Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) LIKE WHOM IS OUR MISHNAH?

(a) Question: (We did not answer that the Chachamim in that Mishnah argue with R. Shimon about a Ba'al Mum me'Ikara.) We assume that Chachamim agree that it may be redeemed if it died; if so, Rav should have said that our Mishnah is like R. Shimon and his opponent (the Chachamim who argue with him)!
(b) Answer #1: Rav holds like Reish Lakish, who says that Chachamim require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, but not for Kodshei Mizbe'ach;

1. Our Mishnah cannot be Chachamim on account of the Seifa.
2. (Seifa): If it (a Ba'al Mum me'Ikara) died, it is buried.

(c) Question: Perhaps the reason they are buried is not because Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah is impossible, rather, because we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs!
(d) Answer: If so, they should have taught [a bigger Chidush,] that if an animal became Tereifah, it must be buried.
(e) Answer #2: Rav holds like R. Yochanan (who says that Chachamim require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis *and* Kodshei Mizbe'ach);

1. Indeed, the correct text of Rav's teaching should say 'Our Mishnah is like R. Shimon and his opponent.'

(a) (Mishnah): If one was Makdish an animal (and later it became a Ba'al Mum...)
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Beraisa): [One eats Pesulei ha'Mukdashim like a] "Tzvi" - just like a deer is exempt from Bechorah, also Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps it is exempt from Bechorah, but not from Matanos!
2. Rejection: "Ayal" - just like a wild goat is exempt from Bechorah and Matanos, also Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.
3. Suggestion: We should permit Chelev of Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, just like that of Tzvi and Ayal (they are Chayos)!
4. Rejection: "Ach" (Devarim 12:22) limits [the similarity to Tzvi and Ayal].

(d) Question: The Beraisa suggested that Pesulei ha'Mukdashim would be exempt from Bechorah, but not from Matanos - why should we distinguish them?
(e) Answer: It is more reasonable to exempt from Bechorah, for it does not apply to all animals (i.e. females), but Matanos apply to all animals.
(f) Question (Rav Papa): We should say that Oso v'Es Beno does not apply to Pesulei ha'Mukdashim, just like it does not apply to Tzvi and Ayal!
(g) Answer (Abaye): Whether you consider Pesulei ha'Mukdashim like Chulin or like Kodshim, Oso v'Es Beno applies!
(h) Question (Rav Papa): If so, why is a verse needed to forbid the Chelev - whether we consider Pesulei ha'Mukdashim like Chulin or like Kodshim, the Chelev is forbidden!
(i) Answer #1 (Abaye): Just like "Ach" teaches that we do not equate Pesulei ha'Mukdashim to Tzvi v'Ayal regarding Chelev, it also teaches not to equate them regarding Oso v'Es Beno.
(j) Answer #2 (Rava): "Ach" only teaches about Oso v'Es Beno, a different verse forbids Chelev:

1. Question: "Rak Es Damo Lo Sochel" - what does this refer to?

i. Suggestion: It forbids the blood.
ii. Rejection: There is no need to forbid blood, also the blood of Tzvi v'Ayal is forbidden!

2. Answer: It refers to Chelev.
3. Question: The verse should explicitly say Chelev!
4. Answer: Had it said Chelev, one might have thought that we learn from both the verse and the Hekesh (to Tzvi v'Ayal):

i. The Hekesh would exempt from Kares, for Kares is only for Chelev Behemah, but Pesulei ha'Mukdashim are equated to Chayos;
ii. The verse would teach that there is a Lav.
iii. Therefore, the Torah says "Dam" instead, to teach that there is Kares, just like for blood.

(k) Question: The Tana says that "Ach" forbids Chelev - this is unlike Rava (who says that it teaches about Oso v'Es Beno)!
(l) Answer: The Tana teaches that had we not had the verse "Rak Es Damo..." [to forbid the Chelev], we would have learned this from "Ach";

1. Since it says "Rak Es Damo...," "Ach" teaches about Oso v'Es Beno.

(a) (Mishnah): It does not become Chulin...
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Version #1 - Answer (Beraisa): "Tizbach" -- [you may slaughter Pesulei ha'Mukdashim,] you may not shear them; "Vasar" -- [you may eat the meat, but] not the milk; "v'Achalta" -- [you may eat it, but] not for your dogs;

1. This is the source that we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs.

(d) Version #2 - Answer (Beraisa): "Tizbach v'Ochalta" - you may eat only after slaughter.
(e) This version permits redeeming Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs.

(a) (Mishnah): Its offspring and milk are forbidden after it is redeemed.
(b) Question: What is the case?

