REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
BECHOROS 2 - Dedicated by Dr. Daniel (Douglas) Rabin, of Clifton, New
Jersey, with gratitude to Rabbi Kornfeld.
Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of
Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any
bearing on the practical Halachah.
(a) Why does the Tana begin the Masechta with the Dinim of a Peter Chamor
rather than with the first-born of a Kasher animal?
If someone buys a fetus of a first-born donkey from a Nochri, he is not
obligated to give it to the Cohen. Why does the Tana find it necessary to
add the case of someone who ...
(b) Whilst discussing the buying and selling of a first-born Ubar (unborn
fetus) of a donkey before it is born, the Mishnah mentions that selling it
is actually forbidden'.
Why is that?
(c) The Tana includes someone who owns the donkey in partnership with the
Nochri and someone who is Mekabel from a Nochri or the Nochri from him.
What does 'Makabel' mean?
(d) The reason for all these Dinim is based on a Pasuk in Bamidbar.
does the Pasuk say?
- ... sells it to a Cohen?
- ... purchases a donkey in partnership with a Nochri?
- ... is Mekabel a donkey from a Nochri?
- ... is Nosen be'Kabalah to a Nochri?
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah, permits the sale of an
animal with broken legs. We ask whether he will also permit selling him a
fetus (which cannot work either).
Why might Rebbi Yehudah agree that it is
forbidden? What makes a fetus worse than an animal with broken legs in this
(b) How do we attempt to resolve the She'eilah, from our Mishnah, which
mentions the prohibition of selling a Nochri the Ubar of a donkey?
(c) On what grounds do we reject this proof based on the continuation of the
Mishnah 'ha'Mishtatef Lo ... '?
(a) What does Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, rule, with regard to someone who
is Mekabel an animal from a Nochri, which subsequently gives birth to a
Answers to questions
(b) He also rules that, if he is Nosen le'Kabalah, we fine him, forcing him
to pay up to ten times the value of the animal to buy it back, and he is
obligated to give all of its value to the Cohen. What problem do we have
with the word ...
(c) How do we finally establish the case, which explains why Rebbi Yehudah
will agree here in any case that the fine will apply to the Ubar (even if he
does not agree by a regular Ubar)?
- ... 'Damav', if as we suggest, this refers to the mother?
- ... 'Nosen Kol Damav le'Kohen', even if we amend 'Damav' to Damehah'?
(a) In another Beraisa, what reason does Rebbi Yehudah give for permitting
selling to a Nochri an animal with broken legs?
(b) How does Rav Ashi resolve our She'eilah with an Ubar from there?
(c) Another Lashon suggests that our Mishnah, which forbids selling an Ubar
to a Nochri, cannot go like Rebbi Yehudah. How do we refute that
suggestion? Why might the author of our Mishnah be Rebbi Yehudah after all?
(a) After asking from the same Beraisos and concluding 'Hai Nami ke'Yachol
Lehisrap'os Dami' (like we concluded in the first Lashon), we ask what the
Din will be if someone sells his animal to a Nochri for its Ubar.
(b) The She'eilah is pertinent both according to Rebbi Yehudah and according
to the Rabbanan.
Why on the one hand is there even more reason to be ...
- ... lenient in this case than in that of an animal with broken legs, according to Rebbi Yehudah (even though it is not irregular)?
- ... strict here more than by an animal with a broken leg, according to the Rabbanan (even though it is not a complete sale)?
(a) We query the She'eilah according to the Rabbanan from a Beraisa, where
they asked Rebbi Yehudah why he permitted selling an animal with broken
legs, seeing as it was still fit to give birth.
What do we try and prove
(b) What is the gist of the Rabbanan's query?
(c) How did Rebbi Yehudah counter their query?
(d) How do we refute that proof?
(a) How do we try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 've'ha'Nosen Lo
(b) And we refute this proof from the following ruling 've'ha'Mishtatef Lo'.
How does that disprove it? What did Shmuel say about entering into a
partnership with a Nochri?
(c) How does Shmuel learn this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Lo Yishama al
(d) How do we then justify the Tana's omission of the Isur Lechatchilah of
'ha'Mishtatef' and 'ha'Nosen Lo be'Kabalah' (assuming that it is Asur)?
(e) Why does the Tana mention specifically Mechirah, rather than Shutfus and
(a) We cite the Beraisa that we quoted earlier, where Rebbi Yehudah
obligates someone who gave an animal be'Kabalah to a Nochri, to redeem it
from the Nochri 'ad Asarah be'Damav' and to pay its full value to the
Answers to questions
What do the Chachamim say?
(b) What do we try to prove from here, on the assumption that the Tana is
referring to the animal that he sold?
(c) Why will this proof go even according to the Chachamim?
(d) We switch the proof however, by confining the Beraisa's ruling to the
Ubar specifically (and not to the mother).
How do we prove this?