(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 15

BECHOROS 12-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) With reference to Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (whose Hekdesh preceded their blemish), the Beraisa learns from ...
1. ... "ha'Tz'vi" - that they are not subject to the Din Bechor, and from ...
2. ... "ve'ha'Ayal" - that they are not subject to Matanos either.
3. ... "*Ach* Kasher Ye'achel es ... " - that their Cheilev is not precluded from the Isur.
(b) Having precluded them from the Din of Bechor, we need a separate source to preclude them from Matanos - because whereas Bechor is confined to male animals, Matanos pertains to female animals too.

(c) Rav Papa asked Abaye whether we will also exempt Pesulei ha'Mukdashin from the Din of Oso ve'es B'no (like Tz'vi and Ayal). He answered - that 'mi'Mah Nafshach', whether one considers Pesulei ha'Mukdashin Chulin or Kodshim, they will be subject to Oso ve'es B'no, so how can one exempt them?

(a) Rav Papa queried Abaye's answer however, from 'Chelbo' which we just found necessary to include from the word "Ach" - (even though there too, they ought to be subject to Isur Cheilev, whether it is Chulin or Kodshim. So why should we not include them in Oso ve'es B'no from "Ach", too?

(b) We prefer to preclude Pesulei ha'Mukdashin from Bechor and Matanos from the Hekesh to Tz'vi ve'Ayal, and to include them in the Isur of Cheilev and of Oso ve'es B'no from "Ach" (and not vice-versa) - because in this way, they resemble Kodshim (vice versa, they would resemble neither Kodshim nor Chulin).

(c) Rava disagrees with Abaye. He learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (in connection with a Bechor Ba'al Mum) "Rak es Damo Lo Sochel" - that Pesulei ha'Mukdashin remain subject to the Isur Cheilev, and from ...
2. ... "Ach" - that they remain subject to Oso ve'es B'no.
(a) We cannot understand the Pasuk "Rak es Damo ... " literally - because seeing as the blood of a deer and a gazelle is forbidden too, why we would have thought otherwise?

(b) The Torah refers to Cheilev as 'Dam' - because had it written "Rak es Chelbo Lo Sochel", we would have learned from the Pasuk that the Cheilev of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin is forbidden, and from the Hekesh to Tz'vi ve'Ayal, that it is not subject to Kareis.

(c) And Cheilev would then be subject to Kareis - by any animal that is fit to be brought as a Korban.

(a) We now learn from "Damo" - that Pesulei ha'Mukdashin are subject to Kareis, too (just like Dam).

(b) Rava explains that when the Tana learnt 'Chelbo' from "Ach" (and not 'Oso ve'es B'no') he meant - that had the Torah not written "Damo", we would have learned it (and not 'Oso ve'es B'no') from "Ach".

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Tizbach" - 've'Lo Gizah'.
2. ... "Basar"- 've'Lo Chalav'.
3. ... "Ve'achalta"- 've'Lo li'Kelavecha.
(b) The principle that emerges from the last ruling is - 'Ein Podin es ha'Kodshim Leha'achilan li'Kelavim'.

(c) The second Lashon learns from ...

1. ... "Tizbach ve'Achalta" that it is forbidden to benefit from Pesulei ha'Mukdashin until the animal has been Shechted.
2. ... "Basar" - nothing at all, because he considers it to be a manner of speech.
(d) This Lashon holds - 'Podin es ha'Kodshim Leha'achilan li'Kelavim'.



(a) When our Mishnah forbids the babies (and the milk) from after the Pidyon of the Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, it cannot be referring to those that were both conceived and born after the redemption - because the Torah considers them as babies of a 'deer and a gazelle' (which are permitted).

(b) The Tana must therefore be referring to - those that were born after the Pidyon, but conceived beforehand.

(c) The babies that were conceived and born before the Pidyon however - are Hekdesh.

(a) The Beraisa discusses the Pasuk "ve'Im Zevach Shelamim Korbano, Im Zachar Im Nekeivah". The Tana considers "Zachar" and "Nekeivah" superfluous - because, seeing as the Torah mentions neither that a Shelamim must be a male nor that it must be a female, we would have understood on our own that both are eligible.

(b) "Zachar", he says, comes to include the babies of a Kodshim animal. Whereas he learns from ...

