Bekhorot 91

Chapter 91

א ליה אדעת רבים

1 on him and make it dependent on the wishes of the public.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We urge him to vow not to derive any benefit from his wife without the consent of the public and the public of course we assume wish him to observe his vow, (Rashi Git. 36a) so as to be free of the illegal union. Tosaf. explains that he must vow with obligation to at least three members of the public whose names must be specified, although they are not present. But if he vowed without explicitly mentioning the names of at least three of the public, then the vow is of no importance.');">1

ב אמר אמימר הלכתא אפי' למ"ד נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה על דעת הרבים אין לו הפרה וה"מ לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה יש לו הפרה כי ההוא דמקרי דרדקי אדריה רב אחא דקא פשע בינוקי ואהדריה רבינא דלא אשכח דהוה דייק כוותיה:

2 Said Amemar: The law is as follows: Even according to him who holds that an interdict by vow imposed on a person in public can be invalidated, a vow made dependent on the wishes of the public cannot be invalidated. But this is only the case with a vow made for a secular purpose, whereas if made for a religious purpose, it can be invalidated,2 a case in point being that of a teacher whom R'Aha prohibited by vow from teaching any longer because he maltreated the children, but whom Rabina reinstated, as there was not to be found one who taught so efficiently. AND ONE WHO MAKES HIMSELF UNCLEAN THROUGH THE DEAD etc. What is the difference between the case here, where merely an undertaking suffices and there [where a priest contracts an illegal marriage] that we impose a votary prohibition on him? - There [in the latter case] his passion overpowers him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore we do not merely rely on an undertaking that he will divorce her but there must be a votary prohibition forbidding any benefit to be derived from her. But where this consideration is absent, we rely on an undertaking given by him.');">3

ג והמטמא למתים כו': מאי שנא הכא דסגי ליה בקבלה ומאי שנא התם דמדרינן ליה התם יצרו תקפו:

3 <big>MISHNAH: </big>THERE IS ONE WHO IS [COUNTED AS] A FIRSTBORN [WITH RESPECT TO] INHERITANCE4 BUT NOT WITH RESPECT TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST;5 A FIRST-BORN WITH RESPECT TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE; A FIRSTBORN [WITH RESPECT BOTH] TO INHERITANCE AND TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST; AND [AS] A FIRST-BORN [IN RESPECT NEITHER] TO INHERITANCE NOR REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST.

ד <big>הדרן עלך מומין אלו </big>

4 WHICH IS A FIRST-BORN [IN RESPECT] OF INHERITANCE BUT NOT OF REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST?

ה מתני׳ <big>יש</big> בכור לנחלה ואינו בכור לכהן בכור לכהן ואינו בכור לנחלה בכור לנחלה ולכהן ויש שאינו בכור לא לנחלה ולא לכהן

5 ONE WHICH FOLLOWS AN UNTIMELY BIRTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH ALIVE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a case of twins, one a non-viable child and the other a viable one, where the former put forth its head alive and withdrew it and its companion anticipated it in coming out, the latter child is considered a first-born with the privileges of inheritance, the former not having prejudiced it in this respect. For although the emergence of the head of an embryo is considered a genuine birth, yet since Scripture calls the first-born who inherits: The beginning of his strength (Deut. XXI, 17) which is interpreted to mean, a child over whose death his father's heart is grieved, and since the untimely birth cannot live, the condition of inheritance i.e., being a first-born over which a father grieves. does not exist. The latter offspring, however, is exempted from the redemption from a priest, for what matters here is the opening of the womb, and this was done by the first offspring.');">6

ו איזהו בכור לנחלה ואינו בכור לכהן הבא אחר נפלים אע"פ שיצא את ראשו חי ובן תשעה שיצא ראשו מת המפלת כמין בהמה חיה ועוף דברי רבי מאיר

6 OR ONE BORN IN THE NINTH MONTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH DEAD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And was then withdrawn, the companion coming out subsequently. The first offspring therefore exempts the latter from redemption, but since it is dead, the latter offspring is the first-born as regards inheritance.');">7 OR WHEN A WOMAN DISCHARGES SOMETHING LIKE AN ANIMAL, BEAST OR BIRD.8 THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R'MEIR'BUT THE SAGES SAY: [IT IS NOT CONSIDERED AN OPENING OF THE WOMB] UNTIL [THE DISCHARGE] HAS THE FORM OF A HUMAN BEING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if not, the offspring which follows is a first-born also as regards redemption, for only the issue of the actual form of a human being is considered an opening of the womb exempting succeeding offspring from the law of redemption.');">9 IF [A WOMAN] DISCHARGES A SANDLE LIKE10

ז וחכ"א עד שיהא בו מצורת אדם המפלת סנדל או שליא או שפיר מרוקם והיוצא מחותך הבא אחריהם בכור לנחלה ואין בכור לכהן

