## Bekhorot Daf 47a

###### Bekhorot 47a:1
[Bekhorot 47a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:1)

״יַכִּיר״ לְחוּד, וְהַכָּרַת פָּנִים לְחוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The requirement of **“He shall recognize”** with regard to a firstborn for inheritance, **and the recognition of** a husband’s **face,** are **discrete** matters.


###### Bekhorot 47a:2
[Bekhorot 47a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:2)

אִיתְּמַר: הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים בְּגַיּוּתוֹ וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה — דְּהָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ ״רֵאשִׁית אוֹנוֹ״, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה — גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר כְּקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that *amora’im* engaged in a dispute concerning the case of a man who **had children when he** was **a gentile and he** subsequently **converted: Rabbi Yoḥanan says he does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance,** i.e., a son who is his firstborn after his conversion does not inherit a double portion; **and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance.** The Gemara elaborates: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as** this man already **had “the first of his strength”** (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Torah’s description of the firstborn in this context, before he converted. **And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance,** as the halakhic status of **a convert who** just **converted** is **like** that of **a child** just **born.**


###### Bekhorot 47a:3
[Bekhorot 47a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:3)

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאִיתְּמַר: הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים בְּגַיּוּתוֹ וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קִיֵּים פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לֹא קִיֵּים. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קִיֵּים — ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לֹא קִיֵּים פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה — גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר כְּקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** these *amora’im* **follow their** regular line of **reasoning, as it was stated:** If a man **had children when he** was **a gentile and he** subsequently **converted, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He has** already **fulfilled** the mitzva to **be fruitful and multiply, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** He has **not fulfilled** the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara clarifies: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says he has fulfilled** the aspect of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply expressed in the command: **“He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited”** (Isaiah 45:18), i.e., to increase the inhabitation of the world. **And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says he has not fulfilled** the mitzva to **be fruitful and multiply,** as the halakhic status of **a convert who** just **converted** is **like** that of **a child** just **born,** and it is considered as though he did not have children.


###### Bekhorot 47a:4
[Bekhorot 47a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:4)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא קַמַּיְיתָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְגַיּוּתָן לָאו בְּנֵי נַחֲלָה נִינְהוּ, אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְּרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״, וְהָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ שֶׁבֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And** it is **necessary** to state their opinions in both cases. **As, if it were stated** only **in that first** case with regard to inheritance, perhaps it is only **in that** case that **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says** his opinion that the first son born after conversion inherits a double portion, **because in their gentile state they are not subject to** the *halakhot* of **inheritance. But with regard to that** case, the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, **say he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥanan that** since the verse states: **“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 further **inhabited,** he has therefore fulfilled the mitzva.


###### Bekhorot 47a:5
[Bekhorot 47a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:5)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if** their dispute **were stated** only **with regard to this** mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, perhaps it is only **in this** case that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** his opinion, due to the verse: “He formed it to be inhabited.” **But with regard to that** case of inheritance, **say he concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** that sons born when one was a gentile are disregarded. Consequently, it is **necessary** to teach their opinions in both disputes.


###### Bekhorot 47a:6
[Bekhorot 47a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **We learned** in the mishna: **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 Canaanite **maidservant and she was** then **emancipated;** or one who gave birth when **she was still a gentile and she** then **converted, and when** the maidservant or the gentile **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 priest.**


###### Bekhorot 47a:7
[Bekhorot 47a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the mishna: This maidservant or convert, whose child that was born when she came to join the Jewish people is a firstborn for inheritance, **from whom,** i.e., from what type of father, **did she bear** him? **If we say** she bore him **from a Jew who did not** previously **have sons,** the initial subject of this clause of the mishna, **why** does it make reference **specifically** to **a gentile or a maidservant,** indicating that this son is a firstborn for inheritance because the ones born when she was not Jewish are disregarded? The *halakha* would be the same **even** with regard to **a Jewish woman** who had already given birth.


###### Bekhorot 47a:8
[Bekhorot 47a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is** the mishna **not** referring to two distinct cases? The first concerns a man who already had children before converting, and then marries a Jew who has already given birth to children, while the second involves a woman who had children when she was a maidservant or a gentile, and when she became Jewish she bore a child **from** one like her, **a convert who had sons** when he was a gentile **and** then **converted. And** the mishna **teaches** that this son **is a firstborn with regard to inheritance,** which apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Bekhorot 47a:9
[Bekhorot 47a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No; actually,** her child was born **from a Jew who did not have sons, and** the reason the mishna makes reference specifically to a gentile or a maidservant is not due to the case of inheritance. Rather, it **was necessary for** the clause: But **is not a firstborn with regard to** redemption from **a priest.**


###### Bekhorot 47a:10
[Bekhorot 47a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This statement serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says:** That son **is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to** redemption from **a priest, as it is stated:** “Whatever **opens the womb among** the children of **Israel”** (Exodus 13:2), i.e., one is not considered a firstborn **unless he opens the womb** of a woman **from the Jewish people,** and therefore the children that she bore before she converted are not considered to have opened her womb. Therefore, the first *tanna* of the mishna **teaches us that** he is **not** a firstborn with regard to redemption, as his mother’s womb was already opened when she was a gentile.


