon follows his view in Niddah, where “bears” includes a caesarean-born child in those days of impurity and purity. But there he agrees that a caesarean-born animal is not consecrated: it is compared with an animal firstborn, for which Scripture says “opens the womb.” Why not instead compare its “birth” with human birth, which Rabbi Shimon includes? The answer there is that consecrated animals share more features with animal firstborns. Here, by contrast, comparison with human birth is stronger: both concern people, who are not consecrated and are not subject to the laws of disqualified sacrifice, leftover sacrificial meat, or sacrificial impurity. Nor can Rabbi Shimon derive the rule for inheritance from the human firstborn redeemed by a priest, although “opens the womb” is written there, because “birth” is not written there.
  3. We require “they bear him sons” — Why, if this verse refers to a firstborn, do other passages need separate verses? Bava Batra derives from “they bear him sons” that a child born with indeterminate sex who is later found to be male does not reduce the firstborn’s double portion: he must be male from birth. It derives his inability to receive a double portion from “and he shall be the firstborn,” requiring him to be male from the outset. Likewise, it derives from “they bear him sons” that a son born after his father’s death does not reduce the firstborn’s portion, but derives his inability to receive a double portion from “he shall acknowledge.” Why not derive both rulings in each case from “they bear him sons”? Without the separate verses, we would apply “they bear him sons” only to denying that son a double portion, rather than to preventing an ordinary son from reducing the firstborn’s portion. That is why, in the caesarean-birth case, where there are no separate verses, it teaches only that the child does not receive a double portion, not that he fails to reduce it.
  4. A firstborn in one respect is a firstborn — If so, why does Rabbi Shimon not count the caesarean-born child as a firstborn for redemption with five sela coins, even though Scripture says “opens the womb”? An earlier Mishnah says that, for animal firstborns, Rabbi Tarfon requires both a caesarean-born animal and the one born after it to graze until they develop a blemish. The Gemara explains that he is unsure whether being firstborn in just one respect suffices, even though “opens the womb” is written there too. Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning differs from Rabbi Tarfon’s. Although Rabbi Shimon is more certain that the child born afterward qualifies as a firstborn, he regards the caesarean-born child as less qualified and excludes him because he did not open the womb.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 47.