ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 12
BECHOROS 12-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Our Mishnah precludes a calf, a Chayah, a Shechutah, a Tereifah, Kil’
ayim or a Koy from the Din of Seh. The difference between Kil’ayim and a Coy
is – that the former is a cross between a he-goat and a ewe, whilst the
latter (which is a Safek Chayah) is a cross between a Beheimah and a Chayah.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer incorporates Kil’ayim in the Din of Seh – because he
considers it a lamb, but precludes a Coy – because it is a Safek Chayah.
(c) The Mishnah finally rules that if the owner gave the Peter Chamor to a
Kohen – the latter is forbidden to keep it intact, but is obligated to
transfer its ‘Kedushah’ on to a lamb immediately.
(a) We establish the author of our Mishnah as ben Bag Bag, who, in a
Beraisa, learns from a ‘Gezeirah-Shavah’ “Seh” “Seh” from the Korban
Pesach – that all the cases in the Mishnah are disqualified from the Din of
Seh (as regards redeeming a Peter Chamor is concerned).
(b) On the other hand, he does not preclude a female animal, one that is
blemished or in its second or third year (as we learned earlier). And he
learns that from the repetition of ”Tifdeh” (in Bo and Ki Sisa).
(a) We ask whether a ben Peku’ah is included in the Din of Seh. A ben Peku’
ah is – a live baby that one finds inside an animal that has been Shechted.
(b) This She’eilah is not valid according to Rebbi Meir – who requires a ben
Peku’ah to be Shechted like any other animal.
(c) According to the Rabbanan, on the other hand, it might not have the Din
of a Seh – because, seeing as its mother’s Shechitah covers it too, it is as
if it was Shechted and is lying in a basket.
(a) Mar Zutra holds that a ben Peku’ah is indeed not considered a Seh. Rav
Ashi maintains – that it is, since it is undeniably running around like a
(b) A ben Peku’ah (which is a Yotzei Dofen) - is not eligible to be brought
as a Korban Pesach (or as any other Korban, for that matter).
(c) Rav Ashi includes a ben Peku’ah from “Tifdeh” ”Tifdeh”. Mar Zutra
counters – that it is more logical to preclude it from “Seh” “Seh”, since a
Shechted animal is not a Seh.
(a) We ask whether a Nidmeh is included in the Din of Seh. A Nidmeh is – a
sheep that gave birth to a goat (even though its father is a sheep too).
(b) This She’eilah is not valid according to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah –
who holds that even a lamb of Kil’ayim is called “Seh”, how much more so one
that is a Nidmeh.
(c) The She’eilah according to the Rabbanan is – whether a Nidmeh is called
a “Seh” in this regard, even though a lamb of Kil’ayim is not.
(a) We try to resolve the She’eilah from the Beraisa ‘Parah she’Yaldah Miyn
Eiz, Ein Podin’, from which we can extrapolate – ‘Ha Rachel she’Yaldah ke’
Miyn Eiz, Podin’.
(b) Initially, we establish the author as the Rabbanan (thereby
automatically resolving the She’eilah) – because according to Rebbi Eliezer,
even a lamb of Kil’ayim is permitted (as we just explained), so it would be
unnecessary to tell us that a Nidmeh is.
(c) We refute this proof however, by establishing the author as Rebbi
Eliezer, after all, and the Chidush lies in the actual statement – which
teaches us that we do not go after the father, but after the mother alone.
(a) Rabah bar Shmuel cites another Beraisa describing Kil’ayim as a ewe that
gives birth to a goat, whose father is a sheep. Seeing as the description
is that of a Nidmeh, the Tana is really coming to teach us – that here is a
case of Nidmeh that the Rabbanan gave the Din of Kil’ayim.
(b) He cannot be referring to Kodshim (meaning that a Nidmeh, like a Kil’
ayim, cannot be brought as a Korban), because we already know this from
another source. The Pasuk “Shor O Kesev” comes to preclude an animal that is
Kil’ayim from the Mizbe’ach, and “O Eiz” – a Nidmeh.
(c) Neither can he be referring to a Bechor or an animal of Ma’aser
Beheimah, because we learn from ...
1. ... “Ach Bechor Shor” – that only a Shor that resembles its mother has a
Din Bechor, and from ...
(d) We therefore suggest that the Tana of Rabah bar Shmuel’s Beraisa is
talking about – redeeming a Peter Chamor, thereby resolving our She’eilah.
2. ... the ‘Gezeirah-Shavah’ “Tachas (ha’Sheivet)” “Tachas (Imo)” (from
Kodshim) – that Ma’aser Beheimah has the same Din as Kodshim, in this
(a) We reject this proof however, on the grounds that maybe the Tana is
talking about Ma’aser after all, where the animal has some of the Simanim of
its mother. We might otherwise learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah “Kol Asher
*Ya’avor* Tachas ha’Sheivet” “*Ve’ha’avarta* Kol Peter Rechem la’Hashem” –
that such an animal is subject to Ma’aser, just as it is subject to Bechor
(as we learned earlier).
