1)

(a)A gentile - does not inherit his father who has converted.

(b)The reason that ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan rules that, although his first son (from the time he was a gentile), does not inherit him, the son that he fathers after his conversion is nevertheless not considered his first-born son (regarding the inheritance) is - because he is not "the first of his strength".

2. ... Reish Lakish maintains that, since Chazal have said that - a convert is like a newborn baby, the first baby to be born after the conversion is indeed "the first of his strength".

(c)They also argue over whether a convert has fulfilled the Mitzvah of having children with the children that he bore before his conversion - whether we contend with the children that he bore before his conversion (Rebbi Yochanan), or not (Resh Lakish).

(d)Had they only argued in our case, we would have thought that - Reish Lakish's reason is because the baby is not considered an heir, but that he is nevertheless considered his baby, in which case he will agree with Rebbi Yochanan, that he has fulfilled his obligation.

(e)That contention is based on - the S'vara that the main objective of having children is in order to inhabit the world (the Mitzvah of Sheves), and he has, notwithstanding the fact that he is a Nochri.

2)

(a)Whereas on the other hand, had they only argued there, we would have thought that Rebbi Yochanan only issued his Din - because when all's said and done, he inhabited the world (as we explained), whereas here, he will agree with Resh Lakish.

(b)Our Mishnah learned that, if a Shifchah Cana'anis who was set free, or a gentile who converted (both of whom had children before they changed their status) marries a man who has no children, and then gives birth, the child is a B'chor for inheritance, but not for Petter Rechem. The man mentioned by the Tana cannot be referring an ordinary Yisrael - because then the same Din would apply even if the woman had been an ordinary Yisre'elis.

(c)The Mishnah must therefore be speaking - about a woman who converted together with her husband, who already had children before they converted. Yet still, the first son that they bear after their conversion, is a B'chor for inheritance (creating a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).

(d)We answer by establishing the Mishnah by an ordinary Yisrael after all, and the Tana is coming to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili who holds that - we do not contend with the children that the woman bore before her conversion, and that the first child born after the conversion is therefore considered a B'chor for inheritance, too.

(e)And he learns it from the Pasuk in Bo - "Kadeish li Kol Petter Rechem bi'Venei Yisrael" (implying that we do not contend with a firstborn that was born before the Nochri converted).

3)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Beraisa, which learns that the first-born son of a convert who already had children is a B'chor, goes - like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili ...

(b)... who learns the Din of Ger from Giyores (which we just learned from the Pasuk in Bo).

4)

(a)To reconcile the Din that the son of a bas Levi is Patur from Pidyon ha'Ben, with the Pasuk "le'Mishpechosam le'Veis Avosam", Rav Papa explains that - when the father and mother are both Yisre'elim, we always follow the father, even in matters of Pidyon ha'Ben. And it is when the father is a Nochri that we follow the mother, and exempt a bas Levi's first-born child from Pidyon ha'Ben.

(b)This even concurs with the opinion of those who say that when the father is a Nochri, we disqualify the child - since he is not Pasul because he is considered a Nochri like his father, but because his status is one of Pasul (in this case, he is called a Pasul Levi).

(c)Rava holds that, even if the father is a Yisrael, we nevertheless go after the mother in this case (despite the Pasuk "le'Mishpechosam le'Veis Avosam") - because the Torah writes "Petter Rechem".

5)

(a)Our Mishnah teaches that a woman who gives birth to a first-born son, who subsequently becomes mixed up with the first-born son of a Kohenes or of a Leviyah, the baby is not a B'chor for inheritance. If Kohenes in the Mishnah means a bas Kohen, then the father must be - a Yisrael, because if he was a Nochri, the Leviyah would not worry us, since a bas Levi does not become invalidated from the Leviyah through relations with a non-Jew, and the child of the bas Levi would still be Patur from redemption. But how would we explain the Kohenes, who would lose her Din of Kehunah through such a relationship, in which case - her son would be Chayav Bechorah, no less than the bas Yisrael (a disproof to the opinion of Rav Papa).

