(R. Yochanan): If a Nochri had children and then converted, the law of Bechor (to inherit a double portion) does not apply.

(Reish Lakish): His firstborn (after converting) is a Bechor (for inheritance).

R. Yochanan says that his firstborn (after converting) is not a Bechor because he is not "Reishis Ono" (his first biological child);

Reish Lakish says that he is a Bechor. A convert is like a newborn baby. (It is as if he does not have previous children.)

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with what they taught elsewhere:

(R. Yochanan): If a Nochri had children and then converted, he already fulfilled "Peru u'Revu";

(Reish Lakish): He did not fulfill it.

R. Yochanan says that he fulfilled it, for it is a Mitzvah even for Nochrim to have children - "Lo Sohu Vera'ah Lasheves Yetzarah";

Reish Lakish says that he did not, for a convert is like a newborn baby (without previous children).

They must argue in both cases:

Had they argued only here, one might have thought that Reish Lakish considers the first child (after conversion) a Bechor because inheritance of a double portion does not apply to Nochrim, but "Lasheves Yetzarah" applies. (He would agree that he fulfilled "Peru u'Revu");

Had they argued only there, one might have thought that R. Yochanan says that he fulfilled "Peru u'Revu" because "Lasheves Yetzarah" applies to Nochrim, but not inheritance of a double portion. (He would agree that the next child is a Bechor.)

(Mishnah): In the following cases, the next child will be a Bechor for inheritance, but not regarding Pidyon:

A woman with children married a man without children;

A Nochris or slave had children, then she converted or was freed.

Question: Who fathered the first child after conversion or freedom?

Answer #1: The father was a Yisrael without previous children.

Rejection: If so, why does it say that she was a Nochris or slave? The same applies to a Bas Yisrael! (Her firstborn from her new husband is a Bechor only for inheritance.)

Answer #2: The father was a convert with previous children (from when he was a Nochri).

Question: The next child is a Bechor for inheritance. This refutes R. Yochanan!

Answer (and defense of Answer #1): Really, the father was a Yisrael without previous children. The Chidush is that the next child is exempt from Pidyon;

This is unlike R. Yosi ha'Gelili, who says that her next child is a Bechor even regarding Pidyon, for it says "Peter (Kol) Rechem bi'Venei Yisrael."

Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If a Nochri had children then converted, his next child is a Bechor regarding inheritance.

Answer (Ravina): The Tana is R. Yosi ha'Gelili, who learns Bechor (regarding Pidyon) from "Peter (Kol) Rechem bi'Vnei Yisrael";

He learns Bechor regarding inheritance from Pidyon, i.e. it depends on his first child after becoming a Yisrael.

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The firstborn of a Leviyah is exempt from Pidyon.

Question: Who is the father?

It cannot be a Kohen or Levi. Their children are exempt, even from a Yisraelis!

Answer #1: He is a Yisrael.

Rejection: "L'Mishpechosam l'Veis Avosam" teaches that lineage follows the father!

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): The father is a Nochri.

This is not only according to the opinion that the child (of a Yisraelis from a Nochri) is not tainted (rather, he is attributed to his mother. Rashi - he is Kosher; Tosfos - he is a Mamzer, for Mamzerus applies to Yisrael);

Rather, it is even like the opinion that the child is tainted (attributed to his father. Rashi - he is Pasul; Tosfos - he is not a Mamzer). He is a Pasul Levi.

Defense of Answer #1 (Mar brei d'Rav Yosef): Really, the father is a Yisrael;

Pidyon does not follow the usual law of lineage, for it depends on Peter Rechem, i.e. the mother.

(Mishnah): (In the following cases, the next child will be a Bechor for Pidyon, but not for inheritance;)

A man with children married a woman without children;

A pregnant Nochris or slave (who had not yet given birth) converted or was freed.

A woman gave birth for the first time, and the baby became mixed up with a baby of a Kohenes, Leviyah or a woman with previous children;

A woman remarried within three months and gave birth within nine months, so we do not know if it is a nine-month baby from her first husband, or a seven-month baby from her new husband.

Inference: From case (3), we learn that the child of a Kohenes or Leviyah is exempt from Pidyon.

Question: Who is the father?

It cannot be a Kohen or Levi. Their children are exempt, even from a Yisraelis!

Answer #1: The father is a Nochri.

Objection: Pidyon applies (regarding a Kohenes) if the father is a Nochri!

Question (Rava): If a Kohenes' first child was from a Nochri, does Pidyon apply?

