ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 14
BECHOROS 12-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Our Mishnah declares an animal of Kodshim that has a permanent blemish,
subject to Bechorah and Matanos after it has been redeemed - provided the
blemish preceded the Hekdesh.
(b) The Tana rules that ...
1. ... shearing its wool or working with it - is permitted.
(c) This is different than 'Dukin she'be'Ayin', where one would be Chayav
for Shechutei Chutz, if the Hekdesh had preceded the blemish - because it is
not really Hekdesh.
2. ... the babies to which it subsequently gives birth and its milk - are
3. ... someone who Shechts them outside the Azarah (even before it has been
redeemed) - is Patur from Kareis (for Shechutei Chutz).
(d) And he also rules that this same animal ...
1. ... cannot make a Temurah.
2. ... can be redeemed and fed to the dogs if it dies, even though it is
unable to stand (because it does not require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah).
(a) All this does not apply to - Bechor and Ma'aser.
(b) It does not apply to ...
1. ... Bechor - because it is sanctified by the womb as it is born, even if
it is a Ba'al Mum.
(c) All the above Halachos will not apply - if the Hekdesh preceded the
2. ... Ma'aser - because the Torah writes in Bechukosai (in connection with
it) "Do not distinguish between good (an animal without a blemish) and bad
(an animal with one).
(d) ... even if it had a temporary blemish before it was declared Hekdesh,
and contracted the permanent one afterwards.
(a) The above are not subject to Bechorah or to Matanos, neither do they go
out to Chulin to be shorn or to work with, even after they have been
redeemed. The Tana declares them Chayav for Shechutei Chutz - before they
have been redeemed.
(b) This latter ruling is extremely restricted, but does not apply to the
vast majority of blemishes - because Shechutei Chutz only applies to animals
that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach (or at least to remain on the Mizbe'ach,
as we shall see).
(c) The Tana's final ruling is that if they die, they must be buried. They
cannot be redeemed - because any animal of Kodshim requires Ha'amadah
ve'Ha'arachah, and a dead animal cannot stand.
(a) We learned in the Reisha that even where the blemish preceded the
Hekdesh, the animals are only subject to Bechorah and Matanos once they have
been redeemed, but not before - because Kedushas Damim is Patur from
Bechorah and Matanos (just like Kedushas ha'Guf).
(b) We make the same observation regarding their going out to Chulin to be
shorn or worked with, and we suggest that our Mishnah supports a ruling of
Rebbi Elazar - who forbids the shearings of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis and
working with them.
(c) However, we refute the proof from our Mishnah for Rebbi Elazar - since
it may well be that the Chachamim only decreed on Kedushas Damim, which one
might come to confuse with Kedushas ha'Guf (which goes on the Mizbe'ach),
but not on Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, which never goes on the Mizbe'ach.
(a) We learned also that their babies and their milk are permitted. The
Tana cannot be referring to where the animal became pregnant and gave birth
1. ... after it was redeemed - because, seeing as it is Chulin, that is
(b) In which case, the Tana must be speaking - when it became pregnant
before the redemption, but was redeemed afterwards.
2. ... before it was redeemed - because the Tana specifically said
've'Nifdu', implying that prior to the redemption, they are forbidden.
(a) The Beraisa rules that the babies that are born to Ba'alei Mumin which
were declared Kodshei Mizbe'ach - are sold (redeemed), even though they are
not blemished (which would be a prerequisite by regular Kodshim).
(b) The Beraisa comes to resolve - the She'eilah whether babies that are
born to Ba'alei Mumin can be redeemed without a blemish or not.
(c) The babies cannot be brought directly on the Mizbe'ach - because they
were born from a rejected Kedushah (from a mother that was unfit to go on
(a) The reason the Tana gives for not requiring a blemish prior to the
sale - is that 'the Tafel is not worse than the Ikar' (i.e. since the baby's
blemished mother can be redeemed immediately, it can as well [as if it too,
(b) We can extrapolate from there that someone who is Makdish Kedushas Damim
a male, unblemished animal (which does not come from a rejected Kedushah) -
is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, and cannot be redeemed without a blemish ...
(c) ... a support for Rava, who said precisely that.
(d) Rava mentioned specifically a male - because it is eligible to be
brought as an Olah, and the majority of people donate Olos (see also Tosfos
(a) Our Mishnah exempts someone who Shechts a blemished animal outside the
Azarah from Kareis. Rebbi Elazar's version of our Mishnah reads 'Chayav' -
meaning Malkos, which he receives for Shechting a Ba'al Mum (even) on a
(b) And he bases this ruling on another statement of his - where he explains
the Pasuk "Lo Sizbach la'Hashem Elokecha Shor va'Seh Asher Yih'yeh Bo Mum"
to refer to Shechting Ba'alei Mumin on a Bamas Yachid ('Im Eino Inyan
le'Bamah Gedolah') at a time when Bamos were permitted.
(c) A Bamas Yachid is - a Bamah which any individual would build in his
'backyard' (such as that of Mano'ach, Gid'on and Shmuel). Whereas a Bamah
Gedolah is - a public Bamah, as existed in Nov and Giv'on.