###### Bekhorot 47a:11
[Bekhorot 47a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים בְּגַיּוּתוֹ וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר, יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה! אָמַר רָבִינָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אַחָא: הָא וַדַּאי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִוא, דְּאָמַר ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל״ — עַד שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ רֶחֶם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלֵיף אִיהוּ מִינַּהּ דִּידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof against Rabbi Yoḥanan from a *baraita*: **If** a man **had sons when he was a gentile and he converted,** and then fathered more sons, **he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Ravina says, and some say** it is **Rav Aḥa** who says: **This** ruling **is certainly** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says** that the phrase in the verse “whatever **opens the womb among** the children of **Israel”** means it is not a firstborn **unless it opens the womb** of a woman **from the Jewish people. And** he **derives his** *halakha*, that of a gentile who converted, **from her** *halakha*, that of a female convert, that one does not take into account the children born before they converted. Rabbi Yoḥanan may hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.


###### Bekhorot 47a:12
[Bekhorot 47a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:12)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לְוִיָּיה שֶׁיָּלְדָה — בְּנָהּ פָּטוּר מֵחֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים. דְּאִיעַבַּר מִמַּאן? אִילֵימָא דְּאִיעַבַּר מִכֹּהֵן וּמִלֵּוִי, מַאי אִירְיָא לְוִיָּיה? אֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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 to give **five *sela*** coins to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered to be the son of a Levite and Levites are exempt from this obligation. The Gemara asks: **From whom did she become pregnant? If we say that she became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, why** does Rav Adda bar Ahava refer **specifically** to the daughter of **a Levite?** The *halakha* would be the same **even** for **an Israelite woman** who became pregnant from a priest or a Levite.


###### Bekhorot 47a:13
[Bekhorot 47a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:13)

אֶלָּא דְּאִיעַבַּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, ״לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם״ כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rav Adda bar Ahava must be referring to a case **where** the daughter of a Levite **became pregnant from an Israelite.** But if so, why is the son’s status determined by his mother’s status in this instance? After all, **it is written: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses”** (Numbers 1:2), which indicates that the lineage of a Jewish family follows the father rather than the mother.


###### Bekhorot 47a:14
[Bekhorot 47a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:14)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּאִיעַבַּר מִגּוֹי. וְלָא תֵּימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְזַהֲמִין אֶת הַוָּלָד, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְזַהֲמִין אֶת הַוָּלָד, לֵוִי פָּסוּל מִיקְּרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says:** This is referring to the daughter of a Levite **who became pregnant from a gentile.** In such a case, the son’s status is determined by that of the mother, and therefore the son is exempt from the redemption of the firstborn. **And do not say** this is the *halakha* only **according to the one who says** that in such a situation **one does not disqualify the child** at all due to his gentile father, and he is of fit lineage. **Rather, even according to the one who says** that **one does disqualify the child** due to the gentile father, nevertheless, one also follows the mother **and he is** therefore **called a Levite** of **flawed** lineage, and is exempt from redemption.


###### Bekhorot 47a:15
[Bekhorot 47a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:15)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says** a different explanation, **in the name of Rava: Actually,** Rav Adda bar Ahava is referring to a case **where** the daughter of a Levite **became pregnant from an Israelite. And** although the son’s status is usually determined by that of the father, **there,** with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, **it is different, as the verse states:** “Whatever **opens the womb** among the children of Israel” (Exodus 13:2). This teaches that **the Merciful One renders** the obligation **dependent upon the opening of the womb,** and since this firstborn came from the womb of a daughter of a Levite, and not a Levite, the obligation of redemption does not apply.


###### Bekhorot 47a:16
[Bekhorot 47a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:16)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rav Pappa: **We learned** in the mishna: **One who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth;** or a woman who **converted while** she was **pregnant,** or a Canaanite maidservant who **was emancipated while** she was **pregnant** and she gave birth to a son, he is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.


