דַּף יוֹמִי · בְּכוֹרוֹת · דַּף מ״ז

״יַכִּיר״ לְחוּד, וְהַכָּרַת פָּנִים לְחוּד.

The requirement of "He shall recognize" with regard to a firstborn for inheritance is discrete, and the recognition of a husband's face to permit his wife to remarry is discrete; they are two completely different halachic concepts.

אִיתְּמַר: הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים בְּגַיּוּתוֹ וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר —

It was stated that Amoraim argued over this case: If a man had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted, and then had another son born in holiness —

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה.

Rabbi Yochanan says: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, meaning the son born after conversion does not get a double portion; and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה — דְּהָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ ״רֵאשִׁית אוֹנוֹ״,

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yochanan says: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as this man already had what was physically "the first of his strength" before he converted, so the new son is not the first of his strength.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה — גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר כְּקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד דָּמֵי.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, because a convert who just converted is considered like a child just born, and his previous children are halachically discounted.

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאִיתְּמַר: הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים בְּגַיּוּתוֹ וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר —

And they follow their regular line of reasoning on this principle, as it was stated in another dispute: If a man had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted —

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קִיֵּים פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לֹא קִיֵּים.

Rabbi Yochanan says: He has already fulfilled the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying; and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He has not fulfilled it.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קִיֵּים — ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״,

Rabbi Yochanan says: He has fulfilled it, because the ultimate purpose of the mitzva is as the pasuk says, "He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited," and this man has indeed contributed to the world's population.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לֹא קִיֵּים פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה — גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר כְּקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד דָּמֵי.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He has not fulfilled the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying, because a convert who just converted is considered like a child just born, so his previous children do not count for him at all.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא קַמַּיְיתָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְגַיּוּתָן לָאו בְּנֵי נַחֲלָה נִינְהוּ,

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to state their opinions in both disputes. As, if it were stated only in that first case of inheritance, we would say that it is only in this case that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says his opinion that the new son gets the double portion, because in their gentile state they are not subject to the halakhot of inheritance, so those children are completely ignored for inheritance.

אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְּרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״, וְהָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ שֶׁבֶת.

But with regard to that case of being fruitful and multiplying, say he concedes to Rabbi Yochanan, because the pasuk says "He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited," and he has indeed performed an action that enables the world to be inhabited.

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, צְרִיכָא.

And if their dispute were stated only with regard to this mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying, we would say that it is only in this case that Rabbi Yochanan says his lenient opinion, because of the concept of "He formed it to be inhabited." But with regard to that case of inheritance, say he concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that the previous sons are disregarded. Therefore, both disputes are necessary.

תְּנַן: מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים, וְנָשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁכְּבָר יָלְדָה, עוֹדָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, עוֹדָהּ גּוֹיָה וְנִתְגַּיְּירָה, וּמִשֶּׁבָּאתָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יָלָדָה — וְלָדָהּ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן.

The Gemara raises a kasha against Rabbi Yochanan: We learned in our Mishnah: One who did not have sons and he married a woman who had already given birth; or if he married a woman who gave birth when she was still a maidservant and she was then emancipated; or one who gave birth when she was still a gentile and she then converted, and when she came to join the Jewish people she gave birth to a male — that offspring is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a kohen.

יָלְדָה מִמַּאן? אִילֵימָא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים — מַאי אִירְיָא גִּיּוֹרֶת וְשִׁפְחָה? אֲפִילּוּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי!

The Gemara analyzes this: From whom did she bear this child? If we say she bore him from a Jew who did not previously have sons, why does the Mishnah speak specifically of a convert or a maidservant? Even a Jewish woman who already had children would also produce a son who is a firstborn for inheritance to this father!

אֶלָּא לָאו מִגֵּר שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר, וְקָתָנֵי בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה!

Rather, is it not referring to a case where she bore the child from a convert who had sons when he was a gentile and then converted? And yet the Mishnah teaches that this son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance! This directly contradicts Rabbi Yochanan's ruling.

