REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bechoros 3
(a) The Beraisa we just cited supports Resh Lakish who holds, in the first
Lashon, that we penalize someone who sells his large animal to a non-Jew, by
forcing him to pay up to ten times the animal's value to buy it back from
the non-Jew, if need be. What She'eilah do we ask on that?
(b) What does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi say about someone who sells his Eved
to a Nochri? To what extent do we penalize him in order to make him buy him
(c) How do we try to resolve our She'eilah in Resh Lakish from the ruling of
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi?
(d) How do we refute this proof? What makes the latter Davka and the former
(a) In the second Lashon, Resh Lakish obligates the owner to pay as much as
a hundredfold for the large animal if necessary.
How do we reconcile this
with the Beraisa, which obligates the Nosen be'Kabalah to pay only as much
(b) Assuming that Resh Lakish is Davka, how do we reconcile him with Rebbi
Yehoshua ben Levi, who obligates the master of the Eved to pay only tenfold?
(c) What problem do we have with the discrepancy between the two amounts?
(d) So how do we amend the distinction between Eved and Beheimah Gasah? Why
are we more lenient by the former?
(a) We just discussed the Beraisa where the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yehudah argue
over whether one needs to give a firstborn animal in whom a Nochri has a
share to the Kohen or not.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say about their
(b) Seeing as the Rabbanan interpret the Pasuk in Bo "Kol B'chor ...
bi'Venei Yisrael" that an animal that is not owned entirely owned by a
Yisrael is Patur, how do they interpret the word B'chor alone?
(c) What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(d) According to the second Lashon, "B'chor" implies the majority of the
What do the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yehudah respectively, then learn
(a) How little of the firstborn must the Nochri own to exempt it from the
(b) Rav Nachman asked Rav Huna why the Kohen cannot tell the Nochri to take
his ear and go.
What did he mean by that? Why ought such a minor share not
exempt the firstborn from the Bechorah?
(c) Rav Chisda therefore requires him to own a part of the animal that
renders it a Neveilah.
What is an example of this?
(d) Rava disagrees.
What does he say?
(a) What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rav Chisda and Rava? Why,
according to Rav Chisda, will the ownership of the hind-leg not suffice?
(b) The Rabbanan repeated the Sugya to Rav Papa, adding that Rav Chisda and
Rava do not in fact, argue with Rav Huna.
What did they mean? How did they
establish Rav Huna in a way that he does not argue with Rav Chisda and Rava?
(c) What objection did Rav Papa raise to that? Based on the Pesukim "Kol
B'chor" (that we just cited) and the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Kol Mikn'cha
Tizachar", why can there be no difference?
(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi queried all of the above opinions from the Din of
Answers to questions
What do we learn in this regard from the Pasuk in
Bo "Peter Sheger Beheimah"?
(b) Bearing in mind that there too, the Nefel is unfit to live, if *it* is
Chayav Bechorah, then why is an animal in which a Nochri owns a part, Patur?
(a) What did Rebbi Asi mean when he told Rebbi Elazar that Rebbi Yochanan
had said 'Afilu Mum Kal'?
(b) And what does the Mishnah in the following Perek, say about a sheep that
gives birth to a goat or vice-versa?
(c) What is the connection between these two statements and the Machlokes
between Rav Huna, Rav Chisda and Rava?
(d) What is Rebbi Yochanan's third statement?
(a) Why is Rebbi Yochanan's third statement not just a repetition of the
Mishnah in 'al Eilu Mumin' which reckons among the blemishes one where the
animal's mouth resembles that of a Chazir?
(b) The Kashya remains however, from another Mishnah there, which lists as a
blemish 'one eye too big' or one eye too small'. How does the Beraisa
(c) Which of the two then poses the Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan?
- ... 'too big'?
- ... 'too small'?
(d) What do we answer? If the Mishnah is not coming to teach us that every
unusual feature on a Bechor is a blemish, then what is it coming to teach
(a) What does the Tana there say about permanent and temporary blemishes?
(b) And what do we learn from the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with
blemishes) "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon"?
(c) What about animals?
(d) What are we trying to prove from there?
(a) On what grounds do we reject this proof? If large or two small eyes (by
B'chor Adam) is not Pasul because it is a Shinuy, then why is it Pasul?
(b) Consequently, we conclude, the reason that a large or a small eye is
considered a blemish even by an animal may well now be because it is a
Shinuy. In that case, why is Rebbi Yochanan's statement not superfluous
(like we asked initially)?
(a) What did Rava rule, with regard to a certain Giyores, whose brothers
used to deposit their animals by her to fatten? What did he say about
obligating her to give the Bechoros to the Kohen?
(b) Rav Mari bar Rachel sold the ears of his firstborn animals to a Nochri.
When did he do that?
(a) Seeing as Rav Mari bar Rachel anyway forbade the work and the wool of
the firstborn animals that were born (le'Chumra), what was the point of
(b) In that case, why did all of Rav Mari's animals die?
(c) How do we initially reconcile this with Rav Yehudah, who specifically
permits making a blemish on one's firstborn animals prior to their birth?
(a) In the second answer, the reason that Rav Mari's animals all died, was
because he inadvertently caused a Takalah (somebody else to stumble). How
was he Makneh his animals to the Nochri?
Answers to questions
(b) So what was the Takalah? What did the other person do wrong?