(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 16



(a) We extrapolate from the Beraisa’s ruling ...
1. ... ‘Ein Nifdin Temimin’ – that the babies can be redeemed after they obtain a blemish.
2. ... ‘ve’Ein Matfisan le’Chol Zevach she’Yirtzeh’ - that one can declare them Hekdesh as long as it is the same category of Korban as the mother.
(b) In that case, when he declares Hekdesh, the babies that are born after the mother’s Pidyon – he will have to wait for them to obtain a blemish before redeeming them ...

(c) ... a problem with Rav Huna – who holds that one locks them in a room to die.

(d) To reconcile his opinion with the Beraisa - he will refute the two inferences that we just made. In his opinion, the Tana writes ‘Ein Nifdin *Temimin*’ and ‘Ein Matfisan *le’Chol Zevach she’Yirtzeh’* in the Seifa to balance ‘Nifdin Temimin’ and ‘Matfisan le’Chol Zevach she’Yirtzeh’ in the Reisha.

(a) We learned in the Reisha of the Beraisa (see Rabeinu Gershom, and also Mar’eh Kohen on our Mishnah [Daf 14a]) ‘ve’ha’Shochtan ba’Chutz, Patur’ (because it is unfit to go on the Mizbe’ach). Rav Huna amends the Beraisa to read ‘Chayav’ – because it is speaking about the specific blemish of Dukin she’be’Ayin, according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds in Zevachim ‘Im Alu, Lo Yerdu’ (once they are brought on the Mizbe’ach, they are not taken down) ...

(b) ... because ‘Dukin she’be’Ayin’ Kasher Bedi’eved are not clearly discernable, and do not invalidate bird-offerings. Note, that in fact, all blemishes that do not entail a missing limb, are Kasher by birds.

(c) Dukin she’be’Ayin might mean a disease (called ‘eye’s-web’) that affects the membrane of the eye. Or else it means – an ailment to do with eye-lashes, which are like the sky compared to the eye-lids (which are like the earth; the white of the eye is the sea and the eye-ball, the sun).

(a) We learned in the Seifa ‘Bein Lifnei Pidyonan Bein le’Achar Pidyonan, Osin Temurah’. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah rules that a Temurah after the baby’s mother has been redeemed – must die (like Rav Huna ruled on the previous Amud, and for the same reason).

(b) Rebbi Amram asked why this should be any different than the Temurah of Bechor and Ma’aser – which, the Mishnah in Temurah rules, can be redeemed and eaten, once they obtain a blemish, they their children and their grandchildren.

(c) Abaye answered however – that one cannot compare the two, since each Temurah bears the name of the original Korban. The Temurah of Bechor and Ma’ aser can be redeemed with a blemish alone like the Bechor and Ma’aser themselves; whereas the Temurah of blemished Kodshim require Pidyon in addition, just like the Kodshim animal itself; but that is not possible in this case, (as Rav Huna explained).

(a) We support Rav Nachman’s ruling with a Beraisa, which rules that Temuras Pesulei ha’Mukdashin must die – there where the owner declares it Temurah after the Pesulei ha’Mukdashin has been redeemed.

(b) He extrapolates this from the Pasuk (in connection with animals that have one of the Simanei Kashrus) “ ... mi’Ma’alei ha’Geirah ... Tamei Hu” – implying that sometimes an animal has the necessary Simanim of Taharah, yet it is forbidden to eat it.

(c) And he learn the Din of the five Chata’os ha’Meisos (one of them, a Temurah) – from “u’mi’Mafrisei ha’Parsah”.

(a) We query this latter source for the five Chata’os ha’Meisos – on the grounds that it is ‘Halachah le’Moshe mi’Sinai’.

(b) If, as we suggest, we learn from the Pasuk the Din of Asham, “Tamei Hu” will mean – that we wait for it to obtain a blemish before redeeming it (‘Yir’u ad she’Yista’avu ... ‘).

(c) We refute this latter suggestion too however, on the grounds – that the same Halachah ... ‘ from which we learn that the five Chata’os must die, we learn that by the five corresponding Ashamos, the Din is ‘Yir’u’.

(d) We therefore conclude that the Pasuk comes for Chata’os ha’Meisos after all, and we need both the Pasuk and the ‘Halachah’. Because if we only had ...

1. ... the Pasuk and not the Halachah, we would have thought – that the five Chata’os are forbidden until they obtain a blemish and are redeemed (‘Yir’u ...’).
2. ... the Halachah and not the Pasuk, we would we have thought – that if a Kohen eats from one of those Chata’os, he has indeed sinned, but has not transgressed a La’av, whereas from the Pasuk, we see that he transgresses a La’av too (“Lo Sochlu ... mi’Ma’alei ha’Geirah’), for which he will receive Malkos.
(a) When we say that alternatively, the Pasuk comes to compare what we derive from “mi’Ma’alei ha’Geirah” to what we derive from “mi’Mafrisei ha’ Parsah, we mean that – just as the five Chata’os must die, so too, must the Temuras Pesulei ha’Mukdashin after its Pidyon.