###### Bekhorot 47a:17
[Bekhorot 47a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:17)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** likewise, if an Israelite woman **and** the daughter or wife of **a priest,** neither of whom had given birth yet, or an Israelite woman **and** the daughter or wife of **a Levite,** or an Israelite woman **and a woman who had already given birth, gave birth,** and it is uncertain which son was born to which mother; **and likewise** a woman **who did not wait three months after** the death of **her husband and she married and gave birth, and it is unknown whether** the child was born after **nine months** and is **the son of the first** husband, or **whether** he was born after **seven months** and is **the son of the latter** husband, in all these cases the child is **a firstborn with regard to** redemption from **a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.**


###### Bekhorot 47a:18
[Bekhorot 47a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:18)

מִכְּלָל (דִּכְהוּנָּה) [דְּכֹהֶנֶת] וּלְוִיָּה פְּטוּרִין, דְּאִיעַבַּר מִמַּאן? אִילֵימָא דְּאִיעַבַּר מִכֹּהֵן וְלֵוִי — אִי הָכִי מַאי אִירְיָא כֹּהֶנֶת וּלְוִיָּה? אֲפִילּוּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty: From the ruling in the case of one whose child became confused with that of a daughter of a priest or a Levite, **by inference** one can derive **that** the daughter of **a priest and** the daughter of **a Levite** are **exempt** from redemption.Now, **from whom did she become pregnant? If we say that she became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, if so, why specifically** mention the daughter of **a priest and** the daughter of **a Levite?** The same *halakha* would apply **even** in the case of **an Israelite woman** who became pregnant from a priest or a Levite, as the son is exempt from redemption because he is also a priest or a Levite.


###### Bekhorot 47a:19
[Bekhorot 47a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:19)

אֶלָּא דְּאִיעַבַּר מִגּוֹי — כֹּהֶנֶת פְּטוּרָה? וְהָאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בָּדֵיק לַן רַבָּה, כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה מִגּוֹי מַהוּ? וְאָמֵינָא לֵיהּ: לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, דְּאָמַר: לְוִיָּה שֶׁיָּלְדָה בְּנָהּ פָּטוּר מֵחָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** if the case is **where** the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite **became pregnant from a gentile,** then is the son of **the daughter of a priest exempt? But didn’t Rav Pappa say: Rabba tested us** on the following matter: With regard to the daughter of **a priest who became pregnant from a gentile, what is** the *halakha*? **And we said to him: Isn’t this** the case discussed **by Rav Adda bar Ahava, who says:** With regard to the daughter of **a Levite who gave birth** to a firstborn boy, **her son is exempt from** the obligation to give **five *sela*** coins? This ruling was interpreted as referring to one who became pregnant from a gentile.


###### Bekhorot 47a:20
[Bekhorot 47a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:20)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa continues: **And** Rabba **said to me: How can** these cases **be compared? Granted,** if the daughter of **a Levite** has a child from a gentile, he is considered a Levite with regard to redemption since his mother **retains her sanctity. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a Levite woman who was captured,** leading to a concern that one of her captors might have engaged in sexual intercourse with her, **or** even **if** a Levite woman definitely **engaged in licentious sexual intercourse,** one nevertheless **gives her** first **tithe and she may eat** it.


###### Bekhorot 47a:21
[Bekhorot 47a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:21)

אֶלָּא כֹּהֶנֶת, כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵיל לַהּ, הָוְיָא זָרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to the daughter of **a priest, since if** a gentile **engages in intercourse with her she becomes** like **a non-priest** and may no longer partake of *teruma*, her son from a gentile should be considered like an Israelite and be obligated in the redemption of a firstborn. If so, in what case does the mishna exempt the son of a daughter of a priest or a daughter of a Levite from redemption?


###### Bekhorot 47a:22
[Bekhorot 47a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:22)

הָנִיחָא לְמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר דְּאִיעַבַּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מוֹקֵי לַהּ בִּדְאִיעַבַּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא לְרַב פָּפָּא בְּמַאי מוֹקֵי לָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **This works out well according to** the opinion of **Mar, son of Rav Yosef,** citing **in the name of Rava, who says** that Rav Adda bar Ahava, who deems the son of a Levite woman exempt from the obligation of redemption, was referring to a case **where** she **became pregnant from an Israelite.** This is because he can **interpret** the mishna **as** referring **to** the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite **who became pregnant from an Israelite. But according to** the opinion of **Rav Pappa,** who maintains that the son of a priest’s or Levite’s daughter who became pregnant from an Israelite is subject to the obligation of redemption from a priest, **with regard to what** case does he **interpret** the mishna?


###### Bekhorot 47a:23
[Bekhorot 47a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/47a:23)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the mishna is not referring to the daughter of a priest but to a woman **who became pregnant from a priest.** Therefore, her son is exempt from redemption, **and** yet **she** herself is **an Israelite woman. And why does** the mishna **call her** the daughter of **a priest [*kohenet*]? Because her son is a priest.**