(d) He knows that the Pasuk is speaking about a Bamah Ketanah, and not a
Bamah Gedolah - because we already know the prohibition by Bamah Gedolah
from another Pasuk ("Averes O Shavur" [in Emor]).
(a) We query Rebbi Elazar in that perhaps the Pasuk is speaking about a
Bamas Tzibur, and 'Im Eino Inyan le'Kodshim' it must be referring to a
Bechor Ba'al Mum, which we might have thought is eligible to go on the
Mizbe'ach (even though other Kodshim are not) - because Kedushas Bechor
takes effect on it (which it does by most other Kodshim).
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Pise'ach O Iver Kol Mum Ra, Lo Sizbachenu" -
that a Bechor Ba'al Mum is disqualified from the Mizbe'ach.
(c) We make the same suggestion with regard to a. Ma'aser, and b. Temurah,
both of which take effect on a Ba'al Mum. We learn from ...
1. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" - that Ma'aser is
compared to Bechor, in which case, like Bechor, it is not eligible to go on
2. ... the Pasuk "Ve'hayah Hu u'Semuraso ... " - comparing the Temurah to
the original Korban, in which case, like the original Korban, it is not
eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach.
(a) Finally, Rebbi Zeira asks why we cannot establish the Pasuk by a Bamah
Gedaloh, and it comes to teach us that one cannot bring V'lados Kodshim on
it - seeing as they too, became sanctified with a blemish (via their
(b) And we answer by citing Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who discusses the
Pasuk in Re'ei "Rak Kodoshecha ... ".. "Rak Kodoshecha", he explains, refers
to Temuros, and "Asher Yih'yu Lach" - to V'lados
(c) From the fact that the Pasuk follows with "u'Nedarecha" - he
extrapolates that Temuros and V'lados, like Nedarim (Korbanos that one vows
to bring) may not be Ba'alei Mumin.
(a) The Pasuk writes in Bechukosai "Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo Yamir Oso Tov be'Ra
O Ra be'Tov". The problem with the dual ruling is - that if "Ra be'Tov" (an
unblemished Chulin animal instead of a blemished Kodshim one) is forbidden,
then it is obvious that "Tov be'Ra" (a blemished Chulin animal for an
unblemished Kodshim one) certainly is, so why does the Torah see fit to
(b) Consequently - we interpret "Tov be'Ra" to mean that it is only an
animal that was initially unblemished that can make a Temurah, but not one
whose blemish preceded its Hekdesh.
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes our Mishnah, which permits Kodshim that
were initially blemished and that died, to be redeemed, like Rebbi Shimon,
who holds in a Mishnah in the fifth Perek - that Kodshei Mizbe'ach require
Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah, whereas Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis don't.
(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, "Ve'he'emid *Osah* ha'Kohen comes to
preclude - Kodshei Mizbe'ach whose blemish preceded the Hekdesh from the Din
of Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah).
(a) The Chachamim say with regard to the latter ruling - 'Im Meisu Yikaveru'
(because they too, require Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah).
(b) The Chachamim are alias Tana de'Bei Levi in a Beraisa, who says that an
animal of Kodshei Mizbe'ach that is a Ba'alei Mum me'Ikaro, or that is a
Chayah or a bird - are all subject to Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah ('Im Meisu
(c) We actually ask what Tana de'Bei Levi will learn from "Osah" - a
question which remains unresolved.
(d) The source for 'Ha'amadah ve'Ha'arachah' is the Pasuk in Bechukosai
"Ve'he'emid es ha'Beheimah Lifnei ha'Kohen, Ve'he'erich Osah ha'Kohen".
(a) The problem, based on the fact that the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi
Shimon concede that a Ba'al Mum me'Ikaro does not require Ha'amadah
ve'Ha'arachah is - why, when Rav Yehudah Amar Rav said 'Zu Divrei Rebbi
Shimon', he did not add the word 'u'Machlekuso'.
(b) And we answer that Rav holds like Resh Lakish, who explained that,
according to the Rabbanan, Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - are subject to Ha'amadah
ve'Ha'arachah, whereas Kodshei Mizbe'ach are not.
(c) The problem with that is - the Seifa, where the Tana rules (in the case
where the Hekdesh preceded the blemish [which is a case of Kodshei
Mizbe'ach]) 've'Im Meisu, Yikaveru' (because it is subject to Ha'amadah
(d) And we know that the reason in the Seifa is because of 'Ha'amadah
ve'Ha'arachah', and not because of the principle 'Ein Podin es ha'Kodshim
Leha'achilan li'Kelavim' - because if it had been the latter, the Mishnah
would have said 'Im Na'asu Tereifah, Yikaveiru'.
(a) Alternatively, Rav holds like Yochanan's interpretation of the Chachamim
of Rebbi Shimon. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon
require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah by both Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek
(b) In that case, we will amend his statement 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Shimon' to
read - 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Shimon u'Machlekuso'.