(b) The Tana learns however, that it is not – from the ‘Gezeirah-Shavah’
“Tachas” “Tachas” from Kodshim.
(a) The previous She’eilah remains unresolved, and we now ask whether the
owner is permitted to redeem a Peter Chamor with a lamb of Pesulei ha’
Mukdushin. This is not a She’eilah according to Rebbi Shimon – who holds
that a Peter Chamor is Mutar be’Hana’ah, in which case it is pure Chulin
(and the problem [which we will now define] is nonexistent).
(b) The She’eilah, according to Rebbi Yehudah is whether it might be ...
1. ... forbidden – because Pesulei ha’Mukdashin are already Asur to shear
and to work with, so the Isur Hana’ah from the Peter Chamor cannot be
transferred on to it.
(c) How does Rav Mari b’rei de’Rav Kahana resolve the She’eilah from the
Pasuk in Re’ei “ka’Tzevi ve’cha’Ayal”, comparing Pesulei ha’Mukdashin to a
deer and a gazelle. Consequently - just as one cannot redeem a Peter Chamor
with a deer or a gazelle (as we learned earlier), so too, can one not redeem
it with a lamb of Pesulei ha’Mukdashin.
2. ... permitted, in spite of that – because the fact is that, unlike most
cases of Pidyon, in practice, the Isur Hana’ah of the donkey is not
transferred on to the lamb anyway, so there is no reason for the Pidyon not
to take place.
(d) In that case, we conclude – even Rebbi Shimon will have to agree that
one cannot redeem a Peter Chamor with a lamb of Pesulei ha’Mukdashin.
(a) We now ask whether one is permitted to redeem the Peter Chamor with a
‘lamb of Shevi’is’ – meaning a lamb that one purchased with fruit of Shevi’
(b) We declare that this She’eilah is only valid in a case of Safek Peter
Chamor, but not Vaday – because since the She’eilah is based on the
prohibition of doing business with Sh’mitah produce, it definitely looks
like doing business by Vaday, where he is obligated to give the lamb to the
Kohen (whereas by Safek, he may eat it himself, which does not really
resemble a business deal).
(c) Neither will the She’eilah then go according to Rebbi Shimon, who
permits a Safek Peter Chamor without Pidyon.
(d) And the She’eilah according to Rebbi Yehudah is whether it is ...
1. ... permitted – since the owner after all, only needs to designate the
lamb, but is then permitted to eat it himself (so it falls under the
category of ‘le’Ochlah’)
2. ... forbidden – since on the other hand, the donkey is forbidden until it
has been redeemed, it resemble a business deal.
(a) We resolve the She’eilah with a statement by Rav Chisda, who
explicitly – forbids redeeming a Vaday Peter Chamor with an animal of Shevi’
is, but permits redeeming a Safek.
(b) Rav Chisda also precludes an animal of Shevi’is from the Bechorah –
because the Torah requires Shevi’is to be eaten (“le’Ochlah”), and the
Emurin of the Bechor have to be burned on the Mizbe’ach.
(c) And in the same statement, he rules - that it is Chayav Matanos (Zero’a
Lechayayim ve’Keivah), since they are eaten entirely by the Kohen.
(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who eats from a dough that is made from
Shevi’is produce, before the Chalah has been separated – is Chayav Misah (bi
(b) The problem with Rav Chisda’s previous ruling (by the Din of Bechor)
from there is that, should the Chalah become Tamei, it will have to be
burned (in which case the Din of “le’Ochlah” will be negated), in which
case, it ought not to be subject to Chalah in the first place.
(c) We substantiate our answer (that Chalah is different), with a Beraisa.
The Tana learns from the Pasuk “me’Reishis Arisoseichem ... *le’
Doroseichem*”- the current Din (declaring Chayav Misah someone who eats from
a dough that is made from Shevi’is produce, before the Chalah has been
(d) We cannot learn the Din of Bechorah from there however – because whereas
the Emurin are initially meant to go on the Mizbe’ach, the Chalah is
initially meant to be beaten by the Kohanim.
(a) Our Mishnah, which forbids the Kohen to retain the Peter Chamor that he
receives from a Yisrael, supports the Beraisa - which forbids a Yisrael to
comply, if the Kohen asks for his Peter Bechor, which he volunteers to
redeem for a lamb, unless the Kohen redeems it with a lamb, in his presence.
(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah extrapolates from this ruling – that
the Kohanim are suspected of working with Pitrei Chamorim before having
(c) Rav Nachman’s statement is not so obvious from the Mishnah and Beraisa
themselves, which we might otherwise have thought is confined to Kohanim who
are actually suspect (or who have been known to actually do that).