לָא, לְעוֹלָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים, וְ״אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן״ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: No; actually, she bore the child from a Jew who did not have sons, and the reason the Mishnah mentioned a convert or maidservant is because the clause "but is not a firstborn with regard to a kohen" was necessary for it to teach.

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל״ — עַד שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ רֶחֶם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.

This was needed to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: Such a son is a firstborn both with regard to inheritance and with regard to a kohen, as it is stated: "Whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel" — implying that a child is not considered a firstborn for redemption unless they open a womb of a woman from the Jewish people, so her previous births as a gentile do not count. Therefore, the Tanna of our Mishnah comes to teach us that this is not the halacha, and he is exempt from redemption.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים בְּגַיּוּתוֹ וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר, יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a Braisa: If a man had sons when he was a gentile and he converted, he does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance! This is a direct kasha on Rabbi Yochanan.

אָמַר רָבִינָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אַחָא: הָא וַדַּאי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִוא, דְּאָמַר ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל״ — עַד שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ רֶחֶם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלֵיף אִיהוּ מִינַּהּ דִּידַהּ.

Ravina said, and some say it is Rav Acha who said: This Braisa is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that "whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel" means it is not a firstborn unless they open a womb of a woman from the Jewish people. And he derives the halacha of the father, his case of a male convert, from her case, that of a female convert, that we disregard children born before conversion. But Rabbi Yochanan holds like the Rabbis who argue with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לְוִיָּיה שֶׁיָּלְדָה — בְּנָהּ פָּטוּר מֵחֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים.

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: With regard to the daughter of a Levite who gave birth to a firstborn boy, her son is exempt from the obligation of five sela coins for his redemption.

דְּאִיעַבַּר מִמַּאן? אִילֵימָא דְּאִיעַבַּר מִכֹּהֵן וּמִלֵּוִי, מַאי אִירְיָא לְוִיָּיה? אֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית נָמֵי!

The Gemara asks: From whom did she become pregnant? If we say that she became pregnant from a kohen or a Levite, why does Rav Adda bar Ahava refer specifically to the daughter of a Levite? Even the daughter of an Israelite who marries a kohen or Levite would produce a son who is also exempt!

אֶלָּא דְּאִיעַבַּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, ״לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם״ כְּתִיב!

Rather, you must say that she became pregnant from an Israelite. But why should the son be exempt? "By their families, by their fathers' houses" is written in the Torah, meaning a child's tribal status follows the father, so this child is an Israelite!

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּאִיעַבַּר מִגּוֹי.

Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a case where she became pregnant from a gentile, so the child has no paternal lineage and his status is determined solely by his mother.

וְלָא תֵּימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְזַהֲמִין אֶת הַוָּלָד, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְזַהֲמִין אֶת הַוָּלָד, לֵוִי פָּסוּל מִיקְּרֵי.

And do not say that this is only according to the one who says that a gentile's seed does not taint the child to disqualify him from the priesthood. Rather, even according to the one who says that they do taint the child, he is still exempt from redemption, because even if he is disqualified from the priesthood, he is still called a disqualified Levite, and Levites are exempt.

מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לְעוֹלָם דְּאִיעַבַּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם״ — בְּפֶטֶר רֶחֶם תְּלָא רַחְמָנָא.

Mar, the son of Rav Yosef, said in the name of Rava: Actually, we are dealing with a case where she became pregnant from an Israelite, and it is different there, as the pasuk says "whatever opens the womb" — the Merciful One made the exemption dependent on the opening of the womb of a Levite woman, regardless of the father's identity.

תְּנַן: מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים וְנָשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא יָלָדָה, נִתְגַּיְּירָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת, נִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת.

The Gemara raises a kasha: We learned in our Mishnah: One who had sons and married a woman who had not previously given birth; or a woman who converted while pregnant; or a maidservant who was emancipated while pregnant —

וְיָלְדָה הִיא וְכֹהֶנֶת הִיא, וּלְוִיָּה הִיא, וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁכְּבָר יָלָדָה.

and she gave birth; and similarly, if she is a kohen's daughter, or she is a Levite's daughter, or a woman who had already given birth — in all these cases, the child is exempt from redemption.