(b)We reconcile the Mishnah with Rav Papa however - by establishing the Mishnah by a bas Yisrael who became pregnant through a Kohen ...

(c)... and the Tana refers to her as a Kohenes - because her son is a Kohen.

6)

(a)In a case where a Kohen dies, leaving a baby of less than thirty days old who is a Chalal to be redeemed, Rav Chisda holds that the child will have to redeem himself when he grows up. Rabah bar Rav Huna maintains that - he is Patur.

(b)According to Rav Chisda, since the father never became Chayav to redeem him, the obligation now falls on him. Rabah bar Rav Huna counters - that - (seeing as the child's father was Patur) he (the child himself) can say to the Kohen: "I come on the strength of someone from whom you could never have claimed, since my father, who was a Kohen, would have kept the redemption money himself.

(c)Had the father died after thirty days - everyone would agree that the Chalal would be Patur (since the father would have already acquired the money).

(d)We ...

1. ... ask on Rabah bar Rav Huna from our Mishnah, which rules that if a woman became pregnant before her conversion but gave birth afterwards, the child is obligated to redeem himself - why he cannot say to the Kohen that he comes from someone (his Nochri father) from whom he (the Kohen) could not have claimed? And we ...

2. ... answer that - since a Yisrael is not Misyaches (has no relationship with) a non-Jew - how can he come on his strength?

7)

(a)The final case in our Mishnah rules that a baby who is born to a woman who got married within three months of her first husband's death (so we do not know for sure who the father is), is not a B'chor for inheritance - implying that he does at least receive a portion.

(b)The problem with that is - why he receives anything at all, seeing as whichever father dies, the brothers can demand that he proves that he is his son, and not of their mother's other husband.

(c)To answer the Kashya - we establish the Mishnah with refererence (not to the Safek himself, but) to the first son to be born after him ...

(d)... and what the Mishnah is saying is that, although he is definitely a son of the second husband, and that as such, he will receive a portion of his inheritance when he dies - nevertheless, he cannot claim the extra portion due to a B'chor, because the other brothers can ask him to prove that the Safek who was born before him is not the B'chor of their father.

8)

(a)We ask why the Safek and the first son to be born from the second husband cannot write a Harsha'ah - (a document that is similar to a power of attorney) for each other.

(b)And we answer - a Harsha'ah is only effective there where the person who is writing it has a definite claim; unlike our case, where, from the moment the second Safek was born, it was never established which of the two was the B'chor of the second husband.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a woman gives birth to a Sh'fir full of water, blood or G'ninim - coloured substances ...

(b)... or to any kind of fish or insect ...

(c)... the child that is subsequently born - is a B'chor in all respects.

(d)Consequently - a baby that is subsequently born is not considered a B'chor.

10)

(a)The Chachamim hold that neither a baby born by cesarean section nor the next male to be born is a B'chor in any regard. According to Rebbi Shimon, the first one is the firstborn for inheritance, the second one - for the Din of five Sela'im.

(b)They preclude the first baby from ...

1. ... from inheritance - based on the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Veyaldu lo" (implying that the Bechorah is dependent on a regular birth).

2. ... the Din of five Sela'im - based on the Pasuk in Bo "Petter Rechem".

(c)They precludes the second baby from ...

1. ... inheritance, based on the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei - "Reishis Ono" (the first of his strength, implying that his firstborn must be his first baby).

2. ... the Din of five Sela'im - because they hold that one cannot be a partial B'chor; either one is a complete B'chor, or one is not a B'chor at all.

11)

(a)Rebbi Shimon holds that a cesarean baby is a B'chor for inheritance - because the Torah adds the words "asher Teileid" to include a cesarean. Whereas the second son is a B'chor for Pidyon ha'Ben.

(b)He disagrees with the Chachamim's principle, inasmuch as - it is possible to be a B'chor in one regard, and not in the other.

(c)And since a birth by Caesarian section is considered a birth regarding Tum'as Leidah - it is also considered a birth regarding inheritance.

(d)Whereas the second baby is a Petter Rechem - because he maintains that it is possible to be a B'chor in one regard and not in the other, as we just explained.