ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 26
BECHOROS 26 - dedicated anonymously by a student of Rabbi Kornfeld's in N.Y.
(a) We query Rebbi Asi Amar Resh Lakish (who restricts Rebbi Yossi in our
Mishnah to where the Chacham had examined the Bechor before the wool fell
out) from a Beraisa. The Tana there rules that if someone detaches the wool
from a Bechor Tam, and subsequently Shechts it after it obtains a blemish -
the wool is forbidden.
(b) From the fact that the Tana refers specifically to a Bechor Tam, it
would seem that if it was a Ba'al-Mum, the wool would be permitted, even if
a Chacham had not yet permitted it.
(c) The author of this Beraisa - could even be the Chachamim, according to
Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion they agree by Shachto.
(d) We reconcile this with Rebbi Asi - by equating 'Tam' with any animal
which a Chacham has not permitted.
(a) We cite a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama argues with Rebbi Yehudah whether
Akavya and the Rabbanan argue over the wool of a Bechor Ba'al-Mum that died
(but agree that it is permitted in a case where it was Shechted [the Tana
Kama, like Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah]), or over one that was Shechted
(Rebbi Yehudah). Rebbi Yossi ...
1. ... states in the name of his father (Aba Chalafta) that 'be'Yichud' the
Chachamim said to place it on the windows-sill (perhaps there is hope), by
which he means - that he said so with certainty.
(b) The problem with this triple Machlokes is - that Rebbi Yossi seems to be
merely reiterating the words of the Tana Kama.
2. ... then adds - that if they Shechted it, everyone would agree that it is
permitted, and they argue over where the animal died.
(c) We suggest that they are arguing over where the Chacham had not yet
permitted it, and establish ...
1. ... the Tana Kama is Lehachmir - because that is how we just established
the previous Beraisa (which appears to be the Reisha of the current one).
2. ... Rebbi Yossi Lehakel - because his words 'perhaps there is hope'
implies that we anticipate the Chacham's permitting it.
(a) Rava rejects this explanation however. According to him, they are all
arguing about the corollary between Meis and Shachto. Rebbi Yehudah
establishes the Machlokes specifically by Shachto, and Rebbi Yossi, by Meis
(as we already learned in our Mishnah), the Tana Kama establishes it - by
both Shachto and Meis ...
(b) ... and the reason that he cites it specifically by Meis - is to teach
us how far Akavya's Heter extends.
(c) Rav Nachman rules like Rebbi Yehudah (despite the fact that he is
arguing with the Chachamim [a majority opinion], and with Rebbi Yossi [like
whom we generally rule]) - because we learned in Iduyos (which is referred
to as 'Bechirta', the chosen Masechta, because it is all Halachah) like him.
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak extrapolates this from the Seifa of our
Mishnah, 'Tzemer ha'Meduvlal bi'Vechor, es she'Nir'eh im ha'Gizah, Mutar
...'. The author cannot be Rebbi Yossi ...
1. ... assuming that they Shechted the Bechor - because then it would be
permitted either way, both according to the Rabbanan and according to
(b) So the author must be Rebbi Yehudah. He cannot be speaking when the
2. ... assuming it died, according to the Rabbanan - because then it would
be forbidden either way.
3. ... assuming it died, according to Akavya - because then, the Tana should
have said the opposite, forbidding where it looks like it is part of the
wool that was shorn after it died (because then it would be forbidden due to
the animal's death), and permitting where it does not.
1. ... died - in which case it would be Asur in any case, both according to
the Rabbanan and according to Akavya.
(c) Finally, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Mishnah - by Shachto,
like Rebbi Yehudah and according to the Rabbanan ...
2. ... was Shechted, according to Akavya - because then it would be
permitted either way.
(d) ... a proof (because it is a S'tam ve'Char-Kach Machlokes) that the
Halachah is like Rebbi Yehudah, who establishes the Machlokes between the
Chachamim and Akavya ben Mahalalel by Shachto.
(a) Rebbi Yanai asked what the Din will be if someone detaches ('Tolesh')
wool from an Olah Temimah. We amend the She'eilah to wool of an Olah that
became detached ('Nislash') - because someone who does so is a Rasha
(according to the Rabbanan, see Tosfos DH 'Tolesh').
(b) The case is - where the wool became detached during the animal's
lifetime and then the animal obtained a Mum and was redeemed.
(a) Rebbi Yanai asks specifically about wool of an Olah Temimah - because
that of a Ba'al-Mum is certainly Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, in case one comes to
take advantage of the situation and keep the Olah alive for its wool (as we
(b) Neither did he ask about a Chatas or an Asham - whose wool (under the
same circumstances) is definitely permitted, because seeing as they come to
atone, we are not afraid that he will delay bringing the Korban in order to
obtain the wool.
(c) The She'eilah is - that on the one hand, since an Olah is not brought as
a Kaparah, (i.e. there is no obligation to bring it) its wool ought to be
forbidden, like that of a Ba'al-Mum (where we afraid that he might delay
Shechting it for its wool); whereas on the other hand, it does atone for an
Asei (or for a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei), in which case, it should be no
different than the wool of a Chatas.
(a) We extrapolate from the Beraisa, which forbids wool of a B'chor Tam that
someone detached (Tolesh), even though it obtained a Mum and was Shechted -
that by Nislash it will be permitted ...
