ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 9
BECHOROS 7-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if a donkey gives birth for the first time to ...
1. ... two males - the owner is obligated to give one lamb to the Kohen
(b) One is permitted to eat the latter - because neither the donkey nor the
lamb (even in the case of a Vaday Bechor) has any Kedushah.
2. ... a male and a female - he must separate one lamb (to remove the Safek
Bechorah), which he may eat himself (since, due to the principle 'Hamotzi
me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah', the onus lies on the Kohen to prove that the
male was born first).
(c) The Tana also says that if someone's two donkeys gave birth for the
first time to ...
1. ... two males - he must give one lamb to the Kohen.
(d) Assuming that one of those two donkeys is not giving birth for the first
time, and between them they gave birth to two males, the owner must give one
lamb to the Kohen. But if they gave birth to a male and a female - he must
separate a lamb, though he is not obligated to give it to a Kohen (seeing as
the donkey that is subject to the Bechorah may be the mother of the female).
2. ... a male and a female or two males and a female - he must give one lamb
to the Kohen (the second male needs to be redeemed [mi'Safek] though he may
eat it himself).
3. ... two females and a male or two females and two males - he must
separate two lambs, both of which he is permitted to eat (because both
females may have been born first.
(a) The Tana cites the Pasuk "u'Feter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh" - as the source
for the Din of giving a lamb to the Kohen instead of the donkey.
(b) "Seh" incorporates - a sheep or a goat, male or female, whole or
(c) The Tana permits redeeming another donkey with the same lamb - provided
the Kohen gave the lamb to a Yisrael.
(a) Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (in the Mishnah in the second Perek) obligates
someone whose sheep gave birth for the first time to two lambs, to give them
both to the Kohen - because he holds 'Efshar Letzamtem' (it is possible for
both babies to have left the womb simultaneously, in which case they are
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah therefore maintains that he disagrees - with the middle
case where, when a donkey gives birth for the first time to two males, and
the owner gives only one lamb to the Kohen (according to Rebbi Yossi
ha'Gelili, he ought to give two).
(c) Abaye reconcile Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili with our Mishnah - by citing the
Pasuk "Ha'Zecharim la'Hashem", implying that, besides the S'vara of 'Efshar
Letzamtzem', we also require the Pasuk 'ha'Zecharim ... " (in the plural) to
teach us that sometimes, there are two firstborn (and there is no such Pasuk
by a Peter Chamor).
(d) We cannot however, learn Beheimah Temei'ah from Beheimah Tehorah with a
'Binyan Av' - because the 'Hey' in "ha'Zecharim" is a Miy'ut, which
precludes Beheimah Temei'ah from this Din.
(a) According to the second Lashon, Abaye is coming to refute the
suggestion - that our Mishnah does not go like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.
(b) The problem our Mishnah presents Abaye is that seeing as the author
might be Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - the Tana ought to have added that the owner
gives only one lamb to the Kohen 'even if both heads emerged from the womb
(c) We also query Abaye from a Beraisa, which, citing Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili,
rules that if the two heads emerged simultaneously, the owner is obligated
to give them both (i.e. two lambs) to the Kohen (like Rebbi Yirmiyah.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Peter Kol Rechem" - that the Bechor must touch
the womb until it is completely born ...
(b) ... causing us to suggest that the Rabbanan hold that 'Miktzas Rechem
Mekadesh' (part of the womb will suffice to sanctify the Bechor). Otherwise,
even though they hold 'I Efshar Letzamtzem', neither animal should be
Kadosh, since at least during part of the birth, the twin will divide
between the Bechor and the womb.
(c) It is not necessary to say this, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili -
since, according to him, both animals become Kadosh as if they were one.
(d) Rav Ashi refutes that suggestion - based on the principle 'Miyn be'Miyno
Eino Chotzetz' (something made of the same material is not considered a
(a) In the cases in our Mishnah where the owner is permitted to eat the lamb
himself, he nevertheless needs to designate it before eating it, because -
even though the donkey has no Kedushah that needs to be redeemed, it is
nevertheless Asur be'Hana'ah.
(b) This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa. Rebbi Shimon
maintains - that it is not.
(c) We refute the suggestion that the Isur Hana'ah is the result of the
1. ... to redeem it - because Bechor Adam also needs to be redeemed, yet
nobody holds that the work of one that has not yet been redeemed is Asur.
(d) We reject this latter refutation however, on the grounds that the Torah
does indeed require specifically a lamb - if one wishes to redeem one's
donkey for less than its value.
2. ... to redeem it specifically with a lamb - on the basis of Rav Nechemyah
b'rei de'Rav Yosef, who redeemed his firstborn donkey with cooked herbs.
(a) So we conclude that Rebbi Yehudah does indeed forbid deriving any
Hana'ah from the donkey before it has been redeemed, because of those
circumstances where only a lamb will redeem it. The problem with this lies
in the Mishnah in Kidushin, where Rebbi Yehudah himself rules that if
someone betroths a woman with Ma'aser Sheini be'Meizid (with the intention
of transferring its Kedushah), the Kidushin is valid - even though the Torah
requires minted money specifically to be used for its redemption.