1. If the mother became pregnant and gave birth after redemption, the child would be fully Chulin!

(c) Answer: The mother became pregnant before redemption and gave birth after redemption.
(d) Inference: Had the mother given birth before redemption, the child would be Kodesh.
(e) Question: What is the source of this?
(f) Answer (Beraisa): (Had the Torah not specified, we would have assumed that a Shelamim can be male or female; therefore, "Zachar" and "Nekevah" (in Vayikra 3:1) are extra, to be expounded.) "Zachar" includes Vlad Shelamim; "Nekevah" includes Temuras Shelamim;

1. Question: This only includes the child and Temurah of a Tam - what is the source for a child and Temurah of a Ba'al Mum?
2. Answer: "Im Zachar" includes Vlad Ba'al Mum, "Im Nekevah" includes Temuras Ba'al Mum.

(g) Question: What is the law of offspring born after redemption?

1. Amora'im argue about a child born before redemption - one opinion says that it is offered, the other requires Re'iyah (it grazes until it gets a Mum; it is redeemed, the money goes for Nedavah).

(h) Answer #1 (Rav Huna): We lock it up and leave it to starve, for there is no other solution:

1. It cannot be offered, for it comes from a Kedushah Dechuyah (its mother was Nir'eh v'Nidcheh; it was Kosher to be offered, then was Nifsal);
2. It cannot be redeemed, for it does not have the Kedushah needed Lehatpis Pidyono (to Mekadesh the redemption money).

(i) Answer #2 (R. Chanina): Shortly before they are redeemed, we are Matpis (Makdish) the fetus with the same Kedushah (as its mother, e.g. Shelamim).
(j) Objection: "Before *they* are redeemed" implies that also the child can be redeemed (but Rav Huna taught that it lacks the Kedushah needed Lehatpis Pidyono)!
(k) Correction: Rather, shortly before the mother is redeemed, we are Matpis the fetus with the same Kedushah. (After it is born, it is Ro'eh; when it gets a Mum, it is redeemed, and a new Korban is brought.)
(l) Version #1 - Question: What is the reason [why Rav Huna does not allow R. Chanina's solution]?
(m) Answer (R. Levi): This is a decree, lest one will delay redeeming [and eating] the mother, in order to raise flocks. (We are concerned lest he may come to eat the mother without redeeming it.)
(n) Version #2 - Question: Why are Chachamim so stringent about the offspring (that one must let them die, or be Matpis them)?
(o) Answer (R. Levi): This is a decree, lest one will leave the offspring around to raise flocks (perhaps someone will eat them; this is forbidden, for they have Kedushah).
(p) Version #3 - Question: Why does the Mishnah forbid the offspring after redemption?
(q) Answer (R. Levi): This is a decree, lest one will delay eating the mother, in order to raise flocks. (One may come to shear or work with the mother.)

(a) Question (Ravina): May one be Matpis the fetus with Kedushah of a different Korban?
(b) Answer (Rav Sheshes): One may not.
(c) Question (Ravina): What is the reason?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "bi'Sh'arecha-bi'Sh'arecha" from Bechor;

1. One may not be Matpis a Bechor (after it was born) with a different Kedushah - "Ach Bechor Asher Yevukar...Lo Yakdish Ish Oso" - the same applies to Vlados Pesulei ha'Mukdashim.

(e) Support (Beraisa): If one was Makdish a Ba'al Mum Kavu'a, and it was redeemed, Bechorah and Matanos apply to it;
(f) The following laws apply both before and after Pidyon:

1. One who shears it or works with it is not lashed;
2. It does not make Temurah.

(g) Me'ilah applies before Pidyon; not after Pidyon;
(h) [Even if it became pregnant before Pidyon,] its offspring (born after Pidyon) are Chulin.
(i) Its offspring (born before Pidyon) may be redeemed Tam (without a Mum), one may Matfis them for any Korban;

1. The general rule is, it is Chulin in every way, there is just a Mitzvah (R. Gershom - stringency) to "redeem" it (to be Makdish money equal to its value for the same Korban).

(j) If one was Makdish a Tam or a Ba'al Mum Over, and later a Mum Kavu'a developed:

1. After it is redeemed, it is exempt from Bechorah and Matanos;
2. The following apply both before and after Pidyon:

i. One who shears it or works with it is lashed; it makes Temurah.

3. Me'ilah applies before Pidyon, not after Pidyon;

(k) [If it became pregnant before Pidyon,] its offspring (even if born after Pidyon) are Kodesh, they may not be redeemed Tam, one may not Matfis them for another Korban;

1. The general rule is, it is Kodesh in every way, the only Heter to people is to eat it (after redemption).

(l) Question: What do we learn from "the general rule" in the Reisha?
(m) Answer: This teaches that one who slaughters it outside is exempt.
(n) Question: What do we learn from "the general rule" in the Seifa?
(o) Answer: This forbids its milk.