וְכֵן מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחֲרֵי בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת וְיָלָדָה, וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אִם בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן — בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן וְאֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה.

And so too, one who did not wait three months after her husband died or divorced her, and she remarried and gave birth, and it is not known if the child is a nine-month child of the first husband or a seven-month child of the second husband — he is a firstborn with regard to a kohen but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

מִכְּלָל (דִּכְהוּנָּה) [דְּכֹהֶנֶת] וּלְוִיָּה פְּטוּרִין, דְּאִיעַבַּר מִמַּאן?

The Gemara infers: From the fact that the Mishnah lists them as exempt, it is clear that a kohen's daughter and a Levite's daughter are exempt from redeeming their firstborn. From whom did she become pregnant in this case?

אִילֵימָא דְּאִיעַבַּר מִכֹּהֵן וְלֵוִי — אִי הָכִי מַאי אִירְיָא כֹּהֶנֶת וּלְוִיָּה? אֲפִילּוּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי!

If we say that she became pregnant from a kohen or a Levite, if so, why does the Mishnah speak specifically of a kohen's daughter or a Levite's daughter? Even the daughter of an Israelite would produce a son who is also exempt!

אֶלָּא דְּאִיעַבַּר מִגּוֹי — כֹּהֶנֶת פְּטוּרָה?

Rather, you must say that she became pregnant from a gentile. But is a kohen's daughter really exempt in such a case?

וְהָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בָּדֵיק לַן רַבָּה, כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה מִגּוֹי מַהוּ?

But didn't Rav Pappa say: Rabbah tested us with this question: A kohen's daughter who became pregnant from a gentile, what is the halacha regarding her son's redemption?

וְאָמֵינָא לֵיהּ: לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, דְּאָמַר: לְוִיָּה שֶׁיָּלְדָה בְּנָהּ פָּטוּר מֵחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים?

And I said to him: Is this not the same as the ruling of Rav Adda bar Ahava, who said: A Levite's daughter who gave birth, her son is exempt from five sela coins?

וַאֲמַר לִי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! בִּשְׁלָמָא לְוִיָּה בִּקְדוּשְׁתַּהּ קָיְימָא, דְּתַנְיָא: לְוִיָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית אוֹ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בְּעִילַת זְנוּת — נוֹתְנִין לָהּ מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְאוֹכֶלֶת.

And he said to me: How can you compare them?! Granted, a Levite's daughter remains in her sanctity even after having relations with a gentile, as it was taught in a Braisa: A Levite's daughter who was taken captive or who had relations of a harlot's nature, we still give her from the tithe and she may eat it.

אֶלָּא כֹּהֶנֶת, כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵיל לַהּ, הָוְיָא זָרָה!

But a kohen's daughter, once a gentile has relations with her, she becomes a stranger, disqualified from her priestly status, so her son should be obligated in redemption! Thus, the Mishnah cannot be referring to a pregnancy from a gentile.

הָנִיחָא לְמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר דְּאִיעַבַּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מוֹקֵי לַהּ בִּדְאִיעַבַּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל,

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Mar, the son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said that she became pregnant from an Israelite; he can establish the Mishnah's case of a kohen's daughter as where she became pregnant from an Israelite.

אֶלָּא לְרַב פָּפָּא בְּמַאי מוֹקֵי לָהּ?

But according to Rav Pappa, who holds that a pregnancy from an Israelite does not exempt the child, how does he establish the Mishnah's case of a kohen's daughter?

לְעוֹלָם דְּאִיעַבַּר מִכֹּהֵן, וְהִיא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ ״כֹּהֶנֶת״? דִּבְנָה כֹּהֵן.

The Gemara answers: Actually, she became pregnant from a kohen, and she is really the daughter of an Israelite. And why does the Mishnah call her "a kohen's daughter"? Because her son is a kohen, and therefore exempt from redemption.