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): This is like Rav Ada's law, that a Leviyah's child from a Nochri is exempt from Pidyon!

Rejection (and Answer #2 - Rava): No. A Leviyah's child is exempt, because she retains her Kedushah!

(Beraisa): (Even) if a Leviyah was captured (by Nochrim, so we suspect that they had relations with her) or was Mezanah (had extramarital relations with a Pasul who may not marry a Bas Yisrael), she may receive and eat Ma'aser (Rishon);

A Kohenes is different. If she had relations with a Nochri or Pasul, she becomes like a Zar!

Answer #2: Mar brei d'Rav Yosef can answer like he did above. The father is a Yisrael.

Question: How can Rav Papa answer?

Answer #3: Really, the father is a Kohen or Levi. The woman is called a Kohenes (or Leviyah) because her son is a Kohen (or Levi).

(Rav Chisda): If a Kohen fathered a Chalal (someone born from a marriage forbidden only to Kohanim, e.g. a divorcee) and died, the son (if he is a Peter Rechem) must redeem himself.

(Rabah bar Rav Huna): He need not redeem himself.

If the father died after 30 days, all agree that the son is exempt. It is as if the father redeemed him and kept the money himself;

They argue in a case when the father died within 30 days.

Rav Chisda obligates the son to redeem himself. Since the Mitzvah to redeem did not take effect in the father's lifetime, we cannot consider it as if he redeemed him and kept the money;

Rabah exempts. (The son's obligation comes from his father's.) He can say 'since Kohanim could not have forced my father to pay, also I am exempt.'

Question (Mishnah): If a pregnant Nochris converted, her son must be redeemed.

Even though Kohanim could not have forced his father to pay, he is liable!

Answer: The case of a Nochri (father) is different, for his son is not attributed to him. (There, the son's obligation does not depend on his father.)

(R. Shimon Ya'asinya): If a Kohen fathered a Chalal and died within 30 days, the son must redeem himself. We do not consider it as if his father redeemed him and kept the money;

If the father died after 30 days, the son is exempt. It is as if the father redeemed him and kept the money.

(Mishnah): If a woman remarried within three months (the son is not a Bechor for inheritance).

Question: This implies that he inherits like a regular son. The sons of either father should be able to say 'you do not inherit with us unless you prove that you are our brother!'

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): Indeed, he does not inherit at all. The Mishnah teaches that he is a Bechor regarding Pidyon, and the next son is not a Bechor regarding inheritance.

Question: He and the next son should be able to write a Harsha'ah (power of attorney) to each other! ("If I am the Bechor, I authorize my 'partner' to collect my extra portion." The 'partners' will divide the extra portion between themselves.)

Suggestion: The Mishnah does not discuss Harsha'ah.

Rejection: Later, we establish that the Mishnah discusses Harsha'ah!

Answer: This supports R. Yanai:

(R. Yanai): (If the sons of two women became mixed up), if it was initially known which son is to which mother, the sons can write a Harsha'ah to each other. (Together, they inherit one share from each father);

If it was never known which son is to which mother, they cannot write a Harsha'ah to each other.

(Mishnah) The first child after any of the following (miscarriages) is a Bechor regarding inheritance and Pidyon:

A Shefir (the outer skin of a fetus before bones form) full of water, blood or different colors (alternatively - of small, worm-like pieces);

Forms of fish, Chagavim, Shekatzim u'Rmashim;

A miscarriage within 40 days of conception.

A Yotzei Dofen is not a Bechor in either respect, nor is the child after it;

R. Shimon says, Yotzei Dofen is a Bechor for inheritance, but the child after it must be redeemed.

(Gemara): (The first Tana holds that) Yotzei Dofen is not a Bechor for inheritance. "V'Yoldu Lo" teaches that the Bechor must be born normally (Rashi. Tosfos - we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Leidah-Leidah" from Tum'as Leidah, which does not apply to Yotzei Dofen);

It is not a Bechor for Pidyon, for it is not Peter Rechem;

The next child is not a Bechor for inheritance, for it is not "Reishis Ono";

It is not a Bechor for Pidyon. Even though it was the first to leave the womb, the Tana holds that a Bechor in one respect is not a Bechor (at all);

R. Shimon says that Yotzei Dofen is a Bechor for inheritance. He expounds "Teled" to include Yotzei Dofen;

The next child is a Bechor for Pidyon. He holds that a Bechor in one respect is a Bechor.