(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 6

BECHOROS 6 - dedicated by Rav Mordechai Rabin (from Manchester/ London/ Yerushalayim), in honor of the Yahrzeit of his mother on 28 Sivan.


(a) What does our Tana learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Kol Mikn'cha Tizachar (Klal) Peter Shor va'Seh u'Feter Chamor (P'rat)?

(b) How do the Rabbanan counter Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's argument that ...

  1. ... the word "u'Feter" interrupts the sequence (since it could have relied on the first "Peter") preventing "Chamor" from being part of the K'lal?
  2. ... the Torah should then have omitted both the 'Vav' and "Peter"?
(a) We ask whether, if a cow gave birth to a firstborn that resembles a donkey, one or two Simanim of a cow will suffice to render it subject to the Bechorah. Assuming that it will not, what *will* it require to do so?

(b) For which two reasons might it not, even though in the case of a sheep that gave birth to a firstborn goat, it does?

(c) Assuming that in the previous case, it is indeed subject to the Bechorah, why might a donkey that gave birth to a horse, which had only one or two Simanim of a donkey, not?

(d) And assuming that in the latter case it is also subject to the Bechorah, why might a cow that gave birth to a horse not be subject to the Bechorah?

(e) Why, in spite of all the differences, might one or two Simanim suffice even in the last case? What principle do we now hold which we did not at first hold?

(a) Which of the three above She'eilos can we prove from the Beraisa which renders a Bechor, a Beheimah Tehorah that gave birth to a Beheimah Temei'ah which had one or two Simanim of the mother?

(b) Another Beraisa exempts a cow that gave birth to a donkey and a donkey that gave birth to a horse, from the Bechorah, but adds that if the baby has one or two Simanim of the mother, it is Chayav.
What is the problem with saying that the latter ruling pertains exclusively to the first case and not the second?

(c) What good reason do we have to have nevertheless thought that a donkey that gave birth to a horse should be subject to the Bechorah more than a cow that gave birth to a donkey? Which two Simanim automatically render them similar?

(a) What problem do we have with the fact, that after teaching us that one is permitted to eat a donkey that is born to a cow, but not vice-versa, the Mishnah adds 'she'ha'Yotzei min ha'Tamei, Tamei ... '?

(b) Why does the Tana indeed do so?

(c) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Shemini ...

  1. ... "Ach es Zeh Lo Tochlu *mi*'Ma'alei ha'Geirah u'*mi*'Mafrisei ha'Parsah"?
  2. ... "Gamal, Tamei *Hu*"?
(d) What does Rebbi Shimon learn from the fact that the Torah repeats the Isur of Gamal in Re'ei?
Answers to questions



(a) What do the Rabbanan learn from the two "Gamals"? What does the Torah come to forbid besides the actual camel?

(b) On what grounds do they disagree with Rebbi Shimon, who learns the prohibition of milk from "*es* ha'Gamal"?

(c) The Rabbanan hold like Rebbi Shimon ha'Amsuni, who did not know whom to include when he arrived at the Pasuk in Re'ei "*es* Hashem Elokecha Tiyra". What did he reply, when his Talmidim asked him what would happen to all the 'es's' that he had Darshened up to that point?

(d) How did Rebbi Akiva Darshen "es Hashem Elokecha Tiyra"?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Shemini "Eileh *ha*'Temei'im Lachem be'Chol ha'Sharetz"?

(b) Why would this not automatically incorporate the milk of Temei'im (which both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon would agree would be permitted, were it not for their respective Pesukim forbidding it)?

(c) Why is that? What is the Chidush assuming that the reason that a woman who gives birth does not see blood for twenty-four months, because the blood of Nidus turns into milk?

(d) What other reason might there be for that?

(e) Why would we have permitted a camel's milk according to this opinion? What is then the Torah's Chidush in permitting milk?

(a) Why can the source of the Heter to drink milk not be ...
  1. ... the Torah's prohibition of Basar be'Chalav (implying that milk alone is permitted)?
  2. ... the same prohibition of Basar be'Chalav, according to Rebbi Shimon, who permits deriving benefit from them?
  3. ... the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) "Tizbach ... Basar", 've'Lo Chalav' (implying that Chulin milk is permitted)?
  4. ... the Pasuk in Mishlei "ve'Si Chalav Izim le'Lachmecha le'Lechem Beisecha ... "?
(b) We nevertheless cite the source for the Heter as the Pasuk in Shmuel, where Yishai sends his son David to the battlefront with cheese for his brothers.
Why can we not refute this proof in the same way as we rejected the previous proof (from the Pasuk in Mishlei)?

(c) What second source do we cite from the Pasuk in Sh'mos?

(d) And what do we prove from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Lechu Lachmu be'Lachmi, u'Lechu Shivru be'Lo Kesef ... Yayin ve'Chalav"?

(a) What problem do we now have regarding the Torah's repetition of "Shafan, Arneves and Chazir"?

(b) To solve this problem, we cite a Beraisa.
What does the Beraisa say to justify the entire Parshah of Re'ei (which repeats all the animals and bird)? Why does the Torah repeat all ...

  1. ... the animals?
  2. ... the birds?
(c) Then why do we find it necessary to explain the repetition of "Gamal"?
Why will the Beraisa's explanation not suffice to explain that too?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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