אִיתְּמַר: כֹּהֵן שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בֵּן חָלָל —

It was stated that Amoraim argued over this case: If a kohen died and left a son who is a chalal, a disqualified kohen born from a forbidden marriage —

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: הַבֵּן חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ, רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אֵין חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עצְמוֹ.

Rav Chisda says: The son is obligated to redeem himself; and Rabbah bar Rav Huna says: He is not obligated to redeem himself.

כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּמֵת הָאָב לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאֵין הַבֵּן חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי זָכָה אָבִיו בְּפִדְיוֹנוֹ.

The Gemara clarifies: In any case where the father died after thirty days of the child's life, everyone agrees that the son is not obligated to redeem himself, because his father already acquired his redemption money, as the father was a kohen and did not have to pay anyone.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי הֵיכָא דְּמֵת הָאָב בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם,

Where they argue is where the father died within thirty days of the child's birth, before the obligation of redemption took effect.

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: הַבֵּן חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ, דְּהָא לֹא זָכָה אָבִיו (לְפִדְיוֹנוֹ) [בְּפִדְיוֹנוֹ].

Rav Chisda says: The son is obligated to redeem himself, because his father did not yet acquire his redemption money before he died.

רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אֵין הַבֵּן חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת עַצְמוֹ, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָתֵינָא מִכֹּחַ גַּבְרָא דְּלָא מָצֵית לְאִשְׁתַּעוֹיֵי דִּינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ.

And Rabbah bar Rav Huna says: The son is not obligated to redeem himself, because he can say to the kohen: I come from the power of a man, my father, with whom you cannot have a legal claim, since he was a kohen and exempt.

תְּנַן: נִתְגַּיְּירָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת — בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן, וְאַמַּאי?

The Gemara raises a kasha: We learned in our Mishnah: If she converted while pregnant, the child is a firstborn with regard to a kohen and must be redeemed. But why?

לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אָתֵינָא מִכֹּחַ גַּבְרָא דְּלָא מָצֵית לְאִשְׁתַּעוֹיֵי דִּינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ!

Let him say to the kohen: I come from the power of a man, my gentile father, with whom you cannot have a legal claim, since gentiles are exempt from the mitzva of redeeming the firstborn!

שָׁאנֵי גּוֹי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ חַיִיס.

The Gemara answers: A gentile is different, as he has no halachic lineage to his child, so the child cannot claim to come from his power.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יָאסִינְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כֹּהֵן שֶׁמֵּת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים וְהִנִּיחַ בֵּן חָלָל — הַבֵּן חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה הָאָב בְּפִדְיוֹנוֹ.

Rabbi Shimon Yasinya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: A kohen who died within thirty days and left a son who is a chalal — the son is obligated to redeem himself, because the father did not acquire his redemption money.

מֵת לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — אֵין הַבֵּן חַיָּיב לִפְדּוֹת עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי זָכָה הָאָב בְּפִדְיוֹנוֹ.

If the father died after thirty days — the son is not obligated to redeem himself, because his father already acquired his redemption money.

וְכֵן מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחֲרֵי בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְכוּ׳. בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה הוּא דְּלָא הָוֵי, הָא כְּפָשׁוּט שָׁקֵיל.

The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the Mishnah: And so too, one who did not wait three months after her husband died or divorced her, etc. The Gemara infers: It is only as a firstborn with regard to inheritance that he is not considered, but he does take a portion as an ordinary son.

וְאַמַּאי? לֵיזִיל לְגַבַּי הַאי וְלִידְחֲיֵיהּ, וּלְגַבַּי הַאי וְלִידְחֲיֵיהּ!

But why should he get anything? Let the heirs of the first husband go to him and push him away, saying "prove you are his son," and let the heirs of the second husband go to him and push him away!

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לַבָּא אַחֲרָיו, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן, וְהַבָּא אַחֲרָיו אֵין בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה.

Rabbi Yirmeyah said: This was only necessary for the child who comes after him, and this is what the Mishnah is saying: The doubtful child is a firstborn with regard to a kohen, and the one who comes after him is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

וְלִכְתְּבוּ הַרְשָׁאָה לַהֲדָדֵי!