(b) ... in which case, the wool of an Olah will certainly be permitted
(since it also atones for an Asei, as we just explained)
(c) We refute this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa even by
Nislash, and the reason that the Tana mentions specifically 'Tolesh' - is to
stress that even there, Akavya ben Mahalalel permits the wool of a Bechor
(d) And the reason that in our Mishnah, the Tana mentions specifically
'Nashar' (which is synonymous with Nislash) is - to stress that even there,
the Chachamim forbid it.
(a) Rebbi Elazar Amar Resh Lakish defines 'Eino Nir'eh im ha'Gizah' (the
Tzemer ha'Meduvlal which is Asur) as the strands of wool that are folded and
it is evident that they were detached when the animal was still alive. Nasan
bar Oshaya defines it as - any strands of wool that are not level with the
wool that is subsequently shorn.
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Loke'ach Beheimah' *****
(b) Rebbi Ila'a explains why Resh Lakish disagrees with Rav Nasan bar
Oshaya. He explains - that according to the latter, there are always odd
strands that look as if they were not shorn with the rest of the wool, even
though they were.
***** Perek Ad Kamah *****
(a) According to the Tana Kama, a Yisrael nowadays is obligated to look
after a Beheimah Dakah for thirty days, and a Beheimah Gasah - for fifty.
(b) Rebbi Yossi holds that a Beheimah Dakah requires - three months.
(c) A Yisrael is permitted to give the Bechor to the Kohen before this
time - if it has a Mum, and the Kohen claims that he wants to Shecht it and
eat it ...
(d) ... and the same applies if, in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, the
Kohen asks for the Bechor before the above times, in order to bring it on
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Lifnei Hashem Elokecha Sochlenu *Shanah
be'Shanah*" - that one is permitted to keep a Bechor Tam for up to a year
before bringing it as a Korban (in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash) and a
Ba'al-Mum even nowadays, before eating it.
(b) If it obtains a Mum within the year, the Tana permits retaining it until
the end of the year; after it has already entered its second year - only for
(a) One brings Bikurim - fifty days after the produce ripens (from the day
that the Omer is brought until Shavu'os).
(b) The Pasuk writes "Mele'ascha ve'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher, Bechor Banecha
Titen Li. Kein Ta'aseh le'Shorcha le'Tzoncha ... ", from which Rav Kahana
(according to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah) learns - that one only gives a
Beheimah Dakah ("Tzoncha") to the Kohen after thirty days (like Bechor
Adam), and a Beheimah Gasah after fifty (like Bikurim).
(c) He compare a Beheimah Gasah to Bikurim and a Beheimah Dakah to Bechor,
and not vice-versa - because it is logical to compare the first-mentioned to
the first-mentioned and the last-mentioned to the last-mentioned.
(d) We query this explanation however - by countering that, on the other
hand, it would be more logical to compare a Beheimah Gasah to a Bechor -
because "Shorcha" follows "Bechor Banecha" in the Pasuk.
(a) Rava therefore learns - "Tzonecha" (Beheimah Dakah) from Bechor Adam,
which it follows in the Pasuk, and the Chachamim fixed fifty days by
Beheimah Gasah, because the Torah adds the word "Ta'aseh" by "Shorcha"?
(b) By leaving no indication of how many days "Ta'aseh" incorporates - the
Torah leaves it to the Chachamim how many days to add.
(c) We know that Rava's explanation is correct - because both points that he
raises have the support of a Beraisa.
(d) Rebbi Yossi requires three months in the case of a Beheimah Dakah,
because he claims, it needs more looking after. He means - that its teeth
are small and it has difficulty in eating on its own.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah, that if the Kohen asks for a Bechor Beheimah
before the time of Tipul (looking after) is up, one is not permitted to give
it to him. Rav Sheishes attributes this to the fact - that since there is
nothing he can do with it anyway, it looks as if he is helping to look after
the animal to encourage the owner to give it to *him* (rather than to
(b) The source for this lies in a Beraisa - where the Tana forbids paying
Kohanim and Levi'im who help with the shepherding, in the granary or in the
slaughterhouse, with Terumos and Ma'asros.
(c) When the Tana mentions the shepherding, in the granary or in the
slaughterhouse, he is referring to paying the Kohen with Bechoros, the Kohen
and the Levi with Terumos and Ma'asros and the Kohen with Matanos,
(d) In fact, the Tana adds -Aniyim to the list (with regard to Ma'aser Ani).
(a) A Yisrael who contravenes one of the above, says the Tana, has
desecrated the Kedushas Kehunah and Leviyah, as the Pasuk writes in Malachi
"Shichatem B'ris ha'Levi". The Tana sees fit to also quote the Pasuk "ve'es
Kodshei B'nei Yisrael Lo Sechalelu ... " - because it concludes "ve'Lo
Samusu", which we would know from the previous Pasuk.
(b) The Chachamim would have liked to penalize the transgressor - by making
him separate Terumos and Ma'asros again.
(c) And the reason that they didn't is - because they were afraid that the
Yisrael, thinking that his first Terumah was not effective, will take
Terumah again from the same batch (which is really a K'nas, and not Tevel),
to cover real Tevel, and someone who takes from 'P'tur' on 'Chiyuv' has
achieved nothing, and his Tevel remains Tevel.