7 FOETUS OR A PLACENTA11 OR A FOETUS12

ח מי שלא היו לו בנים ונשא אשה שכבר ילדה עודה שפחה ונשתחררה עודה עובדת כוכבים ונתגיירה משבאת לישראל ילדה בכור לנחלה ואין בכור לכהן

8 HAVING AN ARTICULATED SHAPE, OR IF AN EMBRYO CAME OUT BY PIECES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Limb by limb, but since the whole came forth, it is regarded as an opening of the womb. But if the head of the infant alone came forth by pieces, this is not considered an opening of the womb if its companion came forth afterwards before the majority of the limbs and pieces managed to emerge, and the latter offspring is regarded also as a first-born to be redeemed from a priest.');">13 [THE INFANT] WHICH FOLLOWS AFTER THEM IS A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST.

ט רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר בכור לנחלה ולכהן שנאמר (שמות יג, יב) פטר רחם בישראל עד שיפטרו רחם מישראל

9 IF ONE WHO NEVER HAD CHILDREN PREVIOUSLY MARRIED A WOMAN WHO HAD ALREADY GIVEN BIRTH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The infant in this case is a first-born in respect of inheritance but not of redemption, since the right of inheritance is determined by the father, Scripture saying: 'The beginning of his strength', whereas for redemption it is the opening of the womb which is necessary.');">14 EVEN IF SHE HAD GIVEN BIRTH WHEN SHE WAS A BONDWOMAN, BUT IS FREE [NOW], OR [HAD BORNE A CHILD] WHEN SHE WAS A HEATHEN BUT HAS SINCE BECOME A PROSELYTE IF AFTER COMING TO THE ISRAELITE SHE BEARS TO HIM, [THE INFANT] IS ALSO CONSIDERED A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he did not have children previously, the present infant is a first-born as regards inheritance, but is not a first-born to be released by redemption. as the Hebrew woman, the gentile woman and the maid-servant have already had children.');">15 R'JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS HOWEVER: [THE INFANT] IS A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE AND ALSO ONE WHO MUST BE REDEEMED FROM A PRIEST, BECAUSE IT IS SAID IN THE SCRIPTURES: OPENETH THE WOMB AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL,16

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

10 [INTIMATING] UNTIL THE OPENING OF THE WOMB IS '[OF THE CHILDREN] OF ISRAEL'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only then that its birth is considered an opening of the womb to exempt future offspring from the law of redemption. The children therefore born when the woman was a gentile or a slave are not accounted as opening the womb.');">17 IF ONE HAD CHILDREN ALREADY AND MARRIED A WOMAN WHO HAD NEVER GIVEN BIRTH PREVIOUSLY OR IF SHE BECAME A PROSELYTE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Together with her husband and she gave birth, her offspring is regarded as a first-born to be redeemed by the priest, since the opening of the womb was of Israel, after the parents came under the influence of the law of Israel, but not as a first-born in respect of inheritance, since the conception of the infant was not in holiness and it is not therefore eligible for inheritance.');">18

יא וילדה היא וכהנת היא ולויה היא ואשה שכבר ילדה וכן מי שלא שהתה לאחר בעלה שלשה חדשים ונשאת וילדה ואינו ידוע אם בן תשעה לראשון אם בן שבעה לאחרון בכור לכהן ואינו בכור לנחלה:

11 WHEN PREGNANT OR IF SHE WAS FREED WHEN PREGNANT AND SHE GAVE BIRTH; [IF THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION BETWEEN] HER AND A PRIESTESS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an Israelite woman giving birth for the first time and a priestess giving birth for the first time had their offspring mixed and it was not known which was the child of the Israelite. The offspring of a priest is exempt from the law of redemption.');">19 [BETWEEN] HER AND A LEVITE'S DAUGHTER,20 [BETWEEN] HER AND A WOMAN WHO HAD ALREADY GIVEN BIRTH;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the child of a woman who had already given birth previously was mixed up with a first-born infant, and the latter could not be identified, we are here informed that the husband of the woman who gave birth for the first time is yet obliged to give five sela's redemption money to the priest, for at all events he has a first-born male son somewhere, whereas in the case of inheritance as he does not know who is the first-born, there can therefore be no first-born privileges of inheritance.');">21 AND LIKEWISE [IF A WOMAN] WHO DID NOT WAIT THREE MONTHS AFTER HER HUSBAND'S DEATH, MARRIED AND GAVE BIRTH AND IT IS NOT KNOWN IF THE INFANT WAS BORN IN THE NINTH MONTH SINCE THE DEATH OF THE FIRST [HUSBAND] OR IN THE SEVENTH MONTH SINCE SHE MARRIED THE SECOND, IT IS A FIRST-BORN TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST22 BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE.23

Previous Chapter Next Chapter