The Gemara asks: But let the doubtful child and the other brothers write a power of attorney to one another to claim the estate together!

וְכִי תֵּימָא: מַתְנִיתִין שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַרְשָׁאָה — הָא מוֹקְמִינַן לַהּ קַמַּן דִּבְהַרְשָׁאָה!

And if you say that our Mishnah is dealing with a case without a power of attorney, but we established earlier that the Mishnah is indeed dealing with a case with a power of attorney!

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ — כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה, לֹא הוּכְּרוּ וּבְסוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ — אֵין כּוֹתְבִין הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה.

The Gemara answers: This supports Rabbi Yannai, as Rabbi Yannai said: If they were once recognized and ultimately became mixed up, they may write a power of attorney to one another; but if they were never recognized and ultimately became mixed up, they may not write a power of attorney to one another.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵי זֶהוּ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן?

MISHNAH: Who is considered a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to a kohen?

הַמַּפֶּלֶת שַׁפִּיר מָלֵא מַיִם, מָלֵא דָּם, מְלֵא גְּנִינִין, הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת לְיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים — הַבָּא אַחֲרֵיהֶם בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וּלְכֹהֵן.

If a woman miscarries a gestational sac filled with water, filled with blood, or filled with multi-colored matter; or if she miscarries something shaped like fish, grasshoppers, detestable creatures, or creeping things; or if she miscarries on the fortieth day of pregnancy — the child who comes after them is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to a kohen, because these miscarriages do not count as offspring.

יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וְהַבָּא אַחֲרָיו — שְׁנֵיהֶן אֵינָן בְּכוֹר, לֹא לַנַּחֲלָה וְלֹא לַכֹּהֵן.

One born via caesarean section, and the one who comes after him — both of them are not a firstborn, neither with regard to inheritance nor with regard to a kohen.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הָרִאשׁוֹן לַנַּחֲלָה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי לְחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים.

Rabbi Shimon says: The first child, born via caesarean, is a firstborn with regard to inheritance, and the second child, born naturally, is a firstborn with regard to redemption for five sela coins.

גְּמָ׳ רִאשׁוֹן לַנַּחֲלָה לֹא — ״וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ״ בָּעֵינַן,

GEMARA: The Gemara explains the first Tanna's view: Why is the first child, born via caesarean, not a firstborn with regard to inheritance? Because we require "and they bear to him" in a natural way, which was not the case here.

לְחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים נָמֵי לָא — ״פָּטַר רֶחֶם״ בָּעֵינַן.

Why is he also not a firstborn with regard to five sela coins? Because we require "whatever opens the womb," and a caesarean birth does not open the womb.

שֵׁנִי לַנַּחֲלָה לֹא — ״רֵאשִׁית אוֹנוֹ״ בָּעֵינַן,

Why is the second child not a firstborn with regard to inheritance? Because we require "the first of his strength," and this second child was preceded by the firstborn of caesarean.

לְחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים נָמֵי לָא — קָסָבַר: בְּכוֹר לְדָבָר אֶחָד לָא הָוֵי בְּכוֹר.

Why is he also not a firstborn with regard to five sela coins, even though he opened the womb? Because the Tanna holds: A firstborn with regard to only one matter is not considered a firstborn.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הָרִאשׁוֹן לַנַּחֲלָה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי לְחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים.

The Gemara quotes: Rabbi Shimon says: The first is a firstborn with regard to inheritance, and the second is a firstborn with regard to five sela coins.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: ״תֵּלֵד״ לְרַבּוֹת יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן.

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Shimon is consistent with his reasoning, as he said elsewhere that the word "she shall bear" comes to include a caesarean birth as a halachic birth.

וְהַשֵּׁנִי לְחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים, קָסָבַר: בְּכוֹר לְדָבָר אֶחָד הָוֵי בְּכוֹר.

And the second is a firstborn with regard to five sela coins, because he holds: A firstborn with regard to only one matter is indeed considered a firstborn.