(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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 ('Mah Nafshach').
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).
(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.

(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.
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.
(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).
(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 blemished.

(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 both Bechoros.

(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 simultaneously'?

(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 Chatzitzah).

(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 obligation ...

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.
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.
(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.
(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 Yerushalayim.

(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 firstborn donkey.

(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.
2. ... "Shorcha", and not just 'bi'Vechor Shor' - to balance "Tzoncha".
(c) According to Rebbi Shimon - we do not know why the Torah writes "Shorcha" and "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.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,