Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bechoros, 5

1) "WAS MOSHE A THIEF OR A 'KUVYUSTUS'?"

QUESTION: Kuntrukus, a Roman officer, questioned Raban Yochanan ben Zakai about Moshe's integrity regarding the amount of silver that he collected from the Machtzis ha'Shekel donations. According to Kuntrukus' calculation, there was a discrepancy in the amount of silver that was collected and the amount that was then distributed for the building of the Mishkan. Kuntrukus therefore asked mockingly, "Was Moshe a thief or a Kuvyustus, or did he not know how to add?"

TOSFOS (DH Kuvyustus) cites RASHI in Chulin (91b, DH Kuvyustus) who explains that "Kuvyustus" means "kidnapper."

How, though, can it mean "kidnapper"? As Tosfos points out, Moshe's alleged dishonesty was not due to suspected kidnapping, but to suspected embezzlement!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS in Bava Basra (92b, DH Kuvyustus) justifies Rashi's explanation by explaining that stealing the Machtzis ha'Shekel is comparable to kidnapping, because the Machtzis ha'Shekel was collected as part of the census of the Jewish people, and thus each Machtzis ha'Shekel represented one person.

(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#5) suggests that when the Roman officer said, "Was Moshe a thief or a Kuvyustus," he was referring to two different discrepancies. When he referred to Moshe as a "thief," he was referring to the Machtzis ha'Shekel funds that were collected. When he referred to Moshe as a "Kuvyustus," he was referring to the apparent discrepancy regarding the number of Leviyim (which, in the preceding lines of the Gemara, the Roman officer questioned). Since he found a discrepancy in the number of Leviyim, he referred to Moshe as a "kidnapper."

(c) The MAHARSHA and others suggest that the Roman officer was asking, "Did Moshe 'kidnap' half of the Jews, such that they were not to be found at the time that the Machtzis ha'Shekel was collected from the rest?"

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the verse in Yechezkel (45:12), "The Shekel will be twenty Gerah. Twenty Shekels, twenty-five Shekels, and fifteen Shekels will constitute a Maneh for you." The intention of the verse is to add the amounts listed, teaching that there are sixty Shekels in one Maneh.

Why does the verse not say simply, "Sixty Shekels will constitute a Maneh for you"? Why does the verse divide the sum into three parts?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Esrim) explains that these three parts represent the actual measuring units used in the Beis ha'Mikdash. "Twenty Shekels" was used as a measure for a third of a Maneh of Kodesh. "Twenty-five Shekels" was used to measure one plain (non-Kodesh) Maneh. "Fifteen Shekels" measured one quarter of a Maneh of Kodesh.

5b

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if a cow gives birth to a firstborn animal that looks like a donkey, or a donkey gives birth to a firstborn animal that looks like a horse, the laws of Bechor do not apply to it. This is derived from the repetition of the phrase, "Peter Chamor" (in Shemos 13:13 and 34:19), from which we learn that both the mother and the baby must be donkeys.

The ROSH (1:4) writes that the correct text in the Mishnah is not "a donkey that gave birth to a type of horse" but rather "a donkey that gave birth to a type of cow." What is the intention behind the Rosh's correction of the text of the Mishnah?

ANSWERS:

(a) The ROSH writes that it is apparent from the second part (Seifa) of the Mishnah which asks, "And are *they* permitted to be eaten?" From the plural "they," it is evident that there are two cases discussed in the first part (Reisha) of the Mishnah in which the animal might be permitted to eat. If, however, one of the cases in the Reisha is discussing a donkey that gave birth to a type of horse, then it is obvious that the animal is forbidden to eat, and the Mishnah would not need to ask about it. (See TOSFOS to 6a, DH u'Mah, who writes that the text of the Mishnah should be, "Is *it* permitted to eat?" Tosfos was also bothered by the question of the Rosh, but, unlike the Rosh, he changes the text of the question and not the text of the case of the Gemara.)

(b) The Rosh writes further that since the Mishnah says in the Seifa, "When a Tamei animal gave birth to a type of Tahor animal, it is prohibited to eat," this implies that the Reisha, too, is discussing such a case (a donkey that gave birth to a type of cow).

The Rosh explains that the reason why the Beraisa later (6a) says that when a donkey gave birth to a type of horse, the laws of Bechor do not apply, is because it wants to teach that when the baby possesses some of the Simanim of a donkey, the laws of Bechor do apply. This is a Chidush, because a horse is not a species that has the Kedushah of Bechorah, and therefore the Beraisa mentions this case even though the Mishnah does not mention it (according to the opinion of the Rosh). (Even though the Gemara rejects the assertion that the laws of Bechor apply when a donkey gave birth to a horse, the Rosh states that the Halachah does not follow the Gemara's rejection, but rather it follows the Beraisa. However, see the MA'ADANEI YOM TOV (#400), who points out that the Rosh later writes that there is a doubt regarding this matter.)

(c) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (6a, #1) writes in the name of the Rosh that the correct text in the Mishnah is, "A donkey that gave birth to a cow," because this case teaches a greater Chidush: even though the cow is a species that generally possesses the Kedushah of Bechorah, nevertheless in this case it is exempt from Bechorah. In a case of a donkey that gives birth to a type of horse, it is more obvious that Bechorah does not apply, since the laws of Bechor generally do not apply to a horse, and therefore the Mishnah would not need to teach this law. (See also TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER on Mishnayos.) (D. Bloom)