(b) The advantage of this explanation is – that according to it, the five Chata’os do not require a Pasuk, which only comes to compare the Temuras Pesulei ha’Mukdashin to them.




(a) Our Mishnah exempts the V’lados of Tzon Barzel that one receives from a Nochri, from the Bechorah, should they give birth. The case is – where a Nochri gives his sheep to a Yisrael for ten years, at a fixed price (irrespective of whether the animals go down in price or die). during which time the Yisrael takes half the babies that are born.

(b) The Tana does not however – exempt the ‘V’ladei V’lados’ (should *they* give birth) from the Bechorah ...

(c) ... because whereas it is the norm. for the Nochri to claim the V’lados in lieu of payment (should he not find one of his own animals to seize), he does not generally claim the ‘V’ladei V’lados.

(d) Even the V’ladei V’lados will be Patur however – should the Yisrael specifically authorize the Nochri to take the V’lados (by which he means to extend the Nochri’s rights), in the event that he fails to pay, and only the V’ladei V’ladei V’lados are Chayav.

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argues with the Tana Kama. According to him, even the V’ladei V’lados as far as ten generations down the line are exempt from the Bechorah.

(b) The Tana declare a firstborn goat that is born to a sheep or vice-versa, a Bechor – as long as it resembles its mother slightly.

(c) Initially, we extrapolate from the fact that the Tana exempts the sheep of Tzon Barzel from the Bechorah – that Tzon Barzel belong to the owner (and not the Mekabel).

(a) The Mishnah in Bava Metzi’a - forbids accepting Tzon Barzel from a Yisrael ...

(b) ... because it seems that the owner receives a share in the benefits in lieu of the money that the Mekabel owes, which is Ribis.

(c) The Mishnah in Bava Metzi’a appears to clash with our Mishnah – because the Tana clearly maintains that the sheep belong to the Mekabel (otherwise, seeing as the V’lados are born in the owner’s own flock, why should it be considered Ribis?

(d) Abaye therefore establishes our Mishnah – where the owner accepted any losses incurred through O’nes and depreciation, whereas the Mishnah in Bava Metzi’a speaks where he did not.

(a) The logical objection that Rava raises to Abaye’s distinction – is how the Tana in Bava Metzi’a could then refer to the case as Tzon Barzel (since ‘Barzel’ implies that they are strong like iron in the hands of the owner [i.e. he has the upper hand]).

(b) In addition, besides querying Abaye’s source for such a distinction, he also asks him from the Seifa of the Mishnah there ‘Aval Mekablin Tzon Barzel min ha’Nochrim’ – when the Tana should simply have switched to a case where he received the Tzon Barzel from a Yisrael who did not accept responsibility.

(c) Rava therefore establishes our Mishnah too, where the owner did not accept liability for loss, and in fact, he holds, the sheep belong to the Mekabel. Yet the Tana exempts him from the Bechorah (not because the sheep belong to the owner, but) – because since the owner has a right to claim the sheep, it is as if he had a share in them, in which case, the Yisrael is Patur from the Bechorah.

(a) Rav Huna learns ‘V’lados Peturin, V’ladei V’ladoseihen, Chayavin’ (as the Tana states in our version of the Mishnah). Rav Yehudah says – ‘V’ladei V’ladoseihen, Nami Perurin, V’lad V’ladei V’lados Chayavin’.

(b) We ask on Rav Yehudah from the Seifa ‘He’emid V’lados Tachas Imoseihen, V’ladei V’lados Peturin ... ‘ – implying that were it not for ‘He’emid, ‘V’ ladei V’lados’ would be Chayav.

(c) We answer that – in fact there is no difference between He’emid and S’ tam ...

(d) ... and the Tana only mentions ‘He’emid’ to teach us – that even in a case of He’emid, it is only V’ladei V’lados that are Patur, but not V’lad V’ ladei V’lados.

(a) The problem with Rav Huna from Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says ‘Afilu ad Asarah Dari’ is – that seeing as the Tana Kama does not mention generations, only exempting the actual V’lados of the Tzon Barzel, why does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel then need to mention ‘ten generations’ in his statement?

(b) What he ought to have said, according to Rav Huna, is ‘Afilu V’ladei V’ lados’, implying anything more than the actual baby of the Tzon Barzel itself, irrespective of how many generations down the line it is.

(c) This is not a problem, according to Rav Yehudah - who mentions that up to two generations are Patur, in which case it is natural for Raban Shimon ben Gamliel to respond with ‘even ten’.

(d) And we answer - that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is referring to ‘He’emid’, which specifies two generations.

(e) ‘Ten generations’ is only arbitrary (like the Torah with regard to the Isur of a Mamzer). What he really means is – that the V’lados are Patur from the Bechorah forever.

(a) Rav Yehudah explains the Reisha of our Mishnah ‘ha’Mekabel ... V’lados Peturim’ - by amending it to read ‘Hein u’V’lados Peturim’.

(b) According to the second Lashon, our Mishnah reads ‘Hein u’V’lados Peturim’, and it is Rav Huna whom we are querying. He too, answers by amending the Mishnah to read ‘Hein V’lados Peturim’.

Next daf


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