1. ... "Nekeivah" - that a Temurah is Kasher too.
2. ... "*Im* Zachar" - that even the babies of a Ba'al Mum are eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach, and from ...
3. ... "*Im* Nekeivah" - that the Temurah of a Ba'al Mum is, too.
(c) There is a Machlokes what happens to the babies of Ba'alei Mumin that are born before their mothers have been redeemed. Some say that are brought on the Mizbe'ach. Others - that they are sent into the meadow until they obtain a blemish, when they are redeemed, and the proceeds used for Nedavah (i.e. Olos Tzibur of Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach).
(a) According to Rav Huna, those that are born after their mothers have been redeemed are placed in a room and left to starve. They cannot be ...
1. ... brought on the Mizbe'ach - because they stem from a rejected Kedushah (as we already learned).
2. ... redeemed - because, seeing as their mothers were already redeemed, their own Kedushah is too weak to be transferred on to another animal.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintains - that they become permitted once they are redeemed.

(c) The B'nei Eretz Yisrael in the name of Rebbi Chanina get round the problem of their weak Kedushah (as we just explained according to Rav Huna) - by requiring the owner to declare it Hekdesh like the mother, just before it is redeemed.

(d) We amend 'Samuch le'Pidyonan Matfisan le'Shem Oso Zevach' to read - Samuch le'Pidyom Imam', because, as we just explained, they themselves cannot be redeemed (so what does 'Samuch le'Pidyonam' mean)?

(a) In spite of the fact that the mother was redeemed, the Rabbanan saw fit to forbid the babies be'Hana'ah outright (See also Rabeinu Gershom's version of the She'eilah) - because they were afraid that otherwise, people would deliberately keep the mother in order to breed a large flock, which would in turn, encourage the owner to work with the mother and to take the shearings for himself.

(b) They did not likewise decree by Kadam Muman le'Hekdeishan because it is uncommon ...

(c) ... due to the fact someone who declares a blemished animal Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf transgresses no less than five La'avin.

(d) And in the same vein they permitted even Kadam Hekdeishan le'Muman, there where the babies were conceived and born after the mother's Pidyon - because it is uncommon to hold on to the animal, in the knowledge that in the event that it conceives before it has been redeemed, the babies will be forbidden.

(e) There are two other ways of interpretating 'Ta'ama Mai'. One of them is to explain why Rav Huna disagrees with the Takanah of Rebbi Yochanan; the other - to explain why the Chachamim put the owner to all this trouble, according to both Rav Huna and Rebbi Yochanan. Why not just mark the animal and let it live its life (which is the way Rabeinu Gershom interprets it)?

(a) Ravina asked Rav Sheishes whether it is permitted to declare the babies Hekdesh with a different Kedushah than that of the mother, to which he replied - in the negative.

(b) Abaye learned this from "bi'She'arecha" "bi'She'arecha" from Bechor - inasmuch as one is not permitted to change the Kedushah of the baby of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, just as one is not permitted to change the Kedushah of a Bechor.

(c) In a Beraisa that supports Rav Sheishes ruling, the Tana learns that in a case of Kadam Muman le'Hekdeishan, if ...

1. ... someone shears their wool or works with them - does not receive Malkos.
2. ... someone uses them before they have been redeemed - he is Mo'el, whereas if he does so after they have been redeemed, there is no Me'ilah.
(d) When the Tana says 'Ein Lecha Bahem Ela Mitzvas Iluy Bil'vad', he means - that the only area of Halachah that clashes with the fact that the animal is Chulin, is the ruling requiring the animal to be assessed and redeemed.
(a) Someone who shears or works with an animal whose Hekdesh preceded its blemish - receives Malkos.

(b) If a temporary blemish preceded the Hekdesh, which is then followed by a permanent one - it has the same Din as one whose blemish preceded the Hekdesh.

(c) The Tana issues the same ruling regarding Me'ilah in this case as it did in the previous one. There is no Me'ilah after the Pidyon - based on the Hekesh to Tz'vi ve'Ayal.

(d) The Tana rules 'V'ladoseihen Kodesh - ve'Ein Nifdin Temimin'.

(a) In the Reisha - the Tana permits the owner to declare the animal any category of Hekdesh he so wishes, whereas in the Seifa - he forbids him to switch from the category of Hekdesh that its mother was.

(b) We include 'Shochtan ba'Chutz' (which is Patur) from the K'lal in the Reisha - 'Harei Hein ke'Chulin le'Chol Divreihen', and 'La'asuyei Chelbo' (which is Asur) from the K'lal in the Seifa - 'Harei Hein ke'Hekdesh le'Chol Divreihen'.

(c) We do not include ...

1. ... 'Shochto be'Chutz' to be Chayav in the Seifa - because a. it would then be necessary to restrict the ruling to 'Dukin she'be'Ayin' (as we explained in our Mishnah), and b. because the Tana will later say so specifically.
2 ... 'Chelbo' to be permitted in the Reisha - because, bearing in mind that the Tana has already permitted the animal's babies (which are an intrinsic part of itself), it goes without saying that its milk (which is 'like mere water') is permitted, too.
Next daf


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