(b) We answer by citing Rebbi Elazar - who ascribes the validity of the
Kidushin to the fact that the woman, aware of the fact that the Ma'aser
Sheini does not go out to Chulin through her, clearly intends to eat it in
(c) Here too - the woman knows that the firstborn donkey is forbidden, so
she intends to redeem it with a lamb ...
(d) ... and she is betrothed with the difference in value between the lamb
and the donkey.
(a) Ula explains that Rebbi Shimon holds that the donkey is Mutar
be'Hana'ah - because there is no such thing as an article that is Asur
be'Hana'ah, and its Pidyon (in this case, the lamb) is permitted (without
having to bring it on the Mizbe'ach), whilst *it* is Asur.
(b) And we reconcile this with Shevi'is, which is forbidden even though the
Pidyon is permitted - inasmuch as it is only the interim stages of Pidyon
that are permitted. The last stage will always remain Asur.
(a) Alternatively, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue over the Pasuk in
Re'ei "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor Shorecha ve'Lo Sagoz Bechor Tzonecha". When
Rebbi Yehudah Darshens from "Shorecha" and "Tzonecha", 'Aval Atah Oved
be'Shelcha she'Lecha u've'shel Acherim', Aval Atah Gozez she'Lecha ve'shel
Acherim' - he means that if someone owns a Bechor sheep or ox together with
a Nochri, he is permitted to shear the former and work with the latter.
(b) Rebbi Shimon learns from "Shorecha" - that one is permitted to work with
a Bechor Adam, and from "Tzonecha" that one is permitted to shear a
(c) The problem with ...
1. ...the fact that there are two words that need to be Darshened - affects
Rebbi Yehudah, in that why does he need two Pesukim to preclude the
shearings and the work of an animal that is shared by a Nochri?
2. ... Bechor Adam according to him is - that his work ought to be forbidden
as well, according to him?
(a) So we conclude that both Tana'im preclude Bechor Adam (from the Isur
Hana'ah) from "Shorcha", and they argue over "Tzoncha". Rebbi Yehudah learns
from there that the shearings of a Bechor that is partially owned by a
Nochri and its work are forbidden, whereas Rebbi Shimon (who precludes a
firstborn donkey from the prohibition), as we just learned, disagrees with
him, since in his opinion, a Bechor that is partially owned by a Nochri - is
Patur from the Bechorah to begin with.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, then, the Torah writes ...
1. ... "Tzon*cha*" - to preclude one which is owned partially by a Nochri.
(c) According to Rebbi Shimon - we do not know why the Torah writes
"Shorcha" and "Tzoncha".
2. ... "Shorcha", and not just 'bi'Vechor Shor' - to balance "Tzoncha".
(d) Rabah explains that even Rebbi Shimon will agree - that once the neck
of the donkey has been broken, it is Asur be'Hana'ah, and that he learns it
from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Arifah" "Arifah" from Eglah Arufah (which the
certainly forbids be'Hana'ah after its neck has been broken).
(a) Abaye learns this from a Beraisa, where the Tana rules that Orlah, K'lai
ha'Kerem, Shor ha'Niskal, Eglah Arufah, Tziprei Metzora, Peter Chamor and
Basar be'Chalav - are all Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin.
(b) Apart from where the Shechted animal is still convulsing (as we learned
in Chulin), the Peter Chamor will still be considered a food - assuming it
is a piece less than a 'k'Zayis' (which is not subject to Tum'as Neveilos,
but which is fit to make up the Shi'ur of a k'Beitzah of food).
(c) Despite the fact that all of these are Asur be'Hana'ah anyway, the
ramifications of the fact that they are Tamei Tum'as Ochlin will be - with
regard to rendering other food Tamei, should they touch it.
(d) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana Kama, on the grounds that something
that is Asur be'Hana'ah is not subject to Tum'as Ochlin, except for Basar
be'Chalav - which had a Sha'as ha'Kosher (i.e. each of them were permitted
before being cooked together).
(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan cites Rebbi Shimon's source as the Pasuk
"mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel", from which he extrapolates - that only
food that can be fed to others (i.e. that is Mutar be'Hana'ah) is considered
a food (vis-a-vis Tum'ah).
(b) The problem this creates regarding Rebbi Shimon's reason for permitting
Basar be'Chalav is - that (bearing in mind that he permits Basar be'Chalav
be'Hana'ah), why did he not consider Basar be'Chalav a food because it is
fit to feed to others?
(c) Rebbi Shimon learned that from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ki Am Kadosh Atah
la'Hashem Elokecha" (Re'ei, in connection with Basar be'Chalav) "ve'Anshei
Kodesh Tih'yun Li" - written in connection with a Tereifah, which the Torah
specifically permits to derive benefit from.
(d) And we answer - that Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa is merely adding a
second reason to the one that we already know. As if to say, not only is
Basar be'Chalav something that one can feed to others, but in addition, it
also had a Sha'as Ha'Kosher.