(d) Rav Nachman therefore teaches us – that they all Kohanim tend to allow
themselves to do so, since the donkey will remain theirs even after they
have redeemed it.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah rules that if the lamb which the owner
separated as Pidyon Peter Chamor died, the owner remains responsible to
replace it like the five Sela’im of Pidyon ha’Ben that got lost. According
to the Chachamim – he is not responsible, like the money of Pidyon Ma’aser
Sheini, which the owner is not obligated to replace, should it get lost.
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Tzadok testified that if a Pidyon Peter Chamor
dies – the Kohen receives nothing (like the Chachamim).
(c) Rebbi Eliezer also rules that if the donkey itself dies before the owner
has managed to give the lamb to the Kohen, it must be buried and the owner
may retain the lamb. The Chachamim maintain – that the donkey does not
require burial and the lamb belongs to the Kohen (from the moment it is
designated, as we learned earlier).
(d) Rav Yosef learns from the Pasuk “Ach Padoh Sifdeh ... es Bechor ha’Adam
ve’es Bechor ha’Beheimah ha’Temei’ah Tifdeh” – that just as the father
remains responsible in the event that the Pidyon Bechor Adam got lost, so
too, according to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, does the owner remains
responsible should the lamb die.
(a) Abaye queries Rav Yosef from Rebbi Eliezer’s own ruling in the Seifa (of
our Mishnah), requiring a dead Peter Chamor to be buried – when, according
to the Hekesh to Bechor Adam, the donkey ought to be Mutar be’Hana’ah (like
(b) We try to resolve this problem – by attributing the obligation to bury
the donkey to the same Hekesh to Bechor Adam, who is Asur be’Hana’ah after
(c) Besides the mistaken implication from here that other than a Bechor,
humans are Mutar be’Hana’ah, we have a problem from Rebbi Eliezer himself -
who concedes that a Yisrael who has a Safek Peter Chamor in his house is
obligated to redeem it with a lamb, which he may eat himself (a proof that
he considers a Peter Chamor Asur be’Hana’ah, even during its lifetime).
(d) Rava finally learns from Rebbi Eliezer’s source Pasuk “Ach Padoh Sifdeh
... “ – that the latter only compares Pidyon Peter Bechor to Bechor Adam
only as regards the actual Dinim of redemption (i.e. the Din of
responsibility), but not in other regards (such as Heter Hana’ah).
(a) The Beraisa rules ‘ha’Erchin be’Sha’atan, u’Pidyon ha’Ben Achar
Sheloshim’. ‘ha’Erchin be’Sha’atan’ means – that we assess the Erech of a
person according to his age at the time the person declared the Erech (e.g.
if he was between one month and five years at the time, the Noder must pay
accordingly, even if he has already turned six when the latter comes to
fulfill his Neder).
(b) The Tana adds - ‘u’Pidyon Peter Chamor le’Alter’.
(c) Another Beraisa rules that Erchin, Pidyon ha’Ben, Nezirus, and Peter
Chamor – only take effect after thirty days.
(d) The Tana concludes ‘u’Mosifin ad Olam’, by which he means – that the Din
of Erchin extends to the entire period mentioned in the Torah, that one can
add to the period of Nezirus whatever one wishes and that the obligation
regarding Pidyon ha’Ben and Pidyon Peter Chamor continues even beyond the
(a) To resolve the discrepancy between the two rulings regarding Pidyon
Peter Chamor, Rav Nachman establishes the first Beraisa – where Bedieved, he
redeemed it before thirty days.
(b) From which we can extrapolate that if a father redeemed his firstborn
son within thirty days – his son is not redeemed even Bedieved.
(c) Rava reconcilesow HowHow this with Rav, who said ‘B’no Paduy’ – by
establishing the latter when he specifically mentioned that although he was
redeeming him then, the redemption would take effect after thirty days.
(d) Rav Sheishes accepts the first Beraisa literally (i.e. Lechatchilah).
And the second Beraisa (‘Ein be’Erchin Pachos mi’Sheloshim’) means – that
someone who fulfils any of these up to thirty days has not transgressed;
after thirty days, he has.
(a) Rami bar Chama queries Rav Sheishes from the Beraisa ‘Mitzvaso Kol
Sheloshim Yom’. He interprets ‘Mitzvaso’ as – ‘Mitzvaso Lish’hoso’ (like Rav
(b) Rav Sheishes cannot interpret the Beraisa to mean ‘Mitzvah Lifdoso’ –
because then the Tana ought to have added to ‘O Podeihu O Arfo‘ ‘O Over Alav
(c) Rava concedes that Mitzvaso means ‘Lish’hoso’. Nevertheless, he
reconciles this Beraisa with the earlier Beraisa which rules ‘Le’alter’ – by
establishing the latter Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer (who compares Peter
Chamor to Bechor Adam) and the earlier one like the Rabbanan (who don’t [to
concur with Rav Sheishes]).